Poll

May 23, 2000

Bob

I think it was implicit in my last post that this polling question

did

not reveal any really useful data (for the reasons you point out,

among

others). The fact that 70% said usually or sometimes particularly

underscores your point.

I think it was explicit in my last post that another question (at

least) was still necessary to clarify this issue. Obviously even

moreso than I suspected So what should that question be?

Examples:

Should a freely available denotative glossary be the standard for

professional TCM textbooks, premodern translations and clinical

manuals?

Or does this still miss the point? Could you suggest one that gets

to

the point?

> This is very different from the implications of the question as

worded in this poll. Although I am a supporter of Nigel's

terminology, I also cannot vote for anything other than sometimes. It

seems to me that the fact that this question was poorly worded shows

the depth of confusion about this entire issue.

>

> Bob

>

> --- Robert Flaws

> --- bobflaws@e...

> --- EarthLink: It's your Internet.

May 23, 2000

Bob, and Everyone,

So, here's the answer to the question as to how I find

the time to write: I don't. I've been swamped the past

week or so and have barely been able to keep up with

reading the fascinating exchanges. But I wanted to take

a minute to put in my two cents' worth in response to this poll.

I agree that the whole idea of conducting such a poll

is ill conceived. I believe the confusion lies around the

level of " what is a translation standard? " For that matter

what is a " standard? "

There seems to be an unspoken and frankly wrong

idea that the appearance or existence of a standard

somehow enslaves or empowers (depending on one's

point of view) members of the community in which

the standard exists.

There are, of course, several definitions of " standard. "

I urge all those who are concerned about this topic

to refer to their dictionaries and see them all. The one

that applies in this context is (quoting from a batterd

old 1964 edition of Webster's American): " #2. something

established for use as a rule or basis of comparison in

measuring or judging capacity, quantity, content, extent,

value, quality, etc. as standards of weight and measure

are fixed by the government. "

Implicit in the last phrase of that definition is the reality

of political power that always comes into play whenever

the subject of standard setting comes into view. Earlier tried to define such " vested interests " issues as

outside the scope of discussion. I believe this is an error,

in fact, that stems from the same confusion as to what

a standard is and particularly what the real significance

is of translation standards in general and of the work

done by Nigel and Feng Ye in particular.

What is the aim of conducting a poll? To determine

the popularity of term choices? or worse, to

determine the popularity of Nigel and Feng Ye?

Why do we need to know this?

The Wiseman terminology, as it has come to be

called, being that body of research contained

between the pages of several books, most notably

the Practical Dictionary of , is

in fact a translation standard of traditional Chinese

medical terminology.

Some people are angry about this. Some people

hate some or all of Nigel's term choices. Some people

love it. But all of these facts don't add to or subtract

from the Dictionary's status as the repository of a

translation standard anymore than its existence threatens

anybody on earth with compliance to this standard.

No such political power obtains to this particular

use of the word " standard. " No government weilding

any gun has established this standard. It's just a couple

of guys who for reasons best known to God seem to

enjoy the utterly thankless task of writing dictionaries.

As you so accurately pointed out, Bob, all it takes

to diverge from this standard is to do so. And all

the COMP guidelines imply is the existence of a

common sense of decency as to what constitutes

nothing more and nothing less than truth in advertising

on the part of those who create, manufacture and

distribute the books that constitute the English language

literature on the subject of Chinese medicine.

Those who are dedicated to the establishment of an

enduring legacy of Chinese medicine in the English

language can be anticipated to embrace and make

full use of such standards AND TO TAKE PART

IN THE ONGOING PROCESS OF REDEFINING

THEM AS THE GROUP UNDERSTANDING AND

INTELLIGENCE ABOUT THE SUBJECT CONTINUES

TO EVOLVE.

All Nigel and Feng Ye have done is write a book that makes

their many, many years of research and investigation into the

subject of translation of Chinese medical terms and phrases

abundantly available to any and everybody who is inclined

for whatever reason to have a look at it.

Language does not tend to get established by poll. It tends

to get established by what people say, write, think, and

otherwise put into words. Even the French, who conduct

what amounts to an ongoing poll of leading experts on

their own language (The Academy of the French Language)

fall far short of a government-dictated standard of language.

The job of making French, alas, remains the work of the

French people, by and large.

I believe that all discussion of Nigel's or anybody else's

term choices, English equivalents, etc. should be focused

on the mountain of specific issues that can be purposefully

addressed, answered, and resolved...or not, rather than

on the conducting of a fashion show.

My own assessment of the current situation is that we can

ill afford the luxury of sitting around and deciding whom to

admire. There is just too much work to be done.

So instead of conducting polls, let's conduct a series of

focused investigations of specific term choices, or of the

general issues that come to bear on understanding what

constitutes adequate English equivalents of Chinese medical

terms. If we follow this through we can make significant

progress on laying the foundations for the future growth

and development of this subject.

Ken

May 24, 2000

Dear Ken

I definitely do not think polls should be used to set academic

policy.

The majority does not rule on such issues. This would be mob rule,

wherein the lowest common demoninators are allowed to dominate debate

by virtue of their sheer numbers alone. However, polls often reveal

the confusion about the polling subject. In this case, both the

question and the responses proved this. Comments from you and Bob

have brought much more clarity to this debate, which does indeed seem

to weigh heavily on the popularity issue. However, it was this

attempt at polling that revealed this aspect in all its starkness, I

think.

So I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the utility of this. The fact

is

that if the profession as a group dismisses the importance of a

standard denotative glossary, then it doen't really matter what term

choices are selected, because no one is using them where its most

vital -- basic classes. And those publishers whose case for such a

standard is so well made need to discover why people feel the way

they

do and correct that with education. I don't know how one can find

the

answers to these questions without asking. So I stillthink the right

poll is useful, not for setting policy, but for gathering data.

>

> So instead of conducting polls, let's conduct a series of

> focused investigations of specific term choices, or of the

> general issues that come to bear on understanding what

> constitutes adequate English equivalents of Chinese medical

> terms. If we follow this through we can make significant

> progress on laying the foundations for the future growth

> and development of this

May 25, 2000

I think the arguments on the subject of polling can get you nowhere if you

don't clarify the original purpose of the poll.

Definitions of poll:

1. a sampling or collection of opinions on a subject, taken from either a

selected or a random group of persons, as for the purpose of analysis.

Usually, polls. the place where votes are taken.

3. the registering of votes, as at an election.

I am personally FOR poll in the sense that they stimulate thought processes

for the poll-ees. On the other hand, I don't think that such issues should

be decided upon by being placed in the hands of practitioners. These issues

should be placed in the hands of highly devoted and upstanding scholars in

the field of Chinese medicine! Only this way can the fabric Chinese

medicine be preserved and propagated. Although this approach may be much to

the chagrin of the more " democratic " minded among us, I believe this more

" republican " approach to be much the wiser.

As for my personal thought on standardizing translated term. I am for it

as long as it is made clear that the full depth of understanding a Chinese

word/concept cannot be construed in a 1:1 fashion and this would, hopefully,

lead to deeper study of each Chinese character/term.

Standardizing terminology simplifies reading and avoids the confusion of

dealing with an overly verbose lexicon (which in and of itself often

constitutes a subject of confusion). As long as the groundwork is done to

achieve a thorough emersion of standardized terminology (and its various

interpretations), future study is both simplified and expedited, avoiding

the loss of countless hours -even years, over a lifetime- trying to figure

out what an author is trying to convey.

The English language, itself has its many intricacies. Our words often have

other, deeper meanings, not unlike many Chinese characters. Wiseman has

done a tremendous, groundbreaking service so far and has spent many years to

achieve what he has to this point (often, with excruciating accuracy). I

suspect many more years will be needed (perhaps several decades?) to refine

and expand his work into what will be an English standard for centuries to

come.

Thaddeus Jacobs, N. D.

>I definitely do not think polls should be used to set academic