Guest guest Posted September 25, 2005 Report Share Posted September 25, 2005 Congrats to CHA contributors for their articles in the September 2005 Latern, (Treating damp-warmth with San Ren Tang) and (Huang Qi throught the eyes on Zhang Zhong-Jing). The Latern is edited by Steven Clavey and is available for subscription at www.thelantern.com.au doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2005 Report Share Posted September 25, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:24 AM > > the latern > > Congrats to CHA contributors for their articles in the September 2005 > Latern, > (Treating damp-warmth with San Ren Tang) and (Huang Qi > throught the eyes on > Zhang Zhong-Jing). Where's my copy??? - Anyway - Just a little background on the article: IT explores a way to study classical material (J¨©n gu¨¬ y¨¤o l¨¹¨¨) and gain modern clinical insights that differ from just the basic TCM approach. I learned a lot writing the article and have used the ideas successfully in the clinic. Furthermore on the front of terminology, one will see a mix between Bensky & Wiseman terms and even others when more appropriate. Terms that are not transparent are referenced by the characters and pinyin. Hope everyone enjoys it, and comments / feedback are always welcome on the CHA or privately. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 Thank you, Doug. It is an honor to write for The Lantern, just as it is to be a part of CHA. I highly recommend this journal, it is the best of the hard copy journals out there right now. On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:23 AM, wrote: > Congrats to CHA contributors for their articles in the September > 2005 Latern, > (Treating damp-warmth with San Ren Tang) and (Huang > Qi throught the eyes on > Zhang Zhong-Jing). > The Latern is edited by Steven Clavey and is available for > subscription at > www.thelantern.com.au > > > doug > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 Dear Jason, I enjoyed your article, an interest subject indeed. However, I do wonder how you decided when to use Wiseman terms, Bensky terms or others when appropriate? In other words, how did you decide to use " pan-arthralgia " for li jie (bing) instead of, say, " joint-running wind " ? Xue bi as " painful obstruction of the blood " instead of " blood impediment " ? On Sep 25, 2005, at 7:37 AM, wrote: > > > >> > > Where's my copy??? - Anyway - Just a little background on the > article: IT > explores a way to study classical material (Jīn guì yà o lüè) > and gain > modern clinical insights that differ from just the basic TCM > approach. I > learned a lot writing the article and have used the ideas > successfully in > the clinic. Furthermore on the front of terminology, one will see a > mix > between Bensky & Wiseman terms and even others when more > appropriate. Terms > that are not transparent are referenced by the characters and > pinyin. Hope > everyone enjoys it, and comments / feedback are always welcome on > the CHA or > privately. > > - > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 > On Behalf Of > Dear Jason, > I enjoyed your article, an interest subject indeed. However, I > do wonder how you decided when to use Wiseman terms, Bensky terms or > others when appropriate? In other words, how did you decide to use > " pan-arthralgia " for li jie (bing) instead of, say, " joint-running > wind " ? Xue bi as " painful obstruction of the blood " instead of > " blood impediment " ? Z'ev, You question is good. I gave much thought to the terminological issue when writing this article, here are some thoughts. By default I started with Wiseman terms, mainly because there is a dictionary to reference the terms. When the Wiseman term was unsatisfying, I looked for a more suitable term. Sometimes this was just because the term was not clear or just inappropriate for the situation, or sometimes just because there was a better term, i.e. more transparent. Generally speaking I think many Wiseman terms are cumbersome and unclear for the reader. Such terms present no greater clarity than others and many Wiseman terms are only really superior because they are backed by their ability to be referenced by his dictionary. This backing though is huge and I do not underestimate this. But some words in certain situations IMO leave much to be desired. Although anytime I used a term that was not straight up Wiseman, I referenced it with the pinyin and characters so that any concerned reader can just look it up. But the real question is why deviate at all? Well, the fact remains most readers do not take the time to look up terms. Most do not even own Wiseman's Practical Dictionary. Sometimes I like terms that say things differently than the Wiseman term, just for readability. But when it comes down to the end choice, I could care less if it is Bensky, Wiseman, or Maciocia. I pick what I believe is the superior term for the context at hand, and reference it if it deviates from common sense or the PD. Note: for example I used deficiency not vacuity, because I like deficiency better, but there is no need to reference such a word, IMO. Therefore, a term to some extent should be judged on its ability to stand alone, or should one say its transparency. That is why I like to be flexible, there are clearly times when Wiseman terms just don't make sense, or there is a more clear term in the context being presented. Or I just don't like it... For example, 1) It was said that huangqi, fangji, and gan cao ×ß±í, z¨¯u bi¨£o - I chose Clavey's 'travel the exterior' one could also pick from Bensky's 'Mobilize the exterior' - But Wiseman pegs zou as the verb meaning 'penetrate.' IMO 'penetrate' just doesn't convey what huangqi is doing here. I thought travel made more sense than penetrate. Thinking more, maybe mobilize was better... To each there own, so I supplied the characters/ pinyin. Here is the reality. less than 1% of readers will actually look up the term, you better be sure the term is exactly what you think it means if you let it stand alone. If I just wrote penetrate without any characters, I think I would have led people astray... anyway... 2) AS for " painful obstruction of the blood " vs. " blood impediment " I like the word obstruction better because it is more accessible than impediment. But what is the definition of impediment, well... 'obstruction...' - Does impediment convey any further meaning than obstruction. I could not think of any... Furthermore, not only does painful obstruction give a little more information about the disease (pain), but also many people are just more familiar with the term. For better or worse it has been around longer and is more pervasive. Therefore when reading the article it will make sense to more people. Again the characters and pinyin are provided for anyone who is unclear. 3) Now: li jie (bing) - " panarthralgia " vs. " joint-running wind " This was a tough call, both are considered technical terms and could fit, First, 'li jie bing' is not pegged by wiseman yet it is by Bensky. Li jie bing, though has many alternate names (li jie feng, bai hu feng, bai hu li jie, tong feng)- Some are pegged by Wiseman, but all are different translations. But let's look at the characters: Li = according to jin gui commentary means 'everywhere.' The dictionary says li means 'throughout' Jie = (is of course) joint. Bing = (of course) disease. Literal translation : everywhere joint disease. Jin gui commentary says li jie bing is joint pain that is throughout the whole body. Which translation makes more sense to you? I personally don't understand why Wiseman chose 'joint-running'; this 'running' idea does not reflect any specific idea or imagery from the jin gui commentary (that I read) or the original passage in any way that I can see. It may be more true for a usage that occurs at a later date, I am unsure. I thought panarthralgia gives a better description of the disease. But in this case with the nature of li jie bing being a technical term, a reader will either need to look it up or have the definition built into the context. I just chose Bensky's term and supplied the characters and pinyin. The original jin gui definition is built into the article. I could not see any way a reader could have any problem with the Bensky term (can you?) and I could not think of any advantage of using the Wiseman term (can you?). I hope that answers your question and a window into my thought process. Yours and others comments are welcome. Z'ev - BTW - I look forward (in a few minutes) to reading your san ren tang article, one of my favorite formulas. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 Jason, I'll reply in more detail later to your more lengthy post, but for now I just wanted to point out that arthralgia means pain in a joint, which is fine in this context. However, in several books I've seen such examples as 'è‚ç—¹ gan bi/liver impediment' translated as 'liver arthralgia (in Dr. Henry Lu's translation Nei Jing Su Wen). Obviously the term 'liver arthralgia' is meaningless, as the liver doesn't have joint pain, it is the same character with a different meaning in a different context (here, an internal medicine condition caused by damage to the liver by evils or anger causing binding depression). Therefore, in my opinion, impediment is a better global meaning for bi4 ç—¹, as it can be used in a broader context without confusion. Of course, the Dr. Lu text gives no explanation of what 'liver arthralgia' is, no pinyin or Chinese characters for reference, therefore any one reading the text is stuck with the confusion of poor translation plus not having any idea what the translator is talking about. On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:15 PM, wrote: > I thought panarthralgia gives a better description of the disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 'liver arthralgia' >>>>> Zev, what is the context can it be arthralgia related to liver dysfunction, just wandering Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of > Monday, September 26, 2005 10:15 PM > > Re: the latern > > Jason, > I'll reply in more detail later to your more lengthy post, but for > now I just wanted to point out that arthralgia means pain in a joint, > which is fine in this context. However, in several books I've seen > such examples as '¸Î±Ô gan bi/liver impediment' translated as 'liver > arthralgia (in Dr. Henry Lu's translation Nei Jing Su Wen). > Obviously the term 'liver arthralgia' is meaningless, as the liver > doesn't have joint pain, it is the same character with a different > meaning in a different context (here, an internal medicine condition > caused by damage to the liver by evils or anger causing binding > depression). Therefore, in my opinion, impediment is a better global > meaning for bi4 ±Ô, as it can be used in a broader context without > confusion. Of course, the Dr. Lu text gives no explanation of what > 'liver arthralgia' is, no pinyin or Chinese characters for reference, > therefore any one reading the text is stuck with the confusion of > poor translation plus not having any idea what the translator is > talking about. I agree with assessment of the gan bi term.. but just to be clear I have translated 'bi' as painful obstruction, not arthralgia. These are separate terms / issues... So I agree there are many bad translations which are exacerbated by not referencing the pinyin and characters, I have no defense for Dr. Lu.. But I think terms should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Here panarthralgia seems to work. That is all that matters... Generally speaking though, if a term works best in one situation but not at all in another is fine with me. Picking one term to cover the most possibilities (while sometimes neglecting others) is not an interest of mine. It is very clear to me that different Chinese authors use terms differently to mean slightly different things. I try to respect that and evaluate everything I read / translate on an individual basis... - > > > On Sep 26, 2005, at 8:15 PM, wrote: > > > I thought panarthralgia gives a better description of the disease. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 No, definitely not. Z'ev On Sep 26, 2005, at 9:30 PM, wrote: > 'liver arthralgia' > >>>>>> >>>>>> > Zev, what is the context can it be arthralgia related to liver > dysfunction, just wandering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2005 Report Share Posted September 26, 2005 Zev so what was the context he used it in Oakland, CA 94609 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 , " " <@c...> wrote: > 1) It was said that huangqi, fangji, and gan cao ×ß±í, z¨¯u bi¨£o - I chose > Clavey's 'travel the exterior' one could also pick from Bensky's 'Mobilize > the exterior' - But Wiseman pegs zou as the verb meaning 'penetrate.' IMO > 'penetrate' just doesn't convey what huangqi is doing here. I thought > travel made more sense than penetrate. Thinking more, maybe mobilize was > better... In a sense, it is hard to know whether zou3 is being used here as an LSP (Language for Special Purposes) or LGP (Language for General Purposes) term. In other words, as a translator, you are faced with a difficulty in evaluating whether the phrase is a technical term or just a general form of expression. Zou3 in general simply means " to go " , " to leave " . In spoken Chinese, if we are having coffee, one of us will eventually get up and say that we are going to " zou3 " - we're leaving, taking off. Or we'll tell the taxi driver to " zou3 " straight (go straight ahead). As non-native speakers, it can be difficult to analyze CM language to determine which terms are technical and which are simply vernacular. An example like this is a bit easier to assess if one can speak Chinese in addition to reading TCM Chinese. Since the word zou3 is a common word that basically means " to go " , it has a much wider use than a purely technical word like bi4 (impediment/painful obstruction). The usage may be technical or vernacular in different contexts. Wiseman's most common pegged use of zou3 is in the phrase zou3 cuan4, mobile and penetrating (i.e., she xiang, musk, is a mobile and penetrating medicinal). But a word like zou3 can be used in many contexts, just as the word " go " can, and not all of the contexts would have a single English word as an equivalent. Zou3 on its own is not considered to be a technical term with a fixed English equivalent, it is just a common word from everyday language that works its way into some technical phrases. To a certain extent, materials for translators like the Wiseman/Feng CD dictionary assume a basic knowledge of general Chinese, so the fact that zou3 is not a fixed technical term with a rigid meaning is somewhat implied though not explicitly stated. Zou biao isn't a term that is pegged in PD terminology. Likewise, it was not selected as a technical term by China, Japan, and Korea when they made the new WHO list of 4000+ technical terms. Perhaps this means that it doesn't have a precise enough pattern of use to be deemed a technical term? Maybe a check of a TCM Chinese dictionary would clarify its meaning, or reveal an innate lack of precision. Clavey's " travels the exterior " and Bensky's " mobilizes the exterior " each has a slightly different feel to the reader in terms of what is going on. I'm not sure how Nigel would translate that phrase, but I'm sure that he wouldn't use penetrate. My first inclination personally would be to simply state that the medicinals you name " go to the exterior " - that is the most obvious and transparent thing that comes to my mind without doing any term research. Anyway, it's not like anyone would ever argue with you over your choice- the options all make perfect sense. Penetrate, of course, makes no sense in this context, but no one would use penetrate in this phrase unless they had never studied basic Chinese 101 and they were simply trying to match words up by computer. > 2) AS for " painful obstruction of the blood " vs. " blood impediment " > > I like the word obstruction better because it is more accessible than > impediment. But what is the definition of impediment, well... > 'obstruction...' - Does impediment convey any further meaning than > obstruction. I could not think of any... Furthermore, not only does painful > obstruction give a little more information about the disease (pain), but > also many people are just more familiar with the term. For better or worse > it has been around longer and is more pervasive. The only problem is that if you use " obstruction " for bi4, what word do you use for the character zu3? When I see pain, I think tong4, when I see obstruction, I think zu3; I only know that painful obstruction means bi4 because I am familiar with its use in texts. There is nothing inherently wrong with painful obstruction as a translation for bi4 whatsoever, it just seems more eloquent to me to have one English word for one Chinese word whenever possible, and I have different Chinese words already established in my mind for " obstruction " and " pain. " But this is simply personal preference, there is no right or wrong way to approach it. If you want a familiar term that has been around a long time and is more pervasive, why not just say bi (syndrome)? However, there is a slight problem with the phrase painful obstruction of the blood, because blood bi is primarily a condition of numbness, not pain. " Blood impediment is mainly characterized by numbness. It arises when external wind evil is contracted by patients suffering from qi4 and blood vacuity. It is called ``blood impediment,'' but differs from classical impediment patterns, which are caused by a combination of wind, cold, and dampness and are characaterized chiefly by pain. Blood impediment is caused by external evil, but not necessarily a combination of wind, cold, and dampness. Furthermore its chief sign is numbness rather than pain. " > 3) Now: li jie (bing) - " panarthralgia " vs. " joint-running wind " > This was a tough call, both are considered technical terms and could fit, > First, 'li jie bing' is not pegged by wiseman yet it is by Bensky. Li jie > bing, though has many alternate names (li jie feng, bai hu feng, bai hu li > jie, tong feng)- Some are pegged by Wiseman, but all are different > translations. The jin gui mentioned li jie feng (joint-running wind), which is synonymous with bai hu li jie (white tiger joint running) and pain wind (tong feng). These have different English equivalents because Wiseman emphasizes source-based translations, which is the approach advocated by the WHO and historians as well. However, they are all have the same meaning and explanation. Interestingly, tong feng (pain wind) is also used in Western medicine to refer to gout. The same phrase has a totally different definition in WM than it does in CM. During our clinic meetings, I have heard Taiwanese CM doctors ridicule research studies on gout that used formulas to treat pain wind, because the two conditions are totally different (even though they are rendered with the same characters). > I personally don't understand why Wiseman chose 'joint-running'; this > 'running' idea does not reflect any specific idea or imagery from the jin > gui commentary (that I read) or the original passage in any way that I can > see. I think he may have chosen the word because li means pass through, go around, pervade. The disease is so called because it is a condition that runs through, i.e., pervades, many joints. Congratulations on the article. I look forward to reading it. It is unfortunate that the Latern rarely updates their website, because the journal looks very good but there aren't any hard copies near me to read. No matter what we discuss as far as individual terms goes, the important thing is that you are adhering to a high level of scholastic rigor and are really pursuing the subject and transmitting more knowledge. We all have some individual terms that we dislike, no matter whose translation system is being used. To me, the important thing is that people use some type of methodology that keeps a high standard of transmission. Obviously you are doing this. I respect what you are doing and how you are doing it, so please don't take my minor term arguments too seriously. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > Tuesday, September 27, 2005 5:29 AM > > Re: the latern > > , " " > <@c...> wrote: > > 1) It was said that huangqi, fangji, and gan cao ×ß±í, z¨¯u bi¨£o - > I chose > > Clavey's 'travel the exterior' one could also pick from > Bensky's 'Mobilize > > the exterior' - But Wiseman pegs zou as the verb > meaning 'penetrate.' IMO > > 'penetrate' just doesn't convey what huangqi is doing here. I > thought > > travel made more sense than penetrate. Thinking more, maybe > mobilize was > > better... > > In a sense, it is hard to know whether zou3 is being used here as an > LSP (Language for Special Purposes) or LGP (Language for General > Purposes) term. In other words, as a translator, you are faced with > a difficulty in evaluating whether the phrase is a technical term or > just a general form of expression. > > Zou3 in general simply means " to go " , " to leave " . In spoken > Chinese, if we are having coffee, one of us will eventually get up > and say that we are going to " zou3 " - we're leaving, taking off. Or > we'll tell the taxi driver to " zou3 " straight (go straight ahead). > As non-native speakers, it can be difficult to analyze CM language > to determine which terms are technical and which are simply > vernacular. An example like this is a bit easier to assess if one > can speak Chinese in addition to reading TCM Chinese. Since the > word zou3 is a common word that basically means " to go " , it has a > much wider use than a purely technical word like bi4 > (impediment/painful obstruction). The usage may be technical or > vernacular in different contexts. It is clearly technical usage, no question - not some colloquial spoken usage. And I generally agree with your concept that speaking helps reading, surely the more Chinese one has the better. This is fundamentally why I spend so much time working with spoken Chinese, sentence structures and grammar. But I have met translators that cannot speak a lick of Chinese that smoke many westerners who speak, especially when it comes to classical and strictly medical Chinese. I do not think speaking helps the least bit with i.e. classical Chinese. And I think that your assessment below proves the point that certain writers say things differently than others. A technical term to one, may not be to the other. Either way, penetrate did not make sense, so I went with something that made more sense for this technical usage. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > > > > 2) AS for " painful obstruction of the blood " vs. " blood impediment " > > > > I like the word obstruction better because it is more accessible > than > > impediment. But what is the definition of impediment, well... > > 'obstruction...' - Does impediment convey any further meaning than > > obstruction. I could not think of any... Furthermore, not only > does painful > > obstruction give a little more information about the disease > (pain), but > > also many people are just more familiar with the term. For better > or worse > > it has been around longer and is more pervasive. > > The only problem is that if you use " obstruction " for bi4, what word > do you use for the character zu3? Surely, 'Impedes' funny me... When I see pain, I think tong4, > when I see obstruction, I think zu3; I only know that painful > obstruction means bi4 because I am familiar with its use in texts. > There is nothing inherently wrong with painful obstruction as a > translation for bi4 whatsoever, it just seems more eloquent to me to > have one English word for one Chinese word whenever possible, and I > have different Chinese words already established in my mind > for " obstruction " and " pain. " But this is simply personal > preference, there is no right or wrong way to approach it. > > If you want a familiar term that has been around a long time and is > more pervasive, why not just say bi (syndrome)? I do not like pinyin terms when I can help it. > > However, there is a slight problem with the phrase painful > obstruction of the blood, because blood bi is primarily a condition > of numbness, not pain. " Blood impediment is mainly characterized by > numbness. It arises when external wind evil is contracted by > patients suffering from qi4 and blood vacuity. It is called ``blood > impediment,'' but differs from classical impediment patterns, which > are caused by a combination of wind, cold, and dampness and are > characaterized chiefly by pain. Blood impediment is caused by > external evil, but not necessarily a combination of wind, cold, and > dampness. Furthermore its chief sign is numbness rather than > pain. " That is the modern simplified definition. I think if you look at the jin gui yao yue you can look at things differently. I see the numbness being the differentiating sign from feng bi. Pain is a given. Check out JGYL chapter 6 and the commentaries for the passage. It says xue bi has numbness and pain. If there is any pain at all, then painful obstruction still makes sense to me. > > > 3) Now: li jie (bing) - " panarthralgia " vs. " joint-running wind " > > This was a tough call, both are considered technical terms and > could fit, > > First, 'li jie bing' is not pegged by wiseman yet it is by > Bensky. Li jie > > bing, though has many alternate names (li jie feng, bai hu feng, > bai hu li > > jie, tong feng)- Some are pegged by Wiseman, but all are different > > translations. > > The jin gui mentioned li jie feng (joint-running wind), which is > synonymous with bai hu li jie (white tiger joint running) and pain > wind (tong feng). These have different English equivalents because > Wiseman emphasizes source-based translations, which is the approach > advocated by the WHO and historians as well. However, they are all > have the same meaning and explanation. > > Interestingly, tong feng (pain wind) is also used in Western > medicine to refer to gout. The same phrase has a totally different > definition in WM than it does in CM. During our clinic meetings, I > have heard Taiwanese CM doctors ridicule research studies on gout > that used formulas to treat pain wind, because the two conditions > are totally different (even though they are rendered with the same > characters). > > > I personally don't understand why Wiseman chose 'joint-running'; > this > > 'running' idea does not reflect any specific idea or imagery from > the jin > > gui commentary (that I read) or the original passage in any way > that I can > > see. > > I think he may have chosen the word because li means pass through, > go around, pervade. The disease is so called because it is a > condition that runs through, i.e., pervades, many joints. > > Congratulations on the article. I look forward to reading it. It > is unfortunate that the Latern rarely updates their website, because > the journal looks very good but there aren't any hard copies near me > to read. > > No matter what we discuss as far as individual terms goes, the > important thing is that you are adhering to a high level of > scholastic rigor and are really pursuing the subject and > transmitting more knowledge. We all have some individual terms that > we dislike, no matter whose translation system is being used. To > me, the important thing is that people use some type of methodology > that keeps a high standard of transmission. Obviously you are doing > this. I respect what you are doing and how you are doing it, so > please don't take my minor term arguments too seriously. I do not take yours or anyone's criticisms or arguments with any disdain, I actually appreciate the feedback. How can I learn and grow without it? Hey in two years (or 2 months) I might use joint running wind. Actually I originally was using this term and switched... Terminology is not easy, especially in this case where I had to translate so much classical Chinese. Communication and language is a fluid growing evolving process... Thanks for the feedback, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 I'll look up the section in the Nei Jing. . . remind me in a few days. On Sep 26, 2005, at 10:14 PM, wrote: > Zev > so what was the context he used it in > > > > > Oakland, CA 94609 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 , " " <@c...> wrote: > > The only problem is that if you use " obstruction " for bi4, what word > > do you use for the character zu3? > > Surely, 'Impedes' funny me... Good joke. To be honest, I don't really like the word impediment much myself. I don't know why I am biased against the sound of some words- it's not like anyone consciously invented English sounds, they just evolved and we use them, who am I to judge how they sound? However, I can't really think of a more accurate word to use that can fit all the circumstances for bi. If I had a good one, I'd suggest it, but until then, I'll use impediment. Impediment is a good word for writing and combination phrases, and the meaning is sufficiently broad, it just somehow looks better on paper than it sounds in speech (too many syllables?). Maybe I should spend my time speaking in Chinese or romance languages, they all have much prettier sounding words to choose from. It is obvious that a number of people have exerted quite a bit of effort into choosing appropriate words for some of these TCM concepts. We all have words that we don't really like in PD terminology, but I think that is because there are so many words total- 95% of them sound totally normal- stagnation, obstruction, diarrhea, etc. The strength of PD terminology lies in its methods and the fact that it forms an entire system. Plus, it is publically available. Jason, you have the right contacts to get alternate ideas from Clavey and Bensky, but the rest of us don't have their term choices available- we can only use Wiseman or coin our own terms based on our own term research. Frankly, I'd rather save 20 years of research time and just use Wiseman's rather than invent my own. If authors like Bensky and Clavey published their term choices (ideally, with definitions and the rationale behind the term choices), more people could evaluate the concept and word choice and follow your model of selecting the term they like best without sacrificing access to the source concept. Honestly, it is really hard to choose good English words for Chinese concepts. We have explored words like mounting vs. bulging in the past. Bulging sounds good in English, but some bulging conditions do not bulge, and there is even a subtype of mounting called bulging mounting to add to the confusion. Now we are having the same issue with painful obstruction and impediment- there are painful obstructions that are not painful just as there are bulging diseases that don't bulge. Similarly, there is pan-arthralgia, which is describing something with a variety of symptoms in addition to systemic joint pain. Sometimes the English needs to preserve the specificity of the Chinese, and sometimes it needs to preserve the ambiguity of the Chinese. Not easy stuff to do! > >blood > > impediment... .its chief sign is numbness rather than > > pain. " > > That is the modern simplified definition. I think if you look at the jin > gui yao yue you can look at things differently. I am talking about the jin gui only, not a modern definition. I see the numbness being > the differentiating sign from feng bi. Pain is a given. Not true. Chapter 6, in the discussion on huang qi gui zhi wu wu tang, it is discussing generalized insensitivity. In the commentary that I am reading, it says " blood impediment is characterized mainly by tingling and numbness of the flesh, and in cases of severe contraction of external evil, there may also be pain, hence the text says " as in wind impediment. " Xue bi can have numbness and pain, but pain is not a given, it is only a possibility. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 > > > On Behalf Of Eric Brand > > > >blood > > > impediment... .its chief sign is numbness rather than > > > pain. " > > > > That is the modern simplified definition. I think if you look at > the jin > > gui yao yue you can look at things differently. > > I am talking about the jin gui only, not a modern definition. > > > I see the numbness being > > the differentiating sign from feng bi. Pain is a given. > > Not true. Chapter 6, in the discussion on huang qi gui zhi wu wu > tang, it is discussing generalized insensitivity. In the commentary > that I am reading, it says " blood impediment is characterized mainly > by tingling and numbness of the flesh, and in cases of severe > contraction of external evil, there may also be pain, hence the text > says " as in wind impediment. " Xue bi can have numbness and pain, > but pain is not a given, it is only a possibility. Eric, You are right, I should have checked the book, or even my paper, before spouting. Sometime the memory is faulty. Point well taken in regard to impediment. Although (again from memory) doesn't the PD say there is pain in xue bi? - 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.