Unschuld Huang Di Nei Jing Su wen Dict

[Guest guest]

I just had a chance to look at Tessenow & Unschuld¡Çs $99 " A Dictionary of

the Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen.¡É I was actually quite surprised to see how

simplified it was. I'm sure he has really good reasons for his choices, but

I am curious what others have thought about this book?

 

 

 

For example, I just checked one common word, shen2 (¿À)

¡Êspirit¡Ë. This

¡Èdictionary¡É essentially only gives two definitions - 1.

(supernatural/human) spirit, 2. Spirit [-like physician]. Actually there are

no definitions, but just translations of a character. Let us look further...

 

 

 

I checked a couple of Chinese Huang Di Nei Jing dictionaries and they seem

much more comprehensive. For example, for (¿À) ¡Êspirit¡Ë one

single book

gives seven definitions:

 

1. essence-spirit

 

2. magical, miraculous

 

3. smart or intelligent

 

4. extremely clever

 

5. the attention of the physician

 

6. the natural law of things

 

7. the body's correct qi

 

 

 

These latter definitions paint a completely different picture than the two

definitions that Tessenow & Unschuld¡Çs chooses to represent the single

character. Maybe this issue speaks to our larger ongoing terminological

conversation. For example is it better to just have one single (or two)

definition to correspond to a single Chinese character even though the

definitions may be different? This does not make any sense to me.

 

 

 

These broader definitions also are more logical interpretations of the

character in context of a given passages.

 

 

 

Also under the compounds containing (¿À) ¡Êspirit¡Ë(e.g.

spirit qi, spirit

brilliance) he gives his translation of the terms, but again no definition.

For example under shen ji (¿À´ù) he translates this as ¡Æspirit

mechanism¡Ç.

Ok, this is a reasonable literal translation, but what does that mean? Also

he has spirit brilliance (shen ming,¿ÀÌÀ) and spirit qi (shen qi,

¿ÀÝã),

what do these mean? There is no definition, however if one looks at a

Chinese version one finds extensive explanation for these terms.

 

 

 

For example, spirit qi can mean 1) spirit-essence, but can also mean 2) that

qi of water and grains¡Ç essence. These are drastically different.

 

 

 

This is important because some non-reading Chinese people can just see the

term ¡Æspirit qi¡Ç and make up some story in their head about what

this

means. Maybe some supernatural spiritual relationship, where essentially we

are just talking about the qi water and grains.

 

 

 

Spirit brilliance for example has three different definitions. I was under

the impression that a dictionary should contain definitions, not just a

single translation. This book seems more like a simplified gloss.

 

 

 

I have always respected Unschuld, enjoyed his previous works, and I think

what he's doing is important. However I just wanted to voice some simple

constructive criticism, and see what others thought¡Ä?

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I've forwarded your question to Paul Unschuld, we'll wait to see what

he says. .

 

 

 

 

On Sep 5, 2009, at 7:13 AM, wrote:

 

> I just had a chance to look at Tessenow & Unschuld¡Çs $99 " A

> Dictionary of

> the Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen.¡É I was actually quite surprised

> to see how

> simplified it was. I'm sure he has really good reasons for his

> choices, but

> I am curious what others have thought about this book?

>

> For example, I just checked one common word, shen2 (¿À)

> ¡Êspirit¡Ë. This

> ¡Èdictionary¡É essentially only gives two definitions - 1.

> (supernatural/human) spirit, 2. Spirit [-like physician]. Actually

> there are

> no definitions, but just translations of a character. Let us look

> further...

>

> I checked a couple of Chinese Huang Di Nei Jing dictionaries and

> they seem

> much more comprehensive. For example, for (¿À)

> ¡Êspirit¡Ë one single book

> gives seven definitions:

>

> 1. essence-spirit

>

> 2. magical, miraculous

>

> 3. smart or intelligent

>

> 4. extremely clever

>

> 5. the attention of the physician

>

> 6. the natural law of things

>

> 7. the body's correct qi

>

> These latter definitions paint a completely different picture than

> the two

> definitions that Tessenow & Unschuld¡Çs chooses to represent

> the single

> character. Maybe this issue speaks to our larger ongoing

> terminological

> conversation. For example is it better to just have one single (or

> two)

> definition to correspond to a single Chinese character even though the

> definitions may be different? This does not make any sense to me.

>

> These broader definitions also are more logical interpretations of the

> character in context of a given passages.

>

> Also under the compounds containing (¿À) ¡Êspirit¡Ë

> (e.g. spirit qi, spirit

> brilliance) he gives his translation of the terms, but again no

> definition.

> For example under shen ji (¿À´ù) he translates this as

> ¡Æspirit mechanism¡Ç.

> Ok, this is a reasonable literal translation, but what does that

> mean? Also

> he has spirit brilliance (shen ming,¿ÀÌÀ) and spirit qi (shen

> qi, ¿ÀÝã),

> what do these mean? There is no definition, however if one looks at a

> Chinese version one finds extensive explanation for these terms.

>

> For example, spirit qi can mean 1) spirit-essence, but can also mean

> 2) that

> qi of water and grains¡Ç essence. These are drastically

> different.

>

> This is important because some non-reading Chinese people can just

> see the

> term ¡Æspirit qi¡Ç and make up some story in their head

> about what this

> means. Maybe some supernatural spiritual relationship, where

> essentially we

> are just talking about the qi water and grains.

>

> Spirit brilliance for example has three different definitions. I was

> under

> the impression that a dictionary should contain definitions, not

> just a

> single translation. This book seems more like a simplified gloss.

>

> I have always respected Unschuld, enjoyed his previous works, and I

> think

> what he's doing is important. However I just wanted to voice some

> simple

> constructive criticism, and see what others thought¡Ä?

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

 

 

Isn't there a policy that we just discussed about sending CHA posts to

outside people, or is Paul U. a CHA member? I would have rather refined my

thoughts before I sent it to him directly, hence why I put forth this post

to the group.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Monday, September 07, 2009 11:29 AM

 

Re: Unschuld Huang Di Nei Jing Su wen Dict

 

 

 

 

 

I've forwarded your question to Paul Unschuld, we'll wait to see what

he says. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Actually, I excerpted the questions for Paul in a personal note. . .

he's quite personable about these questions, so if you want to reframe

them, let me know, I'll get them off to him myself and tell him to

disregard my original query based on your questions. Sorry for the

mixup.

 

For myself, I wouldn't feel confident answering your question. . . I

would only be speculating. But I think they are important questions. .

 

 

Z'ev

On Sep 7, 2009, at 11:11 AM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> Isn't there a policy that we just discussed about sending CHA posts to

> outside people, or is Paul U. a CHA member? I would have rather

> refined my

> thoughts before I sent it to him directly, hence why I put forth

> this post

> to the group.

>

> -Jason

>

>

> On Behalf Of Z'ev

> Rosenberg

> Monday, September 07, 2009 11:29 AM

>

> Re: Unschuld Huang Di Nei Jing Su wen Dict

>

> I've forwarded your question to Paul Unschuld, we'll wait to see what

> he says. .

>

>

>

>