Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

[Guest guest]

Jason,

Could you give some examples of different meanings chosen by Chinese

scholars? Do you mean different as in alternative or that they felt

the Wiseman term choices were wrong?

 

 

On Oct 25, 2004, at 6:46 PM, wrote:

 

> 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...

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Once again I would agree with Bob that those with the most Chinese skills (and

perhaps

French etc..) are most appreciative of the Wiseman efforts. But doesn't this

just point out

its deficiencies as a practical tool for those who don't have them. Your

excellent

explanations above work only because of the terms that we all use. What bugs me

about

the Dictionary is that he doesn't explain in terms of the medicine. Looking

something up

tends to be circular with no more understanding. I don't see the problem with

Bensky

making his word choices as long as they are consistent, which it seems they are.

Basically I'll be happy with Wiseman for translations and letting Bensky, Clavey

and others

use what they need to make the readers understand the concepts. I don't think

people

object to using Wiseman terms but only that they Must be used. Other authors are

more

problematic (i.e. Maciocca) who even if they used standardized vocabulary one

would still

not be sure of the sources.

 

Again, I wish somebody with the skills of Clavey or Bensky would put together a

beginning

text of theory.

 

doug

 

 

 

 

> In my experience as a teacher, failure to understand and appreciate

> Wiseman's term choices typically goes hand in hand with 1) lack of

> understand of the original Chinese and/or 2) a poor grasp of the

> English language (either because of not being a native speaker or not

> being a well educated person with good verbal skills). Wiseman's term

> choices make full use of the three main steams of the English

> language: Anglo-saxon/German, French, and Latin. Additionally, Wiseman

> assumes a certain level of educated familiarity with pre-20th century

> English. If one has studied Latin, one should have no problem with the

> word effuse. Likewise, if one has studied French or even just thinks

> about the various meanings of the word course in English, one will

> have little trouble understanding its various Chinese medical

> implications. After all, we're supposed to be well versed in the ideas

> of the qi and blood moving along various channels and vessels,

> passageways and thoroughfares, or courses.

>

> Bob

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> Again, I wish somebody with the skills of Clavey or Bensky would put

together a beginning

> text of theory.

>

> doug

 

Do you mean something like " Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text "

(commonly called the Shanghai text), tranlated and edit by John

O'Connor and Dan Bensky and published by Eastland Press? I have yet

to here someone proclaim that they are a fan of that book. We use it

because it is a CA State Board (and probably national as well)

required text.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

No, I definetly wasn't talking about that book which seems to be a

translation...

 

 

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

>

> , " "

> wrote:

>

> > Again, I wish somebody with the skills of Clavey or Bensky would put

> together a beginning

> > text of theory.

> >

> > doug

>

> Do you mean something like " Acupuncture: A Comprehensive Text "

> (commonly called the Shanghai text), tranlated and edit by John

> O'Connor and Dan Bensky and published by Eastland Press? I have yet

> to here someone proclaim that they are a fan of that book. We use it

> because it is a CA State Board (and probably national as well)

> required text.

>

> Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Could you please show me the post to which you are responding said that?

>>>You basically stated more than once that from what you see only those that

understand WT truly understand professional TCM, may be not directly but fairly

clearly between the lines

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>

> No, I definetly wasn't talking about that book which seems to be a

translation...

>

 

Right, that was kind of my point. Either someone will write a book

that is a translation of a Chinese text, or a translated compilation

of various Chinese (and other Asian) text, or they are going to be

writing something that reflects their own experiences, which may be

interesting to an existing practitioner to see how someone else

perceives of CM based on their own experiences, but it is not what is

best for a textbook from which someone is supposed to learn CM.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Do you mean different as in alternative or that they felt

the Wiseman term choices were wrong?

 

>>>>>I think this is a wrong interpretation of the discussion. Any term chosen

to become a professional lingo is " a right term " once learned and agreed. It is

not a question of word choice but a question of flexibility of using different

words for the same character in different situations. I think the discussion is

more about TCM than translation. If one believes that the modern attempt to

standardize TCM is true to CM tradition than any standard, and as of now we only

have WT, is advantageous. If one believes that this attempt is not true to the

spirit of CM than a more flexible and creative translation are better.

Personally I would like to see both

 

 

[Guest guest]

I've read over this post a few times, but I still cannot get the point

you are trying to make. You give an example from the Bensky materia

medica, and compare it not with another materia medica, but with terms

from the Wiseman dictionary. What gives?

 

 

On Oct 25, 2004, at 10:59 PM, wrote:

 

>

> I really listening to Jason on this.

>

> I'm not sure if you can blame students lack of understanding on

> Bensky.

> For Xi Xin the Actions are disperse cold and release the exterior 

> etc...  (commentary says

> its ability " to induce sweating is rather weak "

> For Sheng Jiang - release exterior and disperse cold

> Cong Bai - release the exterior and induces sweating

> xiang ru= induces sweating and releases the exterior

>

> compare to Wiseman:

>

> effusion sweat  fa1 han4  = sweating

>

> effuse  fa1  = to move outward, as sweat through the interstices; to

> induce such

> movement. for example, effuce the exterior means to induce sweating

> so that evils located

> in the exterior can escape.

>

> coursing the exterior  shu1 biao3  = a method of treatment used to

> free the exterior of

> evil without necessarily making the patient sweat.

>

> scattering  - not in dictionary.....

>

>

>

> Doug

> ________________

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> alon marcus [alonmarcus]

> Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:10 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

> Do you mean different as in alternative or that they felt

> the Wiseman term choices were wrong?

>

> >>>>>I think this is a wrong interpretation of the discussion. Any term

> chosen to become a professional lingo is " a right term " once learned and

> agreed. It is not a question of word choice but a question of flexibility

> of using different words for the same character in different situations. I

> think the discussion is more about TCM than translation. If one believes

> that the modern attempt to standardize TCM is true to CM tradition than

> any standard, and as of now we only have WT, is advantageous. If one

> believes that this attempt is not true to the spirit of CM than a more

> flexible and creative translation are better. Personally I would like to

> see both

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:06 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> > [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...

>

> Actually, the vast majority of texts that are applied clinically today

> are modern books that were written in the past 50 yrs after the

> creation of " TCM. " This process was primarily a process of

> standardization, and the university system in China is based on only a

> few major publishers that form the influential opinion on medicinals

> and other basic subjects. These books put out by the key publishers

> are all remarkably similar in term selection, often the terms used are

> verbatim identical between texts on medicinal therapy.

[Jason]

So everything that is not a majority mainstream published text is

disregarded? I think that there may be a current majority, but there is

surely texts that I come across that are not! Just looking at the MM one

can also see the huge amount of pre-modern quotes and perspectives that it

contains. These obviously were not around with these major publishing

houses. I have multiple modern MM's and this text (Clavey and Bensky)

contains a huge amount of info not included in them...

 

 

>

> You continue to make the argument that term standards do not apply

> because many texts are from earlier time periods. It is true that

> some major differences exist over time, but Chinese is an incredibly

> consistent language over history- it has not changed anywhere near as

> much as Western languages have. If you read English or French that is

> hundreds of years old, you can barely make sense of it, yet you could

> read a few lines from the ben cao gang mu without even noticing a huge

> difference. You must also remember that the literate writers were in

> the extreme minority back then and those who could write were

> incredibly well-educated and versed in the meaning of words.

[Jason]

I disagree as do many others... Classical Chinese is a completely different

animal than modern Chinese. Words are not only different, but sentence

structures, grammar etc are drastically different. This is why the average

Chinese person CAN NOT read classical Chinese. There are whole dictionaries

devoted to time period usage of words... this is a huge topic. It is

pointless to debate if western language has changed more or less than

Chinese... The fact is that Chinese has changed drastically, even comparing

modern and pre-modern let alone classical. And the PD does not have all the

answers.

 

>

> We are in a predicament as to how to truly understand, much less

> translate works that are in ancient Chinese. There is a place for

> connotative translation, but classical works are not the place to

> argue its merits. Scholars in mainstream academia reject the notion

> of connotative translation for ancient works from foreign cultures.

 

[Jason] Not saying I am for connotative (and actually have never said

that) but who are these scholars?

 

 

> While deviations in meaning do appear on terms over time, pegging all

> the terms and showing the deviations gives the reader access to the

> authentic, unfiltered material.

[Jason]

YES! In theory ... if one could ever imagine pegging every possible usage,

your dictionary would not only take a lifetime but it would probably be

about 10,000+ pages long...(My own interpretive stats here)... but even with

that there will be some author somewhere that doesn't conform, this is human

nature...

 

>

> In fact, when it comes to translating both modern and classical

> literature, Wiseman terminology is the only terminology that has been

> successfully applied to works in multiple eras. The Shang Han Lun by

> Feng, Mitchell, & Wiseman demonstrated that the translation

> methodology is extremely clear even when applied to a book that is

> 2000 years old.

[Jason]

I agree a great work... but this is a circular argument, because wiseman

worked on the project. He could obviously adapt any term that was needed to

fit the context... Hell if I was working with Wiseman I probably would be

using 100% wiseman terms because he would resolve all things that did not

fit...

 

 

>

> You say that Bensky is a trustworthy translator and you are perfectly

> happy with him doing the interpreting for you. I basically agree that

> Bensky has done his homework and I think his text is a very good

> presentation of the material. The thing I dispute is that the

> translation methodology used in connotative texts is what our pivotal

> textbooks should be based on.

>

> You raise the idea that a level of trust in the core translator is

> necessary. You assert that you trust Bensky to interpret for you, but

> you question whether Wiseman & Feng's PD can be trusted to provide the

> all info that you require.

[Jason]

Exactly... there are two different issues here... If someone like Dan &

Steve translate a book they have the context to guide them and can make the

proper decisions... They both have obviously proven themselves as scholars.

 

Now if Wiseman and Feng were translating a book I too would rely on them

because they have the context to guide them... but if Joe Smo is

translating a book with straight Wiseman terms, why would I rely on him to

see clearly where the terms don't fit... You are relying on a translator who

might not understand the context and nuance. If you want to see this for

yourself translate something like the wenrelun with no help but a dictionary

and see what you come up with... The point is either way you have to trust

someone. It doesn't completely solve the problem to say , " ahh.. but they

are using Wiseman terms so it must be right... " that is BS. If I completely

trusted the PD then I wouldn't have to have other Chinese Dictionaries, but

I need them, that is just reality.

 

>

> With regard to connotative translation, you put your trust in Bensky.

> How far do you extend your trust to the translator? Would you trust

> Macciocia to write this text? There comes a point when reading

> connotative translation when you just can't be sure where the source

> left off and where the interpreter starts talking. Tomorrow you may

> encounter another author whose reputation you aren't familiar with, do

> you trust that they did their homework? Do you really want a

> middle-man between you and the books you are reading?

[Jason]

Why do you think I started reading Chinese...

 

>

> You complain that the PD doesn't have all the answers and that Wiseman

> & Feng may not be cued into all the nuances of these words.

[Jason]

Correct

 

You say

> that adopting PD terminology requires faith in interpretation just

> like Bensky does.

[Jason]

Not interpretation, but cultivates blind allegiance that the definition is

what is being discussed in the passage... A slippery slope.. granted fine

for basic material, but once you branch out...

 

Bob pointed out that Nigel's terms as perceived as

> difficult because they draw from words that are beyond our

> (embarrassingly poor) mastery of the English language, but each term

> is very carefully researched to have the closest possible match. I

> certainly trust Nigel when it comes to linguistics, as his command of

> Chinese and English is impeccable and his term research is meticulous.

[Jason]

No disagreement here... I have no problem with his term choices I could care

less... Unless they don't fit.. (but this usally has more to do with the

definition) but sometimes the word it just used different.

 

>

> When it comes to whether these terms match the Chinese understanding,

> consider the fact that Feng Ye has been working with Nigel for over

> ten years and played a pivotal role in the creation of the PD.

[Jason]

Again this has nothing to do with the argument.. there is not 1 magic

universal Chinese dictionary that all Chinese writers use to pick terms...

 

> Westerners seem to completely ignore our Chinese counterparts when we

> debate on topics like this, as though we are now the authorities.

> Feng Ye is a CM doctor that measures his individual patients by the

> hundreds of thousands, and his education involved the memorization of

> all the major Chinese classics in addition to modern works. Feng Ye

> has studied Chinese medicine continually for his entire life and has

> an incredibly solid reputation in both internal medicine as well as

> classical works. He definitely can be trusted on his knowledge of

> terms in Chinese medicine. If you need a higher standard to earn

> your trust than Wiseman & Feng, you might just need to study on

> another planet.

[Jason]

Or just keep studying Chinese and not bother with any of this...

 

-

>

[Guest guest]

At 8:02 PM +0000 10/26/04, smilinglotus wrote:

>I will do half the work if you (or anyone else) does the other half.

>Simply take a medicinal that is of interest or confusing, and write up

>the actions, indications, combinations, etc (you know, the brief basic

>info). I will then translate that section with Wiseman terms from a

>standard PRC text and you can see how they compare.

--

 

Eric,

 

I was hoping that we could compare the translation with Bensky. My

interest was piqued by your claim that a Chinese materia medica would

have more technical density. If true, then maybe it is time for a

translation of such a text. However, I'd really like to see an

example of this greater technical density. What would this look like

in English? If you are willing to translate sufficient text to

illustrate your point, then I'd be happy to type out corresponding

paragraphs from Bensky.

 

I suggest you take a single Chinese materia medica that is used as

the standard textbook in the a top level TCM program, if you have

access to one. I don't think the herb choice has to be anything

special...how about chai hu?

 

The rest of your post appears to respond to the issue of term choice

issue, which I see as a different issue than technical density.

 

Thank you for agreeing to do this experiment. I realize it is

significant work for you.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

1) What are some alternative definitions for specific terms or concepts

that you have received from Chinese scholars?

 

2) Are this alternative definitions in addition to the Wiseman/Feng

term choices/concepts, or do these scholars feel that the choices of

Wiseman/Feng are wrong?

 

Z'ev

On Oct 26, 2004, at 6:11 PM, wrote:

 

>

> > Jason,

> > Could you give some examples of different meanings chosen by Chinese

> > scholars?  Do you mean different as in alternative or that they felt

> > the Wiseman term choices were wrong?

> [Jason]

> I am unsure what you are asking for?

>

> -

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> [zrosenbe]

> Tuesday, October 26, 2004 8:15 PM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

> 1) What are some alternative definitions for specific terms or concepts

> that you have received from Chinese scholars?

[Jason]

The definitions really are about a specific passages, not general

definitions that should replace what wiseman has... But one can open a

Chinese dictionary and find things that are not in Wiseman...

 

>

> 2) Are this alternative definitions in addition to the Wiseman/Feng

> term choices/concepts, or do these scholars feel that the choices of

> Wiseman/Feng are wrong?

[Jason]

Although what I am talking about has nothing to do with Wiseman's choices

being wrong, just not representative of certain situations... But I know

there are beefs with the actual terms, like yu = depression.. but that is

just a completely different issue and one that I do not want to get involved

with...

 

-Jason

 

 

>

> Z'ev

> On Oct 26, 2004, at 6:11 PM, wrote:

>

> >

> > > Jason,

> > > Could you give some examples of different meanings chosen by Chinese

> > > scholars?  Do you mean different as in alternative or that they felt

> > > the Wiseman term choices were wrong?

> > [Jason]

> > I am unsure what you are asking for?

> >

> > -

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> 2) Are this alternative definitions in addition to the Wiseman/Feng

> term choices/concepts, or do these scholars feel that the choices of

> Wiseman/Feng are wrong?

[Jason]

Sorry I read this too fast... You are not asking about term choices... to

answer: they feel (as do I)- in addition... How can anyone argue with

definitions, or say they are wrong? they are choices... Definitions are

from sources somewhere, so every definition has some value.. I just object

to the concept that only the most popular definitions / usages are the only

ones of value...

 

-

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Doug,

Sometimes it is hard to tell when the threads get so long. . ..

 

Z'ev

On Oct 26, 2004, at 7:06 AM, wrote:

 

>

> I was simply responding to Brian comments below...

> Doug

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Rory,

 

The main problem is that the entry on a given med like chai hu in

Bensky is synthesized from multiple sources. If I translate the entry

from one basic text, it may appear more simple than Bensky if Bensky

used 5 texts to glean all his technical info on chai hu. There is not

really a fair way to do it, because if I have one source to go on,

Bensky will may look more complex, yet if I have multiple sources,

mine will look more complex. To give me only one source doesn't allow

me to use the technique that Bensky used to compile the info. To give

me multiple sources gives me the ability to make a more complex

presentation because Bensky would have left information out for

practical reasons; he couldn't have possibly put in every technical

phrase possible for a given med. There is too much in the Chinese

sources to include everything (and including EVERYTHING isn't

necessary for a student text). It would make the book way too long. I

don't see any way to make it fair to compare the two without using the

two translation methods on the same few Chinese paragraphs.

 

I don't think that either Bensky or Chen are missing significant

amounts of key information. Both texts present most all of the core

material that students should learn. I simply think that Western

readers are capable of grasping the information when it is presented

in technical lingo, as opposed to using target language to make it

seem more palatable. My argument is not that Bensky or Chen are

dumbing down the info for us, both are presenting a great deal of

solid info. My argument is that the use of terms that can be

investigated and researched allows students to gain a better grasp of

the concepts, basically the point that Bob Flaws already made succinctly.

 

Eric

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@o...>

wrote:

> At 8:02 PM +0000 10/26/04, smilinglotus wrote:

> >I will do half the work if you (or anyone else) does the other half.

> >Simply take a medicinal that is of interest or confusing, and write up

> >the actions, indications, combinations, etc (you know, the brief basic

> >info). I will then translate that section with Wiseman terms from a

> >standard PRC text and you can see how they compare.

> --

>

> Eric,

>

> I was hoping that we could compare the translation with Bensky. My

> interest was piqued by your claim that a Chinese materia medica would

> have more technical density. If true, then maybe it is time for a

> translation of such a text. However, I'd really like to see an

> example of this greater technical density. What would this look like

> in English? If you are willing to translate sufficient text to

> illustrate y

 

our point, then I'd be happy to type out corresponding

> paragraphs from Bensky.

>

> I suggest you take a single Chinese materia medica that is used as

> the standard textbook in the a top level TCM program, if you have

> access to one. I don't think the herb choice has to be anything

> special...how about chai hu?

>

> The rest of your post appears to respond to the issue of term choice

> issue, which I see as a different issue than technical density.

>

> Thank you for agreeing to do this experiment. I realize it is

> significant work for you.

>

> Rory

> --

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> [Jason]

> So everything that is not a majority mainstream published text is

> disregarded? I think that there may be a current majority, but there is

> surely texts that I come across that are not! Just looking at the

MM one

> can also see the huge amount of pre-modern quotes and perspectives

that it

> contains. These obviously were not around with these major publishing

> houses. I have multiple modern MM's and this text (Clavey and Bensky)

> contains a huge amount of info not included in them...

 

I am not suggesting that non-mainstream modern texts are without

value, but I do believe that our core curriculum should be based on

mainstream modern texts, which by definition represent a consensus of

opinion. You reference pre-modern quotes (which are typically

rendered in modern Chinese as opposed to classical Chinese when quoted

in MM books) and the importance in bringing in this extra information.

I agree that classical quotes are a valuable complement to the modern

summary.

 

However, classical quotes are where terms should be traceable. Let's

say you are translating an entry on cannabis and the classical quote

refers to an action of ma2 zui4. Ma2 zui4 in modern times generally

refers to anesthesia or anesthestic drugs. Literally, it combines the

word cannabis/numbness with the word that modifies alcohol to signify

drunkenness. If you think cannabis produces " cannabis drunkenness "

instead of anesthesia, you may translate that as intoxicating or

psychotropic. In English, we have a wide range of words to decribe

psychotropic states, many of which are loaded with the biases of

people who disapprove or approve of such states. Chinese has very few

words to express these concepts by comparison. How can you be sure

that your interpretation of such a term reflects the way Chinese

people experienced it hundreds of years ago? The only way that

classical works are accessible is by using a translation methodology

that is accountable. People must be able to tell what the original

said with minimal bias and assumption from the translator.

 

> [Jason]

> I disagree as do many others... Classical Chinese is a completely

different

> animal than modern Chinese. Words are not only different, but sentence

> structures, grammar etc are drastically different. This is why the

average

> Chinese person CAN NOT read classical Chinese. There are whole

dictionaries

> devoted to time period usage of words... this is a huge topic. It is

> pointless to debate if western language has changed more or less than

> Chinese... The fact is that Chinese has changed drastically, even

comparing

> modern and pre-modern let alone classical. And the PD does not have

all the

> answers.

 

Classical Chinese is extremely different than modern Chinese. Chinese

students study it for many years before they have any confidence in

their skill with it, and those who are skilled are very humble because

they know how much they still do not know. Chinese is remarkably

consistent when compared to other languages, yes, but the meanings

have still shifted. Out of all the translation methods and term lists

suggested, only Wiseman terms remain applicable across multiple

historical periods. Of course it is imperfect. Translation itself is

imperfect. French is not a funny way of speaking English, it has a

totally different style of expression on many subtle fronts. Chinese

is so radically different that we have to unlearn our assumptions of

language structure just to approach it.

 

However, just because nothing is perfect does not mean we should

ignore the best tool that we have available to learn. Wiseman's PD

has provided many answers and has made the entire topic accessible.

Students who learn its concepts tend to have a strong foundation in CM

theory. Translators who use it have a solid academic resource behind

their work and have a huge advantage when they undertake the study of

Chinese as a foreign language.

 

>>>>Scholars in mainstream academia reject the notion

> > of connotative translation for ancient works from foreign >>cultures.

> [Jason] Not saying I am for connotative (and actually have never said

> that) but who are these scholars?

 

 

These scholars are philologists, people in mainstream academia who

pursue advanced research into studies of ancient cultures. They are

the people who figure out how we should translate hieroglyphics from

Egypt, how we should translate ancient works from Greece, the Middle

East, China, etc. We are not the first people to debate issues like

accountable translation.

 

> > Feng, Mitchell, & Wiseman demonstrated that the translation

> > methodology is extremely clear even when applied to a book that is

> > 2000 years old.

> [Jason]

> I agree a great work... but this is a circular argument, because wiseman

> worked on the project. He could obviously adapt any term that was

needed to

> fit the context... Hell if I was working with Wiseman I probably

would be

> using 100% wiseman terms because he would resolve all things that

did not

> fit...

 

You are ignoring the fact that the PD and the term development

preceded the project of the Shang Han Lun. Wiseman didn't need to

" apapt any term needed to fit the context. " The SHL illustrates that

Wiseman terms are already applicable for approaching Han Dynasty

literature, just as they are applicable for literature today.

 

>

> Now if Wiseman and Feng were translating a book I too would rely on them

> because they have the context to guide them... but if Joe Smo is

> translating a book with straight Wiseman terms, why would I rely on

him to

> see clearly where the terms don't fit... You are relying on a

translator who

> might not understand the context and nuance.

 

If you put out a book, you will be a Joe Smoe to somebody who has

never heard of you. They might just be more inclined to trust your

work if it was based on Wiseman terms than if it is based on your own

interpretations and unreferenced term research. Nobody trusts Joe

Smoe, and in the course of our careers we will see books written by

people whose names we don't know. We can't depend on the handful of

major authors who are in the limelight now to produce everything

usable in the TCM field. Using Wiseman terms at least lets us know

that the new kid on the block has a solid academic foundation.

 

>> Do you really want a

> > middle-man between you and the books you are reading?

> [Jason]

> Why do you think I started reading Chinese...

 

It's all well and good that you can read Chinese, but most of our

community depends on translators to deliver the authentic material in

English. The pursuit of Chinese language is not realistic for many

practitioners for a variety of reasons, but they still deserve

reliable information. People are not automatically on a lower

academic level because they haven't sacrificed years of their life to

study Chinese.

 

> [Jason]

> No disagreement here... I have no problem with his term choices I

could care

> less... Unless they don't fit.. (but this usally has more to do

with the

> definition) but sometimes the word it just used different.

 

You have repeatedly referenced the many terms that you feel do not

fit, yet you have failed to provide so much as one single example to

prove your point. Z'ev has made multiple requests for examples, yet

your examples seem much easier to talk about in vague and sweeping

terms than they do when grounded in specific references.

 

Eric Brand

 

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> > Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:06 PM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> >

> >

> > > [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...

> >

> > Actually, the vast majority of texts that are applied clinically today

> > are modern books that were written in the past 50 yrs after the

> > creation of " TCM. " This process was primarily a process of

> > standardization, and the university system in China is based on only a

> > few major publishers that form the influential opinion on medicinals

> > and other basic subjects. These books put out by the key publishers

> > are all remarkably similar in term selection, often the terms used are

> > verbatim identical between texts on medicinal therapy.

> [Jason]

> So everything that is not a majority mainstream published text is

> disregarded? I think that there may be a current majority, but there is

> surely texts that I come across that are not! Just looking at the

MM one

> can also see the huge amount of pre-modern quotes and perspectives

that it

> contains. These obviously were not around with these major publishing

> houses. I have multiple modern MM's and this text (Clavey and Bensky)

> contains a huge amount of info not included in them...

>

>

> >

> > You continue to make the argument that term standards do not apply

> > because many texts are from earlier time periods. It is true that

> > some major differences exist over time, but Chinese is an incredibly

> > consistent language over history- it has not changed anywhere near as

> > much as Western languages have. If you read English or French that is

> > hundreds of years old, you can barely make sense of it, yet you could

> > read a few lines from the ben cao gang mu without even noticing a huge

> > difference. You must also remember that the literate writers were in

> > the extreme minority back then and those who could write were

> > incredibly well-educated and versed in the meaning of words.

> [Jason]

> I disagree as do many others... Classical Chinese is a completely

different

> animal than modern Chinese. Words are not only different, but sentence

> structures, grammar etc are drastically different. This is why the

average

> Chinese person CAN NOT read classical Chinese. There are whole

dictionaries

> devoted to time period usage of words... this is a huge topic. It is

> pointless to debate if western language has changed more or less than

> Chinese... The fact is that Chinese has changed drastically, even

comparing

> modern and pre-modern let alone classical. And the PD does not have

all the

> answers.

>

> >

> > We are in a predicament as to how to truly understand, much less

> > translate works that are in ancient Chinese. There is a place for

> > connotative translation, but classical works are not the place to

> > argue its merits. Scholars in mainstream academia reject the notion

> > of connotative translation for ancient works from foreign cultures.

>

> [Jason] Not saying I am for connotative (and actually have never said

> that) but who are these scholars?

>

>

> > While deviations in meaning do appear on terms over time, pegging all

> > the terms and showing the deviations gives the reader access to the

> > authentic, unfiltered material.

> [Jason]

> YES! In theory ... if one could ever imagine pegging every possible

usage,

> your dictionary would not only take a lifetime but it would probably be

> about 10,000+ pages long...(My own interpretive stats here)... but

even with

> that there will be some author somewhere that doesn't conform, this

is human

> nature...

>

> >

> > In fact, when it comes to translating both modern and classical

> > literature, Wiseman terminology is the only terminology that has been

> > successfully applied to works in multiple eras. The Shang Han Lun by

> > Feng, Mitchell, & Wiseman demonstrated that the translation

> > methodology is extremely clear even when applied to a book that is

> > 2000 years old.

> [Jason]

> I agree a great work... but this is a circular argument, because wiseman

> worked on the project. He could obviously adapt any term that was

needed to

> fit the context... Hell if I was working with Wiseman I probably

would be

> using 100% wiseman terms because he would resolve all things that

did not

> fit...

>

>

> >

> > You say that Bensky is a trustworthy translator and you are perfectly

> > happy with him doing the interpreting for you. I basically agree that

> > Bensky has done his homework and I think his text is a very good

> > presentation of the material. The thing I dispute is that the

> > translation methodology used in connotative texts is what our pivotal

> > textbooks should be based on.

> >

> > You raise the idea that a level of trust in the core translator is

> > necessary. You assert that you trust Bensky to interpret for you, but

> > you question whether Wiseman & Feng's PD can be trusted to provide the

> > all info that you require.

> [Jason]

> Exactly... there are two different issues here... If someone like Dan &

> Steve translate a book they have the context to guide them and can

make the

> proper decisions... They both have obviously proven themselves as

scholars.

>

> Now if Wiseman and Feng were translating a book I too would rely on them

> because they have the context to guide them... but if Joe Smo is

> translating a book with straight Wiseman terms, why would I rely on

him to

> see clearly where the terms don't fit... You are relying on a

translator who

> might not understand the context and nuance. If you want to see

this for

> yourself translate something like the wenrelun with no help but a

dictionary

> and see what you come up with... The point is either way you have to

trust

> someone. It doesn't completely solve the problem to say , " ahh..

but they

> are using Wiseman terms so it must be right... " that is BS. If I

completely

> trusted the PD then I wouldn't have to have other Chinese

Dictionaries, but

> I need them, that is just reality.

>

> >

> > With regard to connotative translation, you put your trust in Bensky.

> > How far do you extend your trust to the translator? Would you trust

> > Macciocia to write this text? There comes a point when reading

> > connotative translation when you just can't be sure where the source

> > left off and where the interpreter starts talking. Tomorrow you may

> > encounter another author whose reputation you aren't familiar with, do

> > you trust that they did their homework? Do you really want a

> > middle-man between you and the books you are reading?

> [Jason]

> Why do you think I started reading Chinese...

>

> >

> > You complain that the PD doesn't have all the answers and that Wiseman

> > & Feng may not be cued into all the nuances of these words.

> [Jason]

> Correct

>

> You say

> > that adopting PD terminology requires faith in interpretation just

> > like Bensky does.

> [Jason]

> Not interpretation, but cultivates blind allegiance that the

definition is

> what is being discussed in the passage... A slippery slope.. granted

fine

> for basic material, but once you branch out...

>

> Bob pointed out that Nigel's terms as perceived as

> > difficult because they draw from words that are beyond our

> > (embarrassingly poor) mastery of the English language, but each term

> > is very carefully researched to have the closest possible match. I

> > certainly trust Nigel when it comes to linguistics, as his command of

> > Chinese and English is impeccable and his term research is meticulous.

> [Jason]

> No disagreement here... I have no problem with his term choices I

could care

> less... Unless they don't fit.. (but this usally has more to do

with the

> definition) but sometimes the word it just used different.

>

> >

> > When it comes to whether these terms match the Chinese understanding,

> > consider the fact that Feng Ye has been working with Nigel for over

> > ten years and played a pivotal role in the creation of the PD.

> [Jason]

> Again this has nothing to do with the argument.. there is not 1 magic

> universal Chinese dictionary that all Chinese writers use to pick

terms...

>

> > Westerners seem to completely ignore our Chinese counterparts when we

> > debate on topics like this, as though we are now the authorities.

> > Feng Ye is a CM doctor that measures his individual patients by the

> > hundreds of thousands, and his education involved the memorization of

> > all the major Chinese classics in addition to modern works. Feng Ye

> > has studied Chinese medicine continually for his entire life and has

> > an incredibly solid reputation in both internal medicine as well as

> > classical works. He definitely can be trusted on his knowledge of

> > terms in Chinese medicine. If you need a higher standard to earn

> > your trust than Wiseman & Feng, you might just need to study on

> > another planet.

> [Jason]

> Or just keep studying Chinese and not bother with any of this...

>

> -

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

>

> > [Jason]

> > No disagreement here... I have no problem with his term choices I

> could care

> > less... Unless they don't fit.. (but this usally has more to do

> with the

> > definition) but sometimes the word it just used different.

>

> You have repeatedly referenced the many terms that you feel do not

> fit, yet you have failed to provide so much as one single example to

> prove your point. Z'ev has made multiple requests for examples, yet

> your examples seem much easier to talk about in vague and sweeping

> terms than they do when grounded in specific references.

>

[Jason]

As previously stated... The nature of showing where a term is 'off' requires

the context of the original text (Chinese), which this forum does not

support, nor do I feel that it is appropriate. I honestly think it is such

a no-brainer that I could care less... Are you honestly telling everyone

that you think that the WT can account for all instances? Have you not

found times where things just don't line up? I come across problems weekly.

The Jia yi jing (Bob & Chip) [a documented source] found many... The fact

that there are '100's of dictionaries' [according to Todd] that Wiseman

compiled his list from - demonstrates left out material... The fact that I

have a 1 medical-dictionary 3 volume set [about 10x the size of the PD] that

has extensive amount of stuff that Wiseman decided not include. Showing

specific instances really is not even worth the time. More important is the

initial claim the Bensky & Clavey is not representing the true information.

That is much more important. So if you really believe that WT doesn't have

holes we can talk off list. But as stated previously I completely agree, it

is the best out there and a great learning tool for students...

 

I was thinking about Z'ev's other question and I want to say that not only

are there other definitions (that are needed), but sometimes that the actual

word(s) need to be changed. Primarily because the majority of WTs do not

have definitions, therefore the word MUST convey the meaning. To think that

1 pegged word (especially with no definitions) will cover every possible

instance of use is silly... Even if you use the TERM hoping that the reader

will look it up, when they get to the dictionary there will be no

definition, nor entry... So using the word is pointless... That is the

other problem... Wiseman has 20,000+ words that do not have definitions...

So the word is just a word floating in space, but attached to the name

Wiseman without any context or definition, very strange... These are the

words that are usually the problem. Therefore the argument that the reader

can look up the word and see what it means is moot in these cases; there is

nothing to see...

 

-

[Guest guest]

> Basically I'll be happy with Wiseman for translations and letting

Bensky, Clavey and others > use what they need to make the readers

understand the concepts.

 

Do they really make others understand the concepts? I don't think so.

 

As for " MUST use, " it's been explained many, many times that people

don't have to use Wiseman's terms in their texts as long as they note

all deviations in a footnote, comment, or by other means. Wiseman is

only the most complete term term set we have with both English,

Pinyin, and characters.

 

For better or worse, I am the most prolific writer on on Chinese

medicine in English, and I support the use of Wiseman's terminology.

But I do not use all Wiseman's terms. What I do do, however, is note

my deviations and typically explain why I have chosen another term the

first time I use it in any given work.

 

So this " must " shit is simply that -- ka ka. You or anyone else has

the freedom to use some other glossary or English language dictionary

which includes characters and Pinyin if you wish, as long as that

glossary is freely available in the marketplace and you clearly state

your standard via easily recognized bibliographic means. Then you have

the further freedom to deviate from that standard as long as you make

that deviation clear and transparent. The issue is leaving a clear and

transparent trail to be able to get back to the original Chinese for

anyone who feels the need.

 

If I have to explain this one more time, I think I'm going to scream.

What is it about this process that people don't seem to be able to

get? There is no cabal or junta here of devious parties working behind

the scenes. There is no consiracy or no loss of personal freedom. No

one is foisting anything on anyone else. We are simply talking about

mature, well recognized standards of scholarship and translation.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Alon,

 

You're a very creative reader.

 

However, as a writer, I pride myself on saying what I think, no more

and no less. For the record, this is what I believe and what I have

said on this forum:

 

1. I do believe that, to really understand Chinese medical theory and

practice, one does need to read Chinese.

 

2. I do believe that Wiseman, Feng Ye, et al.'s terminology comes the

closest of any we currently have of capturing the technical fine

points of Chinese medicine.

 

3. Therefore, I do believe that the use of Wiseman's terminology can

markedly improve students' and practitioners' understanding of Chinese

medicine.

 

But I have never said that one cannot understand Chinese medicine

unless one uses Wiseman et al.'s terminology.

 

If you would like to have a live, face-to-face public debate on any

point of theory of your chosing within Chinese medicine, I'm ready and

willing. Just set up the time and place. I even suggest that it be

broadcast live on-line for anyone interested anywhere to watch. I feel

that confident about my Chinese medical theory due to my reading of

Chinese and my ability to explain that knowledge using Wiseman et

al.'s terminology. Further, there should be a jury of our peers who

vote on the outcome of the debate, thus publically declaring the

winner. The expenses of such a debate would be born equally by both of

us.

[Guest guest]

I believe that, several months ago or maybe a year, I did compare two

translations of an herb's description, one using Wiseman et al.'s

terminology and the other using the common-speak current in our

profession which is based on B & G. We should not have to re-invent

the wheel here.

[Guest guest]

> I suggest you take a single Chinese materia medica that is used as

> the standard textbook in the a top level TCM program, if you have

> access to one. I don't think the herb choice has to be anything

> special...how about chai hu?

 

As stated before, I have already done this on this forum.

 

I don't know about the current Bensky ben cao, but B & G was

overwhelmingly from a single, common textbook used in the PRC.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Here here Bob!!

 

Much of the argument against Wiseman terminology seem to be, in

essence, arguments against professional academic standards and author's

being accountable for what they write under the title of TCM, combined

with it all being too " difficult " to learn. Both have been problems in

our profession and remain so today. TCM is a medical profession and as

such is intellectually demanding and thus not every Joe Smoe can (or

should) be able to graduate. The more difficult and the higher the

standard set in our professional education the better IMO. I await with

bated breath for people to claim I am elitist etc, but I couldn't

really care less.

 

As you clearly state again, if an author thinks a term is not right for

a particular context all they have to do is footnote it where it

deviates from the only real resource in English and move on.....

 

There will always be an exception to a general common truth, and this

is especially so in word definition or usage in TCM. However, this is

NO reason IMO to ignore or try to lesson the importance of having a

resource such as the PD and related glossary. Others seem to be under

the impression that each Wiseman term has only one meaning and thus

argue it can have other meanings in a different context. People who

claim this have obviously read the PD as many terms have different

usage in context listed in each entry. Sure, there are going to be

more; but it is a simple thing to use a footnote to illustrate this in

a text.

 

I just don't get all these ideas of loss of choice/freedom etc. Such

professional standards just allow the reader to know if the work uses a

terminology that can be traced and investigated for further elucidation

if need be, or the opinion/interpretation of a particular author.

 

As many on this list have said before; if someone produces an

alternative to Wiseman that allows the reader to trace a term to pinyin

and character all well and good. Until then, Wiseman terminology is the

ONLY truly professional terminological standard in Enlglish today.

 

In an ideal world, we could just pay a fee and suddenly have the

ability to read chinese but there is no such magic bullet for sale. So,

we must either strive to learn ourselves or use professional and

academic translations that are as true as possible to TCM in our basic

education. Authors are free to strive to rigourous professional

standards or write texts that are more suited to the layman or our

patients. Some do both, but each is a distinct market.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

On 28/10/2004, at 1:53 AM, Bob Flaws wrote:

 

>

>

>> Basically I'll be happy with Wiseman for translations and letting

> Bensky, Clavey and others > use what they need to make the readers

> understand the concepts.

>

> Do they really make others understand the concepts? I don't think so.

>

> As for " MUST use, " it's been explained many, many times that people

> don't have to use Wiseman's terms in their texts as long as they note

> all deviations in a footnote, comment, or by other means. Wiseman is

> only the most complete term term set we have with both English,

> Pinyin, and characters.

>

> For better or worse, I am the most prolific writer on on Chinese

> medicine in English, and I support the use of Wiseman's terminology.

> But I do not use all Wiseman's terms. What I do do, however, is note

> my deviations and typically explain why I have chosen another term the

> first time I use it in any given work.

>

> So this " must " shit is simply that -- ka ka. You or anyone else has

> the freedom to use some other glossary or English language dictionary

> which includes characters and Pinyin if you wish, as long as that

> glossary is freely available in the marketplace and you clearly state

> your standard via easily recognized bibliographic means. Then you have

> the further freedom to deviate from that standard as long as you make

> that deviation clear and transparent. The issue is leaving a clear and

> transparent trail to be able to get back to the original Chinese for

> anyone who feels the need.

>

> If I have to explain this one more time, I think I'm going to scream.

> What is it about this process that people don't seem to be able to

> get? There is no cabal or junta here of devious parties working behind

> the scenes. There is no consiracy or no loss of personal freedom. No

> one is foisting anything on anyone else. We are simply talking about

> mature, well recognized standards of scholarship and translation.

>

> Bob

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I come across problems weekly.

> The Jia yi jing (Bob & Chip) [a documented source] found many.

 

Jason,

 

Please don't put my name on this project. It was done by Yang & Chip,

not Bob & Chip. Further, it was Yang's first translation with BPP, and

Chip was far less fluent in Chinese than I he is now. Keep in mind,

this translation is 10 years old. (Please note, the current paperback

edition is a " second printing, " not a second edition.) BPP eventually

stopped working with Yang because he was incapable of doing the kind

of job we required. So I don't think your example of the Jia Yi Jing

is such a good one. I don't think the problems with that translation

have to do with Wiseman et al.'s terms but with the skills of the

translators at the time the work was originally done.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Bob Flaws " <pemachophel2001>

wrote:

 

> If I have to explain this one more time, I think I'm going to scream.

> What is it about this process that people don't seem to be able to

> get?

 

I couldn't agree more. I am at my wit's end with the inanity of the opposing

arguments

and will no longer participate. I have written virtually the same thing over a

dozen times

on this list and fell compelled to write it time and again so as to not let the

opposition

flood the list with a bogus and unrebutted argument. Its the classic strategy

of those who

have no leg to stand upon. Keep making ridiculous statements that monopolize

the time

of those who feel compelled to defend against this drivel and thus prevent them

from

doing any real work. Hey, have at me. I will not be replying on this topic

again.