Nigel on Terms

[Guest guest]

This is (thankfully) unrelated to all the other stuff, and is more of

a general thing on terminology by Nigel Wiseman. Begin:

 

From N. Wiseman

 

At a recent meeting in Shàngh & #462;i on the standardization of Chinese

medical terminology, Ted Kapchuk raised the question of the

translation of hua4 shi1 (in our terminology, transform dampness),

zao4 shi2 (dry dampness), and li4 shi1 (disinhibit dampness). He

pointed out that it has probably only been in the last century that

these terms have come to denote eliminating dampness from the upper

burner, center burner, and lower burner respectively, and fixed

equivalents in English for these terms might not be suitable for the

translation of these terms in a premodern context.

I answered Ted saying that our English translations of these terms

were literal translations that simply related to the English reader

the content of the Chinese terms that for good or for bad where chosen

by Chinese physicians of the past. Whether or not these Chinese terms

in the past denoted a systematic correspondence to each of the burners

made absolutely no difference. Hua4 means to transform, zao4 means to

dry (or dryness), and li4 means disinhibit. Through our terminology,

we are simply transmitting what the Chinese terms literally mean.

There may have been times when these terms did not denote the same

connections with the three burners. However, our terms are simply

literal translation, and they do not presume connections with the

burners any more than the Chinese terms. They can be used to

represent the concepts in their modern meanings (implying certain

relationships). They can also be used to represent ancient meanings

(without specific relationships), just as the Chinese terms.

I don't know whether Ted understood what I meant. But he did not

raise any further questions.

Standardization of English equivalents for Chinese terms does not mean

any fatal standardization of Chinese medical knowledge,

standardization of clinical practice, or standardization of anything

else but words. The reason for this is quite simple. If five

different people use five different English terms for one and the same

Chinese concept, then how will readers know whether the five different

writers mean the same thing or something different, especially when

writers don't tell us the original Chinese terms. The chief argument

against standardization is that Chinese terms are polysemous (have

multiple meanings). We recognize polysemy. When we translate a term

that has different meanings, then we try to find a literal English

expression that covers all the meanings. If that fails, we provide

different translation for the same word. For example hua2 we have

translated slippery (pulse), glossy (tongue), and efflux (diarrhea).

Numerous terms in Practical Dictionary have multiple definitions owing

to the problem of polysemy. Standardizing English terms does limit

all terms to one meaning.

Proponents of alternative health-care tend to associate the word

" standardization " with square tomatoes. The standardization of

English terms is regimentation for regimentation's sake. It makes the

information clearer to the student of Chinese medicine. If, if in

particular sub-field, there are five Chinese terms, one of which, say,

has two meanings, then we need no more than six terms in English. At

the present time, we probably have about 20 terms instead. We have a

Tower of Babel that prevents students from expanding their knowledge

efficiently.

Standardization is not limiting in any way for readers. In fact,

quite the opposite, it is liberating because finely instead of

constantly wondering whether different terms in different books mean

the same thing or something different or even if the same terms

actually really do mean the same thing ( " worry, " for example, is used

by different writers to denote the affects of different viscera).

When terms are standardized, students will know that whatever book

they read, each term denotes the same concept. If they don't

understand the concept, they can go to a dictionary and find the

definition. Term standardization makes learning easier and gives

students the confidence that they know what they know and can express

it clearly, instead of being in a wish-washy world of an unclear language.

Standardization is limiting for translators, because it means that

instead of translating a term by the first thing that comes into their

head, they have to look up the term in a list. Because Chinese

medicine has so many terms, translators need constantly to keep

checking terms if they are to use a terminology consistently. Even my

colleagues and I who have devised the PD terminology continually have

to look up terms in the database to make sure we are always using our

standard equivalents for each Chinese term. If we had wooed ourselves

into a dream where we were persuaded that Chinese terms have so many

different meanings that it simply is not worth fixing English

equivalents for them, then of course we would have been spared all the

work of creating terms lists and dictionaries and the work of looking

up terms when we are translating.

When considering the arguments from the people who says Chinese

medicine does not have a large set of terms with definite meanings,

please just consider for one moment what the opposite position

entails. It entails the immense work of writing terms lists and

dictionaries. It is well-known among dictionary makers that making

new dictionaries is very unprofitable for all involved. When we

started planning the Practical Dictionary of , there

were a couple of dictionaries on the market that sold about 5 copies a

year. The Practical Dictionary of took 10 years of

my time as well as a good deal of other people's time. We realized

that it was necessary to have dictionaries to standardize terminology,

so it was something we could not just skip. Yet we realized at the

same time that we had to spend huge amounts of hours convincing the

world that all this was necessary. Of course, we could have simply

spent those ten years or more churning out books for a market that did

not see the value of having a terminology as precise as (but no more

precise than) the Chinese terminology. We would have made far more

money and had far fewer worries. Practical Dictionary was a huge

gamble both financially and psychologically. Sales may never pay for

the hours put into it. Nevertheless, the fact that it sells not 5,

but 500, copies a year (a sales figure larger than that of the average

Chinese medical book) shows that it was worth while in terms of

advancing Chinese medicine in the West. People are getting the

message about the terminological issue.

So when judging the two sides of the terminology issue, please

consider the relative investment of the two sides. Doing due justice

to Chinese medicine and true service to its Western recipients takes

far more effort and than the " no terminology " guys have put in and

yields fewer monetary rewards than they have reaped.

[Guest guest]

The reason for this is quite simple. If five

different people use five different English terms for one and the same

Chinese concept,

>>>>>Well W just said that he is simply translating a literal word, he admits

that as " terms " they may have different meaning at different times (as Ted

stated), and then again suddenly stating these are terms not just literal word

translation as he just claimed. This is were the entire argument lies. You can

not have it both ways, either you see the different ways words are used to

describe terms differently throughout CM history or not. If they were than a

standard English term is meaningless

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " alon marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

You can not have it both ways, either you see the different ways words are used

to

describe terms differently throughout CM history or not. If they were than a

standard

English term is meaningless

 

I think this discussion needs to end. People are just yelling across each other

and no

headway has been made. Similar comments by you have been rebutted numerous

times,

but you continue to make the same case over and over again. If you or anyone

else thinks

the point of technical translation is connotative transparency, then we begin

with different

initial premises and the argument becomes one of apples and oranges. I assume

the goal

is to get the last word in on the topic and thereby assume defacto victory. But

I can assure

you it is an empty victory. While connotative translation dominates basic

texts, wiseman

overwhelmingly dominates advanced herbal texts at this time. I certainly have

no interest

in trying to change the minds of those who have not budged one iota on this

matter in all

the years I have known them. it is a complete and utter waste of my time, much

like

american politics. Those in differing camps should just proceed as they see fit

and let

history be the judge.

 

[Guest guest]

On 07/11/2004, at 5:03 AM, alon marcus wrote:

 

>

> The reason for this is quite simple. If five

> different people use five different English terms for one and the same

> Chinese concept,

>>>>>> Well W just said that he is simply translating a literal word, he

>>>>>> admits that as " terms " they may have different meaning at

>>>>>> different times (as Ted stated), and then again suddenly stating

>>>>>> these are terms not just literal word translation as he just

>>>>>> claimed. This is were the entire argument lies. You can not have

>>>>>> it both ways, either you see the different ways words are used to

>>>>>> describe terms differently throughout CM history or not. If they

>>>>>> were than a standard English term is meaningless

> alon

>

 

It certainly is not meaningless if the standard English term can be

traced to the original chinese character. Nuances or differences in

meaning can be found in dictionaries or elaborations in the text body

itself or footnotes. If a term has had different meanings throughout CM

history then it is still a standard term/character......the meanings in

context may need to be elaborated upon, but the character is still the

same character. So, having a standard English term (or terms) for a

character is no less clear or confusing than it would be in Chinese.

Further, on the occasions that Wiseman does have several standard terms

for the same Chinese character to give a better indication of its

use.....it is STILL pegged to the original Chinese. If you don't know

what a certain standard term is, then look it up in the dictionary or

glossary.

 

The key reason for developing a " standard " is being able to trace the

term back to Chinese on all occasions. If an author uses ANY term that

can't be traced, then we are relying on that authors interpretation of

the use of a Chinese term (which may have different meanings throughout

history) having no way to know if the term is one meaning or

interpretation of a Chinese character or term that may have many.

 

If you have a better system than the Wiseman approach for english TCM,

I am sure we would all love to hear what that is.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

.. it is a complete and utter waste of my time, much like

american politics. Todd

 

 

ann:

huh. :-|

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

still a standard term/character......the meanings in

context may need to be elaborated upon, but the character is still the

same character.

>>>Another way is to give the translator the freedom to choose a situation

specific English term, and that is all we are arguing for

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

wiseman

overwhelmingly dominates advanced herbal texts at this time

>>>So you think the new bensky is not " advanced, " interesting

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 09/11/2004, at 3:04 AM, Alon Marcus wrote:

 

>

> still a standard term/character......the meanings in

> context may need to be elaborated upon, but the character is still the

> same character.

>>>> Another way is to give the translator the freedom to choose a

>>>> situation specific English term, and that is all we are arguing for

> Alon

>

Translators ARE given the freedom to choose a situation specific

English term and Wiseman does this himself when the need arises. The

point is that any such term should be traceable to a character and have

a definition so the reader can relate it to other texts that may use a

different terminology. Wiseman's approach allows this cross-referencing

if others also link there terms to a character.

 

Nobody is saying Wiseman's term choices are the ONLY viable ones, it is

his approach and academic transparency that is what I think many are

asking for from other authors. If ANY author chooses a situation

specific term and does not give the character and a definition for how

they are using it in the context of their writing OR have another

mechanism such as a glossary......it is an interpretation that gives

the reader no recourse to further investigate and/or interpret the

information either as the author intends it or others have used that

term before.

 

Wiseman terminology or his approach to translation is not some evil

cabal who's aim is too take over the TCM world. Listening to the

counter-arguments would have me believe that this is what a FEW think

it is. Their arguments seem to be based on fear or some loss of

freedom; however it is just a loss of presenting personal

interpretations as generally accepted facts and in a way that prevents

academic evaluation by one's peers. Maybe those who are so vocal

against Wiseman's approach have something to hide.......I can't see any

other logic reason for reacting so close-minded.

 

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

The

point is that any such term should be traceable to a character and have

a definition so the reader can relate it to other texts that may use a

different terminology. Wiseman's approach allows this cross-referencing

if others also link there terms to a character.

 

>>>>>>I have no problem with this. At the same time i have no problem with books

such as the management of cancer with chinese medicine (li peiwen) which only

gives definitions for about 18 terms in its glossary and still does an excellent

job at conveying good clinical information (which to me is what it is all

about). So again let diversity prosper

Alon