Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

October 25, 2004

, ajeffres@a... wrote:

[....] " Chinese Medical Herbology and Pharmacology " by John Chen....

Its pretty good, as the new Bensky MM.

What is the general opinion of practitioners, teachers, and students

about these two texts in comparison with each other? The topic was

briefly discussed earlier but it was before the Bensky text was

actually released.

It seems to me that Chen's book is a good resource for information on

the pharmacology and modern applications, whereas Bensky's seems

stronger in classical references and historical developments.

Both texts seem to be solid reference books that cannot really replace

each other, given that they have a different focus when they deviate

on the basic information. Unfortunately, on the basic tcm

information, both texts still tend to simplify the tcm concepts by not

pegging their translations to the source terms.

Do people on the list feel that the technical density of TCM is

confusing to students and needs to be simplified for practioners in

the West? Or do most of us think that technical accuracy is of primary

importance and students should be pushed to a higher level of

accountability on technical info? I suspect that the books that we

gravitate to reflect our varying perceptions of tcm. Some regard tcm

to be a highly technical field that requires a great deal of

specificity, while others tend to emphasize less complexity but

compensate with a good bedside manner with patients and gentle

delivery of information to students. Additionally, some people prefer

Westernized TCM and others prefer TCM with its metaphors and

traditional theory intact.

Chinese materia medicas are extremely dense with technical terms. To

some degree, this reflects the bluntness in Chinese expression of

technical information, and it probably also reflects the fact that

Chinese doctors tend to be more focused on technical accuracy than a

cozy bedside manner. While I understand that different translators

use different methodologies and that people like to have a wide range

of freedom of interpretation when they translate, it seems like basic

herbal textbooks are one area where there should be a consensus on the

technical information.

Although the Chinese books themselves are not in complete agreement

about everything, they tend to use the same technical terms over and

over when describing the actions of meds. Chen's book has a glossary

that is slightly under 20 pages, Bensky's is much shorter. I learned

herbs by using Bensky's terms in school and felt that they were clear

and understandable; however, when I started reading MM and formula

books in Chinese I realized that there was a great deal of complexity

that was omitted. Thousands of terms are used in materia medica books.

The more that students are exposed to the level of complexity that is

used in Chinese materials, the easier it becomes to approach advanced

materials and to explore opportunities in the wider world beyond the

board exams.

As English speakers, we are essentially at the mercy of translators,

who are in turn at the mercy of our buying habits. It seems that

readers are voting with their dollars to have simplified expression of

TCM. Does this reflect an actual desire for simplified TCM or are we

just used to the status quo and accept simplicity because few

alternatives are presented?

Eric

>

> Hi Rick,

> The book is

> -Anne

>

October 25, 2004

At 7:51 AM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote:

>It seems that

>readers are voting with their dollars to have simplified expression of

>TCM. Does this reflect an actual desire for simplified TCM or are we

>just used to the status quo and accept simplicity because few

>alternatives are presented?

--

I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless

we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems

like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a

more technical density?

Rory

--

October 25, 2004

> I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless

> we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems

> like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a

> more technical density?

Unfortunately, there isn't. I guess I am assuming that these authors

would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia

medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. Obviously,

these books aren't far from the mark in terms of their basic

presentation, it is just that they tend to omit some of the specific

indications due to their simplified translation technique. When I was

a student I wanted a MM in Wiseman terminology, but the fact that

these authors have spent years writing huge volumes that totally miss

the terminology concept makes me think that I must be in the minority.

I really like the addition of many meds beyond the basic ones for

testing purposes, as it gives the reader an appreciation for the fact

that the Chinese currently use a wider range of meds than we do. It

may be unnecessary for students to include less-commonly used meds,

but it is nice to have the info available in English for reference

purposes. Similarly, it is nice to have expanded classical commentary

and pharmacological information. Both books have a nice presentation.

Honestly, my only bone to pick with either text is the term issue. We

are trying to establish progressively higher standards of Western

education to approximate the level that our Chinese colleagues reach

in their educational process. Yet we still have our most basic

textbooks failing to differentiate the 7 Chinese words that are

applied in various circumstances to convey different nuances of

supplementation.

We still have words like spermatorrhea showing up in our textbooks,

which lumps together two major patterns ( " seminal efflux " & " seminal

emission " ). These diseases have different clinical significance for

treatment and different degrees of severity. Seminal emission itself

has two subpatterns of its own, which also represent different degrees

of severity (dream emission & emission without dreaming) and involve

different organ systems, necessitating different treatment strategies.

Lumping four distinct patterns into one term causes new students to

have a simplified concept of the TCM disease patterns and

pathomechanisms, and gives no guide to how to select medicinals

appropriately based on the specific disease. An English dictionary

definition of spermatorrhea offers nothing close to the nuances of the

Chinese terms. This concept has become so vague and distorted that

some students and teachers think spermatorrhea refers to masturbation!

I think students should be exposed to the technical complexity of TCM

from the beginning, as opposed to starting with simplified information

and having to learn that it is more complicated in their advanced classes.

Eric

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...>

wrote:

> At 7:51 AM +0000 10/25/04, smilinglotus wrote:

> >It seems that

> >readers are voting with their dollars to have simplified expression of

> >TCM. Does this reflect an actual desire for simplified TCM or are we

> >just used to the status quo and accept simplicity because few

> >alternatives are presented?

> --

>

> Rory

> --

>

October 25, 2004

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Monday, October 25, 2004 6:21 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

> > I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless

> > we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it seems

> > like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a

> > more technical density?

>

> Unfortunately, there isn't. I guess I am assuming that these authors

> would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia

> medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. Obviously,

> these books aren't far from the mark in terms of their basic

> presentation, it is just that they tend to omit some of the specific

> indications due to their simplified translation technique. When I was

> a student I wanted a MM in Wiseman terminology, but the fact that

> these authors have spent years writing huge volumes that totally miss

> the terminology concept makes me think that I must be in the minority.

[Jason]

Eric and Others,

I don't want to speak for Dan but the following is what he has expressed in

the past... First of all he does not carry yours and Wiseman's belief that

CM is such a technical language. He believes that there are only a handful

of technical terms and that everything is based on context. He does not

believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different

situations these terms might be slightly off... I have definitely seen this

latter to be true... Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like

every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they write... They

take liberties of expression, as do we, and many of the so-called technical

terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. This is even more so true

when we go back into pre-modern writings.

As far as Dan's new book, I give it 2 thumbs up. I see no problems and have

not had any trouble understanding the terms. Maybe you could give some

examples of a situation where things are unclear because he did not use

Wiseman terminology. This would be interesting... But I think Dan's and

others feelings are if the term is transparent then there is no need to

gloss. Finally I am not arguing for or against Wiseman or standardized

terminology. This is just 1 side of it... Because the majority of the time

when I translate use Wiseman terms, but sometimes use Unschuld, and

sometimes neither. But since I am no linguist nor as experienced as Bensky

I have little authority to deviate. Dan on the other hand is quite

proficient, so he does have solid ground to stand on.

>

> We still have words like spermatorrhea showing up in our textbooks,

> which lumps together two major patterns ( " seminal efflux " & " seminal

> emission " ). These diseases have different clinical significance for

> treatment and different degrees of severity. Seminal emission itself

> has two subpatterns of its own, which also represent different degrees

> of severity (dream emission & emission without dreaming) and involve

> different organ systems, necessitating different treatment strategies.

> Lumping four distinct patterns into one term causes new students to

> have a simplified concept of the TCM disease patterns and

> pathomechanisms, and gives no guide to how to select medicinals

> appropriately based on the specific disease. An English dictionary

> definition of spermatorrhea offers nothing close to the nuances of the

> Chinese terms. This concept has become so vague and distorted that

> some students and teachers think spermatorrhea refers to masturbation!

[Jason]

Well there is much written on why this may be so, I have heard both Chinese

and Western's say it is possible. I think it was also Damone who had a

thesis written on this idea, so one must consider more than just the term.

>

> I think students should be exposed to the technical complexity of TCM

> from the beginning, as opposed to starting with simplified information

> and having to learn that it is more complicated in their advanced classes.

[Jason]

I agree, but CM would have to start attracting a) more students (or not),

because more people would probably drop out, or b) just attract higher

caliber students.... Either way is fine with me...

-

October 25, 2004

Eric,

I totally agree about the terminology. Students don't really get this

medicine because they and, more importantly, their teachers are not

using the correct terms nor even all the necessary terms in order to

really convey and understand the practical technicalities of it.

As a publisher as well as an author, translator, and teacher, it's my

opinion than Bensky and the Chens have chosen the terminology they

have entirely for economic reasons. This is the terminology most

schools use. Whether we like it or not, this is the terminology most

students and practitioners use. Therefore, to use anything but the

lowest common denominator consigns your book to second-rate status in

terms of sales and influence on the profession.

Of course, this is a catch-22. Bensky et al. helped set the de facto

standard of terminology. Then Maciocia, the Chens, and others write to

this terminology in order to become required textbooks. This then

reinforces the loop, and round and round we go, never really getting

much better.

I can tell you that publishers, such as Paradigm and Blue Poppy, which

choose to use Wiseman's terminology suffer economically for that

decision. We have tried (and tried and tried) to get others to bite

the bullet and switch, but others have put their personal economic

interests ahead of their interests in the profession as a whole.

That being said, as more and more translators see the value and need

for Wiseman's terminology and more and better books are published

using this terminology, eventually the tide will turn. (If not, than a

few of us have invested a huge amount of time and money for nothing.)

Already, there is a second generation of up and coming translators

using this term set. Many of these translators combine clinical chops

with academic sinology credentials. This second generation includes

such people as Craig Mitchell, Bob Damone, Michael Helm a.k.a. John

Day, Lynn Kuchinski, Chip Chace, Simon Becker, Rob Helmer, Dagmar

Riley, and Barbara Kirschbaum. Eventually, any intelligent, thinking

person will be have to recognize that the quality of the books and

other materials translated and written by these people is simply a cut

above the same old same old in terms of technical virtuousity.

IMO,

Bob

October 25, 2004

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>>[...] Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like

>>> every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they

>>write... They

> >take liberties of expression, as do we [....]

While it is true that the Chinese do have some variance in expression

on certain terms, it is worth noting the fact that the Chinese

themselves are the original proponents of standardizing terminology,

within TCM expression in Chinese itself. They have huge committees

and organizations, journals and conferences to debate which terms are

synonymous and which are clinically distinct. After they decide which

terms are the standard terms to apply in each instance (based on

consensus within their community), then we will have an increasingly

homogenous base of modern source literature to translate. However,

modern texts are already quite consistent in their use of technical

terms, especially in a modern materia medica.

>>He [bensky] believes that there are only a handful

>> of technical terms and that everything is based on context. He

does not

> believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different

> situations these terms might be slightly off [….]

The people proposing the idea that TCM Chinese language has 1000's of

technical terms are the Chinese themselves, the Wiseman camp is but a

small offshoot in the Western world that realizes the importance of

this. It is not as though Nigel Wiseman is launching a one-man

crusade to standardize terms and suppress creativity, he is simply

responding to the fact that term standardization is an important

objective of the people whose books we are translating.

The notion that CM language has only " a handful " of technical terms is

ridiculous. If that were the case, there would not be huge

dictionaries in Chinese on the subject, nor huge organizations and

conferences for term standardization. If Chinese medical lingo was

transparent, any Chinese person could pick up a modern MM and tell you

exactly what it says- try giving a MM to a Chinese friend and see how

quickly they tell you that they don't precisely understand it because

it contains special words used in the context of traditional medicine.

>[...]and many of the so-called technical

> terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. […]

While there are instances when Wiseman terms are synonymous or have

multiple interpretations based on context, the vast majority of these

interpretations and term comparisons are elaborated in the PD. Thus,

the English term used in translation can be looked up and the entire

range of its interpretation can be explored. Naturally, there will be

some differences in nuance that are not contained in the PD, but these

differences require a level of interpretive skill that is only

possessed by a small number of historians or translators.

Accordingly, the PD terminology remains the basis for our generation

of translators. Bensky's terms may be understandable, but they don't

give anyone but Bensky anything to go on when approaching new literature.

>This is even more so true

> when we go back into pre-modern writings.

Term use does differ significantly for pre-modern works. Yet in

pre-modern works there is an incredibly wide range of latitude for

translators to make stuff up, intersperse their own interpretations,

and simply the expression. Pre-modern Chinese is very vague to begin

with, so it already lends itself to a great deal of supposition and

interpretation. This is an area where consistent term use is more

important as opposed to less important. Because the texts are

" sacred, " they must be translated more literally than modern books;

this model of translation is closer to philological translation than

to free translation.

Philology is the study of past cultures, and their translation

technique is quite literal. Philological translation aims to avoid

cultural interference. When terms are used differently than they are

used in modern times, it can be explained in the text or in footnotes.

But if the basis of the text is not pegged to the Chinese terms, then

nobody has a clue what the original text said (unless they read

Chinese, in which case they wouldn't bother reading the English

translation in the first place). If the words in English are not

traceable to the Chinese terms, it is not a translation, it is an

original work, an interpretation. It may have a useful place, it may

even be clearer than a translation, but it is an interpretation and

not a translation of the original text.

Translation requires a trusted source that one can rely on for term

research, because our generation cannot research each term completely

without a twenty year learning curve. Wiseman & Feng's terms are

extensively researched and come from the combination of linguistics

and the experience and research of top Chinese doctors. I do not

doubt Bensky's experience nor his linguistic abilities, but he hasn't

made anything available for translators to follow his style. His

terms will fall out of fashion when he stops writing books because he

has published no materials that allow his translation techniques to be

usable to anyone but himself.

I'm not dissing his book, I think it is a useful text. I am merely

pointing out that his translation technique is not transparent and is

not particularly useful for approaching a wider range of advanced

literature (unless he offers a way to teach it to others).

Eric

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> > Monday, October 25, 2004 6:21 AM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> > > I'm not sure you can say that we are voting with our dollars unless

> > > we have a real choice. At present, we buy the Bensky because it

seems

> > > like the best. Is there a materia medica in English that offers a

> > > more technical density?

> >

> > Unfortunately, there isn't. I guess I am assuming that these authors

> > would be presenting a more technically accurate version of a materia

> > medica if they believed that their customers wanted one. Obviously,

> > these books aren't far from the mark in terms of their basic

> > presentation, it is just that they tend to omit some of the specific

> > indications due to their simplified translation technique. When I was

> > a student I wanted a MM in Wiseman terminology, but the fact that

> > these authors have spent years writing huge volumes that totally miss

> > the terminology concept makes me think that I must be in the minority.

> [Jason]

> Eric and Others,

>

> I don't want to speak for Dan but the following is what he has

expressed in

> the past... First of all he does not carry yours and Wiseman's

belief that

> CM is such a technical language. He believes that there are only a

handful

> of technical terms and that everything is based on context. He does not

> believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different

> situations these terms might be slightly off... I have definitely

seen this

> latter to be true... Chinese authors use terms differently. It is

not like

> every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they

write... They

> take liberties of expression, as do we, and many of the so-called

technical

> terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. This is even more

so true

> when we go back into pre-modern writings.

> As far as Dan's new book, I give it 2 thumbs up. I see no problems

and have

> not had any trouble understanding the terms. Maybe you could give some

> examples of a situation where things are unclear because he did not use

> Wiseman terminology. This would be interesting... But I think

Dan's and

> others feelings are if the term is transparent then there is no need to

> gloss. Finally I am not arguing for or against Wiseman or standardized

> terminology. This is just 1 side of it... Because the majority of

the time

> when I translate use Wiseman terms, but sometimes use Unschuld, and

> sometimes neither. But since I am no linguist nor as experienced as

Bensky

> I have little authority to deviate. Dan on the other hand is quite

> proficient, so he does have solid ground to stand on.

>

> >

> > We still have words like spermatorrhea showing up in our textbooks,

> > which lumps together two major patterns ( " seminal efflux " & " seminal

> > emission " ). These diseases have different clinical significance for

> > treatment and different degrees of severity. Seminal emission itself

> > has two subpatterns of its own, which also represent different degrees

> > of severity (dream emission & emission without dreaming) and involve

> > different organ systems, necessitating different treatment strategies.

> > Lumping four distinct patterns into one term causes new students to

> > have a simplified concept of the TCM disease patterns and

> > pathomechanisms, and gives no guide to how to select medicinals

> > appropriately based on the specific disease. An English dictionary

> > definition of spermatorrhea offers nothing close to the nuances of the

> > Chinese terms. This concept has become so vague and distorted that

> > some students and teachers think spermatorrhea refers to masturbation!

> [Jason]

>

> Well there is much written on why this may be so, I have heard both

Chinese

> and Western's say it is possible. I think it was also Damone who had a

> thesis written on this idea, so one must consider more than just the

term.

>

> >

> > I think students should be exposed to the technical complexity of TCM

> > from the beginning, as opposed to starting with simplified information

> > and having to learn that it is more complicated in their advanced

classes.

> [Jason]

> I agree, but CM would have to start attracting a) more students (or

not),

> because more people would probably drop out, or b) just attract higher

> caliber students.... Either way is fine with me...

>

> -

October 25, 2004

, " " <@c...>

wrote:

He does not

> believe you should have 1000's of pegged terms because in different

> situations these terms might be slightly off... I have definitely seen this

> latter to be true... Chinese authors use terms differently.

Jason

How can a term that is pegged target to source be " slightly off " . This debate

has nothing

to do with what is the best target term; it is all about pegging the target to

the source so

the reader can explore the matter for themselves. nothing more, nothing less.

this

continual shifting of the debate to whether one term is better than another is a

straw man

attack. If you want to trust a translator's context, that is your prerogative.

I would rather

have the best access to the source a non chinese reader can have. Don't get me

wrong, I

see three levels of accessing chinese source material. Reading chinese, a fully

glossed

target to source, contextual or connotative translation. All three serve a

vital role; it is not

a matter of which is better in all circumstances. For example, if you can't

read much

chinese, you would be wise to get your data from english books. Likewise, if

you want to

be able to trace a term to its source regardless of what the author thinks of

this quest,

wiseman is your only choice. And if you absorb large amounts of information

better when

it is written more transparently, connotative texts like Bensky and Maciocia fit

the bill quite

well. But if one relies solely on connotative texts because the author who

wrote them

claims that is satisfactory, you are at the mercy of that author. Since you

read chinese

and have studied wiseman and thus have access to a wide range of sources,

perhaps you

may take for granted what is lacking in more simplified presentations.

October 25, 2004

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus>

wrote:

>

> Philology is the study of past cultures, and their translation

> technique is quite literal. Philological translation aims to avoid

> cultural interference. When terms are used differently than they are

> used in modern times, it can be explained in the text or in footnotes.

> But if the basis of the text is not pegged to the Chinese terms, then

> nobody has a clue what the original text said (unless they read

> Chinese, in which case they wouldn't bother reading the English

> translation in the first place). If the words in English are not

> traceable to the Chinese terms, it is not a translation, it is an

> original work, an interpretation. It may have a useful place, it may

> even be clearer than a translation, but it is an interpretation and

> not a translation of the original text.

this is really the crux of the matter. on one side, we have the scholarly

weight of

disciplines that have been evolving for centuries and of which distinct rules of

accurate

transmission are widely agreed upon across many fields and cultures.

Opposing this we have the economic incentives of a few companies preying on the

ignorance of their audiences, making a case for a connotative style of

translation that can

only be entertained amongst those who are uneducated in the realities of

translation.

There are many academic and political reasons why this happened. It was not

nefarious.

But the entire case has been made post hoc as there was clearly no thought given

to the

matter a priori. There is no academic leg upon which to stand this radical

thesis and we

would do well to stop debating it. It is quite akin to continuing to debate

whether the sun

revolves around the earth. In all other fields, this issue of correct

translation is a closed

matter. If the chinese have TCM dictionaries with 30,000 terms, they have

already decided

that their medicine has a huge technical vocabulary. And there is only one

bonafide way

to translate such a technical corpus. If one rejects these dictionaries as true

compendiums of TCM and rejects the only accpeted model for trnaslating such

material,

then one has chosen to be outside the mainstream of both modern CM and modern

western academia. Its a free country, but that does not mean every position has

merit and

this one has none.

October 25, 2004

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Monday, October 25, 2004 10:41 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

> >>[...] Chinese authors use terms differently. It is not like

> >>> every Chinese writer has a dictionary on their desk when they

> >>write... They

> > >take liberties of expression, as do we [....]

>

> While it is true that the Chinese do have some variance in expression

> on certain terms, it is worth noting the fact that the Chinese

> themselves are the original proponents of standardizing terminology,

> within TCM expression in Chinese itself.

[Jason]

This is not as clear as one may say... Yes Chinese have put together

dictionaries for a long time. This does not mean that in reality the

papers, books etc written in a huge country and over a long stretch of time,

by any means, conform to this...

They have huge committees

> and organizations, journals and conferences to debate which terms are

> synonymous and which are clinically distinct.

[Jason]

As this is rather new, and I have yet to see anything definitive come out of

it...

After they decide which

> terms are the standard terms to apply in each instance (based on

> consensus within their community), then we will have an increasingly

> homogenous base of modern source literature to translate.

[Jason]

Yes... when... (but that does not help us for the past, only the future.)

However,

> modern texts are already quite consistent in their use of technical

> terms, especially in a modern materia medica.

[Jason]

This is debatable... IF one sticks to main stream material, i.e. material

medicas, yes, but there is so much out there and yes it does not conform...

But since we are dealing with a medicine that is heavily weighed on the

past, this presents a problem. Not only do I regularly read non-modern

material, but quotes from the past show up all the time in modern sources.

The consistency breaks down very fast. Look at Bensky's MM - Quote after

quote of pre-modern material.

>

> The people proposing the idea that TCM Chinese language has 1000's of

> technical terms are the Chinese themselves, the Wiseman camp is but a

> small offshoot in the Western world that realizes the importance of

> this. It is not as though Nigel Wiseman is launching a one-man

> crusade to standardize terms and suppress creativity, he is simply

> responding to the fact that term standardization is an important

> objective of the people whose books we are translating.

>

> The notion that CM language has only " a handful " of technical terms is

> ridiculous. If that were the case, there would not be huge

> dictionaries in Chinese on the subject, nor huge organizations and

> conferences for term standardization.

[Jason]

I think this misses the point. Of course there are huge committees to

decide the best term, but one reason is because it the past, and very recent

past, there has been little standardization, otherwise why put so much

energy into it... But more importantly is that the huge Chinese

dictionaries have nothing to do with the issues at hand (hence a straw

man)... The issue is about the translation into English. No one is denying

that there is a huge amount of vocab in Chinese... The question is what do

we do with it in English. Bensky (as far as know) only thinks that some of

these terms should be 'pegged'... Not every single term... and this makes

complete sense. You have to have a book that readable. Todd says that he

wants to know what every term is... And that is nice, but maybe 1% of the CM

community will ever look every term or even 10% of the terms - This is just

reality.. What do we do about the people that just want to learn CM... In

that case the best word for the context is appropriate, especially if it

conveys the meaning better than the 'pegged' Wiseman term... There is

compromise...

Eric I still would you to present to examples from the BEnsky text that you

feel miss the boat because he did not use a Wiseman term...

If Chinese medical lingo was

> transparent, any Chinese person could pick up a modern MM and tell you

> exactly what it says- try giving a MM to a Chinese friend and see how

> quickly they tell you that they don't precisely understand it because

> it contains special words used in the context of traditional medicine.

>

[Jason] This again misses the point... We are talking about the English word

chosen to represent a Chinese concept in a given situation being

transparent, or understood without the use of a dictionary. An example is

if I say the spleen is deficient. You may like vacuity, and that is fine,

but the word and meaning is clear to everyone reading it- that is

transparent.

I will address some examples in todd's post.

>

> >[...]and many of the so-called technical

> > terms that Wiseman has pegged just do not work. [.]

>

> While there are instances when Wiseman terms are synonymous or have

> multiple interpretations based on context, the vast majority of these

> interpretations and term comparisons are elaborated in the PD.

[Jason]

I personally have found many instances that the Wiseman term does not fit

the context... So I have a choice, 1) put the awkward term in the sentence -

then people read it and think they understand it but there understanding

will be wrong and even if they take the time to look up the word in the PD

(which most people won't) then it still will be off because the meaning is

slightly askew... This is the problem... or 2) I can substitute a word that

convey the meaning of the passage making things clear, footnote the original

character if I like (which most people won't look at anyway)... So yes you

are at the mercy of the translator, that is why you should read translations

from people you trust. But why would I put a Wiseman term in a contextual

passage that just doesn't get the meaning across???

Thus,

> the English term used in translation can be looked up and the entire

> range of its interpretation can be explored. Naturally, there will be

> some differences in nuance that are not contained in the PD, but these

> differences require a level of interpretive skill that is only

> possessed by a small number of historians or translators.

[Jason]

True and not true... I am no historian, but I have found many instances that

when checked with Chinese scholars or colleagues have shown to have

different meanings... One should also not forget that the PD is limited

compared to Chinese dictionaries.. Therefore all words / definitions are not

going to be included... this is where one needs to break out of the box...

And Bensky I know has the skill to interpret the nuance therefore that is

why breaks out the box...

> Accordingly, the PD terminology remains the basis for our generation

> of translators. Bensky's terms may be understandable, but they don't

> give anyone but Bensky anything to go on when approaching new literature.

[Jason]

I am unsure what you mean with this... He is not trying to compete with

Wiseman as a dictionary, he is just trying to convey CM... I really don't

understand what this has to 'our generation of translators' - could you

explain... Like I have said I do not find his material at the least bit

hard to understand.

A recent example comes to mind about the debate between nourish, supplement

etc... I remember some people being very specific on what these terms mean

and I think Wiseman makes some major distinctions, but it wasn't a week

later until I came across a pretty mainstream source that just completely

used the terms differently... One has to be flexible and not to rigid,

because the Chinese are not using everything the same way, it is a huge

country with a lot of history.

>

> >This is even more so true

> > when we go back into pre-modern writings.

>

> Term use does differ significantly for pre-modern works. Yet in

> pre-modern works there is an incredibly wide range of latitude for

> translators to make stuff up, intersperse their own interpretations,

> and simply the expression. Pre-modern Chinese is very vague to begin

> with, so it already lends itself to a great deal of supposition and

> interpretation. This is an area where consistent term use is more

> important as opposed to less important. Because the texts are

> " sacred, " they must be translated more literally than modern books;

> this model of translation is closer to philological translation than

> to free translation.