Establisment of a TCM_Terminology Discussion List?

[Guest guest]

Hi Godfrey, Peter (Deadman), Bob, & All,

 

Re: TCM Terminology and why we MUST retain the Pinyin (if not

the Hanzi) Terms.

 

I am crossposting this to other TCM/CHM/AP lists because, IMO,

this issue deserves widespread international debate.

 

Godfrey advised us to read Peter Deadman's review of the PDCM

by Wiseman & Feng [

http://www.jcm.co.uk/BookReviews/bookrevs69.phtml ].

 

Z'ev responded by referring us to an in-depth rebuttal by Bob Felt of

Peter's review:

http://www.paradigm-pubs.com/paradigm/refs/Felt/JCM.htm

 

If YOU have not read BOTH of those articles, I urge you to do so

ASAP.

 

Peter's review is thought-provoking. It acknowledges the

monumental work and scholarship of Wiseman & Feng, and that

they have done a great service to western understanding of TCM.

 

However, it also highlights the difficulty of having ANY ONE

" Standardised Term " for a specific TCM concept, as written in

Pinyin/Hanzi script.

 

However, Bob's rebuttal convinces me that we NEED Wiseman's

PDCM, not only because it is the most comprehensive compilation

of terms in Hanzi, Pinyin AND English, but ALSO because it has a

comprehensive index, and explanation of the uses and clinical

implications of the terms.

 

Where do we go now? There is no easy way around the impasse.

IF the Wiseman & Feng English Term (WFET) becomes the " Gold

Standard " for TCM terms in English, the many nuances inherent in

the original Pinyin/Hanzi terms will be lost to those who know only

WFET.

 

Many of us believe that we need a comprehensive and user-friendly

glossary, in which the WFET could be the backbone, but

terminology and definitions by other authors could be stitched in.

 

IMO, the way to go is to establish a DIGITAL DATABASE that

incorporates all the common TCM terms used in the main English

Language texts, but indexes them (and their implications) back to

the Pinyin and Hanzi terms.

 

I have searched Google to see if there is any email discussion list

specifically to discuss TCM terminology. I have failed to find one. Is

there such a list? If not, would those interested wish to establish

one?

 

A TCM_Terminology List would allow all thise interested to debate

the issues raised by Godfrey and Bob, and (if there are enough

TCM teachers & scholars on board), maybe even to begin to

construct excel spead sheets that list the main terms.

 

Any takers? Any volunteeers to be the ListMaster of a

TCM_Terminology List? [i cannot undertake this for many reasons,

but I would be interested to join that list).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Godfrey wrote:

> 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)

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

 

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

 

Chinese Proverb: " Man who says it can't be done, should not interrupt man doing

it "

[Guest guest]

Phil,

I agree that a database with both pinyin AND characters would be

useful. However, if more of the profession would learn at least basic

medical Chinese, Chinese medical dictionaries would help solve the

problem as well.

 

The problem with your suggestion is that no other authors who use

different translation term sets has posted those terms, or have terms

that number in the thousands, as Wiseman/Feng have done.

 

I would be very interested in contributing to such a project, time

permitting.

 

 

On Oct 4, 2004, at 4:29 PM, wrote:

 

> Where do we go now? There is no easy way around the impasse.

> IF the Wiseman & Feng English Term (WFET) becomes the " Gold

> Standard " for TCM terms in English, the many nuances inherent in

> the original Pinyin/Hanzi terms will be lost to those who know only

> WFET.

Many of us believe that we need a comprehensive and user-friendly

glossary, in which the WFET could be the backbone, but

terminology and definitions by other authors could be stitched in.

 

IMO, the way to go is to establish a DIGITAL DATABASE that

incorporates all the common TCM terms used in the main English

Language texts, but indexes them (and their implications) back to

the Pinyin and Hanzi terms.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Here I am pasting a reply from Bob Felt, publisher of the Wiseman

Practical Dictionary, with permission:

 

> " Most

> respondents did not see a problem with differing translations as long

> as the connection to the Chinese terminology remained in place,

 

As Wiseman notes, this is the crux of the issue. If the links to the

Chinese

source terms are public, and the number of terms is up to the task of

the

subject matter translated, differing word choices make a translator's

biases

clear. Someone using " wind fire eye " clearly emphasizes the Chinese

traditional logic, where someone using " conjunctivitis " clearly

emphasizes

congruence with biomedicine. Someone who sums all " tonification " terms

into the single word " tonification " clearly feels that the 13-some

distinctions

they have rolled into that one word aren't worth the trouble. On the

other

hand, someone who recognizes the category word " supplementation, " but

uses " fortify, nourish, boost " and so-forth to preserve their links to

the

pathomechamisms and therapeutic indications referenced by the Chinese

characters, feels these distinctions have clinical value. Wiseman,

and many

others, have been making this point for years.

 

The real question for any particular translation is the degree to which

the

arrival language term set is up to the task. Glosses of two and three

hundred terms are quite common, and glosses of less than 100 are common

enough, in so-called " clinical translation " where the books and

dictionaries

their Chinese sources references contain many, many thousands more. If

something has no label, it cannot be identified, clinically or

otherwise.

 

The argument that standardization stiffles creativity and

self-expression is

politically adept but more like our US political " sound bites " than

effective

critique. Even in so-called " free " poetic and literary translators

treat the

words that describe people, places, things, and ideas with standard

renderings. The literary skill is in the translation of the words

surrounding

these key terms. It is one thing to say that Homer's famous Greek

expression should be translated the " rosy fingers of dawn " or the

" rose-pink

tendrils of morning. " It is quite another to say that it means the

" rosy

fingers of sunset " and this is exactly what is happening when people

paraphrase whole classes of terms into one easy word.

 

I don' think there is any great urge among translation theorists to

have one

and only one dictionary for each and every art, skill or science that is

translated from one language to another. However, I don't think that

can

stand as an excuse for having English textbooks and reference texts

where

the terms given specific, public definition in glossaries or

dictionaries

represent only a couple of percentage points of those used in the

original

Chinese texts.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Felt bob

Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com

202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758

Taos, New Mexico 87571

 

 

 

 

On Oct 4, 2004, at 4:29 PM, wrote:

 

> Where do we go now? There is no easy way around the impasse.

> IF the Wiseman & Feng English Term (WFET) becomes the " Gold

> Standard " for TCM terms in English, the many nuances inherent in

> the original Pinyin/Hanzi terms will be lost to those who know only

> WFET.