Guest guest Posted January 7, 2002 Report Share Posted January 7, 2002 , " 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2002 Report Share Posted January 7, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2002 Report Share Posted January 7, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2002 Report Share Posted January 10, 2002 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 -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2002 Report Share Posted January 11, 2002 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 , " " <@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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 , " 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 , " " <@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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 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> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 , " 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2002 Report Share Posted January 12, 2002 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.