Flow or Connection?

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> I've already stated my reasoning behind the

> use of connect as a kind of clinical handle

> on the meaning, particularly in terms of

> evaluating and dealing with pain, but to

> sum it up succinctly: the fact of flow or

> no flow is of secondary importance to

> the condition of connection or no connection.

 

Ken:

 

I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of flow,

not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is possible

and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the Wiseman

dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

original definition of flow or " freeing " , and in its compounded

terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically wired to

recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

 

Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be argued that

the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different contexts. But

then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its context

and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what most

of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the dictionary

earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as long as

the Chinese characters are published along side and the appropriate

COMP designation is applied.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of flow,

> not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is possible

> and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

Wiseman

> dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

 

The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

in this context has to do with the unstated but

implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

 

 

 

and in its compounded

> terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically wired to

> recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

 

You lost me.

>

> Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be argued

that

> the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different contexts.

But

> then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its context

> and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what most

> of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

dictionary

> earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as long

as

> the Chinese characters are published along side and the appropriate

> COMP designation is applied.

 

I don't know if we're talking about a translation

issue or a more fundamental question of how

the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

physiology is understood and expressed.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of flow, not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is possible and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the Wiseman dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the original definition of flow or "freeing", and in its compounded terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically wired to recognize movement first and, then, identify it. >>>>Probably the most important components as Bob said is to look at functions of the medicines and other techniques that treat pain. As for herbs I think there would be little argument that free flow is the most proper use. As for body work or acupuncture one can probably make a case for both

Alon

 

-

jramholz

Monday, January 07, 2002 8:48 AM

Flow or Connection?

, "dragon90405" <yulong@m...> wrote:> I've already stated my reasoning behind the> use of connect as a kind of clinical handle> on the meaning, particularly in terms of> evaluating and dealing with pain, but to> sum it up succinctly: the fact of flow or> no flow is of secondary importance to> the condition of connection or no connection.Ken:I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of flow, not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is possible and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the Wiseman dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the original definition of flow or "freeing", and in its compounded terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically wired to recognize movement first and, then, identify it. Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be argued that the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different contexts. But then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its context and using a more literary style of translation---rather than applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what most of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the dictionary earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as long as the Chinese characters are published along side and the appropriate COMP designation is applied.Jim RamholzChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Just heard from Yang Shou-zhong about his opinion of tong1 in the

saying, " tong ze bu tong. " Prof. Yang is professor of English at the

North China Coal Mines Medical College. Prof. Yang was educated as a

child by his uncle, a famous Confucian scholar doctor in Tianjin. His

early education consisted of a classical Confucian education which

included reading the medical classics. During the Cultural Revolution,

Prof. Yang was " sent to the country " to work as a Barefoot Doctor due

his political crime of having been educated classically. Since then,

Prof. Yang has taught English in the Chinese medical section of the

North China Coal Mine Medical College. So readers will recognize his

names as being the main translator of Blue Poppy Press's Great Masters

Series. In other words, Prof. Yang is an expert in Chinese and English

as well as an expert in and past practitioner of Chinese medicine.

What I'm getting at here is that Prof. Yang is hardly a

revisionist Maoist TCMer. So much for my introduction.

 

According to Prof. Yang, he believes that free flow is the correct

translation of tong1 in the above CM saying.

 

I'm still hoping to hear from at least Prof. Shuai Xue-zhong at the

Hunan College of CM who is their resident English language Chinese

medical terminology expert.

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Jim,

> >

> > I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of

flow,

> > not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is possible

> > and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

> Wiseman

> > dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> > original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

>

> The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

> And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

> of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

> in this context has to do with the unstated but

> implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

>

>

>

> and in its compounded

> > terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically wired

to

> > recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

>

> You lost me.

> >

> > Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be argued

> that

> > the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different contexts.

> But

> > then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its context

> > and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> > applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what most

> > of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

> dictionary

> > earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as long

> as

> > the Chinese characters are published along side and the

appropriate

> > COMP designation is applied.

>

> I don't know if we're talking about a translation

> issue or a more fundamental question of how

> the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

> physiology is understood and expressed.

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

You have made it quite clear that you

wish to dispense with what I have said

about the meaning of tong1. I also infer

from your shift from actually talking about

it with me to quoting the opinions of others,

that you have nothing further to say.

Is that right?

 

Would you please be considerate enough

to actually post the email that you sent

to these people so that I can see what you

actually said and asked?

 

I expect that you want these posts of yours

in which you report the box score of your

poll to have some meaning. But if we see

neither the questions you asked nor the

actual responses, all we're left with is

your representations about them, and that's

not nearly as satisfying or convincing as

seeing the actual traffic would be. It's

not at all surprising to discover that you've

been able to amass several statements attribtued

to others that support your own point of view.

 

But it does not dispense with what I've

said, and for me personally, it only serves

to make me wonder why you won't share the

actual data, i.e. your email to your experts

and their actual answers.

 

If I were to go and solicit statements from

people supporting my point of view, wouldn't

you be interested in seeing what I'd said

during the course of that solicitation and

what the people I then reported back on actually

said?

 

At this point, I don't intend to try and

bring witnesses as I am quite content to

just talk it over with you...if only you

would say something.

 

And again, I think if we want to make this

a meaningful discussion, we should be talking

about why the term choices that are being

forwarded are the best. I have taken the

time to explain my thinking on the subject

a couple of times at least, and all you do

is report back on the latest results from

your poll.

 

Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

but that this meaning has developed from application

of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

in English, well it would be interesting to look

at why all of your experts agree with you.

 

And it really tells me very little to read

one by one that they think you're right.

 

You might go back and ask all of these same

people what the best way to translate qi4 is,

since that is an underlying notion here.

What, after all, tong1 bu2 tong1? It's

either qi4 or blood, no?

 

I suspect that some if not most of your

correspondents would be happy with the

translation of qi4 as energy so that the

model of understanding in English that

they and you are hereby advancing is that

when/where energy flows freely through the body

there is no pain and that when/where energy does

not flow freely through the body there is

pain.

 

Is that an accurate representation of

what it is you are saying?

 

Ken

 

 

, " pemachophel2001 "

<pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Just heard from Yang Shou-zhong about his opinion of tong1 in the

> saying, " tong ze bu tong. " Prof. Yang is professor of English at

the

> North China Coal Mines Medical College. Prof. Yang was educated as

a

> child by his uncle, a famous Confucian scholar doctor in Tianjin.

His

> early education consisted of a classical Confucian education which

> included reading the medical classics. During the Cultural

Revolution,

> Prof. Yang was " sent to the country " to work as a Barefoot Doctor

due

> his political crime of having been educated classically. Since

then,

> Prof. Yang has taught English in the Chinese medical section of the

> North China Coal Mine Medical College. So readers will recognize

his

> names as being the main translator of Blue Poppy Press's Great

Masters

> Series. In other words, Prof. Yang is an expert in Chinese and

English

> as well as an expert in and past practitioner of Chinese medicine.

> What I'm getting at here is that Prof. Yang is hardly a

> revisionist Maoist TCMer. So much for my introduction.

>

> According to Prof. Yang, he believes that free flow is the correct

> translation of tong1 in the above CM saying.

>

> I'm still hoping to hear from at least Prof. Shuai Xue-zhong at the

> Hunan College of CM who is their resident English language Chinese

> medical terminology expert.

>

> Bob

>

> , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> > Jim,

> > >

> > > I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of

> flow,

> > > not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is

possible

> > > and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

> > Wiseman

> > > dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> > > original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

> >

> > The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

> > And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

> > of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

> > in this context has to do with the unstated but

> > implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

> >

> >

> >

> > and in its compounded

> > > terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically

wired

> to

> > > recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

> >

> > You lost me.

> > >

> > > Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be argued

> > that

> > > the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different

contexts.

> > But

> > > then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its

context

> > > and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> > > applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what

most

> > > of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

> > dictionary

> > > earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as

long

> > as

> > > the Chinese characters are published along side and the

> appropriate

> > > COMP designation is applied.

> >

> > I don't know if we're talking about a translation

> > issue or a more fundamental question of how

> > the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

> > physiology is understood and expressed.

> >

> > Ken

[Guest guest]

At 8:45 PM +0000 1/10/02, dragon90405 wrote:

>Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

>mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

>but that this meaning has developed from application

>of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

>in English, well it would be interesting to look

>at why all of your experts agree with you.

--

Forgive me intruding into your debate - I'm not at all qualified to

comment, except to the extent that I can read and quote a dictionary.

You say that you've established that tong1 does not mean " flow " by

looking at the dictionary, yet I am looking at a dictionary and would

have to disagree. I have The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary, The

Commercial Press, Ltd. Here is what I can see:

 

tong1

1. open; through.

2. open up or clear out by poking or jabbing

3. lead to; go to

4. connect; communicate; eg two rooms

5. notify; tell

6. understand; know

7. authority; expert

....

 

So far I would be hard pressed to decide what it means with reference

to qi or blood, so I look further down the page to see how it might

be used in particular contexts. For example:

 

tong1bao4; 1. circulate a notice

 

tong1bian4ji4: laxative or cathartic

 

tong1chang4:

1. unobstructed,; clear; eg free circulation of blood; free movement

(of the bowels); keep transportation going

2. easy and smooth; eg smooth writing

 

tong1lian2: be connected; lead to; eg, the bathroom is off the bedroom

 

tong1mai4:

1. promote blood circulation by invigorating vital energy; promote lactation

 

There are many other examples, most of which appear to have less

relevance to this discussion. Clearly tong1 is used in several

different ways depending on the type of thing being discussed. What I

get from looking at the dictionary is that when it is used with

respect to connection, the examples are all of physical spaces in

which we live, such a rooms; whereas when it used in a way that

implies movement, circulation, or flow, the examples are mostly of

bodily processes. It seems to me that the idea of circulation and the

idea of flow are very close, and sometimes interchangeable in

English. Therefore, based on this exercise, I'd have to favor flow

over connection in the context of qi and blood and their relation to

pain, if asked to choose.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Rory

> --

> Forgive me intruding into your debate - I'm not at all qualified to

> comment, except to the extent that I can read and quote a

dictionary.

 

Of course there's no forgiveness involved and

as to qualifications, I'd say yours and mine

are roughly equal; we both have dictionaries

and a mind.

 

 

> You say that you've established that tong1 does not mean " flow " by

> looking at the dictionary, yet I am looking at a dictionary and

would

> have to disagree. I have The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary, The

> Commercial Press, Ltd. Here is what I can see:

>

> tong1

> 1. open; through.

> 2. open up or clear out by poking or jabbing

> 3. lead to; go to

> 4. connect; communicate; eg two rooms

> 5. notify; tell

> 6. understand; know

> 7. authority; expert

> ...

 

 

My point was just that, as you see in this

list of definitions, " flow " is not present.

 

As I have said many times now, I did not,

do not, and likely will not contend that

flow is therefore wrong. I believe, as you

point out below, that it does indeed well

describe one of the senses in which the

word tong1 has been applied by Chinese

to the human body.

 

My original point was that to use it exclusively

as the equivalent for tong1 is to overlook

others of its senses. My main interest here

is not in attempting to select a term equivalent

but in fostering a discussion of the underlying

meanings, which as I've also suggested are

really reflections of how we think about the

entire model of traditional anatomy and physiology

according to the Chinese.

 

>

> So far I would be hard pressed to decide what it means with

reference

> to qi or blood, so I look further down the page to see how it might

> be used in particular contexts. For example:

>

> tong1bao4; 1. circulate a notice

>

> tong1bian4ji4: laxative or cathartic

>

> tong1chang4:

> 1. unobstructed,; clear; eg free circulation of blood; free

movement

> (of the bowels); keep transportation going

> 2. easy and smooth; eg smooth writing

>

> tong1lian2: be connected; lead to; eg, the bathroom is off the

bedroom

>

> tong1mai4:

> 1. promote blood circulation by invigorating vital energy; promote

lactation

 

Notice here that the movement of blood and

breast milk, though similar, manifests a

characteristic difference, namely that the

blood is always flowing...at least in terms

of normal physiology, while breast milk

flows only when the recipient is connected

to the breast and nursing, again in normal

conditions.

 

Just as there is no need to treat a patient

whose blood is circulating freely, there is

no need to promote lactation in a woman whose

milk may or may not be, at any given moment

flowing, but in whom all the necessary connections

for the production and delivery of breast milk

are in working order.

 

Both of these normal conditions might be described

in Chinese medical terms as tong1, and in the

former we'd be describing the flow and in the

latter the availability, i.e. that the breast

milk, the breast, the nipple, and everything else

needed to provide a flow of milk to the infant

is in working order.

 

 

>

> There are many other examples, most of which appear to have less

> relevance to this discussion. Clearly tong1 is used in several

> different ways depending on the type of thing being discussed. What

I

> get from looking at the dictionary is that when it is used with

> respect to connection, the examples are all of physical spaces in

> which we live, such a rooms; whereas when it used in a way that

> implies movement, circulation, or flow, the examples are mostly of

> bodily processes. It seems to me that the idea of circulation and

the

> idea of flow are very close, and sometimes interchangeable in

> English. Therefore, based on this exercise, I'd have to favor flow

> over connection in the context of qi and blood and their relation

to

> pain, if asked to choose.

 

I think, as I said earlier in this thread, that

we should always include the metaphoric mode of

meaning when we deal with Chinese medical terms.

Even if the metaphor is not immediately apparent.

 

The Chinese often meant to compare anatomical

and physioloical structures and events to those

found in the natural world or in human cities.

The nomenclature abounds with such metaphors.

 

One street (dao4) connects (tong1) to another

regardless of the flow of traffic on that

street. Two empty streets are said to tong1

in Chinese if it is possible to arrive at

the one by moving along the other.

 

Clearly when we talk about the etiology of

pain, we're either talking about qi4 or blood.

The English word flow does a jim dandy job

of describing the character of blood when

in normal conditions the vessels are described

in Chinese as tong1.

 

My question is does this same English word

do a similarly adequate job with respect to

qi4?

 

If the answer is yes, then that implies that

the character of qi4 can be likened to the

blood. Flow, even in English, is a metaphoric

construction that likens whatever is flowing

to a fluid.

 

Is qi4 a fluid? Is it fluid-like?

 

If people only think of it as a fluid or as

an energetic fluid, might they be overlooking

other of its potentials and capacities?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

breast milk, though similar, manifests acharacteristic difference, namely that theblood is always flowing...at least in termsof normal physiology, while breast milkflows only when the recipient is connectedto the breast and nursing, again in normalconditions.>>>>>Ken milk flows normally in lactating mothers regardless if the baby is "connected" I think that in a language that s contextual, a meaning per situation is essential. And if we use tong with one understudying in medicine, the fact that the word can be used in a different way within the non-medical setting is irrelevant

 

-

dragon90405

Friday, January 11, 2002 8:22 AM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Rory> --> Forgive me intruding into your debate - I'm not at all qualified to > comment, except to the extent that I can read and quote a dictionary. Of course there's no forgiveness involved andas to qualifications, I'd say yours and mineare roughly equal; we both have dictionariesand a mind.> You say that you've established that tong1 does not mean "flow" by > looking at the dictionary, yet I am looking at a dictionary and would > have to disagree. I have The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary, The > Commercial Press, Ltd. Here is what I can see:> > tong1> 1. open; through.> 2. open up or clear out by poking or jabbing> 3. lead to; go to> 4. connect; communicate; eg two rooms> 5. notify; tell> 6. understand; know> 7. authority; expert> ...My point was just that, as you see in thislist of definitions, "flow" is not present.As I have said many times now, I did not,do not, and likely will not contend thatflow is therefore wrong. I believe, as youpoint out below, that it does indeed welldescribe one of the senses in which theword tong1 has been applied by Chineseto the human body.My original point was that to use it exclusivelyas the equivalent for tong1 is to overlookothers of its senses. My main interest hereis not in attempting to select a term equivalentbut in fostering a discussion of the underlyingmeanings, which as I've also suggested arereally reflections of how we think about theentire model of traditional anatomy and physiologyaccording to the Chinese.> > So far I would be hard pressed to decide what it means with reference > to qi or blood, so I look further down the page to see how it might > be used in particular contexts. For example:> > tong1bao4; 1. circulate a notice> > tong1bian4ji4: laxative or cathartic> > tong1chang4:> 1. unobstructed,; clear; eg free circulation of blood; free movement > (of the bowels); keep transportation going> 2. easy and smooth; eg smooth writing> > tong1lian2: be connected; lead to; eg, the bathroom is off the bedroom> > tong1mai4:> 1. promote blood circulation by invigorating vital energy; promote lactationNotice here that the movement of blood andbreast milk, though similar, manifests acharacteristic difference, namely that theblood is always flowing...at least in termsof normal physiology, while breast milkflows only when the recipient is connectedto the breast and nursing, again in normalconditions.Just as there is no need to treat a patientwhose blood is circulating freely, there isno need to promote lactation in a woman whosemilk may or may not be, at any given momentflowing, but in whom all the necessary connectionsfor the production and delivery of breast milkare in working order.Both of these normal conditions might be describedin Chinese medical terms as tong1, and in theformer we'd be describing the flow and in thelatter the availability, i.e. that the breastmilk, the breast, the nipple, and everything elseneeded to provide a flow of milk to the infantis in working order.> > There are many other examples, most of which appear to have less > relevance to this discussion. Clearly tong1 is used in several > different ways depending on the type of thing being discussed. What I > get from looking at the dictionary is that when it is used with > respect to connection, the examples are all of physical spaces in > which we live, such a rooms; whereas when it used in a way that > implies movement, circulation, or flow, the examples are mostly of > bodily processes. It seems to me that the idea of circulation and the > idea of flow are very close, and sometimes interchangeable in > English. Therefore, based on this exercise, I'd have to favor flow > over connection in the context of qi and blood and their relation to > pain, if asked to choose.I think, as I said earlier in this thread, thatwe should always include the metaphoric mode ofmeaning when we deal with Chinese medical terms.Even if the metaphor is not immediately apparent.The Chinese often meant to compare anatomicaland physioloical structures and events to thosefound in the natural world or in human cities. The nomenclature abounds with such metaphors. One street (dao4) connects (tong1) to anotherregardless of the flow of traffic on thatstreet. Two empty streets are said to tong1in Chinese if it is possible to arrive atthe one by moving along the other.Clearly when we talk about the etiology ofpain, we're either talking about qi4 or blood.The English word flow does a jim dandy jobof describing the character of blood whenin normal conditions the vessels are describedin Chinese as tong1.My question is does this same English worddo a similarly adequate job with respect toqi4?If the answer is yes, then that implies thatthe character of qi4 can be likened to theblood. Flow, even in English, is a metaphoricconstruction that likens whatever is flowingto a fluid. Is qi4 a fluid? Is it fluid-like?If people only think of it as a fluid or asan energetic fluid, might they be overlookingother of its potentials and capacities?KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Milk is a transformation of Qi and Blood (Fu Qing-Zhus's Gynecology).

As long as Blood flows and Qi transforms, yes, milk flows. But, what

happens if the baby stops " connecting " ?

 

Fernando

 

, " ALON MARCUS " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> breast milk, though similar, manifests a

> characteristic difference, namely that the

> blood is always flowing...at least in terms

> of normal physiology, while breast milk

> flows only when the recipient is connected

> to the breast and nursing, again in normal

> conditions.

> >>>>>Ken milk flows normally in lactating mothers regardless if the

baby is " connected " I think that in a language that s contextual, a

meaning per situation is essential. And if we use tong with one

understudying in medicine, the fact that the word can be used in a

different way within the non-medical setting is irrelevant

> -

> dragon90405

>

> Friday, January 11, 2002 8:22 AM

> Re: Flow or Connection?

>

>

> Rory

> > --

> > Forgive me intruding into your debate - I'm not at all qualified

to

> > comment, except to the extent that I can read and quote a

> dictionary.

>

> Of course there's no forgiveness involved and

> as to qualifications, I'd say yours and mine

> are roughly equal; we both have dictionaries

> and a mind.

>

>

> > You say that you've established that tong1 does not mean " flow "

by

> > looking at the dictionary, yet I am looking at a dictionary and

> would

> > have to disagree. I have The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary,

The

> > Commercial Press, Ltd. Here is what I can see:

> >

> > tong1

> > 1. open; through.

> > 2. open up or clear out by poking or jabbing

> > 3. lead to; go to

> > 4. connect; communicate; eg two rooms

> > 5. notify; tell

> > 6. understand; know

> > 7. authority; expert

> > ...

>

>

> My point was just that, as you see in this

> list of definitions, " flow " is not present.

>

> As I have said many times now, I did not,

> do not, and likely will not contend that

> flow is therefore wrong. I believe, as you

> point out below, that it does indeed well

> describe one of the senses in which the

> word tong1 has been applied by Chinese

> to the human body.

>

> My original point was that to use it exclusively

> as the equivalent for tong1 is to overlook

> others of its senses. My main interest here

> is not in attempting to select a term equivalent

> but in fostering a discussion of the underlying

> meanings, which as I've also suggested are

> really reflections of how we think about the

> entire model of traditional anatomy and physiology

> according to the Chinese.

>

> >

> > So far I would be hard pressed to decide what it means with

> reference

> > to qi or blood, so I look further down the page to see how it

might

> > be used in particular contexts. For example:

> >

> > tong1bao4; 1. circulate a notice

> >

> > tong1bian4ji4: laxative or cathartic

> >

> > tong1chang4:

> > 1. unobstructed,; clear; eg free circulation of blood; free

> movement

> > (of the bowels); keep transportation going

> > 2. easy and smooth; eg smooth writing

> >

> > tong1lian2: be connected; lead to; eg, the bathroom is off the

> bedroom

> >

> > tong1mai4:

> > 1. promote blood circulation by invigorating vital energy;

promote

> lactation

>

> Notice here that the movement of blood and

> breast milk, though similar, manifests a

> characteristic difference, namely that the

> blood is always flowing...at least in terms

> of normal physiology, while breast milk

> flows only when the recipient is connected

> to the breast and nursing, again in normal

> conditions.

>

> Just as there is no need to treat a patient

> whose blood is circulating freely, there is

> no need to promote lactation in a woman whose

> milk may or may not be, at any given moment

> flowing, but in whom all the necessary connections

> for the production and delivery of breast milk

> are in working order.

>

> Both of these normal conditions might be described

> in Chinese medical terms as tong1, and in the

> former we'd be describing the flow and in the

> latter the availability, i.e. that the breast

> milk, the breast, the nipple, and everything else

> needed to provide a flow of milk to the infant

> is in working order.

>

>

> >

> > There are many other examples, most of which appear to have less

> > relevance to this discussion. Clearly tong1 is used in several

> > different ways depending on the type of thing being discussed.

What

> I

> > get from looking at the dictionary is that when it is used with

> > respect to connection, the examples are all of physical spaces

in

> > which we live, such a rooms; whereas when it used in a way that

> > implies movement, circulation, or flow, the examples are mostly

of

> > bodily processes. It seems to me that the idea of circulation

and

> the

> > idea of flow are very close, and sometimes interchangeable in

> > English. Therefore, based on this exercise, I'd have to favor

flow

> > over connection in the context of qi and blood and their

relation

> to

> > pain, if asked to choose.

>

> I think, as I said earlier in this thread, that

> we should always include the metaphoric mode of

> meaning when we deal with Chinese medical terms.

> Even if the metaphor is not immediately apparent.

>

> The Chinese often meant to compare anatomical

> and physioloical structures and events to those

> found in the natural world or in human cities.

> The nomenclature abounds with such metaphors.

>

> One street (dao4) connects (tong1) to another

> regardless of the flow of traffic on that

> street. Two empty streets are said to tong1

> in Chinese if it is possible to arrive at

> the one by moving along the other.

>

> Clearly when we talk about the etiology of

> pain, we're either talking about qi4 or blood.

> The English word flow does a jim dandy job

> of describing the character of blood when

> in normal conditions the vessels are described

> in Chinese as tong1.

>

> My question is does this same English word

> do a similarly adequate job with respect to

> qi4?

>

> If the answer is yes, then that implies that

> the character of qi4 can be likened to the

> blood. Flow, even in English, is a metaphoric

> construction that likens whatever is flowing

> to a fluid.

>

> Is qi4 a fluid? Is it fluid-like?

>

> If people only think of it as a fluid or as

> an energetic fluid, might they be overlooking

> other of its potentials and capacities?

>

> Ken

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I'd like to post the e-mail I sent, but I don't know how to do this.

I'm not very technologically savvy. I did give a report of what I

asked these people in a previous post. If you can tell me how to copy

my e-mail message onto this forum, I'll be happy to do that.

 

At this point, I don't have anything more myself to say on this topic.

My own personal expertise only goes so far. I have yet to find a

native-speaking Chinese doctor who thinks your term choice has merit.

Sorry, but I find this telling.

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> You have made it quite clear that you

> wish to dispense with what I have said

> about the meaning of tong1. I also infer

> from your shift from actually talking about

> it with me to quoting the opinions of others,

> that you have nothing further to say.

> Is that right?

>

> Would you please be considerate enough

> to actually post the email that you sent

> to these people so that I can see what you

> actually said and asked?

>

> I expect that you want these posts of yours

> in which you report the box score of your

> poll to have some meaning. But if we see

> neither the questions you asked nor the

> actual responses, all we're left with is

> your representations about them, and that's

> not nearly as satisfying or convincing as

> seeing the actual traffic would be. It's

> not at all surprising to discover that you've

> been able to amass several statements attribtued

> to others that support your own point of view.

>

> But it does not dispense with what I've

> said, and for me personally, it only serves

> to make me wonder why you won't share the

> actual data, i.e. your email to your experts

> and their actual answers.

>

> If I were to go and solicit statements from

> people supporting my point of view, wouldn't

> you be interested in seeing what I'd said

> during the course of that solicitation and

> what the people I then reported back on actually

> said?

>

> At this point, I don't intend to try and

> bring witnesses as I am quite content to

> just talk it over with you...if only you

> would say something.

>

> And again, I think if we want to make this

> a meaningful discussion, we should be talking

> about why the term choices that are being

> forwarded are the best. I have taken the

> time to explain my thinking on the subject

> a couple of times at least, and all you do

> is report back on the latest results from

> your poll.

>

> Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

> mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

> but that this meaning has developed from application

> of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

> in English, well it would be interesting to look

> at why all of your experts agree with you.

>

> And it really tells me very little to read

> one by one that they think you're right.

>

> You might go back and ask all of these same

> people what the best way to translate qi4 is,

> since that is an underlying notion here.

> What, after all, tong1 bu2 tong1? It's

> either qi4 or blood, no?

>

> I suspect that some if not most of your

> correspondents would be happy with the

> translation of qi4 as energy so that the

> model of understanding in English that

> they and you are hereby advancing is that

> when/where energy flows freely through the body

> there is no pain and that when/where energy does

> not flow freely through the body there is

> pain.

>

> Is that an accurate representation of

> what it is you are saying?

>

> Ken

>

>

> , " pemachophel2001 "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> > Just heard from Yang Shou-zhong about his opinion of tong1 in the

> > saying, " tong ze bu tong. " Prof. Yang is professor of English at

> the

> > North China Coal Mines Medical College. Prof. Yang was educated as

> a

> > child by his uncle, a famous Confucian scholar doctor in Tianjin.

> His

> > early education consisted of a classical Confucian education which

> > included reading the medical classics. During the Cultural

> Revolution,

> > Prof. Yang was " sent to the country " to work as a Barefoot Doctor

> due

> > his political crime of having been educated classically. Since

> then,

> > Prof. Yang has taught English in the Chinese medical section of

the

> > North China Coal Mine Medical College. So readers will recognize

> his

> > names as being the main translator of Blue Poppy Press's Great

> Masters

> > Series. In other words, Prof. Yang is an expert in Chinese and

> English

> > as well as an expert in and past practitioner of Chinese medicine.

> > What I'm getting at here is that Prof. Yang is hardly a

> > revisionist Maoist TCMer. So much for my introduction.

> >

> > According to Prof. Yang, he believes that free flow is the correct

> > translation of tong1 in the above CM saying.

> >

> > I'm still hoping to hear from at least Prof. Shuai Xue-zhong at

the

> > Hunan College of CM who is their resident English language Chinese

> > medical terminology expert.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> > > Jim,

> > > >

> > > > I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of

> > flow,

> > > > not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is

> possible

> > > > and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

> > > Wiseman

> > > > dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> > > > original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

> > >

> > > The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

> > > And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

> > > of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

> > > in this context has to do with the unstated but

> > > implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > and in its compounded

> > > > terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically

> wired

> > to

> > > > recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

> > >

> > > You lost me.

> > > >

> > > > Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be

argued

> > > that

> > > > the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different

> contexts.

> > > But

> > > > then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its

> context

> > > > and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> > > > applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what

> most

> > > > of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

> > > dictionary

> > > > earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as

> long

> > > as

> > > > the Chinese characters are published along side and the

> > appropriate

> > > > COMP designation is applied.

> > >

> > > I don't know if we're talking about a translation

> > > issue or a more fundamental question of how

> > > the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

> > > physiology is understood and expressed.

> > >

> > > Ken

[Guest guest]

I did not say tong1 meant flow. Of the term choices suggested by

Wiseman and Feng Ye, I thought free flow (compound term) was the best

translation in the context under discussion.

 

Bob

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> You have made it quite clear that you

> wish to dispense with what I have said

> about the meaning of tong1. I also infer

> from your shift from actually talking about

> it with me to quoting the opinions of others,

> that you have nothing further to say.

> Is that right?

>

> Would you please be considerate enough

> to actually post the email that you sent

> to these people so that I can see what you

> actually said and asked?

>

> I expect that you want these posts of yours

> in which you report the box score of your

> poll to have some meaning. But if we see

> neither the questions you asked nor the

> actual responses, all we're left with is

> your representations about them, and that's

> not nearly as satisfying or convincing as

> seeing the actual traffic would be. It's

> not at all surprising to discover that you've

> been able to amass several statements attribtued

> to others that support your own point of view.

>

> But it does not dispense with what I've

> said, and for me personally, it only serves

> to make me wonder why you won't share the

> actual data, i.e. your email to your experts

> and their actual answers.

>

> If I were to go and solicit statements from

> people supporting my point of view, wouldn't

> you be interested in seeing what I'd said

> during the course of that solicitation and

> what the people I then reported back on actually

> said?

>

> At this point, I don't intend to try and

> bring witnesses as I am quite content to

> just talk it over with you...if only you

> would say something.

>

> And again, I think if we want to make this

> a meaningful discussion, we should be talking

> about why the term choices that are being

> forwarded are the best. I have taken the

> time to explain my thinking on the subject

> a couple of times at least, and all you do

> is report back on the latest results from

> your poll.

>

> Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

> mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

> but that this meaning has developed from application

> of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

> in English, well it would be interesting to look

> at why all of your experts agree with you.

>

> And it really tells me very little to read

> one by one that they think you're right.

>

> You might go back and ask all of these same

> people what the best way to translate qi4 is,

> since that is an underlying notion here.

> What, after all, tong1 bu2 tong1? It's

> either qi4 or blood, no?

>

> I suspect that some if not most of your

> correspondents would be happy with the

> translation of qi4 as energy so that the

> model of understanding in English that

> they and you are hereby advancing is that

> when/where energy flows freely through the body

> there is no pain and that when/where energy does

> not flow freely through the body there is

> pain.

>

> Is that an accurate representation of

> what it is you are saying?

>

> Ken

>

>

> , " pemachophel2001 "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> > Just heard from Yang Shou-zhong about his opinion of tong1 in the

> > saying, " tong ze bu tong. " Prof. Yang is professor of English at

> the

> > North China Coal Mines Medical College. Prof. Yang was educated as

> a

> > child by his uncle, a famous Confucian scholar doctor in Tianjin.

> His

> > early education consisted of a classical Confucian education which

> > included reading the medical classics. During the Cultural

> Revolution,

> > Prof. Yang was " sent to the country " to work as a Barefoot Doctor

> due

> > his political crime of having been educated classically. Since

> then,

> > Prof. Yang has taught English in the Chinese medical section of

the

> > North China Coal Mine Medical College. So readers will recognize

> his

> > names as being the main translator of Blue Poppy Press's Great

> Masters

> > Series. In other words, Prof. Yang is an expert in Chinese and

> English

> > as well as an expert in and past practitioner of Chinese medicine.

> > What I'm getting at here is that Prof. Yang is hardly a

> > revisionist Maoist TCMer. So much for my introduction.

> >

> > According to Prof. Yang, he believes that free flow is the correct

> > translation of tong1 in the above CM saying.

> >

> > I'm still hoping to hear from at least Prof. Shuai Xue-zhong at

the

> > Hunan College of CM who is their resident English language Chinese

> > medical terminology expert.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> > > Jim,

> > > >

> > > > I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of

> > flow,

> > > > not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is

> possible

> > > > and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

> > > Wiseman

> > > > dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> > > > original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

> > >

> > > The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

> > > And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

> > > of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

> > > in this context has to do with the unstated but

> > > implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > and in its compounded

> > > > terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically

> wired

> > to

> > > > recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

> > >

> > > You lost me.

> > > >

> > > > Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be

argued

> > > that

> > > > the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different

> contexts.

> > > But

> > > > then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its

> context

> > > > and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> > > > applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what

> most

> > > > of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

> > > dictionary

> > > > earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as

> long

> > > as

> > > > the Chinese characters are published along side and the

> > appropriate

> > > > COMP designation is applied.

> > >

> > > I don't know if we're talking about a translation

> > > issue or a more fundamental question of how

> > > the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

> > > physiology is understood and expressed.

> > >

> > > Ken

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

I don't think I ever suggested " flow " as a translation of tong1.

If I did, sorry, I misspoke myself. What I believe I suggested is

" free flow " in the particular context of the saying, " tong ze bu

tong. " Free flow is one of the term choices for tong1 suggested by

Nigel Wiseman in English-Chinese Chinese-English Dictionary of Chinese

Medicine, Hunan Science & Technology Publishing Co., Changsha, 1995,

p. 665. I would not agree to simply translating this term as flow in

this or any other context.

 

Bob

 

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote:

> At 8:45 PM +0000 1/10/02, dragon90405 wrote:

> >Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

> >mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

> >but that this meaning has developed from application

> >of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

> >in English, well it would be interesting to look

> >at why all of your experts agree with you.

> --

> Forgive me intruding into your debate - I'm not at all qualified to

> comment, except to the extent that I can read and quote a

dictionary.

> You say that you've established that tong1 does not mean " flow " by

> looking at the dictionary, yet I am looking at a dictionary and

would

> have to disagree. I have The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary, The

> Commercial Press, Ltd. Here is what I can see:

>

> tong1

> 1. open; through.

> 2. open up or clear out by poking or jabbing

> 3. lead to; go to

> 4. connect; communicate; eg two rooms

> 5. notify; tell

> 6. understand; know

> 7. authority; expert

> ...

>

> So far I would be hard pressed to decide what it means with

reference

> to qi or blood, so I look further down the page to see how it might

> be used in particular contexts. For example:

>

> tong1bao4; 1. circulate a notice

>

> tong1bian4ji4: laxative or cathartic

>

> tong1chang4:

> 1. unobstructed,; clear; eg free circulation of blood; free movement

> (of the bowels); keep transportation going

> 2. easy and smooth; eg smooth writing

>

> tong1lian2: be connected; lead to; eg, the bathroom is off the

bedroom

>

> tong1mai4:

> 1. promote blood circulation by invigorating vital energy; promote

lactation

>

> There are many other examples, most of which appear to have less

> relevance to this discussion. Clearly tong1 is used in several

> different ways depending on the type of thing being discussed. What

I

> get from looking at the dictionary is that when it is used with

> respect to connection, the examples are all of physical spaces in

> which we live, such a rooms; whereas when it used in a way that

> implies movement, circulation, or flow, the examples are mostly of

> bodily processes. It seems to me that the idea of circulation and

the

> idea of flow are very close, and sometimes interchangeable in

> English. Therefore, based on this exercise, I'd have to favor flow

> over connection in the context of qi and blood and their relation to

> pain, if asked to choose.

>

> Rory

> --

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I'll do this the only way I know how, by simply retyping the message I

sent onto this forum. Here is, verbatim, the message I sent out to

seven or eight Chinese doctors in the U.S. and PRC:

 

Dear Native Chinese-speaking Colleagues,

 

Recently, a discussion has arisen on a website

(www..org) about the meaning of the word tong (1st

tone) in the saying about pain: " tong ze bu tong. " I have translated

that saying as, " If there is pain (tong 4th tone), there is no free

flow (tong 1st tone). " The discussion is whether tong1 should be

translated into English as " free flow " or " communication, connection "

in this particular context. While tong1 can certainly be understood as

connect, communicate in certain contexts, is that the best translation

in relationship to the mechanisms of pain?

 

 

Bob

 

 

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> Bob,

>

> You have made it quite clear that you

> wish to dispense with what I have said

> about the meaning of tong1. I also infer

> from your shift from actually talking about

> it with me to quoting the opinions of others,

> that you have nothing further to say.

> Is that right?

>

> Would you please be considerate enough

> to actually post the email that you sent

> to these people so that I can see what you

> actually said and asked?

>

> I expect that you want these posts of yours

> in which you report the box score of your

> poll to have some meaning. But if we see

> neither the questions you asked nor the

> actual responses, all we're left with is

> your representations about them, and that's

> not nearly as satisfying or convincing as

> seeing the actual traffic would be. It's

> not at all surprising to discover that you've

> been able to amass several statements attribtued

> to others that support your own point of view.

>

> But it does not dispense with what I've

> said, and for me personally, it only serves

> to make me wonder why you won't share the

> actual data, i.e. your email to your experts

> and their actual answers.

>

> If I were to go and solicit statements from

> people supporting my point of view, wouldn't

> you be interested in seeing what I'd said

> during the course of that solicitation and

> what the people I then reported back on actually

> said?

>

> At this point, I don't intend to try and

> bring witnesses as I am quite content to

> just talk it over with you...if only you

> would say something.

>

> And again, I think if we want to make this

> a meaningful discussion, we should be talking

> about why the term choices that are being

> forwarded are the best. I have taken the

> time to explain my thinking on the subject

> a couple of times at least, and all you do

> is report back on the latest results from

> your poll.

>

> Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

> mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

> but that this meaning has developed from application

> of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

> in English, well it would be interesting to look

> at why all of your experts agree with you.

>

> And it really tells me very little to read

> one by one that they think you're right.

>

> You might go back and ask all of these same

> people what the best way to translate qi4 is,

> since that is an underlying notion here.

> What, after all, tong1 bu2 tong1? It's

> either qi4 or blood, no?

>

> I suspect that some if not most of your

> correspondents would be happy with the

> translation of qi4 as energy so that the

> model of understanding in English that

> they and you are hereby advancing is that

> when/where energy flows freely through the body

> there is no pain and that when/where energy does

> not flow freely through the body there is

> pain.

>

> Is that an accurate representation of

> what it is you are saying?

>

> Ken

>

>

> , " pemachophel2001 "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> > Just heard from Yang Shou-zhong about his opinion of tong1 in the

> > saying, " tong ze bu tong. " Prof. Yang is professor of English at

> the

> > North China Coal Mines Medical College. Prof. Yang was educated as

> a

> > child by his uncle, a famous Confucian scholar doctor in Tianjin.

> His

> > early education consisted of a classical Confucian education which

> > included reading the medical classics. During the Cultural

> Revolution,

> > Prof. Yang was " sent to the country " to work as a Barefoot Doctor

> due

> > his political crime of having been educated classically. Since

> then,

> > Prof. Yang has taught English in the Chinese medical section of

the

> > North China Coal Mine Medical College. So readers will recognize

> his

> > names as being the main translator of Blue Poppy Press's Great

> Masters

> > Series. In other words, Prof. Yang is an expert in Chinese and

> English

> > as well as an expert in and past practitioner of Chinese medicine.

> > What I'm getting at here is that Prof. Yang is hardly a

> > revisionist Maoist TCMer. So much for my introduction.

> >

> > According to Prof. Yang, he believes that free flow is the correct

> > translation of tong1 in the above CM saying.

> >

> > I'm still hoping to hear from at least Prof. Shuai Xue-zhong at

the

> > Hunan College of CM who is their resident English language Chinese

> > medical terminology expert.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> > > Jim,

> > > >

> > > > I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of

> > flow,

> > > > not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is

> possible

> > > > and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

> > > Wiseman

> > > > dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> > > > original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

> > >

> > > The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

> > > And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

> > > of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

> > > in this context has to do with the unstated but

> > > implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > and in its compounded

> > > > terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically

> wired

> > to

> > > > recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

> > >

> > > You lost me.

> > > >

> > > > Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be

argued

> > > that

> > > > the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different

> contexts.

> > > But

> > > > then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its

> context

> > > > and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> > > > applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what

> most

> > > > of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

> > > dictionary

> > > > earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as

> long

> > > as

> > > > the Chinese characters are published along side and the

> > appropriate

> > > > COMP designation is applied.

> > >

> > > I don't know if we're talking about a translation

> > > issue or a more fundamental question of how

> > > the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

> > > physiology is understood and expressed.

> > >

> > > Ken

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

>

> I'd like to post the e-mail I sent, but I don't know how to do

this.

> I'm not very technologically savvy. I did give a report of what I

> asked these people in a previous post. If you can tell me how to

copy

> my e-mail message onto this forum, I'll be happy to do that.

 

For future reference, copying and pasting

will do the trick.

>

> At this point, I don't have anything more myself to say on this

topic.

> My own personal expertise only goes so far. I have yet to find a

> native-speaking Chinese doctor who thinks your term choice has

merit.

> Sorry, but I find this telling.

>

Well, it's telling. But I'm not sure what

it's telling. I'm glad you took the trouble

to retype the original email you sent. I hope

you'll forgive me for analysing it rather closely,

but I think that if you are going to draw conclusions

from this experience, which you seem to be doing,

then we should examine what conclusions the data

supports.

 

Your message to your colleagues was hardly

an objective statement, although you no doubt

meant it to be considered as one. You state

that you have translated the phrase/word one

way and are now engaged in a public discussion

concerning whether or not your translation is

correct. What you are asking is for those who

received your message to publicly take a stand

concerning the accuracy of your translation.

 

This is a rather different request than simply

asking them what the word means or even offering

them choices of English equivalents. You're asking

them, in addition, to make a public comment

as to whether Bob Flaws is right or wrong.

 

I think anyone engaged in polling or surveying

would agree that this is just not a fair and

objective way to pose such a question. And I

think that those who are familiar with traditional

Chinese values would not find it hard to see

that for one steeped in these values, it would

be a difficult thing indeed to give a response

that, in fact, publically challenged your

correctness. I don't think it is an unfair or

inaccurate generalization to note that Chinese

do not lightly engage in this kind of public

denigration of the opinions or statements of

others. I do not mean to suggest that this

generalization applies to all Chinese or to

any specific Chinese individual, least of all

to those whom you have previously named. I'm

simply pointing out that asking an educated

Chinese, especially one who is steeped in

traditional values, to publically tell you

if you are wrong is asking something that is,

again, significantly different than simply

asking for opinions about term equivalents.

The way you've gone about this exercise

significantly weights the probability that

answers will tend to affirm your term choice,

since to disagree with it invokes a number

of other factors. I find that telling.

 

Earlier, you assailed my approach to this

whole subject of Chinese medical terminology

as being " guo fen " , i.e. too much in the

direction of philosophy. But when

I queried you as to where you draw the limits

you ignored me.

 

And you continue to be non-responsive to

my clarification of my original remark,

which I have made at least three or four

times now, to indicate that I was not

and am not talking about term equivalents.

 

In this post to which I am now responding

you use the phrase " your term choice. "

I wasn't and am not making a term choice.

I've said this several times, along with

statements concerning my rationale; and you

ignore that, too.

 

I'm talking about limitations and freedoms

associated with the study, understanding and

application of Chinese medical terminology.

If you want these other individuals to take

part in this discussion, then please invite

them to come and join us and we can all talk

about it.

 

I am all in favor of a widespread discussion

of these things. In fact, I think it's absolutely

necessary. But I suggest that we leave

it to others to express their own opinions.

 

I trust that if I've got this all wrong,

you will correct me.

 

I continue to think that this is an important

discussion, and I hope that you will have

something more to say.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 11:08 PM +0000 1/11/02, pemachophel2001 wrote:

>I don't think I ever suggested " flow " as a translation of tong1.

>If I did, sorry, I misspoke myself. What I believe I suggested is

> " free flow " in the particular context of the saying,

--

No, I don't think you did. I was responding to Ken's post.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

I really have nothing too intelligent to add to understanding the

correct meaning of tong1, but one thing to consider is that when Chinese

are learning English, and learning how to express CM in English, they, I

would assume, use already commonly used translations to express

themselves in English. That is of course, if they had not had some

serious linguistics beforehand. That being said, a Chinese speaker will

for years probably have been calling tong1 flow and qi4 energy before

ever questioning what it really meant. Because how could they understand

the nuances of our language. These words could have been ingrained in

the culture/ dictionaries etc for sometime. If the initial translation

is right or wrong who knows. This is especially true in CM where the

language barrier was so vast in the past and is just now starting to

narrow in the present. So I do think Ken's request to discuss why the

use of the term is chosen is valid, because most likely they have been

calling it flow for years without ever questioning it. But on the other

hand if their linguistic skills have advanced enough through years of

study and they are able to understand adequately the nuances of our

language and have really thought about the issue, then their opinion can

be taken to mean something significant, but there reasoning would also

be nice. This is especially importation for someone like me to make a

informed assessment of the terms... Just some ramblings...

 

-Jason

 

>

> dragon90405 [yulong]

> Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:45 PM

>

> Re: Flow or Connection?

>

> Bob,

>

> You have made it quite clear that you

> wish to dispense with what I have said

> about the meaning of tong1. I also infer

> from your shift from actually talking about

> it with me to quoting the opinions of others,

> that you have nothing further to say.

> Is that right?

>

> Would you please be considerate enough

> to actually post the email that you sent

> to these people so that I can see what you

> actually said and asked?

>

> I expect that you want these posts of yours

> in which you report the box score of your

> poll to have some meaning. But if we see

> neither the questions you asked nor the

> actual responses, all we're left with is

> your representations about them, and that's

> not nearly as satisfying or convincing as

> seeing the actual traffic would be. It's

> not at all surprising to discover that you've

> been able to amass several statements attribtued

> to others that support your own point of view.

>

> But it does not dispense with what I've

> said, and for me personally, it only serves

> to make me wonder why you won't share the

> actual data, i.e. your email to your experts

> and their actual answers.

>

> If I were to go and solicit statements from

> people supporting my point of view, wouldn't

> you be interested in seeing what I'd said

> during the course of that solicitation and

> what the people I then reported back on actually

> said?

>

> At this point, I don't intend to try and

> bring witnesses as I am quite content to

> just talk it over with you...if only you

> would say something.

>

> And again, I think if we want to make this

> a meaningful discussion, we should be talking

> about why the term choices that are being

> forwarded are the best. I have taken the

> time to explain my thinking on the subject

> a couple of times at least, and all you do

> is report back on the latest results from

> your poll.

>

> Since we've established that the word tong1 does not actually

> mean " flow " (by looking in the dictionary)

> but that this meaning has developed from application

> of this term in transmission of medical nomenclature

> in English, well it would be interesting to look

> at why all of your experts agree with you.

>

> And it really tells me very little to read

> one by one that they think you're right.

>

> You might go back and ask all of these same

> people what the best way to translate qi4 is,

> since that is an underlying notion here.

> What, after all, tong1 bu2 tong1? It's

> either qi4 or blood, no?

>

> I suspect that some if not most of your

> correspondents would be happy with the

> translation of qi4 as energy so that the

> model of understanding in English that

> they and you are hereby advancing is that

> when/where energy flows freely through the body

> there is no pain and that when/where energy does

> not flow freely through the body there is

> pain.

>

> Is that an accurate representation of

> what it is you are saying?

>

> Ken

>

>

> , " pemachophel2001 "

> <pemachophel2001> wrote:

> > Just heard from Yang Shou-zhong about his opinion of tong1 in the

> > saying, " tong ze bu tong. " Prof. Yang is professor of English at

> the

> > North China Coal Mines Medical College. Prof. Yang was educated as

> a

> > child by his uncle, a famous Confucian scholar doctor in Tianjin.

> His

> > early education consisted of a classical Confucian education which

> > included reading the medical classics. During the Cultural

> Revolution,

> > Prof. Yang was " sent to the country " to work as a Barefoot Doctor

> due

> > his political crime of having been educated classically. Since

> then,

> > Prof. Yang has taught English in the Chinese medical section of the

> > North China Coal Mine Medical College. So readers will recognize

> his

> > names as being the main translator of Blue Poppy Press's Great

> Masters

> > Series. In other words, Prof. Yang is an expert in Chinese and

> English

> > as well as an expert in and past practitioner of Chinese medicine.

> > What I'm getting at here is that Prof. Yang is hardly a

> > revisionist Maoist TCMer. So much for my introduction.

> >

> > According to Prof. Yang, he believes that free flow is the correct

> > translation of tong1 in the above CM saying.

> >

> > I'm still hoping to hear from at least Prof. Shuai Xue-zhong at the

> > Hunan College of CM who is their resident English language Chinese

> > medical terminology expert.

> >

> > Bob

> >

> > , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> > > Jim,

> > > >

> > > > I think you have it backwards. Connection is a consequence of

> > flow,

> > > > not the other way around. As a consequence, connection is

> possible

> > > > and derived. Flaws' translation seems to be supported by the

> > > Wiseman

> > > > dictionary, the standard. It supports this perception in the

> > > > original definition of flow or " freeing " ,

> > >

> > > The PD translates tong1 as " freeing " not as flow.

> > > And as I said in an earlier post on this, a lot

> > > of the interpretation and understanding of tong1

> > > in this context has to do with the unstated but

> > > implied existence of qi4, as it is what is " flowing " .

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > and in its compounded

> > > > terms (p.226f). I believe even our brain is neurologically

> wired

> > to

> > > > recognize movement first and, then, identify it.

> > >

> > > You lost me.

> > > >

> > > > Connection may be thought of as a synonym. So, it may be argued

> > > that

> > > > the meaning of tong1 can vary in a larger or different

> contexts.

> > > But

> > > > then, you would be deriving the meaning of a term from its

> context

> > > > and using a more literary style of translation---rather than

> > > > applying the standardized or literal translation. That's what

> most

> > > > of the arguments (at least mine) were about regarding the

> > > dictionary

> > > > earlier. I don't see any problem with that in translation as

> long

> > > as

> > > > the Chinese characters are published along side and the

> > appropriate

> > > > COMP designation is applied.

> > >

> > > I don't know if we're talking about a translation

> > > issue or a more fundamental question of how

> > > the whole concept of traditional anatomy and

> > > physiology is understood and expressed.

> > >

> > > Ken

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " " <@o...> wrote:

But on the other

> hand if their linguistic skills have advanced enough through years of

> study and they are able to understand adequately the nuances of our

> language and have really thought about the issue, then their opinion can

> be taken to mean something significant, but there reasoning would also

> be nice.

 

At least one of the folks Bob mentioned, Yang shou zhong (I think

that's right), is a fairly skilled translator who has demonstrated his

ability to undertstand, not merely parrot, term choices.(see his

introduction to the pi wei lun, for example). Ken may have a point

about people's reluctance to criticize Bob publicly. On the other

hand, I have found a number of chinese (just like americans) have no

reservations at all about blatantly disparaging their colleagues,

especially their american colleagues. My experience is limited,

though.

 

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

> Ken,

>

> I'd like to post the e-mail I sent, but I don't know how to do this.

> I'm not very technologically savvy.

 

Bob

 

If you sent your query using one of your standard email programs

(netscape, outlook, eudora), then you should be able to go to your SENT

file in the program and locate all messages that you have ever sent.

Netscape even has a search command to find messages by sender, topic,

etc. BTW, your program will function more smoothly if you occasionally

purge the SENT and TRASH files of old messages. If you have never done

this, I imagine you have thousands that are stored there. If you sent

the messages from , they are probably lost forever, in my

experience.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <@o...> wrote:

> ever questioning what it really meant. Because how could they understand

> the nuances of our language. These words could have been ingrained in

> the culture/ dictionaries etc for sometime.

 

Amen.

In fact, I wonder how many native English-speakers

meaningfully contemplate the nuances of most

of the words they use.

 

Chinese characters are not words; they are a

pithy form of poetry and image which

create a multidimensional understanding when

seen and contemplated.

 

It's a healthy exercise to debate translation semantics

because it works a muscle in our perception we too often

neglect. Is tong1 free flow, communication, connection?

Why not all of the above, all at once? For simplification,

and because our dialogue would be too cumbersom to speak

so many syllables just to get to the point, we choose

free flow to represent the whole concept. There is no

successful communication without free flow in the exchange.

No established connection without free flow between the

connectees. Free flow in fact implies communication and

connection between or among entities. It says the most

with the least amount of effort. The question is, do you

have an image in your psyche which fleshes out tong1?

Because, in the end, words by themselves won't create it.

The more diligently we chase this pearl around with

our fingertips, the more slippery it gets.

 

" Words exist because of meaning; once you've gotten

the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find

a man who has forgotten words so I can have a word

with him? " --zhuang zi

 

" An intellectual doesn't know

what the drunk is feeling! "

-- Rumi

 

That's my two cents worth,

Laurie

[Guest guest]

 

 

> At least one of the folks Bob mentioned, Yang shou zhong (I think

> that's right), is a fairly skilled translator who has demonstrated

his

> ability to undertstand, not merely parrot, term choices.(see his

> introduction to the pi wei lun, for example).

 

Nothing of what I've said about this should

be taken in any slightest way as a comment

on any of the individuals that Bob has named,

quoted, etc. One of the unfortunate aspects

of polling people and reporting on their

responses is that we end up talking about

people who aren't here to respond.

 

I'm quite sure that all of the people Bob

has mentioned are individuals of some distinction

and integrity, although I don't know them. I

presume this because I know Bob to be a sincere

and dedicated scholar.

 

Ken may have a point

> about people's reluctance to criticize Bob publicly. On the other

> hand, I have found a number of chinese (just like americans) have

no

> reservations at all about blatantly disparaging their colleagues,

> especially their american colleagues. My experience is limited,

> though.

>

All experience is limited, except for experience

of the limitless...and that's hard to talk about.

 

The point is not really merely reluctance

to crticize. Rather, we should recognize that

saying to someone, " I've translated this word

to mean X. Is it right or wrong or better or

worse than Y or Z? " is different than

saying to someone: " What is the best way to

translate X? "

 

The way the question was put possibly evokes

a lot of issues and factors aside from the

question that Bob seemed to be trying to

answer. But I suspect that you recognize,

Bob, that an informal survey like this could

not possibly take the place of the work that

needs to be done in order to correctly translate

terms.

 

It was a way to win an argument by attempting

to show a majority of opinion lining up behind

Bob's position. But as Jason correctly points

out, there can be a number of factors that go

into why any given individual believes that

any given term equivalent is the right one to use.

The same kind of factors that affect well

educated people affect less well educated

people. Education is not proof against such

factors, but it can help to solve them when

they become problematic.

 

And somehow, discussions of Chinese medical

terms always become problematic. I think it

is the value and therefore the importance of

words that gives rise to a wide range of

issues that include political, cultural,

and economic (commercial) interests.

Some of the strongest attacks and defenses

therefore come from people who derive

relatively greater value from the use

of words.

 

It's very difficult to talk about basic

considerations such as the meanings of

words and the understanding of fundamental

theoretical concepts, especially with people

who are well educated and experienced.

There's too much at stake. (cf. Planck)

 

My point is simply this: there is a great

advantage that attains from the study of

these terms, and one of the distinct aspects

of this advantage relates to the appreciation

of the fact that Chinese words and terms are

multi-valued and multi-valent phenomena. The

Chinese language contains and

provides users the capacity to consider

that the meaning of a word derives from

the working interaction of several, sometimes

opposite-meaning definitions.

 

My original remark about Bob's use of the

term " free flow " was meant to point out that the

exclusive use of this term to translate tong1

neglects this capacity. I intended to provoke

a discussion about how this is so as a way

to respond to Alon's earlier questions asking

how does the study of Chinese medical language

enhance understanding.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Flaws wrote:

> >I don't think I ever suggested " flow " as a translation of tong1.

> >If I did, sorry, I misspoke myself. What I believe I suggested is

> > " free flow " in the particular context of the saying,

 

 

Bob:

 

Doesn't Wiseman's dictionary also translate tong as " restore flow "

on p.502? Or am I confusing characters?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

But, what happens if the baby stops "connecting"?>>>>Eventually it will stop

 

-

fbernall

Friday, January 11, 2002 1:54 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Milk is a transformation of Qi and Blood (Fu Qing-Zhus's Gynecology). As long as Blood flows and Qi transforms, yes, milk flows. But, what happens if the baby stops "connecting"?Fernando, "ALON MARCUS" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> breast milk, though similar, manifests a> characteristic difference, namely that the> blood is always flowing...at least in terms> of normal physiology, while breast milk> flows only when the recipient is connected> to the breast and nursing, again in normal> conditions.> >>>>>Ken milk flows normally in lactating mothers regardless if the baby is "connected" I think that in a language that s contextual, a meaning per situation is essential. And if we use tong with one understudying in medicine, the fact that the word can be used in a different way within the non-medical setting is irrelevant> - > dragon90405 > > Friday, January 11, 2002 8:22 AM> Re: Flow or Connection?> > > Rory> > --> > Forgive me intruding into your debate - I'm not at all qualified to > > comment, except to the extent that I can read and quote a > dictionary. > > Of course there's no forgiveness involved and> as to qualifications, I'd say yours and mine> are roughly equal; we both have dictionaries> and a mind.> > > > You say that you've established that tong1 does not mean "flow" by > > looking at the dictionary, yet I am looking at a dictionary and > would > > have to disagree. I have The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary, The > > Commercial Press, Ltd. Here is what I can see:> > > > tong1> > 1. open; through.> > 2. open up or clear out by poking or jabbing> > 3. lead to; go to> > 4. connect; communicate; eg two rooms> > 5. notify; tell> > 6. understand; know> > 7. authority; expert> > ...> > > My point was just that, as you see in this> list of definitions, "flow" is not present.> > As I have said many times now, I did not,> do not, and likely will not contend that> flow is therefore wrong. I believe, as you> point out below, that it does indeed well> describe one of the senses in which the> word tong1 has been applied by Chinese> to the human body.> > My original point was that to use it exclusively> as the equivalent for tong1 is to overlook> others of its senses. My main interest here> is not in attempting to select a term equivalent> but in fostering a discussion of the underlying> meanings, which as I've also suggested are> really reflections of how we think about the> entire model of traditional anatomy and physiology> according to the Chinese.> > > > > So far I would be hard pressed to decide what it means with > reference > > to qi or blood, so I look further down the page to see how it might > > be used in particular contexts. For example:> > > > tong1bao4; 1. circulate a notice> > > > tong1bian4ji4: laxative or cathartic> > > > tong1chang4:> > 1. unobstructed,; clear; eg free circulation of blood; free > movement > > (of the bowels); keep transportation going> > 2. easy and smooth; eg smooth writing> > > > tong1lian2: be connected; lead to; eg, the bathroom is off the > bedroom> > > > tong1mai4:> > 1. promote blood circulation by invigorating vital energy; promote > lactation> > Notice here that the movement of blood and> breast milk, though similar, manifests a> characteristic difference, namely that the> blood is always flowing...at least in terms> of normal physiology, while breast milk> flows only when the recipient is connected> to the breast and nursing, again in normal> conditions.> > Just as there is no need to treat a patient> whose blood is circulating freely, there is> no need to promote lactation in a woman whose> milk may or may not be, at any given moment> flowing, but in whom all the necessary connections> for the production and delivery of breast milk> are in working order.> > Both of these normal conditions might be described> in Chinese medical terms as tong1, and in the> former we'd be describing the flow and in the> latter the availability, i.e. that the breast> milk, the breast, the nipple, and everything else> needed to provide a flow of milk to the infant> is in working order.> > > > > > There are many other examples, most of which appear to have less > > relevance to this discussion. Clearly tong1 is used in several > > different ways depending on the type of thing being discussed. What > I > > get from looking at the dictionary is that when it is used with > > respect to connection, the examples are all of physical spaces in > > which we live, such a rooms; whereas when it used in a way that > > implies movement, circulation, or flow, the examples are mostly of > > bodily processes. It seems to me that the idea of circulation and > the > > idea of flow are very close, and sometimes interchangeable in > > English. Therefore, based on this exercise, I'd have to favor flow > > over connection in the context of qi and blood and their relation > to > > pain, if asked to choose.> > I think, as I said earlier in this thread, that> we should always include the metaphoric mode of> meaning when we deal with Chinese medical terms.> Even if the metaphor is not immediately apparent.> > The Chinese often meant to compare anatomical> and physioloical structures and events to those> found in the natural world or in human cities. > The nomenclature abounds with such metaphors. > > One street (dao4) connects (tong1) to another> regardless of the flow of traffic on that> street. Two empty streets are said to tong1> in Chinese if it is possible to arrive at> the one by moving along the other.> > Clearly when we talk about the etiology of> pain, we're either talking about qi4 or blood.> The English word flow does a jim dandy job> of describing the character of blood when> in normal conditions the vessels are described> in Chinese as tong1.> > My question is does this same English word> do a similarly adequate job with respect to> qi4?> > If the answer is yes, then that implies that> the character of qi4 can be likened to the> blood. Flow, even in English, is a metaphoric> construction that likens whatever is flowing> to a fluid. > > Is qi4 a fluid? Is it fluid-like?> > If people only think of it as a fluid or as> an energetic fluid, might they be overlooking> other of its potentials and capacities?> > Ken> > >

[Guest guest]

I'm talking about limitations and freedomsassociated with the study, understanding andapplication of Chinese medical terminology. If you want these other individuals to take part in this discussion, then please invite them to come and join us and we can all talk about it.>>>I would be very interested to hear their views

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Friday, January 11, 2002 10:02 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Bob,> > I'd like to post the e-mail I sent, but I don't know how to do this. > I'm not very technologically savvy. I did give a report of what I > asked these people in a previous post. If you can tell me how to copy > my e-mail message onto this forum, I'll be happy to do that.For future reference, copying and pastingwill do the trick.> > At this point, I don't have anything more myself to say on this topic. > My own personal expertise only goes so far. I have yet to find a > native-speaking Chinese doctor who thinks your term choice has merit. > Sorry, but I find this telling.> Well, it's telling. But I'm not sure whatit's telling. I'm glad you took the troubleto retype the original email you sent. I hopeyou'll forgive me for analysing it rather closely,but I think that if you are going to draw conclusionsfrom this experience, which you seem to be doing,then we should examine what conclusions the datasupports.Your message to your colleagues was hardlyan objective statement, although you no doubtmeant it to be considered as one. You statethat you have translated the phrase/word oneway and are now engaged in a public discussionconcerning whether or not your translation iscorrect. What you are asking is for those whoreceived your message to publicly take a standconcerning the accuracy of your translation.This is a rather different request than simplyasking them what the word means or even offeringthem choices of English equivalents. You're askingthem, in addition, to make a public commentas to whether Bob Flaws is right or wrong.I think anyone engaged in polling or surveyingwould agree that this is just not a fair andobjective way to pose such a question. And Ithink that those who are familiar with traditionalChinese values would not find it hard to seethat for one steeped in these values, it wouldbe a difficult thing indeed to give a responsethat, in fact, publically challenged yourcorrectness. I don't think it is an unfair orinaccurate generalization to note that Chinesedo not lightly engage in this kind of publicdenigration of the opinions or statements ofothers. I do not mean to suggest that thisgeneralization applies to all Chinese or toany specific Chinese individual, least of allto those whom you have previously named. I'msimply pointing out that asking an educatedChinese, especially one who is steeped intraditional values, to publically tell youif you are wrong is asking something that is,again, significantly different than simplyasking for opinions about term equivalents.The way you've gone about this exercisesignificantly weights the probability thatanswers will tend to affirm your term choice,since to disagree with it invokes a numberof other factors. I find that telling.Earlier, you assailed my approach to thiswhole subject of Chinese medical terminologyas being "guo fen", i.e. too much in thedirection of philosophy. But whenI queried you as to where you draw the limitsyou ignored me. And you continue to be non-responsive tomy clarification of my original remark,which I have made at least three or fourtimes now, to indicate that I was notand am not talking about term equivalents.In this post to which I am now respondingyou use the phrase "your term choice."I wasn't and am not making a term choice.I've said this several times, along withstatements concerning my rationale; and you ignore that, too.I'm talking about limitations and freedomsassociated with the study, understanding andapplication of Chinese medical terminology. If you want these other individuals to take part in this discussion, then please invite them to come and join us and we can all talk about it.I am all in favor of a widespread discussionof these things. In fact, I think it's absolutelynecessary. But I suggest that we leaveit to others to express their own opinions. I trust that if I've got this all wrong,you will correct me.I continue to think that this is an importantdiscussion, and I hope that you will have something more to say.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

, " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> I think anyone engaged in polling or surveying

> would agree that this is just not a fair and

> objective way to pose such a question.

 

Ken:

 

I don't think we were expecting a completely scientific

or " objective " survey; just the casual consensus of the translation

of a simple, familiar phrase.

 

Perhaps you can suggest some case history, literature, or other

context where tong is clearly better translated as " connection. "

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim

 

> I don't think we were expecting a completely scientific

> or " objective " survey; just the casual consensus of the translation

> of a simple, familiar phrase.

 

This remark has little bearing on anything

I said. I didn't fault the poll as being

non-scientific. But if we're going to

ask people's opinions about term equivalents

then we should questions in as unbiased a

format as possible.

 

More basically, as I've said many, many times

now, the important thing here is not the

popularity of term choices but the understanding

of the terms themselves.

>

> Perhaps you can suggest some case history, literature, or other

> context where tong is clearly better translated as " connection. "

 

Well, you can start with any decent

Chinese-English dictionary. Two citations

of the various definitions of tong1

have already been posted here. Both

of those dictionaries, i.e. the one

Rory quoted from the Commercial Press

and the one that I quoted from the

Beijing Foreign Languages Institute,

include " connection " as one of the

meanings of tong1.

 

One of the problems that faces those

who would engage in the selection of

term equivalents for Chinese words is

the question of polysemy. How do you

chooose a single term for a word that

has multiple meanings? Context is one

important factor, but another important

factor is the implicit recognition within

the system of the Chinese language that

a word's meaning may derive from an

aggregation of many distinct definitions.

 

That was the original point that I

made. That is the point that I have

been making all along.

 

That is the important point here I

believe. I think Laurie's post on this

said it quite beautifully.

 

Ken

>