RE: xue yu & yu xue

[Guest guest]

Doug, Phil, et al,

 

 

 

Doug, I think your research (from your colleagues) is very telling. For it

precisely demonstrates the bind that we are in, meaning the difficulties of

translation and standardization and the illusion of having some truth by either

looking up a definition or acquiring one from an outside source. Let’s examine

this. You now have found a definition that you feel comfortable with based on

information you gained from people you trust. Phil has also asked for a precise

equivalent for the terms (xue yu & yu xue). Can this even be accomplished?

 

 

 

One can check the Wiseman dictionary for a precise English definition for each

term. Wiseman’s definition, although quite detailed, does not support Doug’s

colleague’s distinction of noun and verb. Eric’s definition, may be the most

common, and essentially represents two nouns (xue yu being a condition, and yu

xue being the substance that is causing the problem (static blood). My Chinese

dictionary and reading of material I mention present an even different

viewpoint. But none singly can encompass all writings of CM (even modern

mainstream sources). For example, I have pointed out that in a single text both

terms are used interchanglable to discuss a condition or pattern in the body,

i.e. yang xu, yin xu, xue yu (or yu xue). Both then in this case are nouns.

 

 

 

What is the point of all this? Firstly, I would like to explore and hear

other’s opinions about the fundamental concept that definitions really only

exist in context of where they are written.

 

 

 

If one says that xue yu is a verb and yu xue is a noun, this is just incorrect

in many situations. Pinning oneself down to an idea or definition can easily

lead to incorrect assumptions about texts or teachers that do not conform to the

same parameters. This happens quite often when listening to Chinese speakers,

and was exemplified in a earlier post I made about the term “yin fire.â€

 

 

 

I am not though suggesting that one abandon all preconceived ideas,

dictionaries, or definitions and become an empty vessel with nothing to attach

to. I am suggesting that people try out the idea that people will express

themselves differently, and that one person may use a word one way and one may

use it another. I think dictionaries (or at least good ones) try to remedy this

dilemma. Some more successfully then others. For example, a single entry or term

will have multiple usages and meanings from different contexts / sources.

 

 

 

For example if one consults a dictionary for i.e. the NeiJing one can see many

times 6 (or more) entries on how a single term is used in this single text. The

same word will mean very different things. The definition is determined based on

context of the passage. Now image all the other books ever written, and the

quotes and passages that are borrowed and inserted into a new texts. For

example, NeiJing passages that show up in modern texts. This plethora of

possibilities creates very idiosyncratic usages for many authors and very

differing opinions one what a word means. This is because one may be thinking of

one instance and someone else may be thinking of another. In the end one must

grasp what the author is saying (in a given source) not some associated

definition that you impose on a specific term. So is neeb’s cover wrong? Still

a good question….

 

 

 

So yes in a perfect world, everyone would speak and write the same and everyone

would understand 100% of everything, but that is far from reality. I think that

it should be clear that no one dictionary can even come close to addressing all

the various nuances, differences, and usages. And such a perfect world, actually

sounds quite boring…

 

 

 

With daily examples and occurrences that I come across showing the immense

diversity and plurality in Chinese medical literature, I am utterly perplexed at

how some are so adamant about a instilling standardized term set for CM (1 size

fits all approach). I really understand the desire for such a system (especially

for people trying to make sense of confusion, like Phil) but does it do justice

to the diversity and reality of CM? It would be on thing if there was no

ambiguity in Chinese, but clearly their language diversity are at the core of

the issue. It is not just about translating a single concept into English. I

really am not looking to argue these points but am curious what do others think

about this concept, especially people that would like a standardized term set

(whatever that may be)?

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

_____

 

 

On Behalf Of

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:15 AM

 

Re: Stasis Book

 

 

 

I'm sitting here in the Emperors clinic and my colleagues Yang and Lin say that

the

difference between Yu xue and xue Yu is basically that of noun and verb. Makes

my life

much easier knowing that.

 

doug

 

nd my @ <%40>

, " Par Scott " <parufus wrote:

>

> He uses the term xue yu about 36 times in the text, the term yu xue about 25

times.

From a cursory reading I'd say he usually uses yu xue to indicate a specific

incidence of

blood occupying a place like " the blood tubes are green, inside there is static

blood " ( è¡

€ç®¡é?'者，内有瘀血), versus his use of xue

yu as a name for the phenomena

in general, like " the [cause of] profuse dreaming if blood stasis "

(夜ç?¡æ¢¦å¤šï¼Œæ˜¯è¡

€ç˜€).

>

> Par Scott

>

> -

>

> @ <%40>

 

> Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:41 AM

> Re: Re: Stasis Book

>

>