Terminology, language & communication within and between tthe profession

[Guest guest]

Hi Phil,

 

I agree with what you say here. My post was specifically in response to

the claim that TCM has to change its terminology into those of WM or it

has no future. The idea you present here is also the best solution IMO.

That is, have a accessible reference for WM to look up when they have

something they wish to understand about TCM.......but this is very

different from changing all TCM terms to WM ones.

 

Where is this recent Wiseman CD? I want it!!!!

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

On 09/10/2004, at 11:58 AM, wrote:

 

>

> Hi Steve, & All,

>

>> ...why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM

>> when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? ...

>> Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to

>> " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither

>> do my patients. ...Steve

>

> I have been following the thread on TCM terminology but will not

> comment yet, except to Steve's note, above.

>

> Steve, when a Swahili Witchdoctor and a Lapp Shaman meet, even

> if they are open, intelligent and loving people, who want to know

> and understand each other, they need a common language to

> communicate effectively.

>

> INDIVIDUAL people in WM or TCM may not have the time or

> inclination to try to communicate their views / experiences to

> colleagues in the " other tribe " . That is their choice, and individuals

> must follow their own priorities.

>

> However, IMO, the professions [as groups] should more to develop

> language to enable them to communicate effectively both within

> and between the professions.

>

> Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

> and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

>

> Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

> others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

> Wiseman's terms.

>

> An extensive digital database, with the common synonyms

> (alternative English expressions for the same TCM concept)

> stitched in would be a huge advance, especially for the TCM

> professions.

>

>

> Best regards,

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Steve, & All,

 

> ...why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM

> when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? ...

> Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to

> " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither

> do my patients. ...Steve

 

I have been following the thread on TCM terminology but will not

comment yet, except to Steve's note, above.

 

Steve, when a Swahili Witchdoctor and a Lapp Shaman meet, even

if they are open, intelligent and loving people, who want to know

and understand each other, they need a common language to

communicate effectively.

 

INDIVIDUAL people in WM or TCM may not have the time or

inclination to try to communicate their views / experiences to

colleagues in the " other tribe " . That is their choice, and individuals

must follow their own priorities.

 

However, IMO, the professions [as groups] should more to develop

language to enable them to communicate effectively both within

and between the professions.

 

Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

 

Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

Wiseman's terms.

 

An extensive digital database, with the common synonyms

(alternative English expressions for the same TCM concept)

stitched in would be a huge advance, especially for the TCM

professions.

 

 

Best regards,

 

Email: <

 

WORK : Teagasc, c/o 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, 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]

Hi Phil,

 

I agree with what you say here. My post was specifically in response to

the claim that TCM has to change its terminology into those of WM or it

has no future. The idea you present here is also the best solution IMO.

That is, have a accessible reference for WM to look up when they have

something they wish to understand about TCM.......but this is very

different from changing all TCM terms to WM ones.

 

Where is this recent Wiseman CD? I want it!!!!

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

On 09/10/2004, at 11:58 AM, wrote:

 

>

> Hi Steve, & All,

>

>> ...why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM

>> when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? ...

>> Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to

>> " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither

>> do my patients. ...Steve

>

> I have been following the thread on TCM terminology but will not

> comment yet, except to Steve's note, above.

>

> Steve, when a Swahili Witchdoctor and a Lapp Shaman meet, even

> if they are open, intelligent and loving people, who want to know

> and understand each other, they need a common language to

> communicate effectively.

>

> INDIVIDUAL people in WM or TCM may not have the time or

> inclination to try to communicate their views / experiences to

> colleagues in the " other tribe " . That is their choice, and individuals

> must follow their own priorities.

>

> However, IMO, the professions [as groups] should more to develop

> language to enable them to communicate effectively both within

> and between the professions.

>

> Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

> and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

>

> Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

> others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

> Wiseman's terms.

>

> An extensive digital database, with the common synonyms

> (alternative English expressions for the same TCM concept)

> stitched in would be a huge advance, especially for the TCM

> professions.

>

>

> Best regards,

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Phil

 

I like your way of thinking, it is true we cannot expect everyone to use a

different version of the same language, if we cannot even communicate with each

other what is there for us. The other thing I would say is that if our terms

conflict with WM we put the patient at risk e.g. TCM Dr could say you have a

heart problem but not be talking about the heart, this is confusing and

conflicting. The best rule for a sound terminology is to make it clear and

simple, if you want to bring TCM to the west you need to adapt accordingly. To

expect everyone to change to suit you is absurd and will never happen, if we do

adapt we could become mainstream. Wiseman despite his huge effort still has lots

of conflicts, however being he is a wiseman he would adapt if shown a better

choice so I cant wait to see his opinion. How is the best way toget in contact.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

< wrote:

Hi Steve, & All,

 

> ...why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM

> when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? ...

> Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to

> " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither

> do my patients. ...Steve

 

I have been following the thread on TCM terminology but will not

comment yet, except to Steve's note, above.

 

Steve, when a Swahili Witchdoctor and a Lapp Shaman meet, even

if they are open, intelligent and loving people, who want to know

and understand each other, they need a common language to

communicate effectively.

 

INDIVIDUAL people in WM or TCM may not have the time or

inclination to try to communicate their views / experiences to

colleagues in the " other tribe " . That is their choice, and individuals

must follow their own priorities.

 

However, IMO, the professions [as groups] should more to develop

language to enable them to communicate effectively both within

and between the professions.

 

Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

 

Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

Wiseman's terms.

 

An extensive digital database, with the common synonyms

(alternative English expressions for the same TCM concept)

stitched in would be a huge advance, especially for the TCM

professions.

 

 

Best regards,

 

[Guest guest]

[:]

> Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

> and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

>

> Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

> others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

> Wiseman's terms.

 

[Eric:]

I'm sure that if any translators wish to compile a list of several

thousand terms pegged to the Chinese characters and referenced with

definitions and rationale for their translation technique, Nigel

Wiseman would be happy to add his terms that correspond to those

character sets. I do not think that anyone has more than a few

hundred characters glossed anywhere that can be used in all time

periods of literature. The few dictionaries with extensive term

lists carry the inferences of modern medical concepts, concepts that

were unknown during the historical period of much of the literature

in question.

 

The dictionaries of term lists that come from China often have never

had any input from native English speakers. Furthermore, they are

frequently written by people who believe that Westerners are

incapable of understanding the meaning and imagery of Chinese

medicine because they lack the Chinese cultural background. Thus

their term lists are often simplified and heavily influenced by

Western medicine, which they perceive to be the exclusive way that

we view the world. Most Chinese doctors are unaware that the

majority of their readership is not Western doctors, but in fact

people whose primary training is in traditional Chinese medicine.

 

Having consistent terms for translation allows the imagery of

Chinese medicine to be preserved, and it trusts that a well-trained

Western mind is capable of grasping the concepts of Chinese medicine

without dilution and simplification. Having transparent,

accountable translation shows respect to the reader because it

allows the reader to see Chinese medicine as it is, with minimal

filtering of information.

 

Unfortunately, there are very few natively bilingual Chinese members

of our community involved with translation, and few seem

particularly motivated to spend years of effort into making a term

list with definitions. Dual native speakers with a Chinese medicine

background rarely are paying much attention to English literature in

the first place, and they often have more interesting opportunities

available to them than dictionary creation. Besides, they are aware

of how difficult the job is. One must have significant linguist

knowledge just to choose words that can be used in the right part of

speech alone (Chinese doesn't divide nouns and verbs like we do),

much less terms that are flexible to fit thousands of years of

literature.

 

All English-native speakers who study Chinese medical language are

happy to have Nigel's dictionaries and matching term lists. It is

easy for language students to respect his scholarly ability, so most

are happy to have a body of traceable terms to use. When you don't

know a character, you need an explanation from someone that you can

trust, it can't be intuited. Keep in mind that Nigel did not

complete the Practical Dictionary alone. He spent his whole

professional life working in Chinese medical universities with a

full faculty to ask questions to, and a perfect command of the

Chinese language with which to ask. Feng Ye, the co-author of the

PD, seems rarely noted in term discussions, but Feng Ye is one of

the most well-known internal medicine doctors in all of Taiwan. He

has treated hundreds of thousands of patients and has knowledge of

classical and modern literature that few in the Chinese world can

compare with, much less most of us on this list. Nigel and Feng Ye

are people that can be trusted on the validity of their term

research.

 

When you learn to read Chinese, you need reliable advice on what all

these new terms mean. No doctor can hold your hand through the

process of learning thousands of terms, and no list from a glossary

of 150 terms is going to help you approach the literature. No one

else offers 30,000 Chinese terms pegged to their English

counterparts. It is a meaningless discussion to integrate

terminology because there are no other developed terminologies to

choose from.

 

If you have a comparable list of terms, the world would be happy to

see it and I'm sure Nigel's equivalents could be linked to it. But

you should have some respect for a man's scholarly achievements- no

one in any field publishes 20 years of their work on a digital

format with the invitation to the public to modify it as they

choose. That is like telling Harrison's that you don't trust their

definitions and you think it should be passed around to different

doctors to overwrite in any way that they believe is relevant.

Imagine getting a botanical lexicon and telling the publisher that

is should be passed around to the nation's botanists to redefine

species divisions as they choose.

 

Just like botanists need a starting point to learn species and

families before they start contending about the classification of

this or that, so language students of TCM need a solid reference to

get a good foundation. Botanists use Latin because common names are

too variable, even though they are easier. We should do the same,

use a technical language like every other professional field.

 

Chinese texts are much easier to approach when students are versed

in solid English education with metaphors and terminology intact.

Schools should cultivate scholastic potential by encouraging

language study and consistent terminology use. At PCOM, the classes

taught by Bob Damone, , and were clarified

by their use of consistent terminology, which translated into a

greater ability to make a cohesive diagnosis and pick a cohesive

treatment plan in the clinic. It grounds students in authentic

Chinese medicine as it is actually practiced by the Chinese, and it

grooms students for more unlimited options in the professional world

after graduation by increasing accessibility to further study in

China.

 

Students and teachers need a consistent reference in order to

approach a wider variety of topics than basic board exam

preparation. There is no other solid reference to even offer

competition, so we use Nigel's. And few of the people that use it

are complaining.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

This is an interesting discussion

 

TCM and WM have very different philosophical foundations, yet they both can

help patients

 

(and, yes, they can both harm patients when abused)

 

TCM has a very descriptive terminology which does not translate into WM

vocabulary - it is not wrong, it is different

 

 

 

Instead of mandating that WM practitioners use our vocabulary, I have found

that if I define a patient in WM terms, and then also add in my TCM

discussion, they are a lot more willing to work together and accept my

treatments

 

WM doctors will not endorse what they do not understand - they have a

license to protect and won't risk it on something that doesn't make sense to

them

 

If there is going to be a sharing of vocabulary - it has to start with the

TCM practitioner

 

 

 

doug

 

 

 

_____

 

manu hamlin [manuhamlin]

Monday, October 11, 2004 12:05 AM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Terminology, language & communication within and between

tthe profession

 

 

 

 

Hi Phil

 

I like your way of thinking, it is true we cannot expect everyone to use a

different version of the same language, if we cannot even communicate with

each other what is there for us. The other thing I would say is that if our

terms conflict with WM we put the patient at risk e.g. TCM Dr could say you

have a heart problem but not be talking about the heart, this is confusing

and conflicting. The best rule for a sound terminology is to make it clear

and simple, if you want to bring TCM to the west you need to adapt

accordingly. To expect everyone to change to suit you is absurd and will

never happen, if we do adapt we could become mainstream. Wiseman despite his

huge effort still has lots of conflicts, however being he is a wiseman he

would adapt if shown a better choice so I cant wait to see his opinion. How

is the best way toget in contact.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

< wrote:

Hi Steve, & All,

 

> ...why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM

> when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? ...

> Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to

> " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither

> do my patients. ...Steve

 

I have been following the thread on TCM terminology but will not

comment yet, except to Steve's note, above.

 

Steve, when a Swahili Witchdoctor and a Lapp Shaman meet, even

if they are open, intelligent and loving people, who want to know

and understand each other, they need a common language to

communicate effectively.

 

INDIVIDUAL people in WM or TCM may not have the time or

inclination to try to communicate their views / experiences to

colleagues in the " other tribe " . That is their choice, and individuals

must follow their own priorities.

 

However, IMO, the professions [as groups] should more to develop

language to enable them to communicate effectively both within

and between the professions.

 

Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

 

Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

Wiseman's terms.

 

An extensive digital database, with the common synonyms

(alternative English expressions for the same TCM concept)

stitched in would be a huge advance, especially for the TCM

professions.

 

 

Best regards,

 

[Guest guest]

[:]

> Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

> and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

>

> Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

> others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

> Wiseman's terms.

 

[Eric:]

I'm sure that if any translators wish to compile a list of several

thousand terms pegged to the Chinese characters and referenced with

definitions and rationale for their translation technique, Nigel

Wiseman would be happy to add his terms that correspond to those

character sets. I do not think that anyone has more than a few

hundred characters glossed anywhere that can be used in all time

periods of literature. The few dictionaries with extensive term

lists carry the inferences of modern medical concepts, concepts that

were unknown during the historical period of much of the literature

in question.

 

The dictionaries of term lists that come from China often have never

had any input from native English speakers. Furthermore, they are

frequently written by people who believe that Westerners are

incapable of understanding the meaning and imagery of Chinese

medicine because they lack the Chinese cultural background. Thus

their term lists are often simplified and heavily influenced by

Western medicine, which they perceive to be the exclusive way that

we view the world. Most Chinese doctors are unaware that the

majority of their readership is not Western doctors, but in fact

people whose primary training is in traditional Chinese medicine.

 

Having consistent terms for translation allows the imagery of

Chinese medicine to be preserved, and it trusts that a well-trained

Western mind is capable of grasping the concepts of Chinese medicine

without dilution and simplification. Having transparent,

accountable translation shows respect to the reader because it

allows the reader to see Chinese medicine as it is, with minimal

filtering of information.

 

Unfortunately, there are very few natively bilingual Chinese members

of our community involved with translation, and few seem

particularly motivated to spend years of effort into making a term

list with definitions. Dual native speakers with a Chinese medicine

background rarely are paying much attention to English literature in

the first place, and they often have more interesting opportunities

available to them than dictionary creation. Besides, they are aware

of how difficult the job is. One must have significant linguist

knowledge just to choose words that can be used in the right part of

speech alone (Chinese doesn't divide nouns and verbs like we do),

much less terms that are flexible to fit thousands of years of

literature.

 

All English-native speakers who study Chinese medical language are

happy to have Nigel's dictionaries and matching term lists. It is

easy for language students to respect his scholarly ability, so most

are happy to have a body of traceable terms to use. When you don't

know a character, you need an explanation from someone that you can

trust, it can't be intuited. Keep in mind that Nigel did not

complete the Practical Dictionary alone. He spent his whole

professional life working in Chinese medical universities with a

full faculty to ask questions to, and a perfect command of the

Chinese language with which to ask. Feng Ye, the co-author of the

PD, seems rarely noted in term discussions, but Feng Ye is one of

the most well-known internal medicine doctors in all of Taiwan. He

has treated hundreds of thousands of patients and has knowledge of

classical and modern literature that few in the Chinese world can

compare with, much less most of us on this list. Nigel and Feng Ye

are people that can be trusted on the validity of their term

research.

 

When you learn to read Chinese, you need reliable advice on what all

these new terms mean. No doctor can hold your hand through the

process of learning thousands of terms, and no list from a glossary

of 150 terms is going to help you approach the literature. No one

else offers 30,000 Chinese terms pegged to their English

counterparts. It is a meaningless discussion to integrate

terminology because there are no other developed terminologies to

choose from.

 

If you have a comparable list of terms, the world would be happy to

see it and I'm sure Nigel's equivalents could be linked to it. But

you should have some respect for a man's scholarly achievements- no

one in any field publishes 20 years of their work on a digital

format with the invitation to the public to modify it as they

choose. That is like telling Harrison's that you don't trust their

definitions and you think it should be passed around to different

doctors to overwrite in any way that they believe is relevant.

Imagine getting a botanical lexicon and telling the publisher that

is should be passed around to the nation's botanists to redefine

species divisions as they choose.

 

Just like botanists need a starting point to learn species and

families before they start contending about the classification of

this or that, so language students of TCM need a solid reference to

get a good foundation. Botanists use Latin because common names are

too variable, even though they are easier. We should do the same,

use a technical language like every other professional field.

 

Chinese texts are much easier to approach when students are versed

in solid English education with metaphors and terminology intact.

Schools should cultivate scholastic potential by encouraging

language study and consistent terminology use. At PCOM, the classes

taught by Bob Damone, , and were clarified

by their use of consistent terminology, which translated into a

greater ability to make a cohesive diagnosis and pick a cohesive

treatment plan in the clinic. It grounds students in authentic

Chinese medicine as it is actually practiced by the Chinese, and it

grooms students for more unlimited options in the professional world

after graduation by increasing accessibility to further study in

China.

 

Students and teachers need a consistent reference in order to

approach a wider variety of topics than basic board exam

preparation. There is no other solid reference to even offer

competition, so we use Nigel's. And few of the people that use it

are complaining.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Hi Doug

 

You said it all I nothing more to add. Cheers

 

Doug Briggs <docacu wrote:

 

This is an interesting discussion

 

TCM and WM have very different philosophical foundations, yet they both can

help patients

 

(and, yes, they can both harm patients when abused)

 

TCM has a very descriptive terminology which does not translate into WM

vocabulary - it is not wrong, it is different

 

 

 

Instead of mandating that WM practitioners use our vocabulary, I have found

that if I define a patient in WM terms, and then also add in my TCM

discussion, they are a lot more willing to work together and accept my

treatments

 

WM doctors will not endorse what they do not understand - they have a

license to protect and won't risk it on something that doesn't make sense to

them

 

If there is going to be a sharing of vocabulary - it has to start with the

TCM practitioner

 

 

 

doug

 

 

 

_____

 

manu hamlin [manuhamlin]

Monday, October 11, 2004 12:05 AM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Terminology, language & communication within and between

tthe profession

 

 

 

 

Hi Phil

 

I like your way of thinking, it is true we cannot expect everyone to use a

different version of the same language, if we cannot even communicate with

each other what is there for us. The other thing I would say is that if our

terms conflict with WM we put the patient at risk e.g. TCM Dr could say you

have a heart problem but not be talking about the heart, this is confusing

and conflicting. The best rule for a sound terminology is to make it clear

and simple, if you want to bring TCM to the west you need to adapt

accordingly. To expect everyone to change to suit you is absurd and will

never happen, if we do adapt we could become mainstream. Wiseman despite his

huge effort still has lots of conflicts, however being he is a wiseman he

would adapt if shown a better choice so I cant wait to see his opinion. How

is the best way toget in contact.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

< wrote:

Hi Steve, & All,

 

> ...why is it necessary for us to change TCM terminology to fit WM

> when it is increasingly losing its respect in the world? ...

> Personally I don't need WM to " like " what I do, nor do I need WM to

> " understand " my professional language or " agree " with it; neither

> do my patients. ...Steve

 

I have been following the thread on TCM terminology but will not

comment yet, except to Steve's note, above.

 

Steve, when a Swahili Witchdoctor and a Lapp Shaman meet, even

if they are open, intelligent and loving people, who want to know

and understand each other, they need a common language to

communicate effectively.

 

INDIVIDUAL people in WM or TCM may not have the time or

inclination to try to communicate their views / experiences to

colleagues in the " other tribe " . That is their choice, and individuals

must follow their own priorities.

 

However, IMO, the professions [as groups] should more to develop

language to enable them to communicate effectively both within

and between the professions.

 

Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases.

 

Once these are available, groups like this one, CHA, and many

others could start to append synonyms to the relevant row of

Wiseman's terms.

 

An extensive digital database, with the common synonyms

(alternative English expressions for the same TCM concept)

stitched in would be a huge advance, especially for the TCM

professions.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Phil,

 

 

> Much of the Terminology problem will disappear if Wiseman's PD

> and his recent CD can be integrated on editable digital databases

 

I disagree. Databases do not solve problems; databases allow problem

solvers to access data in a useful manner. You cannot make apples

and organges the same by entering them into a database. In the case

of English CM terminology you have a philosophical divide between

those who believe that each Chinese language term that is used with a

consistent definition within some segment of the traditional Chinese

language medical literature should be:

 

1. Recognized as a technical term with a definition in Chinese.

2. Preserved every time encountered according to the Chinese

definition.

3. Translated consistently every time encountered.

4. Translated according to a publically-stated set of

principles for a publically-stated set of terms.

 

On the other hand, you have writers who believe that a standardized

terminology is essentially worthless, or misleading, and who thus

assert it is their job to write in English what they believe a

particular Chinese text to mean.

 

Word-to-word comparisons of term use by people from these

different " camps " are effectively meaningless. First, and

practically, by definition the second camp's translations are not

guaranteed beyond the context in which you find them. In other

words, knowing the Chinese-English pairing cannot predict how the

same characters will be translated in any other passage in any other

context. Another way to say this is to say that unless someone

comes to the database table with a well-defined set of terms that

they propose be used in each instance encountered, within each text

of a particular type or era, there is simply nothing to be

accomplished by comparing those terms.

 

Now, and I am not sure how obvious this is, this is a didactic

statement of the problem, not a picture of reality. In reality, in

practice, virtually every translator has a set of terms that they

translate consitently. In other words, their assertion that there

is no value in standardization applies only " to a point. " In

reality the difference between these camps is not actually in the

value of standardization but in the number of Chinese terms for which

standardization is appropriate. So, the database question becomes,

how do you make meaningful comparisons between term sets of different

sizes and scopes?

 

You don't!

 

Imagine, for example, that you start-out with a standard Chinese

traditional medical data set, one of the authoritative chinese-

chinese traditional medical dictionaries. This gives us a table

depth of at least 30,000 terms and more likely 60,000 terms with

inclusion of nomenclatures like medicinals and formulas--- think of

this as a table with vertical columns (all the unique Chinese

character terms) and horizontal rows (each proffered translation of

those terms). Now, imagine that all the terms in Maciocia's

glossaries are put in Row 1, and that all the terms in " Chinese

Acupuncture and Moxibustion " in Row 2, and so forth and so on.

 

What can you do?

 

Not much.

 

You can see where they all agree but you know nothing about the

substance of the agreement because there is no way to say why one

term is " standardized " and others are not. Where any row is empty,

or where any of the three rows disagree, how do you make a reasonable

choice, a rational comparison? You cannot. As I noted in another

of our listserv conversations, if you want your text to conform to

western medicine, you will prefer a term like " conjunctivitis " rather

than " wind fire eye; " you will summarize all the " building-up-

something " terms into " tonification, " rather than using a unique term

for each set of Chinese characters that defines a supplementing

action according to the treatment principle to which it relates.

These are two very different translation principles. In the first

case, the intent is to conform traditional concepts to biomedical

knowledge, or to the expectations of the target audience. In effect,

the writer wants the reader to see CM as congruent with audience

expectations. In the second case, the intent is to conform the

English translation to the metaphoric logic by which the condition

was traditionally named. In this case the translator prioritizes

transmission of the traditional logic as well as the traditional

definition.

 

Thus, it seems to me that the idea of adding Wiseman's terms, or for

that matter, Sivin's, Unschuld's, or anyone else's who works from the

philological perspective, has no practical use. You still have the

problem of the empty rows; you still have the problem of the

differening principles; and, you still have the problem of contextual

variance in term use.

 

It seems to me that what you want to do is to cross reference and

argue subjective term choices for the relatively small set of terms

that are glossed in the texts with which most people are familiar.

This can be done with a simple spread sheet and it is hardly worth

the trouble of a database install for the size it is likely to be.

Just write the authors and ask for their list of standardized terms

and enter them in Excel. From one point of view, that is, from the

intent to talk about Chinese medicine in terms that are aimed to

please a target audience, you will be able to discover what readers

think about these concepts and what they believe them to mean.

Practically, you will be able to see what each of the writers who use

a limited set of standard terms have prioritized in their term

choices. However, what you cannot do is make meaningful comparisons

to terms derived by different and largely contradictory principles.

 

Such a project would be useful to people who wanted to write about

Chinese medicine from the viewpoint of the target audience. However,

there is nothing to be gained by comparison to terms choices based on

principles centered in the Chinese sources.

 

As for the practical matters in this vein. Nigel has produced a CD

of terms. It is not a commercial product, it is not meant as a

commercial product, and it is not meant for general circulation. It

is not a database. It is a reference for Chinese scholars (it is

presented in Chinese) who are working with us.

[Guest guest]

, " rfaultson " <bob@p...> wrote:

 

>

> It seems to me that what you want to do is to cross reference and

> argue subjective term choices for the relatively small set of terms

> that are glossed in the texts with which most people are familiar.

> This can be done with a simple spread sheet and it is hardly worth

> the trouble of a database install for the size it is likely to be.

 

Basically, its put up or shut up time. FCM was published in 1986. Its been

almost 20

years, so where's an alternate to Wiseman? Criticisms that persist for decades

without

even an attempt at a viable alternative model ring hollow indeed.

 

[Guest guest]

--- manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

> TCM Dr could say you

> have a heart problem but not be talking about the

> heart, this is confusing and conflicting.

 

This is an interesting point - when does the above

ever happen?

 

Thanks,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Its difficult to paraphrase in WM words a profiled qi, which a TCM condition

really is.

 

This is because the two systems base on different premises.

 

WM recognizes symptomologic groupings.

TCM, the design of energies which has caused it.

 

Appendicitis is Heat in Yang of Metal with overtones of Damp.

How in the world can one render this in WM terms?

 

*

TCM'er: There's Heat, Doc, in the LU section of the abdominal hara.

WM Doc: What? The LU's are in the chest. Who's Hara?

 

TCM'er: Hara is abdomen. LU is represented on that.

WM Doc: Like, by whom? Is there a research study on it?

*

 

Like that.

 

Dr. Holmes Keikobad

MB BS DPH Ret. DIP AC NCCAOM LIC AC CO & AZ

www.acu-free.com - 15 CEUS by video.

NCCAOM reviewed. Approved in CA & most states.

[Guest guest]

Hi Hugo

 

With the current interpratation this type of confusion can be very common. For

example a I know patients who have seen a TCM doctor and been told they have a

kidney deficiency problem, they went to a WM doctor and ran a test on there

kidney, the WM doctor said there is nothing wrong with your kidney according to

the tests. After talking with this patient it was obvious that the TCM doctor

was talking about the reproductive system not the actual kidney. When the TCM

doctor says kidney he relates to way more than the actual orgon, he is talking

about a whole system e.g. reproductive system, affecting bone strength,

horemones, vitality. So for a TCM doctor to say this to a western educated

person is misleading, this is the problem with the commonly used interpratations

and translations. As stated before this is easily soved, the meridian system has

to be made easily destingishable from the anatomical system. Example: If the TCM

doctor said you have a problem with your vitality system

(instead of kidney energy) their would be no confusion, and no assumption that

you are simply talking about the actual organ. For anyone to argue with this

point is just sticking there head in the sand, we are in the west and must adapt

not the other way round as doug explained nicely the other day.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote:

 

--- manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

> TCM Dr could say you

> have a heart problem but not be talking about the

> heart, this is confusing and conflicting.

 

This is an interesting point - when does the above

ever happen?

 

Thanks,

Hugo

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://babel.altavista.com/

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being

delivered.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

This line of argument doesn't strike any chord with me. All a CM

physician has to do is communicate and explain what kidney qi vacuity

means, and then there won't be confusion. If a patient runs to a

Western doctor afterwards asking to have his kidneys checked, then the

CM physician has not properly done their job in explaining what they

are talking about.

 

 

I haven't seen you propose any alternative terms to use for those you

think are problematic, so your argument is falling on deaf ears until

you give specific examples with their Chinese source characters, pinyin

and equivalents. Inventing an entirely different terminology with the

sole goal of impressing Western ears seems to be building castles made

of sand, in my opinion. A term like 'vitality system' really doesn't

mean anything if it doesn't relate to the source characters that were

originally used.

 

 

On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:58 PM, manu hamlin wrote:

 

> With the current interpratation this type of confusion can be very

> common. For example a I know patients who have seen a TCM doctor and

> been told they have a kidney deficiency problem, they went to a WM

> doctor and ran a test on there kidney, the WM doctor said there is

> nothing wrong with your kidney according to the tests. After talking

> with this patient it was obvious that the TCM doctor was talking about

> the reproductive system not the actual kidney. When the TCM doctor

> says kidney he relates to way more than the actual orgon, he is

> talking about a whole system e.g. reproductive system, affecting bone

> strength, horemones, vitality. So for a TCM doctor to say this to a

> western educated person is misleading, this is the problem with the

> commonly used interpratations and translations. As stated before this

> is easily soved, the meridian system has to be made easily

> destingishable from the anatomical system. Example: If the TCM doctor

> said you have a problem with your vitality system

> (instead of kidney energy) their would be no confusion, and no

> assumption that you are simply talking about the actual organ. For

> anyone to argue with this point is just sticking there head in the

> sand, we are in the west and must adapt not the other way round as

> doug explained nicely the other day.

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " homi kaikobad "

<aryaone@e...>

wrote:

> *

> TCM'er: There's Heat, Doc, in the LU section of the abdominal hara.

> WM Doc: What? The LU's are in the chest. Who's Hara?

>

> TCM'er: Hara is abdomen. LU is represented on that.

> WM Doc: Like, by whom? Is there a research study on it?

> *

 

actually, i remember a few years ago getting an email from a gastroenterologist

who had

been surfing and came across my site. he saw all the belly diagrams and was

really

intrigued. he wrote me wanting to know more and where he could study Japanese

abdominal diagnosis. i thought that was pretty cool.

 

rh

[Guest guest]

Hola Manu,

My own approach is to educate my patients in the TCM terminologies. I explain

carefuly and in great detail what is meant when we use the names of the organs

and i also explain as much about TCM as the patient is willing to learn.

Besides being very effective within my practice 14 of my patients (that i know

of)have ended up graduating from TCM schools.

Doc

 

manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

 

Hi Hugo

 

With the current interpratation this type of confusion can be very common. For

example a I know patients who have seen a TCM doctor and been told they have a

kidney deficiency problem, they went to a WM doctor and ran a test on there

kidney, the WM doctor said there is nothing wrong with your kidney according to

the tests. After talking with this patient it was obvious that the TCM doctor

was talking about the reproductive system not the actual kidney. When the TCM

doctor says kidney he relates to way more than the actual orgon, he is talking

about a whole system e.g. reproductive system, affecting bone strength,

horemones, vitality. So for a TCM doctor to say this to a western educated

person is misleading, this is the problem with the commonly used interpratations

and translations. As stated before this is easily soved, the meridian system has

to be made easily destingishable from the anatomical system. Example: If the TCM

doctor said you have a problem with your vitality s ystem

(instead of kidney energy) their would be no confusion, and no assumption that

you are simply talking about the actual organ. For anyone to argue with this

point is just sticking there head in the sand, we are in the west and must adapt

not the other way round as doug explained nicely the other day.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote:

 

--- manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

> TCM Dr could say you

> have a heart problem but not be talking about the

> heart, this is confusing and conflicting.

 

This is an interesting point - when does the above

ever happen?

 

Thanks,

Hugo

[Guest guest]

Hi Homi

 

The idea was not is not to change every word to western word just the ones that

have simular, misleading or confusing context when when working with TCM. As

often many western versions do have this problem. Terminology is only a small

part for the two medicines to work together there needs to be new rules that can

make them compatable, changing some of the terminology is just part of that

process of compatability.Regarding if their has been research done on this have

you not been reading all the posts the last few weeks. The research I am

reffering to is from the book " Unification of Western Medicine & Traditional

" . I have uploaded four articles regarding the book to the files

section in the unification folder, have a read its very interesting.

 

Regards

 

Manu

 

homi kaikobad <aryaone wrote:

 

Its difficult to paraphrase in WM words a profiled qi, which a TCM condition

really is.

 

This is because the two systems base on different premises.

 

WM recognizes symptomologic groupings.

TCM, the design of energies which has caused it.

 

Appendicitis is Heat in Yang of Metal with overtones of Damp.

How in the world can one render this in WM terms?

 

*

TCM'er: There's Heat, Doc, in the LU section of the abdominal hara.

WM Doc: What? The LU's are in the chest. Who's Hara?

 

TCM'er: Hara is abdomen. LU is represented on that.

WM Doc: Like, by whom? Is there a research study on it?

*

 

Like that.

 

Dr. Holmes Keikobad

[Guest guest]

Manu,

 

The underlying syndrome in this case is the difference in paradigms. What

Alopaths see as THE DISEASE is to the TCM/CM practitioner no more than one of

many factors in creating a picture or pattern.

 

The problems that arise in terms of communication are not the words or terms we

use. To place that as the problem is similar to seeing an ulcer as a single

disease or syndrome when we know through our CM studies that an ulcer is no more

than a symptom of many differing syndromes.

 

With this in mind I often work with Alopathic docs.

I communicate quite well with MDs and RNs by explaininmg and educating them as

we talk.In the process i help educate them to the ways in which CM can help

their patients, thus generating more referals for my clinic and -long term- for

TCM.

 

Fully 10% of my patient referals come from MDs.

 

 

I also BTW lecture at the local Alopathic University as part of their CAM

sstudies. This allows the would be docs to have this as part of their picture

long before they enter the clinic.

 

As to the Unification you seem so keen on; having read what you have posted of

the book I reject the concept.

 

Doc

 

 

manu hamlin <manuhamlin wrote:

 

 

Hi Homi

 

The idea was not is not to change every word to western word just the ones that

have simular, misleading or confusing context when when working with TCM. As

often many western versions do have this problem.

 

 

" The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil,

but because of the people who don't do anything about it. "

-- Albert Einstein

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

The wise are scattered in the unlikeliest of places.

 

It is moot that there are many WM'ers who are more sensitive to the basis

of TCM even when unknowing of the matrix of it, than there are

dyed-in-the-wool

TCM'ers, who having garnered the credentials, do no more than preen and

posture

and do little else.

 

Back in the East there was the concept of Shif'aa [she-fa], a kind of innate

healing

power within a being not conditioned by formal learning.

 

If a learned healer had it, he or she would heal, no matter what.

If an unlearned healer had it, he or she would heal, no matter what.

In an highly learned healer did not have it, he or she could not heal, no

matter what.

 

Once long ago a visiting radiologist came along to teach a bunch of heathens

how

to 'read' X-ray plates, and fumbled and mumbled an afternoon away, rambling

through dozens of plates, leaving the students more dazed and clueless than

they usually were, it being a natural state of being for med students.

 

I happened to be there at the tail end where some stragglers were trying to

make

useful notes of it, the dreaded exams being around the corner.

 

Up comes a sort of a non-tech assistant, with a large sense of disdain for

medics

in particular, and professors who pretended, in general. He offers to

give an impromptu demonstration on how to read signs in dark negatives. With

some smirking the students agree, and the man is off at a canter.

 

In that dank evening I witnessed the most brilliant deductive demonstration

that,

I would have to travel the world, to never find the likes of.

 

" This is a Catholic woman [the cross] a mother of 4 or 5 [pendulous spent

breasts] given to dry cough at night [the thin cylindrical chest with a

condition

similar to the infamous LU Yn Deficiency] who had a fall or was battered

when a child [fused ribs with upgrown cartilage now calcified] from the

right rear side [left ribs seen through the front curvature, what the heck!]

probably lived a frugal life more indoors, hails probably from the upcountry

regions at 7000 above sea level, with a pronounced Vit D deficiency

[somewhat of a pigeon chest, thinly rib osseoum, skewered costo-

sternal joints, in places rarer bone than should be] ..... "

 

The man takes plate after plate and goes through a litany of terms in this

time I have a proper TCM term for.

 

No, the man had never seen this side of a med school. Yes, he diagnosed like

the Blue Blazes without breaking a sweat.

 

I believe he had a truck load of Shifa'aa and some to spare.

 

I think there are some WM'ers out there who would do capitally with

what is available to some TCM'ers.

 

The other way around does not work.

 

Dr. Holmes Keikobad

MB BS DPH Ret. DIP AC NCCAOM LIC AC CO & AZ

www.acu-free.com - 15 CEUS by video.

NCCAOM reviewed. Approved in CA & most states.

> Chinese Medicine , " homi kaikobad "

> <aryaone@e...>

> wrote:

>> *

>> TCM'er: There's Heat, Doc, in the LU section of the abdominal hara.

>> WM Doc: What? The LU's are in the chest. Who's Hara?

>>

>> TCM'er: Hara is abdomen. LU is represented on that.

>> WM Doc: Like, by whom? Is there a research study on it?

>> *

>

> actually, i remember a few years ago getting an email from a

> gastroenterologist who had

> been surfing and came across my site. he saw all the belly diagrams and

> was really

> intrigued. he wrote me wanting to know more and where he could study

> Japanese

> abdominal diagnosis. i thought that was pretty cool.

>

> rh