Guest guest Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 With all the confusion and barrage of emails I want to clarify my stance on Wiseman Terminology in a simple and concise manner because my words have been twisted and misrepresented. 1. I never said that Wiseman terms were wrong or that I could translate any term better than he. I use Wiseman terms everyday and generally have no problems with them. 2. I have only said that there are *times* (infrequent at that) that WT does not work, and modifications i.e. footnotes, have to be made. (Wiseman, himself, has agreed that this is true). He, himself, has said the PD indeed leaves lots of holes and we are constantly finding places where the PD terminology does not fit. That is exactly the point I (Jason) was making. I see that many of my points have been misconstrued and presented as if I have said something I didn't say. Things obviously have not been clear. I see no debate, because we really are saying the same things on the above issues. I would appreciate that my ideas and words, in future, are presented accurately. - tel: <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature like this? 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: > > > With all the confusion and barrage of emails I want to clarify my stance on > Wiseman Terminology in a simple and concise manner because my words have > been twisted and misrepresented. Sorry that you feel that your words have been misinterpreted. I certainly have never intended anything as a personal attack, to either you or to Dan Bensky. It is purely an academic debate that has nothing to do anything personal whatsoever. I have always gotten along with you personally and have respect for your intelligence; I have never met Dan personally but I have seen him lecture and he seems to be quite an intelligent guy as well. The debate we have going on simply reflects our opinions of translation standards and technical application of CM terms. We all need to learn how to debate on such issues if we are to work on publications using different translation methodologies. We must be able to explain our translations and the methods we used to achieve them. I have been getting on your case because you have stated that the terms are wrong but you have not offered any English renditions of the terms, only pinyin without explanations. Obviously, character display is problematic, but I think that supplementing pinyin with English will make the meaning more clear and prevent any misinterpretations of what Chinese you are referring to, etc. Furthermore, I think that it is not necessarily correct to assume that the matter is too advanced to be understood and discussed by the members of the CHA group. I think that if English is used and alternate translations are discussed, it gives everyone a chance to be a part of the discussion and makes potentially useful wen bing information available. It gives everyone an insight into what the translator is thinking when they approach advanced works, and removes the language barrier and any suggestion that the information is only available to an elite few. After all, the point of translation is to make Chinese medical concepts transparent to all. > 1. I never said that Wiseman terms were wrong or that I could translate > any term better than he. I use Wiseman terms everyday and generally have no > problems with them. Sorry if my words did not portray this impression. I was thought you were saying that there were many times when the words didn't fit. > 2. I have only said that there are *times* (infrequent at that) that WT > does not work, and modifications i.e. footnotes, have to be made. (Wiseman, > himself, has agreed that this is true). He, himself, has said the PD indeed > leaves lots of holes and we are constantly finding places where the PD > terminology does not fit. That is exactly the point I (Jason) was making. I think the main point then that everyone is making is that people should reference their nuanced translations with footnotes. Having turf wars over basic terms seems like it inhibits the transmission of CM just as it would have done to WM transmission in the Orient if people didn't agree on basic translations to use as a standard. If there were any developed standards besides Wiseman, it would be more of an open question. Since his standard is the only one that is developed and defined, it makes sense to use it and to footnote differences. If there are places where PD terms are not yet developed to fit the literature, all we can do is to try to develop definitions for these terms so that they become part of the knowledge base accessible to all. Of course such places will exist due to the vastness of the subject (which I think I can safely assume is one of your key points). The fact remains that these places are the exception rather than the rule, which leads me to think that PD terms with footnotes is the best solution for accurate literature. Those who prefer a variety of terms and flexible translations will always have books to write and readers to read them, but when I choose which style I would like to employ, my feelings are clear. Any debate that terms should be translated loosely or that reference books do not require references will need to be handled with evidence of greater efficacy, not simply opinions and emotions (and I am not implying that you are doing this, Jason). I know people really just want to learn and get to the heart of the matter, and ideally we all approach the subject with an open mind. Respectfully, Eric Brand > I see that many of my points have been misconstrued and presented as if I > have said something I didn't say. Things obviously have not been clear. I > see no debate, because we really are saying the same things on the above > issues. > > > I would appreciate that my ideas and words, in future, are presented > accurately. > > > > - > > > tel: > > > > > > > > > <https://www.plaxo.com/add_me?u=30064918855 & v0=295000 & k0=1975548621> Add me > to your address book... <http://www.plaxo.com/signature> Want a signature > like this? > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I have only said that there are *times* (infrequent at that) that WT does not work, and modifications i.e. footnotes, have to be made. (Wiseman, himself, has agreed that this is true). He, himself, has said the PD indeed leaves lots of holes and we are constantly finding places where the PD terminology does not fit. That is exactly the point I (Jason) was making. >>>>>At the same time if one looks at the dictionary the vast majority of the term are clear and the fact that wiseman et al have chosen on word as compared to another make very little difference. Just take any of the letters and go through it. How many of the definitions or terms are more clear of really different than any other choice. Do people think it really make a difference to the English reader if one calls a pulse bowstring or wiry? Alon 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] > > Furthermore, I think that it is not necessarily correct to assume that > the matter is too advanced to be understood and discussed by the > members of the CHA group. I think that if English is used and > alternate translations are discussed, it gives everyone a chance to be > a part of the discussion and makes potentially useful wen bing > information available. [Jason] 1 last time: CHA does not support the display of characters! One MUST look at the Chinese (original text) and evaluate such issues in the context. Offering an alterative translation vs. Wiseman's and having the CHA 'vote' is just not possible without the Chinese (as well as someone versed in wenbing time period translation and understanding). You have proved this point in your next post, it is beyond the scope of most on the CHA... You said you couldn't evaluate it yourself and took it to Feng Ye.. Fine, but how are the CHA people going to have any clue without the Chinese Characters & Context? If you have a solution let me know. > > Sorry if my words did not portray this impression. I was thought you > were saying that there were many times when the words didn't fit. > [Jason] Finally there are MANY times that the PD does not work, as Wiseman, himself, has attested to. But as I have also attested, WT works the majority of the time. I think this *MANY* is taken to drastically. - 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: CHA does not support the display of characters! Actually you can post from an email program that supports characters and then adjust your browser encoding to read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 > > > Tuesday, November 02, 2004 10:56 PM > > Re: Correcting misrepresentations > > > > , " " <@c...> > wrote: > CHA does not support the display of characters! > > > Actually you can post from an email program that supports characters and > then adjust > your browser encoding to read them. > [Jason] I did that, could you read my characters? Eric could not... -Jason 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.