Glossary Eastland Press published online

[Guest guest]

Interesting yet no surprises as far as I can tell. We've all read the

books.

doug

 

 

, " Alwin van Egmond "

< wrote:

>

> Fo all who were waiting for this.

>

> The Eastlandpress glossary (24 pp) has just been put on the web in PDF

> format.

>

> Eastlandpress is publisher of many very good translations of TCM-books.

>

> http://www.eastlandpress.com/upload/_pdf_20060221110213_2/Glossary.pdf

>

> Alwin

>

[Guest guest]

Does anyone thinks these are not sufficient for the majority of books?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Sunday, February 26, 2006 11:56 AM

Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

 

 

Interesting yet no surprises as far as I can tell. We've all read the

books.

doug

 

 

, " Alwin van Egmond "

< wrote:

>

> Fo all who were waiting for this.

>

> The Eastlandpress glossary (24 pp) has just been put on the web in PDF

> format.

>

> Eastlandpress is publisher of many very good translations of TCM-books.

>

> http://www.eastlandpress.com/upload/_pdf_20060221110213_2/Glossary.pdf

>

> Alwin

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

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]

A glossary does not a dictionary make. Typical Chinese language CM

dictionaries have thousands of terms, as does the Practical

Dictionary. Paul Unschuld has just finished a technical dictionary

just for the Su Wen which has several thousand terms.

 

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:06 PM, wrote:

 

> Does anyone thinks these are not sufficient for the majority of books?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Zev

I do not think it is supposed to be a dictionary. My question is does this list

cover the majority of terms used in modern texts?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:14 PM

Re: Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

 

 

A glossary does not a dictionary make. Typical Chinese language CM

dictionaries have thousands of terms, as does the Practical

Dictionary. Paul Unschuld has just finished a technical dictionary

just for the Su Wen which has several thousand terms.

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:06 PM, wrote:

 

> Does anyone thinks these are not sufficient for the majority of books?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In Eastland Press texts, yes. In others, depends. Many books, such

as the Maciocia texts, don't tag pinyin to english or Chinese, so it

may not work there so well. Authors such as Lonny Jarrett and Ted

Kaptchuk also have their own schemes that this glossary may not be

useful for. For myself, it will be useful in that I teach from

several Eastland texts but supplement with material from the

Practical Dictionary, so I can peg English equivalents in the

Eastland texts to the Practical Dictionary more efficiently.

 

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:17 PM, wrote:

 

> Zev

> I do not think it is supposed to be a dictionary. My question is

> does this list cover the majority of terms used in modern texts?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Zev

My question is still do you think it covers the majority of needed terms in

modern texts. Classical work as a whole different set of problems but for most

modern texts, what do you think?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:55 PM

Re: Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

 

 

In Eastland Press texts, yes. In others, depends. Many books, such

as the Maciocia texts, don't tag pinyin to english or Chinese, so it

may not work there so well. Authors such as Lonny Jarrett and Ted

Kaptchuk also have their own schemes that this glossary may not be

useful for. For myself, it will be useful in that I teach from

several Eastland texts but supplement with material from the

Practical Dictionary, so I can peg English equivalents in the

Eastland texts to the Practical Dictionary more efficiently.

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:17 PM, wrote:

 

> Zev

> I do not think it is supposed to be a dictionary. My question is

> does this list cover the majority of terms used in modern texts?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Sunday, February 26, 2006 1:14 PM

>

> Re: Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

>

> A glossary does not a dictionary make. Typical Chinese language CM

> dictionaries have thousands of terms, as does the Practical

> Dictionary. Paul Unschuld has just finished a technical dictionary

> just for the Su Wen which has several thousand terms.

 

Z'ev,

 

Yes, but this is not a dictionary it is a gloss. Any Eastland Press term

can NOW be looked up in the PD. The question is, are there terms used by

Eastland Press that you cannot find the Wiseman equivalent for (not in the

gloss or using a standard universal word, like headache), hence unable to

look it up the PD. IMO, all relevant terms are glossed and other Chinese

words are just plain transparent, hence no need to look it up in a

dictionary. I would like to hear words/ terms that people feel are unclear

in the Eastland press works that are not in the gloss. Comments?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

I haven't looked it over in depth yet, but I think the answer is not

so simple. I would only say I wouldn't rely solely on this glossary

for the work that I do, teaching, writing and practicing, without

many other tools. But I also don't think the intention for this

glossary is to be definitive.

 

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 1:33 PM, wrote:

 

> Zev

> My question is still do you think it covers the majority of needed

> terms in modern texts. Classical work as a whole different set of

> problems but for most modern texts, what do you think?

>

>

>

>

> Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

> -

>

>

> Sunday, February 26, 2006 12:55 PM

> Re: Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

>

>

> In Eastland Press texts, yes. In others, depends. Many books, such

> as the Maciocia texts, don't tag pinyin to english or Chinese, so it

> may not work there so well. Authors such as Lonny Jarrett and Ted

> Kaptchuk also have their own schemes that this glossary may not be

> useful for. For myself, it will be useful in that I teach from

> several Eastland texts but supplement with material from the

> Practical Dictionary, so I can peg English equivalents in the

> Eastland texts to the Practical Dictionary more efficiently.

>

>

> On Feb 26, 2006, at 12:17 PM, wrote:

>

>> Zev

>> I do not think it is supposed to be a dictionary. My question is

>> does this list cover the majority of terms used in modern texts?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Over time, Jason, I'll be glad to make comments based on my main

criteria; to teach Chinese medicine as effectively as possible. I

need to take some time to look it over. A few examples right off

include beng4 lou4; I prefer flooding and leaking over irregular

uterine bleeding as a translation. I prefer menstrual block to

amenorrhea for bi4 jing1, because they give the sense of symptoms

revealed to the mind and senses as they appear without the sense of

removal generated by a biomedical term. It doesn't mean that

amenorrhea is 'wrong', it is a matter of preference of language that

suits how I teach.

 

All in all, however, I am very glad to see this finally available to

the profession.

 

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:23 PM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> Yes, but this is not a dictionary it is a gloss. Any Eastland

> Press term

> can NOW be looked up in the PD. The question is, are there terms

> used by

> Eastland Press that you cannot find the Wiseman equivalent for (not

> in the

> gloss or using a standard universal word, like headache), hence

> unable to

> look it up the PD. IMO, all relevant terms are glossed and other

> Chinese

> words are just plain transparent, hence no need to look it up in a

> dictionary. I would like to hear words/ terms that people feel are

> unclear

> in the Eastland press works that are not in the gloss. Comments?

>

> -Jason

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

Thanx for your comments, but I think my issue is less about what term

someone likes or thinks is more appropriate. Of course term choice is

important, but there are always going to be debate and different viewpoints

on what terms are better. That is not the issue, because any term from such

a gloss (that supplies pinyin and character) can be crossed referenced with

the PD and a definition can be obtained. What I am curious about are words

that appear in the works of EP, yet are not transparent enough by context or

DO NOT appear in the gloss, so that you cannot look them up in the PD.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:54 PM

>

> Re: Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

>

> Over time, Jason, I'll be glad to make comments based on my main

> criteria; to teach Chinese medicine as effectively as possible. I

> need to take some time to look it over. A few examples right off

> include beng4 lou4; I prefer flooding and leaking over irregular

> uterine bleeding as a translation. I prefer menstrual block to

> amenorrhea for bi4 jing1, because they give the sense of symptoms

> revealed to the mind and senses as they appear without the sense of

> removal generated by a biomedical term. It doesn't mean that

> amenorrhea is 'wrong', it is a matter of preference of language that

> suits how I teach.

>

> All in all, however, I am very glad to see this finally available to

> the profession.

>

>

> On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:23 PM, wrote:

>

> > Z'ev,

> >

> > Yes, but this is not a dictionary it is a gloss. Any Eastland

> > Press term

> > can NOW be looked up in the PD. The question is, are there terms

> > used by

> > Eastland Press that you cannot find the Wiseman equivalent for (not

> > in the

> > gloss or using a standard universal word, like headache), hence

> > unable to

> > look it up the PD. IMO, all relevant terms are glossed and other

> > Chinese

> > words are just plain transparent, hence no need to look it up in a

> > dictionary. I would like to hear words/ terms that people feel are

> > unclear

> > in the Eastland press works that are not in the gloss. Comments?

> >

> > -Jason

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I said, that will take some time to figure out. Definitely I'll

think about it, and I hope others will as well.

 

 

On Feb 26, 2006, at 5:46 PM, wrote:

 

> What I am curious about are words

> that appear in the works of EP, yet are not transparent enough by

> context or

> DO NOT appear in the gloss, so that you cannot look them up in the PD.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" All in all, however, I am very glad to see this finally available to

the profession. "

 

I'm also glad this is finally available. " A freely available [but not

necessarily free of charge] glossary " is one of the criteria for

choosing/using a terminological standard.

 

I wonder how much the upcoming AAOM panel on terminology was a factor

in finally getting this out there. This does remove one of the

important criticisms of Bensky's terminology as a de facto standard.

 

I also think that terms like amenorrhea for jing bi/bi jing and

uterine bleeding for beng lou obscure the important logic inherent in

the Chinese. But hey, everyone has their own taste in these matters.

From a purely connotative point of view, they are not wrong. They are

simply not right enough for my taste. At least now there is a basis

for discussion and debate.

 

I think some of these differences have to do with different levels of

intrinsic appreciation or even, dare I say it, love for words in and

of themselves -- their power, their poetry, and their poignancy. Some

people simply like and care for words more than others. Chacque a son

gout.

 

For me, these kinds of differences of opinion underscore the fact that

all arguments are essentially ad hominem. What I mean by this is that

I firmly believe that all our choices are first and foremost emotional

choices which then we defend by trying to rationalize. This is why

debate so rarely changes peoples' opinions (viz. American politics).

No matter what the evidence, people continue to believe, choose, or

like what they are emotionally predisposed to believe, choose, or like.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

Here's one term that IMO is neither transparent from its context in the Matera

Medica nor

found in the gloss: " augment " . (At least I didn't find it my first time looking

through the

gloss. As there's no cross-referencing from English to Chinese or pinyin, I

can't be sure.)

 

In my student days I was often perplexed by the many English terms under the

rubric of

" tonification " used in the Materia Medica, as well as by other aspects of what

we used to

call, with some measure of frustration, Benskyspeak. I knew there were nuances

of

meaning which were not being made clear. The gloss now does help substantially

in

pegging those terms to the PD. However there remains some ambiguity; for

example

" promotes " is a term used for both cui and li. And while I am now better

equipped than

then to derive meaning from context, an entry-level text should not assume that

ability.

More to the point, the real meanings and mechanisms represented by these terms

remain

a mystery. How precisely does " promotes " differ from " fosters " or " generates "

or

" supports " , for example? Even if the glossary were complete and well

differentiated, which

at first glance it is not, it would still be necessary to refer to the PD to

gain a genuine

understanding of the terms.

 

I am sympathetic to the goal of developing a comfortable target-oriented

language, but

see no reason why this has to be at the expense of consistency with a

source-oriented

nomenclature.

 

Best,

Simcha Gottlieb

 

, " " wrote:

>

> Z'ev,

>

> Thanx for your comments, but I think my issue is less about what term

> someone likes or thinks is more appropriate. Of course term choice is

> important, but there are always going to be debate and different viewpoints

> on what terms are better. That is not the issue, because any term from such

> a gloss (that supplies pinyin and character) can be crossed referenced with

> the PD and a definition can be obtained. What I am curious about are words

> that appear in the works of EP, yet are not transparent enough by context or

> DO NOT appear in the gloss, so that you cannot look them up in the PD.

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of

> > Sunday, February 26, 2006 5:54 PM

> >

> > Re: Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

> >

> > Over time, Jason, I'll be glad to make comments based on my main

> > criteria; to teach Chinese medicine as effectively as possible. I

> > need to take some time to look it over. A few examples right off

> > include beng4 lou4; I prefer flooding and leaking over irregular

> > uterine bleeding as a translation. I prefer menstrual block to

> > amenorrhea for bi4 jing1, because they give the sense of symptoms

> > revealed to the mind and senses as they appear without the sense of

> > removal generated by a biomedical term. It doesn't mean that

> > amenorrhea is 'wrong', it is a matter of preference of language that

> > suits how I teach.

> >

> > All in all, however, I am very glad to see this finally available to

> > the profession.

> >

> >

> > On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:23 PM, wrote:

> >

> > > Z'ev,

> > >

> > > Yes, but this is not a dictionary it is a gloss. Any Eastland

> > > Press term

> > > can NOW be looked up in the PD. The question is, are there terms

> > > used by

> > > Eastland Press that you cannot find the Wiseman equivalent for (not

> > > in the

> > > gloss or using a standard universal word, like headache), hence

> > > unable to

> > > look it up the PD. IMO, all relevant terms are glossed and other

> > > Chinese

> > > words are just plain transparent, hence no need to look it up in a

> > > dictionary. I would like to hear words/ terms that people feel are

> > > unclear

> > > in the Eastland press works that are not in the gloss. Comments?

> > >

> > > -Jason

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

>

> I wonder how much the upcoming AAOM panel on terminology was a factor

> in finally getting this out there.

 

This was planned to be released far before the AAOM terminology panel idea.

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of simchagottlieb

>

> Jason,

>

> Here's one term that IMO is neither transparent from its context in the

> Matera Medica nor

> found in the gloss: " augment " . (At least I didn't find it my first time

> looking through the

> gloss. As there's no cross-referencing from English to Chinese or pinyin,

> I can't be sure.)

 

Well I had no trouble finding it, it is under, yi4 (Òæ) - But more

importantly, are you telling me if I say augment qi - you do not know what

this means? Augment IMO is pretty transparent, meaning to increase / add /

more... Do you think there is a difference between augment qi (yi4 qi4) and

bu3 qi4 (supplement)? Good question... I think people like to think that

there are all these subtle differences between such terms, but the reality

is, some may think so, but many do not. For example, if you consult the

zhongyidacidian (Great dictionary of Chinese medicine) if you look up yi4

qi4 - it says, ¼´²¹Æø (ji2 bu3 qi4) - " Namely, supplement (tonify-EP) qi. "

Chinese, just like westerners like to say things differently, it doesn't

always mean that there is a profound difference. Further examples are:

Augment the Spleen = 'fortify the spleen' - augment the yin = supplement

(tonify) the yin. But in this case I think even without the gloss, your

basic western dictionary would lead you to the correct answer.

 

 

>

> In my student days I was often perplexed by the many English terms under

> the rubric of

> " tonification " used in the Materia Medica, as well as by other aspects of

> what we used to

> call, with some measure of frustration, Benskyspeak.

 

I would like to hear more about what you mean by this...

 

I knew there were

> nuances of

> meaning which were not being made clear. The gloss now does help

> substantially in

> pegging those terms to the PD. However there remains some ambiguity; for

> example

> " promotes " is a term used for both cui and li.

 

I am unclear why this troubles you... Can you please explain.. It is not

uncommon in any gloss to have multiple Chinese characters equaling 1 English

word. For example in Wiseman's gloss he has these 11 characters (µ¡,¾ëµ¡,

·¦,¾ë,ÀÁ¾ë,ÀÍÀÛ,Æ£,Æ£·¦,Æ£¾ë,Æ£ÀÍ,°Õ) for the 1 English word, 'fatigue.'

Can you explain further your troubles.

 

 

And while I am now better

> equipped than

> then to derive meaning from context, an entry-level text should not assume

> that ability.

> More to the point, the real meanings and mechanisms represented by these

> terms remain

> a mystery. How precisely does " promotes " differ from " fosters " or

> " generates " or

> " supports " , for example?

 

Can you give some examples, and where the source is, I am sure we can parse

it out...

 

Even if the glossary were complete and well

> differentiated, which

> at first glance it is not, it would still be necessary to refer to the PD

> to gain a genuine

> understanding of the terms.

 

No one would ever assume otherwise, The PD is a great tool, and linking to a

dictionary is precisely the point of a gloss...

 

 

>

> I am sympathetic to the goal of developing a comfortable target-oriented

> language, but

> see no reason why this has to be at the expense of consistency with a

> source-oriented

> nomenclature.

 

Unclear what you mean, could you explain... Thanx for your comments...

 

-

[Guest guest]

IMO, " augment " is not a good translation for yi4. According to

Webster's New World Dictionary, augment means to make greater as in

size, quantity, strength, etc. However, yi4 means to augment, yes, but

also to raise upward, as in raising the clear qi from the middle to

the upper burner. Therefore, the one word in English which catches

both of these meanings is the word " to boost, " which means both a

raising and an increase(same English dictionary). As far as I

understand, this is exactly technically what yi4 means in clinical

practice when we talk about Huang Qi " boosting the qi. " This is

exactly the kind of etymological nicety which Wiseman commonly

captures and Benksy does not.

 

Bob

 

> Well I had no trouble finding it, it is under, yi4 (Òæ) - But more

> importantly, are you telling me if I say augment qi - you do not

know what

> this means? Augment IMO is pretty transparent, meaning to increase /

add /

> more... Do you think there is a difference between augment qi (yi4

qi4) and

> bu3 qi4 (supplement)? Good question... I think people like to think that

> there are all these subtle differences between such terms, but the

reality

> is, some may think so, but many do not. For example, if you consult the

> zhongyidacidian (Great dictionary of Chinese medicine) if you look

up yi4

> qi4 - it says, ¼´²¹Æø (ji2 bu3 qi4) - " Namely, supplement

(tonify-EP) qi. "

> Chinese, just like westerners like to say things differently, it doesn't

> always mean that there is a profound difference. Further examples are:

> Augment the Spleen = 'fortify the spleen' - augment the yin = supplement

> (tonify) the yin. But in this case I think even without the gloss, your

> basic western dictionary would lead you to the correct answer.

>

>

> >

> > In my student days I was often perplexed by the many English terms

under

> > the rubric of

> > " tonification " used in the Materia Medica, as well as by other

aspects of

> > what we used to

> > call, with some measure of frustration, Benskyspeak.

>

> I would like to hear more about what you mean by this...

>

> I knew there were

> > nuances of

> > meaning which were not being made clear. The gloss now does help

> > substantially in

> > pegging those terms to the PD. However there remains some

ambiguity; for

> > example

> > " promotes " is a term used for both cui and li.

>

> I am unclear why this troubles you... Can you please explain.. It is not

> uncommon in any gloss to have multiple Chinese characters equaling 1

English

> word. For example in Wiseman's gloss he has these 11 characters

(µ¡,¾ëµ¡,

> ·¦,¾ë,ÀÁ¾ë,ÀÍÀÛ,Æ£,Æ£·¦,Æ£¾ë,Æ£ÀÍ,°Õ) for the 1 English word, 'fatigue.'

> Can you explain further your troubles.

>

>

> And while I am now better

> > equipped than

> > then to derive meaning from context, an entry-level text should

not assume

> > that ability.

> > More to the point, the real meanings and mechanisms represented by

these

> > terms remain

> > a mystery. How precisely does " promotes " differ from " fosters " or

> > " generates " or

> > " supports " , for example?

>

> Can you give some examples, and where the source is, I am sure we

can parse

> it out...

>

> Even if the glossary were complete and well

> > differentiated, which

> > at first glance it is not, it would still be necessary to refer to

the PD

> > to gain a genuine

> > understanding of the terms.

>

> No one would ever assume otherwise, The PD is a great tool, and

linking to a

> dictionary is precisely the point of a gloss...

>

>

> >

> > I am sympathetic to the goal of developing a comfortable

target-oriented

> > language, but

> > see no reason why this has to be at the expense of consistency with a

> > source-oriented

> > nomenclature.

>

> Unclear what you mean, could you explain... Thanx for your comments...

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

First and foremost I want to thank you for your comments, but I disagree.

Where you don't like this term's translation, others do. I feel there is

room for multiple points of view and I hope that our profession can someday

accept this. But if you want to debate the term, I see no hard evidence that

'augment' is bad translation, but I find your assumptions about yi4's

inherent raising quality false.

 

Let's look: Wiseman for the definition of yi4 (boost) has " see SUPPLEMENT

(bu3); increase, more. " and the Chinese Medical Dictionary under the term

yi4 qi4 - has the definition of, " tonify (bu3) qi " A basic Chinese

dictionary for yi4 has basically 'increase' - None of the sources mention

anything about raising (anything) upward. Actually your example of boosting

the qi as with huang qi may seem to fit nicely (even though huangqi's

ability to raise qi without other herbs like chai hu is highly debated) this

concept of raising DOES NOT fit in the other numerous ways that yi4 is used:

For example:

1) yi4 yin1 (Augment the yin1) = supplementing yin1

2) yi4 huo3 zhi1 yuan2 yi3 xiao1 yin1 yi4 (Augmenting the source of fire to

disperse the shroud of yin)

3) yi4 pi2 (Augmenting the Spleen) = Fortifying the spleen and si jun zi

tang is recommended.

4) yi4 huo3 bu3 tu3 (Augment the fire to tonify the earth)

5) yi4 mu3 (Augment the EYES) as in many formulas and herb names.

6) yi4 xue4 (Augment the blood) as in formula names.

7) yi4 zhi4 (Augment the will/mind/ambition) - formula names

8) yi4 wei4 (augment the Stomach) - If the stomach is deficient and cold

then warm the stomach and strengthen the center, if the stomach yin is

insufficient then nourish the stomach yin.

*** and so on...

 

I think it is clear from this list and the basic Chinese definitions of yi4

that there IS NOT an inherent raising up quality. If boost does contain

this inherent raising nature to the word then I would say that 'Boost' is a

bad choice because it only covers 1 idea behind the term yi4 and misses all

the rest. But if I missed a key point that you see, please fill me in.

 

Finally in the case of huang qi, according to two Chinese Materia Medicas

they say:

Bu3 qi4 sheng1 yang4, yi4 wei4 gu4 biao3 - = " TONIFY qi, raise the yang,

AUGEMENT the defensive and secure the exterior. " Although I am sure there

are others who say it differently, this is somewhat telling...

 

But hey 'boost' may be a better choice, who really knows, but from where I

sit 'augment' suits me just fine and readers can get to the PD if needed.

IMO it is just a case of someone saying tomato, twice.

 

-

 

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

> Tuesday, February 28, 2006 4:20 PM

>

> Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

>

> IMO, " augment " is not a good translation for yi4. According to

> Webster's New World Dictionary, augment means to make greater as in

> size, quantity, strength, etc. However, yi4 means to augment, yes, but

> also to raise upward, as in raising the clear qi from the middle to

> the upper burner. Therefore, the one word in English which catches

> both of these meanings is the word " to boost, " which means both a

> raising and an increase(same English dictionary). As far as I

> understand, this is exactly technically what yi4 means in clinical

> practice when we talk about Huang Qi " boosting the qi. " This is

> exactly the kind of etymological nicety which Wiseman commonly

> captures and Benksy does not.

>

> Bob

>

> > Well I had no trouble finding it, it is under, yi4 (Òæ) - But more

> > importantly, are you telling me if I say augment qi - you do not

> know what

> > this means? Augment IMO is pretty transparent, meaning to increase /

> add /

> > more... Do you think there is a difference between augment qi (yi4

> qi4) and

> > bu3 qi4 (supplement)? Good question... I think people like to think that

> > there are all these subtle differences between such terms, but the

> reality

> > is, some may think so, but many do not. For example, if you consult the

> > zhongyidacidian (Great dictionary of Chinese medicine) if you look

> up yi4

> > qi4 - it says, ¼´²¹Æø (ji2 bu3 qi4) - " Namely, supplement

> (tonify-EP) qi. "

> > Chinese, just like westerners like to say things differently, it doesn't

> > always mean that there is a profound difference. Further examples are:

> > Augment the Spleen = 'fortify the spleen' - augment the yin = supplement

> > (tonify) the yin. But in this case I think even without the gloss, your

> > basic western dictionary would lead you to the correct answer.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > In my student days I was often perplexed by the many English terms

> under

> > > the rubric of

> > > " tonification " used in the Materia Medica, as well as by other

> aspects of

> > > what we used to

> > > call, with some measure of frustration, Benskyspeak.

> >

> > I would like to hear more about what you mean by this...

> >

> > I knew there were

> > > nuances of

> > > meaning which were not being made clear. The gloss now does help

> > > substantially in

> > > pegging those terms to the PD. However there remains some

> ambiguity; for

> > > example

> > > " promotes " is a term used for both cui and li.

> >

> > I am unclear why this troubles you... Can you please explain.. It is not

> > uncommon in any gloss to have multiple Chinese characters equaling 1

> English

> > word. For example in Wiseman's gloss he has these 11 characters

> (µ¡,¾ëµ¡,

> > ·¦,¾ë,ÀÁ¾ë,ÀÍÀÛ,Æ£,Æ£·¦,Æ£¾ë,Æ£ÀÍ,°Õ) for the 1 English word, 'fatigue.'

> > Can you explain further your troubles.

> >

> >

> > And while I am now better

> > > equipped than

> > > then to derive meaning from context, an entry-level text should

> not assume

> > > that ability.

> > > More to the point, the real meanings and mechanisms represented by

> these

> > > terms remain

> > > a mystery. How precisely does " promotes " differ from " fosters " or

> > > " generates " or

> > > " supports " , for example?

> >

> > Can you give some examples, and where the source is, I am sure we

> can parse

> > it out...

> >

> > Even if the glossary were complete and well

> > > differentiated, which

> > > at first glance it is not, it would still be necessary to refer to

> the PD

> > > to gain a genuine

> > > understanding of the terms.

> >

> > No one would ever assume otherwise, The PD is a great tool, and

> linking to a

> > dictionary is precisely the point of a gloss...

> >

> >

> > >

> > > I am sympathetic to the goal of developing a comfortable

> target-oriented

> > > language, but

> > > see no reason why this has to be at the expense of consistency with a

> > > source-oriented

> > > nomenclature.

> >

> > Unclear what you mean, could you explain... Thanx for your comments...

> >

> > -

> >

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

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

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Definitely can be differences of opinion. That's what makes the world

go round.

 

However, exceptions do not prove the rule. Further, when using a

standard reference and there is an exception to that standard, one can

note that exception and use whatever term they choose. If you look at

the majority of times the word yi4 is used in the CM literature, it is

in reference to the spleen qi/middle burner. It was Li Gao who really

turned this word into a technical term in CM. The second most common

usage is with the kidneys, in particular yang, which also fits my

explanation.

 

1) yi4 yin1 (Augment the yin1) = supplementing yin1

 

Not a common usage in my reading of the CM literature. However, could

definitely fit my interpretation in that yin water must ascend to

counterbalance yang fire in a ji4 ji4 way.

 

2) yi4 huo3 zhi1 yuan2 yi3 xiao1 yin1 yi4 (Augmenting the source of

fire to disperse the shroud of yin)

 

This actually does fit my explanation of yi4. See above.

 

3) yi4 pi2 (Augmenting the Spleen) = Fortifying the spleen and si jun

zi tang is recommended.

 

Fits my explanation.

 

4) yi4 huo3 bu3 tu3 (Augment the fire to tonify the earth)

 

Fits my explanation.

 

5) yi4 mu3 (Augment the EYES) as in many formulas and herb names.

 

Fits my explanation. Where are the eyes?

 

6) yi4 xue4 (Augment the blood) as in formula names.

 

Does not fit my explanation but is not a common usage in my reading of

the CM lit.

 

7) yi4 zhi4 (Augment the mind) - formula names

 

Fits my explanation. Think about it. The mind is nothing other than an

accumulation of qi in the upper part of the body.

 

8) yi4 wei4 (augment the Stomach) - If the stomach is deficient and

cold then warm the stomach and strengthen the center, if the stomach

yin is insufficient then nourish the stomach yin.

 

Definitely fits my explanation as the formulas with this combo are

typically by Li Gao and/or his adherents.

 

That being said, I already know you are not going to agree. We are

both partisan in this debate, and, as I have said before, it is my

experience as a human being that explanations are only used to

rationalize emotional preconceptions. So not much sense in continuing

this discussion.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

> ...it is my

> experience as a human being that explanations are only used to

> rationalize emotional preconceptions. So not much sense in continuing

> this discussion.

>

> Bob

>

 

Reminds me of a quote that my Google homepage served up recently:

 

" A great many people think they are thinking when they are really

rearranging their prejudices. " Edward R. Murrow (1908 - 1965)

 

Not a shot at anybody...just interesting.

 

....mm

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Thanx for your comments. First and foremost, I can wan to say that I have

no investment either way in a word being right or wrong, for I am not

attached to Wiseman Terminology or any other. As anyone can see from my

writing / translations I actually use primarily Wiseman and deviate when I

find better options. I just call it the way that I see it. And you? So I

find you final remark about " emotional preconceptions " a bit of a cop out.

 

But more importantly, what I didn't get from your response was any

Chinese source that supports what you say... You seem to be the one that is

justifying your belief by taking each example and just saying it fits your

idea of the term's meaning as raising. Now if this is YOUR idea, then fine,

just let it be known, but I did not find your idea in the Chinese, and as

mentioned the Chinese Dictionaries etc do not support your stance.

Furthermore one can do an internet search and find plenty of examples of the

terms YOU do not find in your reading.

 

One should note, though, that Chinese does have a word for 'raise'

(sheng1), i.e. raise the yang (sheng1 yang2) (as with Huang Qi, Chai Hu) -

IT is NOT a synonym for yi4 (augment.) BUT, Yi4 is precisely defined as bu3

(tonify / supplement). And yi4's meaning is " add or increase. "

 

A quick search of a materia medica for the term yi4 qi4 produces

telling data. It clearly references herbs that have no known ascending

function. For example, one should wonder why in describing chenpi you see

'yi4 qi4' (augment the qi) - Doesn't chenpi descend? Or a basic herb like

gancao is said to 'yi4 qi4' - are we to believe that both these basic spleen

herbs raise the qi? - IMO, not! they supplement them. Could gan cao and

chen pi raise the qi like haung qi and chai hu?? OF coruse not. When the

Chinese want to say raise something, they say sheng1... (The list goes

on...) One should only conclude that yi4 qi4 is not about ascending, but

about supplementing, like the standard definition says it means.

 

Finally one can read each definition and the herbs used for each usage of

yi4 in the dictionary or materia media and decide for themselves. I don't

see any mention of raising. I see your justification as a semantical /

theoretical word game. I do agree with the concept that sometimes you i.e.

raise the water to downbear the fire, but those types of explanations cannot

be applied across the board for any tonifcation of i.e. yin. But I would be

interested in seeing some mainstream Chinese backing for your concept,

before I throw out a perfectly good translation of a term that so far IMO

fits the MAINSTREAM usage of yi4. I would hope to expect some tangible

support for such a comment that thrashes Bensky and his term choice for yi4.

 

 

Regards,

 

-

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Bob Flaws

> Wednesday, March 01, 2006 9:22 AM

>

> Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

>

> Definitely can be differences of opinion. That's what makes the world

> go round.

>

> However, exceptions do not prove the rule. Further, when using a

> standard reference and there is an exception to that standard, one can

> note that exception and use whatever term they choose. If you look at

> the majority of times the word yi4 is used in the CM literature, it is

> in reference to the spleen qi/middle burner. It was Li Gao who really

> turned this word into a technical term in CM. The second most common

> usage is with the kidneys, in particular yang, which also fits my

> explanation.

>

> 1) yi4 yin1 (Augment the yin1) = supplementing yin1

>

> Not a common usage in my reading of the CM literature. However, could

> definitely fit my interpretation in that yin water must ascend to

> counterbalance yang fire in a ji4 ji4 way.

>

> 2) yi4 huo3 zhi1 yuan2 yi3 xiao1 yin1 yi4 (Augmenting the source of

> fire to disperse the shroud of yin)

>

> This actually does fit my explanation of yi4. See above.

>

> 3) yi4 pi2 (Augmenting the Spleen) = Fortifying the spleen and si jun

> zi tang is recommended.

>

> Fits my explanation.

>

> 4) yi4 huo3 bu3 tu3 (Augment the fire to tonify the earth)

>

> Fits my explanation.

>

> 5) yi4 mu3 (Augment the EYES) as in many formulas and herb names.

>

> Fits my explanation. Where are the eyes?

>

> 6) yi4 xue4 (Augment the blood) as in formula names.

>

> Does not fit my explanation but is not a common usage in my reading of

> the CM lit.

>

> 7) yi4 zhi4 (Augment the mind) - formula names

>

> Fits my explanation. Think about it. The mind is nothing other than an

> accumulation of qi in the upper part of the body.

>

> 8) yi4 wei4 (augment the Stomach) - If the stomach is deficient and

> cold then warm the stomach and strengthen the center, if the stomach

> yin is insufficient then nourish the stomach yin.

>

> Definitely fits my explanation as the formulas with this combo are

> typically by Li Gao and/or his adherents.

>

> That being said, I already know you are not going to agree. We are

> both partisan in this debate, and, as I have said before, it is my

> experience as a human being that explanations are only used to

> rationalize emotional preconceptions. So not much sense in continuing

> this discussion.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

A few thoughts.

 

First of all, like Z'ev I am very glad that the EP

glossary is now available. This finally allows us to

have a conversation about a real thing instead of

something that we are told exists but have no way to

check/verify.

 

Secondly, the publication of the glossary, seems in

some way to simply support the argument that has been

made over and over and over again that there is a need

for the reader to be able to return to the Chinese and

that until that ability is there our ability to

understand translations and to remove the translator's

prejudice/opinion from the translation remains. So,

now there are 2. Does this mean that EP now agrees

with the idea that there is some method to translation

and that a certain amount of standardization is

appropriate?

 

It is funny to me that historically so much of this

argument has been about whether or not there was a

need for a glossary - couldn't words stand on their

own without having to be glossed. But now, indeed,

the EP glossary can with a little effort (but not

much) be used to look up the meaning of the words in

the dictionary. This is good. It is absolutely

better than the argument that such a cross-reference

is not necessary. Hmmm are we reaching a detente.

 

If the discussion is now just about work choices (and

I am still not sure it is) then choose your word -

just make sure you let the reader know which glossary

you are using so that they know whether they have to

cross-reference it with the PD via the character or

they can go directly to the PD and look up whatever

they don't understand. Oy!

 

Be sure you understand the actual meaning of the word

(the denotative meaning) not just the daily

usage/connotative meaning of the word.

 

I have not yet been able to do a thorough examination

of the EP glossary in order to say if it covers

everything that I think should be covered.

Personally, I will continue to use the PD terms for

several reasons

 

1. Like Z'ev, I like them better. I like to retain

some of the nuances of the Chinese metaphors and the

descriptors that the Chinese use.

 

2. I know that the choices that Nigel has made over

the nearly 20 years that he has been working on the PD

are made with a considerable amount of thought prior

to ever publishing them. And, I know that as a

scholar of languages his interest is in preserving

language and finding the most appropriate English

word. I value his work immensely. I feel that his

work has pushed the envelope and forced others to step

up and show their stuff. Which is exactly what EP has

finally done. Translation has come a long way since

the early days of the ACTCM Journal (a great resource

but sometimes difficult to decipher) and I think that

the publication of Nigel's work has had the greatest

impact on that movement. It has forced us to look at

ourselves as a profession and examine how we feel

about the corpus of knowledge that informs what we

practice but is unavailable to us in English.

 

I am somewhat saddened that the last 10+ years of

discussion has had to become an " us vs them " type

discussion. Wouldn't it have been easier to publish

the EP glossary as a working document a long time ago

so that the discussion could be about 2 published

entities and not about individuals?

 

Both Dan and Nigel have been very important to the

development of this field. Both have found a path for

themselves that allows them to continue to contribute

to the field.

 

As a teacher, I prefer to have my students be stopped

by language. Why should they assume that they can

understand the cultural implications of CM when it is

translated into English language. Language is a

symbolic system and we need to understand that the

symbols we use on a daily basis in our native language

do not necessarily equate with the symbols that

another culture uses for a given idea. I still think

that the vacuity/deficiency discussion epitomizes this

idea. Deficiency just does not have the same nuances

as vacuity (this has been discussed elsewhere in print

in detail) and so does not give us the same sense of

the Chinese word xu1. Vacuity bears a closer

relationship to that Chinese symbol.

 

For me, as for Z'ev one of the primary goals is to be

able to be a better teacher - to give my students

more. With the EP gloss I can now help them to

understand the MM by going to the PD in order to

explain what is not explained in the MM. Oy again! I

think that it is important that students be able to do

some of that work themselves instead of being spoonfed

by me. As a teacher, I still think that the Wiseman

glossary is a more nuanced vehicle for the translation

of Chinese into English.

 

Still, I am awfully glad to have the EP gloss

available, and, as I " teach through it " I will be able

to tell you more about whether or not it is

" complete. "

 

I look forward to the translation panel at the AAOM -

it should be a somewhat different discussion now that

this is available.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

 

 

--- <zrosenbe wrote:

 

> Over time, Jason, I'll be glad to make comments

> based on my main

> criteria; to teach Chinese medicine as effectively

> as possible. I

> need to take some time to look it over. A few

> examples right off

> include beng4 lou4; I prefer flooding and leaking

> over irregular

> uterine bleeding as a translation. I prefer

> menstrual block to

> amenorrhea for bi4 jing1, because they give the

> sense of symptoms

> revealed to the mind and senses as they appear

> without the sense of

> removal generated by a biomedical term. It doesn't

> mean that

> amenorrhea is 'wrong', it is a matter of preference

> of language that

> suits how I teach.

>

> All in all, however, I am very glad to see this

> finally available to

> the profession.

>

>

> On Feb 26, 2006, at 2:23 PM, wrote:

>

> > Z'ev,

> >

> > Yes, but this is not a dictionary it is a gloss.

> Any Eastland

> > Press term

> > can NOW be looked up in the PD. The question is,

> are there terms

> > used by

> > Eastland Press that you cannot find the Wiseman

> equivalent for (not

> > in the

> > gloss or using a standard universal word, like

> headache), hence

> > unable to

> > look it up the PD. IMO, all relevant terms are

> glossed and other

> > Chinese

> > words are just plain transparent, hence no need to

> look it up in a

> > dictionary. I would like to hear words/ terms

> that people feel are

> > unclear

> > in the Eastland press works that are not in the

> gloss. Comments?

> >

> > -Jason

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

> 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]

I have joined up most of the Eastland terminology to the terminology

of the Practical Dictionary of (PD); the file is

presented as a comparative table and has been uploaded to the Files

section of the CHA. Interested parties can download the file so that

the terminology used in the various books by Eastland, Blue Poppy, and

Paradigm can be cross-referenced for greater clarity. There are a

couple notes at the bottom of the file that explain a few minor

mistakes in the original and a few minor flaws that arose from my

computer-crunching unification of the lists.

 

I am grateful that the Eastland term list has come out. Given the

highly technical nature of Bensky¡¯s Materia Medica and other texts, it

is valuable to have a cross-reference that allows students and

teachers to track the various concepts back to a definition, even if

the definition requires going back to the PD via a term list comparison.

 

I have several positive comments about the general method of

translation that Bensky uses. (1) He tends to not biomedicalize

traditional concepts and values a basic preservation of the subtleties

of Chinese medicine; in other words, there is far less simplification

than we see in Macioccia¡¯s work and far less biomedicalization than we

see in Xie Zhu-Fan¡¯s work. (2) The fact that a bilingual term list

was published acknowledges the notion that Chinese medicine has

terminology that should be preserved in translation. (3) His list

attempts to provide transparency by allowing the reader to access the

source concepts instead of simply hoping that an individual translator

knows what he/she is doing.

 

Although I really appreciate having access to the Eastland term list,

it would have made my life easier as a student if Eastland had made a

freely available glossary years ago like the other CM publishers did,

because when I was in school we constantly had to try to relate the

info in our materia medica to the PD-based info in our theory classes.

It is fortunate and timely that this term list shows up now, since

the WHO, AAOM, and PRC are all pushing the idea of standardized CM

terminology.

 

In my opinion, the Eastland term list offers a number of useful

benefits. Most importantly, it gives students the chance to trace the

concepts back to definitions, so that the original CM concepts can be

understood, rather than just having a room full of Herbs 1 students

trying to form their own understanding by talking to their classmates.

It also gives translators more options of traceable open-source

terminology, allowing people to choose whichever terms they feel

capture the meaning correctly with the greatest elegance. Yet another

minor bonus is that people who write in PD terminology could run a

substitution macro on our files so that our articles are not rejected

by JCM and other parties who tend to refuse to publish PD-based works.

 

Despite the advantage of having a few additional terms to choose from

when translating, I don¡¯t really see how the Eastland term list will

affect the day-to-day reality of translation. The database of terms

that is used in the PD system contains over 30,000 terms, and it is

still not enough (it is being added to and updated continually). The

Eastland list contains only 1,200 terms, which is only a quarter of

the Chinese and WHO lists, both of which are woefully inadequate as

stand-alone systems. Having a couple hundred variant terms is nice if

you have certain preferences for individual words, but actually

producing books and studying/teaching Chinese medicine requires a

comprehensive system; our entire field of knowledge cannot be summed

up in just a thousand or more set phrases.

 

Given that the Eastland term list is too small to provide adequate

solutions to translation problems, it basically just represents a list

of Eastland¡¯s alternatives to PD terms. Translators still have no

choice but to base their work on the PD because it is the only

complete system that solves the problems of translation. Translation

of CM texts is far more complicated than just choosing a few words

depending on one¡¯s personal style.

 

Standardization is a natural process. It cannot come about as a

result of a committee or be imposed from outside sources. It cannot

be forced without causing rifts in various factions. Standardization

can only arise gradually; well-informed practitioners and good

translators will naturally favor whatever methods and terms best suit

their needs. The PD approach has always encouraged customized and

variable terminology as long as it is based on a link to the source

concepts. The fact that all three of the major US publishers are now

linking their English to the source concepts shows that

standardization is naturally developing as our community matures. No

longer do we see major opposition to standardization. Now we simply

see standards with a wider range of options, which will gradually

evolve so that the best individual terms dominate.

 

I don¡¯t think that the debate of individual terms accomplishes very

much any more. For me, it is a question of having a complete

methodology and inter-related system rather than a random selection of

word preferences (which is why term decisions by committees will never

work). Furthermore, we have already had many discussions of

individual Eastland terms, such as ¡°painful obstructions¡± that aren¡¯t

painful, ¡°bulging disorders¡± that don¡¯t bulge, ¡°dredging¡± things that

have no form, ¡°promoting urination¡± without causing diuresis, ¡°thin

mucus¡± that isn¡¯t mucus, etc.

 

While there may be bones to pick on specific words, I am far more

grateful to have published terms available than I am eager to look for

areas to criticize. Actually, Eastland and the PD agree on most of

their terms, and most of the differences are not issues of one being

right or wrong, they are simply different styles that will appeal to

different people. The only main complaint I have is that the size is

a bit too small; thus, some common terms are missing and require

outside sources. For example, do all Eastland writers make a

distinction made between the xiao3 (smaller) abdomen and the shao4

(lesser) abdomen, which are two distinct regions? What about the four

types of abnormal seminal discharge? The latter are distinct diseases

in Chinese medicine, but the only phrase I find in Eastland¡¯s new

Materia Medica is the rather nebulous word spermatorrhea, which

doesn¡¯t appear on the term lists or in the glossary.

 

Minor critiques aside, I think most of terms are quite acceptable. It

is useful to have a bridge between all of the major English

literature. The simple fact is that most readers with a good CM

education can understand the concepts in both Eastland¡¯s terminology

and the PD. The wider issues pertaining to terminology do not involve

the nit-picking of terms between three small publishers who are

generally dedicated to producing quality professional books. What we

need is to put an end to the civil war within our field. We need to

respect other people¡¯s individual term preferences, and figure out

what we all agree on. We agree that many people want to study

authentic, traditional, Chinese medicine. The translators want to

express it clearly so as not to dilute or obscure its concepts. So

why are we all fighting with each other when we should be raising a

united voice against terminology approaches that would biomedicalize

and simplify Chinese medicine?

 

As I have said in the past, there are massive moves being made in Asia

now that will likely produce biomedicalized and simplified English

term lists for CM translation. The last problem we have facing us is

an issue over whether Eastland or the PD are using better individual

words. We need to realize our common ground, incorporate terminology

standards that are inclusive of multiple valid term choices, and focus

on the real issues of preserving the essence of Chinese medicine by

not letting its perspectives be trumped completely by biomedicine and

simplified theory.

 

We are in a field where the authenticity of the source and its

transmission are important. I¡¯m from Colorado, where the Chinese food

is abysmally disappointing. It is devoid of authenticity and

watered-down to please the perceived local palate. I don¡¯t want the

Chinese medicine that reaches Colorado to follow the same route.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Eric

How many of the 30,000 WT terms and the 1200 EP terms are combination terms that

are fairly clear, spleen qi deficiency for example do you estimate?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Eric Brand

Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:39 AM

Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

 

 

I have joined up most of the Eastland terminology to the terminology

of the Practical Dictionary of (PD); the file is

presented as a comparative table and has been uploaded to the Files

section of the CHA. Interested parties can download the file so that

the terminology used in the various books by Eastland, Blue Poppy, and

Paradigm can be cross-referenced for greater clarity. There are a

couple notes at the bottom of the file that explain a few minor

mistakes in the original and a few minor flaws that arose from my

computer-crunching unification of the lists.

 

I am grateful that the Eastland term list has come out. Given the

highly technical nature of Bensky¡¯s Materia Medica and other texts, it

is valuable to have a cross-reference that allows students and

teachers to track the various concepts back to a definition, even if

the definition requires going back to the PD via a term list comparison.

 

I have several positive comments about the general method of

translation that Bensky uses. (1) He tends to not biomedicalize

traditional concepts and values a basic preservation of the subtleties

of Chinese medicine; in other words, there is far less simplification

than we see in Macioccia¡¯s work and far less biomedicalization than we

see in Xie Zhu-Fan¡¯s work. (2) The fact that a bilingual term list

was published acknowledges the notion that Chinese medicine has

terminology that should be preserved in translation. (3) His list

attempts to provide transparency by allowing the reader to access the

source concepts instead of simply hoping that an individual translator

knows what he/she is doing.

 

Although I really appreciate having access to the Eastland term list,

it would have made my life easier as a student if Eastland had made a

freely available glossary years ago like the other CM publishers did,

because when I was in school we constantly had to try to relate the

info in our materia medica to the PD-based info in our theory classes.

It is fortunate and timely that this term list shows up now, since

the WHO, AAOM, and PRC are all pushing the idea of standardized CM

terminology.

 

In my opinion, the Eastland term list offers a number of useful

benefits. Most importantly, it gives students the chance to trace the

concepts back to definitions, so that the original CM concepts can be

understood, rather than just having a room full of Herbs 1 students

trying to form their own understanding by talking to their classmates.

It also gives translators more options of traceable open-source

terminology, allowing people to choose whichever terms they feel

capture the meaning correctly with the greatest elegance. Yet another

minor bonus is that people who write in PD terminology could run a

substitution macro on our files so that our articles are not rejected

by JCM and other parties who tend to refuse to publish PD-based works.

 

Despite the advantage of having a few additional terms to choose from

when translating, I don¡¯t really see how the Eastland term list will

affect the day-to-day reality of translation. The database of terms

that is used in the PD system contains over 30,000 terms, and it is

still not enough (it is being added to and updated continually). The

Eastland list contains only 1,200 terms, which is only a quarter of

the Chinese and WHO lists, both of which are woefully inadequate as

stand-alone systems. Having a couple hundred variant terms is nice if

you have certain preferences for individual words, but actually

producing books and studying/teaching Chinese medicine requires a

comprehensive system; our entire field of knowledge cannot be summed

up in just a thousand or more set phrases.

 

Given that the Eastland term list is too small to provide adequate

solutions to translation problems, it basically just represents a list

of Eastland¡¯s alternatives to PD terms. Translators still have no

choice but to base their work on the PD because it is the only

complete system that solves the problems of translation. Translation

of CM texts is far more complicated than just choosing a few words

depending on one¡¯s personal style.

 

Standardization is a natural process. It cannot come about as a

result of a committee or be imposed from outside sources. It cannot

be forced without causing rifts in various factions. Standardization

can only arise gradually; well-informed practitioners and good

translators will naturally favor whatever methods and terms best suit

their needs. The PD approach has always encouraged customized and

variable terminology as long as it is based on a link to the source

concepts. The fact that all three of the major US publishers are now

linking their English to the source concepts shows that

standardization is naturally developing as our community matures. No

longer do we see major opposition to standardization. Now we simply

see standards with a wider range of options, which will gradually

evolve so that the best individual terms dominate.

 

I don¡¯t think that the debate of individual terms accomplishes very

much any more. For me, it is a question of having a complete

methodology and inter-related system rather than a random selection of

word preferences (which is why term decisions by committees will never

work). Furthermore, we have already had many discussions of

individual Eastland terms, such as ¡°painful obstructions¡± that aren¡¯t

painful, ¡°bulging disorders¡± that don¡¯t bulge, ¡°dredging¡± things that

have no form, ¡°promoting urination¡± without causing diuresis, ¡°thin

mucus¡± that isn¡¯t mucus, etc.

 

While there may be bones to pick on specific words, I am far more

grateful to have published terms available than I am eager to look for

areas to criticize. Actually, Eastland and the PD agree on most of

their terms, and most of the differences are not issues of one being

right or wrong, they are simply different styles that will appeal to

different people. The only main complaint I have is that the size is

a bit too small; thus, some common terms are missing and require

outside sources. For example, do all Eastland writers make a

distinction made between the xiao3 (smaller) abdomen and the shao4

(lesser) abdomen, which are two distinct regions? What about the four

types of abnormal seminal discharge? The latter are distinct diseases

in Chinese medicine, but the only phrase I find in Eastland¡¯s new

Materia Medica is the rather nebulous word spermatorrhea, which

doesn¡¯t appear on the term lists or in the glossary.

 

Minor critiques aside, I think most of terms are quite acceptable. It

is useful to have a bridge between all of the major English

literature. The simple fact is that most readers with a good CM

education can understand the concepts in both Eastland¡¯s terminology

and the PD. The wider issues pertaining to terminology do not involve

the nit-picking of terms between three small publishers who are

generally dedicated to producing quality professional books. What we

need is to put an end to the civil war within our field. We need to

respect other people¡¯s individual term preferences, and figure out

what we all agree on. We agree that many people want to study

authentic, traditional, Chinese medicine. The translators want to

express it clearly so as not to dilute or obscure its concepts. So

why are we all fighting with each other when we should be raising a

united voice against terminology approaches that would biomedicalize

and simplify Chinese medicine?

 

As I have said in the past, there are massive moves being made in Asia

now that will likely produce biomedicalized and simplified English

term lists for CM translation. The last problem we have facing us is

an issue over whether Eastland or the PD are using better individual

words. We need to realize our common ground, incorporate terminology

standards that are inclusive of multiple valid term choices, and focus

on the real issues of preserving the essence of Chinese medicine by

not letting its perspectives be trumped completely by biomedicine and

simplified theory.

 

We are in a field where the authenticity of the source and its

transmission are important. I¡¯m from Colorado, where the Chinese food

is abysmally disappointing. It is devoid of authenticity and

watered-down to please the perceived local palate. I don¡¯t want the

Chinese medicine that reaches Colorado to follow the same route.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I remember our Chinese theory teacher telling a somewhat frustrated

and confused class that sometimes the books use these various terms

just so it won't be as monotonous. You can imagine how enhusiastic the

class was at that (since it was still their task to figure out which

had different meanings and which were poetic flourishes). Gus Turpin

 

 

>Chinese, just like westerners like to say things differently, it

doesn't always mean that there is a profound difference. Further

examples are:

Augment the Spleen = 'fortify the spleen' - augment the yin = supplement

(tonify) the yin. But in this case I think even without the gloss, your

basic western dictionary would lead you to the correct answer.

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus wrote:

>

> Eric

> How many of the 30,000 WT terms and the 1200 EP terms are

combination terms that are fairly clear, spleen qi deficiency for

example do you estimate?

 

It's hard to estimate something like that. Plus, I don't think the

EP list has terms like simple spleen qi deficiency on it in the

first place. But anyway you cut it, 1200 phrases aren't enough to

cover the scope of the literature. The WHO and the Chinese lists

contain about 5000 phrases, and they are still way too small. The

Chinese equivalent of the Practical Dictionary is 5 times larger

than the Practical Dictionary, and the Practical Dictionary has

nearly 6000 terms defined (no " repeats " ). The EP term list has 53

terms defined in the glossary of the Materia Medica. The EP list is

a good addition to what the PD provides, but it is hardly in a

position to replace it.

 

Think about it. If a Chinese CM dictionary contains definitions

(with quotes, formulas, meanings, etc) for nearly 30,000 individual

concepts, and someone publishes a glossary of 53 terms and a

bilingual list of 1200 pegged terms for their translators, it is

ludicrous to suggest the small list is complete for all practical

purposes. The EP term list is designed so that native English

speakers who already know how to express CM in English can have a

list of house-style recommendations for certain terms, it is not

intended to be a comprehensive terminology across the whole subject.

 

Eric