Guest guest Posted June 19, 2006 Report Share Posted June 19, 2006 Eric, I tried to send you a provate message, but my machine froze up. So I'm taking this approach. I'm looking for specific information about the terminology meeting you attended a couple of months ago in Beijing. Specifically: 1. Name & date of meeting 2. Sponsoring entity 3. Voting on English terms by non-English-speakers If you want, you can e-mail me at: bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 , " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001 wrote: > > Eric, > > I tried to send you a provate message, but my machine froze up. So I'm > taking this approach. I'm looking for specific information about the > terminology meeting you attended a couple of months ago in Beijing. > Specifically: > > 1. Name & date of meeting > 2. Sponsoring entity > 3. Voting on English terms by non-English-speakers Here I am. To reach me privately, my main email address is ericbrand AT gmail DOT com (no spaces, @ and . substituted). 1. Name & date of meeting International Conference on Standardization of English Translation of Basic Terminology of , held on 03/31-04/02/2006 in Beijing, China. > 2. Sponsoring entity The Conference was sponsored by the World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies (WFCMS) and the World Federation of Acupuncture- Moxibustion Societies (WFAS). The Preparatory Meeting for Establishment of Specialty Committee of Translation of World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies was also held simultaneously with the Conference. (Eric's note: Ren Min Wei Sheng Chu Ban She, aka People's Medical Publishing House, paid the bill to organize the conference.) > 3. Voting on English terms by non-English-speakers I have now been appointed to be an official advisor to the Specialty Committee of Translation for the World Federation of Societies mentioned above, so I cannot be overly scathing of the methods used. In other words, I can't be impolite or overly critical of WFCMS on a public forum. The people involved are basically good people with good motivations, they just have a lack of knowledge of the Western world and its trends. The top scholar heading up the practical aspects of the WFCMS, Dr. Wang Kui, is a very sincere and dedicated scholar who earnestly seeks to advance the field. He is in a situation where he must balance the differing views of his colleagues. Some people insist that Chinese medicine should be preserved and presented to Westerners without a loss of traditional concepts, others insist that Westerners can only understand scientific logic and will never be able to understand traditional theory and disease names. In the Chinese world, some people think that the future of Chinese medicine lies in scientific integration, others think that traditional theory should be preserved and used clinically. Some people are in the middle, some people are on the edges, more extreme to one side or the other. But yes, the voting on the English terms was a debacle. There were people voting who didn't speak a word of English. There were people voting who didn't know anything about Chinese medicine. A significant amount of time was spent voting about grammatical structures that were bluntly rejected by every native speaker in the room. One of the most prominent Western advisors (Professor Unschuld) walked out of the meeting because it was simply too ridiculous. While 80 year-old Chinese doctors are invaluable advisors to clarify the meaning of Chinese terms through their well-researched explanations, they really cannot decide on standardized English equivalents if they cannot read the sentence " See Jane run. " But here we find them voting on which English grammatical structures are appropriate for international standards. Only in China. Interestingly, with the exception of Wiseman's terms (published in the PRC), none of the term lists that were being considered were assembled by native English speakers. To determine what terminology was used in the West, a collection of Chinese term lists from the PRC was used. One would have thought that they might instead pay attention to books that were used in the West instead. But, China is the center of the world, and has been since ancient times.... Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus wrote: > > 3. Voting on English terms by non-English-speakers Ironically, I suggested to People's Medical Publishing House (the people who were footing the bill for the World Federation of CM Societies' conference) that they invite Craig Mitchell to speak. Since Craig is the dean of a respected Western school, a lead author on the Shang Han Lun (one of the most important texts in the field), and is a bilingual instructor of Chinese medical Chinese, he would seem like an ideal candidate to contribute to the discussion. Perhaps most importantly, he is a colleague of both Wiseman and Bensky so he would be very familiar with a wide range of the issues and disagreements in the English terminological world. But they just laughed and said that Craig was way too young to be invited. Clearly, 80 year olds who don't speak 3 words of English are far more qualified to vote on the world's standards for English CM language. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 20, 2006 Report Share Posted June 20, 2006 Eric, Thanks. This was exactly what I was looking for. I plan on using this information in the AAOM terminology panel discussion. Bob , " Eric Brand " <smilinglotus wrote: > > , " Bob Flaws " > <pemachophel2001@> wrote: > > > > Eric, > > > > I tried to send you a provate message, but my machine froze up. So I'm > > taking this approach. I'm looking for specific information about the > > terminology meeting you attended a couple of months ago in Beijing. > > Specifically: > > > > 1. Name & date of meeting > > 2. Sponsoring entity > > 3. Voting on English terms by non-English-speakers > > Here I am. To reach me privately, my main email address is ericbrand > AT gmail DOT com (no spaces, @ and . substituted). > > 1. Name & date of meeting > International Conference on Standardization of English Translation of > Basic Terminology of , held on 03/31-04/02/2006 in > Beijing, China. > > > 2. Sponsoring entity > The Conference was sponsored by the World Federation of Chinese > Medicine Societies (WFCMS) and the World Federation of Acupuncture- > Moxibustion Societies (WFAS). The Preparatory Meeting for Establishment > of Specialty Committee of Translation of World Federation of Chinese > Medicine Societies was also held simultaneously with the Conference. > > (Eric's note: Ren Min Wei Sheng Chu Ban She, aka People's Medical > Publishing House, paid the bill to organize the conference.) > > > 3. Voting on English terms by non-English-speakers > > I have now been appointed to be an official advisor to the Specialty > Committee of Translation for the World Federation of > Societies mentioned above, so I cannot be overly scathing of the > methods used. In other words, I can't be impolite or overly critical > of WFCMS on a public forum. The people involved are basically good > people with good motivations, they just have a lack of knowledge of the > Western world and its trends. > > The top scholar heading up the practical aspects of the WFCMS, Dr. Wang > Kui, is a very sincere and dedicated scholar who earnestly seeks to > advance the field. He is in a situation where he must balance the > differing views of his colleagues. Some people insist that Chinese > medicine should be preserved and presented to Westerners without a loss > of traditional concepts, others insist that Westerners can only > understand scientific logic and will never be able to understand > traditional theory and disease names. In the Chinese world, some > people think that the future of Chinese medicine lies in scientific > integration, others think that traditional theory should be preserved > and used clinically. Some people are in the middle, some people are on > the edges, more extreme to one side or the other. > > But yes, the voting on the English terms was a debacle. There were > people voting who didn't speak a word of English. There were people > voting who didn't know anything about Chinese medicine. A significant > amount of time was spent voting about grammatical structures that were > bluntly rejected by every native speaker in the room. One of the most > prominent Western advisors (Professor Unschuld) walked out of the > meeting because it was simply too ridiculous. While 80 year-old > Chinese doctors are invaluable advisors to clarify the meaning of > Chinese terms through their well-researched explanations, they really > cannot decide on standardized English equivalents if they cannot read > the sentence " See Jane run. " But here we find them voting on which > English grammatical structures are appropriate for international > standards. Only in China. > > Interestingly, with the exception of Wiseman's terms (published in the > PRC), none of the term lists that were being considered were assembled > by native English speakers. To determine what terminology was used in > the West, a collection of Chinese term lists from the PRC was used. > One would have thought that they might instead pay attention to books > that were used in the West instead. But, China is the center of the > world, and has been since ancient times.... > > Eric > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.