Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 I have to say that the use of " vacuous " and so forth is just plain difficult. It is understood that words that are not in the mainstream have an ability to state conditions to the medicine, still it's just uncomfortable. Perhaps if we were taught with these terms? Goes to show how continually bi-lingual we must be. My housemate (a fellow TCM student) and i were utilizing the use of Replete in the common dialogue, made for some good laughs... Tym > vocab book > > > Lingzhi, > I am an acupuncturist from the US living and learning in china. I'll be > in nanjing sometime soon. > For your purposes, I think Zhufan is fine. a lot cheaper, too. > As steve said, it is simplified and very " standard " . since you are not a > native english speaker, i will be > more useful i think. > As i learn more about chinese language , I find wiseman to be > " over-translated " ..I find myself looking > up the definitions of his english terms in n english dictionary! > but yes, the standardized TCM vocabulary maybe is not eloquent enough. > I just cant bring myself to say " vacuous " when i mean " xu " .. ( : > Skip > > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > > > http://babel.altavista.com/ > > > and > adjust accordingly. > > If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being > delivered. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the > group requires prior permission from the author. > ------ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hi Tym, I hear what you are saying here and I myself find it difficult to use vacuous and repletion. I think this is primarily due to spending the first 5 years of my TCM education using deficiency and excess. I must admit that as a undergraduate student I was very against Wiseman who I initially viewed as using bizarre and difficult English to cover the same concepts I was taught in class. This all changed during my clinical internship in China which opened my eyes to the total lack of vocabulary and the severe simplification of TCM terminology taught in the West. I have been a convert since this time; but still find it often awkward and unwieldy to use vocally. IMO, I don't think it matters if you use deficiency, vacuity or xu for this concept as long as you and who you are communicating with know what each other is talking about. However, this does not stand for all TCM terminology and especially so beyond the basics of xu, shi, xie and bu. I think this is basically because before Wiseman's references came along our vocabulary was so small and thus not sufficient to understand as the Chinese do. Wiseman's approach simply gives us on option to get closer to the range of terms and vocabulary and usage beyond TCM 101, something only those who could read Chinese had access to before his efforts. In the end I think the difficulty of saying a word or the danger of placing a preconceived definition upon it fades into insignificance compared to the benefits of actually having access to the concepts in English (or Chinese for that matter), something we in the west have generally been sheltered from. Best Wishes, Steve On 04/10/2004, at 9:04 AM, Tymothy wrote: > > I have to say that the use of " vacuous " and so forth is just plain > difficult. It is understood that words that are not in the mainstream > have an ability to state conditions to the medicine, still it's just > uncomfortable. Perhaps if we were taught with these terms? Goes to show > how continually bi-lingual we must be. > My housemate (a fellow TCM student) and i were utilizing the use of > Replete in the common dialogue, made for some good laughs... > Tym > > >> vocab book >> >> >> Lingzhi, >> I am an acupuncturist from the US living and learning in china. I'll >> be >> in nanjing sometime soon. >> For your purposes, I think Zhufan is fine. a lot cheaper, too. >> As steve said, it is simplified and very " standard " . since you are >> not a >> native english speaker, i will be >> more useful i think. >> As i learn more about chinese language , I find wiseman to be >> " over-translated " ..I find myself looking >> up the definitions of his english terms in n english dictionary! >> but yes, the standardized TCM vocabulary maybe is not eloquent >> enough. >> I just cant bring myself to say " vacuous " when i mean " xu " .. ( : >> Skip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 I have to say again, as I have in this and other forums several times, that the choice of English term is not arbitrary. Understanding the English term's link to the pinyin and Chinese is. Knowing the definition of the term is. The choice of English term is not a hard and fast rule. Take a term such as ying qi. Wiseman translates this as constructive qi. Bensky translates it as nutritive qi. Paul Unschuld uses 'camp qi', relating the term to its original military metaphor (wei qi is defense qi or 'soldier qi'). However, it is worth your while to read Wiseman's writings before jumping to any conclusions about his choice of English terms. Earlier I sent a link to articles by Nigel on why he chose some of his terms, and his conclusions are quite reasonable to me and many others. One shouldn't expect an English term to be 'easy' necessarily, especially when the underlying Chinese concepts can be quite profound. On Oct 3, 2004, at 4:04 PM, Tymothy wrote: > I have to say that the use of " vacuous " and so forth is just plain > difficult. It is understood that words that are not in the mainstream > have an ability to state conditions to the medicine, still it's just > uncomfortable. Perhaps if we were taught with these terms? Goes to show > how continually bi-lingual we must be. > My housemate (a fellow TCM student) and i were utilizing the use of > Replete in the common dialogue, made for some good laughs... > Tym > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 The real problem you are pointing out here is that in alot of the translations the words they have used is not suitable. These is because we often have no equivilant word in english, its funny that they just choose to use the most simular word instead. It would have been better if they had simply created new english words with whole new meanings atleast the the differences would be completely clear. Regards Manu Tymothy <jellyphish wrote: I have to say that the use of " vacuous " and so forth is just plain difficult. It is understood that words that are not in the mainstream have an ability to state conditions to the medicine, still it's just uncomfortable. Perhaps if we were taught with these terms? Goes to show how continually bi-lingual we must be. My housemate (a fellow TCM student) and i were utilizing the use of Replete in the common dialogue, made for some good laughs... Tym > vocab book > > > Lingzhi, > I am an acupuncturist from the US living and learning in china. I'll be > in nanjing sometime soon. > For your purposes, I think Zhufan is fine. a lot cheaper, too. > As steve said, it is simplified and very " standard " . since you are not a > native english speaker, i will be > more useful i think. > As i learn more about chinese language , I find wiseman to be > " over-translated " ..I find myself looking > up the definitions of his english terms in n english dictionary! > but yes, the standardized TCM vocabulary maybe is not eloquent enough. > I just cant bring myself to say " vacuous " when i mean " xu " .. ( : > Skip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Greetings all Would it be possible to have a small project related to trying to agree on terms, at least here? Then new persons will have a way to jump right in to all discussions without the repeat of THIS conversation on terms. It is just a suggestion. Good health to all and the means to maintain it!! nieema ===== I hope this message finds you and yours in the best of Health and Spirit. Our Health is Our Responsibility http://www.a-healing-village.com nieema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 I agree Tym - much better to use the pinyin for all the basic terms as Phil R. suggests. This month's European Journal of Oriental Medicine has an interesting article called " Language Referencing in the Teaching of " by Frances Turner. For an MPhil she conducted interviews with 20 teachers, practitioners and authors of Chinese Med. The consensus was that the standardisation of translation can stifle diversity and lead to rigidity and misunderstanding: " Most respondents did not see a problem with differing translations as long as the connection to the Chinese terminology remained in place, and felt that we benefit from the richness of diverse approaches " . The problem with Wiseman's Dictionary is that the terms he uses mangle the English language. Peter Deadman's review of the book discusses this in detail: http://www.jcm.co.uk/BookReviews/bookrevs69.phtml The rather fervent support for the book seen in some American quarters is a manifestation of a politico-ideological power struggle in my view. As Turner's article says: " However there are problems with standardisation, both politically and academically. The political and economic implications of adopting any one particular English translation system create heated debate on this subject, since standardisation is a way of investing power in the authority which cannot be made by any one person or group but must be set with reference to all the texts and all the branches of the profession. " Major English speaking OM authorities on both sides of the Atlantic were left out of the discussion before publication. Godfrey Bartlett (England) Chinese Medicine , " Tymothy " <jellyphish@f...> wrote: > I have to say that the use of " vacuous " and so forth is just plain > difficult. It is understood that words that are not in the mainstream > have an ability to state conditions to the medicine, still it's just > uncomfortable. Perhaps if we were taught with these terms? Goes to show > how continually bi-lingual we must be. > My housemate (a fellow TCM student) and i were utilizing the use of > Replete in the common dialogue, made for some good laughs... > Tym > > > > vocab book > > > > > > Lingzhi, > > I am an acupuncturist from the US living and learning in china. I'll be > > in nanjing sometime soon. > > For your purposes, I think Zhufan is fine. a lot cheaper, too. > > As steve said, it is simplified and very " standard " . since you are not a > > native english speaker, i will be > > more useful i think. > > As i learn more about chinese language , I find wiseman to be > > " over-translated " ..I find myself looking > > up the definitions of his english terms in n english dictionary! > > but yes, the standardized TCM vocabulary maybe is not eloquent enough. > > I just cant bring myself to say " vacuous " when i mean " xu " .. ( : > > Skip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Even further, the range of terminology before the Wiseman dictionary didn't even suffice for 'TCM 101'. Having taught in TCM schools for fifteen years, I can clearly say that in general, students couldn't define any terms meaningfully before the dictionary was published. On Oct 3, 2004, at 5:35 PM, Steven Slater wrote: > Wiseman's approach simply gives us > on option to get closer to the range of terms and vocabulary and usage > beyond TCM 101, something only those who could read Chinese had access > to before his efforts. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 For a complete rebuttal of this article (the author even uses the term 'mangle'), please go to this URL: http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/paradigm/refs/Felt/JCM.htm On Oct 4, 2004, at 4:37 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > The problem with Wiseman's Dictionary is that the terms he uses mangle > the English language. Peter Deadman's review of the book discusses > this in detail: > http://www.jcm.co.uk/BookReviews/bookrevs69.phtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 The accusation of this statement is untrue, and the contents of this post have been forwarded to affected parties, so that they may defend themselves if they so choose. On Oct 4, 2004, at 4:37 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > Major English speaking OM authorities on both sides of the Atlantic > were left out of the discussion before publication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Hi Godfrey, >- The political and > economic implications of adopting any one particular English > translation system create heated debate on this subject, since > standardisation is a way of investing power in the authority which > cannot be made by any one person or group but must be set with > reference to all the texts and all the branches of the profession. " Interesting point. I does seem like that those who carry authority (whether given or assumed) to interpret words do indeed wield great political and ecomomic power. Witness the 2000 U.S Presidential election that was decided by nine Supreme Court Judges who had the authority to interpret the meaning of words. And while the majority reached a decision, they all disagreed on the meaning of the words :-) Life is very interesting indeed! :-) Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 It is interesting how a misperception of a 'power struggle' then becomes a starting point for a discussion that approaches a 'conspiracy theory' . No political incentives have developed to 'standardize' terminology. The only 'movement' has been the growing number of Chinese medical professionals both in China and the West who have chosen to use the Wiseman terminology as a tool to improve the quality of the Chinese medical literature in translation. and from Godfrey: " The rather fervent support for the book seen in some American quarters is a manifestation of a politico-ideological power struggle in my view. " There is no debate or battle on terminology, because no other source other than Nigel Wiseman and Feng Ye has offered one. All translators are free to translate in any manner they choose. The only question is how comprehensive and understandable it will be. If an author has offered explanations, glossaries, explanations or any discussion of term choices in any detail, they certainly are 'acceptable'. However, sadly so, few translators/authors have chosen to do so. My experience is that many practitioners and students are confused by having to constantly learn new English terms from different authors for Chinese source terms, with no explanations given for their meanings or for the term choice. If there is any improvement in textbooks explaining or defining their English term choices, it is largely because of the influence of the Wiseman dictionary. If anyone has complaints about the term choices Nigel uses, he is always open to suggestion and has already made changes based on practitoner/teacher feedback. And, if anyone wants to reject the 'Wiseman terminology' completely, they need to offer an alternative glossary or dictionary to the profession. On Oct 4, 2004, at 8:30 AM, Rich wrote: > Hi Godfrey, > >> - The political and >> economic implications of adopting any one particular English >> translation system create heated debate on this subject, since >> standardisation is a way of investing power in the authority which >> cannot be made by any one person or group but must be set with >> reference to all the texts and all the branches of the profession. " > > Interesting point. I does seem like that those who carry authority > (whether given or assumed) to interpret words do indeed wield great > political and ecomomic power. Witness the 2000 U.S Presidential > election that was decided by nine Supreme Court Judges who had the > authority to interpret the meaning of words. And while the majority > reached a decision, they all disagreed on the meaning of the words :-) > Life is very interesting indeed! :-) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Chinese Medicine , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > The accusation of this statement is untrue, and the contents of this > post have been forwarded to affected parties, so that they may defend > themselves if they so choose. > > The implication of your legalistic language is presumably the threat of litigation? You seem to have over-reacted yet again. All I was trying to say was that however much some people cherish the concept of standardisation, and in particular the Wiseman dictionary, other don't. The people who like it seem to see it through rose-tinted spectacles. Those who don't like the particular book, or have a problem with the whole concept of standardisation of terms (as many apparently do), are entitled to their views, and in a free society are entitled to express their views. Veiled threats of litigation are no substitute for a reasoned discussion on this or any other publication. After so many unquestioning nods of approval about the book, not least from you, I thought it worth pointing out that not everyone feels the same. This is quite an old debate now: concerns about the Wiseman dictionary have been around since its publication 6 years ago, and they haven't gone away. The tactic of brow-beating opposing views into submission with multiple postings is the behaviour of the 'fervent' idealogues which I referred to earlier. Godfrey Bartlett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 This is a circular argument. If people don't actually believe that a standardisation of terms is desirable or necessary, then they don't have to offer *any* alternative. Even if they don't buy-in to the concept, it doesn't take away their absolute right to have a critical opinion. Godfrey Bartlett Chinese Medicine , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > And, if anyone wants to reject the > 'Wiseman terminology' completely, they need to offer an alternative > glossary or dictionary to the profession. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 No, I have no thoughts or intentions about litigation, it is the furthest thing from my mind, and I assure you that Nigel doesn't either. Simply that Nigel and others should be able to respond in their own voice if they choose to. I believe an author has a right to respond to any conceived misperceptions about their work. There is nothing requiring legal response to your posting. If they have a response, I will post it for them, with the moderator's permission or my excerpting of their answer to me. End of story. I have no problem with free expression. I have a problem with inaccurate descriptions of 'political battles', 'fights for superiority' and other fictions that have grown up around this issue in the minds of many people. You used the term 'mangled English', which was directly quoted from the author who you gave a link to, so I gave a link to a response to that article. That's as far as it goes. As far as multiple postings go, the reason for it is so that my responses may be shorter, and not fill up long pages of text that are difficult to read. On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:24 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > The implication of your legalistic language is presumably the threat > of litigation? > > You seem to have over-reacted yet again. All I was trying to say was > that however much some people cherish the concept of standardisation, > and in particular the Wiseman dictionary, other don't. The people who > like it seem to see it through rose-tinted spectacles. Those who don't > like the particular book, or have a problem with the whole concept of > standardisation of terms (as many apparently do), are entitled to > their views, and in a free society are entitled to express their > views. Veiled threats of litigation are no substitute for a reasoned > discussion on this or any other publication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Of course they have the right. But like any opinion, it can be critiqued by anyone, including the author whose original idea it was. The idea of a 'war' between factions over terminology is somewhat dated. Many authors, magazine articles and schools, including where I teach, cross-reference texts and terms without too much difficulty. I just read a journal article today which, helpfully, used a table to cross-reference the Wiseman terms with the terms used by the author. Another recent materia medica has a glossary that cross-references the author's terms with the Wiseman terms. I think somewhat of a 'detente' has been reached. On Oct 4, 2004, at 11:38 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > > > > This is a circular argument. > > If people don't actually believe that a standardisation of terms is > desirable or necessary, then they don't have to offer *any* > alternative. > Even if they don't buy-in to the concept, it doesn't take away their > absolute right to have a critical opinion. > > Godfrey Bartlett > 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.