WHO's term list

August 9, 2007

I was made aware that this has been out for several months now.

http://www.wpro.who.int/publications/PUB_9789290612487.htm

Doug

August 10, 2007

Doug,

Thanks for the post…yet another term list… Does anyone know who is actually

using it?

-Jason

_____

On Behalf Of

Thursday, August 09, 2007 11:24 PM

WHO's " term list "

I was made aware that this has been out for several months now.

HYPERLINK

" http://www.wpro.who.int/publications/PUB_9789290612487.htm " http://www.wpro.

-who.int/publicat-ions/PUB_-9789290612487.-htm

Doug

santamonicaacupunct-ure.com

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.10/943 - Release 8/8/2007

5:38 PM

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.10/943 - Release 8/8/2007

5:38 PM

August 10, 2007

Jason, as far as I know no one has had a chance to use it, it is so new. I

wasn't aware of it

this winter when doing the PMPH editing. I assume it's the result of the Beijing

meetings

last year that caused such a brouhaha (what a great word!). I like what I see. I

guess I

could live with Triple Energizer.

Doug

From the introduction:

In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for the Western

Pacific

organized a Working Group for the Standardization of Acupuncture Nomenclature.

After

10 years of effort, a consensus on the proposed standard international

acupuncture

nomenclature was reached by the Regional Office for the Western Pacific¡¯s

Working Group

and then by the WHO Scientific Group in Geneva. In 1991, A Proposed Standard

International Acupuncture Nomenclature was published by WHO in Geneva and

a revised edition of Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature (Part 1 and 2) was

published by

the Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila. Practical use has proven

these WHO

publications to be invaluable contributions to international information

exchange on

acupuncture. However, the publications are still quite limited, only including

nomenclature for the 14 meridians, 361 classical acupuncture points, 8 extra

meridians, 48 extra points, 14 scalp acupuncture lines and a few terms related

to

acupuncture needles. Moreover, to meet the increasing demands of practice,

education,

research and exchange of information, there is an urgent need to develop

standardized

terminology and nomenclature for TRM as a whole.

>

August 10, 2007

" Triple Energizer " ... Hmmm, reminds me of the Energizer Bunny (a long-lived

battery-operated toy, for those of you who haven't seen the commercials on

television). It brings to mind a picture of an Energizer Bunny with 3 heads and

makes me laugh hard, out loud! Either that, or 3 batteries, each located within

one jiao, sort of like power packs that a super hero might have! Ha ha!

Indeed, as in " brouhaha! "

wrote: Jason, as far as I know no one has

had a chance to use it, it is so new. I wasn't aware of it

this winter when doing the PMPH editing. I assume it's the result of the Beijing

meetings

last year that caused such a brouhaha (what a great word!). I like what I see. I

guess I

could live with Triple Energizer.

Doug

From the introduction:

In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for the Western

Pacific

organized a Working Group for the Standardization of Acupuncture Nomenclature.

After

10 years of effort, a consensus on the proposed standard international

acupuncture

nomenclature was reached by the Regional Office for the Western Pacific¡¯s

Working Group

and then by the WHO Scientific Group in Geneva. In 1991, A Proposed Standard

International Acupuncture Nomenclature was published by WHO in Geneva and

a revised edition of Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature (Part 1 and 2) was

published by

the Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila. Practical use has proven

these WHO

publications to be invaluable contributions to international information

exchange on

acupuncture. However, the publications are still quite limited, only including

nomenclature for the 14 meridians, 361 classical acupuncture points, 8 extra

meridians, 48 extra points, 14 scalp acupuncture lines and a few terms related

to

acupuncture needles. Moreover, to meet the increasing demands of practice,

education,

research and exchange of information, there is an urgent need to develop

standardized

terminology and nomenclature for TRM as a whole.

>

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a

practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

August 10, 2007

I strongly disagree. The list is a pastiche, inconsistent, mixing

different terminologies to no positive effect. This list is simply a

political move to satisfy different factions, there is no clear

methodology behind it. Maybe we should start speaking about the

triple energizer bunny.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, wrote:

> Jason, as far as I know no one has had a chance to use it, it is so

> new. I wasn't aware of it

> this winter when doing the PMPH editing. I assume it's the result

> of the Beijing meetings

> last year that caused such a brouhaha (what a great word!). I like

> what I see. I guess I

> could live with Triple Energizer.

>

> Doug

>

> From the introduction:

> In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for

> the Western Pacific

> organized a Working Group for the Standardization of Acupuncture

> Nomenclature. After

> 10 years of effort, a consensus on the proposed standard

> international acupuncture

> nomenclature was reached by the Regional Office for the Western

> Pacific¡¯s Working Group

> and then by the WHO Scientific Group in Geneva. In 1991, A Proposed

> Standard

> International Acupuncture Nomenclature was published by WHO in

> Geneva and

> a revised edition of Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature (Part 1 and

> 2) was published by

> the Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila. Practical

> use has proven these WHO

> publications to be invaluable contributions to international

> information exchange on

> acupuncture. However, the publications are still quite limited,

> only including

> nomenclature for the 14 meridians, 361 classical acupuncture

> points, 8 extra

> meridians, 48 extra points, 14 scalp acupuncture lines and a few

> terms related to

> acupuncture needles. Moreover, to meet the increasing demands of

> practice, education,

> research and exchange of information, there is an urgent need to

> develop standardized

> terminology and nomenclature for TRM as a whole.

>

> >

>

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

August 10, 2007

Z’ev,

Could you explain what you mean by “no clear methodology behind it?” what is

it lacking as far as methodology, and what do others have that it doesn’t?

As far as I see it, a list of terms with translations is just that. If one

likes one may debate actual choices, i.e. triber energizer, but methodology?

Hhmmm?

-Jason

_____

On Behalf Of

Friday, August 10, 2007 8:57 AM

Re: WHO's " term list "

I strongly disagree. The list is a pastiche, inconsistent, mixing

different terminologies to no positive effect. This list is simply a

political move to satisfy different factions, there is no clear

methodology behind it. Maybe we should start speaking about the

triple energizer bunny.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, wrote:

> Jason, as far as I know no one has had a chance to use it, it is so

> new. I wasn't aware of it

> this winter when doing the PMPH editing. I assume it's the result

> of the Beijing meetings

> last year that caused such a brouhaha (what a great word!). I like

> what I see. I guess I

> could live with Triple Energizer.

>

> Doug

>

> From the introduction:

> In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for

> the Western Pacific

> organized a Working Group for the Standardization of Acupuncture

> Nomenclature. After

> 10 years of effort, a consensus on the proposed standard

> international acupuncture

> nomenclature was reached by the Regional Office for the Western

> Pacific¡¯s Working Group

> and then by the WHO Scientific Group in Geneva. In 1991, A Proposed

> Standard

> International Acupuncture Nomenclature was published by WHO in

> Geneva and

> a revised edition of Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature (Part 1 and

> 2) was published by

> the Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila. Practical

> use has proven these WHO

> publications to be invaluable contributions to international

> information exchange on

> acupuncture. However, the publications are still quite limited,

> only including

> nomenclature for the 14 meridians, 361 classical acupuncture

> points, 8 extra

> meridians, 48 extra points, 14 scalp acupuncture lines and a few

> terms related to

> acupuncture needles. Moreover, to meet the increasing demands of

> practice, education,

> research and exchange of information, there is an urgent need to

> develop standardized

> terminology and nomenclature for TRM as a whole.

>

> santamonicaacupunct-ure.com

> >

>

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

August 10, 2007

Jason,

The WHO list looks like a pastiche of different authors and

dictionaries, some of Xie Zhufan, some of Nigel Wiseman, and it isn't

very consistent when you read through it. It smells of compromise

and politics to me, and that's all I'm going to say about it here.

In other words, it doesn't read to me like the term list was chosen

for consistency, readability, utility, or any other reason. It is

confusing at best.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:00 PM, wrote:

> Z’ev,

>

> Could you explain what you mean by “no clear methodology behind

> it?” what is

> it lacking as far as methodology, and what do others have that it

> doesn’t?

>

> As far as I see it, a list of terms with translations is just that.

> If one

> likes one may debate actual choices, i.e. triber energizer, but

> methodology?

> Hhmmm?

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

> On Behalf Of Z'ev

> Rosenberg

> Friday, August 10, 2007 8:57 AM

>

> Re: WHO's " term list "

>

> I strongly disagree. The list is a pastiche, inconsistent, mixing

> different terminologies to no positive effect. This list is simply a

> political move to satisfy different factions, there is no clear

> methodology behind it. Maybe we should start speaking about the

> triple energizer bunny.

>

> On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, wrote:

>

> > Jason, as far as I know no one has had a chance to use it, it is so

> > new. I wasn't aware of it

> > this winter when doing the PMPH editing. I assume it's the result

> > of the Beijing meetings

> > last year that caused such a brouhaha (what a great word!). I like

> > what I see. I guess I

> > could live with Triple Energizer.

> >

> > Doug

> >

> > From the introduction:

> > In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for

> > the Western Pacific

> > organized a Working Group for the Standardization of Acupuncture

> > Nomenclature. After

> > 10 years of effort, a consensus on the proposed standard

> > international acupuncture

> > nomenclature was reached by the Regional Office for the Western

> > Pacific¡¯s Working Group

> > and then by the WHO Scientific Group in Geneva. In 1991, A Proposed

> > Standard

> > International Acupuncture Nomenclature was published by WHO in

> > Geneva and

> > a revised edition of Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature (Part 1 and

> > 2) was published by

> > the Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila. Practical

> > use has proven these WHO

> > publications to be invaluable contributions to international

> > information exchange on

> > acupuncture. However, the publications are still quite limited,

> > only including

> > nomenclature for the 14 meridians, 361 classical acupuncture

> > points, 8 extra

> > meridians, 48 extra points, 14 scalp acupuncture lines and a few

> > terms related to

> > acupuncture needles. Moreover, to meet the increasing demands of

> > practice, education,

> > research and exchange of information, there is an urgent need to

> > develop standardized

> > terminology and nomenclature for TRM as a whole.

> >

> > santamonicaacupunct-ure.com

> > >

> >

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

August 10, 2007

Z'ev,

I am having a hard time understanding how the creation of WHO's list could

have be done any other way without completely adopting a single preexisting

term set.

Are you bitter because they did not adopt Wiseman as many people pushed for?

I still am unclear what you mean by methodology? Maybe you could provide an

example.

-Jason

>

> On Behalf Of

> Friday, August 10, 2007 6:18 PM

>

> Re: WHO's " term list "

>

> Jason,

> The WHO list looks like a pastiche of different authors and

> dictionaries, some of Xie Zhufan, some of Nigel Wiseman, and it isn't

> very consistent when you read through it. It smells of compromise

> and politics to me, and that's all I'm going to say about it here.

> In other words, it doesn't read to me like the term list was chosen

> for consistency, readability, utility, or any other reason. It is

> confusing at best.

>

> On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:00 PM, wrote:

>

> > Z’ev,

> >

> > Could you explain what you mean by “no clear methodology behind

> > it?” what is

> > it lacking as far as methodology, and what do others have that it

> > doesn’t?

> >

> > As far as I see it, a list of terms with translations is just that.

> > If one

> > likes one may debate actual choices, i.e. triber energizer, but

> > methodology?

> > Hhmmm?

> >

> > -Jason

> >

> > _____

> >

> > On Behalf Of Z'ev

> > Rosenberg

> > Friday, August 10, 2007 8:57 AM

> >

> > Re: WHO's " term list "

> >

> > I strongly disagree. The list is a pastiche, inconsistent, mixing

> > different terminologies to no positive effect. This list is simply a

> > political move to satisfy different factions, there is no clear

> > methodology behind it. Maybe we should start speaking about the

> > triple energizer bunny.

> >

> > On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:08 AM, wrote:

> >

> > > Jason, as far as I know no one has had a chance to use it, it is so

> > > new. I wasn't aware of it

> > > this winter when doing the PMPH editing. I assume it's the result

> > > of the Beijing meetings

> > > last year that caused such a brouhaha (what a great word!). I like

> > > what I see. I guess I

> > > could live with Triple Energizer.

> > >

> > > Doug

> > >

> > > From the introduction:

> > > In 1981, the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for

> > > the Western Pacific

> > > organized a Working Group for the Standardization of Acupuncture

> > > Nomenclature. After

> > > 10 years of effort, a consensus on the proposed standard

> > > international acupuncture

> > > nomenclature was reached by the Regional Office for the Western

> > > Pacific¡¯s Working Group

> > > and then by the WHO Scientific Group in Geneva. In 1991, A Proposed

> > > Standard

> > > International Acupuncture Nomenclature was published by WHO in

> > > Geneva and

> > > a revised edition of Standard Acupuncture Nomenclature (Part 1 and

> > > 2) was published by

> > > the Regional Office for the Western Pacific in Manila. Practical

> > > use has proven these WHO

> > > publications to be invaluable contributions to international

> > > information exchange on

> > > acupuncture. However, the publications are still quite limited,

> > > only including

> > > nomenclature for the 14 meridians, 361 classical acupuncture

> > > points, 8 extra

> > > meridians, 48 extra points, 14 scalp acupuncture lines and a few

> > > terms related to

> > > acupuncture needles. Moreover, to meet the increasing demands of

> > > practice, education,

> > > research and exchange of information, there is an urgent need to

> > > develop standardized

> > > terminology and nomenclature for TRM as a whole.

> > >

> > > santamonicaacupunct-ure.com

> > > >

> > >

> >

> > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> > San Diego, Ca. 92122

> >

August 10, 2007

Jason,

I'm not implying that they should have adapted the Wiseman list

wholesale. No, I am not bitter. Please don't assume that of me. I

am simply disappointed that something that is fairly important in

bridging the Chinese/English language gap in Chinese medicine was

presented in, my opinion, a slip-shod manner. At the same time, its

very presence does indicate that terminology is an important issue in

the presentation of Chinese medicine to the West.

Eric Brand was at the WHO meetings, perhaps he can fill you in on the

process for choosing this list. I certainly am disappointed with the

results. I am curious why they chose the terms they did, the choices

make little sense to me.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:30 PM, wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> I am having a hard time understanding how the creation of WHO's

> list could

> have be done any other way without completely adopting a single

> preexisting

> term set.

>

> Are you bitter because they did not adopt Wiseman as many people

> pushed for?

>

> I still am unclear what you mean by methodology? Maybe you could

> provide an

> example.

>

> -Jason

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

August 10, 2007

I'm OK with what I've seen so far. I think a big limitation and departure for

many of us is

that they refused to use pinyin. I don't know for sure but I could imagine this

may be an

Asian issue of using mandarin over other languages and dialect. The PMPH people

liked

the nutrient for Ying which was hard to accept. Just as Jason says that some

terms will

fade away, the more we use them the more " standard " they will become.

Doug

, " " wrote:

>

> Z'ev,

>

> Just for the record I am not endorsing or not endorsing any term set. But I

> do have one other point.

>

> I see no problem with the WHO using terms that are used in other terms sets.

> This seems like an obvious evolution. In doing so, the WHO now has their own

> system. Does it matter if they chose to use terms that have been used in

> other term sets? Why should they have to come up with new terms for

> everything? That is impossible. Just as silly is to just endorse another's

> term set, as is, especially if they do not like it. I see no reason that

> they cannot take the best from everyone and use it the way they see fit. One

> can choose to adopt it or not.

>

> But no one can complain that it is not disclosed to the public. It is

> available to source the Chinese, as are many other people's term sets. It is

> now open source and as far as I see it, they have as much legitimacy as

> anyone else. The real test is to see if people use it and like it. The

> people that translate, teach, practice, and study are the real decision

> makers, not a single person or committee. I personally don't think I will

> use it.

>

> But as with all terms, time will tell. The terms that people don't like will

> just fade away.

>

> Comments?

>

> -

>

> _____

>

> On Behalf Of

> Friday, August 10, 2007 8:57 AM

>

> Re: WHO's " term list "

>

> I strongly disagree. The list is a pastiche, inconsistent, mixing

> different terminologies to no positive effect. This list is simply a

> political move to satisfy different factions, there is no clear

> methodology behind it. Maybe we should start speaking about the

> triple energizer bunny.

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.11/944 - Release 8/9/2007

> 2:44 PM

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.11/944 - Release 8/9/2007

> 2:44 PM

>

August 11, 2007

Z’ev,

Sorry to have assumed… I really did not mean to direct my comment to you

personally. However, I find it hard not to react when I see non-Wiseman

attempts at terminology met with instant resistance.

BTW- I have heard contrary views of what happen at the WHO meetings. There

definitely was some heat. But at this point it time, the past is essentially

moot, and the work stands for itself.

But if we are going to call the WHO’s work “slip-shod,” I think that we need

to present some strong examples of errors. Clearly the WHO spent much time

and had input from many sources before their decisions were made. More input

than any other term set (that I know of).

Furthermore, merely disagreeing with a term here or there, IMO, is not

enough. Such disagreements will inevitably happen when evaluating any

term-set. Why? because people like to express themselves in different

fashions. This is precisely why I stand for plurality. We all can have a say

and learn from each other.

In the same breath, evaluation is important. Therefore, I welcome well

thought out critiques on any term set.

As things unfold, I think we see that having just 1 term set for everyone is

just never going to happen. Therefore we have to figure out what to do. This

is precisely what the last AAOM (2006) conference what about. So we have a

choice, we can bash all term sets that are not our own, essentially

perpetuating this war. Or….?

Comments?

-Jason

_____

On Behalf Of

Friday, August 10, 2007 6:41 PM

Re: WHO's " term list "

Jason,

I'm not implying that they should have adapted the Wiseman list

wholesale. No, I am not bitter. Please don't assume that of me. I

am simply disappointed that something that is fairly important in

bridging the Chinese/English language gap in Chinese medicine was

presented in, my opinion, a slip-shod manner. At the same time, its

very presence does indicate that terminology is an important issue in

the presentation of Chinese medicine to the West.

Eric Brand was at the WHO meetings, perhaps he can fill you in on the

process for choosing this list. I certainly am disappointed with the

results. I am curious why they chose the terms they did, the choices

make little sense to me.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:30 PM, wrote:

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.11/944 - Release 8/9/2007

2:44 PM

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.11/944 - Release 8/9/2007

2:44 PM

August 13, 2007

I guess you didn't get up to 'crapulent syncope' for shi2 jue2, which

Wiseman translates as 'food reversal'. As difficult as some folks

have it with Wiseman terminology, I don't think English translations

like this will get very far. Someone I don't think we'll hear this

one in many Western CM clinics.

I've heard that one TCM college in the West is adapting the WHO list

as their terminology standard. I certainly hope this is not a trend,

because this list is definitely a devolution if adapted in this

manner. There are many other problems with this list, this is just

one example.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:52 PM, wrote:

> I'm OK with what I've seen so far. I think a big limitation and

> departure for many of us is

> that they refused to use pinyin.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

August 13, 2007

boy what is it with these guys cant they find simple terms

-

Monday, August 13, 2007 7:00 PM

Re: WHO's " term list "

I guess you didn't get up to 'crapulent syncope' for shi2 jue2, which

Wiseman translates as 'food reversal'. As difficult as some folks

have it with Wiseman terminology, I don't think English translations

like this will get very far. Someone I don't think we'll hear this

one in many Western CM clinics.

I've heard that one TCM college in the West is adapting the WHO list

as their terminology standard. I certainly hope this is not a trend,

because this list is definitely a devolution if adapted in this

manner. There are many other problems with this list, this is just

one example.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:52 PM, wrote:

> I'm OK with what I've seen so far. I think a big limitation and

> departure for many of us is

> that they refused to use pinyin.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

August 13, 2007

On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:16 AM, wrote:

> Z’ev,

>

> Sorry to have assumed… I really did not mean to direct my comment

> to you

> personally. However, I find it hard not to react when I see non-

> Wiseman

> attempts at terminology met with instant resistance.

I find it ironic that so many people bellowed about some of Wiseman's

term choices, such as depurative downbearing/su2 jiang2, and don't

have anything to say (so far) about 'crapulent syndrome' for shi2

jue2 on the WHO list, among other whoppers. I've never had much

critique of Eastland terms, Jason, they seem quite intelligent to me,

as the translators are fluent in English as well as conversant in

medical Chinese language,

>

> BTW- I have heard contrary views of what happen at the WHO

> meetings. There

> definitely was some heat. But at this point it time, the past is

> essentially

> moot, and the work stands for itself.

No, I think it is important to realize that this list was chosen by a

committee, one that included members without any knowledge of Chinese

medicine, and members with limited English language skills. Paul

Unschuld was so upset he walked out of one of the meetings. The end

result is potentially a great problem if it gets adapted by TCM

colleges and publishers as a de-facto standard, because it is a

blending of term choices by different authors, without explaining

many of those choices.

>

> But if we are going to call the WHO’s work “slip-shod,” I think

> that we need

> to present some strong examples of errors. Clearly the WHO spent

> much time

> and had input from many sources before their decisions were made.

> More input

> than any other term set (that I know of).

The Wiseman terminology lists had a great deal of input from

clinicians and translators. Nigel himself flew to Germany to get

Paul Unschuld's input. It wasn't a back-room political deal.

>

> Furthermore, merely disagreeing with a term here or there, IMO, is not

> enough. Such disagreements will inevitably happen when evaluating any

> term-set. Why? because people like to express themselves in different

> fashions. This is precisely why I stand for plurality. We all can

> have a say

> and learn from each other.

Jason, every academic and literary undertaking has standards in order

to maintain quality. There are such variations in style, explanation

of terms, and quality of translation that I don't think that making

an international standard out of a list like this is very helpful.

Just accepting it because it has some eclecticism may be 'politically

correct', but it doesn't make it right or desirable.

>

August 13, 2007

Personally, I feel that the issue has to do with Chinese scientists and

translators who use scientific dictionaries without understanding English. The

terminology that is used in some of the English Chinese texts ranges from the

ridiculous to the sublime. Wiseman, on the other hand is not only a scholar of

Chinese medicine, but of English as well, and so the terminology he uses really

reflects a more precise flavor of what the Chinese term is trying to convey.

If we don't understand scholarly medical terminology that is our vacuity not his

repletion!

Yehuda

Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote:

boy what is it with these guys cant they find simple terms

-

Monday, August 13, 2007 7:00 PM

Re: WHO's " term list "

I guess you didn't get up to 'crapulent syncope' for shi2 jue2, which

Wiseman translates as 'food reversal'. As difficult as some folks

have it with Wiseman terminology, I don't think English translations

like this will get very far. Someone I don't think we'll hear this

one in many Western CM clinics.

I've heard that one TCM college in the West is adapting the WHO list

as their terminology standard. I certainly hope this is not a trend,

because this list is definitely a devolution if adapted in this

manner. There are many other problems with this list, this is just

one example.

On Aug 10, 2007, at 7:52 PM, wrote:

> I'm OK with what I've seen so far. I think a big limitation and

> departure for many of us is

> that they refused to use pinyin.

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

August 13, 2007

Z'ev,

You seem to have misunderstood my point. To be clear, I am in no way

advocating that the WHO list (or any for that matter) should be an

international standard. My point is simply for plurality. I support any

person or group's voice. That is it. You may like one term, another may like

another. Ok... But the masses (of CM) ultimately make the decisions and the

cream seems to rise.

However, such hybrid lists may be the way of the future. We shall see. For

example, when I translate I now use a hybrid gloss. Quite simply certain

Chinese authors use words in different ways and I find that different

English translation capture the essence better in different situations. But

ultimately I strive for clarity and readability and if transparency is

possible than all the better.

My 2 cents...

-Jason

(Jason Said)

> > Furthermore, merely disagreeing with a term here or there, IMO, is not

> > enough. Such disagreements will inevitably happen when evaluating any

> > term-set. Why? because people like to express themselves in different

> > fashions. This is precisely why I stand for plurality. We all can

> > have a say

> > and learn from each other.

>

(Z'ev said)

> Jason, every academic and literary undertaking has standards in order

> to maintain quality. There are such variations in style, explanation

> of terms, and quality of translation that I don't think that making

> an international standard out of a list like this is very helpful.

> Just accepting it because it has some eclecticism may be 'politically

> correct', but it doesn't make it right or desirable.

>

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release 8/13/2007

10:15 AM

August 13, 2007

Jason,

As a translator, I certainly can understand the utility of what

you are speaking about. However, the WHO list doesn't do that job.

It is not well sourced enough to do it, and is not of a quality to be

of utilitarian value.

I much prefer Eric Brand's compound lists, where he has the

Wiseman, Eastland and Zhufan lists side by side. It makes it much

easier, without compromising, watering down, or mixing up anything.

On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:18 PM, wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> You seem to have misunderstood my point. To be clear, I am in no way

> advocating that the WHO list (or any for that matter) should be an

> international standard. My point is simply for plurality. I support

> any

> person or group's voice. That is it. You may like one term, another

> may like

> another. Ok... But the masses (of CM) ultimately make the decisions

> and the

> cream seems to rise.

>

> However, such hybrid lists may be the way of the future. We shall

> see. For

> example, when I translate I now use a hybrid gloss. Quite simply

> certain

> Chinese authors use words in different ways and I find that different

> English translation capture the essence better in different

> situations. But

> ultimately I strive for clarity and readability and if transparency is

> possible than all the better.

>

> My 2 cents...

>

> -Jason

>

> (Jason Said)

>>> Furthermore, merely disagreeing with a term here or there, IMO,

>>> is not

>>> enough. Such disagreements will inevitably happen when evaluating

>>> any

>>> term-set. Why? because people like to express themselves in

>>> different

>>> fashions. This is precisely why I stand for plurality. We all can

>>> have a say

>>> and learn from each other.

>>

> (Z'ev said)

>

>> Jason, every academic and literary undertaking has standards in order

>> to maintain quality. There are such variations in style, explanation

>> of terms, and quality of translation that I don't think that making

>> an international standard out of a list like this is very helpful.

>> Just accepting it because it has some eclecticism may be 'politically

>> correct', but it doesn't make it right or desirable.

>>

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date:

> 8/13/2007

> 10:15 AM

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including a practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

>

August 14, 2007

Z’ev,

Not to drag this on, but what do you mean by “not well sourced”?

-Jason

_____

On Behalf Of

Monday, August 13, 2007 11:45 PM

Re: WHO's " term list "

Jason,

As a translator, I certainly can understand the utility of what

you are speaking about. However, the WHO list doesn't do that job.

It is not well sourced enough to do it, and is not of a quality to be

of utilitarian value.

I much prefer Eric Brand's compound lists, where he has the

Wiseman, Eastland and Zhufan lists side by side. It makes it much

easier, without compromising, watering down, or mixing up anything.

On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:18 PM, wrote:

> Z'ev,

>

> You seem to have misunderstood my point. To be clear, I am in no way

> advocating that the WHO list (or any for that matter) should be an

> international standard. My point is simply for plurality. I support

> any

> person or group's voice. That is it. You may like one term, another

> may like

> another. Ok... But the masses (of CM) ultimately make the decisions

> and the

> cream seems to rise.

>

> However, such hybrid lists may be the way of the future. We shall

> see. For

> example, when I translate I now use a hybrid gloss. Quite simply

> certain

> Chinese authors use words in different ways and I find that different

> English translation capture the essence better in different

> situations. But

> ultimately I strive for clarity and readability and if transparency is

> possible than all the better.

>

> My 2 cents...

>

> -Jason

>

> (Jason Said)

>>> Furthermore, merely disagreeing with a term here or there, IMO,

>>> is not

>>> enough. Such disagreements will inevitably happen when evaluating

>>> any

>>> term-set. Why? because people like to express themselves in

>>> different

>>> fashions. This is precisely why I stand for plurality. We all can

>>> have a say

>>> and learn from each other.

>>

> (Z'ev said)

>

>> Jason, every academic and literary undertaking has standards in order

>> to maintain quality. There are such variations in style, explanation

>> of terms, and quality of translation that I don't think that making

>> an international standard out of a list like this is very helpful.

>> Just accepting it because it has some eclecticism may be 'politically

>> correct', but it doesn't make it right or desirable.

>>

>

> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date:

> 8/13/2007

> 10:15 AM

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including a practitioner'-s directory and a moderated discussion forum.

>

> HYPERLINK

" http://www..org " http://www.chineseh-erbacademy.-org

>

August 14, 2007

Correct me if I'm wrong but the problem with making your own list is that then

one may

need an appendix to correlate the unfamiliar words to the character. Again, I

feel this is

more important for translators and not so much with original writers.

Doug

, " " <zrosenbe

wrote:

>

> Jason,

> As a translator, I certainly can understand the utility of what

> you are speaking about. However, the WHO list doesn't do that job.

> It is not well sourced enough to do it, and is not of a quality to be

> of utilitarian value.

>

> I much prefer Eric Brand's compound lists, where he has the

> Wiseman, Eastland and Zhufan lists side by side. It makes it much

> easier, without compromising, watering down, or mixing up anything.

>

> On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:18 PM, wrote:

>

> > Z'ev,

> >

> > You seem to have misunderstood my point. To be clear, I am in no way

> > advocating that the WHO list (or any for that matter) should be an

> > international standard. My point is simply for plurality. I support

> > any

> > person or group's voice. That is it. You may like one term, another

> > may like

> > another. Ok... But the masses (of CM) ultimately make the decisions

> > and the

> > cream seems to rise.

> >

> > However, such hybrid lists may be the way of the future. We shall

> > see. For

> > example, when I translate I now use a hybrid gloss. Quite simply

> > certain

> > Chinese authors use words in different ways and I find that different

> > English translation capture the essence better in different

> > situations. But

> > ultimately I strive for clarity and readability and if transparency is

> > possible than all the better.

> >

> > My 2 cents...

> >

> > -Jason

>

August 14, 2007

Z'ev, where can we see Eric Brand's compound list?

This would be useful as a tool in teaching both practitioners and patients.

Thanks.

On 8/13/07, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Jason,

> As a translator, I certainly can understand the utility of what

> you are speaking about. However, the WHO list doesn't do that job.

> It is not well sourced enough to do it, and is not of a quality to be

> of utilitarian value.

>

> I much prefer Eric Brand's compound lists, where he has the

> Wiseman, Eastland and Zhufan lists side by side. It makes it much

> easier, without compromising, watering down, or mixing up anything.

>

> On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:18 PM, wrote:

>

> > Z'ev,

--

aka Mu bong Lim

Father of Bhakti

Confidentiality Notice: THE INFORMATION AND ANY ATTACHMENTS CONTAINED IN

THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF

THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message may be proprietary

and/or attorney-client communication, and as such is privileged and

confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient

or any agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you

are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that

any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,

please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to

us by mail. Thank you.

August 14, 2007

Simply that the source of each term choice is not explained anywhere

to my knowledge.

Z'ev

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, wrote:

> Z’ev,

>

> Not to drag this on, but what do you mean by “not well sourced”?

>

> -Jason

>

> _____

>

> On Behalf Of Z'ev

> Rosenberg

> Monday, August 13, 2007 11:45 PM

>

> Re: WHO's " term list "

>

> Jason,

> As a translator, I certainly can understand the utility of what

> you are speaking about. However, the WHO list doesn't do that job.

> It is not well sourced enough to do it, and is not of a quality to be

> of utilitarian value.

>

> I much prefer Eric Brand's compound lists, where he has the

> Wiseman, Eastland and Zhufan lists side by side. It makes it much

> easier, without compromising, watering down, or mixing up anything.

>

> On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:18 PM, wrote:

>

>> Z'ev,

>>

>> You seem to have misunderstood my point. To be clear, I am in no way

>> advocating that the WHO list (or any for that matter) should be an

>> international standard. My point is simply for plurality. I support

>> any

>> person or group's voice. That is it. You may like one term, another

>> may like

>> another. Ok... But the masses (of CM) ultimately make the decisions

>> and the

>> cream seems to rise.

>>

>> However, such hybrid lists may be the way of the future. We shall

>> see. For

>> example, when I translate I now use a hybrid gloss. Quite simply

>> certain

>> Chinese authors use words in different ways and I find that different

>> English translation capture the essence better in different

>> situations. But

>> ultimately I strive for clarity and readability and if

>> transparency is

>> possible than all the better.

>>

>> My 2 cents...

>>

>> -Jason

>>

>> (Jason Said)

>>>> Furthermore, merely disagreeing with a term here or there, IMO,

>>>> is not

>>>> enough. Such disagreements will inevitably happen when evaluating

>>>> any

>>>> term-set. Why? because people like to express themselves in

>>>> different

>>>> fashions. This is precisely why I stand for plurality. We all can

>>>> have a say

>>>> and learn from each other.

>>>

>> (Z'ev said)

>>

>>> Jason, every academic and literary undertaking has standards in

>>> order

>>> to maintain quality. There are such variations in style, explanation

>>> of terms, and quality of translation that I don't think that making

>>> an international standard out of a list like this is very helpful.

>>> Just accepting it because it has some eclecticism may be

>>> 'politically

>>> correct', but it doesn't make it right or desirable.

>>>

>>

>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.17/951 - Release Date:

>> 8/13/2007

>> 10:15 AM

>>

>> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

>> including a practitioner'-s directory and a moderated discussion

>> forum.

>>

>> HYPERLINK

> " http://www..org " http://www.chineseh-erbacademy.-org

>>

August 14, 2007

John,

Here is Eric’s Eastland / Wiseman list:

HYPERLINK

" Chinese Medicine/index.php?page=terminology " http://www.chi

nesemedicinedoc.com/index.php?page=terminology

But it does not contain zhu fan’s… If someone has this could they please let

us know…

Thanks,

-Jason

_____

On Behalf Of

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 8:30 AM

Re: WHO's " term list "

Z'ev, where can we see Eric Brand's compound list?

This would be useful as a tool in teaching both practitioners and patients.

Thanks.

On 8/13/07, <HYPERLINK

" zrosenbe%40san.rr.com " zrosenbe (AT) san (DOT) -rr.com> wrote: