filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

[Guest guest]

Dear Cara and Andrea Beth,

 

I don't think that it's just Yu ping feng san. I too have had more than one

patient describe the way decoctions make them feel as if " spaces are filling

in " and that they feel less empty or denser. I think that this is a clear,

(albeit anecotal) substantiation for the use of the Wiseman term " vacuity " (as

in containing a void) as opposed to using " deficient " (as in having a nutrient

deficiency) as representing what " xu " implies. I think that the difference is

profound. In Western medical science, a deficiency can be addressed by a

nutritional supplement, (ie. a vitamin or mineral) which the patient needs to

take indefinitely--otherwise the " deficiency " will manifest. Herbal formulae,

on the other hand are like sculpting: filling in spaces and chipping away

excess, until the finished product reflects balance. That's at least my

experience.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Yehuda

 

< wrote:

I, too experience feeling " denser " when I take herbs which sedate liver wind.

I don't think it's all woo-woo, either. If you think about it, they are very

downbearing, and for someone who's chronically got all their qi up in their

ears, bringing that back down into the body can quite rightly create an

experience of greater density. That's how I feel it too.

 

 

Cara Frank <herbbabe wrote:

this week, I gave a patient with HBP a formula to sedate liver wind.

He described his experience of the herbs as feeling ³denser². His experience

of the herbs was entirely psycho-emotional. thus: that was the filter

through which I assessed his formula for adjustment.

 

 

Cara

 

 

 

Mail

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

 

 

[Guest guest]

This fits in quite nicely with Todd's conception of qi as not energy, but

essentially subjective feeling (which may or may not have objective

correlates, but the correlates are not the qi).

 

http://www..org/articles/qi.shtml

 

On 3/8/06, wrote:

>

> Dear Cara and Andrea Beth,

>

> I don't think that it's just Yu ping feng san. I too have had more than

> one patient describe the way decoctions make them feel as if " spaces are

> filling in " and that they feel less empty or denser. I think that this is a

> clear, (albeit anecotal) substantiation for the use of the Wiseman term

> " vacuity " (as in containing a void) as opposed to using " deficient " (as in

> having a nutrient deficiency) as representing what " xu " implies. I think

> that the difference is profound. In Western medical science, a deficiency

> can be addressed by a nutritional supplement, (ie. a vitamin or mineral)

> which the patient needs to take indefinitely--otherwise the " deficiency "

> will manifest. Herbal formulae, on the other hand are like sculpting:

> filling in spaces and chipping away excess, until the finished product

> reflects balance. That's at least my experience.

>

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Yehuda

>

> < wrote:

> I, too experience feeling " denser " when I take herbs which sedate liver

> wind. I don't think it's all woo-woo, either. If you think about it, they

> are very downbearing, and for someone who's chronically got all their qi up

> in their ears, bringing that back down into the body can quite rightly

> create an experience of greater density. That's how I feel it too.

>

>

>

> Cara Frank <herbbabe wrote:

> this week, I gave a patient with HBP a formula to sedate liver wind.

> He described his experience of the herbs as feeling ³denser². His

> experience

> of the herbs was entirely psycho-emotional. thus: that was the filter

> through which I assessed his formula for adjustment.

>

>

> Cara

>

>

>

> Mail

> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nice analogy, Yehuda!

 

Andrea Beth

 

--- wrote:

 

 

Herbal formulae, on the other hand are like sculpting: filling in spaces and

chipping away excess, until the finished product reflects balance. That's at

least

my experience.

 

Respectfully,

 

Yehuda

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think it's nice, and sensible from a linguistic point of view since bu

(supplement) actually means mend, or make whole, as opposed to adding to

something.

 

Par

-

" " <

 

Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:19 PM

Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

 

 

> Nice analogy, Yehuda!

>

> Andrea Beth

>

> --- wrote:

>

>

> Herbal formulae, on the other hand are like sculpting: filling in spaces

> and

> chipping away excess, until the finished product reflects balance. That's

> at least

> my experience.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Yehuda

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

Par,

 

I think we can look at this bu3 / Supplement a little deeper. I think it may

be incorrect to assume that bu3 has nothing to do with adding something.

For example:

** from the Chinese Medical Dictionary bu3 is defined as yi4 qi4 (augment

qi) and yi4 qi4 is defined as 'to increase, more' - IMO 'to increase' means,

one is adding something more to something that is already there, but

lacking. Herbs are ren shen, huang qi, dang shen, bai zhu, shan yao, & gan

cao.

You are right that bu3 in a basic Chinese dictionary is translated as 'mend

or patch', but it also 'fill, supply, nourish, benefit, supplementary

(B.F.)'

 

** From a basic English dictionary supplement means: " Something added to

complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the

whole. "

 

I personally always found deficiency a better translation for 'xu' than the

others for this above reason, but that is another topic. BTW: There is a

good discussion of this term (xu) in the latest lantern - the author also

prefers deficiency versus vacuity.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

-

 

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Par Scott

> Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:34 PM

>

> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

> I think it's nice, and sensible from a linguistic point of view since bu

> (supplement) actually means mend, or make whole, as opposed to adding to

> something.

>

> Par

> -

> " " <

>

> Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:19 PM

> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

>

> > Nice analogy, Yehuda!

> >

> > Andrea Beth

> >

> > --- wrote:

> >

> >

> > Herbal formulae, on the other hand are like sculpting: filling in

> spaces

> > and

> > chipping away excess, until the finished product reflects balance.

> That's

> > at least

> > my experience.

> >

> > Respectfully,

> >

> > Yehuda

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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]

Jason,

 

I see where you're coming from; I get too hooked on radicals, and with cloth

you have the implication of stitching up, or patching. It is a funny word in

the context of the other supplementation words: you have the

" nourish-enrich " (yin) end, then you have the " strengthen-invigorate-assist "

(yang) end, and then you have a couple of words that just mean " add to " . I

suppose you need something that indicates a general case.It is interesting

that they choose that one word, with its implication of repairing things to,

stand for the whole category of functions. It seems to imply a cap on the

process, that when the deficiency is " made up " (or vacuity is filled) then

supplementation ends, which doesn't seem to happen much. It seems like one

has to supplement and supplement these days. Given the Chinese penchant for

hydraulic analogies: we keep adding material to the body, when it overflows

you're done.

 

There is an idea in qigong of building the capacity to hold or channel more

qi. While supplementation allows for the proper flow and movement of things

in the body, allowing the channels to move and the various qi of the body to

carry out their tasks, at some point dredging and digging become important

as well, if one is going to make progress. Perhaps that's why I like vacuity

as a term, because it does not have a negative implication, it can also be

space to grow into, and it makes the little daoist in me happy to think of a

useful hole. By expanding the infrastructure you can improve the baseline as

opposed to " flash in the pan " supplementation which burns off before it can

settle in. It would also give a different slant to the aging process, making

Yan Dexin and Wang Qingren's work more palatable to those who have

difficulty with it. That was one of the reasons I was excited to find the

Zhang Congzheng material on that website, I've always been curious about his

reluctance to use supplements and his approach to problems we commonly

supplement for today.

 

Thanks,

 

Par

 

-

" "

 

Friday, March 10, 2006 8:37 PM

RE: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

 

 

> Par,

>

> I think we can look at this bu3 / Supplement a little deeper. I think it

> may

> be incorrect to assume that bu3 has nothing to do with adding something.

> For example:

> ** from the Chinese Medical Dictionary bu3 is defined as yi4 qi4 (augment

> qi) and yi4 qi4 is defined as 'to increase, more' - IMO 'to increase'

> means,

> one is adding something more to something that is already there, but

> lacking. Herbs are ren shen, huang qi, dang shen, bai zhu, shan yao, & gan

> cao.

> You are right that bu3 in a basic Chinese dictionary is translated as

> 'mend

> or patch', but it also 'fill, supply, nourish, benefit, supplementary

> (B.F.)'

>

> ** From a basic English dictionary supplement means: " Something added to

> complete a thing, make up for a deficiency, or extend or strengthen the

> whole. "

>

> I personally always found deficiency a better translation for 'xu' than

> the

> others for this above reason, but that is another topic. BTW: There is a

> good discussion of this term (xu) in the latest lantern - the author also

> prefers deficiency versus vacuity.

>

> Thoughts?

>

>

> -

>

>

>>

>>

>> On Behalf Of Par Scott

>> Thursday, March 09, 2006 7:34 PM

>>

>> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

>> deficiency

>>

>> I think it's nice, and sensible from a linguistic point of view since bu

>> (supplement) actually means mend, or make whole, as opposed to adding to

>> something.

>>

>> Par

>> -

>> " " <

>>

>> Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:19 PM

>> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to

>> deficiency

>>

>>

>> > Nice analogy, Yehuda!

>> >

>> > Andrea Beth

>> >

>> > --- wrote:

>> >

>> >

>> > Herbal formulae, on the other hand are like sculpting: filling in

>> spaces

>> > and

>> > chipping away excess, until the finished product reflects balance.

>> That's

>> > at least

>> > my experience.

>> >

>> > Respectfully,

>> >

>> > Yehuda

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > 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]

Jason,

I believe that Nigel Wiseman has written a response to Reid's

article in the new Lantern, that, hopefully, will be printed in the

next issue. I believe he tackles this issue in his article.

 

 

On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:37 PM, wrote:

 

> I personally always found deficiency a better translation for 'xu'

> than the

> others for this above reason, but that is another topic. BTW:

> There is a

> good discussion of this term (xu) in the latest lantern - the

> author also

> prefers deficiency versus vacuity.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

If anyone is interested in reading his article and perhaps responding to it,

he has written on or forum here:

 

http://forums.acupuncture.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=107

 

-Li

 

On 3/11/06, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason,

> I believe that Nigel Wiseman has written a response to Reid's

> article in the new Lantern, that, hopefully, will be printed in the

> next issue. I believe he tackles this issue in his article.

>

>

>

> On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:37 PM, wrote:

>

> > I personally always found deficiency a better translation for 'xu'

> > than the

> > others for this above reason, but that is another topic. BTW:

> > There is a

> > good discussion of this term (xu) in the latest lantern - the

> > author also

> > prefers deficiency versus vacuity.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As I await Nigel's response as always, I do not think there is anything he

can say that will convince me that one should adopt just 1 system for

Chinese Medical Translation, nor convince me to adopt / like some of his

word choices like 'vacuity.' At this point I see many of these term choices

purely about personal preference / politics and really less to do with

transmitting CM any more or less accurately. Although I do think there

should always be debate in how to transmit Chinese medicine most accurately,

I am against any system that tries to dominate with little to no input from

the public or other prominent / educated writers.

One thing I found appealing about Xie Zhu-fan's approach was,

although he preferred certain terms, he would concede his 'top pick' term

choice in place of an already accepted (suitable) term. He does admit to

multiple terms being suitable and of course also finds some terms just

unacceptable. I find some of his choices odd, but many make a lot of sense.

But most importantly I find him quite open to other's ideas. Sometimes he

would concede to a Wiseman term, sometimes to an Eastland Press etc... One

might not agree with his overall gloss, but one cannot deny that he is

thinking about the issues, writing about them, and he has an educated

opinion. I do not find that he is just trying to promote his system

directly trying to compete with Wiseman, as Eric has suggested. To discount

him completely just because he has a competing dictionary is IMO, foolhardy.

He has many good points.

But in general, I wish there was a more open source type of system

in place, instead of 1 system trying to dominate through force. Therefore

ultimately I am for multiple systems in existence to express the

multi-faceted pluralistic nature of Chinese medicine as a whole.

 

-

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:39 PM

>

> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

> Jason,

> I believe that Nigel Wiseman has written a response to Reid's

> article in the new Lantern, that, hopefully, will be printed in the

> next issue. I believe he tackles this issue in his article.

>

>

> On Mar 10, 2006, at 5:37 PM, wrote:

>

> > I personally always found deficiency a better translation for 'xu'

> > than the

> > others for this above reason, but that is another topic. BTW:

> > There is a

> > good discussion of this term (xu) in the latest lantern - the

> > author also

> > prefers deficiency versus vacuity.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dominating through force? Please explain, I don't see it at all. I

just don't see where anyone else has done the amount of work Nigel

and Feng Ye have done, or who have put out a competing dictionary.

And don't tell me about Xie Zhu-fan's dictionary, it is clearly

inferior to the Wiseman dictionary.

 

I also don't see at all where anyone is saying one just adapt one

'system' for translation. Before Wiseman's work, no one produced any

tools to allow for coherent translation from Chinese to English. The

Eastland Press glossary is done, and as you know, I have no problem

with those term choices, but until now it has been an 'in-house'

choice for translators.

 

If anything, the Wiseman-Feng terminology and associated texts has

made it possible for folks like me to:

1) learn medical Chinese

2) more easily tie English term choices to pinyin and Chinese

3) teach materials more accurately beyond the limitation of English

language texts

 

Rather than spin conspiracy theories, folks in our profession should

appreciate the tools that Nigel and Feng Ye have provided, and then

choose whatever tools suit them accordingly. If there has been any

domination, it has been the choice of texts demanded by both national

and state board exams, many of which only confuse students with

multiple translation methods without pegging the term choices to

pinyin or Chinese. Is this is what is called 'transparent'?

 

 

 

On Mar 12, 2006, at 2:28 PM, wrote:

 

> But in general, I wish there was a more open source type of system

> in place, instead of 1 system trying to dominate through force.

> Therefore

> ultimately I am for multiple systems in existence to express the

> multi-faceted pluralistic nature of Chinese medicine as a whole.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:47 PM

>

> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

> Dominating through force? Please explain, I don't see it at all. I

> just don't see where anyone else has done the amount of work Nigel

> and Feng Ye have done, or who have put out a competing dictionary.

> And don't tell me about Xie Zhu-fan's dictionary, it is clearly

> inferior to the Wiseman dictionary.

 

Z'ev,

 

 

I think you are missing my point. It is not about 1 person's words or system

being inferior or superior, it is about embracing multiple systems. But I am

puzzled with your (and many others) stance. For example, in one breath you

say you except multiple systems, but in the next you poo poo another's

(Xie's) because you believe it is inferior - seemingly writing it off. Z'ev

says, " don't tell me about Xie Zhu-fan's dictionary, it is clearly inferior

to the Wiseman dictionary. " - What does that mean???

 

Some people love Wiseman, some hate it, some love Xie, some hate it, some

seem merit in all... IMO, Xie has good thoughts, ideas, and word choices,

also quite bad ones. (But Nigel also has good and bad choices) But your

discounting of his Xie's (or anyone else's) system only shows the limitation

in an all or nothing perspective, suggesting that there must be 1 winner and

1 loser. (Hence dominator). MY ultimate objective is about multiple systems

existing harmoniously even if someone else's system has been developed with

'less work' or has specific weaknesses. All have merit, and all express

different aspects of CM's pluralistic nature...

 

One should ask oneself, if one can reference XIE's word choices to the

Chinese and use his dictionary or the PD, then what is the problem??? Just

curious to your response.

 

But it is the case that some people are suggesting that since Nigel has put

in the most work (or just has the best(!?) terms, that his word choices

should be the only choices..(?) meaning 1 system for everyone - hence

dominance in 1 standard gloss / set of terms. This may not be you, therefore

no reason to get defensive, but people DO believe this and are pushing for

this. Because this is not an open source project, I consider such an

agenda, because of its nature, one of force.

 

You mention this idea of competing dictionary... IMO this is NOT about

putting out a competing dictionary. The PD is fine... IMO, there is a clear

distinction between a GLOSS and a DICTIONARY. EP's gloss has term choices

that are valid, and it is meant to be a " gloss. " IT has nothing to do with

a dictionary. It is a system that is used by EP to ensure accurate

transmission. Nothing more and nothing less, and it does that. So we can all

put the hooplah about EP gloss not previously been available, because it is

now! So what if it should have happened 10 years ago. People love to hold

on to the past... It is clear that one DOES NOT need Wiseman's tools to

accurately transmit , although helpful for many, there are

options. To each their own...

 

But I do agree that Wiseman has put the most work for developing a gloss /

dictionary for the transmission of CM and I have also learned much from his

works. But I do not see him encouraging an OPEN source for the development

of 'his' system. This is what I would like to see for the profession.

 

I see nothing about what I have said to do with conspiracy...but I see your

reaction, as many others, when someone suggests that one should embrace

multiple systems as some attack on Wiseman and people get way to defensive.

I am NOT saying that Wiseman doesn't have value. He surely does.

 

AND I do agree about the bad book choices for the boards etc. in the past,

but hey that is a totally different issue.

 

Regards,

 

-

 

 

>

> I also don't see at all where anyone is saying one just adapt one

> 'system' for translation. Before Wiseman's work, no one produced any

> tools to allow for coherent translation from Chinese to English. The

> Eastland Press glossary is done, and as you know, I have no problem

> with those term choices, but until now it has been an 'in-house'

> choice for translators.

>

> If anything, the Wiseman-Feng terminology and associated texts has

> made it possible for folks like me to:

> 1) learn medical Chinese

> 2) more easily tie English term choices to pinyin and Chinese

> 3) teach materials more accurately beyond the limitation of English

> language texts

>

> Rather than spin conspiracy theories, folks in our profession should

> appreciate the tools that Nigel and Feng Ye have provided, and then

> choose whatever tools suit them accordingly. If there has been any

> domination, it has been the choice of texts demanded by both national

> and state board exams, many of which only confuse students with

> multiple translation methods without pegging the term choices to

> pinyin or Chinese. Is this is what is called 'transparent'?

>

>

>

> On Mar 12, 2006, at 2:28 PM, wrote:

>

> > But in general, I wish there was a more open source type of system

> > in place, instead of 1 system trying to dominate through force.

> > Therefore

> > ultimately I am for multiple systems in existence to express the

> > multi-faceted pluralistic nature of Chinese medicine as a whole.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I just don't get it. The system advocated by Wiseman and Feng has

never been an exclusive, closed system that is trying to dominate other

approaches. In fact, it has always been the only open source that is

available to all. Modification based on individual author's

preferences has always been encouraged.

 

Wiseman's system is the only system that has the volume and consistency

that is required to accomplish the task, so it is somewhat of a de

facto standard foundation just because no one else has offered the

community anything similar. But it has never been intended to be a

rigid or closed system. It is by definition an open system.

Modifications and contributions are encouraged.

 

We have linked up lists to Xie's terms and Bensky's terms, we have

provided comparison charts to make all of this maximally accessible.

We are actively involved in terminology discussions with the

terminology committees in the PRC, and what we are advocating is a

broad list with multiple correspondences, a list inclusive to Bensky

and Chen, a list that has biomedical interface terms whenever

appropriate. Basically a large open source that respects all the valid

perspectives while preserving the integrity of Chinese medicine. So

why on earth is this approach so heavily criticized? We are working

far more than anyone else to create inclusive, varied translation

options that will be applicable for all types of literature.

 

Even on his own personal term list, Wiseman has many terms that he

thinks are acceptable if not preferable (fever vs. heat effusion being

a case in point). Blue Poppy has multiple modifications of PD

terminology in their texts, all of which have been handled very clearly

and professionally to give their readers the best insight possible into

the term selections they choose. The PD terminology system has never

been kept as a secret house list that is hidden from public scrutiny.

So how can you possibly say that the PD approach is a closed system?

 

With regard to Xie Zhu-Fan, I respect a number of Xie's points but I

really do think that it is important to preserve in translation

different common CM concepts like the varying degrees and types of

stagnation. I oppose simplifying CM concepts and trying to fit

traditional diseases into neat little modern classifications based on

biomedicine. This demeans the intelligence of the Western CM community

and obscures the actual meaning of the CM disease entities. But my

issues with Xie are due to what I perceive to be fundamental flaws in

his approach, not politics.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

I by in large agree with what you say in theory, but in practice I feel the

system does not encourage others to take part in it decisions. This has been

expressed by many people. This is what I mean by an open vs. closed system.

Wiseman ( & ye) are fundamentally the arbitrators, and that is fine, but that

seems to make it a closed system. 90% of people could vote for 'deficiency'

and there is no way he will give up 'vacuity'. There really is no vote /

nor consensus. This is not a project of the people, but one of Wiseman.

Again that is fine, it is what it is. He has put in much work, and of

course we are all grateful for that. But, I do not consider it open source

just because it is available to all. Maybe we just have a difference in

terminology and understanding with the term " open source. "

 

Although you say that Wiseman's system has never meant to dominate others,

it surely does in many people's eyes, and many advocates take this high

road. In fact, one can easily search through many past CHA posts and find

such posts. Maybe no such posts from Wiseman or Eric, but others clearly

take this position. People constantly bash others' terms, even though the

Chinese character of this 'other term' can be referenced (or is just known.)

Just 1 week ago, Bob was blasting Bensky and his term choice for yi

'augment', and in the same breath touting the superiority of Wiseman's

system / choices. I find such intolerance for such a term with obvious

validity, an overbearing stance.

 

So finally I await an actual forum or avenue of change that Wiseman's terms

can be discussed and adjusted. When this happens, and Wiseman is open to

changing some of his terms that are clearly disliked by the majority of

people, will I believe it is an open system. But I do get your point that he

is always trying to improve his list and expand it. Right on, I would think

nothing less of him, but I still feel it is his choices...

 

I therefore hope that people can accept term choices that are at least in

the ball park of potential expression and are referenced / sourced (to the

Chinese or just blatantly transparent). Comments?

 

Regards,

 

 

-

 

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Sunday, March 12, 2006 7:57 PM

>

> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

> I just don't get it. The system advocated by Wiseman and Feng has

> never been an exclusive, closed system that is trying to dominate other

> approaches. In fact, it has always been the only open source that is

> available to all. Modification based on individual author's

> preferences has always been encouraged.

>

> Wiseman's system is the only system that has the volume and consistency

> that is required to accomplish the task, so it is somewhat of a de

> facto standard foundation just because no one else has offered the

> community anything similar. But it has never been intended to be a

> rigid or closed system. It is by definition an open system.

> Modifications and contributions are encouraged.

>

> We have linked up lists to Xie's terms and Bensky's terms, we have

> provided comparison charts to make all of this maximally accessible.

> We are actively involved in terminology discussions with the

> terminology committees in the PRC, and what we are advocating is a

> broad list with multiple correspondences, a list inclusive to Bensky

> and Chen, a list that has biomedical interface terms whenever

> appropriate. Basically a large open source that respects all the valid

> perspectives while preserving the integrity of Chinese medicine. So

> why on earth is this approach so heavily criticized? We are working

> far more than anyone else to create inclusive, varied translation

> options that will be applicable for all types of literature.

>

> Even on his own personal term list, Wiseman has many terms that he

> thinks are acceptable if not preferable (fever vs. heat effusion being

> a case in point). Blue Poppy has multiple modifications of PD

> terminology in their texts, all of which have been handled very clearly

> and professionally to give their readers the best insight possible into

> the term selections they choose. The PD terminology system has never

> been kept as a secret house list that is hidden from public scrutiny.

> So how can you possibly say that the PD approach is a closed system?

>

> With regard to Xie Zhu-Fan, I respect a number of Xie's points but I

> really do think that it is important to preserve in translation

> different common CM concepts like the varying degrees and types of

> stagnation. I oppose simplifying CM concepts and trying to fit

> traditional diseases into neat little modern classifications based on

> biomedicine. This demeans the intelligence of the Western CM community

> and obscures the actual meaning of the CM disease entities. But my

> issues with Xie are due to what I perceive to be fundamental flaws in

> his approach, not politics.

>

> 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]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

>

> With regard to Xie Zhu-Fan, I respect a number of Xie's points but I

> really do think that it is important to preserve in translation

> different common CM concepts like the varying degrees and types of

> stagnation.

 

Eric,

 

I do not know Xie's system that well, can you supply us with some examples

of different types of stagnation that he lumps together...

 

Regards,

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason,

> I believe that Nigel Wiseman has written a response to Reid's

> article in the new Lantern, that, hopefully, will be printed in the

> next issue. I believe he tackles this issue in his article.

 

Tony Reid¡¯s article offers some interesting points and I generally

like seeing an increased dialogue on the issue of terminology since it

is pertinent to my work as a translator. While it seems that Reid¡¯s

article is largely focused on a criticism of the terminology used in

the Practical Dictionary by Wiseman and Feng, Reid¡¯s arguments against

PD terminology are often based on gross misrepresentations of Wiseman

& Feng¡¯s approach. Rather than show weaknesses in Wiseman & Feng¡¯s

approach, many of Reid¡¯s arguments simply illustrate that Reid himself

has a dubious command of medical Chinese and is not adequately

informed about PD terminology in the first place.

 

I will briefly address Reid¡¯s valid arguments against PD terminology

in a systematic fashion shortly. But first I would like to dismiss

the numerous examples of outright misrepresentation; these examples do

little to provide supportive academic criticism and the use of these

cheap shots presented as valid arguments damages Reid¡¯s credibility

when he actually comes around to valid points that should truly be

addressed. Reid seems to be mixing a variety of general terminology

critiques in with his criticisms of PD terminology, which often gives

the reader the impression that the terms he is critiquing are somehow

related to the PD approach. For example, he spends two paragraphs

discussing the various merits of ¡°phase¡± vs. ¡°element¡± for wu xing

(five phases), even though both Reid and Wiseman, like many others,

all agree that ¡°phase¡± is a superior translation. Below are a variety

of examples of misrepresentations that are apparently ascribed to

Wiseman in Reid¡¯s article:

 

Within the context of criticisms of PD terminology, Reid raises as an

example the phrase: ¡°the spleen and stomach are vacuous and

debilitated.¡± Like Reid, Wiseman would regard this translation as

overly literal. In this context, ¡°vacuity¡± and ¡°debility¡± are being

used together in the original Chinese sentence so that the sentence is

symmetrical and balanced in structure. This is a habit of the Chinese

language, and the art of the translator is to convey the information

clearly in English without any loss of the clinical concepts contained

within. Since debility is a more specific term than vacuity, the

correct translation of the phrase would drop the word vacuity because

this is basically a redundancy formed by the Chinese sentence

construction. This improves readability without affecting clinical

accuracy. But Reid and Wiseman are in complete agreement on this. At

this point, many translators are using Wiseman¡¯s terminology system.

Wiseman himself cannot be personally responsible for any errors made

by an insufficiently proficient translator that uses his system. It

is a completely flawed argument to point to a minor mistake made by a

single individual and pretend that this is a representative mistake of

the translation system itself; anyone who has truly mastered the

approach that Wiseman endorses would not make an error like this.

Thus, this example cited in Reid¡¯s article is completely irrelevant

and simply shows that Reid is not adequately educated in the actual

approach used by Wiseman.

 

Despite Reid¡¯s obviously dedicated critique of Wiseman¡¯s terminology,

Reid continues to evince his complete ignorance of the actual methods

and terms that Wiseman advocates. Reid cites wasting-thirst for xiao

ke, even though the PD terminology phrase that corresponds to the CM

disease of xiao ke was changed to the phrase ¡°dispersion-thirst¡±

nearly ten years ago. Not only has Reid has overlooked the fact that

¡°wasting thirst¡± is an outdated term that is no longer used; Reid goes

on to say that this ancient disease name is identical to diabetes,

which is completely untrue. Both Chinese and Western scholars agree

that there are very clear distinctions between the CM disease of xiao

ke and the biomedical disease of diabetes, so this example does little

more than illustrate Reid¡¯s poor understanding of modern PD

terminology and his lack of knowledge regarding the distinction

between these two traditional and modern disease categories.

 

Before getting to the meat of Reid¡¯s valid arguments, I am compelled

to continue dispelling his misrepresentations for another few

paragraphs. For this I duly apologize to readers whose eyes are

already glazing over, but it is necessary to separate the valid

arguments from Reid¡¯s simple mistakes so that we can assess the

situation objectively. For example, Reid goes on a diatribe about the

word ¡°depressive,¡± but in fact the word depressive is never used in

standard PD terminology. Rather, ¡°depressed,¡± ¡°depress,¡± and

¡°depression¡± are all used in PD terminology to accommodate various

grammatical constructions of the word ¡°yu.¡± While the Chinese term yu

refers to sluggish movement as well as emotional and mental

depression, Reid seems to be suggesting that ¡°depression¡± in English

refers only to a psychological state. While the meaning of yu in

Chinese is broader than simple emotional depression, the meaning of

depression in English is also broader than simple emotional

depression. Everyone understands that a depressed economy doesn¡¯t

simply require antidepressant therapy, so why does Reid imply that

depressed qi automatically conjures this image?

 

Reid proposes that yu should be simply translated as stagnation, but

Chinese medical language contains two words for stagnation that have a

different nuance (zhi and yu). These two words have a distinct usage

and meaning, and we believe that Western readers should have access to

the same concepts that Chinese readers have. No simplification is

necessary! Western readers are intelligent and are perfectly capable

of handling the same complexity of information that Chinese doctors

experience in their education. Thus, these two concepts should be

preserved in English. The use of distinct terms for stagnation and

depression is not unique to the PD approach; this same distinction is

maintained in works by Eastland Press (¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°constraint¡±)

and by the World Federation of Societies (the Chinese

scholar Wang Kui, who heads the WFCMS¡¯ translation division, advocates

¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°depression¡±).

 

Mr. Reid¡¯s handling of the issue of zhi and yu suggests that Reid does

not possess a mastery of medical Chinese. Mr. Reid claims that ¡°no

Chinese person would say gan qi zhi,¡± but this exact term is found in

the Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian (which is effectively the Chinese equivalent

of the PD, though it contains approximately 30,000 terms). Mr. Reid¡¯s

Chinese language skills are further called into question by the fact

that he mentions ¡°flush vessel¡± as a possible interpretation of the

chong mai, since the word used for ¡°flush¡± in traditional Chinese

script is totally different than the word that is used for the chong

mai (these two words are simplified to the same character in the PRC,

but most Chinese scholars are well-aware of their distinction in

traditional script).

 

I hate to beat the misrepresentation horse to death, but Reid just

goes on and on with criticisms of terms that he falsely attributes to

Wiseman. While I am eager to get on to the valid points for debate,

it seems my response has already reached the third page before I can

even finish getting through Reid¡¯s abject mistakes. Reid ascribes the

terms ¡°pre-heaven¡± and ¡°post-heaven¡± to Wiseman, and argues in favor

of ¡°innate " and ¡°acquired.¡± For someone who has invested so much

effort into criticizing Wiseman, how can Reid totally miss the fact

that Wiseman¡¯s term list uses the phrases ¡°earlier heaven; congenital;

congenital constitution¡± for ¡°xian tian¡± and ¡°later heaven; acquired;

acquired constitution¡± for ¡°hou tian¡±? It is easy to accept

criticisms made by informed critics, but how can someone write such an

article for the Lantern when they are so totally misinformed on the

subject that they completely misrepresent the person than they are

criticizing to this degree?

 

Since enough e-paper has already consumed by all these

misrepresentations and responses, I¡¯d like to bring the discussion to

what are truly valid points for debate. There are two main points

where my opinion is not entirely different than Reid¡¯s, but in both of

these situations I think a few arguments should be made to illustrate

that some key flaws in Reid¡¯s reasoning.

 

Firstly, Reid has an issue for Wiseman¡¯s use of ¡°torpid stomach.¡±

Like Reid, I am a bit thrown by the word ¡°torpid¡± because it is just

not a word that I have an inherent grasp on. My issue with torpid is

actually really just an issue with the fact that I have a smaller

vocabulary than Mr. Wiseman, so when I came across this word for the

first time I had to look it up to understand what the term actually

means. Fortunately, looking up the word proved insightful because I

learned that this term (na dai) refers to a breakdown of the stomach¡¯s

function of intake. Mr. Reid proposes the more ¡°transparent¡± phrase

¡°anorexia¡± or ¡°loss of appetite.¡± However, the actual meaning of the

term refers to poor digestion as well as loss of appetite, so I

actually think that the reader is benefited by being forced to learn a

new English word since there is really no single natural equivalent in

English that covers both poor digestion and loss of appetite. Simply

omitting the connotation of poor digestion may make the text more

readable than the use of an awkward word like torpid intake, but I

would argue that there is a clinical loss from this omission.

 

In the second example, Mr. Reid takes umbrage with Wiseman¡¯s use of

the word ¡°construction¡± for ying. Reid favors ¡°nutritive.¡± In some

contexts, ying indeed has this meaning of nutrient or nutritive, and

the use of the word ying in Wen Bing literature generally has a

meaning that is consistent with nutritive. However, in earlier

literature the concept of ying and wei is closer to ¡°camp¡± and

¡°defense,¡± since it was originally a military metaphor. I think

construction was chosen because it is more inclusive of the meaning of

the word ying across its two main periods of historical use, since

construction attempts to capture both the nutritive and military

metaphor images. Personally, I am not really a major fan of

¡°construction¡± but I understand the reasons that the term was chosen

(incidentally, the term wasn¡¯t coined by Wiseman in the first place).

I don¡¯t have a better term to propose myself. Nutritive works well

in some contexts, particularly in Wen Bing literature, so it is

basically appropriate in many situations, IMHO. But I do think

teachers should be sure to convey that this word in some uses has a

meaning closer to camp than to nutritive.

 

Mr. Wiseman has submitted a response to the Lantern for publication,

so I will let his article speak for itself when and if it does get

published in the journal. However, while we are on the topic of

individual terms criticized by Reid, I will quote Wiseman on a few

individual terms since they are pertinent to the discussion. I have

selected a small number of the terms that Nigel has addressed in his

complete response, and have included them below:

 

[begin quote]

**heat effusion: Our current term lists (the latest is Chinese-English

Dictionary of , CD Version 2004) includes heat

effusion and fever, leaving the choice to the user. Some people feel

that because fa re includes subjective sensations of heat not

reflected in a higher body temperature, ¡°fever¡± may be misleading.

**grain and water: shui gu is an ancient term, little used in modern

texts. We simply translate this literally to reflect the ancient

understanding of what food is. (Eric: This term is preserved in the

Eastland literature as well, as ¡°liquids and grains.¡±)

**Sprout and orifice: Reid prefers ¡°signaling sense organ.¡± The mouth

is not a sense organ. Most people accept ¡°orifice¡± as the translation

for qiao.

** rheum (yin3): Reid offers ¡°retained fluid¡± or ¡°thin mucus¡± as

equivalents. Taken at face value, these terms do not mean the same

thing. Yi yin, which we translate as ¡°spillage rheum,¡± involve edema,

so is not thin mucus. ¡°Retained fluid¡± would theoretically include

any water-damp problem, which yin3 does not. We chose ¡°rheum¡± simply

because no self-explanatory term could express the Chinese concept.

The word rheum is pretty much obsolete in the English language. We

resurrected it and gave it a new definition. It is precisely because

we wanted to preserve a theoretical concept that is useful in the

clinical context that we did not chose a more lay sounding term such

as Reid¡¯s that might actually confuse the clinician.

**ejection: ¡°Emesis¡± and ¡°vomiting¡± are acceptable in certain

contexts. There are places where the term does not refer to expulsion

of matter from the stomach, hence our choice.

**percolate dampness; disinhibit dampness: Reid claims that li shui

shen shi, which we render as ¡°disinhibit water and percolate

dampness,¡± means ¡°promote urination and drain dampness.¡± Water means

water-damp, not urine. Shen describes a process of causing dampness

to seep away from unwanted places. ¡°Drain dampness¡± in and of itself

would be acceptable. However, if (as we and many others do) one

chooses ¡°drain¡± to translate xie (as in ¡°draining fire¡±), one is

suggesting that the actions of li and xie are the same. This is not

the case, because the latter is much more powerful than the former.

(Eric: Many of the herbs that are said to ¡°disinhibit dampness¡± are

not diuretic in pharmacological action, thus I think ¡°promoting

urination¡± is somewhat misleading to readers.)

** clove sore: In the combination ding chuang, the character ding is

made up a word meaning (a carpenter¡¯s) nail with a sickness radical.

The ¡°nail¡± refers to the shape of the sore, the shaft of the nail

penetrating deep into the flesh. Unfortunately, the English word nail

is confusing, because apart from a carpenter¡¯s nail, it also (and

primarily) denotes a part of the human body, the meaning most likely

to spring to mind in the medical context. We simply chose ¡°clove¡± to

recreate the image of the shape. Note that the word ¡°clove¡± comes

from Latin clavus meaning a (carpenter¡¯s) nail. How is the English

term clove sore more preposterous than the Chinese term?

[End quote]

 

In summary, I would hope that Mr. Reid first adequately studies the

sources that he plans to criticize in the future, and I hope that he

does not dilute his valid arguments with mistakes and

misrepresentations. It is time-consuming to have to play quack buster

every time someone starts spouting off opinions when they haven¡¯t even

done their homework on the topic that they are criticizing.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

While it must have taken you quite a bit of time to write your

rebuttal, I wanted to say that you did a fabulous job of it.

 

 

On Mar 13, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Eric Brand wrote:

 

> Tony Reid¡¯s article offers some interesting points and I generally

> like seeing an increased dialogue on the issue of terminology since it

> is pertinent to my work as a translator. While it seems that Reid¡¯s

> article is largely focused on a criticism of the terminology used in

> the Practical Dictionary by Wiseman and Feng, Reid¡¯s arguments

> against

> PD terminology are often based on gross misrepresentations of Wiseman

> & Feng¡¯s approach. Rather than show weaknesses in Wiseman & Feng¡¯s

> approach, many of Reid¡¯s arguments simply illustrate that Reid

> himself

> has a dubious command of medical Chinese and is not adequately

> informed about PD terminology in the first place.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric, it always amazes me that some people will jump

to criticizes some ones work without thorough

investigation into the source material, it is

irresponsible and just not good academics

Thanks for providing us with a deeper discussion, and

for clarifying the misrepresentations made by Mr.

Reid's

Gabe

 

 

--- Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

> , " Z'ev

> Rosenberg "

> <zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > Jason,

> > I believe that Nigel Wiseman has written a

> response to Reid's

> > article in the new Lantern, that, hopefully, will

> be printed in the

> > next issue. I believe he tackles this issue in

> his article.

>

> Tony Reid¡¯s article offers some interesting points

> and I generally

> like seeing an increased dialogue on the issue of

> terminology since it

> is pertinent to my work as a translator. While it

> seems that Reid¡¯s

> article is largely focused on a criticism of the

> terminology used in

> the Practical Dictionary by Wiseman and Feng,

> Reid¡¯s arguments against

> PD terminology are often based on gross

> misrepresentations of Wiseman

> & Feng¡¯s approach. Rather than show weaknesses in

> Wiseman & Feng¡¯s

> approach, many of Reid¡¯s arguments simply

> illustrate that Reid himself

> has a dubious command of medical Chinese and is not

> adequately

> informed about PD terminology in the first place.

>

> I will briefly address Reid¡¯s valid arguments

> against PD terminology

> in a systematic fashion shortly. But first I would

> like to dismiss

> the numerous examples of outright misrepresentation;

> these examples do

> little to provide supportive academic criticism and

> the use of these

> cheap shots presented as valid arguments damages

> Reid¡¯s credibility

> when he actually comes around to valid points that

> should truly be

> addressed. Reid seems to be mixing a variety of

> general terminology

> critiques in with his criticisms of PD terminology,

> which often gives

> the reader the impression that the terms he is

> critiquing are somehow

> related to the PD approach. For example, he spends

> two paragraphs

> discussing the various merits of ¡°phase¡± vs.

> ¡°element¡± for wu xing

> (five phases), even though both Reid and Wiseman,

> like many others,

> all agree that ¡°phase¡± is a superior translation.

> Below are a variety

> of examples of misrepresentations that are

> apparently ascribed to

> Wiseman in Reid¡¯s article:

>

> Within the context of criticisms of PD terminology,

> Reid raises as an

> example the phrase: ¡°the spleen and stomach are

> vacuous and

> debilitated.¡± Like Reid, Wiseman would regard this

> translation as

> overly literal. In this context, ¡°vacuity¡± and

> ¡°debility¡± are being

> used together in the original Chinese sentence so

> that the sentence is

> symmetrical and balanced in structure. This is a

> habit of the Chinese

> language, and the art of the translator is to convey

> the information

> clearly in English without any loss of the clinical

> concepts contained

> within. Since debility is a more specific term than

> vacuity, the

> correct translation of the phrase would drop the

> word vacuity because

> this is basically a redundancy formed by the Chinese

> sentence

> construction. This improves readability without

> affecting clinical

> accuracy. But Reid and Wiseman are in complete

> agreement on this. At

> this point, many translators are using Wiseman¡¯s

> terminology system.

> Wiseman himself cannot be personally responsible for

> any errors made

> by an insufficiently proficient translator that uses

> his system. It

> is a completely flawed argument to point to a minor

> mistake made by a

> single individual and pretend that this is a

> representative mistake of

> the translation system itself; anyone who has truly

> mastered the

> approach that Wiseman endorses would not make an

> error like this.

> Thus, this example cited in Reid¡¯s article is

> completely irrelevant

> and simply shows that Reid is not adequately

> educated in the actual

> approach used by Wiseman.

>

> Despite Reid¡¯s obviously dedicated critique of

> Wiseman¡¯s terminology,

> Reid continues to evince his complete ignorance of

> the actual methods

> and terms that Wiseman advocates. Reid cites

> wasting-thirst for xiao

> ke, even though the PD terminology phrase that

> corresponds to the CM

> disease of xiao ke was changed to the phrase

> ¡°dispersion-thirst¡±

> nearly ten years ago. Not only has Reid has

> overlooked the fact that

> ¡°wasting thirst¡± is an outdated term that is no

> longer used; Reid goes

> on to say that this ancient disease name is

> identical to diabetes,

> which is completely untrue. Both Chinese and

> Western scholars agree

> that there are very clear distinctions between the

> CM disease of xiao

> ke and the biomedical disease of diabetes, so this

> example does little

> more than illustrate Reid¡¯s poor understanding of

> modern PD

> terminology and his lack of knowledge regarding the

> distinction

> between these two traditional and modern disease

> categories.

>

> Before getting to the meat of Reid¡¯s valid

> arguments, I am compelled

> to continue dispelling his misrepresentations for

> another few

> paragraphs. For this I duly apologize to readers

> whose eyes are

> already glazing over, but it is necessary to

> separate the valid

> arguments from Reid¡¯s simple mistakes so that we

> can assess the

> situation objectively. For example, Reid goes on a

> diatribe about the

> word ¡°depressive,¡± but in fact the word depressive

> is never used in

> standard PD terminology. Rather, ¡°depressed,¡±

> ¡°depress,¡± and

> ¡°depression¡± are all used in PD terminology to

> accommodate various

> grammatical constructions of the word ¡°yu.¡± While

> the Chinese term yu

> refers to sluggish movement as well as emotional and

> mental

> depression, Reid seems to be suggesting that

> ¡°depression¡± in English

> refers only to a psychological state. While the

> meaning of yu in

> Chinese is broader than simple emotional depression,

> the meaning of

> depression in English is also broader than simple

> emotional

> depression. Everyone understands that a depressed

> economy doesn¡¯t

> simply require antidepressant therapy, so why does

> Reid imply that

> depressed qi automatically conjures this image?

>

> Reid proposes that yu should be simply translated as

> stagnation, but

> Chinese medical language contains two words for

> stagnation that have a

> different nuance (zhi and yu). These two words have

> a distinct usage

> and meaning, and we believe that Western readers

> should have access to

> the same concepts that Chinese readers have. No

> simplification is

> necessary! Western readers are intelligent and are

> perfectly capable

> of handling the same complexity of information that

> Chinese doctors

> experience in their education. Thus, these two

> concepts should be

> preserved in English. The use of distinct terms for

> stagnation and

> depression is not unique to the PD approach; this

> same distinction is

> maintained in works by Eastland Press

> (¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°constraint¡±)

> and by the World Federation of

> Societies (the Chinese

> scholar Wang Kui, who heads the WFCMS¡¯ translation

> division, advocates

> ¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°depression¡±).

>

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> and by the World Federation of Societies (the Chinese

> scholar Wang Kui, who heads the WFCMS¡¯ translation division, advocates

> ¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°depression¡±).

 

Eric,

 

Do these guys have a gloss or anything to peruse?

 

Thanx,

 

-

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

I agree with Gabe, thanx for your response and time, it definitely rounds

out the arguments. I hope someone forwards this to Reid...

 

Regards,

 

-

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of gabe gabe

> Monday, March 13, 2006 5:27 PM

>

> Re: filling in the spaces: vacuity as opposed to deficiency

>

> Eric, it always amazes me that some people will jump

> to criticizes some ones work without thorough

> investigation into the source material, it is

> irresponsible and just not good academics

> Thanks for providing us with a deeper discussion, and

> for clarifying the misrepresentations made by Mr.

> Reid's

> Gabe

>

>

> --- Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

>

> > , " Z'ev

> > Rosenberg "

> > <zrosenbe wrote:

> > >

> > > Jason,

> > > I believe that Nigel Wiseman has written a

> > response to Reid's

> > > article in the new Lantern, that, hopefully, will

> > be printed in the

> > > next issue. I believe he tackles this issue in

> > his article.

> >

> > Tony Reid¡¯s article offers some interesting points

> > and I generally

> > like seeing an increased dialogue on the issue of

> > terminology since it

> > is pertinent to my work as a translator. While it

> > seems that Reid¡¯s

> > article is largely focused on a criticism of the

> > terminology used in

> > the Practical Dictionary by Wiseman and Feng,

> > Reid¡¯s arguments against

> > PD terminology are often based on gross

> > misrepresentations of Wiseman

> > & Feng¡¯s approach. Rather than show weaknesses in

> > Wiseman & Feng¡¯s

> > approach, many of Reid¡¯s arguments simply

> > illustrate that Reid himself

> > has a dubious command of medical Chinese and is not

> > adequately

> > informed about PD terminology in the first place.

> >

> > I will briefly address Reid¡¯s valid arguments

> > against PD terminology

> > in a systematic fashion shortly. But first I would

> > like to dismiss

> > the numerous examples of outright misrepresentation;

> > these examples do

> > little to provide supportive academic criticism and

> > the use of these

> > cheap shots presented as valid arguments damages

> > Reid¡¯s credibility

> > when he actually comes around to valid points that

> > should truly be

> > addressed. Reid seems to be mixing a variety of

> > general terminology

> > critiques in with his criticisms of PD terminology,

> > which often gives

> > the reader the impression that the terms he is

> > critiquing are somehow

> > related to the PD approach. For example, he spends

> > two paragraphs

> > discussing the various merits of ¡°phase¡± vs.

> > ¡°element¡± for wu xing

> > (five phases), even though both Reid and Wiseman,

> > like many others,

> > all agree that ¡°phase¡± is a superior translation.

> > Below are a variety

> > of examples of misrepresentations that are

> > apparently ascribed to

> > Wiseman in Reid¡¯s article:

> >

> > Within the context of criticisms of PD terminology,

> > Reid raises as an

> > example the phrase: ¡°the spleen and stomach are

> > vacuous and

> > debilitated.¡± Like Reid, Wiseman would regard this

> > translation as

> > overly literal. In this context, ¡°vacuity¡± and

> > ¡°debility¡± are being

> > used together in the original Chinese sentence so

> > that the sentence is

> > symmetrical and balanced in structure. This is a

> > habit of the Chinese

> > language, and the art of the translator is to convey

> > the information

> > clearly in English without any loss of the clinical

> > concepts contained

> > within. Since debility is a more specific term than

> > vacuity, the

> > correct translation of the phrase would drop the

> > word vacuity because

> > this is basically a redundancy formed by the Chinese

> > sentence

> > construction. This improves readability without

> > affecting clinical

> > accuracy. But Reid and Wiseman are in complete

> > agreement on this. At

> > this point, many translators are using Wiseman¡¯s

> > terminology system.

> > Wiseman himself cannot be personally responsible for

> > any errors made

> > by an insufficiently proficient translator that uses

> > his system. It

> > is a completely flawed argument to point to a minor

> > mistake made by a

> > single individual and pretend that this is a

> > representative mistake of

> > the translation system itself; anyone who has truly

> > mastered the

> > approach that Wiseman endorses would not make an

> > error like this.

> > Thus, this example cited in Reid¡¯s article is

> > completely irrelevant

> > and simply shows that Reid is not adequately

> > educated in the actual

> > approach used by Wiseman.

> >

> > Despite Reid¡¯s obviously dedicated critique of

> > Wiseman¡¯s terminology,

> > Reid continues to evince his complete ignorance of

> > the actual methods

> > and terms that Wiseman advocates. Reid cites

> > wasting-thirst for xiao

> > ke, even though the PD terminology phrase that

> > corresponds to the CM

> > disease of xiao ke was changed to the phrase

> > ¡°dispersion-thirst¡±

> > nearly ten years ago. Not only has Reid has

> > overlooked the fact that

> > ¡°wasting thirst¡± is an outdated term that is no

> > longer used; Reid goes

> > on to say that this ancient disease name is

> > identical to diabetes,

> > which is completely untrue. Both Chinese and

> > Western scholars agree

> > that there are very clear distinctions between the

> > CM disease of xiao

> > ke and the biomedical disease of diabetes, so this

> > example does little

> > more than illustrate Reid¡¯s poor understanding of

> > modern PD

> > terminology and his lack of knowledge regarding the

> > distinction

> > between these two traditional and modern disease

> > categories.

> >

> > Before getting to the meat of Reid¡¯s valid

> > arguments, I am compelled

> > to continue dispelling his misrepresentations for

> > another few

> > paragraphs. For this I duly apologize to readers

> > whose eyes are

> > already glazing over, but it is necessary to

> > separate the valid

> > arguments from Reid¡¯s simple mistakes so that we

> > can assess the

> > situation objectively. For example, Reid goes on a

> > diatribe about the

> > word ¡°depressive,¡± but in fact the word depressive

> > is never used in

> > standard PD terminology. Rather, ¡°depressed,¡±

> > ¡°depress,¡± and

> > ¡°depression¡± are all used in PD terminology to

> > accommodate various

> > grammatical constructions of the word ¡°yu.¡± While

> > the Chinese term yu

> > refers to sluggish movement as well as emotional and

> > mental

> > depression, Reid seems to be suggesting that

> > ¡°depression¡± in English

> > refers only to a psychological state. While the

> > meaning of yu in

> > Chinese is broader than simple emotional depression,

> > the meaning of

> > depression in English is also broader than simple

> > emotional

> > depression. Everyone understands that a depressed

> > economy doesn¡¯t

> > simply require antidepressant therapy, so why does

> > Reid imply that

> > depressed qi automatically conjures this image?

> >

> > Reid proposes that yu should be simply translated as

> > stagnation, but

> > Chinese medical language contains two words for

> > stagnation that have a

> > different nuance (zhi and yu). These two words have

> > a distinct usage

> > and meaning, and we believe that Western readers

> > should have access to

> > the same concepts that Chinese readers have. No

> > simplification is

> > necessary! Western readers are intelligent and are

> > perfectly capable

> > of handling the same complexity of information that

> > Chinese doctors

> > experience in their education. Thus, these two

> > concepts should be

> > preserved in English. The use of distinct terms for

> > stagnation and

> > depression is not unique to the PD approach; this

> > same distinction is

> > maintained in works by Eastland Press

> > (¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°constraint¡±)

> > and by the World Federation of

> > Societies (the Chinese

> > scholar Wang Kui, who heads the WFCMS¡¯ translation

> > division, advocates

> > ¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°depression¡±).

> >

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

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

> free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus wrote:

>Firstly, Reid has an issue for Wiseman¡¯s use of ¡°torpid stomach.¡±

 

Correction:

Sorry, I was typing too fast and not paying attention. The term in

question (na dai) is " torpid intake " not " torpid stomach. " It

pertains to the stomach's intake so my brain must have switched to

autopilot for a minute there.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>

> > and by the World Federation of Societies (the Chinese

> > scholar Wang Kui, who heads the WFCMS¡¯ translation division, advocates

> > ¡°stagnation¡± and ¡°depression¡±).

>

> Eric,

>

> Do these guys have a gloss or anything to peruse?

 

These " guys " (World Federation of Societies, WFCMS)

are holding a meeting in late March in Beijing with Wiseman, Bensky,

Maciocia, Unschuld, several PRC bigwigs, and an international group of

advisors from Israel, Australia, Canada, and the US. Some NCCAOM

representatives will be there and it is hoped that the testing boards

will at last be encouraged to publish their terminologies so that they

can maintain at least a semblance of credibility in light of the term

standardization efforts by the PRC, WHO, and AAOM.

 

The WFCMS has a list of terms that they want to debate, and they will

submit their recommendations to China's State Administration of TCM

(SATCM) for the late summer meetings where SATCM is expected to issue

their terminology recommendations. WFCMS does not thus far have a

published term list. SATCM appears to advocate a simplified and

biomedicalized approach based on our past experiences with their

recommendations.

 

As I have mentioned previously, there appears to thus far be a lack of

consistent methodology and a lack of appropriate respect for

traditional concepts and Westerner's ability to comprehend these

concepts. Hopefully my impressions thus far are wrong.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM terminology

dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a TCM

Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency, excess,

etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the Califorrnia

boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of the

terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction Blood " but

fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under discussion be the

best sources for defining this type of terminology?

 

My take on this debate has always been twofold: Yes, it is a good idea to

more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the job has not been done

well. By selecting English terms that are obscure, the student is forced to

translate both Chinese and English terms while trying to understand a new

concept. I wish that more common English terms had been chosen.

 

That said, the new terminology is not going away. I would like to introduce

a concise text to new students, so they can understand Deng's book.

Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult to understand.

 

- Bill Schoenbart

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill

 

In my humble opinion, THE dictionary to use alongside Deng Tie Tao

Practical Diagnosis is the PD, Practical Dictionary of Chinese

Medicine.

 

See: http://www.redwingbooks.com/products/books/PraDicChiMed.cfm

for a description and sample text.

 

The Practical Dictionary has full explanatory descriptions of each of

the terms used.

 

I love it.

 

Best wishes

 

Alwin

 

, " Bill Schoenbart "

<plantmed2 wrote:

>

> Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM

terminology

> dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a

TCM

> Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency,

excess,

> etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the

Califorrnia

> boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of

the

> terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction

Blood " but

> fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under

discussion be the

> best sources for defining this type of terminology?

>

> My take on this debate has always been twofold: Yes, it is a good

idea to

> more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the job has not been

done

> well. By selecting English terms that are obscure, the student is

forced to

> translate both Chinese and English terms while trying to understand

a new

> concept. I wish that more common English terms had been chosen.

>

> That said, the new terminology is not going away. I would like to

introduce

> a concise text to new students, so they can understand Deng's book.

> Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult to understand.

>

> - Bill Schoenbart

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well, as the translator of the book, let me chime in

here.

 

I didn't know that the book was now on the CA list,

but I'm glad to hear it (FYI I don't get royalties

from it so I have no financial interest in the

discussion).

 

First of all, Yes, the PD is the dictionary and the

terminology that was used in translating the Deng

book. It is really best used by the student who is

introduced to the terminology from the beginning -

with the use of Fundamentals of CM (Wiseman et.al) in

their first OM course. When I teach Fundamental

Theory I require that students purchase the PD at that

point because it is going to be one of the most

important texts that they will own for the rest of

their academic career - even if the terminology used

is not the terminology of the PD, the PD will give

students a place to go to get a good definition and

clinical discussion of a huge number of topics.

 

Practical Diagnosis is indeed very dense (in both the

English and the Chinese). Some of the material is

appropriate for the beginning student, other material

is really aimed at the more advanced

student/practitioner. I have been teaching Diagnosis

from that book for many years now and I would say that

it is very important that the instructor be able to

take the information from the book and make it more

" bite-sized " .

 

WHile I do think that a good revision of the Deng text

would be in order (but that is up to Churchill not me)

I do not think that an additional text to explain what

is in the book is the answer. Rather I think that the

application of the material in class and the

integration of the material and the language

throughout one's education is a better way to approach

it. I have used the Deng text in Diagnosis (OM 2), in

Pattern ID (OM 3) and then again in classes where we

look at individual symptoms and think about how these

symptoms can contribute to our diagnosis (2nd year

courses on clinical integration of theory). There is

a lot of valuable material in it that is very

accessible once the reader becomes familiar with the

language and it is made even better if the teacher is

familiar with the language and can clarify concepts.

 

Marnae

 

--- Alwin van Egmond <

wrote:

 

> Hi Bill

>

> In my humble opinion, THE dictionary to use

> alongside Deng Tie Tao

> Practical Diagnosis is the PD, Practical Dictionary

> of Chinese

> Medicine.

>

> See:

>

http://www.redwingbooks.com/products/books/PraDicChiMed.cfm

> for a description and sample text.

>

> The Practical Dictionary has full explanatory

> descriptions of each of

> the terms used.

>

> I love it.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Alwin

>

> , " Bill

> Schoenbart "

> <plantmed2 wrote:

> >

> > Could somebody post the full titles and authore of

> the two TCM

> terminology

> > dictionaries that are being discussed? I am

> currently teaching a

> TCM

> > Foundations course that uses the older TCM

> terminology (deficiency,

> excess,

> > etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required

> for the

> Califorrnia

> > boards, the students are finding it difficult to

> understand some of

> the

> > terms in his book. For example, the book mentions

> " Construction

> Blood " but

> > fails to define it. Would either of the

> dictionaries under

> discussion be the

> > best sources for defining this type of

> terminology?

> >

> > My take on this debate has always been twofold:

> Yes, it is a good

> idea to

> > more accurately translate medical Chinese. No, the

> job has not been

> done

> > well. By selecting English terms that are obscure,

> the student is

> forced to

> > translate both Chinese and English terms while

> trying to understand

> a new

> > concept. I wish that more common English terms had

> been chosen.

> >

> > That said, the new terminology is not going away.

> I would like to

> introduce

> > a concise text to new students, so they can

> understand Deng's book.

> > Currently, they find it to be dense and difficult

> to understand.

> >

> > - Bill Schoenbart

> >

> >

> > [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]

The terms are in the Wiseman/Feng " Practical Dictionary of Chinese

Medicine " . Xie Zhu-fan's dictionary is not, to my knowledge, used

rigorously as a source for any particular author's work. At least

I've never seen it cited as a source.

 

 

On Mar 14, 2006, at 10:25 AM, Bill Schoenbart wrote:

 

> Could somebody post the full titles and authore of the two TCM

> terminology

> dictionaries that are being discussed? I am currently teaching a TCM

> Foundations course that uses the older TCM terminology (deficiency,

> excess,

> etc.). Now that Deng's Diagnosis book is required for the Califorrnia

> boards, the students are finding it difficult to understand some of

> the

> terms in his book. For example, the book mentions " Construction

> Blood " but

> fails to define it. Would either of the dictionaries under

> discussion be the

> best sources for defining this type of terminology?