'traduttore, traditore'

September 16, 2003

" By the way, the idea that there is some dichotomy or

conflict between the original and one's native

language meanings is sheer nonsense...there's

just the meanings themselves. "

I'm not so sure about this point about translation. There's the famous

phrase - 'traduttore, traditore'. Indeed, scholars of CM such as Volker

Scheid have even highlighted the problems for CM of translating ancient

Chinese texts into modern Chinese. There can be many problems in

translation - meanings with multiple connotations that get lost in

translation, lost associations, besides terms whose meanings have actually

changed and no one is sure of the original meaning. There are different

thought structures in different languages. In brief, translation involves

interpretation, and this implies selectivity. Wiseman's terms convey a

different quality to Macioica's, or both in turn to Fr. Larre.

Problems of translation are such that I noticed recently that the MA degree

program at King's College London involves studying Clausewitz, from three

translations, because one translation alone is but an inadequate

interpretation of his meaning. And this is a relatively recent work, in

German.

September 17, 2003

There may be issues with translations of ancient Chinese medical texts. . . well

dealt

with, I think by the likes of Paul Unschuld and Donald Harper, among others. The

best

books are well annotated with footnotes and explanations of term choices and

interpretations. With more modern textbook-oriented material, the task of

translation

is greatly simplified. Technical terms in any language have more 'solid'

meanings

than symbolic ones. Just as biomedical texts have been successfully translated

into

Chinese from English with the aid of dictionaries and glossaries, so can Chinese

medical terms be translated into English with the aid of dictionaries and

glossaries.

The full range of terms in Chinese must be respected, otherwise the material is

over-

simplified, leading to a loss of subtlety and detail in clinical practice.

Obviously, this

is a serious issue.

The advantage of Wiseman-based translations is that they have glossaries and

dictionary references that explain the terms fully, unlike many other English

translations. Even if the term choice differs with different authors (defense

qi or

protective qi for wei qi, construction qi or nutritive qi for ying qi), the

meanings rarely

will stray.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that Chinese medicine is merely an

interpretive phenomenon. This will lead to a loss of transmission of the

essential

materials to practice. A translation standard will allow communication of case

histories, diagnoses, and other information that would be lost or obscured by a

lack

of term reliability. That standard can then be flexible as authors explain

their term

choices when they choose to differ. Otherwise, the translator has the burden of

explaining why they chose the terms they did.

Chinese Medicine , " Wainwright Churchill "

<WChurchill@b...> wrote:

> I'm not so sure about this point about translation. There's the famous

> phrase - 'traduttore, traditore'. Indeed, scholars of CM such as Volker

> Scheid have even highlighted the problems for CM of translating ancient

> Chinese texts into modern Chinese. There can be many problems in

> translation - meanings with multiple connotations that get lost in

> translation, lost associations, besides terms whose meanings have actually

> changed and no one is sure of the original meaning. There are different

> thought structures in different languages. In brief, translation involves

> interpretation, and this implies selectivity. Wiseman's terms convey a

> different quality to Macioica's, or both in turn to Fr. Larre.

>

> Problems of translation are such that I noticed recently that the MA degree

> program at King's College London involves studying Clausewitz, from three

> translations, because one translation alone is but an inadequate

> interpretation of his meaning. And this is a relatively recent work, in

> German.

September 17, 2003

Dear Z'ev,

I appreciate your comments.

I'd like to take up a point you make:

We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that Chinese medicine is merely

an

interpretive phenomenon. This will lead to a loss of transmission of the

essential

materials to practice.

I feel that one of the things that is happening within the CM community in

the West is that we're having to come to terms with the issues neatly

alluded to in Ken's phrase " To hell with coherence " . The recognition that

TCM is a modern interpretation and systematisation of a much larger

tradition, that there is no 'The Chinese medicine' as Unschuld puts it,

etc., can lead people to not only believe that Chinese medicine is an

interpretative phenomenon (which in some senses I think is a valid comment),

but also, as a consequence, that 'anything goes'. As you state, this can

then lead to a loss of transmission of the essential materials to practice.

This is a complex and very important issue for us. Staying within the orbit

of what Unschuld writes about, these issues are also significant for us in

the West because we do culturally tend to strive towards 'one truth.'

In the article 'An interview with Paul Unschuld', EJOM Vol1 No4, Unschuld

says:

'Today I would dare to say that no one can think and argue in terms of

traditional Chinese theory. We have no way of being earnest or sincere in

continuing these lines of thought. Just imagine that traditional Chinese

medicine never strove towards one truth, as is a characteristic feature of

Western science. Individuals propagated a truth and they may have denied

what others said. But Chinese society as a whole never cared, they just

cared about what is useful, about what makes logical sense. Hence you arrive

at many, many contradictions, and it is not part of the Chinese culture of

knowledge to solve contradictions and to say this is true but not that.

Individuals may have done so, but a concept of absolute knowledge is not

Chinese, and also the either/or is not Chinese.'

I don't have any definitive answers to the quandaries posed by all this, but

there are a few points that I think are of fundamental importance for us.

1) We need an anchor of rigorous and detailed scholarship into Chinese

medicine, in which, for example, we don't just have books that give

indications of acupuncture points, but also systematically give the sources,

and commentate on what is knowable about the style of practice that is

associated with that source, and what isn't.

2) We need to continue to undertake rigorous investigation of

epistemological (and anthropological) issues, including

paradigm/inter-paradigm issues.

3) We need to continue to acknowledge uncertainty, and constantly reassess

matters in the light of increasing knowledge.

One of the things that crosses my mind at this moment is that I'd be

interested to know what we think 'essential materials to practice' are. Are

these essential materials equally essential in all oriental traditions of

acupuncture, such as in Japanese styles of acupuncture, or are they more

specific to Chinese medical practice?

Best wishes,

Wainwright

-

" zrosenberg2001 " <zrosenbe

Wednesday, September 17, 2003 1:56 AM

Re: 'traduttore, traditore'

There may be issues with translations of ancient Chinese medical texts. . .

well dealt

with, I think by the likes of Paul Unschuld and Donald Harper, among others.

The best

books are well annotated with footnotes and explanations of term choices and

interpretations. With more modern textbook-oriented material, the task of

translation

is greatly simplified. Technical terms in any language have more 'solid'

meanings

than symbolic ones. Just as biomedical texts have been successfully

translated into

Chinese from English with the aid of dictionaries and glossaries, so can

Chinese

medical terms be translated into English with the aid of dictionaries and

glossaries.

The full range of terms in Chinese must be respected, otherwise the material

is over-

simplified, leading to a loss of subtlety and detail in clinical practice.

Obviously, this

is a serious issue.

The advantage of Wiseman-based translations is that they have glossaries and

dictionary references that explain the terms fully, unlike many other

English

translations. Even if the term choice differs with different authors

(defense qi or

protective qi for wei qi, construction qi or nutritive qi for ying qi), the

meanings rarely

will stray.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that Chinese medicine is merely

an

interpretive phenomenon. This will lead to a loss of transmission of the

essential

materials to practice. A translation standard will allow communication of

case

histories, diagnoses, and other information that would be lost or obscured

by a lack

of term reliability. That standard can then be flexible as authors explain

their term

choices when they choose to differ. Otherwise, the translator has the

burden of