Flow or Connection?

[Guest guest]

Ken,

I think that in general that we are putting too much emphasis on the so called "word" choice and not enough on contextual meaning. If for example you can find a medical sentence that works better with connection and another with free flow and yet a third with whatever 3ed word, then use each per context. It is the meaning that is important not the so called word chosen. As one that has very poor languages skill, especially in English, I am possibly more sensitive to this over-emphasis on choosing a predetermined word instead of communication a meaning. This is also why I dislike standard translations such as Wiseman's and presses that use it as a standard. I much prefer a free form use of words that conveys the meaning.

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:03 AM

Re: Flow or Connection?

> 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 shouldbe taken in any slightest way as a commenton any of the individuals that Bob has named,quoted, etc. One of the unfortunate aspectsof polling people and reporting on theirresponses is that we end up talking aboutpeople who aren't here to respond.I'm quite sure that all of the people Bobhas mentioned are individuals of some distinctionand integrity, although I don't know them. Ipresume this because I know Bob to be a sincereand 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 experienceof the limitless...and that's hard to talk about.The point is not really merely reluctanceto crticize. Rather, we should recognize thatsaying to someone, "I've translated this wordto mean X. Is it right or wrong or better orworse than Y or Z?" is different thansaying to someone: "What is the best way totranslate X?"The way the question was put possibly evokesa lot of issues and factors aside from thequestion that Bob seemed to be trying toanswer. But I suspect that you recognize,Bob, that an informal survey like this couldnot possibly take the place of the work thatneeds to be done in order to correctly translateterms.It was a way to win an argument by attemptingto show a majority of opinion lining up behindBob's position. But as Jason correctly points out, there can be a number of factors that gointo why any given individual believes thatany given term equivalent is the right one to use.The same kind of factors that affect welleducated people affect less well educatedpeople. Education is not proof against suchfactors, but it can help to solve them whenthey become problematic.And somehow, discussions of Chinese medicalterms always become problematic. I think itis the value and therefore the importance ofwords that gives rise to a wide range ofissues that include political, cultural,and economic (commercial) interests.Some of the strongest attacks and defensestherefore come from people who deriverelatively greater value from the useof words.It's very difficult to talk about basicconsiderations such as the meanings ofwords and the understanding of fundamentaltheoretical concepts, especially with peoplewho are well educated and experienced.There's too much at stake. (cf. Planck)My point is simply this: there is a greatadvantage that attains from the study ofthese terms, and one of the distinct aspectsof this advantage relates to the appreciationof the fact that Chinese words and terms are multi-valued and multi-valent phenomena. The Chinese language contains andprovides users the capacity to consider that the meaning of a word derives fromthe working interaction of several, sometimesopposite-meaning definitions. My original remark about Bob's use of theterm "free flow" was meant to point out that theexclusive use of this term to translate tong1neglects this capacity. I intended to provokea discussion about how this is so as a wayto respond to Alon's earlier questions askinghow does the study of Chinese medical languageenhance understanding.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

One of the problems that faces thosewho would engage in the selection ofterm equivalents for Chinese words isthe question of polysemy. How do youchooose a single term for a word thathas multiple meanings? Context is oneimportant factor, but another importantfactor is the implicit recognition withinthe system of the Chinese language thata word's meaning may derive from anaggregation of many distinct definitions.That was the original point that Imade. That is the point that I havebeen making all along.>>>>>>That is my point as well. Why even get bogged down with a word. Use what ever works for the situation

alon

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:05 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

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 anythingI said. I didn't fault the poll as beingnon-scientific. But if we're going toask people's opinions about term equivalentsthen we should questions in as unbiased aformat as possible.More basically, as I've said many, many timesnow, the important thing here is not thepopularity of term choices but the understandingof 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 decentChinese-English dictionary. Two citationsof the various definitions of tong1have already been posted here. Bothof those dictionaries, i.e. the oneRory quoted from the Commercial Pressand the one that I quoted from theBeijing Foreign Languages Institute,include "connection" as one of themeanings of tong1.One of the problems that faces thosewho would engage in the selection ofterm equivalents for Chinese words isthe question of polysemy. How do youchooose a single term for a word thathas multiple meanings? Context is oneimportant factor, but another importantfactor is the implicit recognition withinthe system of the Chinese language thata word's meaning may derive from anaggregation of many distinct definitions.That was the original point that Imade. That is the point that I havebeen making all along.That is the important point here I believe. I think Laurie's post on thissaid it quite beautifully.Ken> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

> I think that in general that we are putting too much emphasis on

the so called " word " choice and not enough on contextual meaning.

 

I understand that you think this. This is more or less

what you always say. And I understand your explanations

for why you think this.

 

If for example you can find a medical sentence that works better

with connection and another with free flow and yet a third with

whatever 3ed word, then use each per context. It is the meaning that

is important not the so called word chosen. As one that has very poor

languages skill, especially in English, I am possibly more sensitive

to this over-emphasis on choosing a predetermined word instead of

communication a meaning.

 

OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek to

promote your personal approach, based as you

say it is on poor language skills, as a method

that others should adopt?

 

Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowing

the words, you have mastered the meanings?

 

This is also why I dislike standard translations such as Wiseman's

and presses that use it as a standard. I much prefer a free form use

of words that conveys the meaning.

 

I understand that you dislike these things.

 

Please recognize, however, that you are confusing

at least three related but different activities.

 

One is the definition and standardization of terms,

as in the writing and publication of dictionaries.

 

Another is the understanding of what texts that

these terms are used in actually mean.

 

And another is the translation of those texts

into a language other than the one in which they

were originally written.

 

You always mush these things together and attempt

to pass judgments about them as a confusion.

I believe it is far more effective to deal with

each of these activities as a distinct focus

of attention.

 

Our subject, traditional Chinese medicine, happens

to have an extensive nomenclature and literature.

The Chinese have identified tens of thousands of

words and terms that constitute this nomenclature

and have amassed an archive of tens of thousands

of books written using these terms.

 

For many reasons we in the English speaking world

have been rather slow in recognizing, acknowledging

and assuming responsibility for this mass of material.

Part and parcel of recognizing and taking responsibility

for the material is the compilation of dictionaries

that provide standard equivalents that can be used

as a reference by those who seek to understand the

terms and texts. The Chinese word " dian3 " which

we see most generally translated as " dictionary "

in combination with other words, actually means

standard. The development of standard nomenclature

is a long, drawn out, and vitally important

process.

 

The Practical Dictionary is an important step

in this process. And there is nothing about its

existence that demands that anybody use any word

when reading, writing, talking, thinking or otherwise

dealing with the terms that it includes. I have been,

for example, while owning more than one copy

of this dictionary and recommending it widely to

colleagues around the world, able to disagree

with Nigel about term choices, translation

methodology and what seems at times like an

endless stream of other issues, related to

the subject and not.

 

My wfie and I wrote a whole book about a

single word, which happens to be in that

dictionary.

 

The dictionary didn't stop that.

 

I've just been arguing here for over a week

now for the importance of understanding that

the English equivalents that we choose for Chinese

medical terms can limit our understanding of

those terms due their polysemous nature. Being

a user and a strong supporter of the dictionary

didn't prevent me from doing that.

 

None of my dictionaries stop me from doing

anything. I keep the good ones and throw the

bad ones away.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, " burtonperez " <tgperez@e...> wrote:

Free flow in fact implies communication and

> connection between or among entities.

 

Laurie

 

I was just going to post the same thing.

 

[Guest guest]

Since I noticed that this thread was still rolling on, I thought I would

add my two cents, or should I say the two cents of a several old Englishmen

who wrote a couple of etymological dictionaries at the beginning of the

twentieth century.

Wilder and Ingram define T'ung1 (Tong1), as through, or universal. It

consists in part of the 164th radical Cho4 which means to walk, or as in

Wieger to go step by step. Cho4 combines to create a large group of

characters relating to movement. The other part of the character is the

phonetic Yung3, which means blossoming. Also composed of Han3 to bud, to

put fort buds, to bloom as per Wieger. Hence, Wilder and Ingram go on,

T'ung1 - the idea is that it is open in all directions. They write this

character was on all " cash " to indicate it was on current coin, passing

everywhere. Does money have qi?

 

Bart Paulding

[Guest guest]

Bart,

 

Does money have qi?

>

 

Money behaves in many ways like qi4.

Perhaps it can be likened to the

ying2 qi4 of society.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

While " connection " is used in the translation of tong for some

acupuncture points---for example, Ht-5---the standard translation by

Wiseman is " restore flow " or " freeing. " Why spend $125 on a

dictionary if you're not going to use it?

 

Are we speaking of the translation of a specific character, its

synonyms, or its nuances in a larger context?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

, " 1 " <@i...> wrote:

> , " burtonperez " <tgperez@e...> wrote:

> Free flow in fact implies communication and

> > connection between or among entities.

>

> Laurie

>

> I was just going to post the same thing.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

> While " connection " is used in the translation of tong for some

> acupuncture points---for example, Ht-5---the standard translation

by

> Wiseman is " restore flow " or " freeing. " Why spend $125 on a

> dictionary if you're not going to use it?

 

>

> Are we speaking of the translation of a specific character, its

> synonyms, or its nuances in a larger context?

>

What I think we should be talking about

in this thread is the comprehensive understanding

of Chinese medical terms. Studying them,

learning them, understanding them, and

using them correctly in reading texts,

communicating with colleagues, and so on

are all quite different tasks than

developing bi-lingual lists of equivalent

terms.

 

Of course, anyone who participates in

the latter task ought to be thoroughly

familiar with the former ones. But it

is not the aim of each and every student,

practitioner, or other professional who

is involved in the field to be able to

rattle off precise term equivalents

for all of the nomenclature.

 

The vast majority of Chinese doctors

could not do such a thing, and I've

even seen plenty of explanations of

traditional Chinese medical terms

by traditional Chinese medical doctors

to their Chinese patients in China

that get bogged down in equating

the technical language to layman's

terms...in Chinese.

 

Whereas it's true that a good deal of

the words that comprise the nomenclature

of the subject are taken from ordinary

language, their usage as technical terms

is often different than their usage as

words in daily conversation or literature.

 

Often these differences are slight, very

frequently subtle, and sometimes complete.

 

The contest ought not be between competing

candidates for an equivalent English term

but for the development of individual as

well as group appreciation and understanding

of the work that needs to be accomplished

if we are going to have an informed and

effective use of the nomenclature of the

subject that we profess to offer to the

public.

 

All too often discussions of this subject

leap directly to the task of choosing proper

equivalents. Understandably so, since people

still tend to be groping for knowledge of

the meaning of terms that have not really

been properly defined in English terms

prior to the appearance of the Practical

Dictionary.

 

Some authors have even asserted that there is

no technical nomenclature in Chinese medicine,

an assertion that I believe has now been

thoroughly discredited.

 

But as I've said before, the dictionary is

the starting place for understanding words

and for making sure that words are properly

used in reading and communicating. It is

not the end all. These tasks require the

application of one's entire education.

 

After all, why spend $20-30,000 on an education

if you're not going to use it?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek topromote your personal approach, based as yousay it is on poor language skills, as a methodthat others should adopt?Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowingthe words, you have mastered the meanings?>>>>Not at all. So far I understand all the words that have been used perfectly. However, creating lingo for the sake of lingo is elitist and non-helpful on any level. You guys can continue to masturbate all you want but it does not change a thing

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:04 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Alon,> I think that in general that we are putting too much emphasis on the so called "word" choice and not enough on contextual meaning.I understand that you think this. This is more or lesswhat you always say. And I understand your explanationsfor why you think this.If for example you can find a medical sentence that works better with connection and another with free flow and yet a third with whatever 3ed word, then use each per context. It is the meaning that is important not the so called word chosen. As one that has very poor languages skill, especially in English, I am possibly more sensitive to this over-emphasis on choosing a predetermined word instead of communication a meaning.OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek topromote your personal approach, based as yousay it is on poor language skills, as a methodthat others should adopt?Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowingthe words, you have mastered the meanings?This is also why I dislike standard translations such as Wiseman's and presses that use it as a standard. I much prefer a free form use of words that conveys the meaning.I understand that you dislike these things.Please recognize, however, that you are confusingat least three related but different activities. One is the definition and standardization of terms, as in the writing and publication of dictionaries.Another is the understanding of what texts thatthese terms are used in actually mean.And another is the translation of those textsinto a language other than the one in which theywere originally written.You always mush these things together and attemptto pass judgments about them as a confusion.I believe it is far more effective to deal witheach of these activities as a distinct focusof attention.Our subject, traditional Chinese medicine, happensto have an extensive nomenclature and literature.The Chinese have identified tens of thousands ofwords and terms that constitute this nomenclatureand have amassed an archive of tens of thousandsof books written using these terms.For many reasons we in the English speaking worldhave been rather slow in recognizing, acknowledgingand assuming responsibility for this mass of material.Part and parcel of recognizing and taking responsibilityfor the material is the compilation of dictionariesthat provide standard equivalents that can be usedas a reference by those who seek to understand theterms and texts. The Chinese word "dian3" whichwe see most generally translated as "dictionary"in combination with other words, actually meansstandard. The development of standard nomenclatureis a long, drawn out, and vitally importantprocess.The Practical Dictionary is an important stepin this process. And there is nothing about itsexistence that demands that anybody use any wordwhen reading, writing, talking, thinking or otherwisedealing with the terms that it includes. I have been,for example, while owning more than one copyof this dictionary and recommending it widely tocolleagues around the world, able to disagreewith Nigel about term choices, translationmethodology and what seems at times like anendless stream of other issues, related tothe subject and not.My wfie and I wrote a whole book about a single word, which happens to be in thatdictionary.The dictionary didn't stop that.I've just been arguing here for over a weeknow for the importance of understanding thatthe English equivalents that we choose for Chinesemedical terms can limit our understanding ofthose terms due their polysemous nature. Beinga user and a strong supporter of the dictionarydidn't prevent me from doing that.None of my dictionaries stop me from doinganything. I keep the good ones and throw thebad ones away.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Our subject, traditional Chinese medicine, happensto have an extensive nomenclature and literature.The Chinese have identified tens of thousands ofwords and terms that constitute this nomenclatureand have amassed an archive of tens of thousandsof books written using these terms

>>>>What does that have to do with translating a meaning of a word within it context directly

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:04 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Alon,> I think that in general that we are putting too much emphasis on the so called "word" choice and not enough on contextual meaning.I understand that you think this. This is more or lesswhat you always say. And I understand your explanationsfor why you think this.If for example you can find a medical sentence that works better with connection and another with free flow and yet a third with whatever 3ed word, then use each per context. It is the meaning that is important not the so called word chosen. As one that has very poor languages skill, especially in English, I am possibly more sensitive to this over-emphasis on choosing a predetermined word instead of communication a meaning.OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek topromote your personal approach, based as yousay it is on poor language skills, as a methodthat others should adopt?Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowingthe words, you have mastered the meanings?This is also why I dislike standard translations such as Wiseman's and presses that use it as a standard. I much prefer a free form use of words that conveys the meaning.I understand that you dislike these things.Please recognize, however, that you are confusingat least three related but different activities. One is the definition and standardization of terms, as in the writing and publication of dictionaries.Another is the understanding of what texts thatthese terms are used in actually mean.And another is the translation of those textsinto a language other than the one in which theywere originally written.You always mush these things together and attemptto pass judgments about them as a confusion.I believe it is far more effective to deal witheach of these activities as a distinct focusof attention.Our subject, traditional Chinese medicine, happensto have an extensive nomenclature and literature.The Chinese have identified tens of thousands ofwords and terms that constitute this nomenclatureand have amassed an archive of tens of thousandsof books written using these terms.For many reasons we in the English speaking worldhave been rather slow in recognizing, acknowledgingand assuming responsibility for this mass of material.Part and parcel of recognizing and taking responsibilityfor the material is the compilation of dictionariesthat provide standard equivalents that can be usedas a reference by those who seek to understand theterms and texts. The Chinese word "dian3" whichwe see most generally translated as "dictionary"in combination with other words, actually meansstandard. The development of standard nomenclatureis a long, drawn out, and vitally importantprocess.The Practical Dictionary is an important stepin this process. And there is nothing about itsexistence that demands that anybody use any wordwhen reading, writing, talking, thinking or otherwisedealing with the terms that it includes. I have been,for example, while owning more than one copyof this dictionary and recommending it widely tocolleagues around the world, able to disagreewith Nigel about term choices, translationmethodology and what seems at times like anendless stream of other issues, related tothe subject and not.My wfie and I wrote a whole book about a single word, which happens to be in thatdictionary.The dictionary didn't stop that.I've just been arguing here for over a weeknow for the importance of understanding thatthe English equivalents that we choose for Chinesemedical terms can limit our understanding ofthose terms due their polysemous nature. Beinga user and a strong supporter of the dictionarydidn't prevent me from doing that.None of my dictionaries stop me from doinganything. I keep the good ones and throw thebad ones away.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Ken:

 

It just took me by surpise that the movement to standardize

translations is now over.

 

I actually welcome the change because a number of concepts used by

Korean pulse diagnosis (or at least my system) are quite different

from the Chinese even when the same term is applied. Some of those

differences (for example the character of jie, knotting pulse) have

been discussed earlier in Will Morris' Pulse Diagnosis Forum.

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

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

> Jim,

>

> > While " connection " is used in the translation of tong for some

> > acupuncture points---for example, Ht-5---the standard

translation

> by

> > Wiseman is " restore flow " or " freeing. " Why spend $125 on a

> > dictionary if you're not going to use it?

>

> >

> > Are we speaking of the translation of a specific character, its

> > synonyms, or its nuances in a larger context?

> >

> What I think we should be talking about

> in this thread is the comprehensive understanding

> of Chinese medical terms. Studying them,

> learning them, understanding them, and

> using them correctly in reading texts,

> communicating with colleagues, and so on

> are all quite different tasks than

> developing bi-lingual lists of equivalent

> terms.

>

> Of course, anyone who participates in

> the latter task ought to be thoroughly

> familiar with the former ones. But it

> is not the aim of each and every student,

> practitioner, or other professional who

> is involved in the field to be able to

> rattle off precise term equivalents

> for all of the nomenclature.

>

> The vast majority of Chinese doctors

> could not do such a thing, and I've

> even seen plenty of explanations of

> traditional Chinese medical terms

> by traditional Chinese medical doctors

> to their Chinese patients in China

> that get bogged down in equating

> the technical language to layman's

> terms...in Chinese.

>

> Whereas it's true that a good deal of

> the words that comprise the nomenclature

> of the subject are taken from ordinary

> language, their usage as technical terms

> is often different than their usage as

> words in daily conversation or literature.

>

> Often these differences are slight, very

> frequently subtle, and sometimes complete.

>

> The contest ought not be between competing

> candidates for an equivalent English term

> but for the development of individual as

> well as group appreciation and understanding

> of the work that needs to be accomplished

> if we are going to have an informed and

> effective use of the nomenclature of the

> subject that we profess to offer to the

> public.

>

> All too often discussions of this subject

> leap directly to the task of choosing proper

> equivalents. Understandably so, since people

> still tend to be groping for knowledge of

> the meaning of terms that have not really

> been properly defined in English terms

> prior to the appearance of the Practical

> Dictionary.

>

> Some authors have even asserted that there is

> no technical nomenclature in Chinese medicine,

> an assertion that I believe has now been

> thoroughly discredited.

>

> But as I've said before, the dictionary is

> the starting place for understanding words

> and for making sure that words are properly

> used in reading and communicating. It is

> not the end all. These tasks require the

> application of one's entire education.

>

> After all, why spend $20-30,000 on an education

> if you're not going to use it?

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

None of my dictionaries stop me from doinganything. I keep the good ones and throw thebad ones away

>>>>Except that when used as direct translation of "a character"into a standard word, has again you like to point out reduces it understanding and may be inappropriate

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:04 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Alon,> I think that in general that we are putting too much emphasis on the so called "word" choice and not enough on contextual meaning.I understand that you think this. This is more or lesswhat you always say. And I understand your explanationsfor why you think this.If for example you can find a medical sentence that works better with connection and another with free flow and yet a third with whatever 3ed word, then use each per context. It is the meaning that is important not the so called word chosen. As one that has very poor languages skill, especially in English, I am possibly more sensitive to this over-emphasis on choosing a predetermined word instead of communication a meaning.OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek topromote your personal approach, based as yousay it is on poor language skills, as a methodthat others should adopt?Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowingthe words, you have mastered the meanings?This is also why I dislike standard translations such as Wiseman's and presses that use it as a standard. I much prefer a free form use of words that conveys the meaning.I understand that you dislike these things.Please recognize, however, that you are confusingat least three related but different activities. One is the definition and standardization of terms, as in the writing and publication of dictionaries.Another is the understanding of what texts thatthese terms are used in actually mean.And another is the translation of those textsinto a language other than the one in which theywere originally written.You always mush these things together and attemptto pass judgments about them as a confusion.I believe it is far more effective to deal witheach of these activities as a distinct focusof attention.Our subject, traditional Chinese medicine, happensto have an extensive nomenclature and literature.The Chinese have identified tens of thousands ofwords and terms that constitute this nomenclatureand have amassed an archive of tens of thousandsof books written using these terms.For many reasons we in the English speaking worldhave been rather slow in recognizing, acknowledgingand assuming responsibility for this mass of material.Part and parcel of recognizing and taking responsibilityfor the material is the compilation of dictionariesthat provide standard equivalents that can be usedas a reference by those who seek to understand theterms and texts. The Chinese word "dian3" whichwe see most generally translated as "dictionary"in combination with other words, actually meansstandard. The development of standard nomenclatureis a long, drawn out, and vitally importantprocess.The Practical Dictionary is an important stepin this process. And there is nothing about itsexistence that demands that anybody use any wordwhen reading, writing, talking, thinking or otherwisedealing with the terms that it includes. I have been,for example, while owning more than one copyof this dictionary and recommending it widely tocolleagues around the world, able to disagreewith Nigel about term choices, translationmethodology and what seems at times like anendless stream of other issues, related tothe subject and not.My wfie and I wrote a whole book about a single word, which happens to be in thatdictionary.The dictionary didn't stop that.I've just been arguing here for over a weeknow for the importance of understanding thatthe English equivalents that we choose for Chinesemedical terms can limit our understanding ofthose terms due their polysemous nature. Beinga user and a strong supporter of the dictionarydidn't prevent me from doing that.None of my dictionaries stop me from doinganything. I keep the good ones and throw thebad ones away.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Amen

 

-

Alon Marcus

Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:32 AM

Re: Re: Flow or Connection?

 

OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek topromote your personal approach, based as yousay it is on poor language skills, as a methodthat others should adopt?Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowingthe words, you have mastered the meanings?>>>>Not at all. So far I understand all the words that have been used perfectly. However, creating lingo for the sake of lingo is elitist and non-helpful on any level. You guys can continue to masturbate all you want but it does not change a thing

Alon

 

-

dragon90405

Saturday, January 12, 2002 3:04 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

Alon,> I think that in general that we are putting too much emphasis on the so called "word" choice and not enough on contextual meaning.I understand that you think this. This is more or lesswhat you always say. And I understand your explanationsfor why you think this.If for example you can find a medical sentence that works better with connection and another with free flow and yet a third with whatever 3ed word, then use each per context. It is the meaning that is important not the so called word chosen. As one that has very poor languages skill, especially in English, I am possibly more sensitive to this over-emphasis on choosing a predetermined word instead of communication a meaning.OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek topromote your personal approach, based as yousay it is on poor language skills, as a methodthat others should adopt?Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowingthe words, you have mastered the meanings?This is also why I dislike standard translations such as Wiseman's and presses that use it as a standard. I much prefer a free form use of words that conveys the meaning.I understand that you dislike these things.Please recognize, however, that you are confusingat least three related but different activities. One is the definition and standardization of terms, as in the writing and publication of dictionaries.Another is the understanding of what texts thatthese terms are used in actually mean.And another is the translation of those textsinto a language other than the one in which theywere originally written.You always mush these things together and attemptto pass judgments about them as a confusion.I believe it is far more effective to deal witheach of these activities as a distinct focusof attention.Our subject, traditional Chinese medicine, happensto have an extensive nomenclature and literature.The Chinese have identified tens of thousands ofwords and terms that constitute this nomenclatureand have amassed an archive of tens of thousandsof books written using these terms.For many reasons we in the English speaking worldhave been rather slow in recognizing, acknowledgingand assuming responsibility for this mass of material.Part and parcel of recognizing and taking responsibilityfor the material is the compilation of dictionariesthat provide standard equivalents that can be usedas a reference by those who seek to understand theterms and texts. The Chinese word "dian3" whichwe see most generally translated as "dictionary"in combination with other words, actually meansstandard. The development of standard nomenclatureis a long, drawn out, and vitally importantprocess.The Practical Dictionary is an important stepin this process. And there is nothing about itsexistence that demands that anybody use any wordwhen reading, writing, talking, thinking or otherwisedealing with the terms that it includes. I have been,for example, while owning more than one copyof this dictionary and recommending it widely tocolleagues around the world, able to disagreewith Nigel about term choices, translationmethodology and what seems at times like anendless stream of other issues, related tothe subject and not.My wfie and I wrote a whole book about a single word, which happens to be in thatdictionary.The dictionary didn't stop that.I've just been arguing here for over a weeknow for the importance of understanding thatthe English equivalents that we choose for Chinesemedical terms can limit our understanding ofthose terms due their polysemous nature. Beinga user and a strong supporter of the dictionarydidn't prevent me from doing that.None of my dictionaries stop me from doinganything. I keep the good ones and throw thebad ones away.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Are we speaking of the translation of a specific character, its synonyms, or its nuances in a larger context?>>>My point exactly

 

-

jramholz

Saturday, January 12, 2002 11:16 PM

Re: Flow or Connection?

While "connection" is used in the translation of tong for some acupuncture points---for example, Ht-5---the standard translation by Wiseman is "restore flow" or "freeing." Why spend $125 on a dictionary if you're not going to use it?Are we speaking of the translation of a specific character, its synonyms, or its nuances in a larger context?Jim Ramholz, "1" <@i...> wrote:> , "burtonperez" <tgperez@e...> wrote:> Free flow in fact implies communication and > > connection between or among entities. > > Laurie> > I was just going to post the same thing. > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Who decided on the English translations of the Dong Han pulse

terminology? How can I trust the choices of terms used, when the

articles I've seen don't have either pinyin (or the Korean equivalent)

or Korean characters (or their Chinese equivalents)? How do I know the

English skills of the Korean teacher, or his ability to communicate from

his/her native language into English? Is there a Korean/English medical

dictionary(ies) that was consulted? How can I reference the original

concepts without characters, pinyin (or equivalent), or a dictionary?

If not, I am totally reliant on the English skills of the author and/or

translator. And, translation itself is a professional skill.

 

I have the same problem with the Hammer material. There is a

glossary in the text of Dr. Shen's material, but, to be honest, many of

the terms (such as " qi wild " , " push pulse " , or " nervous system weak " ,

which doesn't even directly refer to the biomedical nervous system)

while interesting, seem to be the product of Dr. Shen's limited English

skills and Dr. Hammer's ability to intepret them. To propose such terms

as standard terminology for a specific pulse system is problematic,

because of the lack of reference to pinyin and Chinese characters in the

text, and the idiosyncratic use of English biomedical terminology.

 

Correct translation is not a lightweight issue. It illuminates or

obscures essential concepts and material. It is a great responsibility,

because this is what is going to be taught and transmitted to a

generation of students who will use these skills in their medical

practice, on real-life patients. This is not just an intellectual

debate.

 

 

 

 

On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 08:36 AM, jramholz wrote:

 

> Ken:

>

> It just took me by surpise that the movement to standardize

> translations is now over.

>

> I actually welcome the change because a number of concepts used by

> Korean pulse diagnosis (or at least my system) are quite different

> from the Chinese even when the same term is applied. Some of those

> differences (for example the character of jie, knotting pulse) have

> been discussed earlier in Will Morris' Pulse Diagnosis Forum.

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I don't see where Ken or anyone else is creating lingo for the sake of

> lingo, Alon. I see the attempt to find as accurate a reflection of the

> Chinese medical literature as possible.

 

Accurately translating and transmitting Chinese medical concepts is

no easy undertaking.

 

 

>

> -

> Alon Marcus

>

> Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:32 AM

> Re: Re: Flow or Connection?

>

> OK. But do you think that it is wise to seek to

> promote your personal approach, based as you

> say it is on poor language skills, as a method

> that others should adopt?

>

> Or do you mean to imply that despite not knowing

> the words, you have mastered the meanings?

> >>>>Not at all. So far I understand all the words that have been used

> perfectly. However, creating lingo for the sake of lingo is elitist and

> non-helpful on any level. You guys can continue to masturbate all you

> want but it does not change a thing

> Alon

>

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

 

> It just took me by surpise that the movement to standardize

> translations is now over.

 

That's not what I said. But the mood today doesn't

seem to be communication.

 

What I said is that the work of translation

and therefore of standardizing English

equivalents, is different from the work

of studying and learning the nomenclature

of Chinese medicine.

 

That one thing is different from another

does not mean that either is over.

>

> I actually welcome the change because a number of concepts used by

> Korean pulse diagnosis (or at least my system) are quite different

> from the Chinese even when the same term is applied. Some of those

> differences (for example the character of jie, knotting pulse) have

> been discussed earlier in Will Morris' Pulse Diagnosis Forum.

 

Well, I think what underlies a good deal of

the emotional content that this subject packs

is the discomfort that people experience

when the meanings of words are manipulated

by individuals seeking to thereby acquire

some sort of advantage over others.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

> After all, why spend $20-30,000 on an education

> if you're not going to use it?

>

> Ken

>

More like 60 to $80,000 if you consider all the student loan interest... and

to think I even worked 20 hours a week, in addition.

 

Teresa

[Guest guest]

Mark,

 

, " Mark Reese " <tcm2@r...> wrote:

> Amen

 

Before the service concludes, I would like to point

out that the preacher has already stated he abandoned

the study of the subject after determining that it

was not an effective allocation of his time. He

now refers to discussion of the subject as

elitist masturbation and asserts that there is

nothing to gain from it.

 

You may experience discomfort occasioned by the

fact that people are struggling to understand

what the words and terms of Chinese medicine

actually mean. But why do you reckon that is?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 5:08 PM -0800 1/12/02, meridian wrote:

>Does money have qi?

--

 

No. Qi IS money. The proof:

 

Gary Larson, in a cartoon, a few years ago proved beyond doubt that

Einstein was incorrect, and that his famous equation e=mc2 in fact

proved that energy is money.

 

if energy is money

&

Qi is energy

therefore, qi is money

 

qed

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

To add one more opinion on the translation, Wang Ruotao MD PhD has offered

his words below. Dr Wang has practiced combined western and Chinese

medicine for 20+ years. He has a PhD in epidemiology from the the London

Cancer Institute and a Masters in Law from Yale. He runs the research and

development program in China for Botanica BioScience.

 

 

Stephen,

 

I would translate the pharse " tong ze bu tong " as follows.

 

A pain is a block in the way of qi flow.

 

So the word tong means " free flow " .

 

WRT

 

 

Original Message:

 

WRT,

 

As an aside to our numerous other discussions, in the phrase " tong ze bu

tong " what word or words would you use to translate tong? Connection, free

flow, relationship, or ???

 

Stephen

 

 

 

Stephen Morrissey OMD

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare

practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing

in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,

including board approved online continuing education.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

To add one more opinion on the translation, Wang Ruotao MD PhD has offered his words below. Dr Wang has practiced combined western and Chinese medicine for 20+ years. He has a PhD in epidemiology from the the London Cancer Institute and a Masters in Law from Yale. He runs the research and development program in China for Botanica BioScience.

 

Stephen,

I would translate the pharse "tong ze bu tong" as follows.

A pain is a block in the way of qi flow.

So the word tong means "free flow".

WRT

 

Original Message:

WRT,

As an aside to our numerous other discussions, in the phrase "tong ze bu tong" what word or words would you use to translate tong? Connection, free flow, relationship, or ???

Stephen

 

 

Stephen Morrissey OMD

[Guest guest]

Stephen,

 

 

>

> A pain is a block in the way of qi flow.

>

> So the word tong means " free flow " .

 

This then brings us back to the original

issue, which I'll restate thus: what

is meant by " qi flow " ?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Z'ev: Who decided on the English translations of the Dong Han pulse

terminology? How can I trust the choices of terms used, when the

articles I've seen don't have either pinyin (or the Korean

equivalent) or Korean characters (or their Chinese equivalents)?

 

Jim: Jiang Jing alone was sole embodiment of the system so there

wasn't any competing interpretation. Although developed out of the

classical Chinese material, I suspect he actually developed many of

the ideas himself. In some ways, it made studying acupuncture much

easier. On the down side, while hundreds studied with him only a few

of us actually learned and developed the system to any point of

sophistication. It's only been in the past several years while

trying to seriously write, teach, and communicate with others not

already familiar with those concepts, that the problem of common

translation terms and explanation has become a problem and necessary

to resolve. The exchanges with Ken and Will Morris' pulse diagnosis

group go a long way to help develop a common ground to base it on.

 

 

Z'ev: I have the same problem with the Hammer material. There is a

glossary in the text of Dr. Shen's material, but, to be honest, many

of the terms (such as " qi wild " , " push pulse " , or " nervous system

weak " , which doesn't even directly refer to the biomedical nervous

system) while interesting, seem to be the product of Dr. Shen's

limited English skills and Dr. Hammer's ability to interpret them.

To propose such terms as standard terminology for a specific pulse

system is problematic, because of the lack of reference to pinyin

and Chinese characters in the text, and the idiosyncratic use of

English biomedical terminology.

 

 

Jim: Hammer studied and worked closely with Shen for at least 8

years; so, I doubt that Shen's limited English skills are the

problem. I believe (I haven't studied their system with its

creators) the Shen/Hammer pulse system is dramatically different

enough to require new skills and new thinking---and, more

importantly, to realize that reliance on the Chinese classical

literature as the final authority is a serious limitation.

The new problem for translation is that Shen (and Jing) are not

simply repeating the same information from the past but creating new

material, creating an innovation. Thinking the same way that past

authors have will not sufficiently help in understanding Shen or

Jing. Unfortunately, innovation is often a difficult process. It's

not a matter of trust in the religious sense. All observations and

clinical practice can and must be demonstrable and reproducible. I

only took one class in the Shen/Hammer system but found that I could

follow their line of thought without problem. The terms were not

problematic and could be easily understood in relation to the actual

examination of the pulses. And, in my own system, when I show

students completely different types of pulses in their own patients

and in each other, they can follow my idea and sense the pulse

qualities about which I'm talking. The primary reference for both

Shen and Jing is in the sensation of the pulse and, secondarily, in

the interpretation.

 

 

Z'ev: Correct translation is not a lightweight issue. It illuminates

or obscures essential concepts and material. It is a great

responsibility, because this is what is going to be taught and

transmitted to a generation of students who will use these skills in

their medical practice, on real-life patients. This is not just an

intellectual debate.

 

Jim: Well, there is an intellectual debate going on---primarily in

regard to where meaning and authority reside in translation. No one

(least of all me) ever doubted the importance of translation, but

there are two divergent and competing translation styles---one where

literal translation has been preferred (it seems up to now), and the

other a more literary translation. I first got caught up in this

debate regarding translation styles in college; and it wasn't

resolved there either (perhaps it has something to do with the side

of the brain which is dominant). People have always worked from the

style they thought appropriate; which is why new translations are

always written. In our profession, clinical effectiveness should be

the final arbiter for meaning and authority.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

> This then brings us back to the original

> issue, which I'll restate thus: what

> is meant by " qi flow " ?

>

> Ken

>

This is really a great discussion, and I am enjoying reading very much! To

me, Qi is everything and in relation to flow, I would assume they were

talking about direction, or the way, the way in which the Qi is flowing

through Meridians, xue vessels, the 8 extra etc.,..the *qi flow* it takes to

get herbs to their desired destination. It seems like there would need to

be a collective amount of Qi, in order for there to be Qi flow.

 

Teresa