More on a disorder of qi

[Guest guest]

thanks, that's interesting... You're calling it man while distention (zhang4)

in the PD also

has abdominal distension as a secondary definition... and if we go full circle

to where we

started from and look at fullness (man3) we see that explicit definitions either

target the

chest or diaphram. And then fullness and oppression in the chest and daphragm is

" a

subjecting feeling of stifling fullness in the lower part of the chest. Fullness

and

oppression in the chest and diaphragm Is associated with phlegm. " Qi

stagation?

 

doug

 

 

 

 

, " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus>

wrote:

>

> , " "

> 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]

Fullness is also a common word in the context of the abdomen, so it is

not exclusive to the chest and diaphragm. Phrases commonly seen

include glomus (a sensation of fullness and blockage) and fullness in

the stomach duct and abdomen, or abdominal fullness, etc. I am not an

expert of these matters, but it is clear that fullness can be used for

the abdomen, and fullness is separated from distention by a gradation

of severity and its subjective nature.

 

>Qi stagation?

 

Usually present, but not necessarily a causative factor, I would guess.

 

Bloating has a pretty wide range of use, because it can be mild or

severe, subjective or objective, not to mention psychosomatic. It

most likely can't be correlated every time to the same Chinese idea.

 

BTW, what are the Eastland equivalents of man3 and zhang4? And the

Macioccia equivalents?

 

Eric

 

 

 

, " "

wrote:

>

> thanks, that's interesting... You're calling it man while

distention (zhang4) in the PD also

> has abdominal distension as a secondary definition... and if we go

full circle to where we

> started from and look at fullness (man3) we see that explicit

definitions either target the

> chest or diaphram. And then fullness and oppression in the chest and

daphragm is " a

> subjecting feeling of stifling fullness in the lower part of the

chest. Fullness and

> oppression in the chest and diaphragm Is associated with phlegm. "

Qi stagation?

>

> doug

>

>

>

>

> , " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

> >

> > , " "

> > 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]

I have to agree with you and say that this reminds me of the current

political behavior of Republican party. It does show that we as a country

are very divided on many things including communication, rights, etc.

Extremism is not a positive way to go. Say, how come no one has spoken

about what the ancient people or modern ones feel (deeper connections) as

opposed to outside descriptions of these ideas? Wouldn't it be better to

actually have some personal internal understanding/feeling of these

concepts? Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " "

>

>

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

>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:33:04 -0700

>

>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]

>

> Eric Brand [smilinglotus]

>

> 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.

>

Yet

> this method of simplification is supposed to provide greater

> transparency and clarity?

[Jason]

 

Eric,

 

I can't say I disagree at all. Obviously over-simplification is inferior no

matter what one calls it i.e. transparent.. This of course is not how I am

using transparent..

 

I also do not deny that if something is back-wards compatibility then it is

majority of the time best - but is it always??? (see below). But my point

[Jason] (previously) was just nothing can be 100% backwards compatibility,

i.e., because the Chinese use multiple words for 1 English word (for

example). - and you agree with this... My other point was that as far as

other aspects of translation methodology there is much debate... But who can

deny that our gold standard should be: original Chinese + pinyin + then

translation. If the 1st two are not available there should be some way to

get to the Chinese (if the term needs it)... This latter part is also part

of the transparency issue, which I am on the fence of... I.e. If I say,

" The patient felt unwell " this is transparent and do you really think it

matters which Chinese word I am referring to? For obvious reasons if I say

the " patient had malaria " - I want to know exactly the Chinese term, there

is no transparency even possible which such a word.

This is where I see the middle ground, I don't think every word NEEDS to be

referenced (but if it is, great).

 

*** But below is an example of flexibility and transparency that Nigel uses

in the database intertwined with a personal example, which hopefully

demonstrates what I am talking about...

 

Check out the term xing3(ÐÑ) - Nigel defines this is - rouse (v). - If you

look throughout the different translations for this term in compounds, he

does not always translate it as rouse, he might use 'awaken', 'aroused',

'restore' - (but the definition only says rouse)... Now this came up in a

passage I was working on... The term was ÐÑθ (xing3 wei4) - 'arouse the

stomach', but it did not fit - and that specific compound was not listed,

but because of the database I translated it as 'restore the stomach' -

which made more sense... Thanx Nigel...

 

Now.. the point - > this more correct, transparent term choice, makes the

phrase not 100% backwards compatible, for example restore can = fan3 (·µ) or

fu4 (¸´) or huan2 (»¹) according to Nigel. So we have sacrificed a pegged

term (rouse, aroused) and backwards compatibility for a term choice that is

clearer to the Chinese passage (being more transparent) and this is

dependant on the words and passage around this technical term (rouse)...

Being able to get to rouse (xing3) is not possible for the reader, but the

reader will have a better and clearer picture of what the author is

saying... This just shows the nuance that writers use. Nigel confirms this

idea by his flexibility in using xing3 in other ways than rouse within

various compounds... His Database is full of such examples which only

confirm that sometimes one must translate terms slightly different depending

on context. This is transparency and flexibility... Does this make sense?

 

 

Now will I even footnote that 'restore' = xing3? I am unsure... I don't

think it really changes much. The reader will get no further insight from

knowing that the original term choice is xing3... the herbs, passage et al

speak for themselves. The translator makes a decision that (of course has

been checked with qualified others) and if it represents a clearer

transparent picture then all the better...

 

Yes this may be quite rare in main stream textbooks, and I think we are

saying the same thing in general, but I just wanted to give an example of

when to break out of the box and what I mean by good 'transparency' not some

oversimplified lumping of multiple terms... Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

Thanks for clearing that up, it wasn't so clear in the PD. As far as Eastland,

under Da

Cheng Qi Tang in F & S, focal distension is a subjective sensation and fullness is

objective/visible. I seem to remember elsewhere there is a discussion about Pi

Man etc....

I'll also remind people of the two Patterns and Practice Books by Zhao Jiingyi

and Li Xuemei

for some of the most readable texts (best?) on clinical cases. I'll also

reinerate my position

that for translation the PD is great however for those doing original writing,

clinical cases

or interpretation then more flexibility is needed to make clear concepts " in

plain English " .

Giovanni is a mess because it's not clear which is which in his books.

As far as someone " feeling fat " I can remember a case where we sent the woman

for

Hepatitis/cirrhosis tests because of her distended stomach. This objectively was

out of

proportion to the rest of her body. When tests can back negative for this as

well as a

number of other tests the doctors ran we eventually purged her of the problem.

doug

 

, " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus>

wrote:

>

> Fullness is also a common word in the context of the abdomen, so it is

> not exclusive to the chest and diaphragm. Phrases commonly seen

> include glomus (a sensation of fullness and blockage) and fullness in

> the stomach duct and abdomen, or abdominal fullness, etc. I am not an

> expert of these matters, but it is clear that fullness can be used for

> the abdomen, and fullness is separated from distention by a gradation

> of severity and its subjective nature.

>

> >Qi stagation?

>

> Usually present, but not necessarily a causative factor, I would guess.

>

> Bloating has a pretty wide range of use, because it can be mild or

> severe, subjective or objective, not to mention psychosomatic. It

> most likely can't be correlated every time to the same Chinese idea.

>

> BTW, what are the Eastland equivalents of man3 and zhang4? And the

> Macioccia equivalents?

>

> Eric

>

>

>

> , " "

> wrote:

> >

> > thanks, that's interesting... You're calling it man while

> distention (zhang4) in the PD also

> > has abdominal distension as a secondary definition... and if we go

> full circle to where we

> > started from and look at fullness (man3) we see that explicit

> definitions either target the

> > chest or diaphram. And then fullness and oppression in the chest and

> daphragm is " a

> > subjecting feeling of stifling fullness in the lower part of the

> chest. Fullness and

> > oppression in the chest and diaphragm Is associated with phlegm. "

> Qi stagation?

> >

> > doug

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > , " Eric Brand "

> <smilinglotus> wrote:

> > >

> > > , " "

> > > 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]

I agree with you. PD terminology is flexible and pegged terms vary a

bit by context. For example, stanch (bleeding), check (diarrhea,

dysentery, etc), suppress (cough), relieve (pain) all are the same

word in Chinese. There are many situations where a single word is not

rigidly pegged to a single word in the target language, because the

nuance varies depending on the compound. The important thing is that

a trail is left for the curious readers who want to know what the

original said. Any solution that provides such a trail is acceptable.

It doesn't matter whether this is PD terminology, Eastland

terminology, Macioccia terminology, or whatever. The only thing that

matters is consistency and traceability.

 

PD is the default terminology because it is the only terminology that

is developed beyond a few hundred terms. It is the only system that

is complete enough for the purposes of translation. Because of this,

many translators have chosen to use it because it offers the only

realistic solution. Over 2/3 of ALL books currently sold for

professional use in the US use PD terminology. It has already proven

to be an effective solution across a wide array of topics and the

market reflects this. Writing a new book in PD terminology connects

the reader to dozens of titles in a seamless way. There is plenty of

room for variation of terms and notations of exceptions.

 

Using PD terminology does not limit a translator in any way, but not

using a consistent terminology limits the profession because the

reader must constantly try to decipher which common words are

connected to which concepts by which authors. This is tolerable when

the only deviations are Bensky and Macioccia, but if twenty new

authors emerge in the next ten years all using their own preferential

phrases, we have a mess on our hands. This business about distention

is hard enough to figure out even without having 20 writers using it

in different ways at different times. CM was young in the West when

Macioccia and Bensky started their work, concepts were unfamiliar and

a good basic education was hard to come by. Now there are good

schools, thousands of students, and dozens of translators. We need to

agree on some basic things.

 

It is much easier to use the framework of a developed and complete

system and then elaborate on problematic phrases and exceptions,

rather than to start from scratch and do everything one's own way with

thousands of terms that are comprehensible to only the author. Any

non-PD terminology would be welcome to be a standard, but it doesn't

exist. No one else has ever even come close to making a big glossary,

much less a big list of terms with definitions, treatments,

etiologies, etc. We cannot escape the fact that CM has terms anymore

than we can escape the fact that biology and WM have terms. If you

are in that field, you learn those terms. You don't invent them

yourself, you just use the ones that exist and are established, even

if you don't like the sound of long cumbersome words like

staphlococcus. If every WM author had their own phrase for staph,

we'd be in total chaos. The use of language is an art, but picking

artistic names for diseases that vary by context would create a mess.

 

I agree that it would be nice if books had Chinese and Pinyin and

English, but it is just not practical. It wastes a lot of space and

the cost of books is hard to keep down as it is. It is hard to draw

the line on what to have pinyin for and what to leave out, because

70-80% of the total words in a book like Bensky have a specific source

word that would ideally be intoned and included. But that would

destroy the visual appearance of the text and make it cumbersome to

read. Furthermore, most readers aren't interested in it anyway.

 

BTW, Nigel has about 8 pages of corrections and additions that will be

put into the next update of the CD dictionary. You might like to keep

track of the things that you think are missing or need improvement so

that each new addition can be progressively more accurate and

inclusive. It is a work that is never finished, so people's

improvements and suggestions are always encouraged.

 

Eric

 

 

 

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Eric Brand [smilinglotus]

> >

> > 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.

> >

> Yet

> > this method of simplification is supposed to provide greater

> > transparency and clarity?

> [Jason]

>

> Eric,

>

> I can't say I disagree at all. Obviously over-simplification is

inferior no

> matter what one calls it i.e. transparent.. This of course is not

how I am

> using transparent..

>

> I also do not deny that if something is back-wards compatibility

then it is

> majority of the time best - but is it always??? (see below). But

my point

> [Jason] (previously) was just nothing can be 100% backwards

compatibility,

> i.e., because the Chinese use multiple words for 1 English word (for

> example). - and you agree with this... My other point was that as far as

> other aspects of translation methodology there is much debate... But

who can

> deny that our gold standard should be: original Chinese + pinyin + then

> translation. If the 1st two are not available there should be some

way to

> get to the Chinese (if the term needs it)... This latter part is

also part

> of the transparency issue, which I am on the fence of... I.e. If I say,

> " The patient felt unwell " this is transparent and do you really

think it

> matters which Chinese word I am referring to? For obvious reasons

if I say

> the " patient had malaria " - I want to know exactly the Chinese term,

there

> is no transparency even possible which such a word.

> This is where I see the middle ground, I don't think every word

NEEDS to be

> referenced (but if it is, great).

>

> *** But below is an example of flexibility and transparency that

Nigel uses

> in the database intertwined with a personal example, which hopefully

> demonstrates what I am talking about...

>

> Check out the term xing3(ÐÑ) - Nigel defines this is - rouse (v). -

If you

> look throughout the different translations for this term in

compounds, he

> does not always translate it as rouse, he might use 'awaken', 'aroused',

> 'restore' - (but the definition only says rouse)... Now this came up

in a

> passage I was working on... The term was ÐÑθ (xing3 wei4) -

'arouse the

> stomach', but it did not fit - and that specific compound was not

listed,

> but because of the database I translated it as 'restore the stomach' -

> which made more sense... Thanx Nigel...

>

> Now.. the point - > this more correct, transparent term choice,

makes the

> phrase not 100% backwards compatible, for example restore can = fan3

(·µ) or

> fu4 (¸´) or huan2 (»¹) according to Nigel. So we have sacrificed a

pegged

> term (rouse, aroused) and backwards compatibility for a term choice

that is

> clearer to the Chinese passage (being more transparent) and this is

> dependant on the words and passage around this technical term (rouse)...

> Being able to get to rouse (xing3) is not possible for the reader,

but the

> reader will have a better and clearer picture of what the author is

> saying... This just shows the nuance that writers use. Nigel

confirms this

> idea by his flexibility in using xing3 in other ways than rouse within

> various compounds... His Database is full of such examples which only

> confirm that sometimes one must translate terms slightly different

depending

> on context. This is transparency and flexibility... Does this make

sense?

>

>

> Now will I even footnote that 'restore' = xing3? I am unsure... I don't

> think it really changes much. The reader will get no further

insight from

> knowing that the original term choice is xing3... the herbs, passage

et al

> speak for themselves. The translator makes a decision that (of

course has

> been checked with qualified others) and if it represents a clearer

> transparent picture then all the better...

>

> Yes this may be quite rare in main stream textbooks, and I think we are

> saying the same thing in general, but I just wanted to give an

example of

> when to break out of the box and what I mean by good 'transparency'

not some

> oversimplified lumping of multiple terms... Comments?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Doug

What are the names of these Zhao Jiingyi and Li Xuemei

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

So we have sacrificed a pegged

term (rouse, aroused) and backwards compatibility for a term choice that is

clearer to the Chinese passage (being more transparent) and this is

dependant on the words and passage around this technical term (rouse)...

Being able to get to rouse (xing3) is not possible for the reader,

 

>>>>>>Well this is the only argument we are having. So if the writer has this

freedom than what is the argument?

Also, you hinted that those translators that use WT do understand the medicine,

i however do not consider understanding a medical topic without real life

clinical exposure. We have translators translating and giving opinions on the

entire scope of the medicine and I know non have seen 80% of what they write

about. You may consider these as people medically knowledgeable but i see them

as unable to consider the subtleties of each specialty. Hens this common " almost

computer created like " translations and text books.Sometimes when reading them

it feels like many of the paragraphs are templated.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric

I think sometimes regarding head distension western patients also use the word

pulsation qualifying it as a feeling like but not actual pulsation's. Do you

know if this feeling is described as " distension " by modern Chinese speakers?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

spermatorrhea

>>>How about nocturnal?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The omission of technically significant

information is a far bigger concern.

 

>>>I agree and when a standard term helps clarify i have no problem with the

usage. I was always arguing for allowing the translator flexibility, that is

all. I think WT can be used, also as long as one clearly explains terms in a

text any terminology can be used.People are so polarized on this that they read

in black and white. Not using WT does not mean less complexity in any way. All i

am saying there is a lot of gray both in translation methodology as well as in

CM.Why are people so reactionary on this?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:>

>>>Also, you hinted that those translators that use WT do understand

the medicine, i however do not consider understanding a medical topic

without real life clinical exposure.

 

I can't imagine what books you are referring to. If you are referring

to Blue Poppy books, I might point out that Bob Flaws is a clinician

who has been in the field for many years and is well-informed about a

variety of aspects of clinically applied medicine. Many, if not all,

Blue Poppy contributors are also clinicians.

 

If you are referring to Paradigm works, maybe we should go through

some of the prominent titles. Fundamentals of and

Fundamentals of Chinese Acupuncture were written with Andy Ellis, who

is a clinician trained in a variety of modalities and one who has

sought out training with excellent physicians in a variety of

settings. Jiao Shu-De Herbs was written with Craig Mitchell and

Marnae Ergil, who are both in clinical practice as well as being

educators, and Craig's studies in Taiwan included prolonged internship

in high-volume TCM hospital settings. I imagine that Marnae has had

substantial clinical training as well, and, while I don't personally

know much about Shelly Ochs, I know that she was a student of Andy

Ellis' and likely has some respectable clinical experience as well.

 

Marnae Ergil also worked on Practical Diagnosis, and I believe that

Tietao Deng is also a practitioner (but I am not totally sure what

role he played in the translation, I don't know the details of the

text). The new book on Formulas by Jiao Shu-De was completed in part

by Bob Damone, who is one of PCOM's most well-respected teachers and

is one of the most well-regarded practitioners in San Diego. He has a

private practice as well as clinical rotations in the student clinic.

Bob possesses not only a sound technical knowledge of internal

medicine, he possesses an excellent bedside manner and is a model to

his students on all levels.

 

So I am at a loss as to where you notice an absence of clinicians in

these texts. The only other major texts that I haven't yet mentioned

are the Practical Dictionary and the Introduction to Chinese Medical

Terminology and the companion Grammar and Vocabulary. Since these

books lie at the core of the entire issue, it is worth noting the

names that are not Caucasian that appear on the cover. Perhaps

noticing the names of our Eastern counterparts is a hard thing for

Westerners to do, because this same baseless non-clinician argument

has come up again and again for many years now. For those who don't

know, Feng Ye is the co-author of the above texts, as well as the

Paradigm Shang Han Lun.

 

Feng Ye was the primary source of clarity for all of the problems that

arose in the translation of the PD (a 10 year project), and spent 10

years of his life after his hospital shifts editing the material for

accuracy and content. His nearly complete lack of recognition in the

West is probably tempered slightly by the fact that Nigel's name is

probably equally ignored by the Chinese when they read the Ren Min Wei

Sheng edition of the Practical Dictionary (the version that is

published by the PRC's most prestigious TCM publisher). Feng Ye is

THE most well-educated and experienced Chinese doctor that I have ever

met. He is the department head of the Chinese internal medicine

department in the largest hospital in Taiwan, and he sees over 3000

patients per month (more than many Western clinicians see in a year).

He measures his individual patients by the hundreds of thousands and

is an authority of many different specialties, particularly pulse

diagnosis, classical texts, warm disease, and Chinese medical history.

Feng Ye is a few months away from completing his PhD, he is also

a licensed MD as well as a CMD, and I can assure you that he measures

up to any criteria that you might have for a clinician.

 

So what's your point?

 

Eric

 

 

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> So we have sacrificed a pegged

> term (rouse, aroused) and backwards compatibility for a term choice

that is

> clearer to the Chinese passage (being more transparent) and this is

> dependant on the words and passage around this technical term (rouse)...

> Being able to get to rouse (xing3) is not possible for the reader,

>

> >>>>>>Well this is the only argument we are having. So if the writer

has this freedom than what is the argument?

> Also, you hinted that those translators that use WT do understand

the medicine, i however do not consider understanding a medical topic

without real life clinical exposure. We have translators translating

and giving opinions on the entire scope of the medicine and I know non

have seen 80% of what they write about. You may consider these as

people medically knowledgeable but i see them as unable to consider

the subtleties of each specialty. Hens this common " almost computer

created like " translations and text books.Sometimes when reading them

it feels like many of the paragraphs are templated.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Eric

> I think sometimes regarding head distension western patients also

use the word pulsation qualifying it as a feeling like but not actual

pulsation's. Do you know if this feeling is described as " distension "

by modern Chinese speakers?

 

I don't know the answer. I'd have to ask around to figure out what is

the most natural expression.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Maciocia, Foundations of states "

page 160; " Staganation of Qi causes distention more

than pain, or a distening pain, having no fixed

location. "

 

This does not agree with Wiseman, Foundations, pg. 146

 

" The chief observable signs if qi stagnation are pain

and distention accompanied by sensations of

oppression "

 

However, then as I read on, Wiseman discribes

Damp-Heat as distending pain, but maybe this is Qi

Stagnation and I do not know better.

 

However, which goes back to my basic question, if in

clinic, distention is treated as a Qi Disorder, but

the root of the distention is dampness, whould the

tretment for Qi Stagnation do the patient any good?

 

Wiseman. Foundations; pg 204

" Damp-Heat brewing in the liver and gallbladdder, or

simply liver-gallbladder damp heat, is a disturbance

of liver-gallbladder free coursing due to either

external or internal damp-heat. Internal damp heat is

usually attributable to oversomsumption of fatty or

sweet foods. The principal signs are jaundice,

distenting pain in the rib-side, fullness and

distention in the abdomen "

 

" Damp heat obstructing the spleen and stomach is

characterized by pronounced digestive tract symptoms;

painful distention and oppression in the chest and

abdomen,..... "

 

 

" Damp-heat patterns can also be dientified in terms of

the location of the evil within the triple burner,

Dampness couding the upper burner is characterized by

sensations of heaviness and distention... "

 

Holly

 

 

 

"

 

--- Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

 

 

>

> , " Alon

> Marcus DOM "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > Eric

> > I think sometimes regarding head distension

> western patients also

> use the word pulsation qualifying it as a feeling

> like but not actual

> pulsation's. Do you know if this feeling is

> described as " distension "

> by modern Chinese speakers?

>

> I don't know the answer. I'd have to ask around to

> figure out what is

> the most natural expression.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I have stated before it appears that people are following their perceived

views. It would make sense to address this in a positive non-judgemental

way but people tend to get overly emotional. In the end, this is only a

waste of energy as most will never actually act on it.

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <alonmarcus

>

>

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

>Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:17:35 -0600

>

>The omission of technically significant

>information is a far bigger concern.

>

> >>>I agree and when a standard term helps clarify i have no problem with

>the usage. I was always arguing for allowing the translator flexibility,

>that is all. I think WT can be used, also as long as one clearly explains

>terms in a text any terminology can be used.People are so polarized on this

>that they read in black and white. Not using WT does not mean less

>complexity in any way. All i am saying there is a lot of gray both in

>translation methodology as well as in CM.Why are people so reactionary on

>this?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't know the answer. I'd have to ask around to figure out what is

the most natural expression.

>>>Thanks i would appreciate it. I have used qi-stag treatment strategy often in

these cases with some success

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

So what's your point

>>>I think i will not go into this, sorry. It would be nice to see more books by

Feng Ye

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well said, Eric.

 

 

On Feb 18, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Eric Brand wrote:

 

> So I am at a loss as to where you notice an absence of clinicians in

> these texts.  The only other major texts that I haven't yet mentioned

> are the Practical Dictionary and the Introduction to Chinese Medical

> Terminology and the companion Grammar and Vocabulary.  Since these

> books lie at the core of the entire issue, it is worth noting the

> names that are not Caucasian that appear on the cover.  Perhaps

> noticing the names of our Eastern counterparts is a hard thing for

> Westerners to do, because this same baseless non-clinician argument

> has come up again and again for many years now.  For those who don't

> know, Feng Ye is the co-author of the above texts, as well as the

> Paradigm Shang Han Lun. 

>

> Feng Ye was the primary source of clarity for all of the problems that

> arose in the translation of the PD (a 10 year project), and spent 10

> years of his life after his hospital shifts editing the material for

> accuracy and content.  His nearly complete lack of recognition in the

> West is probably tempered slightly by the fact that Nigel's name is

> probably equally ignored by the Chinese when they read the Ren Min Wei

> Sheng edition of the Practical Dictionary (the version that is

> published by the PRC's most prestigious TCM publisher).  Feng Ye is

> THE most well-educated and experienced Chinese doctor that I have ever

> met. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:37 AM, holly mead wrote:

 

> However, which goes back to my basic question, if in

> clinic, distention is treated as a Qi Disorder, but

> the root of the distention is dampness, whould the

> tretment for Qi Stagnation do the patient any good?

 

I can offer my opinion, clinically speaking. Yes, herbs for Qi

stagnation can help distention due to damp as they tend to be drying.

Plus one treatment principle for the treatment of dampness is to move

Qi. (Others include draining damp through diuresis and drying damp

aromatically.)

 

Distention (which most of my patients will describe as " bloating " ) may

come from a variety of sources, most of which come down to either

dampness or Qi stagnation. Now, Qi stagnation can cause dampness when

we have a wood overacting on earth scenario, or dampness can cause Qi

stagnation which one might describe as earth insulting wood.

 

Fortunately, there are herbs that are okay with either of these

conditions. Herbs such as Chen Pi and Hou Po are favorites for bloating

due to either Qi stagnation or dampness.

 

If there are only signs or dampness and no signs of Qi stagnation Ping

Wei San would be the first direction that I would go. In the case of

signs of Qi stagnation without dampness indications, I'd head toward

Xiao Yao San or Si Ni San. The Clinical Handbook of Traditional Chinese

Medicine (Maclean/Lyttleton) suggests Yue Ju Wan for this condition.

 

If there are signs of both dampness and Qi stagnation, that's when I'd

use Yue Ju Wan, though Maclean/Lyttleton encourages the use of Chai Hu

Shu Gan San.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional Western medical

systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize precisely the

subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study Western medical

terminology not because patients use terms like " pruritus "

or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's gaze rather than

the patient's—but because standardized professional language allows

us to limit the subjectivity of our differentiations, treatments,

and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese medical terminology is

not used by Chinese patients to describe their complaints: that is

why it is medical terminology.

 

I strongly disagree with your statement that " 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 is indeed a

very important and undervalued aspect of our education, and should

accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical terminology. We

hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes experiences that

are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should give due

attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and pathologies, and the

correlations between `patient-speak' and `physician-speak'. But this

does not strengthen the argument to interpret Chinese medical

writings through the lens of our patients' clinical language when

rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient descriptions vary not

only between China and `the West', but regionally, and locally, down

to the personal level. Just because my patient feels " swollen, "

or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in Naples) doesn't make

those any less accurate as textual translations for zhang4, any more

than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach

ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should be taken at

their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in clinic for

these descriptions and should be able to understand the

discrepancies between texts, including those translated from Chinese

that linguistically respect their sources, and clinical realities.

 

Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't work, you

misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for plug-in

translation? The philological issues raised by the transmission of

traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are challenging and deserve

careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes Wisemanology or any

other gloss will lead to robotic translation. Rather, we hope that

using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the subtleties of

Chinese medical language, theory and practice, resisting and

reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce concepts for the

tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jonah Hershowitz

 

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> 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]

I believe that this is a very big problem for new

students.

 

Did you know that most students will not read

different sources of information simply because of the

vast variations of medical terms described by each

book?

 

Just today, I was studying with a fellow student, and

we were discussing terms, and she, just like many of

the others I speak with, will not learn from books,

they study and learn strictly from the instructors

notes in order to achieve that outstanding performance

grade.

 

I was instructed for my next exam to answer only from

the terms as described by Maciocia's, The Foundation

of , and disregard the knowledge

gained from my other sources.

 

Maybe that is the right way to do things, since there

seems to be nothing to help new students catch the

" nuances " which was described in the previous e-mail.

 

 

I have always wondered why we as beginners are not

taught directly from translations of the classics.

 

Holly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- hershowitz <jonah wrote:

 

>

> Alon,

>

> Chinese medicine, like modern and traditional

> Western medical

> systems, uses technical nomenclature to minimize

> precisely the

> subjectivity you emphasize in your note. We study

> Western medical

> terminology not because patients use terms like

> " pruritus "

> or " nystagmus " —words that reflect the physician's

> gaze rather than

> the patient's—but because standardized professional

> language allows

> us to limit the subjectivity of our

> differentiations, treatments,

> and outcome measures. Similarly, most Chinese

> medical terminology is

> not used by Chinese patients to describe their

> complaints: that is

> why it is medical terminology.

>

> I strongly disagree with your statement that " 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 is indeed a

> very important and undervalued aspect of our

> education, and should

> accompany rigorous instruction in Chinese medical

> terminology. We

> hope, as you say, that Chinese medicine describes

> experiences that

> are not specific to Chinese cultures, and we should

> give due

> attention to culture-bound signs, symptoms, and

> pathologies, and the

> correlations between `patient-speak' and

> `physician-speak'. But this

> does not strengthen the argument to interpret

> Chinese medical

> writings through the lens of our patients' clinical

> language when

> rendering Chinese texts into English. Patient

> descriptions vary not

> only between China and `the West', but regionally,

> and locally, down

> to the personal level. Just because my patient feels

> " swollen, "

> or " stuffed like a pig " (terms I hear here in

> Naples) doesn't make

> those any less accurate as textual translations for

> zhang4, any more

> than self-diagnoses like " heartburn, " " stomach

> ache, " " TMJ, " " carpel tunnel, " or " sciatica " should

> be taken at

> their literal word. Physicians should be prepared in

> clinic for

> these descriptions and should be able to understand

> the

> discrepancies between texts, including those

> translated from Chinese

> that linguistically respect their sources, and

> clinical realities.

>

> Finally, in stating that plug-in translation doesn't

> work, you

> misrepresent opposing viewpoints. Who has argued for

> plug-in

> translation? The philological issues raised by the

> transmission of

> traditional Chinese medical nomenclature are

> challenging and deserve

> careful treatment; I don't think anyone hopes

> Wisemanology or any

> other gloss will lead to robotic translation.

> Rather, we hope that

> using such a reference perhaps we can preserve the

> subtleties of

> Chinese medical language, theory and practice,

> resisting and

> reversing the trend to alter, elaborate, or reduce

> concepts for the

> tempting and deceptive aim of cultural adaptation.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Jonah Hershowitz

>

> , " Alon

> Marcus DOM "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jonah

I have no problem with technical terminology and i believe CM practitioners

must study the depth of the medicine, including all its technical terms. I also

do not have any problem using such terms especially when translating some texts

(when the original authors have all used the same terms to have similar

meanings). I have enjoyed and have learned form several WT texts. I think when

translating classical works a standard translation has many advantages but also

weaknesses (and we should also remember that we often do not really know what

many of the terms mean and therefor should still be open to many varying

interpretation). On the other hand i do have problems with books that are more

clinically oriented if the terms do not conform, make sense, or translate

culturally. A book written for use in a western clinical setting should relate

terms to the reality of western patients (and still be as accurate regarding the

Chinese experience as possible, a tall order).When additional explanation beyond

standard stated terms, and i think is needed often, it must be provided.

Relying on standard technical terminology is often less ideal. When one writes

or translates modern clinical manuals i think one MUST struggle with issues that

are not always best dealt with standardized terms.That is also why i believe if

one is to write a modern clinical manual one should only write about areas in

which he/she have extensive clinical experience. It is some of these books that

i have referred to as having the feeling of almost being computer

generated(obviously many of the texts we have have been written by practitioners

with vast experience in the particular field they have written on, but many have

not). Again, as a profession i believe we are better served by having

flexibility.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am curious what descriptions patients have given for, non abdominal or chest

related, " distension " symptoms?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Just today, I was studying with a fellow student, and

we were discussing terms, and she, just like many of

the others I speak with, will not learn from books,

they study and learn strictly from the instructors

notes in order to achieve that outstanding performance

grade

>>>>>That is very sad they are missing a whole universe of material. They

>>>>>are undergoing indoctrination instead of education

 

 

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

I very much appreciate your comments and am heartened by your level-

headed and practical approach. I can't agree more that the /authors/

(is there a standard substitute for italics or emphasis in e-

writing?) should be the most informed, intelligent, experienced

people possible. We all want great books written by great folks who

know what they're talking about, using the language that suits them,

including technical terminologies and so-called lay terms. I look

very much to purchasing your book when I return to the Bay Area in

April, and it is indeed your well-evidenced clinical scholarship as

an author that interests me.

 

A translator working with a Chinese author's work on Chinese

medicine, on the other hand, is best served with at least a glossary

in hand in addition to standard dictionaries and so on. Which leads

me to:

 

Eric,

 

While the clinical credentials of the individuals you mention are

undeniable merits which can only credit their translation skills,

they are not in my opinion the bottom-line measure for the quality of

a translator. I place far more value in a translator's linguistic

abilities, and expect that clinicians be consulted as editors when

necessary. Clinicians may make better or worse translators, and for

that matter, use of standardized terminology is no guarantee for good

translation, as so many have previously pointed out in this

discussion. But it sure helps, and those equipped with such tools are

better prepared to face the difficulties of transmission. I would

prefer a bad translator use the PD rather than not. To the degree

that Wiseman is " Caucasian " (why that term is in current use I'm not

sure) and a non-clinician, he will need the council of those who have

native fluency in Chinese and who understand at least to his level of

competence the clinical context of the text, if needed. And to the

degree that Feng is Chinese and a clinician, he would be well-advised

to work with (and I think also to leave the final translation

decisions to) a native English speaker who specializes in Chinese

medical translation. All the better if that specialist is an

experienced clinician.

 

What do you think?

 

Jonah Hershowitz

 

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Jonah

> I have no problem with technical terminology and i believe CM

practitioners must study the depth of the medicine, including all its

technical terms. I also do not have any problem using such terms

especially when translating some texts (when the original authors

have all used the same terms to have similar meanings). I have

enjoyed and have learned form several WT texts. I think when

translating classical works a standard translation has many

advantages but also weaknesses (and we should also remember that we

often do not really know what many of the terms mean and therefor

should still be open to many varying interpretation). On the other

hand i do have problems with books that are more clinically oriented

if the terms do not conform, make sense, or translate culturally. A

book written for use in a western clinical setting should relate

terms to the reality of western patients (and still be as accurate

regarding the Chinese experience as possible, a tall order).When

additional explanation beyond standard stated terms, and i think is

needed often, it must be provided. Relying on standard technical

terminology is often less ideal. When one writes or translates modern

clinical manuals i think one MUST struggle with issues that are not

always best dealt with standardized terms.That is also why i believe

if one is to write a modern clinical manual one should only write

about areas in which he/she have extensive clinical experience. It is

some of these books that i have referred to as having the feeling of

almost being computer generated(obviously many of the texts we have

have been written by practitioners with vast experience in the

particular field they have written on, but many have not). Again, as

a profession i believe we are better served by having flexibility.

>

>

>

>

>