More on a disorder of qi

[Guest guest]

 

 

Ok, well I suppose there is a little more to this than I realized. Distention

can be abdominal distention, which the PD escorts us to abdominal fullness (fu4

man3)when referencing the former, as well as others. There are several causes of

abdominal fullness but I believe that each of them disrupts the qi dynamic. So

although a qi disturbance may not be the cause, there is certianly is a

disruption of the qi dynamic.

 

I think this is also true of the other forms of distention listed in the PD. So,

although I may not of given as clear an answer as, perhaps, I should have I

think ultimately I am correct.

 

What I was trying to get at is that in all these cases the qi is being affected

adversely and one of the manifestations of that is distention. As an example,

the tx for food damage listed in the PD on page 143 is to disperse food and

transform stagnation. If I am not mistaken they are referring to qi stagnation.

If you lump to much ice cream on the spleen/stomach the spleen/stomach qi is

damaged or otherwise disturbed, so although the ice cream " caused " the ensuing

dampness, isn't the qi disordered? And, don't you use qi rectifying medicinals

to treat this " illness " .

 

On page 229 of the Jiao Shu De abdominal distention and distention and

oppression between the diaphragm and stomach duct are treated with qi rectifying

medicinals such as mu xiang, xiang fu, etc. On page 281 he mentions distention

and pain in the head under the long dan cao heading and goes on (on the next

page) to put long dan xie gan tang forth as the primary formula to treat this

(and other sx) Bensky and Barolet pg. 96 state that chai hu is used in this

formula to " disperse heat due to constrained Liver and Gallbladder qi. " Eariler

in B & B's presentation of the formula they say, " when heat enters these channels

[Liver and Gallbladder] it [heat] becomes constrained and cannot drain out. This

leads to fire blazing upward to the head where it manifests in the symptoms

described above. " And later, " A disturbance in one of the lesser yang channels

usually affects the other. " These all sound like a disturbance of qi to me, what

do you think.

 

In the end, I agree with Holly that the teacher missed a good opportunity to

have a good discussion about what he/she meant and that is one of the great

downfalls in our system, the teachers are sometimes preaching rather than

inspiring students. I commend you, Holly, for not taking their word for gospel

and looking into it further.

 

And thanks for making me explain myself, I eagerly await your or anyone's

reply. Please correct me.

 

Thomas

 

Thomas

 

Please cite sources, because it appears from reading strict definitions

that this is a

converse issue. distention, according to the PD, has no asociation

with qi, per se. It

merely refers to the stretching of the abdomen. Distention is a key

sign of qi stagnation

but just does not always indicate it. According to our chinese

classical lit expert here, he

concurs with the PD. but as I said, this may be semantics. but since

numerous texts of

mine list dampness and food stag as also causes of distention as well

as liver yang rising

(head distention), I think I would defer to Holly here. what she read

clearly called the issue

into dispute and it will notbe satifactorily resolved by just stating

one's opinion with no

further evidence provided either way. As for your contention that damp

only comes from a

disorder of the qi, it also comes from excess consumption of certain

foods. But again,

there is a semantic issue as all food and damp rx include qi movers.

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

 

 

[Guest guest]

From my understanding, the word distention (zhang) in Chinese has a

somewhat wide range of use, which may account for some of our

conflicting opinions. It generally refers to objective (visible)

distention, but in some contexts it can also refer to extreme

fullness. It is distinct from " fullness " (man) because it is more

severe. This variance is an problem that comes from the source

language.

 

China is in the process of unifying their own terminology so that the

meanings of words become more standard. They are the ones who have to

sort out when it is acceptable to use man vs zhang, etc when

describing drug actions. Our job in transmitting Chinese medicine is

simply to present Chinese medicine as it appears in the original

Chinese. We cannot sort out all the ambiguities present in the source

language, nor can we give students or readers our own interpretations

without making it clear that the interpretation is our personal idea.

Thus, our only option is to translate and teach in a way that

references the source material. Translators are not responsible for

providing their own interpretation of CM, they are simply responsible

for reporting exactly what the source books say while staying out of

the way. Good translation eliminates the middleman and gives the

English reader the Chinese material, intact with its specificity and

ambiguities.

 

Distention and fullness are distinguished in Chinese medical

dictionaries, and that is what is reflected in the PD. PD is simply a

translation of Chinese medical dictionaries, it is not an author's

opinion or interpretation. Distention often is visible distention,

but some authors use it to indicate severe subjective fullness. We

cannot sort out this variance in the Chinese author's word selection,

we can merely tell the reader clearly when the book says distention

and when it says fullness.

 

Most good practitioners are aware of the flexibility that is required

to understand Chinese medicine. Many students are expecting a perfect

package that shows that 1+1=2, but Chinese medicine is not always that

way. Westerners cannot resolve the irrational or vague aspects of

traditional theory, we can simply attempt to understand it as

authentically as possible. This means that we shouldn't get in the

way by filtering Chinese medical information and making it fit the way

we think it should fit.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:03 AM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

>

> From my understanding, the word distention (zhang) in Chinese has a

> somewhat wide range of use, which may account for some of our

> conflicting opinions. It generally refers to objective (visible)

> distention, but in some contexts it can also refer to extreme

> fullness. It is distinct from " fullness " (man) because it is more

> severe. This variance is an problem that comes from the source

> language.

>

> China is in the process of unifying their own terminology so that the

> meanings of words become more standard. They are the ones who have to

> sort out when it is acceptable to use man vs zhang, etc when

> describing drug actions. Our job in transmitting Chinese medicine is

> simply to present Chinese medicine as it appears in the original

> Chinese. We cannot sort out all the ambiguities present in the source

> language, nor can we give students or readers our own interpretations

> without making it clear that the interpretation is our personal idea.

> Thus, our only option is to translate and teach in a way that

> references the source material. Translators are not responsible for

> providing their own interpretation of CM, they are simply responsible

> for reporting exactly what the source books say while staying out of

> the way. Good translation eliminates the middleman and gives the

> English reader the Chinese material, intact with its specificity and

> ambiguities.

>

> Distention and fullness are distinguished in Chinese medical

> dictionaries, and that is what is reflected in the PD. PD is simply a

> translation of Chinese medical dictionaries, it is not an author's

> opinion or interpretation. Distention often is visible distention,

> but some authors use it to indicate severe subjective fullness. We

> cannot sort out this variance in the Chinese author's word selection,

> we can merely tell the reader clearly when the book says distention

> and when it says fullness.

>

> Most good practitioners are aware of the flexibility that is required

> to understand Chinese medicine. Many students are expecting a perfect

> package that shows that 1+1=2, but Chinese medicine is not always that

> way. Westerners cannot resolve the irrational or vague aspects of

> traditional theory, we can simply attempt to understand it as

> authentically as possible. This means that we shouldn't get in the

> way by filtering Chinese medical information and making it fit the way

> we think it should fit.

>

[Jason]

Eric,

 

I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can do is

represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT reflect

the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only common

sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that author's

usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the author

is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected correctly

by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is using

the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term for that

situation or another option is of course footnote the term and keep the

unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator has to do

something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader fend for

themselves..

A perfect example, was the term, ganmao... I.e. I could have just translated

it as 'Common Cold', but as we saw, that would do a disservice to the

original Chinese meaning, and paint an incorrect and limited picture...

Authors use terms differently and since China currently DOES NOT conform to

a standard term base, we can only be flexible to author's varied term

choices, usages, and definitions... Translation is much more than just plug

and play... Finally the Dictionary that you reference, the ZYDCD, is only

one opinion, a major one at that, but as we have seen there are plenty of

instances that authors do not conform to this, especially pre-modern, and

hence therefore to the PD.... Yes we have been through all of this before,

but I think we have seen examples to show that there is another side to this

coin... My 2 cents...

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> Eric,

>

> I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can do is

> represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

> disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT

reflect

> the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only common

> sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that author's

> usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the

author

> is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected

correctly

> by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is

using

> the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term for that

> situation or another option is of course footnote the term and keep the

> unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator

has to do

> something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader

fend for

> themselves..

 

 

I understand your point, and the languages are very different and it

is hard to draw one-to-one equations between them, especially when

each has its own range of variance. However, in many circumstances,

it is very difficult for the translator to be certain that they

understand the exact nuance that the word is being used in.

 

For example, many problems that come up when Nigel translates get

sorted out by Feng Ye- his input resolved many problems that arose

when the PD was created. Feng Ye continues to resolve all the

difficult questions we have (as in " are these terms synonymous, what

gradation of intensity is implied, etc " ). So if you are doing any

translation that goes beyond common texts, you really need to work

with a native speaker who is extremely well-educated in CM and you

need to have perfect spoken fluency to be able to understand the

nuances of their explanation. There are many times when clarification

and interpretation needs to happen, but the clarification needs to

come from people who really understand the nuance.

 

The Western CM community can't be relying on non-native speakers to

take their best guess at an interpretation to for the sake of

transparency. In many examples, how can we be sure that our guess is

correct? We are not native speakers and have not spent twenty years

reading a range of literature, so it is essential to have someone that

the questions can be posed to. Most of the problems that come up are

much more ambiguous or challenging than the gan mao example, so having

a native speaker with a Master's level or higher in CM is essential if

the questions are to be resolved responsibly.

 

I know how hard it is to confront these problems, so I will never be

convinced that a non-native speaker is qualified to provide

transparency, simply because we cannot assume that they understand the

meaning correctly. A native Chinese speaker must know CM to

understand the nuance, and they must have perfect English to select a

word that approximates the nuance in English. A non-native translator

with twenty years experience in a wide range of texts may be able to

surmise the nuance, and someone with spoken Chinese fluency can get

clarification from their Chinese colleagues. But having new

translators coining their own terms for the sake of transparency

sounds inherently dangerous to me.

 

I've read interpretative translations by novice translators who didn't

conform to professional translation standards, and it is totally

unintelligible. The English makes perfect sense, but I don't have a

clue what the Chinese original said. The test of a good translation

is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

Felt or Paradigm. You read those books and you are insured of their

authenticity, because as a translator you can read the English and

know word-for-word what the Chinese original said.

 

I think people do need to make an effort to understand the varied

nuances of terms when they learn TCM English. This is important.

Transparency allows the reader to assume that they understand the

concept, but do they? Are we assured that the translator understood

it correctly? Are we assured that the reader understands it

correctly? The English reader in the CM field must be familiar with

many technical terms and the range of their use. Too many ideas in CM

are foreign, we have no natural equivalents that are capable of

transparency in English.

 

Transparency has its place, but there are not any basic works in CM

that do not work well with PD terminology. There is no need to make a

materia medica " transparently translated " because every single term

that appears in a drug monograph produced by a authoratitive PRC

publisher conforms to the standard use provided in the ZYDCD and the

PD. More interpretation is necessary for all the quotes from ancient

literature, etc, but the core information requires no transparency.

The basic works of Chinese medicine are very consistent in their use

of terminology. The obscure and historical books have greater

variance, but that is the place for advanced translation teams that

have native speakers of both languages working together to clarify the

ambiguities.

 

Respectfully,

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Typo correction:

 

The test of a good translation

> is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

> exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

> into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

> like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

> Felt or Paradigm.

 

That should say: " any of the new books by Bob FLAWS or Paradigm. "

 

Bob Flaws is extremely prolific. He has produced a wide range of

books on a variety of topics. All of his new books are obviously

authentic CM information, because any translator can read one random

paragraph and know exactly what the original said. To me, that is

much more transparent and defensible than anything else could ever be.

 

Eric

 

 

, " smilinglotus "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > Eric,

> >

> > I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can

do is

> > represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

> > disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT

> reflect

> > the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only

common

> > sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that

author's

> > usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the

> author

> > is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected

> correctly

> > by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is

> using

> > the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term

for that

> > situation or another option is of course footnote the term and

keep the

> > unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator

> has to do

> > something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader

> fend for

> > themselves..

>

>

> I understand your point, and the languages are very different and it

> is hard to draw one-to-one equations between them, especially when

> each has its own range of variance. However, in many circumstances,

> it is very difficult for the translator to be certain that they

> understand the exact nuance that the word is being used in.

>

> For example, many problems that come up when Nigel translates get

> sorted out by Feng Ye- his input resolved many problems that arose

> when the PD was created. Feng Ye continues to resolve all the

> difficult questions we have (as in " are these terms synonymous, what

> gradation of intensity is implied, etc " ). So if you are doing any

> translation that goes beyond common texts, you really need to work

> with a native speaker who is extremely well-educated in CM and you

> need to have perfect spoken fluency to be able to understand the

> nuances of their explanation. There are many times when clarification

> and interpretation needs to happen, but the clarification needs to

> come from people who really understand the nuance.

>

> The Western CM community can't be relying on non-native speakers to

> take their best guess at an interpretation to for the sake of

> transparency. In many examples, how can we be sure that our guess is

> correct? We are not native speakers and have not spent twenty years

> reading a range of literature, so it is essential to have someone that

> the questions can be posed to. Most of the problems that come up are

> much more ambiguous or challenging than the gan mao example, so having

> a native speaker with a Master's level or higher in CM is essential if

> the questions are to be resolved responsibly.

>

> I know how hard it is to confront these problems, so I will never be

> convinced that a non-native speaker is qualified to provide

> transparency, simply because we cannot assume that they understand the

> meaning correctly. A native Chinese speaker must know CM to

> understand the nuance, and they must have perfect English to select a

> word that approximates the nuance in English. A non-native translator

> with twenty years experience in a wide range of texts may be able to

> surmise the nuance, and someone with spoken Chinese fluency can get

> clarification from their Chinese colleagues. But having new

> translators coining their own terms for the sake of transparency

> sounds inherently dangerous to me.

>

> I've read interpretative translations by novice translators who didn't

> conform to professional translation standards, and it is totally

> unintelligible. The English makes perfect sense, but I don't have a

> clue what the Chinese original said. The test of a good translation

> is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

> exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

> into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

> like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

> Felt or Paradigm. You read those books and you are insured of their

> authenticity, because as a translator you can read the English and

> know word-for-word what the Chinese original said.

>

> I think people do need to make an effort to understand the varied

> nuances of terms when they learn TCM English. This is important.

> Transparency allows the reader to assume that they understand the

> concept, but do they? Are we assured that the translator understood

> it correctly? Are we assured that the reader understands it

> correctly? The English reader in the CM field must be familiar with

> many technical terms and the range of their use. Too many ideas in CM

> are foreign, we have no natural equivalents that are capable of

> transparency in English.

>

> Transparency has its place, but there are not any basic works in CM

> that do not work well with PD terminology. There is no need to make a

> materia medica " transparently translated " because every single term

> that appears in a drug monograph produced by a authoratitive PRC

> publisher conforms to the standard use provided in the ZYDCD and the

> PD. More interpretation is necessary for all the quotes from ancient

> literature, etc, but the core information requires no transparency.

> The basic works of Chinese medicine are very consistent in their use

> of terminology. The obscure and historical books have greater

> variance, but that is the place for advanced translation teams that

> have native speakers of both languages working together to clarify the

> ambiguities.

>

> Respectfully,

> Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

It should be noted that our CM community is a very tiny piece of the

larger world of translation. Translators have basic standards in all

disciples, and the highest aim of translation is that it should be

possible to " back-translate " the work. Whether it is a newspaper, a

WM text, a biology text, or whatever, the translation should be able

to be converted back to the original language with minimal loss. This

is not something of recent creation, this is just the normal standard

that applies to all academic work in all disciples.

 

Creating text that can be back-translated is easily done with PD

terminology. Back-translating a work that is not in PD terminology is

much more difficult. If every phrase was glossed (in the PD or a

personal glossary), it could be back-translated no matter which words

were coined. If gan mao is translated as 'contagious disease' and

glossed, and the rest of the book conforms to some traceable standard,

it is a good translation because it could be converted back to the

original Chinese. But if many words are selected for transparency and

left unglossed, it becomes difficult to know what the original said.

These arguments aren't my arguments, they are the basic arguments that

have dominated professional discourse in every field that has crossed

cultures throughout history.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Just for the record I have never suggested that someone, (anyone), should

just pull some term out of the air, 'coin there own terms', or take there

'best guess' and replace a PD term without glossing or footnoting... This I

agree is silly... Furthermore, I also have never suggested that one should

not double check with native speakers on unclear terminology issues... My

point, though, is totally different.

 

Furthermore, gan mao, is instructive because it shows that even a novice

like me realized that the PD definition and translation was incomplete... I

have polled numerous senior practitioners and translators, and even sent

Nigel an email, which he did not return... I have come to the conclusion

that I am NOT going to use 'common cold'... Now was a native speaker's input

necessary here? Probably not, but of course it always helps, and I agree

with Eric on that. But personally I would never put anything out without

glossing or footnoting such a term. With footnoting it is completely valid

to pick a translation that will be more transparent towards the passage.

That is ONLY what I mean by 'transparency' I AM NOT suggesting that one

should just sub some random word and not make any reference with footnotes

etc...

 

Also, I am not sure about this 'back-wards' translating idea... Again there

are always going to be times when one CANNOT get back to the original

Chinese even if you use Wiseman Speak. Things are never going to be 100%

backwards translatable... For example, if I say the patient has Fatigue,

which Chinese term am I referring to??? There are of course more than 1

term that equals fatigue, so one is out of luck. [and does it even really

matter because fatigue is transparent anyway right?] Furthermore, a given

author may use the different words for fatigue with slight nuance that is

lost by translating them all as fatigue (hypothetical)... Furthermore

taking the distension example, if the original Chinese is Zhang1 yet the

Chinese author was using it differently than the PD suggests then this

backwards idea is moot. One must always take into consideration all

variables and make the best decisions, accordingly.

 

I should also remind you that the ganmao example is from 2 mainstream books.

So even in Eric's statement of " ...basic works of Chinese medicine are very

consistent in their use of terminology. " There are always exceptions...

 

I still say that works like the new MAteria MEdica leave one with a clear

understanding of CM. Bensky is a native writer and has used non-Wiseman

speak to communicate herbs effectively and accurately... I have never had

problem with understanding anything and could always look up anything that

was not clear. I have never seen a valid example where he missed the

meaning due to non-PD terminology...

 

Eric, you may believe that 'there are no basic works that do not work with

the PD' and I agree with you... Almost everything can be made to work with

the PD (or other systems), especially if you have Nigel's input on issues

that are unclear. But some people just DO NOT like how Nigel's translations

turn out, personal preference. They think the sentences are many times

awkward and cumbersome... I have seen this myself... They opt for other

words... Some believe that the Chinese do NOT use terms the same in every

situation, i.e. ganmao or distension, therefore one must choose words that

are better suited for that situation... I support that freedom... The belief

that the PD style is the only way one can communicate an accurate medicine

IMO is over-zealous. I personally like the Wiseman approach 98% of the

time, so I see that side... But i.e. if I just subbed in common cold for

ganmao it would surely not be the best representation of the CHinese- One

has to think and judge by the context, therefore I also see the other side

and support other's freedom and independence to represent a valid authentic

transmission with their (i.e. Bensky's) method... This is again not to say

that any under the sun can do such a feat... Nuff said for now... This

is sounding all too familiar...

 

 

-

 

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:54 PM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > Eric,

> >

> > I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can do is

> > represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

> > disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT

> reflect

> > the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only common

> > sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that author's

> > usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the

> author

> > is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected

> correctly

> > by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is

> using

> > the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term for that

> > situation or another option is of course footnote the term and keep the

> > unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator

> has to do

> > something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader

> fend for

> > themselves..

>

>

> I understand your point, and the languages are very different and it

> is hard to draw one-to-one equations between them, especially when

> each has its own range of variance. However, in many circumstances,

> it is very difficult for the translator to be certain that they

> understand the exact nuance that the word is being used in.

>

> For example, many problems that come up when Nigel translates get

> sorted out by Feng Ye- his input resolved many problems that arose

> when the PD was created. Feng Ye continues to resolve all the

> difficult questions we have (as in " are these terms synonymous, what

> gradation of intensity is implied, etc " ). So if you are doing any

> translation that goes beyond common texts, you really need to work

> with a native speaker who is extremely well-educated in CM and you

> need to have perfect spoken fluency to be able to understand the

> nuances of their explanation. There are many times when clarification

> and interpretation needs to happen, but the clarification needs to

> come from people who really understand the nuance.

>

> The Western CM community can't be relying on non-native speakers to

> take their best guess at an interpretation to for the sake of

> transparency. In many examples, how can we be sure that our guess is

> correct? We are not native speakers and have not spent twenty years

> reading a range of literature, so it is essential to have someone that

> the questions can be posed to. Most of the problems that come up are

> much more ambiguous or challenging than the gan mao example, so having

> a native speaker with a Master's level or higher in CM is essential if

> the questions are to be resolved responsibly.

>

> I know how hard it is to confront these problems, so I will never be

> convinced that a non-native speaker is qualified to provide

> transparency, simply because we cannot assume that they understand the

> meaning correctly. A native Chinese speaker must know CM to

> understand the nuance, and they must have perfect English to select a

> word that approximates the nuance in English. A non-native translator

> with twenty years experience in a wide range of texts may be able to

> surmise the nuance, and someone with spoken Chinese fluency can get

> clarification from their Chinese colleagues. But having new

> translators coining their own terms for the sake of transparency

> sounds inherently dangerous to me.

>

> I've read interpretative translations by novice translators who didn't

> conform to professional translation standards, and it is totally

> unintelligible. The English makes perfect sense, but I don't have a

> clue what the Chinese original said. The test of a good translation

> is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

> exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

> into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

> like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

> Felt or Paradigm. You read those books and you are insured of their

> authenticity, because as a translator you can read the English and

> know word-for-word what the Chinese original said.

>

> I think people do need to make an effort to understand the varied

> nuances of terms when they learn TCM English. This is important.

> Transparency allows the reader to assume that they understand the

> concept, but do they? Are we assured that the translator understood

> it correctly? Are we assured that the reader understands it

> correctly? The English reader in the CM field must be familiar with

> many technical terms and the range of their use. Too many ideas in CM

> are foreign, we have no natural equivalents that are capable of

> transparency in English.

>

> Transparency has its place, but there are not any basic works in CM

> that do not work well with PD terminology. There is no need to make a

> materia medica " transparently translated " because every single term

> that appears in a drug monograph produced by a authoratitive PRC

> publisher conforms to the standard use provided in the ZYDCD and the

> PD. More interpretation is necessary for all the quotes from ancient

> literature, etc, but the core information requires no transparency.

> The basic works of Chinese medicine are very consistent in their use

> of terminology. The obscure and historical books have greater

> variance, but that is the place for advanced translation teams that

> have native speakers of both languages working together to clarify the

> ambiguities.

>

> Respectfully,

> Eric Brand

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> Just for the record I have never suggested that someone, (anyone),

should

> just pull some term out of the air, 'coin there own terms', or take

there

> 'best guess' and replace a PD term without glossing or footnoting...

 

 

I never suggested that you would. I know you are a proponent of

accuracy and traceability.

 

However, I have seen things that other people have translated that

have no obvious methodology or internal consistency. Bensky may use

other word choices, but he has internal consistency and experience and

the translation makes sense. The work I am referring to as

problematic was done by a novice translator and was completely

unintelligible and untraceable. It had no consistency with any

translation standard, and didn't look like anything in Chinese.

 

 

> Eric, you may believe that 'there are no basic works that do not

work with

> the PD' and I agree with you... Almost everything can be made to

work with

> the PD (or other systems), especially if you have Nigel's input on

issues

> that are unclear. But some people just DO NOT like how Nigel's

translations

> turn out, personal preference. They think the sentences are many times

> awkward and cumbersome... I have seen this myself... They opt for other

> words...

 

Sure, it is personal preference. I find it more straightforward to

use PD terminology because it makes the text consistent with 2/3 of

the texts used by professionals in English. PD terminology is a tool,

not a prison.

 

 

Some believe that the Chinese do NOT use terms the same in every

> situation, i.e. ganmao or distension, therefore one must choose

words that

> are better suited for that situation...

 

 

Right, but the problem is that many times, it is unclear exactly what

they mean. That is when the native speakers are useful to help.

Usually the ambiguities are " is it A + B or A leading to B, can it be

used for A without B or only A + B, " etc.

 

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

> Also, I am not sure about this 'back-wards' translating idea...

Again there

> are always going to be times when one CANNOT get back to the original

> Chinese even if you use Wiseman Speak. Things are never going to be 100%

> backwards translatable...

 

 

 

Back translation is an ideal. It is the goal, but it can never be

achieved with 100% success, even between romance languages or Germanic

languages. It is simply what one aspires to approximate.

 

The issue of whether back-translation is a worthy goal is not for

people like you or I to decide. It is a standard of linguists in all

fields for many generations. Our personal opinions have no bearing.

For translators to disagree with back translation is like for

biologists to disagree with the scientific method. Sure, the

scientific method has its flaws, but if you don't use it successfully,

your work goes against the academic standards in your field and your

peers scoff. All scientists know that the scientific method is

imperfect just as all translators know that back translation is not

100% attainable. It is simply the best tool that we have and it is

the established approach that stands up to professional scrutiny.

 

We can debate on the merits of various word choices and exceptions to

the normal use of common phrases, but we cannot really justify going

against academic standards in a field that we are only a tiny piece

of. Translation is much larger than TCM. Books like the PD,

Fundamentals, etc are not back-translatable because Nigel Wiseman

invented the theory of back translation. Nigel is simply conforming

to the established standards for professional linguists that preceeded

him by generations. He is a serious academic so he has to have his

work be able to stand up to mainstream professional norms. There are

many reasons that the TCM community is dismissed by mainstream

academic fields, and our rejection of things that are completely

obvious to other professionals is just another nail in the coffin of

our dubious academic respect.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus>

wrote:

 

>

>

> Some believe that the Chinese do NOT use terms the same in every

> > situation, i.e. ganmao or distension, therefore one must choose

> words that

> > are better suited for that situation...

 

 

 

so what. whatever they term a chinese writer chose still needs to be translated

in a

traceable way. what's your point?

 

[Guest guest]

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus>

wrote:

>

 

> We can debate on the merits of various word choices and exceptions to

> the normal use of common phrases, but we cannot really justify going

> against academic standards in a field that we are only a tiny piece

> of. Translation is much larger than TCM.

 

 

well put. I am pretty sick of this inane debate. There really is no case at

all for the

opposition, IMO. but keep ranting, if you like.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

The point is simple.. One cannot just plug and play a 1 to 1 term choice;

decisions must be made on context... Period... Do you disagree..? I have

never said it should not be traceable...

 

-Jason

 

 

 

>

>

> Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:03 AM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

>

> , " smilinglotus "

> <smilinglotus> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Some believe that the Chinese do NOT use terms the same in every

> > > situation, i.e. ganmao or distension, therefore one must choose

> > words that

> > > are better suited for that situation...

>

>

>

> so what. whatever they term a chinese writer chose still needs to be

> translated in a

> traceable way. what's your point?

>

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:05 AM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

>

> , " smilinglotus "

> <smilinglotus> wrote:

> >

>

> > We can debate on the merits of various word choices and exceptions to

> > the normal use of common phrases, but we cannot really justify going

> > against academic standards in a field that we are only a tiny piece

> > of. Translation is much larger than TCM.

>

>

> well put. I am pretty sick of this inane debate. There really is no case

> at all for the

> opposition, IMO.

[Jason]

Well you say there is no case, fine, but others say there is a case..

So who is right...? Well I guess you are since it is your list... But I see

both sides and there are strong points on both... Everyone has their opinion

(for everything and anything) that is what makes the world go around, and

denying the opposition (IN GENERAL) to have a valid viewpoint is what wars

are fought over... I support diverse opinions, and freedom to express

that... that is my point...

 

-Jason

 

 

but keep ranting, if you like.

>

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:32 AM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

>

> > Also, I am not sure about this 'back-wards' translating idea...

> Again there

> > are always going to be times when one CANNOT get back to the original

> > Chinese even if you use Wiseman Speak. Things are never going to be 100%

> > backwards translatable...

>

>

>

> Back translation is an ideal. It is the goal, but it can never be

> achieved with 100% success, even between romance languages or Germanic

> languages. It is simply what one aspires to approximate.

>

> The issue of whether back-translation is a worthy goal is not for

> people like you or I to decide. It is a standard of linguists in all

> fields for many generations. Our personal opinions have no bearing.

> For translators to disagree with back translation is like for

> biologists to disagree with the scientific method. Sure, the

> scientific method has its flaws, but if you don't use it successfully,

> your work goes against the academic standards in your field and your

> peers scoff. All scientists know that the scientific method is

> imperfect just as all translators know that back translation is not

> 100% attainable. It is simply the best tool that we have and it is

> the established approach that stands up to professional scrutiny.

>

> We can debate on the merits of various word choices and exceptions to

> the normal use of common phrases, but we cannot really justify going

> against academic standards in a field that we are only a tiny piece

> of. Translation is much larger than TCM. Books like the PD,

> Fundamentals, etc are not back-translatable because Nigel Wiseman

> invented the theory of back translation. Nigel is simply conforming

> to the established standards for professional linguists that preceeded

> him by generations. He is a serious academic so he has to have his

> work be able to stand up to mainstream professional norms. There are

> many reasons that the TCM community is dismissed by mainstream

> academic fields, and our rejection of things that are completely

> obvious to other professionals is just another nail in the coffin of

> our dubious academic respect.

[Jason]

Eric,

 

Again I think you are making this a black and white issue. There is much

debate on proper translation methods and even interpretation of the top

linguists. As in every field there are multiple opinions, and linguistics

is not exempt. To think that Wiseman because he is a 'serious academic' has

the one true answer is IMO a bit naïve. There are others that are less

vocal that have valid points within and out of the profession... So I may

not be able to debate the intricacies of translational methods (because I am

not qualified) I know there are others that are and this is not just some

black and white close the door, Wiseman is right, debate.... I think you

paint a false picture to say that linguistics has this 100% agreed upon gold

standard and if you don't follow it then you are wrong... That is not true!

 

I just did a little internet reading about different translation methods

etc... Very enlightening, there are many opinions, and again I see both

sides... I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just right'... A common

phrase that came up quite often was, " translation is an art rather than a

science " ... I really have nothing more to say, and am bowing out mainly

because I am no linguist... but I will stay open to different possibilities

so I will be happy to hear both sides of the coin... my 2 cent rant!

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

whatever they term a chinese writer chose still needs to be translated in a

traceable way. what's your point?

>>>>>>Todd i think again the problem he is pointing out is that unless one can

understand the particular meaning of a section, one can " wrongly " translate any

section, and that has been my point all along regarding standard translation

terminology. It gives you a false sense of accuracy

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> [alonmarcus]

> Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:32 PM

>

> Re: Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

> whatever they term a chinese writer chose still needs to be translated in

> a

> traceable way. what's your point?

> >>>>>>Todd i think again the problem he is pointing out is that unless one

> can understand the particular meaning of a section, one can " wrongly "

> translate any section, and that has been my point all along regarding

> standard translation terminology. It gives you a false sense of accuracy

[Jason]

Exactly...

[Guest guest]

I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just right'

>>>And the most important aspect when dealing with translating related to

medical care is to consider how patients in the other culture experience and

communicate what we hope are similar experiences. This whole argument about

distension just highlights this. In 25 years in medicine i dont think i have

ever heard a patient say he feels distended, so unless we can truly understand

what is the somatic experience in Chinese, and then translate it to what western

patients experience and communicates, we are back to talking about linguistics

and not medicine. For the clinician a clinical translation is much more

important (which to a SMALL extent Maciocia attempts) then for those that look

at patient care academically (ie do not see real patients).A medical text should

be relevant to patient care. I think the point Eric makes is important if one is

to truly understand another language and then translate meanings.Even in

translating from Hebrew to English (which is a closer grammatically than

Chinese, but in which words are often used differently within different

contexts) when I just covert words the meaning is more often than not,

inaccurate.A standard plugged-in translation just cant do the job for anything

that has depth.Personally this is one of the reasons i like to see more Western

authors write about Chinese medicine and not just translating texts, articles

etc.I believe we need to have a clearer separation between the so-called

academic translators and medical writers.This to me has been one the biggest

problems in TCM education in the west.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 18/02/2005, at 8:34 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

>

>>

>> [alonmarcus]

>> Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:32 PM

>>

>> Re: Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>>

>>

>> whatever they term a chinese writer chose still needs to be

>> translated in

>> a

>> traceable way. what's your point?

>>>>>>> i think again the problem he is pointing out is that

>>>>>>>> unless one

>> can understand the particular meaning of a section, one can " wrongly "

>> translate any section, and that has been my point all along regarding

>> standard translation terminology. It gives you a false sense of

>> accuracy

> [Jason]

> Exactly...

>

>

>

 

This argument makes no sense at all to me. If you can't understand a

particular meaning of a section you simply can't understand it and have

no business translating it in anything other than a traceable and

transparent way so the original chinese can be referenced as easily as

possible.

 

So what is the alternative to using a standard translational

terminology in such situations? Your personal interpretation of what an

author MAY be saying even though you can't be sure?

 

Using a standard translational terminology in such situations does not

give one a false sense of security; it is actually the only responsible

approach to take if you are not sure of the meaning in the chinese ie.

allow the reader to access the chinese for themselves and consider the

issue as they see fit.

 

Not using a standard terminology means you are interpreting a text for

a reader through your own education (which has been insufficient to

allow you to understand this section in this hypothesis). What a

mess!!! ......a personal interpretation of something you don't

understand to begin with........

 

 

Fair dinkum........you guys just don't want to get it!!

 

I am sure I am missing the points of your arguments against Wiseman

terminology again and I am also sure most of the list members who

bother to read these inane arguments are also.

 

IMO Eric has shown too much patience and wasted too much of his own

limited and valuable personal time to try to improve TCM

educational/text standards only to be dismissed with illogical and

hypothetical arguments that make no sense and are only

counterproductive to us moving forward as a profession.

[Guest guest]

Lets try a little game. If none of our patients complain of distension, probably

25 percent

complain of bloating. Same thing or not? Comparable at times?

doug

[Guest guest]

Steven,

 

I wonder what plant you are smoking? No one for even the briefest moment

has ever suggested that one should translate something one does not

understand into a word that is not referenced to the Chinese... You HAVE

missed the point...People seem to read only what they think they read... I

have never once said I am against standardized terminology or for NOT

improving educational texts with better terminology. But somehow you are

ranting about it below like I did... Personally if I don't understand

something I don't have any business translating into WISEMAN or any other

word... One can easily make mistakes that way... But just (blindly) using

Wiseman is no guarantee that it is correct, as seen with ganmao...

 

Furthermore it should be very clear that my arguments are not dismissing or

even saying there is a BETTER alternative to Wiseman... It is just

acknowledging another side... There is not just one way... and when Wiseman

is thought not to fit there should be a methodology to follow to come up

with a viable solution that is traceable. Like footnoting / glossing...

 

It is funny how reactionary people get. They freak out and say 'you guys

just don't want to get it'.. (meaning WE are right and YOU are wrong)... It

is surprising to see such an attitude coming from a medicine that embraces

seemingly contradictory viewpoints and sees strengths and weaknesses to

those sides... I just find it generally laughable when anyone is so sure

that they are right (saying that someone just doesn't 'get it'

)...[like they have some truth crystal]... I know I have never said

anyone's system is right or wrong (as a whole) in this translation debate...

(for how could I know)... But because I spend so much time translating and

studying Chinese I see various problems and holes in various systems... I

see words that do not work in certain situations (based on context) et al...

And examples have been presented .. This is NOT saying the system is flawed,

but a reminder that no idea or system is 100% correct (this is true for

philosophy, religion, medicine, & translation) - and following any system

blindly can only lead to folly... Tolerance and understanding for other

viewpoints can only expand our own perceptions and being, and broaden our

idea of truth, which IMO is illusionary anyway...

 

I just wonder how much time Steven et al has spent with translating medical

Chinese to make up such a definitive stance. Knowing so surely that anyone

that doesn't agree with him is just insane... ???

 

-Jason

 

 

 

>

> Steven Slater [laozhongyi]

> Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:26 PM

>

> Re: Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

>

>

> On 18/02/2005, at 8:34 AM, wrote:

>

> >

> >

> >

> >>

> >> [alonmarcus]

> >> Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:32 PM

> >>

> >> Re: Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

> >>

> >>

> >> whatever they term a chinese writer chose still needs to be

> >> translated in

> >> a

> >> traceable way. what's your point?

> >>>>>>> i think again the problem he is pointing out is that

> >>>>>>>> unless one

> >> can understand the particular meaning of a section, one can " wrongly "

> >> translate any section, and that has been my point all along regarding

> >> standard translation terminology. It gives you a false sense of

> >> accuracy

> > [Jason]

> > Exactly...

> >

> >

> >

>

> This argument makes no sense at all to me. If you can't understand a

> particular meaning of a section you simply can't understand it and have

> no business translating it in anything other than a traceable and

> transparent way so the original chinese can be referenced as easily as

> possible.

>

> So what is the alternative to using a standard translational

> terminology in such situations? Your personal interpretation of what an

> author MAY be saying even though you can't be sure?

>

> Using a standard translational terminology in such situations does not

> give one a false sense of security; it is actually the only responsible

> approach to take if you are not sure of the meaning in the chinese ie.

> allow the reader to access the chinese for themselves and consider the

> issue as they see fit.

>

> Not using a standard terminology means you are interpreting a text for

> a reader through your own education (which has been insufficient to

> allow you to understand this section in this hypothesis). What a

> mess!!! ......a personal interpretation of something you don't

> understand to begin with........

>

>

> Fair dinkum........you guys just don't want to get it!!

>

> I am sure I am missing the points of your arguments against Wiseman

> terminology again and I am also sure most of the list members who

> bother to read these inane arguments are also.

>

> IMO Eric has shown too much patience and wasted too much of his own

> limited and valuable personal time to try to improve TCM

> educational/text standards only to be dismissed with illogical and

> hypothetical arguments that make no sense and are only

> counterproductive to us moving forward as a profession.

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

> board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>>>>>

On 18/02/2005, at 11:33 AM, wrote:

 

>

> Steven,

>

> I wonder what plant you are smoking? No one for even the briefest

> moment

> has ever suggested that one should translate something one does not

> understand into a word that is not referenced to the Chinese... You

> HAVE

> missed the point...People seem to read only what they think they

> read... I

> have never once said I am against standardized terminology or for NOT

> improving educational texts with better terminology. But somehow you

> are

> ranting about it below like I did... Personally if I don't understand

> something I don't have any business translating into WISEMAN or any

> other

> word... One can easily make mistakes that way...

 

This is what I was referring to........

 

>>>>>>>>> i think again the problem he is pointing out is that

>>>>>>>>>> unless one can understand the particular meaning of a

>>>>>>>>>> section, one can " wrongly "

>>>> translate any section, and that has been my point all along

>>>> regarding

>>>> standard translation terminology. It gives you a false sense of

>>>> accuracy

>>> [Jason]

>>> Exactly...

>>>

>>>

 

I read this as suggesting that a standardized translation terminology

gives us a false sense of accuracy when we don't understand the

particular meaning of a section we are trying to translate (and you

added " exactly " in agreement).

 

In reply I asked what the alternative to a standard terminology was in

this situation and I could only think that of a personal interpretation

as an alternative.

 

This hypothetical situation has nothing to do with any type of

terminology at all.......it is just asinine and useless position used

in the context of terminology or translation IMO and this was my point

ie. if we don't understand a section we can't translate it no matter

what approach we take in terminology.........I think you agree that

nobody should be translating something they can't understand regardless

of the terminology used.

 

> I just wonder how much time Steven et al has spent with translating

> medical

> Chinese to make up such a definitive stance. Knowing so surely that

> anyone

> that doesn't agree with him is just insane... ???

>

> -Jason

>

 

All I replied to was the idea presented above .......I haven't made any

definitive stance against any system or technique or suggested anyone

is insane (inane is not insane btw)..........don't you think you might

be MSUing a bit here regarding my position?

 

PS - I would appreciate it if you could try to keep " you must be on

drugs " attacks to yourself.....

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

I read this as suggesting that a standardized translation terminology

gives us a false sense of accuracy when we don't understand the

particular meaning of a section we are trying to translate (and you

added " exactly " in agreement).

>>>>>>This is in response to what i believe eric said, that is one needs to be

completely bi-cultural to understand the nuances of language and no formulary of

words can address this

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>

> Lets try a little game. If none of our patients complain of

distension, probably 25 percent

> complain of bloating. Same thing or not? Comparable at times?

> doug

 

I'd say generally closer to fullness. Maybe overlapping with

distention if it is visibly pronounced (objectively observable) or

extremely severe.

 

Or we could just not differentiate them at all and assume that all

this specificity used in Chinese internal medicine is useless and we

could make them better with an intuitive fluffing of their aura.

 

Or maybe they just " feel fat, " which is a different kettle of fish.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I read this as suggesting that a standardized translation terminology

> gives us a false sense of accuracy when we don't understand the

> particular meaning of a section we are trying to translate (and you

> added " exactly " in agreement).

> >>>>>>This is in response to what i believe eric said, that is one

needs to be completely bi-cultural to understand the nuances of

language and no formulary of words can address this

>

 

Well, very few people are perfect bilinguals with English and Chinese

besides " hua qiao " (overseas Chinese) who grew up in the West. Even

someone like Nigel who is completely bilingual still asks questions to

native speakers for clarification. I think it is most important to

work in teams. The teamwork is what has made works like Shang Han Lun

and PD successful- the works were done with experienced doctors with

scholastic rigor in the native language and translators with a high

level of competence in language, translation theory, and native

fluency in the target language.

 

I don't think that the idea that standardized terms gives a false

sense of accuracy has much bearing on basic works. I think that a

false sense of accuracy is very rare, and the places where the

inaccuracies would more commonly occur are in archaic works that no

one should be approaching without the input of native speakers who are

aware of the term variance in the texts that they are translating. No

resposible translator would use a standardized term if it was not

accurate in the context, they would use an alternate term and a

footnote. Translation is done by educated humans and not computer

substitution. No one would put a word in to comply with

standardization if it didn't also have the correct meaning.

 

I think a far bigger problem is the false sense of simplicity implied

by not using standard terms. The omission of technically significant

information is a far bigger concern. Lumping four distinct conditions

with different etiologies, pathomechanisms and treatments into the

same term in English when they are four distinct terms in Chinese (as

in spermatorrhea) gives a false sense of simplicity. If this

technique is providing greater transparency and clarity, I fail to see it.

 

Alon has correctly pointed out that different languages have

dramatically different styles of expression. Texts done in PD

terminology are expressed in natural English that simply summarizes

the meaning of the LGP (language for general purposes) phrases that

make up the sentence structure. The only thing that is strictly

preserved are the technical concepts. That is why books by Blue Poppy

and Paradigm are easy to read despite the fact that they don't water

down the information that is clinically significant.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

> [Jason]

> Eric,

>

> Again I think you are making this a black and white issue. There is

much

> debate on proper translation methods and even interpretation of the top

> linguists. As in every field there are multiple opinions, and

linguistics

> is not exempt. To think that Wiseman because he is a 'serious

academic' has

> the one true answer is IMO a bit naïve.

 

 

Like I said, the notion of back-translation is not Nigel's idea or an

argument created to justify his method. Back-translation is an

established norm in all technical fields, across all languages. It is

a way to measure of the accuracy of given translation. It is

necessary to minimize loss with language transfer.

 

The sentence structure changes across languages, so no one is

advocating literal word-for-word renditions. In Chinese, if I say " I

yesterday buy apple, orange, pear, " you translate that in natural

English as " I bought an apple, an orange, and a pear yesterday. " When

a native speaker translates that back into natural Chinese, the

structure naturally reverts to " I yesterday buy apple, orange, pear. "

The important thing is that we know which fruit was purchased, who

bought it, and when.

 

You mention that translation is an art. Of course it is. Otherwise

you'd say " I yesterday buy apple, orange, pear. " It is an art to turn

it into natural English expression that is perceived as normal by a

native speaker. It is not an art to try to think of alternative way

to say apple, orange, and pear. We are not translating poetry. We

are translating data. We follow the professional norms established

for the accurate transmission of data. Back translation is a standard

that ensures the accurate transmission of data. This is not a subject

of debate.

 

If you bought a granny smith apple, a yali pear, and a tangerine, I

want to know that you bought a granny smith apple, a yali pear, and a

tangerine. I don't want an artistic description of those fruits. I

don't want you to assume that I don't know the difference between my

citrus, apple, and pear cultivars and just tell me that you got an

apple, orange and pear when you really bought a granny smith, a

tangerine, and a half-pear/half-apple. We shouldn't simplify, we

should assume the reader has the intelligence to know which different

apples exist, and we should give them the accurate term that allows

them to know which apples we purchased. If I treated a patient with

wet dreams, I should tell you that their condition was 'dream

emission,' which is totally different than seminal efflux (in time of

day, in severity, in causation, in treatment). I should give you the

respect to assume that you can differentiate your sperm discharging

just as I should assume you know the difference between a tangerine

and a orange. If I just tell you that I treated a patient with

spermatorrhea, you don't have a clue what caused it, when it occured,

what treatment was indicated, and how severe the condition is. Yet

this method of simplification is supposed to provide greater

transparency and clarity?

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

There are others that are less

> vocal that have valid points within and out of the profession... So

I may

> not be able to debate the intricacies of translational methods

(because I am

> not qualified) I know there are others that are and this is not just

some

> black and white close the door, Wiseman is right, debate.... I think you

> paint a false picture to say that linguistics has this 100% agreed

upon gold

> standard and if you don't follow it then you are wrong... That is

not true!

>

> I just did a little internet reading about different translation methods

> etc... Very enlightening, there are many opinions, and again I see both

> sides... I would not be so hasty to think one is 'just right'... A

common

> phrase that came up quite often was, " translation is an art rather

than a

> science " ... I really have nothing more to say, and am bowing out mainly

> because I am no linguist... but I will stay open to different

possibilities

> so I will be happy to hear both sides of the coin... my 2 cent rant!

>

> -Jason