Guest guest Posted July 6, 2005 Report Share Posted July 6, 2005 On the Standard Nomenclature of Traditional by Xie Zhufan. Foreign Language Press I found this a very interesting book on terminology, analyzing various English word choices. Apparently Xie has been working with the W.H.O. on the standards. http://www.redwingbooks.com/products/books/StaNomTCM.cfm doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 , " " wrote: > On the Standard Nomenclature of Traditional by Xie Zhufan. > Foreign Language Press > > I found this a very interesting book on terminology, analyzing various English word choices. > Apparently Xie has been working with the W.H.O. on the standards. Xie Zhu-Fan is one of China's most influential experts on terminology. However, his methodology has a number of significant flaws. Xie's approach and Wiseman's approach were assessed by the WHO, and Xie's approach was apparently found to have a number of problems that resulted in Wiseman's approach being chosen as a better method. While Wiseman's term list will apparently become the general foundation, Prof. Xie will still be involved in determining areas that can be improved and refined. Among the chief flaws noted: 1) His standard list does not include many basic terms and common phrases. Professor Xie does not include phrases containing verbs, despite the fact that all Chinese dictionaries of CM have such terms. 2) Prof Xie has a number of poor term choices. For example, the phrase " five elements " is a poor choice because elements refer to simple substances and bear a similarity to the four elements of greek philosophy. This leads to an inappropriate understanding of the nature of the five phases, as the term xing means movement, not element. The five phases describe a process of dynamic change, not a division of elemental matter. Similar poor term choices abound. For example, the use of the term " triple energizer " for the san jiao. Qi is not the same as energy, and the san jiao is related to water as well as qi. The Chinese term has a wider meaning than energizing, and energizer bears no relation to the actual word in Chinese- burner. As another example, xue mai is rendered by Prof Xie as blood vessels or blood circulation. In ancient Chinese, the term xue mai meant " blood " and " vessels, " which often had a different use that the modern meaning of xue mai- " blood vessels. " This is not distinguished by Prof. Xie. Pages and pages of examples such as these have been written in regards to Prof. Xie's work. It is very difficult for a non-native speaker to create standardized terminology in a foreign language. When WM went to Japan and China, Westerners did not pick the translations in the target language. Choosing terms requires a deep and subtle understanding of the target language that is difficult to recreate in a non-native speaker. For example, the term 'acute throat troubles' is not a phrase that Westerners would choose. 3) Prof. Xie's terms contain grammatical errors and poor style. For example, 'entering of heat into the blood aspect,' 'failure of lung in purification,' 'evening vomiting of that eaten in previous morning,' 'attack of heart by retained water,' 'seven- or eight-years- old children.' 4) Single terms with multiple equivalents when used for the same meaning. It is correct to translate a single word differently when it has a different meaning, such as 'hua' for slippery (pulse) vs. efflux (desertion), or 'se' as rough (pulse) vs astringent (flavor). But when the word has the same meaning, it should be translated consistently. Prof. Xie translates the word 'jin' in some places as tendon, some places as muscle, sometimes soft tissue, sometimes sinew. " Jie " meaning 'to tie' is translated by Wiseman as bind(ing) in all contexts, but it is rendered by Xie as retention, stagnancy, constipation, combined, and accumulation. 5) Multiple terms with single English equivalents: The words translated by Wiseman as bind (jie), collect (ting), amassment (xu), and obstruction (zu) are all rendered by Xie with the single term retention. Bind, stagnation, depression, and accumulation are all rendered as " stagnancy. " 6) Excessive pinyin- Why say guizhi decoction instead of cinnamon decoction. Or why not just say guizhi tang? 7) Excessive use of modern WM terms. Things like " hyperemia of bulbular conjunctiva " are not good translations for documents written long before the Chinese were aware of a bulbular conjunctiva. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 Marnae It is not the students we are pleading with, but we'll have to leave it at that. I couldn't agree more with you about who sets the gold standard for instructional content. It is definitely instructors, not students. Students cannot know what is good or bad, so as institutions we need to set standards by recommending certain resources and not others. However people naturally construct knowledge from available sources and they can't just be steered clear of the stuff that isn't up to snuff by some standard. First of all, they will have to know Bensky and Macioicia terms for boards. In addition, we all agree that there is a lot of great stuff in the Eastland press materials and lets be honest, the lack of standardized terminology in the Eastland books is a minor detriment that does not undermine their clinical utility much if at all. Perhaps someone has a specific example of a time the lack of standardized terms in Bensky led them down a precarious clinical path. Because there must be real risk in not using using such terms to make such a fuss. I like knowing what the source said in direct translations, so I prefer Wiseman in those cases. But I also do fine with connotative work like Bensky when the source is trustworthy (like Steve Clavey). They each are useful in their own way. Students primarily need to know how to disriminate between types of translation (connotative, denotative, etc.) as well as a bit about the chinese language and the worldwide academic consensus on translation standards in technical fields. But in fairness, they also need to be exposed to the other side of the debate within our field since that side actually dominates right now. They should read the JCM letters on this as well as countless posts archived here at CHA. Most folks will pick and choose from a largely nonstandardized smorgasbord (including some standardized materials) and our goal should be to faciltate the doing of this without getting mental indigestion in the process, as it were. BTW, the position that translation needs no standards and that each person can and should construct their own meaning and terms when reading and conveying meaning from the CM literature is what is called a radical constructivist empistemology in the educational research literature. It is at the extreme end of relativism philosophically. In other words, standards suhc as Wiseman's are considering constraints on understanding, not aids, in this mode of thinking. It is a widely held philosophy in academia today and thus is really no surprise it affects this discussion. There is no debate amongst translators in the hard sciences and western medicine along these lines. It is perhaps because chinese medicine uses a technical language rooted in the literary tradition and because many in the field come from liberal arts backgrounds rather than science that the lines are no so clear. In literature, translation does not abide by such standards and connotation is the norm it seems to me. Same in comparative religion and some aspects of cultural anthropology and sociology, too, where the authors often spend time explaining their understanding of a chinese term rather just standardizing it and refrring theuser to a dictionary. Some of us have made up their minds on this matter long ago (my first article was in the OCOM newsletter in my second year of school in 1991), but the literary and metaphorical nature of the TCM literature does make the case for connotative translation a little more compelling, at least in some cases. , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: - > > Many comments I could make - but I will make only one - rather than > " pleading " for the books. SImply require them. We do. We test outof > them, we use the language in classes and in clinic as much as possible (not > to the exclusion of other terms but for the most part) and we teach from > them. Many of our students do not even own a copy of Maciocia's > Foundations or the " Gold " book (whatever it is called) or the Gyn > book. There are many, many other books that are as good or better that use > a more standardized terminology. Stop pleading and require. Students > don't get to choose the book they want for class - the instructor gets to > choose the book they think is best. And hopefully, they have some basis > for making this judgement - that is why they are the teacher right? > > marnae > > At 09:49 AM 7/2/2005, you wrote: > >I was excited to hear about the adoption of Wiseman terminology as > >the international standard for our profession. However, I do wonder > >if this really is a sign of TCM in the west coming of age. I will be > >posting an article on the site about TCM and the development of a > >mature profession. The basic gist is that vigorous and often > >uncollegial debate is the rule not the exception in the development > >of a mature profession and that we need the battle to reach its peak > >before there can be any hope of resolution. So is this standard a > >point of coming together or just a flag to rally around or against. > >time will tell, but no argument here has swayed anyone yet. In all > >likelihood the American trait of stubborn independence and suspicion > >of centralized authority will likely dominate. The most common > >refrain against wiseman all these years has been that the > > " imposition " of the terminology is akin to tyranny. I have argued > >exactly the reverse. Search my many posts on the subject for details > >(BTW, the site at craneherb.com is the best place to search CHA > >messages before July 2003). Wiseman AND terminology should work. > > > >The strong supporters of standardized terminology are a minority in > >the profession. My estimate would be less than 10%. I do not think > >this will change just due to some decree in a foreign land (see the > >analogy here). Will this change that fact almost of the required > >board exam texts use nonstandardized terminology? PCOM has no intent > >to ever abandon Bensky especially with the accolades for the new > >matmed and salivation over the upcoming formulas text. And Bensky > >certainly has no incentive to get on board. He has argued for many > >years against the need for any such standard. Will Maciocia or > >Deadman come around either. It seems unlikely. The two herb related > >Wiseman term board exam texts in California are Fundamentals of > > and Practical Diagnosis. Both superb books, both > >required at PCOM, both largely ignored by the students despite pleas > >from the likes of myself, Z'ev, Bob Damone and Warren Sheir. The > >rest of the faculty are not in accord on this matter. And while we > >might assume that those who do not speak or write about this matter > >with passion are either neutral or split evenly, I would suggest > >otherwise. The silent majority usually supports the status quo, > >which is why they remain silent. They may not be strong supporters > >of the status quo, but they see nothing that needs to be fixed. Most > >folks are practical that way. So how will this really impact us? > > > >It will impact the Asians who adopt this format for future books > >published in Asia and also translations of journal literature. > >However translations done by native speakers of the source tongue are > >not ideal and most Americans in the field do not buy many books, much > >less to Asian journals. Even the only two real active > >forums for TCM (CHA and Attilio's TCM) have a combined overlapping > >membership of probably less than 2000. Most of our English language > >journals are defunct or on the way, except for JCM. The American > >audience who would theoretically embrace technical term standards in > >chinese medicine are academics in various sciences and medical > >doctors who respect rigor in their literature. But neither group has > >expressed any particular interest in Chinese medical concepts. Most > >of the TCM research being done in the west is allopathic and disease > >oriented and this trend appears to be mounting. Researchers are > >interested in our herbs, our techniques and discovering the > >scientific mechanism for all of it. but as for the conceptual basis, > >opinions range from silence to neutrality to contempt. Since the > >Wiseman standards are primarily concerned with the transmission of > >the classic and modern TCM terms, I am hard pressed to see how this > >will have major impact without a similar decree from American > >accreditors or standards of publication adopted by all presses. The > >late Jim Ramholz frequently compared the use of standards to > >censorship, so this seems unlikely to fly. This is a great day for > >those of us who will look forward to an explosion of material in > >Wisemanese emanating from Asia. Perhaps over time, this will just > >amount to a dwarfing of the nonstandard terms used in other works. > >As long as the current official position (schools, ACAOM, boards, > >etc.) on term standard remains no standard, this will all amount to > >no more than a hill of beans. > > > > > > > > > > > >Chinese Herbs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: > Thank you Eric - very clearly stated and gets to the exact point of the > problem. The oversimplification of terms and the resultant loss of > meaning. > > Marnae Yes, Eric. Very well put. Among otherthings, it really explains why Bensky remains so useful despite his apparent lack of standards - he is consistent and his meaning is clear. Compliments my last post well, I think even though I didn't read yours till after posting mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 At 09:42 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: >Marnae > >It is not the students we are pleading with, but we'll have to leave it at >that. Sorry you have to leave it at that. WHile a program should be guided by its director/dean, I would hope that they would take advice from their faculty and not dictate texts etc., but, then, maybe they do! > I couldn't >agree more with you about who sets the gold standard for instructional >content. It is >definitely instructors, not students. Students cannot know what is good >or bad, so as >institutions we need to set standards by recommending certain resources >and not others. >However people naturally construct knowledge from available sources and >they can't just >be steered clear of the stuff that isn't up to snuff by some standard. Of course they can. That is a part of a teachers job as well. To help students to learn to discriminate what is up to snuff and what is not. What that standard is, of course, is subjective, but ideally our faculty are sufficiently educated to be able to discriminate themselves. Here, I believe lies some of the problem - the tendency to hire faculty out of expedience rather than qualification - because they can teach at a time when a class needs to be offered, rather than scheduling the class at a time when a more qualified faculty member can teach it. And I highly question whether the current DOM programs are doing anything to advance the process of educating individuals to be good faculty. >First of all, they will >have to know Bensky and Macioicia terms for boards. Agreed - sort of. I never read Maciocia when I was a student - and I understood and passed the boards just fine. I only read Maciocia later when I started writing about translation issues and discovered what the issues were. As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal system - I just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. >In addition, we all agree that there is >a lot of great stuff in the Eastland press materials Absolutely. Other presses too. >and lets be honest, the lack of >standardized terminology in the Eastland books is a minor detriment that >does not >undermine their clinical utility much if at all. Perhaps someone has a >specific example of a >time the lack of standardized terms in Bensky led them down a precarious >clinical path. >Because there must be real risk in not using using such terms to make such >a fuss. Ah the fuss...it does seem to continue. But, as I believe you pointed you earlier, the issue is not only clinical, but technological - standardization giving people the opportunity to do searches etc. Clinically, while I think it may not be a major " risk " I do think that by over-simplifying a translation, we lose meaning and thus quite possible lead to incorrect understanding/treatment. >I like knowing what the source said in direct translations, so I prefer >Wiseman in those >cases. But I also do fine with connotative work like Bensky when the >source is trustworthy >(like Steve Clavey).They each are useful in their own way. Students >primarily need to >know how to disriminate between types of translation (connotative, >denotative, etc.). This is something that COMP has been saying for years - requesting that publishers agree to publish a statement in the front of the book indicating what kind of work is being offered. Unfortunately, not many publishers have agreed to this - I'm not sure why. > as >well as a bit about the chinese language and the worldwide academic >consensus on >translation standards in technical fields. A good reason to require a class in Medical Chinese. How many schools do any training in this area? >But in fairness, they also need to be exposed to >the other side of the debate within our field since that side actually >dominates right now. >They should read the JCM letters on this as well as countless posts >archived here at CHA. >Most folks will pick and choose from a largely nonstandardized smorgasbord >(including >some standardized materials) and our goal should be to faciltate the doing >of this without >getting mental indigestion in the process, as it were. And the more reading they do, the better off they will be. But, only if they are able to discriminate. If they simply read without discriminating, then they can consider it wasting time. And, unfortunately, too many of the students in this field have not really learned how to discriminate when reading anything - and few of the programs out there ask them to learn - or, unfortunately, they support the lack of learning by requiring less effective, less informative texts. >BTW, the position that translation needs no standards and that each person >can and >should construct their own meaning and terms when reading and conveying >meaning from >the CM literature is what is called a radical constructivist empistemology >in the educational >research literature. It is at the extreme end of relativism >philosophically. In other words, >standards suhc as Wiseman's are considering constraints on understanding, >not aids, in >this mode of thinking. It is a widely held philosophy in academia today >and thus is really >no surprise it affects this discussion. INteresting to hear this. When I was in grad school at the University of Washington in Anthropology, relativism was almost a dirty word. You say, " radical constructivist epistemology " is at the extreme end - and yet you also say it is a widely held philosophy. >There is no debate amongst translators in the hard >sciences and western medicine along these lines. It is perhaps because >chinese medicine >uses a technical language rooted in the literary tradition and because >many in the field >come from liberal arts backgrounds rather than science that the lines are >no so clear. In >literature, translation does not abide by such standards and connotation >is the norm it >seems to me. Same in comparative religion and some aspects of cultural >anthropology >and sociology, too, where the authors often spend time explaining their >understanding of >a chinese term rather just standardizing it and refrring theuser to a >dictionary. Most of my reading in translation texts - primarily written about literature - actually do not support the more relativistic types of translation - at least not within in the text, but rather that the translators comments be put in endnotes. >Some of us >have made up their minds on this matter long ago (my first article was in >the OCOM >newsletter in my second year of school in 1991), but the literary and >metaphorical nature >of the TCM literature does make the case for connotative translation a >little more >compelling, at least in some cases. But, the use of a standard term with footnotes, endnotes whatever, solves the problem of the technical/literary issue. Use a technical language and then, if you feel it is necesary, explain how you think the term differs in a particular context. This is easily solved and need not be an issue. The funny thing is that most of the authors/translators who are not using PD terminology, also do not tell us why they think a term should be translated in a particular way - so we just get words, not a better understanding of meaning. Marnae >Todd > > , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: > - > > > > Many comments I could make - but I will make only one - rather than > > " pleading " for the books. SImply require them. We do. We test outof > > them, we use the language in classes and in clinic as much as possible > (not > > to the exclusion of other terms but for the most part) and we teach from > > them. Many of our students do not even own a copy of Maciocia's > > Foundations or the " Gold " book (whatever it is called) or the Gyn > > book. There are many, many other books that are as good or better that > use > > a more standardized terminology. Stop pleading and require. Students > > don't get to choose the book they want for class - the instructor gets to > > choose the book they think is best. And hopefully, they have some basis > > for making this judgement - that is why they are the teacher right? > > > > marnae > > > > At 09:49 AM 7/2/2005, you wrote: > > >I was excited to hear about the adoption of Wiseman terminology as > > >the international standard for our profession. However, I do wonder > > >if this really is a sign of TCM in the west coming of age. I will be > > >posting an article on the site about TCM and the development of a > > >mature profession. The basic gist is that vigorous and often > > >uncollegial debate is the rule not the exception in the development > > >of a mature profession and that we need the battle to reach its peak > > >before there can be any hope of resolution. So is this standard a > > >point of coming together or just a flag to rally around or against. > > >time will tell, but no argument here has swayed anyone yet. In all > > >likelihood the American trait of stubborn independence and suspicion > > >of centralized authority will likely dominate. The most common > > >refrain against wiseman all these years has been that the > > > " imposition " of the terminology is akin to tyranny. I have argued > > >exactly the reverse. Search my many posts on the subject for details > > >(BTW, the site at craneherb.com is the best place to search CHA > > >messages before July 2003). Wiseman AND terminology should work. > > > > > >The strong supporters of standardized terminology are a minority in > > >the profession. My estimate would be less than 10%. I do not think > > >this will change just due to some decree in a foreign land (see the > > >analogy here). Will this change that fact almost of the required > > >board exam texts use nonstandardized terminology? PCOM has no intent > > >to ever abandon Bensky especially with the accolades for the new > > >matmed and salivation over the upcoming formulas text. And Bensky > > >certainly has no incentive to get on board. He has argued for many > > >years against the need for any such standard. Will Maciocia or > > >Deadman come around either. It seems unlikely. The two herb related > > >Wiseman term board exam texts in California are Fundamentals of > > > and Practical Diagnosis. Both superb books, both > > >required at PCOM, both largely ignored by the students despite pleas > > >from the likes of myself, Z'ev, Bob Damone and Warren Sheir. The > > >rest of the faculty are not in accord on this matter. And while we > > >might assume that those who do not speak or write about this matter > > >with passion are either neutral or split evenly, I would suggest > > >otherwise. The silent majority usually supports the status quo, > > >which is why they remain silent. They may not be strong supporters > > >of the status quo, but they see nothing that needs to be fixed. Most > > >folks are practical that way. So how will this really impact us? > > > > > >It will impact the Asians who adopt this format for future books > > >published in Asia and also translations of journal literature. > > >However translations done by native speakers of the source tongue are > > >not ideal and most Americans in the field do not buy many books, much > > >less to Asian journals. Even the only two real active > > >forums for TCM (CHA and Attilio's TCM) have a combined overlapping > > >membership of probably less than 2000. Most of our English language > > >journals are defunct or on the way, except for JCM. The American > > >audience who would theoretically embrace technical term standards in > > >chinese medicine are academics in various sciences and medical > > >doctors who respect rigor in their literature. But neither group has > > >expressed any particular interest in Chinese medical concepts. Most > > >of the TCM research being done in the west is allopathic and disease > > >oriented and this trend appears to be mounting. Researchers are > > >interested in our herbs, our techniques and discovering the > > >scientific mechanism for all of it. but as for the conceptual basis, > > >opinions range from silence to neutrality to contempt. Since the > > >Wiseman standards are primarily concerned with the transmission of > > >the classic and modern TCM terms, I am hard pressed to see how this > > >will have major impact without a similar decree from American > > >accreditors or standards of publication adopted by all presses. The > > >late Jim Ramholz frequently compared the use of standards to > > >censorship, so this seems unlikely to fly. This is a great day for > > >those of us who will look forward to an explosion of material in > > >Wisemanese emanating from Asia. Perhaps over time, this will just > > >amount to a dwarfing of the nonstandard terms used in other works. > > >As long as the current official position (schools, ACAOM, boards, > > >etc.) on term standard remains no standard, this will all amount to > > >no more than a hill of beans. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Chinese Herbs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2005 Report Share Posted July 7, 2005 On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Marnae Ergil wrote: > I highly question whether the current DOM programs are doing > anything to > advance the process of educating individuals to be good faculty. The ECTOM program includes a significant class called " faculty development " . I think that this would qualify. Its one of the more important classes because much of our program is learner directed. As long as all of our educational choices are consistent with the expressed outcomes of the program, we can do whatever we want, give or take. Its a neat way of learning how to teach, but directing your own doctoral education... -al. -- Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 It appears we are pretty much in agreement. The DOM programs are not doing a good job training educators and discrimination in reading is the key. , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: > At 09:42 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: > >Marnae > > > >It is not the students we are pleading with, but we'll have to leave it at > >that. > > Sorry you have to leave it at that. WHile a program should be guided by > its director/dean, I would hope that they would take advice from their > faculty and not dictate texts etc., but, then, maybe they do! > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Al PCOM also has such a class. I think ACAOM required it. In theory, its a good idea. But in practice, one class is not that useful. Also, most DAOM students I have spoken with seem most interested in the title, not the education, teaching, research, etc. (notable exception of Dr. Sperber at PCOM - while he does admittedly like the title, he is a committed future leader in the field). , Al Stone <alstone@b...> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Marnae Ergil wrote: > > > I highly question whether the current DOM programs are doing > > anything to > > advance the process of educating individuals to be good faculty. > > The ECTOM program includes a significant class called " faculty > development " . I think that this would qualify. Its one of the more > important classes because much of our program is learner directed. As > long as all of our educational choices are consistent with the > expressed outcomes of the program, we can do whatever we want, give > or take. Its a neat way of learning how to teach, but directing your > own doctoral education... > > -al. > > -- > > Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: > > Of course they can. That is a part of a teachers job as well. To help > students to learn to discriminate what is up to snuff and what is > not. We can and should try and steer them. My point is that we will not succeed if our goal is to just prevent exposure to poor materials. It will happen...a lot. But I think we agree. As for who dictates what to whom in the educational setting, we do have quite an open process here at PCOM. And admin in the form of the dean and president are pretty much with the Academics like me and Z'ev and Bob. However, there are longtime department members and board members who feel otherwise. Their power allows them to obstruct change not by having a majority on their side, but merely by not signing on. This is what I mean about the irreconcilable differences in the field I have mentioned over the years. And why collegiality will probably never achieve the ends of the academics. It will take a bloody battle; that is the way necessary change always occurs in other field. Either heads roll or you wait for the obstructors to eventually die. As for the point about radical constructivism and relativism being the norm, it apparently was the norm for many years in many liberal arts colleges, especially in the northeast, great lakes and California. One thing I liked about the northwest whenI lived there for 13 years is that the academics there did not buy into relativism. So I am not surprised that it was a dirty word in WA, as well. It is now on the decline everywhere in academia, but it has polluted an entire generation of students (and public school teachers) from places ranging from Berkeley to UMAss Amherst. Lacan, Derrida, Foucault; these were the icons of many teachers even if their students never heard of the men. You can't tell me that a relativistic attitude is not pervasive in our field. That mentality had to come from somewhere and the most likely culprits are public schools and liberal arts colleges. I went to Rutgers in the mid eighties where this crap was rampant. I actually chose to major in biology during my junior year so I could actually learn something that was actually true and not just someone's useless diatribe. I admittedly suffer from the innate mental flaw of assuming if something makes sense to me logically than it must be true. I have had to teach myself to validate my inferences with experiment or scholarship. I think many in this field suffer from the same flaw as me, but they just don't consider it a flaw. And perhaps they are right. My experience now strongly suggests otherwise. But in either case it is that trait, lets call it, that is the issue. To think one's own internal logic unverified in any external way is the best way to model the world. Perhaps genius, perhaps madness. But definitely relativistic. For example, the idea that we should be comfortable with chakra balancers and tuning forkers aligning themselves with the profession of TCM is relativism writ very very large (not that I would ever interfere in any legal or poltical way with anyones consensual dealings with any other person, mind you). The idea that we must be openminded or collegial about these things. Why? This is not a dinner party. This is a battle of ideas, one in which the chinese writers of old engaged in ferociously. There is nothing more TCM than this fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 You are right that this is a battle of ideas or concepts but one that we cannot stay static with. As we learn more and more about the modern world we need to be able to integrate our ancient knowledge and be able to use it or we are wasting our time. Your example of tuning forks is interesting and we should be interested in how vibrational frequencies affect the body/points not judging it as New Age and dismiss it. I hope, as a critical thinker, you can agree with this perception. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " < > > > Re: wiseman standards >Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:49:13 -0000 > > , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> >wrote: > > > > > Of course they can. That is a part of a teachers job as well. To help > > students to learn to discriminate what is up to snuff and what is > > not. > > >We can and should try and steer them. My point is that we will not succeed >if our goal is >to just prevent exposure to poor materials. It will happen...a lot. But I >think we agree. As >for who dictates what to whom in the educational setting, we do have quite >an open >process here at PCOM. And admin in the form of the dean and president are >pretty much >with the Academics like me and Z'ev and Bob. However, there are longtime >department >members and board members who feel otherwise. Their power allows them to >obstruct >change not by having a majority on their side, but merely by not signing >on. This is what I >mean about the irreconcilable differences in the field I have mentioned >over the years. >And why collegiality will probably never achieve the ends of the academics. > It will take a >bloody battle; that is the way necessary change always occurs in other >field. Either heads >roll or you wait for the obstructors to eventually die. > >As for the point about radical constructivism and relativism being the >norm, it apparently >was the norm for many years in many liberal arts colleges, especially in >the northeast, >great lakes and California. One thing I liked about the northwest whenI >lived there for 13 >years is that the academics there did not buy into relativism. So I am not >surprised that it >was a dirty word in WA, as well. It is now on the decline everywhere in >academia, but it >has polluted an entire generation of students (and public school teachers) >from places >ranging from Berkeley to UMAss Amherst. Lacan, Derrida, Foucault; these >were the icons >of many teachers even if their students never heard of the men. You can't >tell me that a >relativistic attitude is not pervasive in our field. That mentality had to >come from >somewhere and the most likely culprits are public schools and liberal arts >colleges. > >I went to Rutgers in the mid eighties where this crap was rampant. I >actually chose to >major in biology during my junior year so I could actually learn something >that was >actually true and not just someone's useless diatribe. I admittedly suffer >from the innate >mental flaw of assuming if something makes sense to me logically than it >must be true. I >have had to teach myself to validate my inferences with experiment or >scholarship. I think >many in this field suffer from the same flaw as me, but they just don't >consider it a flaw. >And perhaps they are right. My experience now strongly suggests otherwise. > But in either >case it is that trait, lets call it, that is the issue. To think one's own >internal logic >unverified in any external way is the best way to model the world. Perhaps >genius, >perhaps madness. But definitely relativistic. For example, the idea that >we should be >comfortable with chakra balancers and tuning forkers aligning themselves >with the >profession of TCM is relativism writ very very large (not that I would ever >interfere in any >legal or poltical way with anyones consensual dealings with any other >person, mind you). >The idea that we must be openminded or collegial about these things. Why? >This is not a >dinner party. This is a battle of ideas, one in which the chinese writers >of old engaged in >ferociously. There is nothing more TCM than this fight. > >Todd > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 I think it is different to be interested in how sound and vibration effect the body and channel system then to sign on to a superficial, new agey movement that claims to have developed an entire system of tuning forks and acupuncture points without any deep insight, real study or practice of Chinese medicine. I am sick of amateurs hoisting their speculations in pretty packages on naive practitioners and an undiscerning public. On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:32 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > Your example of tuning forks is interesting and we should be > interested in > how vibrational frequencies affect the body/points not judging it > as New Age > and dismiss it. I hope, as a critical thinker, you can agree with > this > perception. Later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2005 Report Share Posted July 8, 2005 Zev, I have not claimed that but feel that there is much to learn about frequency as it is in all things as well and we could benefit from a better understand of what it is. This concept can help us learn possible deeper connections as to why we have sound, color, food etc within each of the five phases. Ever wonder why these things developed? I know I have. I would find it odd that one might try to state that there is a new system especially when our system is so broad and could include the same phenomenon. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe > > >Re: Re: wiseman standards >Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:28:45 -0700 > >I think it is different to be interested in how sound and vibration >effect the body and channel system then to sign on to a superficial, >new agey movement that claims to have developed an entire system of >tuning forks and acupuncture points without any deep insight, real >study or practice of Chinese medicine. I am sick of amateurs >hoisting their speculations in pretty packages on naive practitioners >and an undiscerning public. > > >On Jul 8, 2005, at 10:32 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > Your example of tuning forks is interesting and we should be > > interested in > > how vibrational frequencies affect the body/points not judging it > > as New Age > > and dismiss it. I hope, as a critical thinker, you can agree with > > this > > perception. Later > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 10, 2005 Report Share Posted July 10, 2005 , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus> wrote: > > Chen & Chen's materia medica has a nice cross-reference of some 160 > technical phrases. Bensky/Clavey's MM has about a third of this list, > but it covers many of the problematic terms. Bensky/Clavey and > Chen/Chen generally have a means of distinguishing technical terms, > with the exception of a few simplified phrases such as spermatorrhea > (a combination of four different meanings distinguished in Chinese- > verified by the well-researched Chinese term lists presented for the > WHO, BTW) or tonification (a combination of seven related but distinct > Chinese terms). Eric, In the near future I will be teaching a Chinese Terminology Class and am looking into issues such as this. I am having trouble finding where Bensky has simplified such terms as you say, can you point to a specific example from the new M.M.? Thanx, -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil > > As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal system - I > just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. Marnae et al, I am just curious, if EP opens up their gloss to the public does anyone on the list see any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / terms? If EP opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that Wiseman's list? One can then check any term in an EP book and find out the Chinese. {Let's assume EP had about 1000 terms to cover all the 'terms' in their books.} I can only see a debate on preference for terms, i.e. vacuity vs. deficiency. And I think one can argue all night and day which is better, but there is no winning here, IMO. Just preference... But I know what most people would pick... Would this then give everyone a possibly equal choice? Just curious what everyone thought, it seems logical since our herb textbooks are in EP terminology that if the gloss was released then these terms would be important to teach... comments? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 > > >and lets be honest, the lack of > >standardized terminology in the Eastland books is a minor detriment that > >does not > >undermine their clinical utility much if at all. Perhaps someone has a > >specific example of a > >time the lack of standardized terms in Bensky led them down a precarious > >clinical path. I would also like to see any instance that EP term choice has shown any loss of clinical efficacy. But I think to call EP non-standardized is misleading... I would like to discuss this. If EP has their own internal system, their own term choices, why is it not standardized? Just curious what others perceptions are regarding the difference between i.e. Fundamentals (Wiseman) and I.e. the New MM (EP)... IS there any more accurate portrayal of information on any level? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2005 Report Share Posted July 11, 2005 Do you see any signs of an Eastland Press gloss being published? On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:38 AM, wrote: > > > >> >> >> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil >> >> As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal >> system - I >> just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. >> > > Marnae et al, > > I am just curious, if EP opens up their gloss to the public does > anyone on > the list see any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / > terms? If > EP opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that > Wiseman's > list? One can then check any term in an EP book and find out the > Chinese. > {Let's assume EP had about 1000 terms to cover all the 'terms' in > their > books.} I can only see a debate on preference for terms, i.e. > vacuity vs. > deficiency. And I think one can argue all night and day which is > better, but > there is no winning here, IMO. Just preference... But I know what > most > people would pick... Would this then give everyone a possibly equal > choice? > Just curious what everyone thought, it seems logical since our herb > textbooks are in EP terminology that if the gloss was released then > these > terms would be important to teach... comments? > > - > > > > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Marnae, et al, perhaps you could recommend a basic text that uses Wiseman standards. Because I teach in a 5-elem school, I spend a lot of time discussing tcm theory. What is out there besides Giovanni? What can I recommend to my students? Thank, Cara > Do you see any signs of an Eastland Press gloss being published? > > > On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:38 AM, wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil >>> >> >>> >> As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal >>> >> system - I >>> >> just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. >>> >> >> > >> > Marnae et al, >> > >> > I am just curious, if EP opens up their gloss to the public does >> > anyone on >> > the list see any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / >> > terms? If >> > EP opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that >> > Wiseman's >> > list? One can then check any term in an EP book and find out the >> > Chinese. >> > {Let's assume EP had about 1000 terms to cover all the 'terms' in >> > their >> > books.} I can only see a debate on preference for terms, i.e. >> > vacuity vs. >> > deficiency. And I think one can argue all night and day which is >> > better, but >> > there is no winning here, IMO. Just preference... But I know what >> > most >> > people would pick... Would this then give everyone a possibly equal >> > choice? >> > Just curious what everyone thought, it seems logical since our herb >> > textbooks are in EP terminology that if the gloss was released then >> > these >> > terms would be important to teach... comments? >> > >> > - >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Jason - Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology public your questions cannot be completely answered. I don't know how standardized it is because I cannot check - If I had the gloss and could re-translate into Chinese then I could tell you if it were the same as the original or not. Is one better than another? I don't know until I see it - but I do know that the PD terms have been carefully researched by a team (Nigel and Feng Ye) one of whom is a linguist who has better Chinese than any other non-chinese I know and also a very good understanding of English and Romance languages (thus understands many of the rules of language) and a native speaker of Chinese who is a highly knowledgeable practitioner of Chinese medicine. Does the EP standard make reference to the different dictionaries or texts where terms are found? Does it give definitions/discussions of terms as well as a gloss for translation? Has there been a systematic, open discussion about EP terms as there has been for PD terms? Have the EP terms undergone the same scrutiny from translators, linguists, academics and practitioners? These are the questions that are important to me because I believe that correct terminology, does, in fact, make a clinical difference. It makes a difference because the reader is able to make fine discriminations and is able to stop and look up whatever they don't understand, thus leading to greater understanding - and, eventually to better clinical practice. I also believe that the individual who is precise about language is also going to be more precise about diagnosis and treatment -- and this will lead to a more appropriate, less generalized treatment. Marnae At 09:38 AM 7/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > > > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil > > > > As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal system - I > > just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. > >Marnae et al, > >I am just curious, if EP opens up their gloss to the public does anyone on >the list see any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / terms? If >EP opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that Wiseman's >list? One can then check any term in an EP book and find out the Chinese. >{Let's assume EP had about 1000 terms to cover all the 'terms' in their >books.} I can only see a debate on preference for terms, i.e. vacuity vs. >deficiency. And I think one can argue all night and day which is better, but >there is no winning here, IMO. Just preference... But I know what most >people would pick... Would this then give everyone a possibly equal choice? >Just curious what everyone thought, it seems logical since our herb >textbooks are in EP terminology that if the gloss was released then these >terms would be important to teach... comments? > >- > > > > > >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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 As I have said - we don't know - EP has not published and so it cannot be tested or compared. Marnae At 09:40 AM 7/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > >and lets be honest, the lack of > > >standardized terminology in the Eastland books is a minor detriment that > > >does not > > >undermine their clinical utility much if at all. Perhaps someone has a > > >specific example of a > > >time the lack of standardized terms in Bensky led them down a precarious > > >clinical path. > >I would also like to see any instance that EP term choice has shown any loss >of clinical efficacy. But I think to call EP non-standardized is >misleading... I would like to discuss this. If EP has their own internal >system, their own term choices, why is it not standardized? Just curious >what others perceptions are regarding the difference between i.e. >Fundamentals (Wiseman) and I.e. the New MM (EP)... IS there any more >accurate portrayal of information on any level? > >- > > > > >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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Our standard Fundamental THeory text is: Fundamentals of (Wiseman & Ellis - Paradigm Pubs) Our standard Diagnosis text is: Practical Diagnosis in CM (Deng Tie Tao (M. Ergil trans), Churchill Livingstone Pubs) We use both of these text for Pattern ID and FCM for a discussion of Treatment Principles (see Chapter 12). Eric Brand is also working on a Materia Medica that should be out this year I think (Eric?) - it is being advertized by Redwing now. With these three books you can go a long way! Marnae At 06:46 AM 7/12/2005, you wrote: >Marnae, et al, > perhaps you could recommend a basic text that uses Wiseman standards. >Because I teach in a 5-elem school, I spend a lot of time discussing tcm >theory. What is out there besides Giovanni? What can I recommend to my >students? > >Thank, Cara > > > > > > Do you see any signs of an Eastland Press gloss being published? > > > > > > On Jul 11, 2005, at 6:38 AM, wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil > >>> >> > >>> >> As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal > >>> >> system - I > >>> >> just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. > >>> >> > >> > > >> > Marnae et al, > >> > > >> > I am just curious, if EP opens up their gloss to the public does > >> > anyone on > >> > the list see any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / > >> > terms? If > >> > EP opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that > >> > Wiseman's > >> > list? One can then check any term in an EP book and find out the > >> > Chinese. > >> > {Let's assume EP had about 1000 terms to cover all the 'terms' in > >> > their > >> > books.} I can only see a debate on preference for terms, i.e. > >> > vacuity vs. > >> > deficiency. And I think one can argue all night and day which is > >> > better, but > >> > there is no winning here, IMO. Just preference... But I know what > >> > most > >> > people would pick... Would this then give everyone a possibly equal > >> > choice? > >> > Just curious what everyone thought, it seems logical since our herb > >> > textbooks are in EP terminology that if the gloss was released then > >> > these > >> > terms would be important to teach... comments? > >> > > >> > - > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2005 Report Share Posted July 12, 2005 Well said, Marnae! Eric , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: > Jason - > > Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology public your > questions cannot be completely answered. I don't know how standardized it > is because I cannot check - If I had the gloss and could re-translate into > Chinese then I could tell you if it were the same as the original or > not. Is one better than another? I don't know until I see it - but I do > know that the PD terms have been carefully researched by a team (Nigel and > Feng Ye) one of whom is a linguist who has better Chinese than any other > non-chinese I know and also a very good understanding of English and > Romance languages (thus understands many of the rules of language) and a > native speaker of Chinese who is a highly knowledgeable practitioner of > Chinese medicine. Does the EP standard make reference to the different > dictionaries or texts where terms are found? Does it give > definitions/discussions of terms as well as a gloss for translation? Has > there been a systematic, open discussion about EP terms as there has been > for PD terms? Have the EP terms undergone the same scrutiny from > translators, linguists, academics and practitioners? These are the > questions that are important to me because I believe that correct > terminology, does, in fact, make a clinical difference. It makes a > difference because the reader is able to make fine discriminations and is > able to stop and look up whatever they don't understand, thus leading to > greater understanding - and, eventually to better clinical practice. I > also believe that the individual who is precise about language is also > going to be more precise about diagnosis and treatment -- and this will > lead to a more appropriate, less generalized treatment. > > Marnae > > At 09:38 AM 7/11/2005, you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil > > > > > > As Eric discussed in his recent post - Bensky has an internal system - I > > > just wish he would open it up to the rest of us. > > > >Marnae et al, > > > >I am just curious, if EP opens up their gloss to the public does anyone on > >the list see any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / terms? If > >EP opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that Wiseman's > >list? One can then check any term in an EP book and find out the Chinese. > >{Let's assume EP had about 1000 terms to cover all the 'terms' in their > >books.} I can only see a debate on preference for terms, i.e. vacuity vs. > >deficiency. And I think one can argue all night and day which is better, but > >there is no winning here, IMO. Just preference... But I know what most > >people would pick... Would this then give everyone a possibly equal choice? > >Just curious what everyone thought, it seems logical since our herb > >textbooks are in EP terminology that if the gloss was released then these > >terms would be important to teach... comments? > > > >- > > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2005 Report Share Posted July 13, 2005 I'd just like to point out here that your assumption of a one-to-one translation of terms from chinese to english is static. As time passes and authors reiterate the past expressions they grow to have larger meanings. this happens in every language, the older it is, the more pronounced. consider then that a very old and 'standard' term will have a potentially very different meaning even a few hundred years later, depending on politics, cultural changes, and of course advances in learning... in which case to be as accurate as you advocate you would require some sort of index of terms with relation to which publication you derived them from, and what they meant at that time. i suppose some of us are very strict with our practice theory, (e.g, Nan Jing or Zhu Dan Xi methods etc.) in which case we could discover what he meant by his terms in his book and simply apply them as we see them, but when you use the definition of a term from the SHL the same to explain the meaning of the same term in the 17th century there may be large or small discrepancies in the intended meaning. I have only limited translating experience really, my BA was in Chinese language and lit, but i have not completed any major medical text translations the old fashioned way. only journal articles for personal enjoyment and practice. modern chinese and classical are different of course. I'll just wrap this up, before i go too far from my point. i would like to know if this is considered with either the PD or the EP or any other translation work going on. thanks Brett Jackson, L.Ac. , Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...> wrote: > Jason - > > Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology public your > questions cannot be completely answered. I don't know how standardized it > is because I cannot check - If I had the gloss and could re-translate into > Chinese then I could tell you if it were the same as the original or > not. Is one better than another? I don't know until I see it - but I do > know that the PD terms have been carefully researched by a team (Nigel and > Feng Ye) one of whom is a linguist who has better Chinese than any other > non-chinese I know and also a very good understanding of English and > Romance languages (thus understands many of the rules of language) and a > native speaker of Chinese who is a highly knowledgeable practitioner of > Chinese medicine. Does the EP standard make reference to the different > dictionaries or texts where terms are found? Does it give > definitions/discussions of terms as well as a gloss for translation? Has > there been a systematic, open discussion about EP terms as there has been > for PD terms? Have the EP terms undergone the same scrutiny from > translators, linguists, academics and practitioners? These are the > questions that are important to me because I believe that correct > terminology, does, in fact, make a clinical difference. It makes a > difference because the reader is able to make fine discriminations and is > able to stop and look up whatever they don't understand, thus leading to > greater understanding - and, eventually to better clinical practice. I > also believe that the individual who is precise about language is also > going to be more precise about diagnosis and treatment -- and this will > lead to a more appropriate, less generalized treatment. > > Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 , " scooteronian " <scooteronian@h...> wrote: > I'd just like to point out here that your assumption of a one-to-one > translation of terms from chinese to english is static. As time > passes and authors reiterate the past expressions they grow to have > larger meanings. No one is ever or has ever advocated that terms be translated statically or incorrectly. The Council of Oriental Medicine Publishers clearly indicates standard professional protocol for handling variation in meaning for the particular text. Any competent translator will be versed in the meaning of particular phrases during the period of work that they are translating. These exceptions are elaborated in footnotes to enlighten the reader as to the meaning of the term in a particular context. Term consistency is only applied when it is accurate to the meaning. When the meaning is unusual, it is an interesting feature that should be elaborated for the reader. This is the standard process endorsed by publishers such as Paradigm and Blue Poppy. This central point of flexibility has been explained ad nauseam in the field for decades. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 , " scooteronian " <scooteronian@h...> wrote: > I'd just like to point out here that your assumption of a one-to-one > translation of terms from chinese to english is static. As time > passes and authors reiterate the past expressions they grow to have > larger meanings. No one is ever or has ever advocated that terms be translated statically or incorrectly. The Council of Oriental Medicine Publishers clearly indicates standard professional protocol for handling variation in meaning for the particular text. Any competent translator will be versed in the meaning of particular phrases during the period of work that they are translating. These exceptions are elaborated in footnotes to enlighten the reader as to the meaning of the term in a particular context. Term consistency is only applied when it is accurate to the meaning. When the meaning is unusual, it is an interesting feature that should be elaborated for the reader. This is the standard process endorsed by publishers such as Paradigm and Blue Poppy. This central point of flexibility has been explained ad nauseam in the field for decades. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2005 Report Share Posted July 14, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil > Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:35 AM > > RE: wiseman standards > > Jason - > > Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology public your > questions cannot be completely answered. My first question, we have talked much about methodology, but what are we really talking about? Once the gloss is in place how does EP or BP / paradigm/ Wiseman differ in methodology. If one group likes one word i.e. vacuity and the other another i.e. deficiency then this is just a difference in term choice. Could someone explain what they feel the difference in methodology is? What does one mean by standardized then? I would say EP is just as standardized (They use the same English word for the Chinese when it is applicable and change it when it doesn't fit) - I would assume this is the same thing that Eric is talking about..... am I missing something? -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.