Bensky vs Chen and Chen

[Guest guest]

Bob, and everyone,

 

To answer your question, I don't read Chinese and yet I have several T'ai Chi

students who speak Chinese and so have a small understanding of the

Chinese-to-English translation problems. (I also know this discussion has gone

on for many years longer than the few months I've been aware of CHA, so bear

with me if I repeat what you've already thrashed through. I hope my experience

as a technical editor may blow some clarity into the discussion, or at least

rouse some fresh ideas to better solutions.)

 

The problem remains that using common English as TCM technical language is not

working very well, as all the emotions rising in this forum indicate. I know

that I, as a writer and editor, have too often thrown TCM books across the room

screaming in frustration when I can't tell if what I'm reading is simply lousy

translation by someone who doesn't speak English particularly well, poor editing

by someone who doesn't know TCM very well, unhappy word choice by someone who is

trying very hard and carefully to pick a word that will mean the same as their

understanding of the Chinese technical language, or equally unhappy word choice

by someone else who's making a point that their understanding is different from

the other individual who would have chosen the first word.

 

No matter how much we'd like to believe that presenting a system that uses

ungraceful or difficult choices in English to TCM students from the beginning of

their study is going to fix the problem - it isn't. Too many important texts

already exist in English using too many different terms. If you manage to

initiate a student into, say, Wiseman choices of terminology, what happens when

they pick up Bensky or Macciocia or Clavey or...? Confusion. And I repeat that

in spite of the initiation, it's going to be a longer and less fruitful and

efficient learning process for the new practitioner if we're forcing English

that is taken from common usage and trying to turn it into TCM technical

language. Some words just won't set right; and if you've been a practitioner for

a fairly long time, then you're apt to have issues for other reasons as well.

 

I'm sure you've all been through this before, but I want to give you two

examples, just so you remember what I mean. (Sorry to pick on Nigel words, but

they are so easy to pick on, some of them!) If you don't know what " depurate "

means, you're going to guess " make impure, " and you'd have good reasons to do

so, even though you'd be wrong. " Vacuous " to most native English speakers means

empty to the point of a sucking sound. And that's the definition you'll find in

many dictionaries; if you look in the OEM, you'll get more, but how many of us

own OEMs nowadays? A vacuum really isn't what's meant in TCM, but how can we not

make that connection if vacuous is the word we use? But if we use " xu " with the

proper tone, the problem is solved, isn't it? Pinyin when it works is easier for

everyone and especially for the student to learn than an odd or nuanced meaning

of an English word that's either too familiar or too unfamiliar.

 

I understand that Pinyin doesn't always work. But I suspect it does work a lot

of the time, if you indicate tones. And when it does work, that's the choice we

should insist on for clarity, for more than one reason. First, it enables a

non-speaker of Chinese to begin to get used to Chinese, which eventually they're

going to want to learn to read at least a little. Secondly, it immediately makes

apparent that the word is meant in a technical way and so alerts the reader to

nuance. Thirdly, it reduces the number of terms we need to argue about. It

really doesn't matter that some other solution will have to be discovered for

the terms that don't work as Pinyin; Western med uses technical terms from at

least 2 languages, and it works. Finally, how about those Western medical types

with whom we more and more have to deal because we're sharing patients? If we're

using what appears to them to be plain ol' English, when what we're actually

using is technical terms translated into English that don't mean the same thing

as they understand it at all, it's no wonder they have a hard time understanding

anything about us. They won't understand us less than they do now if our common

technical language is heavily larded with Pinyin, and they might actually hear

our explanations better - it will put them on notice that what we're doing isn't

just a whacky version of what they do, so they might listen better.

 

I think those of you who read Chinese and have been practitioners long enough to

really understand what you're reading need to let go of the need to force one

English word used technically over another, and honestly assess which terms will

be clear if Pinyin is used, and which won't, and begin to use Pinyin when it

works. Of those terms that won't work in Pinyin, some likely could work if we

keep in mind that the term used in Pinyin is going to be used in an English text

separated from other words in Pinyin - by which I mean it could functionally

work in translation even though those of you who actually read Chinese might

shudder - the point is clarity to non-Chinese-speaking practitioners, not

necessarily absolute accuracy in the native language. The difficulty isn't any

different than the difficulty the Chinese have in speaking to each other about

these matters; when they voice a word, they don't have the character floating in

the air between them for clarity, all they have is pronounciation and context.

Anything that can be pronounced can be indicated in writing in some way, and

context is context in written and in spoken language. If it can be said, it can

be written - which isn't the same as saying that anything that's written can be

said, a constant problem in Chinese, as I understand it. Perhaps the character

can be appended to the Pinyin to indicate that this is that type of usage. Of

what remains, a technical term in English or even Pinyinglish can be created -

not adapted, but actually created, exactly as it was done in the technical

language of computer scienc - if something simpler, like changing typefont or

otherwise creating a visual cue, won't do the trick. Or perhaps using the

Japanese term would work, or-or-or?

 

It would be nice if we could all learn Chinese and learn it well enough to make

this discussion moot; that isn't going to happen. Languages are difficult to

learn for most folks who are adults, and languages with written forms that use

different parts of the brain than our own uses are much harder. English

translation of Chinese text is going to be the larger part of Western TCM

literature for better or for worse. The first priority must be to simplify and

standardize. None of this negates any of the hard work Wiseman or anyone else

has done: all that is the background work that had to be done first. I think the

error, if there is one, is in believing that what's been done is the end, not

the beginning.

 

I don't know if I've suggested anything here that hasn't been already

discussed and rejected. If so, I hope I've offered reasons to reconsider; and if

I'm missing what the difficulty is, I'd be happy to hear about it and put much

thought into solutions.

 

From where I'm standing, I see two big problems: The first is producing a

technical language that isn't compromised by creating instead of eliminating

confusion, and I know from long experience that you can't get there the way

y'all are going, no matter how strong a will to make it so some of you have. The

second is that you who have been practitioners a long time, who have learned to

read Chinese, who think deeply and creatively about this scientific art of TCM,

are struggling in yourselves and with each other to bring the Western

comprehension of TCM to a deeper, more fluent and vital level. This struggle

isn't unconnected to the first, because it will ultimately inform the first; but

the first problem, of developing a technical language, must be simplified and

removed from the second in order to produce some building blocks to work with.

The deepening of TCM in the West is going to go on for a really long time, and

it will change the definitions of the language and the form of the art radically

over time. You will have meetings of the mind and then depart from them, over

and over; and may this process never cease, because it's the lifeblood we need.

In the meantime, give us the simple definitions we need to begin, while you duke

out the basic definitions we need to exist. Know what I mean?

 

---Deb Marshall

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Deb,

 

In your posts you have presented intelligent arguments for why a

technical language is needed in CM. You complain of writers

misconstruing concepts because of using vernacular English terms that

confuse the meaning of the Chinese concept. The technical language of

Chinese medicine is not found by looking words up in an ordinary

English dictionary, but rather by a CM technical dictionary (the

Practical Dictionary of is the only one we currently

have that is acceptable for our purposes).

 

You suggest that we use a term list that uses more obscure English

words to avoid confusion with common usage of words, let people

complain that Wiseman terms are too obscure already. To understand

the significance of depurate, for example, we must actually look it

up, not in an OEM but in the Practical Dictionary, where it is clearly

explained. Your arguments are good ones for the development of a

technical language, but a technical language is difficult to develop

and the current one we use (vs the " untechnnical languages " ) took 20

years to develop- and is still a dynamically evolving work. We would

be better off, in my opinion, to use the resource we have available

rather than to try to reinvent the wheel for the sake of modifying a

few words.

 

Spoken language is different than written discourse. Any of us

understand what you mean if you say xu, deficiency, vacuity, etc.

These terms are not the key issue in my mind. It is the many terms

that are more advanced that the basics of calling it bi4 syndrome,

impediment, arthralgia, etc. There are arguments for why Wiseman

terms are named as they are, but the important thing is not the word

so much as the consistency. Wiseman just did the best he could to

approximate the meaning as well as possible, given the limited overlap

English has with Chinese.

 

Unfortunately, there is no way to make pinyin work for the TCM

community. It has too many homophones and too few words to choose

from. You said:

 

" If it can be said, it can be written - which isn't the same as saying

that anything that's written can be said, a constant problem in

Chinese, as I understand it. "

 

Actually, the reverse is true in Chinese. Any character can be

pronounced by an educated reader, but any given sound cannot be traced

to a single word. Chinese people often trace characters on their hand

to indicate which word they are referencing because there are so many

total homophones or near homophones that differ only in tone.

 

Getting people to accent their tones is difficult. Few people can do

it on an English keyboard with any efficiency. Students could not

possibly do it consistently. It would create more confusion instead

of more clarity. As an example, I spoke about the term

li4-disinhibit. Jason responded by referencing my comments on li3.

This was likely to be just a typo on his part, but that typo made me

try to recall whether I had mentioned anything about li3- rectify, or

another common li3 (identical sound and tone)- interior.

 

Below is a list of words in CM parlance that have identical tones.

The list is much longer if we included words from wider areas of the

language. The point I am seeking to make is that even accented pinyin

can potentially create more confusion than necessary.

 

Again, thanks for your contributions.

 

Best,

Eric

 

 

Examples of Complete Homophones

in Chinese Medical Terminology

b` & #305; Q `block,' `close'; ¾ `impediment';

¿ `repel'

ch´ang © `intestine'; À `long'

ch & #711; & #305; U `tooth'; ¨ `cubit'

ch¯ong « `thoroughfare'; Á `fullness'

d`ai X `girdle'; Â `fatigued'

d & #711;an Z `gallbladder'; Ã `jaundice'

d`ao ] `way'; Ä `thief'

d`ong Å `stir'; Æ `freeze'

d´u Ç `alone'; Ò `toxin'

`e `malign'; _ `hiccup'; È

`hunger'

f`an ' `invade'; É `flood'

f ´u Ô `floating'; Ê `hidden'

g¯an Ë `dry'; & `sweet'; % `liver'

g´e Ì `drumskin' (pulse);

`diaphragm'

g & #711;u Ø `bone'; Ù `grain'; Í

`drum'

h´e `harmonize'; Î `node'; Ï

`close'

h´ong Ð `red'; Ñ `surging' (of

pulse)

h`ou `after'; `thick'

hu´a ä `slippery'; Ò `bloom'

j¯ & #305; f `accumulate'; Ó `flesh'

j´ & #305; Ô `disease'; g `urgent'; Õ `extreme'

ji¯an Ö `shoulder'; × `period',

`interval'; Ø `brew'; Ù `hard'

ji`ang `downbear'; Ú `stiff'; Î

`crimson'

ji´e & #142; ji´e, `bind'; Û `joint';

`boil'

j¯ & #305;n Ü `metal'; Ý `sinew';

`tight'

ji & #711;u Þ `nine', Ï `for a long time',

`enduring'; & #145; `moxibustion';

ß `liquor'

l´ao à `taxation'; á `firm' (pulse)

l & #711; & #305; m `interior'; â `rectify'

l` & #305; ã `pestilence'; ä `strength'; n

`disinhibit'; å `dysentery'; æ

`scrofula'

li ´u ç `flow'; o `settle'

m`u è `wood'; é `eye'

n` & #305; & #135; `counterflow'; ê `slimy'

q` & #305; & #149; `q` & #305;'; ë `pulling' (a type of

spasm)

q¯ & #305;ng & #153; `clear'; ì `blue-green'

s`e ¿ `color', `complexion'; í

`rough' (of pulse); î `congestion'

sh¯eng H `engender'; A `voice';

ï `upbear'

sh¯ & #305; ð `lose'; ± `dampness'

sh´ & #305; ñ `time'; ò `sh´ & #305;'; ó `repletion';

Ä `food'

t¯ai & #132; `fetus'; `tongue fur'

t` & #305; ô `snivel'; õ `sneeze'

w`ei & #149; `defense'; `stomach'

x¯ & #305; ö `knee'; ÷ `breath'; ø `thin'

(of fluids)

268 o p q r s t u v ó w v

xi´an + `stringlike'; `drool'; ù

`salty'

xi`ang & #155; `ministerial'; ú `sign';

û `nape'

xi¯ao & #156; `disperse'; ü `wheezing'

xi´e ý `rib-side'; þ `deviated'

x¯ & #305;n £ `heart'; ÿ `acrid'

x´ & #305;ng `move', `phase';

`form', `body'

y´an ¢ `speech'; `to flame'

y¯ & #305;n `cause'; § `y¯ & #305;n'

y´ & #305;n ¨ `excess'; `gum'

y`u ¯ `depression'; `foster'

yu´an `source'; ò `origin'

y`un ô `move'; ° `pregnancy'

z`ao ³ `dryness'; `agitation'

zh`eng `straight'; 8 `pattern'

zh` & #305;

`treat'; · `stagnation'

zh`u `assist'; º `pour'

z & #711; & #305; À `child'; » `purple'

 

, " Deb Marshall "

<taichideb@t...> wrote:

>

> Bob, and everyone,

>

> To answer your question, I don't read Chinese and yet I have several

T'ai Chi students who speak Chinese and so have a small understanding

of the Chinese-to-English translation problems. (I also know this

discussion has gone on for many years longer than the few months I've

been aware of CHA, so bear with me if I repeat what you've already

thrashed through. I hope my experience as a technical editor may blow

some clarity into the discussion, or at least rouse some fresh ideas

to better solutions.)

>

> The problem remains that using common English as TCM technical

language is not working very well, as all the emotions rising in this

forum indicate. I know that I, as a writer and editor, have too often

thrown TCM books across the room screaming in frustration when I can't

tell if what I'm reading is simply lousy translation by someone who

doesn't speak English particularly well, poor editing by someone who

doesn't know TCM very well, unhappy word choice by someone who is

trying very hard and carefully to pick a word that will mean the same

as their understanding of the Chinese technical language, or equally

unhappy word choice by someone else who's making a point that their

understanding is different from the other individual who would have

chosen the first word.

>

> No matter how much we'd like to believe that presenting a system

that uses ungraceful or difficult choices in English to TCM students

from the beginning of their study is going to fix the problem - it

isn't. Too many important texts already exist in English using too

many different terms. If you manage to initiate a student into, say,

Wiseman choices of terminology, what happens when they pick up Bensky

or Macciocia or Clavey or...? Confusion. And I repeat that in spite of

the initiation, it's going to be a longer and less fruitful and

efficient learning process for the new practitioner if we're forcing

English that is taken from common usage and trying to turn it into TCM

technical language. Some words just won't set right; and if you've

been a practitioner for a fairly long time, then you're apt to have

issues for other reasons as well.

>

> I'm sure you've all been through this before, but I want to give you

two examples, just so you remember what I mean. (Sorry to pick on

Nigel words, but they are so easy to pick on, some of them!) If you

don't know what " depurate " means, you're going to guess " make impure, "

and you'd have good reasons to do so, even though you'd be wrong.

" Vacuous " to most native English speakers means empty to the point of

a sucking sound. And that's the definition you'll find in many

dictionaries; if you look in the OEM, you'll get more, but how many of

us own OEMs nowadays? A vacuum really isn't what's meant in TCM, but

how can we not make that connection if vacuous is the word we use? But

if we use " xu " with the proper tone, the problem is solved, isn't it?

Pinyin when it works is easier for everyone and especially for the

student to learn than an odd or nuanced meaning of an English word

that's either too familiar or too unfamiliar.

>

> I understand that Pinyin doesn't always work. But I suspect it does

work a lot of the time, if you indicate tones. And when it does work,

that's the choice we should insist on for clarity, for more than one

reason. First, it enables a non-speaker of Chinese to begin to get

used to Chinese, which eventually they're going to want to learn to

read at least a little. Secondly, it immediately makes apparent that

the word is meant in a technical way and so alerts the reader to

nuance. Thirdly, it reduces the number of terms we need to argue

about. It really doesn't matter that some other solution will have to

be discovered for the terms that don't work as Pinyin; Western med

uses technical terms from at least 2 languages, and it works. Finally,

how about those Western medical types with whom we more and more have

to deal because we're sharing patients? If we're using what appears to

them to be plain ol' English, when what we're actually using is

technical terms translated into English that don't mean the same thing

as they understand it at all, it's no wonder they have a hard time

understanding anything about us. They won't understand us less than

they do now if our common technical language is heavily larded with

Pinyin, and they might actually hear our explanations better - it will

put them on notice that what we're doing isn't just a whacky version

of what they do, so they might listen better.

>

> I think those of you who read Chinese and have been practitioners

long enough to really understand what you're reading need to let go of

the need to force one English word used technically over another, and

honestly assess which terms will be clear if Pinyin is used, and which

won't, and begin to use Pinyin when it works. Of those terms that

won't work in Pinyin, some likely could work if we keep in mind that

the term used in Pinyin is going to be used in an English text

separated from other words in Pinyin - by which I mean it could

functionally work in translation even though those of you who actually

read Chinese might shudder - the point is clarity to

non-Chinese-speaking practitioners, not necessarily absolute accuracy

in the native language. The difficulty isn't any different than the

difficulty the Chinese have in speaking to each other about these

matters; when they voice a word, they don't have the character

floating in the air between them for clarity, all they have is

pronounciation and context. Anything that can be pronounced can be

indicated in writing in some way, and context is context in written

and in spoken language. If it can be said, it can be written - which

isn't the same as saying that anything that's written can be said, a

constant problem in Chinese, as I understand it. Perhaps the character

can be appended to the Pinyin to indicate that this is that type of

usage. Of what remains, a technical term in English or even

Pinyinglish can be created - not adapted, but actually created,

exactly as it was done in the technical language of computer scienc -

if something simpler, like changing typefont or otherwise creating a

visual cue, won't do the trick. Or perhaps using the Japanese term

would work, or-or-or?

>

> It would be nice if we could all learn Chinese and learn it well

enough to make this discussion moot; that isn't going to happen.

Languages are difficult to learn for most folks who are adults, and

languages with written forms that use different parts of the brain

than our own uses are much harder. English translation of Chinese text

is going to be the larger part of Western TCM literature for better or

for worse. The first priority must be to simplify and standardize.

None of this negates any of the hard work Wiseman or anyone else has

done: all that is the background work that had to be done first. I

think the error, if there is one, is in believing that what's been

done is the end, not the beginning.

>

> I don't know if I've suggested anything here that hasn't been

already discussed and rejected. If so, I hope I've offered reasons to

reconsider; and if I'm missing what the difficulty is, I'd be happy to

hear about it and put much thought into solutions.

>

> From where I'm standing, I see two big problems: The first is

producing a technical language that isn't compromised by creating

instead of eliminating confusion, and I know from long experience that

you can't get there the way y'all are going, no matter how strong a

will to make it so some of you have. The second is that you who have

been practitioners a long time, who have learned to read Chinese, who

think deeply and creatively about this scientific art of TCM, are

struggling in yourselves and with each other to bring the Western

comprehension of TCM to a deeper, more fluent and vital level. This

struggle isn't unconnected to the first, because it will ultimately

inform the first; but the first problem, of developing a technical

language, must be simplified and removed from the second in order to

produce some building blocks to work with. The deepening of TCM in the

West is going to go on for a really long time, and it will change the

definitions of the language and the form of the art radically over

time. You will have meetings of the mind and then depart from them,

over and over; and may this process never cease, because it's the

lifeblood we need. In the meantime, give us the simple definitions we

need to begin, while you duke out the basic definitions we need to

exist. Know what I mean?

>

> ---Deb Marshall

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Deb,

I teach herbal formula classes, and I use basically three texts, the

Bensky/Barolet " Formulas and Strategies " (which needs to be updated

after 15 years, I think it will be soon), the Practical Dictionary, and

the Shang Han Lun (Mitchell/Ye/Wiseman version). The students have no

problem with the vocabulary, and I give a lot of it. I give the

character, pinyin, Wiseman and Bensky terms. There are many concepts

in Formulas and Strategies which are impossible to comprehend without

the PD, I also hand out charts that give the pattern differentiation or

Chinese disease name for each prescription, as that also sometimes is

not so clear in the Bensky text. I don't expect one book to do

everything, and the BB text is old, so I don't blame the book or

authors, but neither me or the students have any problems with

confusion. I also use Clavey's " Fluid Physiology and Pathology " text

as an associated text as well.

 

The responsibility lies with the teachers in our schools. They must

make the effort to reconcile terminology and provide authoritative

information that clearly explains the subject matter. They need to

have a basic working knowledge of medical Chinese, fluency in English,

access to dictionaries and a wide variety of textbooks, and be willing

to take the time to figure out difficult issues. The responsibility of

students is intellectual rigor, to be willing to study, look up terms,

and ask teachers to cut through confusion. We cannot hand Chinese

medicine on a silver platter to students, there is a lot of work and

study to be done.

 

Too many teachers and schools do not expect enough from their

teachers and students, leading to intellectual laziness and

sub-standard education. There are even a few schools in the USA that

forbid the use of any Wiseman texts! It is not enough to read out of a

textbook without being able to connect the material to the Chinese

source texts in some manner.

 

No subject can be taught without dictionaries or glossaries,

terminology or definitions. It has been a big mistake to teach Chinese

medicine without these source texts for several years. Those schools

and teachers who do not do so will be left behind in the future.

 

 

 

 

On Oct 27, 2004, at 10:40 PM, Deb Marshall wrote:

 

>

> No matter how much we'd like to believe that presenting a system that

> uses ungraceful or difficult choices in English to TCM students from

> the beginning of their study is going to fix the problem - it isn't.

> Too many important texts already exist in English using too many

> different terms. If you manage to initiate a student into, say,

> Wiseman choices of terminology, what happens when they pick up Bensky

> or Macciocia or Clavey or...? Confusion. And I repeat that in spite of

> the initiation, it's going to be a longer and less fruitful and

> efficient learning process for the new practitioner if we're forcing

> English that is taken from common usage and trying to turn it into TCM

> technical language. Some words just won't set right; and if you've

> been a practitioner for a fairly long time, then you're apt to have

> issues for other reasons as well.

>

>

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Deb,

I appreciate your raising these issues on CHA. As a teacher of

Chinese herbal medicine for a solid sixteen years, I am going to

address some of these issues over a few posts, since your posting is so

large. Here we go.

 

1) I never associated depurate with purity, but that's just me.

Technical terms require dictionaries, so why should anyone be so lazy

as to not use an English one, if it is better at elucidating the

original Chinese concept?

 

2) It is fine to use pinyin, but pinyin is merely a bridge between

Chinese and English. It allows, with tone marks, to narrow down

characters in Chinese dictionaries, but you still need an English

equivalent, since native English speakers don't think in Chinese.

 

 

On Oct 27, 2004, at 10:40 PM, Deb Marshall wrote:

 

>

> I'm sure you've all been through this before, but I want to give you

> two examples, just so you remember what I mean. (Sorry to pick on

> Nigel words, but they are so easy to pick on, some of them!) If you

> don't know what " depurate " means, you're going to guess " make impure, "

> and you'd have good reasons to do so, even though you'd be wrong.

> " Vacuous " to most native English speakers means empty to the point of

> a sucking sound. And that's the definition you'll find in many

> dictionaries; if you look in the OEM, you'll get more, but how many of

> us own OEMs nowadays? A vacuum really isn't what's meant in TCM, but

> how can we not make that connection if vacuous is the word we use? But

> if we use " xu " with the proper tone, the problem is solved, isn't it?

> Pinyin when it works is easier for everyone and especially for the

> student to learn than an odd or nuanced meaning of an English word

> that's either too familiar or too unfamiliar.

>

>

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

I think that Wiseman's PD is an incredible accomplishment and a wonderful start

in a field that is so relatively young here in the English-speaking world. I

understand that pinyin is often not a good choice for clarity, and understand

more as you all explain why. But sometimes it can be used, and when it can I

believe it should be used, because often English isn't a good choice for

clarity, either.

 

Zev explained in his response to me that he teaches his students with pinyin,

characters, Wiseman and Bensky...and they don't have problems. That's probably

the best solution, really, because that way there's fluid movement across the

systems and clarity from the beginning of one's training, and guidance from

someone with enough experience to be able to compare and contrast the difference

between the different systems in English and elucidate the nuances that might be

missing from the Chinese. Would that we all had such a wise and devoted teacher!

 

I may be hypersensitive to the issue of word choices because I made my living as

an editor and writer for so long; I can read the language in Bensky and others

without coming to a screeching halt as I do regularly when reading texts using

Wiseman's standard, which sometimes sends my inner editor over the edge. I

understand why he made some of the choices he made, and think that many were

unfortunate - this from the English point of view, not the Chinese, I can't

comment on that.

 

But what do you all think about this? Even the folks I know who have apparently

made themselves comfortable with the language seem to usually use the pinyin

instead when writing to a colleague, talking to colleagues, making their own

clinic notes. I think that says something that needs to be attended to when

we're talking about technical language and how it develops. Pinyin is becoming

part of the technical language through the back door, and it's filtering in

through non-readers or -speakers of Chinese, without the tones, without

reference to the characters, and it's often happening to eliminate confusion

that arises from the English alternative.

 

Here's a prediction: 20 years from now, there will be a patois pinyin used

amongst practitioners in daily use, used in some texts - probably the more basic

ones - and not used in the more scholarly, more advanced texts. The patois

pinyin will be the true technical jargon of the TCM field. It'll also be the

terminology that gets picked up by folks outside the field.

 

---Deb Marshall

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Deb,

 

I have not expressed any opinions about how we should speak in

informal discourse. With colleagues and classmates in emails and

informal speech, we regularly say bi, lin, xue xu, etc. In my mind,

there is not much of a problem with that. I think it is better if

teachers use a standard term in their lectures, preferably clarified

by the pinyin. Having a standard term gives us something to fall back

on for clarity, as in " do you mean bi as in block or bi as in

impediment? " (both have the same pinyin and tone)

 

Honestly, the characters are really not used by people who haven't

studied Chinese and they all look the same to people whose training is

just in English. Similarly, it is enough of a challenge to get people

to say words like gui zhi consistently without even bothering with the

correct tone. English is really the only thing that will work for all

our needs. Z'ev's model of teaching by illustrating all synonyms,

pinyin, and Chinese character is laudable, but it is unfortunately not

the norm. However, most credible teachers do generally use the

unaccented pinyin and reference that lin syndrome=strangury, etc.

 

I really don't think that the basics are where we run into many

problems with terminology. Students take notes in " patoi pinyin " and

their use of Chinglish like " hot lin " is really not considered a major

problem (in my opinion), as long as they truly understand what lin

means in the context of CM. If they are confused, there is a

dictionary/encyclopedia where they can look the word up and find out

more about it.

 

I think the reason we need established term standards is because

people are interested in taking things beyond the basics. If we start

teaching classes in wai ke (external medicine vs. internal medicine-

nei ke), then we start encountering all manners of terms that people

just don't understand. Terms that have no natural English

equivalents, yet should be clearly differentiated from each other.

Wiseman references conditions like scab, lichen, etc and provides

definitions. Other authors can render them as anything they like if

they gloss them, but if they just appear in pinyin or in idiomatic

English then fields like dermatology will never be successfully

developed.

 

In the end, no one really cares how you talk to your classmates,

friends, or patients in the context of term precision. However, I do

think that published work should ideally have the backbone of

traceable terminology that others may use without confusion. I

disagree that patoi pinyin will become the true jargon in the field

because patoi pinyin is only used in a handful or circumstances. It is

used for common concepts, not the advanced stuff that makes up the

bulk of technical 'jargon.' There is a danger that people will use a

pinyin term without really knowing what it means, but that is more a

shortcoming of their education and their laziness to look things up in

a technical dictionary than anything else.

 

Wiseman uses a minimum of pinyin in his term choices because he is

concerned with linguistics, and English does not borrow words as

liberally as Japanese does as a language. English borrows more words

than French does, but it has no habit of borrowing Chinese words.

Nigel has made a number of cogent arguments from a linguistic

perspective on why pinyin borrowing should be minimized for TCM

concepts, based on core principles of academia specific to

translation. A number of solid arguments do exist for the rationale

that he uses.

 

That doesn't change the fact that people still use pinyin as slang. I

believe that the arguments Nigel has presented in many online

publications on term development are very solid, and I don't think

that pinyin has the potential to develop beyond the level of slang. I

am not bothered by the use of slang, I just believe that major works

in print should use technically accurate language. The technical

language should be supported both by principles of academia that

extend beyond our field, as well as term lists with definitions that

apply to our field specifically.

 

I think connative translations have a place in CM literature. I just

don't think that connotative or intepretive translation methods are

backed by arguments rational enough to make them the gold standard

that we are aiming for. If you want to produce a publication that

will be accepted by your peers, it is best to use technically accurate

language and reference your deviations. Deviating is encouraged,

writing statements of fact that cannot be checked or referenced is

discouraged.

 

You may speak to us in pinyin patoi as long as you like. If we have

any questions, we will ask you and you can clarify with technical

language in English, or in Chinese characters if an English term has

not yet been developed.

 

Respectfully,

Eric Brand

 

, " Deb Marshall "

<taichideb@t...> wrote:

>

> Eric,

>

> I think that Wiseman's PD is an incredible accomplishment and a

wonderful start in a field that is so relatively young here in the

English-speaking world. I understand that pinyin is often not a good

choice for clarity, and understand more as you all explain why. But

sometimes it can be used, and when it can I believe it should be used,

because often English isn't a good choice for clarity, either.

>

> Zev explained in his response to me that he teaches his students

with pinyin, characters, Wiseman and Bensky...and they don't have

problems. That's probably the best solution, really, because that way

there's fluid movement across the systems and clarity from the

beginning of one's training, and guidance from someone with enough

experience to be able to compare and contrast the difference between

the different systems in English and elucidate the nuances that might

be missing from the Chinese. Would that we all had such a wise and

devoted teacher!

>

> I may be hypersensitive to the issue of word choices because I made

my living as an editor and writer for so long; I can read the language

in Bensky and others without coming to a screeching halt as I do

regularly when reading texts using Wiseman's standard, which sometimes

sends my inner editor over the edge. I understand why he made some of

the choices he made, and think that many were unfortunate - this from

the English point of view, not the Chinese, I can't comment on that.

>

> But what do you all think about this? Even the folks I know who have

apparently made themselves comfortable with the language seem to

usually use the pinyin instead when writing to a colleague, talking to

colleagues, making their own clinic notes. I think that says something

that needs to be attended to when we're talking about technical

language and how it develops. Pinyin is becoming part of the technical

language through the back door, and it's filtering in through

non-readers or -speakers of Chinese, without the tones, without

reference to the characters, and it's often happening to eliminate

confusion that arises from the English alternative.

>

> Here's a prediction: 20 years from now, there will be a patois

pinyin used amongst practitioners in daily use, used in some texts -

probably the more basic ones - and not used in the more scholarly,

more advanced texts. The patois pinyin will be the true technical

jargon of the TCM field. It'll also be the terminology that gets

picked up by folks outside the field.

>

> ---Deb Marshall

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Very interesting discussion. I would say terminology has been the

most hotly debated topic over the last few years on CHA... this not only

shows the importance, the caring of people (so passionately) about correctly

/ accurately transmitting CM, as well as that there are two opposing sides.

I see this only as a good thing, and I personally have learned much from

this discussion. I do wish we would hear more from the 'Bensky school of

thought'...

Both eric and I said we were bowing out, but we are still going, sorry to

take up the bandwidth, Todd seems to be the only sensible person.. ...

Anyway, keep it flowing...

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

At 03:13 AM 10/29/2004, you wrote:

 

 

>

>

><deb>I think that Wiseman's PD is an incredible accomplishment and a

>wonderful start in a field that is so relatively young here in the

>English-speaking world. I understand that pinyin is often not a good

>choice for clarity, and understand more as you all explain why. But

>sometimes it can be used, and when it can I believe it should be used,

>because often English isn't a good choice for clarity, either.

<marnae> But why is it any different for someone who does not know Chinese

to have to learn a Chinese sound that can be used only within a very small

community and has no wider application than it is for that individual to

learn a slightly less commonly used English term that can be used in

conversations outside of this small fish pond. Better to learn a new

English word than to learn a Chinese sound that is essentially meaningless

(see below).

 

 

><deb>Zev explained in his response to me that he teaches his students with

>pinyin, characters, Wiseman and Bensky...and they don't have problems.

>That's probably the best solution, really, because that way there's fluid

>movement across the systems and clarity from the beginning of one's

>training, and guidance from someone with enough experience to be able to

>compare and contrast the difference between the different systems in

>English and elucidate the nuances that might be missing from the Chinese.

>Would that we all had such a wise and devoted teacher!

 

<marnae>

Indeed - Z'ev has found the best way to deal with a very frustrating

situation - and it has taken him years and lots of study to be able to do

this I'm sure.

 

><deb>I may be hypersensitive to the issue of word choices because I made

>my living as an editor and writer for so long;

 

 

<marnae> as translators have used the language more, the construction ideas

in English has improved. However, as I believe Eric said earlier, it is

also important to try to relay the structure of the Chinese language in a

translation. Chinese is a very succinct language that has a very precise

structure and a lot of information is relayed by the structure of a

sentence as well as by the words used. By sticking as closely as possible

to the structure, without writing Chinglish we are more able to portray the

context of the original work and have much less opportunity to change the

meaning by changing the structure.

 

 

>I can read the language in Bensky and others without coming to a

>screeching halt as I do regularly when reading texts using Wiseman's

>standard, which sometimes sends my inner editor over the edge. I

>understand why he made some of the choices he made, and think that many

>were unfortunate - this from the English point of view, not the Chinese, I

>can't comment on that.

>

<marnae> OK, so you don't come to a screeching halt. What you do is

assume that you know what the author is talking about because he/she is

learning terms that are familiar to you and so you immediately have a

definition for them. But is that definition actually what is meant by the

original Chinese term. Perhaps if you were forced to come to a screeching

halt because you were not familiar with a term you would take the time to

look it up and then have a greater understanding of the concept that is

being expressed. This is exactly why Nigel chose some of the terms he

did. To bring the reader to a halt so that they could learn the meaning of

a technical term as it is understood by the Chinese in the context of

Chinese medicine.

 

>But what do you all think about this? Even the folks I know who have

>apparently made themselves comfortable with the language seem to usually

>use the pinyin instead when writing to a colleague, talking to colleagues,

>making their own clinic notes. I think that says something that needs to

>be attended to when we're talking about technical language and how it

>develops. Pinyin is becoming part of the technical language through the

>back door, and it's filtering in through non-readers or -speakers of

>Chinese, without the tones, without reference to the characters, and it's

>often happening to eliminate confusion that arises from the English

>alternative.

<marnae>

Pinyin is often used as a shorthand. It is used on lists like this because

it does not support characters. It is used when there are too many terms

that have been chosen as possible translations of a single chinese term and

so people no longer know that many words refer to the same

character. There is an old story about students at an unnamed college of

CM (over 15 years ago). Several students were in clinic trying to

differentiate a fine pulse, from a thin pulse, from a faint pulse. What

they did not know was that all of these terms were different terms that had

been used to translate one pulse name: a xi1 mai. So, you might say, why

not use the Chinese. Well - if every one spoke Chinese that would be great

but you can be sure that there will continue to be people who use the

various translations and do not know that they are referring to the same

thing. It is only by creating consistency and standards that we can avoid

this type of problem. And believe me, even though this conversation

occurred a long time ago, it could (and probably does) happen at almost any

college clinic today!

 

,<Deb>

>Here's a prediction: 20 years from now, there will be a patois pinyin used

>amongst practitioners in daily use, used in some texts - probably the more

>basic ones - and not used in the more scholarly, more advanced texts. The

>patois pinyin will be the true technical jargon of the TCM field. It'll

>also be the terminology that gets picked up by folks outside the field.

 

<Marnae>

I truly hope that this does not happen. It will lead to more confusion

than already exists. Pin yin is not Chinese. Pinyin is a transliteration

created in the 50's during a misguided attempt to " simplify " Chinese - with

the ultimate goal being shifting from a character based language to an

alphabet based language. It simply did not work and it would be

detrimental to our profession for your prediction to come true. Spoken

Chinese is a tonal language that has 4 tones. Many characters have the

same pronunciation with different tones. Many characters have the same

pronunciation with the same tones. In written language to use pinyin (even

with tones) is essentially meaningless. In spoken language to use a Chinese

word without knowing the tone or the correct pronunciation is even more

meaningless and often very confusing. Example: On one of my earliest

trips to China I was on a train with a teacher and two other students. I

was the only one who spoke Chinese and I had only been in China a few days

so I was rusty. We were discussing a theoretical idea (I don't remember

what it was) and the teacher was talking about shen. One meaning of shen2

is spirit. One meaning of shen4 is kidney. He was talking about the

kidney. I mistranslated as spirit and the discussion became very confused

until I figured out my mistake. You might say well, if shen (with or

without tone) is used for both terms we would know what was being referred

to by the context and you might be right - sometimes. But it absolutely

has the potential to lead to confusion and less understanding rather than

more.

 

 

Marnae

 

 

 

>