TCM Terminology adapted from current Chinese sources!!

[Guest guest]

Wow, well done Phil, you're a giant.

[Guest guest]

Interesting pages of terms. Definetely more Bensky than Wiseman. Also inter=

esting

how liver (gan) turns to hepatic qi and stomach to gastric. Don't know how =

aware they

were of seemingly contradictions or if these are contradictions that they h=

ave

overcome.

I realized that a Chinese reader will be reaching for their own dictionarie=

s and

scratching his or her own head at non-transparent terms. Unless we can expe=

ct a

Practical Dictionary (or a cheap knock-off) on the shelf of every practitio=

ner in China.

I'm fine with people using what they feel comfortable with. It's the tone o=

f the

insistence of a standard that grates on me.

doug

 

 

http://www.cttcm.com.cn/jbmcd3.htm

 

, " " <@h.=

...>

wrote:

> Phil,

>

> Nice find... (not to start a ruckus with terminology again but...)

> Since this terminology standard is straight from the PRC, and will

> obviously start being used by the east, what do others think? IS it

> competition for Wiseman, or just plain dismissed because it was not

> created by the west? I personally am struggling with terminology

> choices, where sometimes I feel Wiseman is not the best, many times I

> use Unschuld,. Now I have another option... We have in the past

> talked about glossing choices that are different from the standard.. well=

 

> 1) what is the standard, obviously this new find is considered a

> standard by (now) (probably) the majority of TCM practs.

> 2) Glossing terms is fine for a book, but what about for an article?

> Is this a reasonble request and use of space?

> 3) My thought was for my choices in terminology, that I use (in

> publications), to publish them in an online gloss…?

> 4) Or if the term is transparent who cares anyway?

>

> Comments?

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

> Interesting pages of terms. Definetely more Bensky than Wiseman.

Also inter=

> esting

> how liver (gan) turns to hepatic qi and stomach to gastric. Don't

know how =

> aware they

> were of seemingly contradictions or if these are contradictions that

they h=

> ave

> overcome.

> I realized that a Chinese reader will be reaching for their own

dictionarie=

> s and

> scratching his or her own head at non-transparent terms. Unless we

can expe=

> ct a

> Practical Dictionary (or a cheap knock-off) on the shelf of every

practitio=

> ner in China.

> I'm fine with people using what they feel comfortable with. It's the

tone o=

> f the

> insistence of a standard that grates on me.

> doug

>

 

I agree, it also grates me…

The one cool thing about this project is it is already (the first) in

digital form...

I would like to see Wiseman's terms in digital form, which is quite

easy... The definitions would not have to be included, just the

equivalencies...

If the major choices were in digital form, the issues would be less

pertinent. Meaning one could easy search for the term and get the

character if one was unsure…

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> I would like to see Wiseman's terms in digital form, which is quite

> easy... The definitions would not have to be included, just the

> equivalencies...

> If the major choices were in digital form, the issues would be less

> pertinent. Meaning one could easy search for the term and get the

> character if one was unsure…

 

I think Wenlin is supposed to be updated to add Wiseman's dictionary

of terms. This would limit the searches to the use of pinyin or

hanzi, rather than the English term, but it will make the translations

of Chinese medical texts more convenient for those that adhere to that

standard.

 

Brian C. Allen