Wiseman evaluated in CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED TRADITIONAL AND WESTERN M

[Guest guest]

However, the opinions presented below as Wiseman's opinions are

incorrect. Wisenman holds opinions that are directly contrary to the

opinions that have been ascribed to him below, and PD terminology

accepts a variety of the terms that are being used as examples below

(for example, epilepsy in pregnancy may also be rendered as eclampsia,

glans penis for tortoise's head, uterus for zi gong, etc). Most of

these arguments are presented as though there was a difference in

opinion, when in fact both parties argee.

 

Wiseman doesn't oppose the use of Western medical terminology to

describe TCM conditions if the conditions are the same. He only

opposes WM terminology if it creates an inaccurate impression of the

traditional disease.

 

Eric

 

 

, " Tom Verhaeghe "

<tom.verhaeghe wrote:

>

> ...and now for some semantics : )

>

> Abstract from the CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED TRADITIONAL AND WESTERN

> MEDICINE 2005 Vol.25 No.11:

>

>

> Comments on Nigel Wiseman's A Practical Dictionary of :

> On the Use of Western Medical Terms in English Glossary of Chinese

Medicine

> XIE Zhu-fan, LIU Gan-zhong,LU Wei-bo, et at The First Clinical Medical

> School,Peking University,Beijing(100034)

> Abstract:

> Mr.Wiseman believes that Western medical terms chosen as equivalents of

> Chinese medical

> terms should be the words known to all speakers and not requiring any

> specialist knowledge or instrumentation to

> understand or identify, and strictly technical Western medical terms

should

> be avoided regardless of their conceptual

> conformity to the Chinese terms. According to such criteria, many

> inappropriate Western medical terms are

> selected as English equivalents by the authors of the Dictionary,

and on the

> other hand,many ready-made appropriate

> Western medical terms are replaced by loan English terms with the

Chinese

> style of word formation.

> The experience obtained by translating Western medical terms into

Chinese

> when Western medicine was first introduced

> to China should be helpful for developing English equivalents at

present.

> However, the authors of the

> Dictionary adhere to their own opinions and reject others'

experience. The

> English terms thus created do not reflect

> the genuine meaning of the Chinese terms,but make the English

glossary in

> chaos. The so-called true face

> of traditional Chinese revealed by such terms is merely the Chinese

custom

> of word formation and metaphoric

> rhetoric. In other words, traditional Chinese medicine is not

regarded as a

> system of medicine but merely some

> Oriental folklore.

>

> In the article, words under discussion are:

> jing ? (tetany)

> fa ? (effusion)

> jing bi ?? (menstrual block) authors argue for amenorrhea

> e kou chuang ??? (goose mouth sore) authors argue for thrush

> chou feng ?? (tugging wind) authors argue for convulsions (they use

quotes

> from the classics to make their case)

> They have issues with the term dan ? (cinnabar), and also with the

term ren

> shen dian yong ???? (epilepsy of pregnanc) authors argue for eclampsia

> er zhu ?? (ear pearl), they prefer tragus

> zi gong ?? (children's palace) they prefer uterus

> gui tou ?? (tortoise's head) they prefer glans penis

> jiao gong fan zhang ???? (arched-back rigidity) they prefer opisthotonus

> shui zhong ?? (water swelling) they prefer edema

> feng zhen kuai ??? (papular wind lumps) they prefer wheals

> feng zhen ?? (wind papules) they prefer rubella

>

> In conclusion of the article, the authors'main issue is with the

fact that

> these popular terms are merely a part of oriental culture, and that

they are

> not genuine medicine terms.

> So they argue for the inclusion of Western medical terms in the

translation

> of Chinese medical terms, because there are words in Western

medicine that

> define the issues better than the popular Chinese ones.

>

> People that want to read the full article in Chinese may email me

for a copy

> tom.verhaeghe

>

> Regards,

> Tom.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

This goes directly to the heart of the problem: Chinese, as non-native

speakers of English, do not have the English language skills to

understand this level of the discussion and use of English. That is

exactly why the onus of choosing English terms and doing English

translations rests on us and should not be left to them.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws "

<pemachophel2001 wrote:

>

> Eric,

>

> This goes directly to the heart of the problem: Chinese, as non-native

> speakers of English, do not have the English language skills to

> understand this level of the discussion and use of English. That is

> exactly why the onus of choosing English terms and doing English

> translations rests on us and should not be left to them.

 

Yet they assume that the entire world will follow the decisions of a

Chinese committee without a single native English speaker. The

arrogance and national pride implicit in this is astounding. The

Chinese would never accept standardized Chinese terminology that was

decided by a room of whities in Washington, yet they assume that the

entire Western world will blindly adopt the English term systems that

the Chinese create.

 

Chinese publishers will be compelled by their government to follow the

new Chinese national standard of English terminology (to be determined

in March by a committee that generally favors biomedicalization of CM

concepts). The achievements of Westerners in the CM world are largely

ignored in the PRC, and the mandatory use of the PRC national standard

terminology will likely cause Chinese publishers to continue to produce

books that fail in the Western marketplace. It is a shame because they

have so much potential but they don't bother to look at the reality of

the Western world.

 

It is widely perceived in China that Westerners are not capable of

understanding the metaphors and traditional theory of Chinese

medicine. They think that in order for us to accept Chinese medicine,

it must be presented in a scientific and simplified form. It is not

widely realized that Westerners can accept the non-scientific, flexible

ambiguities inherent in CM. We can accept Chinese medicine whether it

is modern or ancient, consistent or fuzzy, scientific or irrational-

we are intelligent enough to be able to handle the entire picture, just

like they are.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Hey Eric,

 

Is this your current experience in Beijing?

 

I agree with everything you've said, but I thought that at least one

publisher over there appeared to have a clue. Am I wrong?

 

-al.

 

On 2/13/06, Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

>

> It is widely perceived in China that Westerners are not capable of

> understanding the metaphors and traditional theory of Chinese

> medicine. They think that in order for us to accept Chinese medicine,

> it must be presented in a scientific and simplified form. It is not

> widely realized that Westerners can accept the non-scientific, flexible

> ambiguities inherent in CM. We can accept Chinese medicine whether it

> is modern or ancient, consistent or fuzzy, scientific or irrational-

> we are intelligent enough to be able to handle the entire picture, just

> like they are.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

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

> discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

So I take it things are not going as well as we had hoped when we

talked over the Xmas holidays here is Boulder?

 

Bob

 

P.S. I go to Florida later this morning on a teaching tour of the

schools down there. So I'll be off-line till the 23rd.