Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Has anyone read the article by Bensky, , Chace & Mitchell in the new Lantern magazine? It adds some food for thought to the terminology debate. The main points are that CM is characterized by plurality, flexibility and appropriateness. And that these should be reflected in translation work. I am not so sure that Wiseman actually opposes these characteristics. Some examples are well chosen and highlight historically different meanings of a character that is still in use today (like & #36133;bai4). In all, the article's tone is positive and constructive: " Whatever the methodological bias of the translator, all quality translations will inevitably incorporate aspects of standardisation and pluralism, accurately transmitting the meaning of a text in a manner as accessible as possible. " In the article it is mentioned that translators should have an adequate understanding of the medicine and its language. I believe this is a major issue: not enough sinologists have entered this debate. Respectfully, Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Just FYI - This paper was written for the Asian Medical Nomenclature Debate to be held at the AAOM meetings this week. Bensky et. al's paper was submitted as one of many. Excerpts of the papers are available in the latest American Acupuncturist and full text versions are available online at AAOM.org. Also, Bob Felt will be distributing a CD of several terminology papers written over the years at the conference. I would suggest that in order to have a good conversation about the Lantern paper that all of the papers be read and reviewed. Marnae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 If anyone is interested in reading our (below mentioned) article online, it also appears in the latest AAOM publication, with all the (other) terminology position papers that will be presented this weekend at their conference. The article is on p.51-60 at: http://www.aaom.info/2006_conf_nomenclature_binder.pdf Comments are welcome. - _____ On Behalf Of Tom Verhaeghe Monday, October 16, 2006 11:03 PM Lantern discussion on terminology Has anyone read the article by Bensky, , Chace & Mitchell in the new Lantern magazine? It adds some food for thought to the terminology debate. The main points are that CM is characterized by plurality, flexibility and appropriateness. And that these should be reflected in translation work. I am not so sure that Wiseman actually opposes these characteristics. Some examples are well chosen and highlight historically different meanings of a character that is still in use today (like & #36133;bai4). In all, the article's tone is positive and constructive: " Whatever the methodological bias of the translator, all quality translations will inevitably incorporate aspects of standardisation and pluralism, accurately transmitting the meaning of a text in a manner as accessible as possible. " In the article it is mentioned that translators should have an adequate understanding of the medicine and its language. I believe this is a major issue: not enough sinologists have entered this debate. Respectfully, Tom. 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.