RE: cd dictionary

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Friday, November 05, 2004 8:26 PM

>

> Re: cd dictionary

>

>

>

> Jason wrote me and was offended by this post. This was NOT my

> intention at all. I think Jason has offered some good ideas and

> points through the discussion. I never thought he was acting out of

> any malicious intent whatsoever. I have always thought that Jason

> just takes a neutral scholastic stance and wants to accurately get at

> the heart of CM literature. I certainly wasn't trying to give him any

> offense or disrespect in any way. I respect that he can think

> critically and analyze complex points in the medicine.

>

> I was trying to say why emotions were so strong. I didn't mean to

> imply in any way that Jason has been anything less than honorable. I

> only meant to say that we should focus on the positives of the CD

> dictionary instead of the minor differences between our

> interpretations. I certainly meant no offense and was attempting to

> make it clear that I felt that Jason is sincerely committed to

> authentic Chinese medicine and has been a good force in promoting

> diverse thoughts. I was apologizing for my getting personally

> involved and was trying to assert that I have a personal respect for

> Jason. I was just trying to say that he should understand that his

> words of criticism affect real people and that he should be conscious

> to avoid causing them undue offense when their work is very solid. If

> this message didn't come out right, I apologize. I certainly meant

> Jason no personal harm here at all. I just said it would have been

> nicer for him to ask Nigel directly about things that he had comments

> on rather than painting a picture that Nigel's work was

> misrepresenting concepts and leaving large gaps. That's all. Nothing

> more, certainly nothing personal!

>

> Jason, I'm sorry that you felt that I was misrepresenting you. I

> didn't intend to do you any harm. I know that you didn't intend to do

> any harm to Nigel, either. I guess our words sometimes are taken

> personally even when we don't intend them to be. You weren't trying

> to insult Nigel but I thought you were painting a picture that he had

> mistakes in his terms that you discovered every week.

[Jason]

I do want to clarify this statement, which probably has caused more

misunderstanding that anything. Although there were a few weeks in a row

that went by that we found an instance (every week) that the WT was not

really nailing the term, this is not the norm. And my statement in the whole

scheme of things can be said to be an exaggeration by me. To elaborate, not

only do I translate on a daily basis, but participate in a translation class

and many times I / WE translate obscure stuff. Sometimes quite obscure or

dated. In such works there are still only a few examples that are

questionable, But they do exist... I meant in no way to portray that it was

like every other word was said to be wrong. NO, not at all... Maybe 1 word

/ term every once in awhile might be questionable. But literally 1000's

that go by without a hitch... Errors are rarely (in the whole scheme of

things) found from my perspective, but from people like Bensky there are

probably more, or he has more beef more of the time, because he not only

reads more, is much more educated in Chinese (than I), and has his own ideas

of what is correct. I just wanted (in the beginning) to defend his freedom

to choose alternatives as he sees fit. But, as Eric points out, they should

be footnoted. Unless IMO they are 100% transparent. So I apologize if my

above exaggeration contributed to this mess... and I still defend Bensky's

freedom to pick his own terms and translate his own way..

 

I also think we should focus on the positive of the CD and I was not by any

means trying to harp on the negative. I hope that is clear. It is an

incredible piece of work.

 

-