Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 have for many centuriesdiligently labored to record the variousmeanings of the growing numbers of termsof the subject so that those who studyand prctice it can acquaint themselveswith all of them and know when to usewhich meaning.>>>Except that the way it was done, unfortunately, often leaves questions as to meaning Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 Ken, As you know, I'm a pretty strong supporter of Nigel and Feng's terminology. However, I do not believe that all of Nigel and Feng's term choices are equally good. I believe this is well evidenced by the fact that there has been an evolution of English language choices for certain Chinese terms since Nigel introduced his first list in 1990. This evolution has, at least in some cases that I know of, been the result of others suggesting alternatives which Nigel has then come to agree were better choices. Along that same line, I personally don't think moderate is a good translation of huan mai. Personally, I would rather see " relaxed " since I believe the term relaxed is less ambiguous yet covers the meanings and implications of both the normal (ping) and diseased (bing) pulse image referred to as huan. What I'm getting at here is that one does not need to accept the suitability of every one of Nigel and Feng's choices to accept the utility of a standard terminology. This term list has evolved over the last 10 years or more and I assume it will continue to evolve as more and more people join in this endeavor. I see it as a work in progress, not a fait accompli. No one person, or even two, can come up with equally brilliant translations of thousands of technical terms. While some of Nigel's terms, such as network vessel for luo mai, are brilliant, I don't think all are equally so. Even the term " network vessel " was originally the far less brilliant " connecting vessel " in the Glossary of 1990. So why shouldn't we look for a better translation of huan mai. Bob , yulong@m... wrote: > Bob, > > Your point about the polysemous character of > Chinese medical terminology is an important > one. However I don't agree that the Practical > Dictionary displays any inadequacy in this > particular instance. Nor do I think that it > is the role of a dictionary to provide the > entire spectrum of understanding of a language > that is required of specialists who employ > that language in the course of their professional > occupations. > > There is so much to know about Chinese medical > terminology that it is simply not reasonable > to expect to find it all between the covers > of a single volume. The PD, as I have said > many times, is not the end-all of Chinese > medical terminology in English. It is a beginning. > > Chinese medical dictionaries include as many > as 60,000 terms. There is an article by Prof. > Zhu Jian Ping (who is the director of the > current project within the China Academy > of TCM and the China Academy of Science > to standardize the terminology of the > subject) in which he discusses the past, > present and future of terminological research > in the subject. I think you'll find it > interesting reading. And I think that > it is an important point that we should > concentrate on bringing to widespread awareness, > i.e. that the proper study of the subject > begins in the mastery of its nomenclature. > > A year ago on this list, Dan Bensky > suggested that the fact that many Chinese > words mean many different things makes > the establishment of a translation > standard for use in rendering these > polysemous terms into English " more > trouble than it's worth. " > > I continue to attack this point of > view because it continues to prevail > among the mass of students and educators > of the subject in the States. > > It is not true. > > It is not accurate. And it is not > the approach taken by the Chinese > themselves. The Chinese, as readers > of Prof. Zhu's forthcoming article > will discover, have for many centuries > diligently labored to record the various > meanings of the growing numbers of terms > of the subject so that those who study > and prctice it can acquaint themselves > with all of them and know when to use > which meaning. > > It is not easy. It is a great deal of > trouble. But it is worth every moment > spent, and for lack of such trouble > we face the very serious threat of > seeing the essence of the subject > vanish before our eyes. > > Ken > > > > > > This is one place where Wiseman's terminology does not, in my > opinion, > > do an adequate job. As a teacher, it is my experience that many > > English-speakers are confused by this term, " moderate " pulse. > That's > > why, in my own teaching and writing, when I mean huan mai as one of > > the diseased pulse images, I typically say " moderate " and then put > > " i.e., relaxed or slightly slow " in parentheses, thus using Wiseman > > for my standard identification but glossing that term to help bring > > out its technical meaning in that particular context. I believe > most > > of the students to whom I have taught pulse exmaination understand > and > > keep these two meanings disinct in their minds without any > particular > > difficulty. I merely say, like my teachers in Shanghai, that this > > pulse has two different meanings depending on how and when the term > is > > used. This also holds true for the replete (shi) and vacuous (xu) > > pulses which have two different definitions depending on their > > context. > > > > Bob > > > > , " James Ramholz " <jramholz> > wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > > > Huan mai is from the Wiseman dictionary, of course. In it, he > says > > of > > > huan mai, " Construed as a normal pulse, it is even and moderate, > and > > > is a sign of the presence of stomach qi . . . " ---although I > wouldn't > > > agree with his second half of the definition because once it > > > is " without strength " and mostly " seen in dampness patterns and > in > > > spleen-stomach vacuity " it is no longer moderate. You can't have > it > > > both normal and pathological---no wonder why people are confused > by > > > CM. > > > > > > I've taken the liberty of uploading my article on the Normal > Pulse > > > which has a table of comparison between various translations of > > > pinyin pulse terms, including those from my own Korean system of > > > pulse diagnosis. > > > > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the Chinese word " huan " here? > > > > > > The typical term used to describe a " normal " > > > pulse in Chinese is " zheng4 chang2 mai4 " . > > > I'm not familiar with the term you're > > > using. Can you clarify it? > > > > > > For those who can see the Chinese characters, > > > zheng4 chang2 mai4 is Õý³£Âö. > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > James Ramholz, O.M.D. > > > 1st Avenue Chiropractic Center > > > 100 Monroe > > > Denver, CO 80206 > > > (303) 522-3348 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 Bob, I certainly do understand that you are a strong supporter of Nigel's and Feng Ye's work. And I don't equate criticism of it in any way with a lack of support. I see criticism as an essential ingredient of the deepest support. I, too, disagree from time to time with various term choices and have discussed many with Nigel. Like you, I see the dictionary as a work in progress and am working diligently to help ensure that this progress continues. I don't have the same trouble with the term choice " moderate " as an equivalent for " huan " that you do, and I think that the PD entry at both " normal pulse " and " moderate pulse " are fairly adequate. But I don't in any way say this to argue against your assertion that it could be improved upon. I raised the point I did in my previous post on this in order to underscore what I see as the more fundamental issue, i.e. that it is the responsibility of all students, educators and practitioners to master the nomenclature of the subject as a prerequisite to thorough study. If more people did this then we could all engage in a more detailed discussion of specific details related to term choices in English. I believe this is vitally important because language is inherently a group activity and the larger the group involved in the codification of language, the better. There may well be limits to that last statement, but I think we're a long way from testing them. Ken , pemachophel2001 wrote: > Ken, > > As you know, I'm a pretty strong supporter of Nigel and Feng's > terminology. However, I do not believe that all of Nigel and Feng's > term choices are equally good. I believe this is well evidenced by the > fact that there has been an evolution of English language choices for > certain Chinese terms since Nigel introduced his first list in 1990. > This evolution has, at least in some cases that I know of, been the > result of others suggesting alternatives which Nigel has then come to > agree were better choices. Along that same line, I personally don't > think moderate is a good translation of huan mai. Personally, I would > rather see " relaxed " since I believe the term relaxed is less > ambiguous yet covers the meanings and implications of both the normal > (ping) and diseased (bing) pulse image referred to as huan. > > What I'm getting at here is that one does not need to accept the > suitability of every one of Nigel and Feng's choices to accept the > utility of a standard terminology. This term list has evolved over the > last 10 years or more and I assume it will continue to evolve as more > and more people join in this endeavor. I see it as a work in progress, > not a fait accompli. No one person, or even two, can come up with > equally brilliant translations of thousands of technical terms. While > some of Nigel's terms, such as network vessel for luo mai, are > brilliant, I don't think all are equally so. Even the term " network > vessel " was originally the far less brilliant " connecting vessel " in > the Glossary of 1990. So why shouldn't we look for a better > translation of huan mai. > > Bob > > , yulong@m... wrote: > > Bob, > > > > Your point about the polysemous character of > > Chinese medical terminology is an important > > one. However I don't agree that the Practical > > Dictionary displays any inadequacy in this > > particular instance. Nor do I think that it > > is the role of a dictionary to provide the > > entire spectrum of understanding of a language > > that is required of specialists who employ > > that language in the course of their professional > > occupations. > > > > There is so much to know about Chinese medical > > terminology that it is simply not reasonable > > to expect to find it all between the covers > > of a single volume. The PD, as I have said > > many times, is not the end-all of Chinese > > medical terminology in English. It is a beginning. > > > > Chinese medical dictionaries include as many > > as 60,000 terms. There is an article by Prof. > > Zhu Jian Ping (who is the director of the > > current project within the China Academy > > of TCM and the China Academy of Science > > to standardize the terminology of the > > subject) in which he discusses the past, > > present and future of terminological research > > in the subject. I think you'll find it > > interesting reading. And I think that > > it is an important point that we should > > concentrate on bringing to widespread awareness, > > i.e. that the proper study of the subject > > begins in the mastery of its nomenclature. > > > > A year ago on this list, Dan Bensky > > suggested that the fact that many Chinese > > words mean many different things makes > > the establishment of a translation > > standard for use in rendering these > > polysemous terms into English " more > > trouble than it's worth. " > > > > I continue to attack this point of > > view because it continues to prevail > > among the mass of students and educators > > of the subject in the States. > > > > It is not true. > > > > It is not accurate. And it is not > > the approach taken by the Chinese > > themselves. The Chinese, as readers > > of Prof. Zhu's forthcoming article > > will discover, have for many centuries > > diligently labored to record the various > > meanings of the growing numbers of terms > > of the subject so that those who study > > and prctice it can acquaint themselves > > with all of them and know when to use > > which meaning. > > > > It is not easy. It is a great deal of > > trouble. But it is worth every moment > > spent, and for lack of such trouble > > we face the very serious threat of > > seeing the essence of the subject > > vanish before our eyes. > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > This is one place where Wiseman's terminology does not, in my > > opinion, > > > do an adequate job. As a teacher, it is my experience that many > > > English-speakers are confused by this term, " moderate " pulse. > > That's > > > why, in my own teaching and writing, when I mean huan mai as one > of > > > the diseased pulse images, I typically say " moderate " and then put > > > " i.e., relaxed or slightly slow " in parentheses, thus using > Wiseman > > > for my standard identification but glossing that term to help > bring > > > out its technical meaning in that particular context. I believe > > most > > > of the students to whom I have taught pulse exmaination understand > > and > > > keep these two meanings disinct in their minds without any > > particular > > > difficulty. I merely say, like my teachers in Shanghai, that this > > > pulse has two different meanings depending on how and when the > term > > is > > > used. This also holds true for the replete (shi) and vacuous (xu) > > > pulses which have two different definitions depending on their > > > context. > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > , " James Ramholz " <jramholz> > > wrote: > > > > Ken: > > > > > > > > Huan mai is from the Wiseman dictionary, of course. In it, he > > says > > > of > > > > huan mai, " Construed as a normal pulse, it is even and moderate, > > and > > > > is a sign of the presence of stomach qi . . . " ---although I > > wouldn't > > > > agree with his second half of the definition because once it > > > > is " without strength " and mostly " seen in dampness patterns and > > in > > > > spleen-stomach vacuity " it is no longer moderate. You can't have > > it > > > > both normal and pathological---no wonder why people are confused > > by > > > > CM. > > > > > > > > I've taken the liberty of uploading my article on the Normal > > Pulse > > > > which has a table of comparison between various translations of > > > > pinyin pulse terms, including those from my own Korean system of > > > > pulse diagnosis. > > > > > > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the Chinese word " huan " here? > > > > > > > > The typical term used to describe a " normal " > > > > pulse in Chinese is " zheng4 chang2 mai4 " . > > > > I'm not familiar with the term you're > > > > using. Can you clarify it? > > > > > > > > For those who can see the Chinese characters, > > > > zheng4 chang2 mai4 is Õý³£Âö. > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > James Ramholz, O.M.D. > > > > 1st Avenue Chiropractic Center > > > > 100 Monroe > > > > Denver, CO 80206 > > > > (303) 522-3348 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:08:39 " rayford " <rford wrote >Re: RE: a little rant on prescriptive acupuncture, weight loss and intention > ..... >My point is that even translators of Chinese texts disagree with each other >so its hard to prove who is the 'more correct " Unschuld uses 5 phases but >others do not so the problem with these terms is that many of the Western >scholars " cant agree so the debate goes on. Dr. Unschuld currently uses the term " five agents " (as in the SuWen 1st volume). He gave the rationale for this at a workshop last summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2004 Report Share Posted April 26, 2004 Thanks Chris, He has used 5 phases for some time which led some in the profession to command 5 phases be adopted universally now its 5 agents,I think I have enough now of making the same point ad nauseam to the group and myself Ray Ford ---- Chinese Medicine Monday, 26 April 2004 10:17:25 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Terminology Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:08:39 " rayford " <rford wrote >Re: RE: a little rant on prescriptive acupuncture, weight loss and intention > ...... >My point is that even translators of Chinese texts disagree with each other >so its hard to prove who is the 'more correct " Unschuld uses 5 phases but >others do not so the problem with these terms is that many of the Western >scholars " cant agree so the debate goes on. Dr. Unschuld currently uses the term " five agents " (as in the SuWen 1st volume). He gave the rationale for this at a workshop last summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2004 Report Share Posted October 6, 2004 Dear Attilio, You've asked some profound questions here, and I will need some time to think about them, and a few of your questions (number four) need more qualification. The next few days are Jewish holidays (Simchat Torah), so I won't be able to look at this in depth until next week. One point I will make at this time. There is only one published 'terminology' at this time, and that is the 'Wiseman terminology'. There are other authors and books who use different approaches and term equivalents, but nowhere are their standards, term choices listed as any coherent 'terminology'. Eastland Press authors use a terminology of translation that is consistent with their texts, and in my opinion, very well done, but there isn't an actual full glossary, dictionary, books or articles that explain those term choices in detail. Clearly, until the Practical Dictionary of CM was published, no one had really addressed the issue of translation standards publically. In my opinion, this is the real reason for the controversy. If one wants to understand the term choices and the decision-making process behind the Wiseman terminology, one can go to the Paradigm Press website and download several articles for free that explain almost anything one would want to ask. On Oct 6, 2004, at 9:18 AM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > Hi Zev and Godfrey, > > As a new-comer to TCM and having witnessed the different > terminologies, can > you please explain the following: > > 1. The different terminology camps, > 2. The pros and cons of each, > 3. Why do we have differences? > 4. What benefit would be obtain from having a unified terminology in > TCM > when they are both so similar? > 5. The possible solutions to the differences in TCM terminology. > > I think a number of members will be interested in hearing answers to > these > questions. > > Kind regards > > Attilio D'Alberto > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2004 Report Share Posted October 7, 2004 Hi Zev, So we are using Wiseman's version as that's the only one that exists then? What about the PRC's view on terminology, have they decided on a system as yet? I look forward to hearing the answers to my previous questions (below) sometime soon. Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com [zrosenbe] 06 October 2004 20:42 Chinese Medicine Re: Terminology Dear Attilio, You've asked some profound questions here, and I will need some time to think about them, and a few of your questions (number four) need more qualification. The next few days are Jewish holidays (Simchat Torah), so I won't be able to look at this in depth until next week. One point I will make at this time. There is only one published 'terminology' at this time, and that is the 'Wiseman terminology'. There are other authors and books who use different approaches and term equivalents, but nowhere are their standards, term choices listed as any coherent 'terminology'. Eastland Press authors use a terminology of translation that is consistent with their texts, and in my opinion, very well done, but there isn't an actual full glossary, dictionary, books or articles that explain those term choices in detail. Clearly, until the Practical Dictionary of CM was published, no one had really addressed the issue of translation standards publically. In my opinion, this is the real reason for the controversy. If one wants to understand the term choices and the decision-making process behind the Wiseman terminology, one can go to the Paradigm Press website and download several articles for free that explain almost anything one would want to ask. On Oct 6, 2004, at 9:18 AM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > Hi Zev and Godfrey, > > As a new-comer to TCM and having witnessed the different > terminologies, can > you please explain the following: > > 1. The different terminology camps, > 2. The pros and cons of each, > 3. Why do we have differences? > 4. What benefit would be obtain from having a unified terminology in > TCM > when they are both so similar? > 5. The possible solutions to the differences in TCM terminology. > > I think a number of members will be interested in hearing answers to > these > questions. > > Kind regards > > Attilio D'Alberto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Attilio, In China, as of August 2000, The China Academy of TCM and China Institute for the History of Medicine and Medical Literature established the Subcommittee for TCM Terms. This was reported in the Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine journal, Vol. 2 #3, 2001. It is viewed as a long-term project, but the Chinese are taking this issue very seriously. There is also an article " Standardization of Chinese medical terminology " past, present and future " by Zhu Jianping, in the same journal, Volume 2, #4, 2001, that tackles this subject in detail. The Wiseman dictionary and a glossary have been published in mainland China, and many translators in mainland China are using these texts as their primary source for translation to English. On Oct 7, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > Hi Zev, > > So we are using Wiseman's version as that's the only one that exists > then? > What about the PRC's view on terminology, have they decided on a > system as > yet? > > I look forward to hearing the answers to my previous questions (below) > sometime soon. > > Kind regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 On Oct 6, 2004, at 9:18 AM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > Hi Zev and Godfrey, > > As a new-comer to TCM and having witnessed the different > terminologies, can > you please explain the following: > > 1. The different terminology camps, It is difficult to define the different 'terminology camps', as outside of those publishers/authors who use the Wiseman dictionary as their translation standard, no one else has really 'stepped forward'. As I mentioned earlier, Blue Poppy Press and Paradigm Press use the Wiseman terminology as standard in their texts. Eastland Press authors seem to have a consistent terminological structure, but these have never been defined publically in any detail to my knowledge. Other authors translate according to their own understanding of the Chinese language. > 2. The pros and cons of each, Having taught from several of Dan Bensky's and Steven Clavey's books, and other Eastland Press authors such as Liu (Warm Disease), I have no problem with their terminological choices. Eastland Press's authors are quite sophisticated, and from my own knowledge of medical Chinese, seem to do an excellent job. However, as I've expressed to Eastland Press, glosses of terms with Chinese and Pinyin equivalents would be very helpful, and definitions. Outside of the Wiseman dictionary and glossary, there are no other sources in English that can be used practically for the purposes of translation or teaching essential terminology to students. And no other Chinese_English medical dictionaries are presently in production to my knowledge, so it will be many years before one is available. There is one Chinese mainland Chinese-English dictionary, but it hasn't caught on, and, in my opinion, is not very useful. > 3. Why do we have differences? Anyone who took on the task of translating Chinese medical texts in English in the last thirty years had the daunting task of not having any dictionaries to rely on, so different authors came up with different equivalent terms. Some of our original English-language CM texts were translated from the French, so we had some third-hand materials. Some of the term choices of original authors became 'standard' by default, as schools and licensing boards developed, and such ideas as capitalizing names of organs (Spleen, Lung, etc.), and terms such as tonification and sedation became commonplace. However, there was no way for a English-speaking student or practitioner to understand these term choices, because in earlier years, it was difficult to print Chinese characters with English text because of software limitations, so the translations were largely interpretive. There was little demand for authors to explain their translation schemes, and little way to check those translations against the original Chinese sources, as few Westerners knew medical Chinese, and the texts were not published with footnotes, glossaries, or pinyin and Chinese source characters. > 4. What benefit would be obtain from having a unified terminology in > TCM > when they are both so similar? First of all, there doesn't have to be a 'unified terminology'. There needs to be a data base with at least 4,000 terms that is related back to the Chinese and pinyin. Since the Wiseman terminology is the only published, available one, there aren't any present alternatives. If alternative term choices appear, they could be listed in a universal database. One advantage to a database approach to terminology is terms of computer search engines, data banks of research and other essential sources that are necessary for the growth of our profession. If we continue to be 'balkanized', with multiple interpretations of the original source Chinese texts, it will be impossible to build up enough data in English to establish Chinese medicine as a viable academic subject. > 5. The possible solutions to the differences in TCM terminology. Simply list all terms (several thousand) and term choices. Again, no one has done this but Nigel, so I don't see any challenge to his work at this point. As Jason mentioned earlier, one can easily use a different English term equivalent as long as one explains one's choice, this shouldn't be a problem. > > I think a number of members will be interested in hearing answers to > these > questions. > I hope this is helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 " And no other Chinese_English medical dictionaries are presently in production to my knowledge, so it will be many years before one is available. There is one Chinese mainland Chinese-English dictionary, but it hasn't caught on, and, in my opinion, is not very useful. " Z'ev, when I was living in China I saw several dictionaries (Chinese-English). I bought one of them, and sometimes use it. But, actually it really does not stand up to Wiseman's books. Other than the one I bought I've seen some really awful dictionaries, really not worth buying. They're dirt cheap, but also not very useful, imo. Regards Tom. PS But indeed now you can find Wiseman's practical dictionary in the shops there. With thinner paper but if I remember well it cost me 180 rmb!! Good deal! (The Western version is about 125 USD) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Thank you Zev for your detailed reply. It will be interesting to see what the Chinese decide to use and implement. Any idea when? Attilio www.attiliodalberto.com Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev Rosenberg " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Attilio, > In China, as of August 2000, The China Academy of TCM and China > Institute for the History of Medicine and Medical Literature > established the Subcommittee for TCM Terms. This was reported in the > Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine journal, Vol. 2 #3, 2001. > It is viewed as a long-term project, but the Chinese are taking this > issue very seriously. There is also an article " Standardization of > Chinese medical terminology " past, present and future " by Zhu Jianping, > in the same journal, Volume 2, #4, 2001, that tackles this subject in > detail. > The Wiseman dictionary and a glossary have been published in > mainland China, and many translators in mainland China are using these > texts as their primary source for translation to English. > > > On Oct 7, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Attilio D'Alberto wrote: > > > Hi Zev, > > > > So we are using Wiseman's version as that's the only one that exists > > then? > > What about the PRC's view on terminology, have they decided on a > > system as > > yet? > > > > I look forward to hearing the answers to my previous questions (below) > > sometime soon. > > > > Kind regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 , wrote: > > Jason, Eric, Bob, etc. > > Thanks for your input. Somehow I never thought to look for the word " abstraction " only " spirit-mind abstraction " as a phrase. > > And just to mix things up a little, how do others translate this phrase huang3 hu1, say Maciocia or EP for instance? Just trying to get some clarity. I am still a beginner in the Chinese language game and right now I'm focused on the everyday language rather than the medical language. It looks like Eastland is translating huang3 hu1 as disorientation, vagueness. It's anyone's guess as to what Macioccia translates it to. I've always been under the impression that Macioccia does not translate (I'm not sure that he can read Chinese); there are several typos in his new book that look like remnants of Chinglish from Chinese translators, and whatever terminology that manages to stay preserved is not referenced back to the Chinese in any list that I am aware of. Ren Min Wei Sheng's C-E Medical Dictionary has a little CM section in the back that translates huang3 hu1 as " trance, absent- mindedness. " The WM section of the same dictionary translates it as " 1. rhembasmus (whatever that means, it is not in Webster's and might be a Chinglish word) 2.trance, lethargic stupor. " Wenlin, a general dictionary, calls it absentminded; distracted. The phrase first appeared in the Shang Han Lun. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2006 Report Share Posted April 4, 2006 Beginning students should keep in mind that pathological conditions are often called by different names in TCM. Example in translations of old texts they often simply mention excess or repletion of Yin to describe water retention or what is frequently translated as 'dampness'. This has to do with context - the old Masters assumed that when Yin was replete everyone understands that we are discussing excess Yin - a pathology. Many beginning students become confused by this because they think Yin is good - so why is Yin repletion bad? It is because Yin in 'excess' is patholgy by definition. Water retention-dampness-Yin repletion-excess water or Yin - all mean the same thing - pathological conditions of the Yin. One can of course have defeciency of the righteous Yin and pathological excess Yin at the same time - becuase of course these are often the same thing - when the righteous Yin is depleted and pathological then the body may collect fluids in a pathological way at various sites. Many obese people as an example hold huge quantities of excess water but the righteous Yin is defecient. So we can say a person suffers from Kidney Yin defeciency while at the same time suffering from Spleen Yin repletion or excess. In the case of the Spleen - the accumulations are mainly of acids - this is called Spleen dampness with heat. Another related issue is when we suffer from insuffecient righteous Yin the blood becomes dehydrated - because the condensed acids (pathological Yang or false heat)have driven the already defecient Yin from the blood - this pathological condition can exist in a body that is holding large amounts of water in the tissues. Blood is overheated and the tissues are cold - this is a form of Yin fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.