Glossary Eastland Press published online

[Guest guest]

it is not

intended to be a comprehensive terminology across the whole subject.

>>>>

For sure

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

Eric Brand

Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:49 PM

Re: Glossary Eastland Press published online

 

 

, " "

<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

 

 

 

 

 

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]

Thank you Eric!!!

 

What you say below is the crux of the issue - let's

get away from petty term picking, recognize that we

all have the same gaol in mind and get down to the

work that really needs to be done!

 

Marnae

 

--- Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

> 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.

>

>

=== message truncated ===

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

What a mensch. Bravo and thanks for this useful piece of work.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

I second that emotion.

 

 

On Mar 3, 2006, at 8:20 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

> Eric,

>

> What a mensch. Bravo and thanks for this useful piece of work.

>

> Bob

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Obviously that teacher was making it up. . .. speaking of MSU.

 

 

On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Gus Turpin wrote:

 

> 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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric,

There is a problem with the document. It won't download

properly. Does it have to do with the characters? Can you send it

to me privately? Same with your " pathomechanisms " CHA file.

 

Thanks,

 

 

On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Eric Brand wrote:

 

> 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.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev and Eric, I had no problems with either document.

Doug

 

, " " <zrosenbe

wrote:

>

> Eric,

> There is a problem with the document. It won't download

> properly. Does it have to do with the characters? Can you send it

> to me privately? Same with your " pathomechanisms " CHA file.

>

> Thanks,

>

>

> On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:39 AM, Eric Brand wrote:

>

> > 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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Zev, perhaps if you're inclined, you could elaborate on what

exactly you mean here for some of our benefits (I'm pretty new to the

list and don't read Chinese). Is it that all Chinese Medical books

always use the same terms for say, moving liver qi (i.e., that there

are no synonyms), that all English translators always use the same

words for an idea (even if they are translating from various sources)

or something else entirely?

Not that it necessarily makes any difference (although it may) but

this particular instructor was a native Chinese speaker from a medical

family. His Chinese was clearly far better than his English.

There are of course other reasons he may have said what he did, like

that he couldn't or didn't want to take the time to explain all the

nuances of the various terms. Gus Turpin

 

>

> Obviously that teacher was making it up. . .. speaking of MSU.

>

>

 

 

> > 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

>

>

[Guest guest]

Or perhaps Zev is meaning that while there are Chinese synomyms and

various translations of terms they are not mixed intentionally for

added variety or to make keep things interesting as this teacher

proposed? Gus Turpin

 

> Thanks Zev, perhaps if you're inclined, you could elaborate on what

> exactly you mean here for some of our benefits (I'm pretty new to the

> list and don't read Chinese). Is it that all Chinese Medical books

> always use the same terms for say, moving liver qi (i.e., that there

> are no synonyms), that all English translators always use the same

> words for an idea (even if they are translating from various sources)

> or something else entirely?

> Not that it necessarily makes any difference (although it may) but

> this particular instructor was a native Chinese speaker from a medical

> family. His Chinese was clearly far better than his English.

> There are of course other reasons he may have said what he did, like

> that he couldn't or didn't want to take the time to explain all the

> nuances of the various terms. Gus Turpin

>

> >

> > Obviously that teacher was making it up. . .. speaking of MSU.

> >

> >

>

>

> > > 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

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That is correct. No one is actively coordinating English translation

to vary the term sets for variety.

 

 

On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Gus Turpin wrote:

 

> Or perhaps Zev is meaning that while there are Chinese synomyms and

> various translations of terms they are not mixed intentionally for

> added variety or to make keep things interesting as this teacher

> proposed? Gus Turpin

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks again, he seemed to be refering the the Chinese texts so I

have no idea if his statement was true or not (or if so, how often).

Gus Turpin

 

> That is correct. No one is actively coordinating English translation

> to vary the term sets for variety.

>

>

> On Mar 9, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Gus Turpin wrote:

>

> > Or perhaps Zev is meaning that while there are Chinese synomyms and

> > various translations of terms they are not mixed intentionally for

> > added variety or to make keep things interesting as this teacher

> > proposed? Gus Turpin

>

[Guest guest]

, " Gus Turpin " <tonics

wrote:

 

> > > 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.

 

I believe it is common practice in everyday Chinese, especially in

poetry, to vary words so the text will remain interesting.

But I do not know if this is also the case with Chinese medical texts.

I suspect that it is possible though.

Could anyone else comment on this?

 

Tom.