Stasis Book/eskimos and snow

June 13, 2007

Jason, et al.,

I just picked up Neeb's book from the library yesterday. It is his own work, not

a translation. He describes the book as a banquet, perhaps he meant buffet? It

is interesting, and there is a lot of information from a wide variety of

sources, and my sense so far is that he is a thoughtful guy.Ironically, he

spends six pages at the beginning of the book talking about translation style

and terminological issues, including the difference between yu xue and xue yu:

" However, even present day Chinese textbooks allow 'Yu Xue' and sometimes 'Xue

Yu', which in 1989 at the national research committee for blood stasis was[sic]

defined as 'Blood Stasis " and " Static Blood " , i.e., the former being a syndrome,

the latter a state of the blood. So is it really necessary for ordinary TCM

practitioners to pay attention to this apparently minor quibbling about minor

details? The answer is yes " [p. xxv my emphasis added.]

In regards to the translation, so far he seems consistent with the cover. I spot

checked the yi lin gai cuo description of tong qiao huo xue tang and it does not

appear that he makes any clear distinction between blood stasis as process and

static blood as an object. In the section on drinker's nose he translates

É«ºìÊÇðöÑª as " The red veining points towards blood stasis " [p 194 col1] which

is a bit more interpolation than I would like. He leads off by translating

Ôã±Ç×Ó as rosacea, where the term translates as " drinker's nose " or " brandy

nose " which is considered a separate phenomena by Western practitioners. To be

fair, if Wang Qing Ren had distinguished the two phenomena he probably would

have recommended the same treatment, and, obviously, the same etiology, but the

translation is pretty obviously inappropriate. I'll see what he does with it in

the rest of Wang's text.

I don't know that " wrong " is the word for it. Wang looked at corpses, and his

observation of pooled, clotted blood in various locations led him to make

broader observations about blood stasis. Wang's use seems to indicate separate

ideas: palpable lumps of something is yu xue and the phenomena in general is xue

yu, but yu xue is always going to be present in cases of xue yu and vice versa,

by definition... I think for clarities sake distinguishing the terms would be

useful, but in a practical sense it could be moot. It seems from your reading

and translation that the issue is not a big problem in terms of comprehension,

but even if the terms or synonymous it makes sense to maintain the integrity of

the text and let end users decide for themselves.

The translation issue in general is the loss of distinctions. While we learn

definitions for things but we adopt distinctions on a deeper level.

Subconsciously we observe more phenomena when we have more ways to distinguish

those phenomena. The only reason to support standard terms is so we all start

out on the same page, and can communicate our ideas clearly and effectively, but

the terminology itself is to my mind secondary or tertiary to a common

understanding of the meaning of the term. The debate around term equivalents is

important only because it seems the majority of the English speakers using the

information will not dig deeper than their gut response to this or that word.

Personally, as a profoundly relativistic person, I don't have any trouble

bending the meaning of a given word to suit my needs, or reading someone else's

uses. But I understand that if I want to communicate with a broader audience

with any precision I'm going to either have to explain everything all over again

as I go along, or I can use a precise and well defined set of terms that have

generally accepted meanings and the message doesn't get buried in the silt of

explanation.

There is a myth that Eskimos have thirty words for snow. In fact, they have a

rich vocabulary that includes terms for snow that is falling, various types of

icy precipitation, different sorts of snowy surfaces and how they are better and

worse for traveling over, and a number of words for sea ice of various

qualities. If Arthur and Bill Eskimo go out hunting one day and Bill decides to

make up a word and tells Arthur the ice is " whiffy " and Arthur doesn't know that

to Bill this means " take one step on it and you're going through " , then he's

taking a header and his leg is lunch for a sea lion. If Bill over generalizes

and tells Arthur " Man, it's just some ice, like, you know " , then Arthur might

die or he might not based on his own understanding and how suspicious or

inquisitive he is. In the context of translating for a generally less

inquisitive practitioner-public we are obliged to go the extra mile. When we

coin our own terminology or lazily compact distinctions and broadcast it without

defining and referencing it we are leading their patients out onto the ice. By

those standards, I think Neeb's book is over generalizing, but so far it has

been an OK read.

Par Scott

Par,

Is Neeb translating yu xue within the text as ¡°static blood¡± and on the

cover as ¡°blood stasis¡±? If so, do you feel that this wrong? It is unclear

to me at this moment...I assume this title is one he made up? Or is it a

translation from a Chinese text? It would be interesting to hear his

perspective on this¡

When I was translating part of the nei ke book I mentioned, I had to toy

around with a similar issue because of the seemingly casual usages of yu xue

and xue yu. Meaning since I could not find any difference in meaning when

they used the terms as patterns for disease I many times would translate the

terms the same (blood stasis). This forwent confusing the reader with some

seemingly artificial distinction, and instead went for transparency. I went

back and forth and never really came up with a good solution. Obviously I

would probably footnote it if I ever decided to publish it ¡

I am wondering what others think about this?

-

June 13, 2007

Thank you Par and group for you posts of blood stasis and the books¡

-Jason

_____

On Behalf Of Par Scott

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:59 AM

Re: Re: Stasis Book/eskimos and snow

Jason, et al.,

I just picked up Neeb's book from the library yesterday. It is his own work,

not a translation. He describes the book as a banquet, perhaps he meant

buffet? It is interesting, and there is a lot of information from a wide

variety of sources, and my sense so far is that he is a thoughtful

guy.Ironically, he spends six pages at the beginning of the book talking

about translation style and terminological issues, including the difference

between yu xue and xue yu:

" However, even present day Chinese textbooks allow 'Yu Xue' and sometimes

'Xue Yu', which in 1989 at the national research committee for blood stasis

was[sic] defined as 'Blood Stasis " and " Static Blood " , i.e., the former

being a syndrome, the latter a state of the blood. So is it really necessary

for ordinary TCM practitioners to pay attention to this apparently minor

quibbling about minor details? The answer is yes " [p. xxv my emphasis added.]

In regards to the translation, so far he seems consistent with the cover. I

spot checked the yi lin gai cuo description of tong qiao huo xue tang and it

does not appear that he makes any clear distinction between blood stasis as

process and static blood as an object. In the section on drinker's nose he

translates É«ºìÊÇðöÑª as " The red veining points towards blood stasis " [p

194 col1] which is a bit more interpolation than I would like. He leads off

by translating Ôã±Ç×Ó as rosacea, where the term translates as " drinker's

nose " or " brandy nose " which is considered a separate phenomena by Western

practitioners. To be fair, if Wang Qing Ren had distinguished the two

phenomena he probably would have recommended the same treatment, and,

obviously, the same etiology, but the translation is pretty obviously

inappropriate. I'll see what he does with it in the rest of Wang's text.

I don't know that " wrong " is the word for it. Wang looked at corpses, and

his observation of pooled, clotted blood in various locations led him to

make broader observations about blood stasis. Wang's use seems to indicate

separate ideas: palpable lumps of something is yu xue and the phenomena in

general is xue yu, but yu xue is always going to be present in cases of xue

yu and vice versa, by definition... I think for clarities sake

distinguishing the terms would be useful, but in a practical sense it could

be moot. It seems from your reading and translation that the issue is not a

big problem in terms of comprehension, but even if the terms or synonymous

it makes sense to maintain the integrity of the text and let end users

decide for themselves.

The translation issue in general is the loss of distinctions. While we learn

definitions for things but we adopt distinctions on a deeper level.

Subconsciously we observe more phenomena when we have more ways to

distinguish those phenomena. The only reason to support standard terms is so

we all start out on the same page, and can communicate our ideas clearly and

effectively, but the terminology itself is to my mind secondary or tertiary

to a common understanding of the meaning of the term. The debate around term

equivalents is important only because it seems the majority of the English

speakers using the information will not dig deeper than their gut response

to this or that word. Personally, as a profoundly relativistic person, I

don't have any trouble bending the meaning of a given word to suit my needs,

or reading someone else's uses. But I understand that if I want to

communicate with a broader audience with any precision I'm going to either

have to explain everything all over again as I go along, or I can use a

precise and well defined set of terms that have generally accepted meanings

and the message doesn't get buried in the silt of explanation.

There is a myth that Eskimos have thirty words for snow. In fact, they have

a rich vocabulary that includes terms for snow that is falling, various

types of icy precipitation, different sorts of snowy surfaces and how they

are better and worse for traveling over, and a number of words for sea ice

of various qualities. If Arthur and Bill Eskimo go out hunting one day and

Bill decides to make up a word and tells Arthur the ice is " whiffy " and

Arthur doesn't know that to Bill this means " take one step on it and you're

going through " , then he's taking a header and his leg is lunch for a sea

lion. If Bill over generalizes and tells Arthur " Man, it's just some ice,

like, you know " , then Arthur might die or he might not based on his own

understanding and how suspicious or inquisitive he is. In the context of

translating for a generally less inquisitive practitioner-public we are

obliged to go the extra mile. When we coin our own terminology or lazily

compact distinctions and broadcast it without defining and referencing it we

are leading their patients out onto the ice. By those standards, I think

Neeb's book is over generalizing, but so far it has been an OK read.