Guest guest Posted October 30, 2004 Report Share Posted October 30, 2004 Further Shan / Mounting information: Let's look : Chuan lian zi : (Fundamentals - Wiseman) Mounting (shan4) pain (Wiseman's Illustrated) Shan4 pain (Bensky) bulging pain - [and under combos further differentiates specific usages i.e. cold or from liver qi stag. ] Wuzhuyu: (Wiseman's illustrated) Shan qi (Fundamentals - Wiseman) - does not list any shan for this herb (Bensky) Cold bulging disorders Wu yao: (Fundamentals - Wiseman) Cold mounting (shan) (Bensky) Cold-type bulging disorder Bi ba: (Bensky) Yin-type bulging disorder (Fundamentals - Wiseman) yin mounting (shan) This I think answers almost all of the questions raised previous. There are instances where Bensky has more precision that Wiseman, but let me be clear this is not from the term choice but from the author's choice of inclusion or the thoroughness of the source text that each party based there information on. [Meaning just because Wiseman is less differentiated for i.e. whu zhu yu this means nothing, Bensky is a much larger text and has decided to include more information] Therefore one cannot complain about Bensky's chuan lian zi not being specific enough... Chuan lian zi in both Wiseman texts clearly presents the herb in the same way (as Bensky), nothing about any specific type of mounting, like foxy-mounting. And when an herb clearly does have a specific type of bulging associated with it (yin type) Bensky includes it (as well as Wiseman) - They are just translating, and the information in clearly the same, terms and all. This Mounting example, IMO, just did not pan out to prove that Bensky / Clavey are presenting a simplified, less precise, less accurate, or less clinically valid version of CM.. Anyone disagree? Other examples to explore? It purely comes down to loyalty or personal preference. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2004 Report Share Posted October 30, 2004 On 31/10/2004, at 3:07 PM, wrote: > > Further Shan / Mounting information: > > Let's look : > > Chuan lian zi : > (Fundamentals - Wiseman) Mounting (shan4) pain > (Wiseman's Illustrated) Shan4 pain > (Bensky) bulging pain - [and under combos further differentiates > specific > usages i.e. cold or from liver qi stag. ] > > Wuzhuyu: > (Wiseman's illustrated) Shan qi > (Fundamentals - Wiseman) - does not list any shan for this herb > (Bensky) Cold bulging disorders > > > Wu yao: > (Fundamentals - Wiseman) Cold mounting (shan) > (Bensky) Cold-type bulging disorder > > Bi ba: > (Bensky) Yin-type bulging disorder > (Fundamentals - Wiseman) yin mounting (shan) > > This I think answers almost all of the questions raised previous. > There are > instances where Bensky has more precision that Wiseman, but let me be > clear > this is not from the term choice but from the author's choice of > inclusion > or the thoroughness of the source text that each party based there > information on. [Meaning just because Wiseman is less differentiated > for > i.e. whu zhu yu this means nothing, Bensky is a much larger text and > has > decided to include more information] Therefore one cannot complain > about > Bensky's chuan lian zi not being specific enough... > Chuan lian zi in both Wiseman texts clearly presents the herb in the > same > way (as Bensky), nothing about any specific type of mounting, like > foxy-mounting. And when an herb clearly does have a specific type of > bulging > associated with it (yin type) Bensky includes it (as well as Wiseman) > - They > are just translating, and the information in clearly the same, terms > and > all. This Mounting example, IMO, just did not pan out to prove that > Bensky > / Clavey are presenting a simplified, less precise, less accurate, or > less > clinically valid version of CM.. Anyone disagree? Other examples to > explore? > It purely comes down to loyalty or personal preference. > > - > Hi Jason, Do you really think it is a fair comparison to compare a 1000+ page MM published this year to a 530 page general introductory text on the Fundamentals of TCM published over a decade ago in terms of detail on certain materia medica? You are getting a bit over-excited trying to prove your established beliefs here IMO. At any rate, the Wiseman text you use here is a translation of one text, not an interpretation and survey of many. You certainly cannot claim here that Bensky has instances of more precision than Wiseman unless you can prove this via comparing translations of the SAME material into each others terminology. This is not really possible I know, but you are really stretching reality to think your examples support your conclusions here. What is Wiseman's Illustrated? Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2004 Report Share Posted October 30, 2004 > > Steven Slater [laozhongyi] > > > > Hi Jason, > > Do you really think it is a fair comparison to compare a 1000+ page MM > published this year to a 530 page general introductory text on the > Fundamentals of TCM published over a decade ago in terms of detail on > certain materia medica? [Jason] Of course not, you are completely missing the point here! You are getting a bit over-excited trying to > prove your established beliefs here IMO. > > At any rate, the Wiseman text you use here is a translation of one > text, not an interpretation and survey of many. [Jason] Of course, that is the point! ONE cannot compare such books (i.e. PD to the MM)! It was said by Marnae that chuan lian zi (new Bensky) was inferior because of his term choice for mounting, my point is that a) Wiseman when using his terms says it the same way... (no additional clarification) therefore showing he does not leave out any information from his term choice. And b) you cannot compare based on CONTENT! But on on equal information via terms... I am not comparing a 1000 page text to the illustrated or fundamentals Please look deeper than the surface... If you haven't been following the whole thread you should go back... The point is that chuan lian zi in the new Bensky is not simplified (at least in regard to the mounting discussion), NOT that the new Bensky text is somehow better than a '530 page general introductory text on the Fundamentals'... > > You certainly cannot claim here that Bensky has instances of more > precision than Wiseman unless you can prove this via comparing > translations of the SAME material into each others terminology. [Jason] I am not and no way tried to!!! And that is my point! This is > not really possible I know, but you are really stretching reality to > think your examples support your conclusions here. [Jason] Not at all I think you are missing the point 100% It is merely proving the point about the chuan lian zi from the previous discussion. If this is not clear after re-reading the last few post I will explain further. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2004 Report Share Posted October 30, 2004 Hi Jason, Yes, on re-reading I probably did miss the point of your post. It is easy to do when you go on and on and on without ever establishing anything. But when you speak double-talk like this.... On 31/10/2004, at 3:07 PM, wrote: > This I think answers almost all of the questions raised previous. > There are > instances where Bensky has more precision that Wiseman, but let me be > clear > this is not from the term choice but from the author's choice of > inclusion > or the thoroughness of the source text that each party based there > information on. [Meaning just because Wiseman is less differentiated > for > i.e. whu zhu yu this means nothing, Bensky is a much larger text and > has > decided to include more information] Therefore one cannot complain > about > Bensky's chuan lian zi not being specific enough... > You clearly state that there are instances where Bensky has more precision than Wiseman and then give reasons why your illustrated example is not good evidence of such a statement. Bizarre!!! You still have not made a case for Bensky EVER giving more precision than Wiseman terminology. You have a very strange habit of stating an opinion as truth without evidence and then asking everyone else to produce evidence for anything they say that does not agree with you! (no I won't produce evidence to prove this). I should have stayed out of it, and I will trust my intuition from now on. The sooner this thread dies the better IMO. Best Wishes, Steve Dr. Steven J Slater Practitioner and Acupuncturist Mobile: 0437 033 500 chinese_medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 The fact that Bensky uses bulging disorders without explaining that there are 7 types of mounting/bulging differentiated in Chinese literature may not be problematic for the expression of the concepts in his MM. However, the readers of his text will then go on to read differential diagnosis texts, or perhaps a formula in a formulas text will be indicated for a specific type of mounting. If he glosses the term as a technical term but doesn't allude to this breakdown, he is not giving readers of his text a seamless way to integrate their knowledge with more advanced books. Granted, he refers the reader to the PD where the differentiation is more clear, but it seems a roundabout way to convey the info. If he agrees that the PD term is synonymous, yet the PD term provides a more complete definition, we are left to conclude that he is too stubborn to concede to using one simple word coined by his colleague. This sacrifices the chance to make his text consistent with much of the literature his students must face, making it appear more to onlookers as a battle of ego than a sincere desire to improve the English transmission of TCM. Bulging itself has a wide area for misinterpretation, as we have seen from Doug's summary of chuan lian zi that it " treats swellings (Bensky: bulging disorders), " as well as the obvious confusion that could come up from things that bulge (like a calf cramp) that have nothing to do with mounting. Since this term is not improved by a definition that is more complete than Wiseman's, it is unclear where the benefit of its coining comes from. Furthermore, the most useful language texts are all written by Wiseman. Even in Bensky's school, Wiseman terminology is used to study Chinese. After people learn how to effectively use a few thousand characters that work well in a variety of contexts, they are not going to unlearn them spontaneously and elect for vague and idiosyncratic alternatives. I predict that much of the dependable literature in future years will be done in Wiseman terminology because it is simply the most efficient means of approaching new literature. Even many completely bilingual translators would rather side with an academically solid professional standard than try to coin their own terms. There are no limits to creativity because any term can be defined and named differently as long as it is referenced. Marnae made the excellent point that people who already have access to Chinese literature and clinical experience are not necessarily objective when it comes to what will be clearer to students. Students are constantly confused about the nuances of terms and their discussions of terms become like a game of telephone where the final message is nothing like the original concept. I think that a text as basic as a MM should attempt to synch itself with the standards used by advanced texts simply to make more literature available to students. By not differentiating seminal emission & seminal efflux, different types of mounting, etc, in this text, it is unlikely that the formula text will illustrate these differences either, making both books less usable when the students learn to later diagnose by CM disease headings with patterns below. I have no doubt about the skill and experience of Bensky, Clavey, Stoger, or John or Tina Chen. They are all established and trustworthy sources that are concerned with advancing the profession and presenting clear and quality information. I just think that we would benefit by having materials that can be seamlessly integrated with each other. For now, Wiseman is the only developed standard that we have to go on, and our needs in terms of reliable texts extend far beyond the concepts contained in a materia medica. A materia medica is a foundation for everything else, it is a time when students need to be exposed to the concepts of tcm in all their complexity so that they know facts such as the CM differentiation between wet dreams and daytime discharge of semen. Students will go looking for any medicinal that treats spermatorrhea if they have never been exposed to the fact that these disorders fall under multiple Chinese disease headings with multiple patterns and prescriptions. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:56 AM > > Re: Further Mounting / Shan / Bulging > > > > The fact that Bensky uses bulging disorders without explaining that > there are 7 types of mounting/bulging differentiated in Chinese > literature may not be problematic for the expression of the concepts > in his MM. However, the readers of his text will then go on to read > differential diagnosis texts, or perhaps a formula in a formulas text > will be indicated for a specific type of mounting. If he glosses the > term as a technical term but doesn't allude to this breakdown, he is > not giving readers of his text a seamless way to integrate their > knowledge with more advanced books. Granted, he refers the reader to > the PD where the differentiation is more clear, but it seems a > roundabout way to convey the info. [Jason] I disagree 100% and find this outrageous. Bensky is a MM not a dictionary. He is presenting what is written in Chinese nothing more nothing less. Why should he have to include every single further differentiation that the Chinese don't even do in their MMs - That is what dictionaries are for...(As shown Wiseman translates the Shan the same way as Bensky when he presents herbs!) Not including everything is not roundabout, but clearly practical (Have you seen how big that doorstop is already?) *) Tell me why he is required to list all 7 types of shan disorders? Does Wiseman is his Illustrated differentiate all 7 types of shan disorder. Of course not! Does Wiseman in is PD have every entry & defintion that the zhong yi da ci dian has, of course not! *) Bensky *does* differentiate the various bulging patterns when they come up in Chinese (as I showed) i.e. yin-bulging, cold-bulging. Etc... It is very clear and I find your point flimsy. If he agrees that the PD term is > synonymous, yet the PD term provides a more complete definition, we > are left to conclude that he is too stubborn to concede to using one > simple word coined by his colleague. This sacrifices the chance to > make his text consistent with much of the literature his students must > face, making it appear more to onlookers as a battle of ego than a > sincere desire to improve the English transmission of TCM. [Jason] Or maybe he just doesn't like the terms...?? I am not sure.. But that is his right... > > Bulging itself has a wide area for misinterpretation, as we have seen > from Doug's summary of chuan lian zi that it " treats swellings > (Bensky: bulging disorders), " [Jason] That is untrue because he glosses this term... but you will have to ask him why he likes that term. > > Furthermore, the most useful language texts are all written by > Wiseman. Even in Bensky's school, Wiseman terminology is used to > study Chinese. After people learn how to effectively use a few > thousand characters that work well in a variety of contexts, they are > not going to unlearn them spontaneously and elect for vague and > idiosyncratic alternatives. [Jason] Again this last statement 'vague' has yet to be proven. I predict that much of the dependable > literature in future years will be done in Wiseman terminology because > it is simply the most efficient means of approaching new literature. [Jason] I agree! But that is not the issue. > Even many completely bilingual translators would rather side with an > academically solid professional standard than try to coin their own > terms. There are no limits to creativity because any term can be > defined and named differently as long as it is referenced. [Jason] Wait a second.. You say this, but when Bensky used a non-Wiseman term, referenced it as well as a definition, you don't agree - It looks like you are stifling his freedom and creativity.??? Please explain... > > Marnae made the excellent point that people who already have access to > Chinese literature and clinical experience are not necessarily > objective when it comes to what will be clearer to students. Students > are constantly confused about the nuances of terms and their > discussions of terms become like a game of telephone where the final > message is nothing like the original concept. [Jason] This is a great point a good place to start. But first students are not only confused in general but also are confused about WTs. (I really don't know why, but they are)... But I think we should explore this. From a students perspective maybe we can find some place in Bensky that leaves them scratching their head... Any students on here that have the new book...? Yes, we may (all) be biased... I think that a text as > basic as a MM should attempt to synch itself with the standards used > by advanced texts simply to make more literature available to > students. [Jason] Why is the Bensky text not available to students because it doesn't use WTs? > By not differentiating seminal emission & seminal efflux, [Jason] The question is, are you sure that the original Chinese MMs make differentiations that Bensky missed??? This was shown not to be the case in mounting... So could you check before saying it is so... I will also look into this, I think your stance may be a valid point... > different types of mounting, etc, in this text, it is unlikely that > the formula text will illustrate these differences either, making both > books less usable when the students learn to later diagnose by CM > disease headings with patterns below. [Jason] I disagree... I have no problem incorporating everything... > > I have no doubt about the skill and experience of Bensky, Clavey, > Stoger, or John or Tina Chen. They are all established and > trustworthy sources that are concerned with advancing the profession > and presenting clear and quality information. I just think that we > would benefit by having materials that can be seamlessly integrated > with each other. For now, Wiseman is the only developed standard that > we have to go on, and our needs in terms of reliable texts extend far > beyond the concepts contained in a materia medica. > > A materia medica is a foundation for everything else, it is a time > when students need to be exposed to the concepts of tcm in all their > complexity so that they know facts such as the CM differentiation > between wet dreams and daytime discharge of semen. Students will go > looking for any medicinal that treats spermatorrhea if they have never > been exposed to the fact that these disorders fall under multiple > Chinese disease headings with multiple patterns and prescriptions. [Jason] Eric, I find this deviation from your previous stance that 'we can have both' to it must be the 'Wiseman way' a little dogmatic and confining. I personally embrace Wiseman as do you, but I will defend Bensky's right to do what he wants until it is shown that he is presenting material less accurate, less clear, more simple or whatever you want to say.... It has yet to be done. (unless I missed something) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Naturally, there is a place for both interpretations as well as translations. Bensky, Macciocia, and other writers that write reference texts without referenced terms will continue to write books that contain valuable information. People who are concerned with having books that transparently represent the tcm concepts in an undiluted, unfiltered way will naturally gravitate towards works with traceable terms. These worlds can peacefully co-exist. As I have said, I personally trust Bensky's work. I think he has produced a very high-quality text and I think he presents an accurate view of CM. I have never slighted his text, nor his dedication, nor his personal integrity in any way. He has all my respect, and the only thing I am discussing in a critical manner is the selection of terms. You continue to reference cold shan4, mounting, or bulging disorders. I feel that bulging disorders is a poor choice in a term. What he references in running text as bulging disorders due to cold is rendered in WT as cold mounting. However, cold mounting patterns do not necessarily result in bulging, which to me represents a concept that is easily misinterpreted. We just checked the PD as well as the zhong yi da ci dian for cold mounting, and it states under definition one that: " cold mounting is an accumulation of cold evil in the abdomen arising from repeated wind-cold contractions that in turn stem either from vacuity cold in the spleen and stomach or from postpartum blood vacuity. Cold mounting is characterized by cold in the umbilical region, cold sweating, and counterflow cold in the limbs. The pulse is sunken and tight. In severe cases there is generalized cold in the body and numbness in the limbs. In blood vacuity patients, the abdominal pain stretches up the rib-side and is accompanied by cramp in the lower abdomen. Tx is tiantai wuyao san. " Nowhere in this definition is there bulging, so if the reader assumes that bulging due to cold involves bulging, they are making an incorrect assumption. The Wiseman term mounting was chosen based on the mountain signific in the Chinese term, yet in Chinese mounting qi refers not only to an actual substantial bulge (a 'mountain'), but also refers to accumulation, without implying that the accumulation has yet formed a mountain. As to your comment as to whether it is clinically useful to differentiate seminal emission and seminal efflux in a MM, besides the fact that students will later encounter this definition, I can tell you with certainty that I have seen some MM texts indicate a medicinal for one without indicating the other. Respectfully, Eric Brand , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > Sunday, October 31, 2004 1:56 AM > > > > Re: Further Mounting / Shan / Bulging > > > > > > > > The fact that Bensky uses bulging disorders without explaining that > > there are 7 types of mounting/bulging differentiated in Chinese > > literature may not be problematic for the expression of the concepts > > in his MM. However, the readers of his text will then go on to read > > differential diagnosis texts, or perhaps a formula in a formulas text > > will be indicated for a specific type of mounting. If he glosses the > > term as a technical term but doesn't allude to this breakdown, he is > > not giving readers of his text a seamless way to integrate their > > knowledge with more advanced books. Granted, he refers the reader to > > the PD where the differentiation is more clear, but it seems a > > roundabout way to convey the info. > [Jason] > I disagree 100% and find this outrageous. Bensky is a MM not a dictionary. > He is presenting what is written in Chinese nothing more nothing less. Why > should he have to include every single further differentiation that the > Chinese don't even do in their MMs - That is what dictionaries are for...(As > shown Wiseman translates the Shan the same way as Bensky when he presents > herbs!) Not including everything is not roundabout, but clearly practical > (Have you seen how big that doorstop is already?) > > *) Tell me why he is required to list all 7 types of shan disorders? > Does Wiseman is his Illustrated differentiate all 7 types of shan > disorder. Of course not! Does Wiseman in is PD have every entry & defintion > that the zhong yi da ci dian has, of course not! > > *) Bensky *does* differentiate the various bulging patterns when they come > up in Chinese (as I showed) i.e. yin-bulging, cold-bulging. Etc... It is > very clear and I find your point flimsy. > > If he agrees that the PD term is > > synonymous, yet the PD term provides a more complete definition, we > > are left to conclude that he is too stubborn to concede to using one > > simple word coined by his colleague. This sacrifices the chance to > > make his text consistent with much of the literature his students must > > face, making it appear more to onlookers as a battle of ego than a > > sincere desire to improve the English transmission of TCM. > [Jason] > Or maybe he just doesn't like the terms...?? I am not sure.. But that is his > right... > > > > > Bulging itself has a wide area for misinterpretation, as we have seen > > from Doug's summary of chuan lian zi that it " treats swellings > > (Bensky: bulging disorders), " > [Jason] > That is untrue because he glosses this term... but you will have to ask him > why he likes that term. > > > > > Furthermore, the most useful language texts are all written by > > Wiseman. Even in Bensky's school, Wiseman terminology is used to > > study Chinese. After people learn how to effectively use a few > > thousand characters that work well in a variety of contexts, they are > > not going to unlearn them spontaneously and elect for vague and > > idiosyncratic alternatives. > [Jason] > Again this last statement 'vague' has yet to be proven. > > I predict that much of the dependable > > literature in future years will be done in Wiseman terminology because > > it is simply the most efficient means of approaching new literature. > [Jason] > I agree! But that is not the issue. > > > Even many completely bilingual translators would rather side with an > > academically solid professional standard than try to coin their own > > terms. There are no limits to creativity because any term can be > > defined and named differently as long as it is referenced. > [Jason] > Wait a second.. You say this, but when Bensky used a non-Wiseman term, > referenced it as well as a definition, you don't agree - It looks like you > are stifling his freedom and creativity.??? Please explain... > > > > > Marnae made the excellent point that people who already have access to > > Chinese literature and clinical experience are not necessarily > > objective when it comes to what will be clearer to students. Students > > are constantly confused about the nuances of terms and their > > discussions of terms become like a game of telephone where the final > > message is nothing like the original concept. > [Jason] > This is a great point a good place to start. But first students are not > only confused in general but also are confused about WTs. (I really don't > know why, but they are)... But I think we should explore this. From a > students perspective maybe we can find some place in Bensky that leaves them > scratching their head... Any students on here that have the new book...? > Yes, we may (all) be biased... > > > I think that a text as > > basic as a MM should attempt to synch itself with the standards used > > by advanced texts simply to make more literature available to > > students. > [Jason] > Why is the Bensky text not available to students because it doesn't use WTs? > > > By not differentiating seminal emission & seminal efflux, > [Jason] > The question is, are you sure that the original Chinese MMs make > differentiations that Bensky missed??? This was shown not to be the case in > mounting... So could you check before saying it is so... I will also look > into this, I think your stance may be a valid point... > > > different types of mounting, etc, in this text, it is unlikely that > > the formula text will illustrate these differences either, making both > > books less usable when the students learn to later diagnose by CM > > disease headings with patterns below. > [Jason] I disagree... I have no problem incorporating everything... > > > > > I have no doubt about the skill and experience of Bensky, Clavey, > > Stoger, or John or Tina Chen. They are all established and > > trustworthy sources that are concerned with advancing the profession > > and presenting clear and quality information. I just think that we > > would benefit by having materials that can be seamlessly integrated > > with each other. For now, Wiseman is the only developed standard that > > we have to go on, and our needs in terms of reliable texts extend far > > beyond the concepts contained in a materia medica. > > > > A materia medica is a foundation for everything else, it is a time > > when students need to be exposed to the concepts of tcm in all their > > complexity so that they know facts such as the CM differentiation > > between wet dreams and daytime discharge of semen. Students will go > > looking for any medicinal that treats spermatorrhea if they have never > > been exposed to the fact that these disorders fall under multiple > > Chinese disease headings with multiple patterns and prescriptions. > [Jason] > Eric, > > I find this deviation from your previous stance that 'we can have both' to > it must be the 'Wiseman way' a little dogmatic and confining. > I personally embrace Wiseman as do you, but I will defend Bensky's right to > do what he wants until it is shown that he is presenting material less > accurate, less clear, more simple or whatever you want to say.... It has yet > to be done. (unless I missed something) > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 At 5:00 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: >However, cold mounting patterns do >not necessarily result in bulging, which to me represents a concept >that is easily misinterpreted. We just checked the PD as well as the >zhong yi da ci dian for cold mounting, and it states under definition >one that: " cold mounting is an accumulation of cold evil in the >abdomen arising from repeated wind-cold contractions that in turn stem >either from vacuity cold in the spleen and stomach or from postpartum >blood vacuity. Cold mounting is characterized by cold in the >umbilical region, cold sweating, and counterflow cold in the limbs. >The pulse is sunken and tight. In severe cases there is generalized >cold in the body and numbness in the limbs. In blood vacuity >patients, the abdominal pain stretches up the rib-side and is >accompanied by cramp in the lower abdomen. Tx is tiantai wuyao san. " -- This definition, that excludes bulging as a necessary symptom in shan4 diseases, creates a question about Wiseman's choice of the term mounting. His justification of this term appears to be that it relates to mountain, the character for which, shan1, is included in the character for mounting/shan4. The other part of the character is for illness/chuang2. Surely then, the term could better be translated as " mountain illness " . Mounting suggests something climbing on top of another thing, which is not the case in shan4 diseases, even when there is a bulge. In the latter case, the bulge is due to protrusion from within, not an external agent attaching itself, or climbing on, from without. For this reason I find the term choice inappropriate and awkward; I won't use it. Neither will I use Bensky's choice of bulging, since this can apply to bulging conditions that are not shan4. I'm left with using the term shan4 itself, which seems like a perfectly acceptable solution to me. Of course, that does not resolve Wiseman's need to find an English equivalent for those who wish to translate all terms into English. The problem is that mounting is not really English in this usage, so I think there is justification for him to use shan4. It seems to fall into the same category of exceptions as qi, yin, yang etc. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Sunday, October 31, 2004 10:01 AM > > Re: Further Mounting / Shan / Bulging > > > > Naturally, there is a place for both interpretations as well as > translations. Bensky, Macciocia, and other writers that write > reference texts without referenced terms will continue to write books > that contain valuable information. People who are concerned with > having books that transparently represent the tcm concepts in an > undiluted, unfiltered way will naturally gravitate towards works with > traceable terms. These worlds can peacefully co-exist. > > As I have said, I personally trust Bensky's work. I think he has > produced a very high-quality text and I think he presents an accurate > view of CM. I have never slighted his text, nor his dedication, nor > his personal integrity in any way. He has all my respect, and the > only thing I am discussing in a critical manner is the selection of terms. > > You continue to reference cold shan4, mounting, or bulging disorders. > I feel that bulging disorders is a poor choice in a term. What he > references in running text as bulging disorders due to cold is > rendered in WT as cold mounting. [Jason] Not true - He says 'cold type bulging disorder.' Or just 'cold bulging disorder'. Furthermore, I find your quarrel quite nit-picky, having no clinical impact. If one hears bulging or mounting they both need to be looked up to get a full understating of this complicated disease. It is not black and white. Even with all this discussion looking up the terms in the PD and the Zhong Yi Da Ci Dian I am unsure about all the intricacies than surround Shan4. > > The Wiseman term mounting was chosen based on the mountain signific in > the Chinese term, yet in Chinese mounting qi refers not only to an > actual substantial bulge (a 'mountain'), but also refers to > accumulation, without implying that the accumulation has yet formed a > mountain. [Jason] Again I wonder why you are arguing with his term choice so diligently when you previously said that people can use whatever term they like as long as they reference it...? I am confused? I see no resolution to this part of the debate. Bensky has his reasons you ( & Wiseman) have yours, can we move on? > > As to your comment as to whether it is clinically useful to > differentiate seminal emission and seminal efflux in a MM, besides the > fact that students will later encounter this definition, I can tell > you with certainty that I have seen some MM texts indicate a medicinal > for one without indicating the other. > [Jason] That is not what I am asking... I think for you to make a statement, you should show where Bensky did not differentiate this under an specific herb entry where the Chinese MM's do... You are (so far) just blowing smoke. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 > This definition, that excludes bulging as a necessary symptom in > shan4 diseases, creates a question about Wiseman's choice of the term > mounting. His justification of this term appears to be that it > relates to mountain, the character for which, shan1, is included in > the character for mounting/shan4. The other part of the character is > for illness/chuang2. Surely then, the term could better be translated > as " mountain illness " . Mounting suggests something climbing on top of > another thing, which is not the case in shan4 diseases, even when > there is a bulge. Rory, I think that " mountain illness " was not chosen for two reasons: 1) the condition in Chinese does not seem to be consistently characterized as a static noun, as in a substantial mountain, because the word has an alternate nuance of suggesting and active process of mounting up of qi (particularly cold). I don't think the term mounting here refers to mounting as in mounting a horse, but rather mounting as in accumulating. and 2) " illness " would not be typically chosen to make a more cumbersome 2 word English expression out of a single character. If we added the word illness with each disease radical, the English expression would be too cumbersome. Eric Brand , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote: > At 5:00 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: > >However, cold mounting patterns do > >not necessarily result in bulging, which to me represents a concept > >that is easily misinterpreted. We just checked the PD as well as the > >zhong yi da ci dian for cold mounting, and it states under definition > >one that: " cold mounting is an accumulation of cold evil in the > >abdomen arising from repeated wind-cold contractions that in turn stem > >either from vacuity cold in the spleen and stomach or from postpartum > >blood vacuity. Cold mounting is characterized by cold in the > >umbilical region, cold sweating, and counterflow cold in the limbs. > >The pulse is sunken and tight. In severe cases there is generalized > >cold in the body and numbness in the limbs. In blood vacuity > >patients, the abdominal pain stretches up the rib-side and is > >accompanied by cramp in the lower abdomen. Tx is tiantai wuyao san. " > -- > > This definition, that excludes bulging as a necessary symptom in > shan4 diseases, creates a question about Wiseman's choice of the term > mounting. His justification of this term appears to be that it > relates to mountain, the character for which, shan1, is included in > the character for mounting/shan4. The other part of the character is > for illness/chuang2. Surely then, the term could better be translated > as " mountain illness " . Mounting suggests something climbing on top of > another thing, which is not the case in shan4 diseases, even when > there is a bulge. In the latter case, the bulge is due to protrusion > from within, not an external agent attaching itself, or climbing on, > from without. > > For this reason I find the term choice inappropriate and awkward; I > won't use it. Neither will I use Bensky's choice of bulging, since > this can apply to bulging conditions that are not shan4. I'm left > with using the term shan4 itself, which seems like a perfectly > acceptable solution to me. > > Of course, that does not resolve Wiseman's need to find an English > equivalent for those who wish to translate all terms into English. > The problem is that mounting is not really English in this usage, so > I think there is justification for him to use shan4. It seems to fall > into the same category of exceptions as qi, yin, yang etc. > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Of course, that does not resolve Wiseman's need to find an English equivalent for those who wish to translate all terms into English. The problem is that mounting is not really English in this usage, so I think there is justification for him to use shan4. It seems to fall into the same category of exceptions as qi, yin, yang etc. >>>OR perhaps use a different choice of words depending on each situation, how about that one alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 This is the approach that Chen often takes in his terms. Few would argue that it is unclear for common words like shan4, but pinyin is just not a good solution on the larger scale of terms. Incidentally, from the descriptions of the disease it could be that cold mounting has a very significant difference than other types of mounting. It is almost like saying 'balsam pear' (one of the names of 'bitter melon' in English), it is not really a pear at all, but it is a compound with the word pear in it. Cold mounting seems (from my preliminary investigations) to be more of a process of cold accumulation than an disorder with a developed bulge. Eric , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote: > At 7:29 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: > >I think that " mountain illness " was not chosen for two reasons: > >1) the condition in Chinese does not seem to be consistently > >characterized as a static noun, as in a substantial mountain, because > >the word has an alternate nuance of suggesting and active process of > >mounting up of qi (particularly cold). I don't think the term > >mounting here refers to mounting as in mounting a horse, but rather > >mounting as in accumulating. and 2) " illness " would not be typically > >chosen to make a more cumbersome 2 word English expression out of a > >single character. If we added the word illness with each disease > >radical, the English expression would be too cumbersome. > -- > Eric, > > Yes, I wasn't suggesting that Wiseman should have chosen mountain > illness, just pointing out that the character doesn't really justify > translation into mounting. Both are equally unsatisfactory as usable > terminology IMO. > > Nevertheless, Wiseman has had his best shot at providing a term > equivalent for shan4. My view is that even those that publish using > his terminology in general, have the choice, and should choose, not > to use mounting, and instead use shan accented appropriately. There > is no obligation to use his term choices and in this case the better > choice is not to do so. > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 At 7:29 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: >I think that " mountain illness " was not chosen for two reasons: >1) the condition in Chinese does not seem to be consistently >characterized as a static noun, as in a substantial mountain, because >the word has an alternate nuance of suggesting and active process of >mounting up of qi (particularly cold). I don't think the term >mounting here refers to mounting as in mounting a horse, but rather >mounting as in accumulating. and 2) " illness " would not be typically >chosen to make a more cumbersome 2 word English expression out of a >single character. If we added the word illness with each disease >radical, the English expression would be too cumbersome. -- Eric, Yes, I wasn't suggesting that Wiseman should have chosen mountain illness, just pointing out that the character doesn't really justify translation into mounting. Both are equally unsatisfactory as usable terminology IMO. Nevertheless, Wiseman has had his best shot at providing a term equivalent for shan4. My view is that even those that publish using his terminology in general, have the choice, and should choose, not to use mounting, and instead use shan accented appropriately. There is no obligation to use his term choices and in this case the better choice is not to do so. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 This mounting discussion (sorry) has, of course, been argued ad nauseum between Peter Deadman and Nigel Wiseman. It's often Wiseman's focus of contention about Deadman- speak. I forgot who brought it up first but foxy mounting as a phrase was discussed for its sexual connotations in a pretty funny exchange. doug , " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > > This definition, that excludes bulging as a necessary symptom in > > shan4 diseases, creates a question about Wiseman's choice of the term > > mounting. His justification of this term appears to be that it > > relates to mountain, the character for which, shan1, is included in > > the character for mounting/shan4. The other part of the character is > > for illness/chuang2. Surely then, the term could better be translated > > as " mountain illness " . Mounting suggests something climbing on top of > > another thing, which is not the case in shan4 diseases, even when > > there is a bulge. > > > Rory, I think that " mountain illness " was not chosen for two reasons: > 1) the condition in Chinese does not seem to be consistently > characterized as a static noun, as in a substantial mountain, because > the word has an alternate nuance of suggesting and active process of > mounting up of qi (particularly cold). I don't think the term > mounting here refers to mounting as in mounting a horse, but rather > mounting as in accumulating. and 2) " illness " would not be typically > chosen to make a more cumbersome 2 word English expression out of a > single character. If we added the word illness with each disease > radical, the English expression would be too cumbersome. > > Eric Brand > > > > , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> > wrote: > > At 5:00 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: > > >However, cold mounting patterns do > > >not necessarily result in bulging, which to me represents a concept > > >that is easily misinterpreted. We just checked the PD as well as the > > >zhong yi da ci dian for cold mounting, and it states under definition > > >one that: " cold mounting is an accumulation of cold evil in the > > >abdomen arising from repeated wind-cold contractions that in turn stem > > >either from vacuity cold in the spleen and stomach or from postpartum > > >blood vacuity. Cold mounting is characterized by cold in the > > >umbilical region, cold sweating, and counterflow cold in the limbs. > > >The pulse is sunken and tight. In severe cases there is generalized > > >cold in the body and numbness in the limbs. In blood vacuity > > >patients, the abdominal pain stretches up the rib-side and is > > >accompanied by cramp in the lower abdomen. Tx is tiantai wuyao san. " > > -- > > > > This definition, that excludes bulging as a necessary symptom in > > shan4 diseases, creates a question about Wiseman's choice of the term > > mounting. His justification of this term appears to be that it > > relates to mountain, the character for which, shan1, is included in > > the character for mounting/shan4. The other part of the character is > > for illness/chuang2. Surely then, the term could better be translated > > as " mountain illness " . Mounting suggests something climbing on top of > > another thing, which is not the case in shan4 diseases, even when > > there is a bulge. In the latter case, the bulge is due to protrusion > > from within, not an external agent attaching itself, or climbing on, > > from without. > > > > For this reason I find the term choice inappropriate and awkward; I > > won't use it. Neither will I use Bensky's choice of bulging, since > > this can apply to bulging conditions that are not shan4. I'm left > > with using the term shan4 itself, which seems like a perfectly > > acceptable solution to me. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 At 8:16 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: >but pinyin is just not a good solution on the larger scale of terms. -- Right, I agree. Pinyin should be used very selectively, and when used the author/publisher should explain the choice. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 I've always liked " mounding " for shan4. It comes from the same French root as mounting but expresses the concept of a bulge which mounting does not immediately convey. In order to really get " mounting " as used in CM, one has to know the Chinese character and its pronounciation. Bob , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote: > At 7:29 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: > >I think that " mountain illness " was not chosen for two reasons: > >1) the condition in Chinese does not seem to be consistently > >characterized as a static noun, as in a substantial mountain, because > >the word has an alternate nuance of suggesting and active process of > >mounting up of qi (particularly cold). I don't think the term > >mounting here refers to mounting as in mounting a horse, but rather > >mounting as in accumulating. and 2) " illness " would not be typically > >chosen to make a more cumbersome 2 word English expression out of a > >single character. If we added the word illness with each disease > >radical, the English expression would be too cumbersome. > -- > Eric, > > Yes, I wasn't suggesting that Wiseman should have chosen mountain > illness, just pointing out that the character doesn't really justify > translation into mounting. Both are equally unsatisfactory as usable > terminology IMO. > > Nevertheless, Wiseman has had his best shot at providing a term > equivalent for shan4. My view is that even those that publish using > his terminology in general, have the choice, and should choose, not > to use mounting, and instead use shan accented appropriately. There > is no obligation to use his term choices and in this case the better > choice is not to do so. > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > I've always liked " mounding " for shan4. It comes from the same French > root as mounting but expresses the concept of a bulge which mounting > does not immediately convey. In order to really get " mounting " as used > in CM, one has to know the Chinese character and its pronounciation. > > Bob Thanks Bob. That is a prime example of how a term can refined, personalized, and improved upon. It shows that authors can maintain their own style of expression without sacrificing accountability to the reader. Eric > , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> > wrote: > > At 7:29 PM +0000 10/31/04, smilinglotus wrote: > > >I think that " mountain illness " was not chosen for two reasons: > > >1) the condition in Chinese does not seem to be consistently > > >characterized as a static noun, as in a substantial mountain, because > > >the word has an alternate nuance of suggesting and active process of > > >mounting up of qi (particularly cold). I don't think the term > > >mounting here refers to mounting as in mounting a horse, but rather > > >mounting as in accumulating. and 2) " illness " would not be typically > > >chosen to make a more cumbersome 2 word English expression out of a > > >single character. If we added the word illness with each disease > > >radical, the English expression would be too cumbersome. > > -- > > Eric, > > > > Yes, I wasn't suggesting that Wiseman should have chosen mountain > > illness, just pointing out that the character doesn't really justify > > translation into mounting. Both are equally unsatisfactory as usable > > terminology IMO. > > > > Nevertheless, Wiseman has had his best shot at providing a term > > equivalent for shan4. My view is that even those that publish using > > his terminology in general, have the choice, and should choose, not > > to use mounting, and instead use shan accented appropriately. There > > is no obligation to use his term choices and in this case the better > > choice is not to do so. > > > > Rory > > -- > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 At 9:28 PM +0000 11/1/04, Bob Flaws wrote: >I've always liked " mounding " for shan4. It comes from the same French >root as mounting but expresses the concept of a bulge which mounting >does not immediately convey. In order to really get " mounting " as used >in CM, one has to know the Chinese character and its pronounciation. -- Bob, Its slightly more appealing than mounting, but suffers from the same problem that it is a verb, not a noun. The noun is mound. Mounding used as a noun is therefore not English, so can't be considered an English term equivalent for shan4, which is a noun. Another problem so far as Wiseman's terminology is concerned is that mound is the term used for ling2 (see his Glossary p.170) Note also that in his Glossary, Wiseman chose not to offer an English term for shan4; the right choice IMO. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Monday, November 01, 2004 6:44 PM > > Re: Further Mounting / Shan / Bulging > > > > , " Bob Flaws " > <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > > > I've always liked " mounding " for shan4. It comes from the same French > > root as mounting but expresses the concept of a bulge which mounting > > does not immediately convey. In order to really get " mounting " as used > > in CM, one has to know the Chinese character and its pronounciation. > > > > Bob > > Thanks Bob. That is a prime example of how a term can refined, > personalized, and improved upon. It shows that authors can maintain > their own style of expression without sacrificing accountability to > the reader. > [Jason] Yet for some reason you deny Bensky the same courtesy to use his own term? What gives?? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 , Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...> wrote: >> Its slightly more appealing than mounting, but suffers from the same > problem that it is a verb, not a noun. The noun is mound. Mounding > used as a noun is therefore not English, so can't be considered an > English term equivalent for shan4, which is a noun. > > Another problem so far as Wiseman's terminology is concerned is that > mound is the term used for ling2 (see his Glossary p.170) > > Note also that in his Glossary, Wiseman chose not to offer an English > term for shan4; the right choice IMO. Keep in mind with mounting/mounding is that the Chinese term is not necessarily a noun in all situations. It has the potential to include activity and a pathological process. Ling2 as in mound, seems to only appear in the literature as a compound term describing acupuncture points or medicinal names, since it doesn't appear on its own (that I am aware of in my limited knowledge), I think the potential for misunderstanding is reduced. Perhaps the existence of this term as mound was a factor in Nigel's decision for choosing the word mounting (I have no idea there, I only know that he considered mountain). I'm not sure what the glossary you are referring to that doesn't give an English word for shan4 is. Perhaps it is reflecting an older term that has evolved over time into the present " mounting. " Regardless, I think that if you prefer to leave the word shan4 in a text in pinyin (preferably referenced with a footnote the first time it comes up), I don't think your readers will suffer any lack of clarity. Susceptibility/frequency is the only major CM homophone, and that is not a term that anyone is likely to leave in a pinyin form. Eric At 9:28 PM +0000 11/1/04, Bob Flaws wrote: > >I've always liked " mounding " for shan4. It comes from the same French > >root as mounting but expresses the concept of a bulge which mounting > >does not immediately convey. In order to really get " mounting " as used > >in CM, one has to know the Chinese character and its pronounciation. > -- > Bob, > > Its slightly more appealing than mounting, but suffers from the same > problem that it is a verb, not a noun. The noun is mound. Mounding > used as a noun is therefore not English, so can't be considered an > English term equivalent for shan4, which is a noun. > > Another problem so far as Wiseman's terminology is concerned is that > mound is the term used for ling2 (see his Glossary p.170) > > Note also that in his Glossary, Wiseman chose not to offer an English > term for shan4; the right choice IMO. > > Rory > -- > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > [Jason] > Yet for some reason you deny Bensky the same courtesy to use his own term? > What gives?? > > - In Flaw's books, every major word in English is clearly traceable to its Chinese origin; his exception such as mounding is pegged to the Chinese. Bensky's bulging is equally pegged to the Chinese. However, beyond the 59 glossed characters, the other several hundred words appearing in the text have no means of referencing them to his source texts. Eric > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > Monday, November 01, 2004 6:44 PM > > > > Re: Further Mounting / Shan / Bulging > > > > > > > > , " Bob Flaws " > > <pemachophel2001> wrote: > > > > > > I've always liked " mounding " for shan4. It comes from the same French > > > root as mounting but expresses the concept of a bulge which mounting > > > does not immediately convey. In order to really get " mounting " as used > > > in CM, one has to know the Chinese character and its pronounciation. > > > > > > Bob > > > > Thanks Bob. That is a prime example of how a term can refined, > > personalized, and improved upon. It shows that authors can maintain > > their own style of expression without sacrificing accountability to > > the reader. > > > [Jason] > Yet for some reason you deny Bensky the same courtesy to use his own term? > What gives?? > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 At 9:49 AM +0000 11/2/04, smilinglotus wrote: >I'm not sure what the glossary you are referring to that doesn't give >an English word for shan4 is. -- Wiseman & Boss, Glossary of Chinese Medical Terms and Acupuncture Points. Paradigm Publications 1990. Page 228. Rory -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:06 AM > > Re: Further Mounting / Shan / Bulging > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > [Jason] > > Yet for some reason you deny Bensky the same courtesy to use his own > term? > > What gives?? > > > > - > > > In Flaw's books, every major word in English is clearly traceable to > its Chinese origin; his exception such as mounding is pegged to the > Chinese. Bensky's bulging is equally pegged to the Chinese. However, > beyond the 59 glossed characters, the other several hundred words > appearing in the text have no means of referencing them to his source > texts. [Jason] This is true, and although a different issue, I think Dan should make an effort to resolve it. I think that his gloss should be made public. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 On 03/11/2004, at 1:07 AM, wrote: >> , " " >> <@c...> wrote: >>> [Jason] >>> Yet for some reason you deny Bensky the same courtesy to use his own >> term? >>> What gives?? >>> >>> - >> >> >> In Flaw's books, every major word in English is clearly traceable to >> its Chinese origin; his exception such as mounding is pegged to the >> Chinese. Bensky's bulging is equally pegged to the Chinese. However, >> beyond the 59 glossed characters, the other several hundred words >> appearing in the text have no means of referencing them to his source >> texts. > [Jason] > This is true, and although a different issue, I think Dan should make > an > effort to resolve it. I think that his gloss should be made public. > > -Jason > > Hi Jason, Eric and All, I wholeheartedly agree that Dan should make his gloss publicly available. To be honest I can't think of a good reason to deny his readership this service. I can only think of less than generous reasons why it remains an in-house " secret " of Eastland Press. At any rate, if it is only 300 terms as some have suggested; public scrutiny may be too revealing in regards to the depth and coverage of basic TCM technical terms actually used when compared to the publicly available Wiseman terminology. The only other possible reason I can think of at the moment for it remaining secret is a " business " one. Perhaps something along the lines that releasing it would allow new texts to be published by others that use the terminology and enter the market of student textbooks assigned for examination purposes and thus the biggest market in TCM publishing; the education sector. Does anyone know of other reasons why it remains a so difficult to obtain? Dan's silence on the whole terminology debate seems rather deafening to me (perhaps the US has greater access to him ideas through seminars etc.). I know the terminology debate can be a frustrating and controversial one, and perhaps he has no need to enter the debate when he holds many of the cards by default and thus does not feel the need to explain his position or term choices as he has nothing to gain; just something to lose. Best Wishes, Steve Dr. Steven J Slater Practitioner and Acupuncturist Mobile: 0437 033 500 chinese_medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 > Its slightly more appealing than mounting, but suffers from the same > problem that it is a verb, not a noun. The noun is mound. Mounding > used as a noun is therefore not English, so can't be considered an > English term equivalent for shan4, which is a noun. You're assuming that Chinese words can be divided into parts of speech the same as English. I don't think this is correct. When reframed into English grammatical principles and divisions, a Chinese word can be a noun, a verb, an adjective, or a gerund. Since this is an active disease process, use of a gerund form may very well be appropriate. (BTW, you can also argue over what the concept of a word is in Chinese.) > Another problem so far as Wiseman's terminology is concerned is that > mound is the term used for ling2 (see his Glossary p.170) Agreed. This is a problem. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.