Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 by the same author of the previous article, Xie Zhu-fan, CJITWM, October 2005,V ol.2 5,N o.10 Comments on Nigel Wiseman's A Practical Dictionary of ?On Wiseman's Literal Translation XIE Zhu-fan,LIU Gan-zhong, LU Wei-bo, et al The First Clinical Medical College,Peking University,Beijing(100034) Abstract Comments were made on the word-for-word literal translation method used by Mr.Nigel Wiseman in A Practical Dictionary of .He believes that only literal translation can reflect Chinese medical concepts accurately. The so-called " word-for-word " translation is actually English-word-for-Chinesecharacter " translation. First, he made a list of Single Characters with English Equivalents, and then he replaced each character of Chinese medical terms with the assigned English equivalent. Many English terms thus produced are confusing. The defect of the word-for-word literal translation stems from the erroneous idea that the single character constitutes the basic element of meaning corresponding to the notion of " word " in English, and the meaning of a disyllabic or polysyllabic Chinese word is simply the addition of the meanings of the two or more characters. Another big mistake is the negligence of the polysemy of Chinese characters. One or two English equivalents can by no means cover all the various meanings of a polysemous character as a monosyllabic word Various examples were cited from this dictionary to illustrate the mistakes. >>> mounting is one of the examples cited Xie Zhu-fan published a book called " On the Standard Nomenclature of Traditional " , and he published a series of articles on the topic of translation. He also published some articles on the integration of Chinese and Western medicine.If you would like to read some more, drop me a line, Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Again, Xie Zhu-Fan is attributing notions about Wiseman's translation methodology that are completely off the mark. Wiseman does not have the views that are expressed in this abstract below. Xie Zhu-Fan brings us terms like hernia qi, polyuria, and many other conflations of Chinese medical concepts that have been whitewashed into ill-fitting biomedicalized terms. He is continually misrepresenting Wiseman's opinions and methodology in these articles, and his proposed terminology is useless outside the context of integrated medicine. If someone wants to discuss the methods that Wiseman actually endorses, then we have a topic to talk about. If all we have is a rival smearing his image with gross misrepresentations, there is hardly any ground for discussion. Eric , " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > > by the same author of the previous article, Xie Zhu-fan, CJITWM, October > 2005,V ol.2 5,N o.10 > > Comments on Nigel Wiseman's A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine?On > Wiseman's Literal Translation > XIE Zhu-fan,LIU Gan-zhong, LU Wei-bo, et al The First Clinical Medical > College,Peking University,Beijing(100034) > Abstract > Comments were made on the word-for-word literal translation method used by > Mr.Nigel Wiseman in A Practical Dictionary of .He believes > that only literal translation can reflect Chinese medical concepts > accurately. The so-called " word-for-word " translation is actually > English-word-for-Chinesecharacter " translation. First, he made a list of > Single Characters with English Equivalents, and then he replaced each > character of Chinese medical terms with the assigned English equivalent. > Many English terms thus produced are confusing. The defect of the > word-for-word literal translation stems from the erroneous idea that the > single character constitutes the basic element of meaning corresponding to > the notion of " word " in English, and the meaning of a disyllabic or > polysyllabic Chinese word is simply the addition of the meanings of the two > or more characters. Another big mistake is the negligence of the polysemy of > Chinese characters. One or two English equivalents can by no means cover all > the various meanings of a polysemous character as a monosyllabic word > Various examples were cited from this dictionary to illustrate the mistakes. > > >>> mounting is one of the examples cited > Xie Zhu-fan published a book called " On the Standard Nomenclature of > Traditional " , and he published a series of articles on the > topic of translation. He also published some articles on the integration of > Chinese and Western medicine.If you would like to read some more, drop me a > line, > Tom. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that only a handful copies of Xie's dictionary were sold in the U.S. last year. . . On Feb 16, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Eric Brand wrote: > Again, Xie Zhu-Fan is attributing notions about Wiseman's > translation methodology that are completely off the mark. Wiseman > does not have the views that are expressed in this abstract below. > Xie Zhu-Fan brings us terms like hernia qi, polyuria, and many other > conflations of Chinese medical concepts that have been whitewashed > into ill-fitting biomedicalized terms. He is continually > misrepresenting Wiseman's opinions and methodology in these > articles, and his proposed terminology is useless outside the > context of integrated medicine. > > If someone wants to discuss the methods that Wiseman actually > endorses, then we have a topic to talk about. If all we have is a > rival smearing his image with gross misrepresentations, there is > hardly any ground for discussion. > > Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus wrote: > > Again, Xie Zhu-Fan is attributing notions about Wiseman's > translation methodology that are completely off the mark. Wiseman > does not have the views that are expressed in this abstract below. > Xie Zhu-Fan brings us terms like hernia qi, polyuria, and many other > conflations of Chinese medical concepts that have been whitewashed > into ill-fitting biomedicalized terms. He is continually > misrepresenting Wiseman's opinions and methodology in these > articles, and his proposed terminology is useless outside the > context of integrated medicine. > > If someone wants to discuss the methods that Wiseman actually > endorses, then we have a topic to talk about. If all we have is a > rival smearing his image with gross misrepresentations, there is > hardly any ground for discussion. > > Eric Eric, have you read the articles? Isn't caling them 'gross misrepresentations' a little too much? There's always something we can learn. Gordon Faulkner, a Scottish Dao Yin specialist with a good sense of humour simply used to tell his students : " There's always more... " Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 , " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > Eric, have you read the articles? Hi Tom, I am very familiar with Xie Zhu-Fan's work. Prof. Xie has been a prominent speaker in the WHO conferences on terminology, where he represented the State Administration of TCM (PRC). Recently, I've been discussing terminology with Xie's colleague Wang Kui of the World Federation of Societies in Beijing. It is obvious from Wang Kui's opinions and Xie's published papers that neither of them is particularly familiar with Wiseman's motives and approach. Prof. Xie's assertion that Wiseman uses a one-to-one translation methodology that promotes a loss of clinical concepts is simply incorrect. Similarly, the assertions in the previous article that suggest that Wiseman is opposed to the accurate use of biomedicine is also incorrect. Anyone who takes the time to read Wiseman's most basic essays on translation methodology in either English or Chinese will be aware that Xie's arguments do not hold water. Wiseman did his PhD dissertation at Exeter on the prevalence of polysemy in CM, and his terminology generally handles the issue quite effectively, with varied use of English terms where appropriate and correct linking of Chinese concepts where appropriate. Similarly, Wiseman advocates the use of Western medical terms that preserve accuracy but does not advocate using Western medical terms that distort traditional concepts. These articles that you have presented do nothing to illustrate shortcomings in Wiseman's approach, rather they illustrate that Xie is poorly informed about Wiseman's methodology and rationale (at least publicly). Perhaps as Z'ev has alluded to, Xie feels some resentment for Nigel since 65% of last year's translations and compilations used PD terminology, while Xie's terminology is nearly completely ignored in the West. Nigel's dictionary sold 681 copies in 2005, while Xie's dictionary sold 8 copies. The reason that Xie's influence in the terminology world of the West is so weak is because Xie's terminology does not follow a methodology that is suitable for the needs of translators and Western students of Chinese medicine. The issue of terminology is not an issue of particular words. It is an issue of methods and concepts. Individual words are often modified according to the preference of individual writers, but the integrity of the methodology is what allows PD terminology to be a popular base for translators. For example, Blue Poppy texts generally use some variations on PD terminology, but Blue Poppy authors recognize the value in using a cohesive system and few readers would argue that Blue Poppy books present anything short of an accurate, comprehensive perspective on Chinese medicine. By contrast, Xie's terminology has never produced any successful English texts because it is too inconsistent and biomedicalized to satisfy the needs of translators and readers. Wiseman's approach aims to bring English readers the same depth of material that Chinese readers experience. Traditional metaphors are retained, links between clinical concepts are clearly established, and readers are not presented with simplified materials that assume that Western readers are less capable of handling Chinese medical theory than Chinese people are. Wiseman believes that Western readers should not have traditional theory bent to appear more scientific and simple because Wiseman believes that Westerners are fully capable of understanding authentic traditional medicine; he does not try to sweep the ambiguities and traditional disease categories under the rug. He preserves the integrity of the system and traditional perspectives in English just as they appear in Chinese, which I believe is far more respectful of the intelligence of Western readers. We are not trying to study a simplified, Westernized version of Chinese medicine, we are trying to study the real deal. Xie's translation methodology is inconsistent and unusable for serious translators. It does not distinguish the various nuances of stagnation or supplementation. It translates the same clinical concept differently in a haphazard way that produces countless logistical problems. It obscures clinically important concepts and assumes that Westerners are only capable of understanding Chinese medicine if it is biomedicalized and simplified. Xie obscures traditional disease categories with biomedical disease names that frequently do not fully fit the traditional disease concept. Xie's terminology is not applicable for different historic periods so it cannot be used to approach classical literature. For example, translating " feng huo yan " (wind-fire-eye) as acute conjunctivitis is simply not appropriate for books that were written long before people were aware of the conjunctiva. It deprives the reader of the traditional metaphor that gives hints into how the disease was conceptually viewed, and it is not even accurate in meaning because the manifestations of feng huo yan are not limited to acute conjunctivitis (the same traditional disease can also refer to scleritis, for example). If you want to analyze a terminology in terms of its inaccuracies on the individual term level, we can have a field day with Xie's terminology. He translates jin as tendons, when the actual Chinese medical concept refers to ropy tissues that can be plucked. For example, the muscle belly of the upper trapezius and the SCM muscle are classified as jin in CM, but they are certainly not tendons. Xie translates poor memory or forgetfulness as " amnesia, " which is a different thing entirely. However, it is not individual terms that cause Xie's methodology to be unusable for translators. Rather, it is the presence of a wide range of variable and inconsistent terms that make the terminology difficult to use in practice. There are numerous grammatical errors and a lack of systematic solutions to the problems that crop up in translation. Excessive biomedicalization obscures the concepts that originally linked together disease categories like ding and yong. Xie's terminology has coma listed for conditions that aren't necessarily comas, arthalgia listed for diseases that don't necessarily affect the joints. There is no way to present traditional diseases as though they perfectly matched modern disease categories without a loss of concepts that are important to traditional medicine. Chinese medicine can be integrated with biomedicine to great benefit. But Chinese medicine does not need to have its traditional theory whitewashed to appear more scientific. The future of Chinese medicine is not to simply Westernize it and ignore all non- scientific aspects of it. The future of Chinese medicine is to understand it and apply it correctly, mastering both traditional theory and modern medicine to gain the best of both worlds. The non- scientific basis of Chinese medicine is not something to be ashamed of. Chinese medicine is a beautiful and effective system of medicine that can peacefully co-exist with biomedicine, it doesn't need to be biomedicalized and purged of its fundamental natural metaphors. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus wrote: > ... Chinese medicine does not need to have its traditional > theory whitewashed to appear more scientific. The future of Chinese > medicine is not to simply Westernize it and ignore all non- > scientific aspects of it. The future of Chinese medicine is to > understand it and apply it correctly, mastering both traditional > theory and modern medicine to gain the best of both worlds. The non- > scientific basis of Chinese medicine is not something to be ashamed > of. Chinese medicine is a beautiful and effective system of > medicine that can peacefully co-exist with biomedicine, it doesn't > need to be biomedicalized and purged of its fundamental natural > metaphors. Hear, hear (sorry for the one-liner, but I feel this view-point deserves maximum support) Alwin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Bravo! On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:36 AM, Eric Brand wrote: > Chinese medicine can be integrated with biomedicine to great > benefit. But Chinese medicine does not need to have its traditional > theory whitewashed to appear more scientific. The future of Chinese > medicine is not to simply Westernize it and ignore all non- > scientific aspects of it. The future of Chinese medicine is to > understand it and apply it correctly, mastering both traditional > theory and modern medicine to gain the best of both worlds. The non- > scientific basis of Chinese medicine is not something to be ashamed > of. Chinese medicine is a beautiful and effective system of > medicine that can peacefully co-exist with biomedicine, it doesn't > need to be biomedicalized and purged of its fundamental natural > metaphors. > > Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2006 Report Share Posted February 19, 2006 Nigel's dictionary sold 681 copies in 2005 >>>> That's all? that is sad for such an important text Oakland, CA 94609 - Eric Brand Sunday, February 19, 2006 5:36 AM Re: another article on Wiseman , " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > Eric, have you read the articles? Hi Tom, I am very familiar with Xie Zhu-Fan's work. Prof. Xie has been a prominent speaker in the WHO conferences on terminology, where he represented the State Administration of TCM (PRC). Recently, I've been discussing terminology with Xie's colleague Wang Kui of the World Federation of Societies in Beijing. It is obvious from Wang Kui's opinions and Xie's published papers that neither of them is particularly familiar with Wiseman's motives and approach. Prof. Xie's assertion that Wiseman uses a one-to-one translation methodology that promotes a loss of clinical concepts is simply incorrect. Similarly, the assertions in the previous article that suggest that Wiseman is opposed to the accurate use of biomedicine is also incorrect. Anyone who takes the time to read Wiseman's most basic essays on translation methodology in either English or Chinese will be aware that Xie's arguments do not hold water. Wiseman did his PhD dissertation at Exeter on the prevalence of polysemy in CM, and his terminology generally handles the issue quite effectively, with varied use of English terms where appropriate and correct linking of Chinese concepts where appropriate. Similarly, Wiseman advocates the use of Western medical terms that preserve accuracy but does not advocate using Western medical terms that distort traditional concepts. These articles that you have presented do nothing to illustrate shortcomings in Wiseman's approach, rather they illustrate that Xie is poorly informed about Wiseman's methodology and rationale (at least publicly). Perhaps as Z'ev has alluded to, Xie feels some resentment for Nigel since 65% of last year's translations and compilations used PD terminology, while Xie's terminology is nearly completely ignored in the West. Nigel's dictionary sold 681 copies in 2005, while Xie's dictionary sold 8 copies. The reason that Xie's influence in the terminology world of the West is so weak is because Xie's terminology does not follow a methodology that is suitable for the needs of translators and Western students of Chinese medicine. The issue of terminology is not an issue of particular words. It is an issue of methods and concepts. Individual words are often modified according to the preference of individual writers, but the integrity of the methodology is what allows PD terminology to be a popular base for translators. For example, Blue Poppy texts generally use some variations on PD terminology, but Blue Poppy authors recognize the value in using a cohesive system and few readers would argue that Blue Poppy books present anything short of an accurate, comprehensive perspective on Chinese medicine. By contrast, Xie's terminology has never produced any successful English texts because it is too inconsistent and biomedicalized to satisfy the needs of translators and readers. Wiseman's approach aims to bring English readers the same depth of material that Chinese readers experience. Traditional metaphors are retained, links between clinical concepts are clearly established, and readers are not presented with simplified materials that assume that Western readers are less capable of handling Chinese medical theory than Chinese people are. Wiseman believes that Western readers should not have traditional theory bent to appear more scientific and simple because Wiseman believes that Westerners are fully capable of understanding authentic traditional medicine; he does not try to sweep the ambiguities and traditional disease categories under the rug. He preserves the integrity of the system and traditional perspectives in English just as they appear in Chinese, which I believe is far more respectful of the intelligence of Western readers. We are not trying to study a simplified, Westernized version of Chinese medicine, we are trying to study the real deal. Xie's translation methodology is inconsistent and unusable for serious translators. It does not distinguish the various nuances of stagnation or supplementation. It translates the same clinical concept differently in a haphazard way that produces countless logistical problems. It obscures clinically important concepts and assumes that Westerners are only capable of understanding Chinese medicine if it is biomedicalized and simplified. Xie obscures traditional disease categories with biomedical disease names that frequently do not fully fit the traditional disease concept. Xie's terminology is not applicable for different historic periods so it cannot be used to approach classical literature. For example, translating " feng huo yan " (wind-fire-eye) as acute conjunctivitis is simply not appropriate for books that were written long before people were aware of the conjunctiva. It deprives the reader of the traditional metaphor that gives hints into how the disease was conceptually viewed, and it is not even accurate in meaning because the manifestations of feng huo yan are not limited to acute conjunctivitis (the same traditional disease can also refer to scleritis, for example). If you want to analyze a terminology in terms of its inaccuracies on the individual term level, we can have a field day with Xie's terminology. He translates jin as tendons, when the actual Chinese medical concept refers to ropy tissues that can be plucked. For example, the muscle belly of the upper trapezius and the SCM muscle are classified as jin in CM, but they are certainly not tendons. Xie translates poor memory or forgetfulness as " amnesia, " which is a different thing entirely. However, it is not individual terms that cause Xie's methodology to be unusable for translators. Rather, it is the presence of a wide range of variable and inconsistent terms that make the terminology difficult to use in practice. There are numerous grammatical errors and a lack of systematic solutions to the problems that crop up in translation. Excessive biomedicalization obscures the concepts that originally linked together disease categories like ding and yong. Xie's terminology has coma listed for conditions that aren't necessarily comas, arthalgia listed for diseases that don't necessarily affect the joints. There is no way to present traditional diseases as though they perfectly matched modern disease categories without a loss of concepts that are important to traditional medicine. Chinese medicine can be integrated with biomedicine to great benefit. But Chinese medicine does not need to have its traditional theory whitewashed to appear more scientific. The future of Chinese medicine is not to simply Westernize it and ignore all non- scientific aspects of it. The future of Chinese medicine is to understand it and apply it correctly, mastering both traditional theory and modern medicine to gain the best of both worlds. The non- scientific basis of Chinese medicine is not something to be ashamed of. Chinese medicine is a beautiful and effective system of medicine that can peacefully co-exist with biomedicine, it doesn't need to be biomedicalized and purged of its fundamental natural metaphors. Eric Brand 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 February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 >>> Chinese medicine is a beautiful and effective system of medicine that can peacefully co-exist with biomedicine, it doesn't need to be biomedicalized and purged of its fundamental natural metaphors. Eric Brand <<< Eric, Zev, Doug, and many others, This is the path we need to travel, I have no doubts. Let's embrace CM/TCM/OM and infuse it with a healthy dose of preventive/functional medicine and voila.....it's CM/TCM/OM all over again, and a bit more. Truly a pleasure to be part of you all, Daniel C. Luthi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Eric, thank you for your reply. I am sure that Nigel Wiseman has put a lot of thought into his methodology. From what I've read about Xie Zhu-fan, I don't think his methodology gets near Wiseman's. However, I still have some thoughts about a couple of the term Xie brought up in his articles. You wrote: > Wiseman's approach aims to bring English readers the same depth of > material that Chinese readers experience. Traditional metaphors are > retained, links between clinical concepts are clearly established, > and readers are not presented with simplified materials that assume > that Western readers are less capable of handling Chinese medical > theory than Chinese people are. OK so metaphors are retained. Metaphors abound in Chinese. But they're not being retained in modern Chinese all the time, are they? Some very simple examples come to mind: & #33258; & #34892; & #36710; zi xing che, litt. meaning 'self walking/moving vehicle' is translated as bicycle & #27773; & #27833; qi you, litt. 'energy oil' is translated as gasoline & #27773; & #36710; qi che, litt. 'energy car' is translated as bus and & #23567; & #27773; & #36710; xiao qi che. litt. 'small energy car' is translated as car & #20912; & #31665; bing xiang, ,litt. 'ice box'is translated as refrigerator & #39134; & #26426; fei ji, litt. 'flying machine' is translated as airplane so my question is: in the case of let's say & #40517; & #21475; & #30126; e kou chuang, 'goose mouth sore' why hold on to this term when 'thrush' may be a better match? This is not about retaining a metaphor, or is it? You write: > Xie's terminology is not applicable for different historic periods > so it cannot be used to approach classical literature. For example, > translating " feng huo yan " (wind-fire-eye) as acute conjunctivitis > is simply not appropriate for books that were written long before > people were aware of the conjunctiva. It deprives the reader of the > traditional metaphor that gives hints into how the disease was > conceptually viewed, and it is not even accurate in meaning because > the manifestations of feng huo yan are not limited to acute > conjunctivitis (the same traditional disease can also refer to > scleritis, for example). I see, but does that count for all the rest of the terms? What about jing bi, menstrual block? Isn't amenorrhea an equally correct term? Zi gong, children's palace, what about uterus? Or is the term 'children's palace' somehow important for better clinical practice or discussion? Sorry if I'm boring you people. I'm not a sinologist, just offering my thoughts on the issue. Metaphors abound in Chinese, but sometimes they are just constructions that point to a certain term that may be translated more comfortably by the word commonly used in the English language, be it medical language or not. Like bike, car, or indeed uterus. Regards, Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Tom I would like to understand the same points Oakland, CA 94609 - Tom Verhaeghe Monday, February 20, 2006 2:08 PM Re: another article on Wiseman Eric, thank you for your reply. I am sure that Nigel Wiseman has put a lot of thought into his methodology. From what I've read about Xie Zhu-fan, I don't think his methodology gets near Wiseman's. However, I still have some thoughts about a couple of the term Xie brought up in his articles. You wrote: > Wiseman's approach aims to bring English readers the same depth of > material that Chinese readers experience. Traditional metaphors are > retained, links between clinical concepts are clearly established, > and readers are not presented with simplified materials that assume > that Western readers are less capable of handling Chinese medical > theory than Chinese people are. OK so metaphors are retained. Metaphors abound in Chinese. But they're not being retained in modern Chinese all the time, are they? Some very simple examples come to mind: & #33258; & #34892; & #36710; zi xing che, litt. meaning 'self walking/moving vehicle' is translated as bicycle & #27773; & #27833; qi you, litt. 'energy oil' is translated as gasoline & #27773; & #36710; qi che, litt. 'energy car' is translated as bus and & #23567; & #27773; & #36710; xiao qi che. litt. 'small energy car' is translated as car & #20912; & #31665; bing xiang, ,litt. 'ice box'is translated as refrigerator & #39134; & #26426; fei ji, litt. 'flying machine' is translated as airplane so my question is: in the case of let's say & #40517; & #21475; & #30126; e kou chuang, 'goose mouth sore' why hold on to this term when 'thrush' may be a better match? This is not about retaining a metaphor, or is it? You write: > Xie's terminology is not applicable for different historic periods > so it cannot be used to approach classical literature. For example, > translating " feng huo yan " (wind-fire-eye) as acute conjunctivitis > is simply not appropriate for books that were written long before > people were aware of the conjunctiva. It deprives the reader of the > traditional metaphor that gives hints into how the disease was > conceptually viewed, and it is not even accurate in meaning because > the manifestations of feng huo yan are not limited to acute > conjunctivitis (the same traditional disease can also refer to > scleritis, for example). I see, but does that count for all the rest of the terms? What about jing bi, menstrual block? Isn't amenorrhea an equally correct term? Zi gong, children's palace, what about uterus? Or is the term 'children's palace' somehow important for better clinical practice or discussion? Sorry if I'm boring you people. I'm not a sinologist, just offering my thoughts on the issue. Metaphors abound in Chinese, but sometimes they are just constructions that point to a certain term that may be translated more comfortably by the word commonly used in the English language, be it medical language or not. Like bike, car, or indeed uterus. Regards, Tom. 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 February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Tom, As I am translating one of the Xie Zhufan (et al.) articles into English (the one on PD terminology & Western medical terms), I of course checked all the examples they are giving. At this moment, I will respond only to your question about one of them. The example of 'zigong' is given in this article in a series of examples to illustrate the authors' opinion that Wiseman is denying the existence of cq avoiding to use corresponding (anatomical in this case) Western medical terms. They write that 'zigong' in the PD is translated as 'infant's palace' and then start to ridicule it (in a ridiculous way actually ;->). But actually, what they say here is simply not true. 'infant's palace' is NOT the term of choice in the PD. It is uterus. The synonym 'womb' is given next to it. 'Infant's Palace' is only used as translation of the name of the acupoint CV-4 (zigong) (and I strongly support that). This is just one example out of many showing that they are attacking the PD terminology in a very cheap way. More concerning is that they completely avoid discussing or (apparently) looking at definitions connected to terms in the PD. In terminology (as a science), terms are not terms without definitions, and all should be based on a coherent system of concepts. That is what makes the PD such a valuable tool: there are numerous ways to 'travel around' in it and not lose your way; many people use it as a learning tool. It is much much more than a book to consult when you want to check what term can be used in English for a certain Chinese term. And as a translator who has been studying terminology for a while, I can say it is exactly the kind of thing this subject field needed to be able to build further on a coherent system of concepts (if it wants to avoid to drown in biomedical 'TCM' alltogether that is). Many more things can be said about this all and, in this case, about Xie Zhufan's writings against the PD; I'll come back to that later, when the translation is in a presentable form. Best, Herman Oving Tom wrote: [...] > Zi gong, children's palace, what about uterus? Or is the term > 'children's palace' somehow important for better clinical practice or > discussion? > Sorry if I'm boring you people. I'm not a sinologist, just offering my > thoughts on the issue. > Metaphors abound in Chinese, but sometimes they are just constructions > that point to a certain term that may be translated more comfortably > by the word commonly used in the English language, be it medical > language or not. Like bike, car, or indeed uterus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Tom, I personally prefer the metaphorical approach, because it more honestly expresses the sensory-based perceptual diagnosis of classical Chinese physicians. They looked in the mouth and saw ru e, or baby moth/milk moth (swollen throat nodes with pustular discharge), or 'white and red patch wind', or 'silver scales', or a host of other conditions that were defined by how they appeared. They were then directly integrated into the conceptual system of Chinese medicine. On Feb 20, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Tom Verhaeghe wrote: > so my question is: in the case of let's say > & #40517; & #21475; & #30126; e kou chuang, > 'goose mouth sore' why hold on to this term when 'thrush' may be a > better match? This is not about retaining a metaphor, or is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 Tom and Eric, Tom, you make an excellent point. While I support the use of the dictionary, and even promote it with students and faculty, I also hear the complaints and see the problems inherent in the continued use of some of the metaphors. Furthermore, the use of some of the terminology, being as terse is it often is, makes it even more challenging to both promote it and sometimes even to adhere to it. Thomas Message: 11 Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:08:21 -0000 " Tom Verhaeghe " Re: another article on Wiseman Eric, thank you for your reply. I am sure that Nigel Wiseman has put a lot of thought into his methodology. From what I've read about Xie Zhu-fan, I don't think his methodology gets near Wiseman's. However, I still have some thoughts about a couple of the term Xie brought up in his articles. You wrote: > Wiseman's approach aims to bring English readers the same depth of > material that Chinese readers experience. Traditional metaphors are > retained, links between clinical concepts are clearly established, > and readers are not presented with simplified materials that assume > that Western readers are less capable of handling Chinese medical > theory than Chinese people are. OK so metaphors are retained. Metaphors abound in Chinese. But they're not being retained in modern Chinese all the time, are they? Some very simple examples come to mind: ~{WTPP35~} zi xing che, litt. meaning 'self walking/moving vehicle' is translated as bicycle ~{F{SM~} qi you, litt. 'energy oil' is translated as gasoline ~{F{35~} qi che, litt. 'energy car' is translated as bus and ~{P!F{35~} xiao qi che. litt. 'small energy car' is translated as car ~{1yOd~} bing xiang, ,litt. 'ice box'is translated as refrigerator ~{7I;z~} fei ji, litt. 'flying machine' is translated as airplane so my question is: in the case of let's say ~{6l?Z4/~} e kou chuang, 'goose mouth sore' why hold on to this term when 'thrush' may be a better match? This is not about retaining a metaphor, or is it? You write: > Xie's terminology is not applicable for different historic periods > so it cannot be used to approach classical literature. For example, > translating " feng huo yan " (wind-fire-eye) as acute conjunctivitis > is simply not appropriate for books that were written long before > people were aware of the conjunctiva. It deprives the reader of the > traditional metaphor that gives hints into how the disease was > conceptually viewed, and it is not even accurate in meaning because > the manifestations of feng huo yan are not limited to acute > conjunctivitis (the same traditional disease can also refer to > scleritis, for example). I see, but does that count for all the rest of the terms? What about jing bi, menstrual block? Isn't amenorrhea an equally correct term? Zi gong, children's palace, what about uterus? Or is the term 'children's palace' somehow important for better clinical practice or discussion? Sorry if I'm boring you people. I'm not a sinologist, just offering my thoughts on the issue. Metaphors abound in Chinese, but sometimes they are just constructions that point to a certain term that may be translated more comfortably by the word commonly used in the English language, be it medical language or not. Like bike, car, or indeed uterus. Regards, Tom. ______________________ ______________________ 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 February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 In my school there were just a few students that had the PD and none of the teachers that I am aware of owned a copy at that time, although the library carried a copy most of the teachers would not use it because of the cumbersome language, “I say get over it” learn the technical terminology just like western medical students learn western medical terminology , could you imaging were we would be now if the PD never came about, and had to solely depend on translated material from china translated by non native speakers, when I go to a book store in Taiwan and I pick up any of the mainland English translations it makes me wonder if these translating comities think that westerners are so stupid that they could not possibly understand the subtleties of Chinese medicine that they have to intentionally translate terms using biomedical terms, but what many of them seem to not understand is that the same metaphors that are very useful and descriptive to them in their own language can be just as descriptive and clinically useful to us. A couple of month ago I attended a lecture that Nigel gave at china medical and some of the doctors that visited the west stated “ that they felt strange explaining concepts like the five hearts to their western medical counter parts because of sounding too non medical” And Nigel simply stated that it was his intention to convey the literature as close as the original as possible for practitioners, that would be using this information clinically. And this is the rational of many docs’ here in Taiwan. I have encountered some doctors here in Taiwan that have issue with some of the translations but when I ask them if they have read the PD or read the references to the terms they will usually say NO and some of them will make judgments based on their own opinions without ever looking at the book and what is really funny is that they will make judgments on how some terms should be translated based on their own English knowledge and what makes it even more funny is that they want to open courses for foreigners that are thought in English by some of these same teachers that have just as poor or worst language skills as some of my teachers in school. I think if practitioners of Chinese medicine are not going to learn Chinese they should at least be aware of the translation issues and about accurate translations because in many terms the metaphors and the cultural understanding of how these metaphors developed is in fact very helpful clinically. Gabe Fuentes --- wrote: > Tom and Eric, > > Tom, you make an excellent point. While I support > the use of the dictionary, and even promote it with > students and faculty, I also hear the complaints and > see the problems inherent in the continued use of > some of the metaphors. Furthermore, the use of some > of the terminology, being as terse is it often is, > makes it even more challenging to both promote it > and sometimes even to adhere to it. > > Thomas > > > > Message: 11 > Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:08:21 -0000 > " Tom Verhaeghe " > Re: another article on Wiseman > > Eric, > > thank you for your reply. > > I am sure that Nigel Wiseman has put a lot of > thought into his > methodology. From what I've read about Xie Zhu-fan, > I don't think his > methodology gets near Wiseman's. > > However, I still have some thoughts about a couple > of the term Xie > brought up in his articles. > > You wrote: > > Wiseman's approach aims to bring English readers > the same depth of > > material that Chinese readers experience. > Traditional metaphors are > > retained, links between clinical concepts are > clearly established, > > and readers are not presented with simplified > materials that assume > > that Western readers are less capable of handling > Chinese medical > > theory than Chinese people are. > > OK so metaphors are retained. > Metaphors abound in Chinese. But they're not being > retained in modern > Chinese all the time, are they? > Some very simple examples come to mind: > > ~{WTPP35~} zi xing che, litt. meaning 'self > walking/moving vehicle' is > translated as bicycle > ~{F{SM~} qi you, litt. 'energy oil' is translated as > gasoline > ~{F{35~} qi che, litt. 'energy car' is translated as > bus and > ~{P!F{35~} xiao qi che. litt. 'small energy car' is > translated as car > ~{1yOd~} bing xiang, ,litt. 'ice box'is translated > as refrigerator > ~{7I;z~} fei ji, litt. 'flying machine' is > translated as airplane > > so my question is: in the case of let's say > ~{6l?Z4/~} e kou chuang, > 'goose mouth sore' why hold on to this term when > 'thrush' may be a > better match? This is not about retaining a > metaphor, or is it? > > You write: > > Xie's terminology is not applicable for different > historic periods > > so it cannot be used to approach classical > literature. For example, > > translating " feng huo yan " (wind-fire-eye) as > acute conjunctivitis > > is simply not appropriate for books that were > written long before > > people were aware of the conjunctiva. It deprives > the reader of the > > traditional metaphor that gives hints into how the > disease was > > conceptually viewed, and it is not even accurate > in meaning because > > the manifestations of feng huo yan are not limited > to acute > > conjunctivitis (the same traditional disease can > also refer to > > scleritis, for example). > I see, but does that count for all the rest of the > terms? > What about jing bi, menstrual block? Isn't > amenorrhea an equally > correct term? > Zi gong, children's palace, what about uterus? Or is > the term > 'children's palace' somehow important for better > clinical practice or > discussion? > Sorry if I'm boring you people. I'm not a > sinologist, just offering my > thoughts on the issue. > Metaphors abound in Chinese, but sometimes they are > just constructions > that point to a certain term that may be translated > more comfortably > by the word commonly used in the English language, > be it medical > language or not. Like bike, car, or indeed uterus. > > > Regards, > > Tom. > > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > > 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 February 20, 2006 Report Share Posted February 20, 2006 , " Herman Oving - Aowen TCG " <aowentcg wrote: > They write that 'zigong' in the PD is translated as 'infant's palace' and > then start to ridicule it (in a ridiculous way actually ;->). > But actually, what they say here is simply not true. 'infant's palace' is > NOT the term of choice in the PD. It is uterus. The synonym 'womb' is given > next to it. Thank you for entering the discussion, Herman. I hope you will post more when you have translated the articles. As a sinologist with experience in translating Chinese medicine, I am sure you have valuable points to add to the discussion. The Wiseman methodology is the best option at the moment, but I still have some questions about the abundance of metaphors in the Chinese language, and if they absolutely need to be translated ALL THE TIME for a simple translation of an article. Retaining the metaphors is certainly a requirement for sinology studies, but are they necessary for everyday use? I understand the value of metaphors, but it is also not true that a Chinese person thinks about this metaphor everytime he uses a particular expression. One doesn't think about a flying machine (fei ji) but about an aeroplane. So why would we need to hold on to the metaphor in English, when other words are available that are more commonly used? Perhaps this discussion then comes down to the fact if there IS a commonly used term that can replace the metaphor. Examples: Fa re 'heat effusion' --> fever shui zhong 'water swelling' --> edema jiao gong fan zhang 'arched back rigidity' --> opisthotonus Regards, Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I hesitate to weigh in on Wiseman having done so in the past only caused a lot of liver qi stagnation/depression/constraint for myself and other CHA members. The trends are disturbing however and a few points to be made. One is that the Foreign Languages Press has published Xie Zhufan " On the Standard Nomenclature of Traditional Chinese Medicine " ISBN 7-119-03339-5. I still urge people to read it. When I brought this up in the past on CHA it was largely poo-pooed as the work of a second tier linguist. However we now find him a person who has the ear of the Chinese TCM establishment and someone to reckon with. Second I have to bring up, even as I realize that this addresses friendships of CHA members, that Wiseman hasn't been too diplomatic in embracing the translation styles of other English speaking writers. In short he has been combative in defending with his credentials the objections of many that need to be addressed. So we now have two or more divisions between Wiseman adherents and everyone else in English and all the English writers against the incomprehensible Chinese style. I don't think it would take much of a market analysis to see that few books published in China are readable (or sellable). Although we hear that big plans are being made to publish a TCM series it will fail in the market without English speaking input. I hesitate to advocate a Wiseman standard as if it will solve the problems of translation (that Flaws has so often addressed), however it may be preferable to the Chinese alternative(s). Finally I know that an article will be published in English coming out of the Beijing TCM Academy which addresses the dilution of TCM in the world market. Their solution, of course, is that the Chinese curriculum be adopted worldwide. So even as the export of TCM was a success there seems to be an effort to rein it in and to maintain some control on many fronts. anyway.... doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 , " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > OK so metaphors are retained. > Metaphors abound in Chinese. But they're not being retained in modern > Chinese all the time, are they? In translation, a distinction is made between LGP (language for general purposes) terms and LSP (language for special purposes) terms. Words like car, train, mouth, uterus, kidney, refrigerator, etc. are LGP terms that are translated with the most natural equivalent in the target language. Only LSP terms are rendered with source-based translations. LSP terms are things like bi syndrome, which Wiseman translates as impediment and Xie translates as arthralgia (even though it traditionally also describes diseases that include things like sciatica, which is not an arthalgia). > fei ji, litt. 'flying machine' is translated as airplane Obviously, this is just an LGP term that would be translated as airplane. No one would advocate " flying machine, " for crying out loud. > so my question is: in the case of let's say e kou chuang, > 'goose mouth sore' why hold on to this term when 'thrush' may be a > better match? This is not about retaining a metaphor, or is it? According to CM dictionaries, " goose mouth sores " refer to a mouth disease in newborn babies, caused by accumulated heat in the SP and HT channels, characterized by ulceration of the mouth, white scales over the tongue, sore mouth and tongue, and in severe cases, vexation and agitation. This disease is one form of " fetal heat. " While many cases are probably indeed due to thrush, thrush is not an exclusively pediatric disease like goose mouth sores are. If you just translate the disease as thrush, readers assume that they understand everything there is to know about the CM disease because they understand the modern definition of thrush. But the traditional disease category has important differences from the modern disease category, and if people are never given any information besides thrush, they will never examine the Chinese medical concept at a deeper level. This is causing the translator to be a middleman that is filtering and simplifying the ideas before they can ever reach the Western reader, which never gives the Western reader the chance to look at the traditional disease and decide " is it or is it not thrush? " > What about jing bi, menstrual block? Isn't amenorrhea an equally > correct term? Amenorrhea occurs in Wiseman's dictionary as an acceptable translation for jing bi. No conflict. Wiseman himself just translates it as menstrual block because " menstrual block " gives a better hint at the Chinese concept than amenorrhea, which only suggests an absence of menstruation rather than blocked menstruation. > Zi gong, children's palace, what about uterus? Wiseman's dictionaries and all the modern books translate zi gong as uterus. The more literal " children's palace " is appropriate for translating ancient works, which should retain a more literal translation style, but everyone in modern use simply uses the word uterus. Tom, you should consider actually checking the terms that Wiseman advocates before making your examples. Even a cursory glance at Wiseman's dictionaries and books would show you that the word uterus is the word that we use to translate zi gong on a daily basis. Best, Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 , " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > The Wiseman methodology is the best option at the moment, but I still > have some questions about the abundance of metaphors in the Chinese > language, and if they absolutely need to be translated ALL THE TIME > for a simple translation of an article. Retaining the metaphors is > certainly a requirement for sinology studies, but are they necessary > for everyday use? It's simple. Wiseman and many others simply advocate biomedical interface terms. If you are reading a journal article about thrush or acute conjunctivitis, the authors are talking about thrush and acute conjunctivitis, not a traditional CM disease category. Your translation should reflect this because the author is discussing the disease from the biomedical standpoint. No one is trying to impose ancient disease names and metaphors over discussions of modern medicine. People like me are just trying to maintain that biomedicine should not obliterate the traditional disease categories because sometimes we are translating historical works, not modern journals, and traditional literature needs to preserve the original concepts to paint a more accurate picture. All that the translator should do is to accurately represent the meaning of the original. If the original author is talking about inflammation of the conjunctiva, by all means express this in the clearest way possible using the concise definitions of biomedicine. But if the author lived in a time hundreds of years before they had a concept of conjunctivas, is it correct to say that he was writing about conjunctivitis? Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 , " " wrote: Their solution, of > course, is that the Chinese curriculum be adopted worldwide. So even as the export of > TCM was a success there seems to be an effort to rein it in and to maintain some control > on many fronts. I am in the trenches in Beijing right now working on this project, so I am aware of its depth, motives, and methods. The Chinese curriculum is very comprehensive and would be extremely beneficial to the Western world. But at present, the available staff, desired publication volume, and expectations of the Western market are not really following any realistic goals. What we are trying to do here is to help them do it right so that they can have an excellent impact in the Western world. It would be great to see them succeed in their endeavors because it would enrich the knowledge base of the English-speaking CM community. But the scale of the projects poses huge logistical problems and I have been thus far unable to convince them to progress slowly and focus on quality. As it is, they are focusing on volume and speed and they will have an extremely difficult time maintaining quality if they proceed this way. If they cannot maintain quality, they will never be able to have the impact that they desire in the West. But here we are working with a vast machine, a complex bureaucratic enterprise connected to the Chinese government in a society that values strong leadership, with high-level decision makers that are not necessarily tuned into taking the advice of Westerners. They have great potential, but whether or not they have adequate solutions to the challenges ahead of them remains to be seen. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 , " Tom Verhaeghe " <tom.verhaeghe wrote: > Perhaps this discussion then comes down to the fact if there IS a > commonly used term that can replace the metaphor. > Examples: > Fa re 'heat effusion' --> fever In PD terminology (Wiseman's term system), " fa re " may be translated as either fever or heat effusion. Either term is acceptable, but many authors choose to use " heat effusion " because the term can refer to a subjective sensation of heat that produces no measureable fever. Of course, a given patient may actually have a fever, but the CM concept arose before thermometers and doesn't necessarily indicate the presence of an objective fever. In modern Chinese, " fa re " is rarely used to discuss a fever because the phrase " fa shao " is used for this. " Fa re " is used much more frequently in the CM context, but it may or may not indicate a true fever. > shui zhong 'water swelling' --> edema In Wiseman's dictionary, edema is listed as the WM equivalent to " shui zhong, " and edema is an acceptable translation. However, both " shui zhong " (water swelling) and " pi shui " (skin water) are clearly conditions of edema in WM. Since both will naturally be translated as edema, readers are deprived of the distinction between two clinically different conditions according to Chinese medicine. Granted, both conditions are conditions of edema, but do we really want to lose the ability to distinguish the original CM diseases? It is hardly like the phrases " water swelling " and " skin water " are that difficult to understand, and if thousands of Chinese doctors can handle these two concepts, then us foreigners are likely capable of handling the distinction as well. Distinctions based upon traditional CM diseases may be unimportant to many practitioners. Many practitioners don't use traditional theory; they don't believe in it, they don't think it offers clinical benefits, they think it that should be sifted through to isolate effective treatments so that the archaic theory can be discarded once the useful parts are extracted. Like taking atropine out of belladonna to make something less toxic and more consistently effective. I'm not at all opposed to this process, but I don't think that it should be so dominant that the traditional theory is discarded in our rush to have a scientific, modern system. Both traditional and modern approaches should co-exist. Modern ideas can be added but they shouldn't trump the old ideas and invalidate them; throughout Chinese history new ideas have been added without discarding old ideas, why should we start wiping out the old ideas now? Can we really be sure that the different formulas historically used to treat different types of edema can be used interchangeably to treat edema as we understand it today? > jiao gong fan zhang 'arched back rigidity' --> opisthotonus Again, both terms are recognized and acceptable from the perspective of the PD. Of course, the way the PD was intended to be used is simply as a consistent base, individual writers have always been encouraged to vary their English expression and terminology so that the concept is expressed as clearly as possible in each situation. It was never intended to be a fixed system to be blindly followed. Honestly though, does anyone really find Wiseman's 'arched back rigidity' to be more obscure and confusing than opisthotonus? ok, stepping out of the bandwidth now. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Hi Tom and others following this discussion, Tom wrote: > I hope you will post more when you have translated the articles. As a > sinologist with experience in translating Chinese medicine, I am sure > you have valuable points to add to the discussion. I am actually a (not experienced) practitioner as well, but gave up treating patients to be able to translate and continue to study. It is largely because of my experiences as a student in a 'TCM'-school that I was/am inspired to do what I do. I was lucky to start in a period in which a few serious translations were available. Paul Unschuld's work, the Shanghan lun translation published by Paradigm and the PD were the basic tools that enabled me to write a course in Chinese medical Chinese for Dutch-speaking students and teachers of Chinese medicine and start to translate Chinese medical texts. > The Wiseman methodology is the best option at the moment, but I still > have some questions about the abundance of metaphors in the Chinese > language, and if they absolutely need to be translated ALL THE TIME > for a simple translation of an article. Retaining the metaphors is > certainly a requirement for sinology studies, but are they necessary > for everyday use? It is not always necessary, or not always possible cq practible, but it can be very helpful for students of Chinese medicine; I agree with Z'ev on that (and copied his mail at the end of this one). We should not forget that a large quantity of the students taking up this study consists of people without a medical education. I can speak only for Holland and have to say I didn't count them, but I guess here it's more than 50% (this is a very careful estimate; I should say: at least). Now if students read 'opisthotonus', most of them would need to look up the definition of that term in a Western medical dictionary. If they read 'arched-back rigidity' they not only immediately have a clue what is being talked about (this is an 'extra' caused by the clarity of the term, but this is not necessarily the case in all terms), they also are able to look it up in the PD (I suggest they do) and learn three things (at least): the definition of the term; the Western medical synonym opisthotonus with the diseases in which it may occur and last but not least the location of this term in the conceptual framework of Chinese medicine. The second part of the definition guides towards understanding the etiological background, refers to three other terms. And the creators of the PD have been so nice as to also include info with treatment suggestions (most of my students who practice use it in the clinic all the time). Using biomedical terms which for the audience are not so transparent all the time has a further disadvantage: it stimulates a kind of medical practice that has been called the 'cook-book' approach: you look up opisthotonus and find which acupoints and/or medicinals to choose from. I know that a lot of practitioners (at least here in Holland) work that way - especially doctors (MD's) who study acupuncture for a while. I will not go into that here and now, but it is of some relevance to this discussion, also because Xie Zhufan at the end of the second article expresses to whom he would like to transmit Chinese medicine: quote: " we foremost have to consider propagating it to the medical circles of the West. " (... this might interest you, Doug...) To continue about opisthotonus: in the Xie Zhufan article the authors write the following: " If saying we ought to translate jiaogong fanzhang according to Wiseman's translation method into 'arched-back rigidity' to be able to reflect 'the original appearance of Chinese medicine', then the former translation (when Western medical terms were translated into Chinese) of 'opisthotonus' into jiaogong fanzhang is problematic, because it did not reflect 'the original appearance of Western medicine'. The English 'opisthotonus' stems from two Greek words, ... (meaning) 'backward, toward the back' and ... (meaning) 'pull-tense, pulled tight': there are no words in it like jiao 'horn; something horn-shaped; angle' and gong 'bow; bend, arch'. " Ironically, the authors provide an explanation of the thought process behing the creation of the terminology. Without realizing it, they give an argument in favor of an important prerequisite for a decent terminological system: transparency. They even convinced me even more that the term 'arched-back rigidity' is a well-chosen one. It also has the advantage of adhering to another principle in the creation of termology: it has the 'potential for amplification' - and that is very helpful for translation work, as translators who encounter parts of the term in other combinations. (translating Chinese medical texts is encountering terms all the time; and the PD is not a 'finished' terminology). We also should not forget that one of the goals of the terminology is to be able to use it for texts from different periods. You don't want to run into an aeroplane in the Daodejing do you? Or encounter the term 'diabetes' in the Shanghan lun? Actually, while checking jiaogong fanzhang - opisthotonus in a Chinese-English dictionary of Chinese medicine I have here (which is only almost only usable for me to check on historical info about persons), I first find (as usual) a spelling mistake (it lists 'Apisthotonus'), but also see that they include 'neck rigidity' as English term for xiangqian (PD: rigidity of the neck). I mention it not only to show what it means that terms have to be as transparent as possible (the Chinese dictionary is a typical example of how it should not be done), but also because just this one example is sufficient to illustrate that Xie's statements in the first article about Wiseman always using character-for-character translation are far from the truth (as Eric and others has mentioned already). I do not have the intention to extend this discussion into such lenghty explanations about separate terms all the time, although I hope a few examples will help people understand what is going on. It is far more important to me that we realize what exactly it means to create a terminology in general. Let me quote Xie Zhufan again: " Chinese and Western medicine both are medicines and their terminologies both are specialized languages. Since they are specialized languages (HO: languages for special purposes - LSP's), it is just not possible to demand that people who do not possess specialized knowledge all are able to understand [them, the LSP-terms]. " In terminology (as scientific discipline), the studies I have seen argue quite the contrary: one of the important principles in the construction of a useful system of concepts (linked to terms and definitions) is the principle of clarity. The fact should be appreciated that the receptors (the readers/observers) of the system often are non-experts or not-yet-experts, such as students of the special subject, or translators. The concept systems and the terminologies based on them frequently serve to (or even are meant to) provide the observers with a more thorough idea and understanding of the subject field. I think people who use the PD will be able to confirm that it largely adheres to this principle and only therefore already is of such great value. > I understand the value of metaphors, but it is also not true that a > Chinese person thinks about this metaphor everytime he uses a > particular expression. One doesn't think about a flying machine (fei > ji) but about an aeroplane. So why would we need to hold on to the > metaphor in English, when other words are available that are more > commonly used? Well, what do you think of when you hear 'aeroplane'? ;-) > Perhaps this discussion then comes down to the fact if there IS a > commonly used term that can replace the metaphor. In the creation of terminologies for specialized subject-fields, it is not rare at all that new terms have to be created. There is nothing against that; it actually contributes (if done sensibly) to the further development and transmission of knowledge. Of course when new terms are introduced and begin to be applied, people can be confused. That is what is happening with (at least a sub-set of) a new terminology all the time. There are several reasons why there might be resistance against new terms. (and now I deleted what I started to write about that) Wiseman and others have explained time and again that the terminology is open and the creation of it is a process. Best regards, Herman > > Examples: > Fa re 'heat effusion' --> fever > shui zhong 'water swelling' --> edema > jiao gong fan zhang 'arched back rigidity' --> opisthotonus wrote: I personally prefer the metaphorical approach, because it more honestly expresses the sensory-based perceptual diagnosis of classical Chinese physicians. They looked in the mouth and saw ru e, or baby moth/milk moth (swollen throat nodes with pustular discharge), or 'white and red patch wind', or 'silver scales', or a host of other conditions that were defined by how they appeared. They were then directly integrated into the conceptual system of Chinese medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Fa re 'heat effusion' --> fever >>>> This one is actually good because it does help in understanding the meaning of the term. Fever does not Oakland, CA 94609 - Tom Verhaeghe Monday, February 20, 2006 10:45 PM Re: another article on Wiseman , " Herman Oving - Aowen TCG " <aowentcg wrote: > They write that 'zigong' in the PD is translated as 'infant's palace' and > then start to ridicule it (in a ridiculous way actually ;->). > But actually, what they say here is simply not true. 'infant's palace' is > NOT the term of choice in the PD. It is uterus. The synonym 'womb' is given > next to it. Thank you for entering the discussion, Herman. I hope you will post more when you have translated the articles. As a sinologist with experience in translating Chinese medicine, I am sure you have valuable points to add to the discussion. The Wiseman methodology is the best option at the moment, but I still have some questions about the abundance of metaphors in the Chinese language, and if they absolutely need to be translated ALL THE TIME for a simple translation of an article. Retaining the metaphors is certainly a requirement for sinology studies, but are they necessary for everyday use? I understand the value of metaphors, but it is also not true that a Chinese person thinks about this metaphor everytime he uses a particular expression. One doesn't think about a flying machine (fei ji) but about an aeroplane. So why would we need to hold on to the metaphor in English, when other words are available that are more commonly used? Perhaps this discussion then comes down to the fact if there IS a commonly used term that can replace the metaphor. Examples: Fa re 'heat effusion' --> fever shui zhong 'water swelling' --> edema jiao gong fan zhang 'arched back rigidity' --> opisthotonus Regards, Tom. 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 February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 , " Herman Oving - Aowen TCG " <aowentcg wrote: Xie Zhufan > at the end of the second article expresses to whom he would like to transmit > Chinese medicine: quote: " we foremost have to consider propagating it to the > medical circles of the West. " I think this is an important factor to consider. Because Chinese medicine is integrated into mainstream healthcare and hospital systems in places like Taiwan and the PRC, most doctors expect the primary interest in CM in the West to come from biomedical practitioners. They are used to a world of academic journals, research experiments, large universities, and large hospitals surrounding the CM community. Their exposure to the medical world as a whole operates under the dominant organizational structure of the biomedical healthcare world and most of their exchange students are doctors from WM universities. Thus, they are constantly trying to figure out how to present Chinese medicine in a way that these Western MDs will understand and support. It is not widely recognized in the East that the main body of Western practitioners is more into traditional medicine than biomedicine. And translation and presentation of CM knowledge naturally is done for the perceived target audience. You don't want to run into an aeroplane in the Daodejing > do you? Or encounter the term 'diabetes' in the Shanghan lun? One of the committees made up of Xie's colleagues that is involved in standardized English terminology in the PRC translated Shang Han as typhoid fever, based on research that suggests that one of the conditions that Zhang Zhong-Jing was describing via Shang Han Lun theory was actually typhoid fever. While translating cold damage as typhoid fever seems like an extreme example of a mistranslation to us, this is actually one of the terms that made it all the way up to the formal discussions of the WHO and the Chinese national standard. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 On Feb 21, 2006, at 12:07 AM, wrote: > I hesitate to weigh in on Wiseman having done so in the past only > caused a lot of liver qi > stagnation/depression/constraint for myself and other CHA members. > The trends are > disturbing however and a few points to be made. One is that the > Foreign Languages Press > has published Xie Zhufan " On the Standard Nomenclature of > Traditional " > ISBN 7-119-03339-5. I still urge people to read it. When I brought > this up in the past on > CHA it was largely poo-pooed as the work of a second tier linguist. > However we now find > him a person who has the ear of the Chinese TCM establishment and > someone to reckon > with. Doug, Xie Zhu-fan's work is old news. I have earlier versions of his dictionary published in the 80's, not much different from the new one. Comparing his work to the Wiseman dictionary is like comparing an old Edsel to a Prius. Even then, I found his dictionary to be useless and difficult to understand. > Second I have to bring up, even as I realize that this addresses > friendships of CHA > members, that Wiseman hasn't been too diplomatic in embracing the > translation styles of > other English speaking writers. In short he has been combative in > defending with his > credentials the objections of many that need to be addressed. So > we now have two or > more divisions between Wiseman adherents and everyone else in > English and all the > English writers against the incomprehensible Chinese style. I don't > think it would take > much of a market analysis to see that few books published in China > are readable (or > sellable). Although we hear that big plans are being made to > publish a TCM series it will > fail in the market without English speaking input. I hesitate to > advocate a Wiseman > standard as if it will solve the problems of translation (that > Flaws has so often addressed), > however it may be preferable to the Chinese alternative(s). Nigel reminds me of the scientist in " Independence Day " who has spent ten years underground in a secret facility studying the aliens and their technology. When he meets the President, he says, " they don't let us out of here too often " . Nigel has written voluminously in defense of his approach to terminology, but he would be the first to agree that he is not really a public speaker or ready to 'chew the fat' with folks in our profession. He really does spend nearly all of his time on the work of terminology and translation. > > Finally I know that an article will be published in English coming > out of the Beijing TCM > Academy which addresses the dilution of TCM in the world market. > Their solution, of > course, is that the Chinese curriculum be adopted worldwide. So > even as the export of > TCM was a success there seems to be an effort to rein it in and to > maintain some control > on many fronts. The problems in our profession are so many and so great. I agree with Herman that adaption of the Chinese cirriculum, with modifications wouldn't be a bad idea. It's their proposed terminology standards I think would be disastrous. > 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.