Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 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. I guess I misinterpreted you. I have always had respect for Jason and will always continue to. Sorry if that is unclear at all. It is not intended as such. Sincerely, Eric , " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > All, > > Certainly the term debate brings out strong emotions. I apologize for > allowing myself to lose my temper at times and am sorry for being > overly personal in my desire to defend Nigel's terms from the repeated > criticism that they have been subjected to. Perhaps I can elucidate > why the topic got me riled up to the point that I began to lose my cool. > > The CD dictionary represents the sum total of Nigel's work for the > past 20 years in term development. While it took a great deal of work > and has a significant value, he chose to release it at no charge in > hopes of benefiting the TCM community and helping translators like > Jason and myself to have more efficiency and clarity in our work. > From the very beginning, it was clearly stated that the software was > in a beta version, an initial trial that was given out for free to > target parties in hopes of receiving suggestions on new terms to be > added, discrepancies, and comments on areas to improve clarity. It > was always hoped that the CD dic would be a tool that would be > appreciated and would be a source of more inspiration than criticism, > as it is the largest resource we have in English to create the > backbone of a translation standard. > > In an ideal world, constructive comments, questions, and criticisms > would be given to Nigel initially as soon as they were discovered so > that he could either clarify his reasons for his term choices, or > improve any holes or flaws that existed so that future editions and > future users would benefit. The CD dic was not presented as a > finalized work, but rather a working copy that could be edited and > improved through diverse applications and use, given for free in its > trial stages to generate feedback and correct errors for the release > of later versions when all the minor typos (delirium is spelled wrong > in one place, for example) and consensus on debated terms could be > achieved. > > The reason I was so easily upset by Jason's repeated comments was > because we gave him a cd dic in hopes of benefiting his translations > and giving him a useful tool. Rather than taking things up privately > with Nigel on term ideas, he latched on to a single term that he feels > is inconsistent and has used the cd dictionary as a means of > discrediting Nigel's work publicly. He has made vocal contentions of > errors within it and terms that are not yet integrated into it, > without giving Nigel the courtesy of investigating the sources of > contention and offering him the chance to correct the database or > provide evidence for why it is already correct before launching his > tirades on the online forum. It would have been a far more > professional and amicable thing to have simply done what we asked him > to do when we gave him the disc- to note new terms to add and let us > know if any discrepancies were found. While I know Jason has > essentially good intentions, it seemed like Nigel's work was getting > trashed in public over the 0.1% of problems rather than being praised > for the 99.9% accuracy. > > Naturally, Nigel's supporters, such as myself, have been on the > defensive to assert the integrity of the database and translation > system. I have had my emotions get the better of me because I was > annoyed that a tool meant to better the profession has been used as a > method of discrediting Nigel's life work. If I had half the brains of > a monkey I would have not gotten riled up and would have been more > confucian in my relations and more conscious to keep my arguments from > getting personal. I know that Jason wasn't trying to discredit Nigel > or devalue the CD dictionary, but others can latch on to selective > parts of his arguments and take them on tangents beyond the context > that Jason intended. > > Jason, I know you appreciate the CD dictionary, the PD, the Paradigm > works, etc, and meant Nigel no offense. I understand that you just > wanted to illustrate the vastness of CM literature and the degree of > possible interpretations. But can you imagine how you would feel if > you had suffered through twenty years of political wrangling simply to > produce something that you felt was an important asset to the > community, only to have some new translators take the free disc that > you gave them (in hopes of helping them) and use it to broadcast > sparsely elaborated criticisms to a list of a thousand professionals? > If you have criticisms, wouldn't it be more polite to bring them up > privately and see if a solution could be reached before you start > launching an assault on a man's life work on an online forum? I > imagine that Nigel's work feels thankless enough as it is without > having his personal gift to you be used to degrade his work publicly. > > Jason, I realize this wasn't your intention, but you have to take into > account that it came across that way. I also realize that you ended > up elaborating your criticisms and points, but all this long exchange > really only ended up coming down to a single, long, pre-modern term > and how it could be tweaked. I know that you weren't trying to insult > Nigel or his work. I don't think you had any bad intentions, and I do > think that you raised some interesting questions. I just think that > you have to take into account that a scholar like Nigel is a human > being with feelings who takes pride in his work, he has contributed > 30,000 terms in a searchable database and really doesn't need so much > bandwidth bashing him to nitpick one obscure term instead of the > merits of the other 29,999 wonderfully researched terms(especially > when that one term is basically correct, if not quite to your liking). > > Readers, I apologize that my emotional reaction to this injustice got > the better of me in this drawn-out thread. We have thus far had one > term out of 30,000 that has been a topic of contention because it is > not anally literal enough, though its accuracy within its context > appears perfectly valid. We don't have any examples of a definition > that has been proven to be invalid, and (minus Bensky's 59 pegged > terms, Giovanni's 50+ terms, and Chen's 140+ terms), we have still > over 29,800 references available to us that we have never had before. > Furthermore, it is a resource that took 20 years to make and is given > away for free to those who know how to use it. Why it is the source > of so much criticism and so little praise is a great mystery to me. > Maybe it has a majority of quiet appreciators and a minority of vocal > critics, but the loudness of the criticisms really drowns out the > continual applause in the background. (Again, I am not singling out > Jason here, as Jason largely respects Wiseman's terms and is hardly > his biggest critic by any stretch of the imagination.) > > I use the cd dictionary every day and it has made my entire study of > TCM Chinese much faster, more insightful, and more pleasurable; it has > not created any confusion for me in any way. I think that an entire > generation of students will come to realize it as the single greatest > tool we have (combined with the PD and the dozens of interrelated > works by Paradigm and Blue Poppy) for approaching Chinese language and > advancing the westward transmission of CM. I have not experienced any > confusion or misinterpretations by using it, but I would have had an > endless amount of confusion and potential misinterpretations without it. > > All I have to say to Nigel is thank you. I think that if other > scholars spent their time working with him and making suggestions > instead of using any trivial inconsistencies as ammunition against > him, the work would continue to advance at a wonderful pace and > generations of TCMers in the West would regard this stage in the > history of TCM as one of the greatest leaps forward thus far achieved. > > Sincerely, > Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > The reason I was so easily upset by Jason's repeated comments was > because we gave him a cd dic in hopes of benefiting his translations > and giving him a useful tool. Rather than taking things up privately > with Nigel on term ideas, he latched on to a single term that he feels > is inconsistent and has used the cd dictionary as a means of > discrediting Nigel's work publicly. He has made vocal contentions of > errors within it and terms that are not yet integrated into it, > without giving Nigel the courtesy of investigating the sources of > contention and offering him the chance to correct the database or > provide evidence for why it is already correct before launching his > tirades on the online forum. It would have been a far more > professional and amicable thing to have simply done what we asked him > to do when we gave him the disc- to note new terms to add and let us > know if any discrepancies were found. While I know Jason has > essentially good intentions, it seemed like Nigel's work was getting > trashed in public over the 0.1% of problems rather than being praised > for the 99.9% accuracy. [Jason] Once, again I will defend these slanderous UNTRUE remarks. Let us be clear here. 1st - I have always appreciated Nigel's work and of course appreciate Eric and Nigel giving this CD to me. I have never intended nor tried to discredit his work publicly! I have not denied praising Nigel's work (as suggested) and we have only been focusing on the lesser % because Eric et al. has been constantly asking for this. 2nd - I did not latch on to 'one term' to try to discredit Nigel's work! This is preposterous, untrue and slanderous. I was asked to produce an example of where the WT did not fit. Just because I am defending (my example) and trying to show why people believe that this term does not fit, DOES NOT mean I am trying to discredit his work. Eric, with this line of thinking, would you say that you are trying to discredit Bensky's work because you not only called his terms simplified (therefore his concepts), but you have presented an EXMAPLE of such. Should I start yelling how you have no respect for his life work? Should I say that since your 1st example didn't pan out that by you searching for a second, means that you really want to prove that Dan's work is BS... ???? Come on... [bTW - I have (indirectly) sent your example to Dan, but have not looked at it myself.] Furthermore, The 1 term has been stuck with because not only is it juicy, but requires multi-layers of explanation and analysis to understand (as we have seen).. These topics are not black and white. Do you really think the CHA would put up with another debate of a second term... 3rd - I upfront said that such examples that I have seen were from obscure sources, yet I was dragged into presenting them... Now my example is 'just from an obscure source' - Yes precisely - Most of the time, especially in mainstream writings, Nigel's work is dead on, is it that surprising that the obscure / time period sources do not fit 100% of the time with all of WTs... This is what I said originally... This just seems like a no-brainer. I just am still wondering why everyone wanted to harp on seeing such examples. Very puzzling. 4th - This idea that I should have taken this up privately and by presenting it publicly, I am not professional, is complete BS. Eric, over & over, you have asked me to present this publicly. I not only was harassed, but my attempts to take this private were publicly denied! Eric knows that privately I contacted him (in the beginning) to see if Wiseman was interested in hearing my examples. Eric said, 'send them to me', yet publicly, he kept badgering me into presenting them on the CHA. Now, when I did present something, and explained in detail why I think the term is not 100% accurate, I somehow am trying to discredit Nigel's work...?? So, the new comeback (above) is that the CD is just a work in progress and of course has holes like terms that are not in there (like 1 of the examples that I presented - only because I was asked to). I find it funny that because the CD is a work in progress that I have no right to show errors in it... I was specifically asked to show the errors publicly. Trust me I wanted to not get into this on the CHA! I think that if only people would have just admitted that the CD was a work in progress and understood that of course there are going to be some errors somewhere, from the beginning, and not interpreted my stating of this obvious observation as slander towards Nigel, or his work, there would not have been this huge waste of time... 5th - This idea that I used Nigel's own CD to 'go against' him is outrageous. 1st the term I picked is also in his green dictionary. 2nd- I was asked to present an example from the CD or PD that did not fit somewhere. What else I am going to use but the CD / PD (to get the example)?????? I HAVE NOT tried to discredit his work. Saying that I can't present an example from the CD because the CD is a work in progress is a cop out. Of course it is, as with any term set. Where did you want me to get the term from? I think the fact that the CD is a work in progress sustains my point, there are always going to be times that things don't work in the PD, Bensky's gloss or whatever, and these can be updated. Nothing is perfect. And that has been my point from the beginning. You can disagree with my example, but by me saying that there are times that the PD does not work is not slanderous towards Nigel or his work, it is just a fact. For the record once again, these times are minimal in the whole scheme of things and his work is an incredible feat that has benefited our profession immensely. Remember this all started because I was defending Bensky's right of freedom to use non-Wiseman terms when he felt that a WT did not fit. We can see in the example presented, that 1 side says it fits and the other says it doesn't... Don't you think that the side that doesn't like the term because they feel it doesn't portray the Chinese 100% accurately should have the choice to use their own term? I do. I just think this shows that things are not black and white and there is room for everyone to learn from each other. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 I wasn't trying to say that Jason turned Nigel's cd dictionary against him at all (I fear that is how Jason took it). I know Jason greatly appreciates the cd dictionary. Maybe he just didn't fully realize that it is a work in progress and the best way to improve it is to offer some concise ways to improve certain terms that he feels aren't accurate to the Chinese, as well as to provide translations and definitions for things that are missing. We have always tried to get feedback from the beta version of the disc. I was only trying to say that feedback is more constructive when it proposes specific ideas to get worked into the terminology rather than to make larger statements that it leaves holes and mistranslations that are discovered weekly. Miscommunication all the way around makes me think I would be better off avoiding discussions like this altogether. I never intended an academic discussion to strain friendships and cause personal offense to multiple parties. I sincerely apologize to anyone who I have offended. , " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > 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. I guess I > misinterpreted you. > > I have always had respect for Jason and will always continue to. > Sorry if that is unclear at all. It is not intended as such. > > Sincerely, > Eric > > > > > > , " smilinglotus " > <smilinglotus> wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Certainly the term debate brings out strong emotions. I apologize for > > allowing myself to lose my temper at times and am sorry for being > > overly personal in my desire to defend Nigel's terms from the repeated > > criticism that they have been subjected to. Perhaps I can elucidate > > why the topic got me riled up to the point that I began to lose my > cool. > > > > The CD dictionary represents the sum total of Nigel's work for the > > past 20 years in term development. While it took a great deal of work > > and has a significant value, he chose to release it at no charge in > > hopes of benefiting the TCM community and helping translators like > > Jason and myself to have more efficiency and clarity in our work. > > From the very beginning, it was clearly stated that the software was > > in a beta version, an initial trial that was given out for free to > > target parties in hopes of receiving suggestions on new terms to be > > added, discrepancies, and comments on areas to improve clarity. It > > was always hoped that the CD dic would be a tool that would be > > appreciated and would be a source of more inspiration than criticism, > > as it is the largest resource we have in English to create the > > backbone of a translation standard. > > > > In an ideal world, constructive comments, questions, and criticisms > > would be given to Nigel initially as soon as they were discovered so > > that he could either clarify his reasons for his term choices, or > > improve any holes or flaws that existed so that future editions and > > future users would benefit. The CD dic was not presented as a > > finalized work, but rather a working copy that could be edited and > > improved through diverse applications and use, given for free in its > > trial stages to generate feedback and correct errors for the release > > of later versions when all the minor typos (delirium is spelled wrong > > in one place, for example) and consensus on debated terms could be > > achieved. > > > > The reason I was so easily upset by Jason's repeated comments was > > because we gave him a cd dic in hopes of benefiting his translations > > and giving him a useful tool. Rather than taking things up privately > > with Nigel on term ideas, he latched on to a single term that he feels > > is inconsistent and has used the cd dictionary as a means of > > discrediting Nigel's work publicly. He has made vocal contentions of > > errors within it and terms that are not yet integrated into it, > > without giving Nigel the courtesy of investigating the sources of > > contention and offering him the chance to correct the database or > > provide evidence for why it is already correct before launching his > > tirades on the online forum. It would have been a far more > > professional and amicable thing to have simply done what we asked him > > to do when we gave him the disc- to note new terms to add and let us > > know if any discrepancies were found. While I know Jason has > > essentially good intentions, it seemed like Nigel's work was getting > > trashed in public over the 0.1% of problems rather than being praised > > for the 99.9% accuracy. > > > > Naturally, Nigel's supporters, such as myself, have been on the > > defensive to assert the integrity of the database and translation > > system. I have had my emotions get the better of me because I was > > annoyed that a tool meant to better the profession has been used as a > > method of discrediting Nigel's life work. If I had half the brains of > > a monkey I would have not gotten riled up and would have been more > > confucian in my relations and more conscious to keep my arguments from > > getting personal. I know that Jason wasn't trying to discredit Nigel > > or devalue the CD dictionary, but others can latch on to selective > > parts of his arguments and take them on tangents beyond the context > > that Jason intended. > > > > Jason, I know you appreciate the CD dictionary, the PD, the Paradigm > > works, etc, and meant Nigel no offense. I understand that you just > > wanted to illustrate the vastness of CM literature and the degree of > > possible interpretations. But can you imagine how you would feel if > > you had suffered through twenty years of political wrangling simply to > > produce something that you felt was an important asset to the > > community, only to have some new translators take the free disc that > > you gave them (in hopes of helping them) and use it to broadcast > > sparsely elaborated criticisms to a list of a thousand professionals? > > If you have criticisms, wouldn't it be more polite to bring them up > > privately and see if a solution could be reached before you start > > launching an assault on a man's life work on an online forum? I > > imagine that Nigel's work feels thankless enough as it is without > > having his personal gift to you be used to degrade his work publicly. > > > > Jason, I realize this wasn't your intention, but you have to take into > > account that it came across that way. I also realize that you ended > > up elaborating your criticisms and points, but all this long exchange > > really only ended up coming down to a single, long, pre-modern term > > and how it could be tweaked. I know that you weren't trying to insult > > Nigel or his work. I don't think you had any bad intentions, and I do > > think that you raised some interesting questions. I just think that > > you have to take into account that a scholar like Nigel is a human > > being with feelings who takes pride in his work, he has contributed > > 30,000 terms in a searchable database and really doesn't need so much > > bandwidth bashing him to nitpick one obscure term instead of the > > merits of the other 29,999 wonderfully researched terms(especially > > when that one term is basically correct, if not quite to your liking). > > > > Readers, I apologize that my emotional reaction to this injustice got > > the better of me in this drawn-out thread. We have thus far had one > > term out of 30,000 that has been a topic of contention because it is > > not anally literal enough, though its accuracy within its context > > appears perfectly valid. We don't have any examples of a definition > > that has been proven to be invalid, and (minus Bensky's 59 pegged > > terms, Giovanni's 50+ terms, and Chen's 140+ terms), we have still > > over 29,800 references available to us that we have never had before. > > Furthermore, it is a resource that took 20 years to make and is given > > away for free to those who know how to use it. Why it is the source > > of so much criticism and so little praise is a great mystery to me. > > Maybe it has a majority of quiet appreciators and a minority of vocal > > critics, but the loudness of the criticisms really drowns out the > > continual applause in the background. (Again, I am not singling out > > Jason here, as Jason largely respects Wiseman's terms and is hardly > > his biggest critic by any stretch of the imagination.) > > > > I use the cd dictionary every day and it has made my entire study of > > TCM Chinese much faster, more insightful, and more pleasurable; it has > > not created any confusion for me in any way. I think that an entire > > generation of students will come to realize it as the single greatest > > tool we have (combined with the PD and the dozens of interrelated > > works by Paradigm and Blue Poppy) for approaching Chinese language and > > advancing the westward transmission of CM. I have not experienced any > > confusion or misinterpretations by using it, but I would have had an > > endless amount of confusion and potential misinterpretations without it. > > > > All I have to say to Nigel is thank you. I think that if other > > scholars spent their time working with him and making suggestions > > instead of using any trivial inconsistencies as ammunition against > > him, the work would continue to advance at a wonderful pace and > > generations of TCMers in the West would regard this stage in the > > history of TCM as one of the greatest leaps forward thus far achieved. > > > > Sincerely, > > Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 >>>I just think this shows that things are not black and white and there is room for everyone to learn from each other. Definitely. > 1st - I have always appreciated Nigel's work and of course appreciate Eric > and Nigel giving this CD to me. I have never intended nor tried to > discredit his work publicly! I have not denied praising Nigel's work (as > suggested) and we have only been focusing on the lesser % because Eric et > al. has been constantly asking for this. Sorry, at the beginning of all these misunderstandings you said that you found places where the Wiseman terms didn't fit on a weekly basis. This got us into the tangent of examples and focusing on the problems. I know you never intended to discredit Nigel's work. I just don't know anyone else who says they find weekly errors in the text produced in Wiseman terminology. No one is TRYING to discredit anyone, we just accidentally cause offense when we are not careful about how we phrase things. You don't think your words are a discredit to Nigel because you spend hours reading Chinese and know that the terms work most all of the time. Readers who don't know this only see the fact that you are saying you get weekly errors and then they get the wrong impression that the terms don't work well. I certainly don't think Dan Bensky's work is anything other that high-quality material, as I have said multiple times. I only think that the translation style of writing a reference text without a reference of terms leaves something to be desired. I certainly mean Dan no offense nor do I have a lack of respect or trust for his work. Neither you nor I are attempting to discredit Dan or Nigel. We both know that they know the subject much better than we do. I do not think you are unprofessional, etc. I respect you and your work. Please let us drop this, the issue is not worth the tension. I didn't mean to create such a can of worms!!!!!!!! Eric , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > > > > The reason I was so easily upset by Jason's repeated comments was > > because we gave him a cd dic in hopes of benefiting his translations > > and giving him a useful tool. Rather than taking things up privately > > with Nigel on term ideas, he latched on to a single term that he feels > > is inconsistent and has used the cd dictionary as a means of > > discrediting Nigel's work publicly. He has made vocal contentions of > > errors within it and terms that are not yet integrated into it, > > without giving Nigel the courtesy of investigating the sources of > > contention and offering him the chance to correct the database or > > provide evidence for why it is already correct before launching his > > tirades on the online forum. It would have been a far more > > professional and amicable thing to have simply done what we asked him > > to do when we gave him the disc- to note new terms to add and let us > > know if any discrepancies were found. While I know Jason has > > essentially good intentions, it seemed like Nigel's work was getting > > trashed in public over the 0.1% of problems rather than being praised > > for the 99.9% accuracy. > [Jason] > Once, again I will defend these slanderous UNTRUE remarks. > > Let us be clear here. > 1st - I have always appreciated Nigel's work and of course appreciate Eric > and Nigel giving this CD to me. I have never intended nor tried to > discredit his work publicly! I have not denied praising Nigel's work (as > suggested) and we have only been focusing on the lesser % because Eric et > al. has been constantly asking for this. > > 2nd - I did not latch on to 'one term' to try to discredit Nigel's work! > This is preposterous, untrue and slanderous. I was asked to produce an > example of where the WT did not fit. Just because I am defending (my > example) and trying to show why people believe that this term does not fit, > DOES NOT mean I am trying to discredit his work. Eric, with this line of > thinking, would you say that you are trying to discredit Bensky's work > because you not only called his terms simplified (therefore his concepts), > but you have presented an EXMAPLE of such. Should I start yelling how you > have no respect for his life work? Should I say that since your 1st example > didn't pan out that by you searching for a second, means that you really > want to prove that Dan's work is BS... ???? Come on... [bTW - I have > (indirectly) sent your example to Dan, but have not looked at it myself.] > Furthermore, The 1 term has been stuck with because not only is it juicy, > but requires multi-layers of explanation and analysis to understand (as we > have seen).. These topics are not black and white. Do you really think the > CHA would put up with another debate of a second term... > > 3rd - I upfront said that such examples that I have seen were from obscure > sources, yet I was dragged into presenting them... Now my example is 'just > from an obscure source' - Yes precisely - Most of the time, especially in > mainstream writings, Nigel's work is dead on, is it that surprising that the > obscure / time period sources do not fit 100% of the time with all of WTs... > This is what I said originally... This just seems like a no-brainer. I just > am still wondering why everyone wanted to harp on seeing such examples. > Very puzzling. > > 4th - This idea that I should have taken this up privately and by presenting > it publicly, I am not professional, is complete BS. Eric, over & over, you > have asked me to present this publicly. I not only was harassed, but my > attempts to take this private were publicly denied! Eric knows that > privately I contacted him (in the beginning) to see if Wiseman was > interested in hearing my examples. Eric said, 'send them to me', yet > publicly, he kept badgering me into presenting them on the CHA. Now, when I > did present something, and explained in detail why I think the term is not > 100% accurate, I somehow am trying to discredit Nigel's work...?? So, the > new comeback (above) is that the CD is just a work in progress and of course > has holes like terms that are not in there (like 1 of the examples that I > presented - only because I was asked to). I find it funny that because the > CD is a work in progress that I have no right to show errors in it... I was > specifically asked to show the errors publicly. Trust me I wanted to not get > into this on the CHA! > I think that if only people would have just admitted that the CD was a work > in progress and understood that of course there are going to be some errors > somewhere, from the beginning, and not interpreted my stating of this > obvious observation as slander towards Nigel, or his work, there would not > have been this huge waste of time... > > 5th - This idea that I used Nigel's own CD to 'go against' him is > outrageous. 1st the term I picked is also in his green dictionary. 2nd- I > was asked to present an example from the CD or PD that did not fit > somewhere. What else I am going to use but the CD / PD (to get the > example)?????? I HAVE NOT tried to discredit his work. Saying that I can't > present an example from the CD because the CD is a work in progress is a cop > out. Of course it is, as with any term set. Where did you want me to get > the term from? I think the fact that the CD is a work in progress sustains > my point, there are always going to be times that things don't work in the > PD, Bensky's gloss or whatever, and these can be updated. Nothing is > perfect. And that has been my point from the beginning. You can disagree > with my example, but by me saying that there are times that the PD does not > work is not slanderous towards Nigel or his work, it is just a fact. For > the record once again, these times are minimal in the whole scheme of things > and his work is an incredible feat that has benefited our profession > immensely. > > Remember this all started because I was defending Bensky's right of freedom > to use non-Wiseman terms when he felt that a WT did not fit. We can see in > the example presented, that 1 side says it fits and the other says it > doesn't... Don't you think that the side that doesn't like the term because > they feel it doesn't portray the Chinese 100% accurately should have the > choice to use their own term? I do. I just think this shows that things > are not black and white and there is room for everyone to learn from each > other. > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 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, Sorry, I had no idea that you spent so much time translating such hard stuff. I assumed you meant problems in normal literature. >I just wanted (in the beginning) to defend [benksy's] 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 totally support his freedom to translate any way he likes. He has the education and the background to do whatever he wants. It is just not the translation style I gravitate towards. > 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. Totally clear. I know you respect it and always have. You are the type of person that Nigel was hoping to reach with it. Eric , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > > [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 ............... Geez... all of this boils down to you admitting to an exaggeration. Just a few minutes ago, before reading this post, I was going to re-post the following quotes from you, Jason: ............... [Jason] I personally have found many instances that the Wiseman term does not fit the context... So I have a choice, 1) put the awkward term in the sentence - then people read it and think they understand it but there understanding will be wrong and even if they take the time to look up the word in the PD (which most people won't) then it still will be off because the meaning is slightly askew... This is the problem... [Jason] True and not true... I am no historian, but I have found many instances that when checked with Chinese scholars or colleagues have shown to have different meanings... [Jason] A recent example comes to mind about the debate between nourish, supplement etc... I remember some people being very specific on what these terms mean and I think Wiseman makes some major distinctions, but it wasn't a week later until I came across a pretty mainstream source that just completely used the terms differently... [Jason] It is funny because I am a young translator, I have pegged words all the time (from wiseman) thinking I am conveying the meaning of the passage to only be shown by a more experienced (Chinese or colleague) that no no no that is not what it means, and if I use the Wiseman term it only confuses the passage. Yes if someone knows that everything in a passage is in Wiseman terminology then one can theoretically backwards translate everything and get the Chinese, so what - especially if the end product is misinterpretation of what is being said... ...................... However, it seems that it is all worked out now, so I do not have to. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 > > bcataiji [bcaom] > Friday, November 05, 2004 9:33 PM > > Re: cd dictionary > > > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > [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 > > .............. > > > Geez... all of this boils down to you admitting to an exaggeration. > > Just a few minutes ago, before reading this post, I was going to > re-post the following quotes from you, Jason: > > [Jason] And I see you did... I don't see your point, but I still agree with most everything I said. -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 , " " <@c...> wrote: > [Jason] > And I see you did... I don't see your point, but I still agree with most > everything I said. I just felt bad for Eric spending so much time trying to be diplomatic, suggesting that maybe you have been misunderstood, and you yourself claiming that you had been misrepresented. I thought I would remind us all with an accurate, quote representation that is clear enough not to be misunderstood. However, like you said, it was an exaggeration on your part; and, you further clarified your stance by elaborating that your claims actually applied to a recent endeavor rather than in general. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 I guess the take home lesson to all is that we should pay attention to stating things clearly in order to avoid misunderstandings. It is amazing to think how many people put hours and hours into this debate, when the entire topic would not have been an issue if you had just said at the beginning that you had great success using Wiseman terminology for handling modern literature but had noticed that when you approached obscure, pre-modern texts you noticed a number of terms that appeared to have a different nuance in these texts, which would be the ideal thing to handle in footnotes. You have often complained that people are being slandered, which I believe was largely in response to people defending Nigel's reputation against the somewhat " slanderous " implication that his terms are inaccurate and convey the wrong meanings on a weekly basis in a wide variety of literature. This grossly overstated assertion led to a number of people demanding evidence, since it is not the experience of others. People spent hours presenting and investigating evidence on this bold claim, emotions surged, face was lost by me, you, Nigel,the whole group of the CHA was suggested to be unfit to evaluate the literature, etc. We saw long-term friendships and alliances temporarily buckled, we saw publishers, authors, translators, teachers, and observers all enter the fray. Most embarrassing of all is the fact that you and I have lost face by exchanging emails that were increasingly personal and venemous, which I am not proud of. You have lost face with Nigel, Bob Felt, and others, I have likely offended many and have appeared unprofessional by getting so vexed in public, etc. To have all of this be reduced to an initial statement that was not carefully delivered is really quite embarrassing. I wish I would have handled things in a more composed and eloquent manner, and I wish the entire topic was completely averted from the get-go by your making a moderate and reasonable claim that everyone would agree with at the very beginning. You were simply trying to paint a neutral middle ground that respects both translation approaches. I obviously believe that one translation style, when properly referenced, footnoted, and deviated from, is superior as a choice for how I would model my work. I was simply trying to prevent Nigel's excellent work from being undefended in public from such a ludicrous statement as that terms are found off on a weekly basis. To have it all come down to an exaggeration is really silly. This type of exaggeration really should be avoided, for all our faces. Eric Brand , " " <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > bcataiji [bcaom@c...] > > Friday, November 05, 2004 9:33 PM > > > > Re: cd dictionary > > > > > > > > , " " > > <@c...> wrote: > > > > > > > > [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 > > > > .............. > > > > > > Geez... all of this boils down to you admitting to an exaggeration. > > > > Just a few minutes ago, before reading this post, I was going to > > re-post the following quotes from you, Jason: > > > > > [Jason] > And I see you did... I don't see your point, but I still agree with most > everything I said. > > -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 > > smilinglotus [smilinglotus] > Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:34 AM > > Re: cd dictionary > > > > I guess the take home lesson to all is that we should pay attention to > stating things clearly in order to avoid misunderstandings. It is > amazing to think how many people put hours and hours into this debate, > when the entire topic would not have been an issue if you had just > said at the beginning that you had great success using Wiseman > terminology for handling modern literature but had noticed that when > you approached obscure, pre-modern texts you noticed a number of terms > that appeared to have a different nuance in these texts, which would > be the ideal thing to handle in footnotes. > > You have often complained that people are being slandered, which I > believe was largely in response to people defending Nigel's reputation > against the somewhat " slanderous " implication that his terms are > inaccurate and convey the wrong meanings on a weekly basis in a wide > variety of literature. [Jason] For the record: 1) The finding of not-fitting terms WAS occurring on a weekly basis, but it was stated from the beginning that it was MAINLY obscure or time-period texts, I never implied that it was just modern mainstream texts. 2) This *NOW* latching on of this one statement 'weekly' as the cause for all of this is wrong. At the time of this 'weekly' statement, things were already getting out of hand, IMO; i.e. I was already getting 'demands' to produce evidence for the obvious, and the tone was unfriendly. Furthermore, I DO NOT think that by me leaving that 1 line out would have changed 1 thing. I will not be the fall-guy for this whole thing because I made a statement that WAS true, but in the whole scheme of things a (seemingly) exaggeration. Meaning, in isolation I see how people could have taken it wrong, and I am sorry about that, but there were plenty of other places that I did clarify things. But of course I was a contributing factor to this whole thing and apologize. So how about discussing that second term now... Just kidding.... Can we blame all this on the (USA) 'Election Tension.'???? - P.S. - Wow the 1st AM (in sometime) I can get some studying done.. This is a good day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 Can we blame all this on the (USA) 'Election Tension.'???? - Ann: Might as well. Or the solar and lunar eclipses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 , <snakeoil.works@m...> wrote: > > Can we blame all this on the (USA) 'Election Tension.'???? > > - > > > > Ann: > Might as well. Or the solar and lunar eclipses. works for me. moving right along.... 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.