Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

October 27, 2004

Chinese and my ability to explain that knowledge using Wiseman et

al.'s terminology.

>>>Bob I have never suggested that you do not know your TCM obviously you do.

Also the use of lingo has many benefits and I do not appose it in any way. The

use of WT has benefited me in many ways. I do however from my years of

encounters with many Chinese, Japanese and Korean teachers have seen quite

different views and interpretation of similar terms (ie Chinese characters) and

therefore I have to question the stricter view of standardization. I also see

the benefit for students as I understand Todd's points that students can become

confused, although at the same time it may develop a flexible mind which has

always been stressed by ALL my teachers. Again I still say lets have both.

PS

I have no interest in a pissing contest, I have enough of that from Bush.

Alon

October 27, 2004

On 28/10/2004, at 2:27 AM, Steven Slater wrote:

> 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.

>

This should have been ....

> 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 NOT really 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.

> 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 easier " reads " and more suited to

> the layman or our

> patients. Some do both, but each is a distinct market and I have a

> definite

> opinion on what I would like my TCM doctor to base their education on.

>

I would like to add that rigourous professional and transparent

academic material that can be traced and referenced should be the basis

of our TCM education; not the stubborn status quo of decades old texts

based on simplified terms and concepts that are still used in much of

western education. Many of these are not sufficiently accurate,

consistent or detailed to form the basis of a medical profession. We

were all educated on these to some degree, but IMO it is time to move

on and improve; not hold onto the past like it would somehow lesson our

knowledge, training or ability as practitioners to admit and accept

that we weren't taught by very accurate or professional texts or by

teachers who knowledge transmission was severely compromised by poor

vocabulary and the limits of the then English terminology. Rather I

would suggest the desire to believe and hold on to these materials as

more of an indication of limited willingness to grow, learn and improve

in our practice.

I simply can not understand how anyone could actually study the PD and

recent texts using its terminology can deny that it opens up the door

to a whole new depth, accuracy and consistency into the theories and

thus clinical application of TCM. Before these texts came out there

were so many " holes " in published TCM logic that it was impossible to

actually understand it completely if one REALLY tried to. Since using

and studying these texts my doubts about the actual presence of logical

and consistent thought processes in TCM have been swept away. This

logic can only be revealed with accurate and detailed terminology;

something that was impossible to appreciate in English until recently.

Some people seem to get attached to the " mystery " of TCM and refuse to

take on board information that may destroy some of this aura.

Sure, there will ALWAYS be exceptions to any situation and " yes buts "

in TCM; however it is now my opinion that there are actually far less

of these than I previously thought now that I am becoming more adept at

reading and applying Wiseman's consistent and detailed terminology.

I personally " hated " Wiseman's terms for 5 years, mainly because the

words seemed so different to what I (and the majority of us) have been

taught and just led to confusion as I tried to juggle the " simplified "

terminology of Western TCM education with the far more detailed terms

of Wiseman in my undergraduate education. In the end, I left the

Wiseman " challenge " for my personal post-graduation studies because I

had to to pass exams based on the status quo. Since my time in China

and graduation I see the severe failings and lack of depth and quality

of western TCM education without it.

I would/could never turn back now and I would encourage others to give

the terminology a real " chance " before they make any claim that is not

really needed or that in somehow places restrictions on TCM expression.

IMO it is desperately needed if we are ever to really come to grips

with TCM logic and practice and should be the standard for ALL texts

used in our professional education. Teachers and authors always have

been, and always will be free to add their understanding or

disagreement concerning Wiseman's choices; but without some sort of

reference for term standards and definitions that really attempt to

convey and express TCM as it is presented in Chinese........truly

professional TCM education is a " pipe-dream " in the West.

Best Wishes,

Steve

October 27, 2004

Readers, please bear in mind that I am writing this message off the

top of my head and it is about one day overdue- it follows up on

previous themes, I have not yet read the flood of new discussions on

CHA today beyond the first one that caught my eye.

First, I would like to address a few points before I launch into a

full tirade. Todd has politely informed Jason that his unnamed

Chinese colleagues and other advisors that are finding holes in

Wiseman terminology should be expected to have a knowledge of

translation theory, both languages, and modern Chinese medicine in

order to have their opinions be fully grounded and applicable. Todd

has in no way suggested that his influences do not have these

qualities. Absolutely no one has asserted that Jason's colleagues are

anything less than experts, and no one has claimed that Bensky is not

fully qualified to produce top works in Chinese medicine. Despite

criticisms of Bensky's translation methodology, no one has questioned

his ability, qualifications, or experience.

Jason countered this point with the assertion that Feng Ye may not be

fully capable by these standards since his primary training is not in

linguistics and translation but is instead in the realm of clinical

medicine. While Nigel Wiseman has a Ph. D in applied linguistics,

different professionals have different arenas of expertise, and are

capable of having sophisticated skills in other fields beyond what is

listed on their diploma. While Feng Ye does not have a degree in

linguistics, he has had a thorough education in translation

methodology in the 10+ years that he has been working with Nigel

Wiseman. I guarantee you that Feng Ye has a complete grasp of the

many issues in translation, he has a strong command of English, and he

has an inspiring degree of knowledge in CM. The strength of the

Paradigm Shang Han Lun comes directly from Feng Ye's patient

explanations and tutoring of Craig and Nigel in SHL commentary. No

one is insulting your teachers in any way, yet you have the audacity

to make the assertion that Feng Ye may not be fully qualified for this

task???

You also assert that financial interests have nothing to do with the

approach to translation and textbook creation. Bensky has long been

the standard text for all board exams in the US because no other

substantial texts existed. The exams thus feature the terminology

that Bensky utilizes in his expression, which generates substantial

revenue for him and a substantial interest in maintaining the status

quo. I wonder whether the exams will change to reflect the fact that

Chen & Chen have produced a text that is his equal. Chen's text

represents the most significant materia medica that is written with

native speakers of Chinese on the team. Does anyone debate that it

should have anything less than equal footing with Bensky when it comes

to examination purposes?

Do we think that the omission of Wiseman terms on exams serves the TCM

community?

Ok, now I will launch into it.

We are yet to have Jason present a concrete example of any term that

appears in CM that is in direct conflict with PD terminology (the

argument that characters will not display has no validity because many

people on this list can consult the original sources and find the

target words by using accented pinyin, general English, and an

indication of where the debated term appears). Jason argues that

there are many terms in his Chinese dictionaries that are not included

in the PD term list. Naturally, if 30,000 pages exist in Chinese on

the subject, it is impossible for one book to contain them all, just

as it is impossible for any one materia medica to elucidate everything

about Chinese meds.

Nonetheless, the Wiseman term list contains 30,000 compound character

phrases and 3000 individual characters, presented in detail in a text

of nearly one thousand pages. Benksy's glossary has under sixty

entries. Wiseman's terms cover virtually the entire range of

character phrases found in modern Chinese literature, and have been

shown to effectively translate texts spanning from the personal notes

of Jiao Shu De all the way to the Shang Han Lun.

I feel that I should clarify my selection of the term ma2 zui4 as an

illustrative example on my previous post. Why choose such a term? I

chose this term because Jason is complaining of holes in Wiseman

terminology and concepts that are not explained by it. I am yet to

have any conflicts with Wiseman terms and their application in modern

professional Chinese medicine. Thus, I am exploring the idea of a

term that does not exist in the PD, yet may have historical and

medical significance.

I am going to paint a rather extensive background for why I chose the

example of ma2 zui4 to illustrate my point that translation must be

done with minimal interference and minimal bias. Cultural

interference should be minimal when translating, and target

translation to any group of people poses a serious risk of translator

bias. For example, the simplification of TCM terms to target a

student audience poses a risk that complex ideas will be left out, in

order to make the subject palatable for students and to make board

exams less intimidating. I'm not saying that Bensky, Macioccia or

Chen are doing this, I am merely trying to make the point that the

highest level of academic works in our field should use a consistent

translation theory to minimize the potential for bias.

I have some speculations as to why the basic compound term ma2 zui4 is

not in the PD (but I haven't actually spoken his Nigel about his

opinions on it). In modern professional CM & WM, ma2 zui4 appears

in the context of anesthesia. It appears in PD terminology to

indicate acupuncture anesthesia, for example. It is a term that is

used in modern applications, but it is quite possible that it had

different implications hundreds of years ago. This term shows up in

pre-modern literature that describes the effects of poppy husk,

cannabis preparations, and datura, for example.

TCM is primarily concerned with treating clinical pathologies. Thus,

Wiseman has elaborated extensively on virtually all the terms that

show up as clinically important according to our modern understanding

of TCM. Orthodox medicine, in both China and the West, does not

endorse the concept that states of mind produced by psychoactive drugs

are therapeutic. If this was a topic that came up in CM literature,

it is likely that it was deemed to be related to folk medicine and

superstition, with little bearing on the effective treatment of

clinical disease; this would explain its apparent omission from modern

PRC texts, except when it is noted as a side effect. We see in WM

that drugs related to morphine and cannabinoids are being continually

developed in an effort to produce therapeutic effects with a minimum

of psychoactive effects and potential for abuse. Again, any

references to psychoactivity are made as a cautionary side effect of

the drug.

I would be hard-pressed to think of an area that is more controversial

and more subject to the bias of a translator, thus I chose the term

ma2 zui4 as an example where free translation is not acceptable and

extensive footnotes would be required to try to elucidate the nuances

of this term.

Just like in the US, the topic of psychoactive drugs in China is

largely handled by law enforcement rather than medical evaluation.

Grants, funding, and research approval are typically not readily given

to people to study such controversial topics, and few academics would

be so foolish as to risk their future by being associated with

anything vaguely resembling the promotion of illegal drugs.

It is worth mentioning that the Han Chinese (race) may have had

relatively little interaction with psychoactive forms of cannabis, as

hemp is by far the main plant that is grown there. We cannot assume

that the Chinese literature is based on the same species of plant that

is used in Western countries. There is some debate on the

nomenclature of cannabis because some botanists feel that principles

of morphology and chemotaxomy demonstrate the existence of three

distinct species. Cannabis has completely non-psychoactive forms as

well as highly psychoactive forms. To prevent complicating legal

interpretations, all cannabis plants are officially classified as

Cannabis sativa at this time.

Cannabis is believed to have originated in China or India. However,

Chinese cannabis is primarily non-psychoactive hemp, whereas products

used in traditionally Islamic nations and India are psychoactive. The

central Chinese government has not been historically on good terms

with Muslims nor Indians, so it is possible that a pejorative

connotation existed with the use of cannabis preparations for hundreds

of years. The removal of cannabis products from medical use (and the

beginning of its prohibition) in the US took place in 1937, along with

the coining of the word " marijuana, " which was largely in response to

the fact that many of its users were Hispanic and were believed to

represent a threat to the majority ethnic group. To this day,

Hispanics and Blacks still face a higher threat of incarceration for

drug crimes in the US, a fate paralleled by Muslims and ethnic

minorities in mainland China (although they are usually executed

there). Just like America, China has used the threat of terrorism as

a justification for stepping up their enforcement of drug laws against

problematic minority groups.

I have attempted to illustrate some of the factors that influence the

bias of any given translator, as well as bias inherent in the source

material. I am personally opposed to the abuse of drugs, yet I don't

feel that anyone has the authority to impose their moral opinions on

other individuals within their own culture, much less across cultures.

Some people equate drug use with drug abuse by definition, others

differentiate the two. Cultural influences are at an all-time high.

As a translator, if I am to encounter a term such as ma2 zui4 in the

literature, I have the responsibility to pursue its original meaning

and attempt to make it clear to the reader by illustrating it in

footnotes.

What is not acceptable is the coining of any " transparent " English

word that is believed by the author of the book to convey what a

phrase like ma2 zui4 means without providing a definition that

includes how the term is perceived by the Chinese, and the opportunity

for the reader to know which character is being referred to so that

the reader may research the term extensively themselves. Jason claims

that his research of terms has led him to (as-yet-unnamed) definitions

that differ from the definition espoused by Wiseman. He is ignoring

the fact that only Wiseman terminology respects his intelligence and

academic diligence to the point where he can even identify what

character was referenced so that he may begin his research.

Ma2 zui4 may be too complex to coin an English equivalent, requiring

the last-resort technique used in Wiseman translation methodology when

no equivalent expression can match effectively in English. This

method is used to render words in pinyin such as we do with qi4, yin1,

yang2, lai4, gan1, gu3, etc. Because so many characters share the

same pinyin sounds, pinyin should only be used as a last resort when

an English term chosen runs a high risk of misunderstanding. Remember

we are talking about 30,000 terms and counting, so pinyin is out the

window as a means to convey all the concepts, it is truly a

last-resort when all other translation methods fail.

Consider the dangers of loose translation on a term like ma2 zui4. If

one author translates it differently in different contexts (a la

Bensky-school), we have the chance that a translator describing the

effects of datura will say that it causes hallucinations and delirium.

They may translate the same word in the context of poppy husk as

saying that it has a " narcotic " or " analgesic " effect. If five

translators do an entry on cannabis and one reports that it is

" hallucinogenic, " one says it is " mellowing, " one says it is

" disorienting, " one says it is " inspiring, " and one says it results in

" confusion, " do we really feel like we are getting a better idea of

how it was perceived in Chinese medicine by these interpretations?

This is simply taking the logic of Bensky's methodology to its logical

extremes.

Eric

October 27, 2004

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

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

This is not even close to true. All three thousand single terms are

in the PD, most of the 30,000 compound terms refer to set phrases

(like gan qi yu jie- binding depression of liver qi, binding is in

the PD, as is qi, as is depression, as is the liver). I call

bullshit on this point.

>

> >

> > 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...

>

> -

October 27, 2004

Ok, now all parties in the debate have agreed not to waste more time

re-hashing these issues. I find it amazing that we are still

debating. To me, it is akin to watching the coming election and

saying " how can there possibly STILL be undecided voters? "

Bob, Bob, and I are sick of expressing the same thoughts again

and again on this topic. So the thread can die. We never did get

any specific examples from the opposition in the first place.

Eric

However, one final response is necessary, a response of additional

arguments from Nigel Wiseman himself. Here it is:

Another argument:

Bensky has said more than once that different terminologies help

people to understand the concepts better.

If that is really the case, why would he have a book created in

Wiseman terminology redone in Bensky non-terminology?

Another argument.

Bensky has often spoken of the polysemy of Chinese terms. As far as

I know, he has never ever once given an example of where PD

translation fail to reflect polysemy. In fact, because PD

terminology isolated the different meanings of Chinese characters

composing Chinese medical terms, it easy to see that it recognizes

polysemy. The statistical report at the beginning of the dictionary

file of CD dic, shows this quite clearly (so many single characters

translated with so many more English equivalents). In the Shang Han

Lun, we treated polysemy very very carefully. We pointed out that

the pulse term wei1 was ambiguous. When it appears on its own (mai4

wei1) it means faint. However, when it appears in combination with

another adjective, such as in the combination wei1 jin3, it could

mean faint and tight or slightly tight. In each case, we informed

the reader of the possible ambiguity, and argued the intending

meaning on the basis of, not of our own personal interpretation, but

the interpretation of generations of scholars. We always related

our English terms exactly to the Chinese. Bensky talks about

polysemy, but never in his translation does he ever discuss the

different possible meanings for his readers. Bensky just decides

for his readers. His work is completely untransparent.

Another argument.

Polysemy is a problem. In actual fact, however, the problem of

partial and exact synonymy is much greater. This is a problem of

which Bensky has never spoken. Isn't a free translation system

such as the one Bensky proposes likely to conflate all manner of

terms that convey all sorts of different nuances?

Bensky has suggested that the Chinese effort to collect terms in

dictionaries constitutes copying the Western sciences and the effort

to standardize terms in English is also an act of coying Western

sciences.

Western terminologies are tightly structure is a manner that is now

considered ontological. Terms " trees " are mapped with endless

branches and subbranches.

The thing about Chinese medical knowledge is that it is loosely

structured. Different schools of thought have different

terminologies. When you look at disease names, you are faced with a

complete welter of partially overlapping terms that have been used

by different people. Fei4 lao2, lao2 zhai1, fei4 wei3 and many

other terms seem possibly to refer to the same thing.

We accept this as the traditionally reality of Chinese medicine. We

have not tried to organize the terminology. The Practical

Dictionary represents the mess quite clearly in English as the mess

that it is in Chinese. Bensky's free translation program designed

to keep things simple for the reader will end of conflating lots of

slightly different things in a version of Chinese medicine according

to St. Daniel. In other words, Bensky will end up doing what is

says he is trying not to do!

Standardization of terms in the modern sense means organizing the

conceptual system into an integrated whole. In mainland China,

there are some weak attempts to do this in Chinese medicine too. If

done properly (and I doubt if the Chinese have the capacity yet to

do it properly), it might actually be beneficial to learners of

Chinese medicine. In that process, it would be decided, notably,

what terms were exact synonyms that could be represented by one

standard term. So, for example, the many Chinese synomyms of jiao3

gong1 fan3 zhang1 would all disappear and leave us with a single

term. In PD terminology, we have done some of this work. Where it

appears quite clearly that multiple variants of the same term seem

beyond virtually any doubt to be the same thing, we have rendered

them with the same term. However, where there has been any doubt,

we have translated the various Chinese terms with individual English

equivalents.

The work of organization and integration of terminology is an option

of the inheritors of the Chinese tradition. Chinese medicine is

Chinese, and they are free to make of it what they want. The

translator's job is simply to map the terms of any given period in

to give the clearest reflection of the concepts prevailing at any

given time.

Another argument.

Bensky talks very little about translation. He talks in vague

terms. Bensky (like ) is loathe to supply examples.

It is courtesy to your opponents and the audience in a debate to

justify what you say. In translation, that means supplying examples

for your principles. Bensky has never done that. Wiseman has

consistently argued his term translations with cogent arguments, and

argues principles with concrete examples. Is Dan Bensky simply too

lazy to cough up a few examples here and their to justify himself to

the world? Does he think he is some God who thinks he can deal with

contention by the wave of his golden scepter? Is Bensky taking

advantage of the anti-intellectual atmosphere of the Western

community of Chinese medicine by just propounding vague ideas

without encouraging critical scrutiny? Someone recently suggested

that Bensky's translation approach was thought up after the advent

of an exact translation system to justify his laziness to provide

terms lists. If he does have a mature translation strategy he

should be able to argue it.

Another argument.

It should be becoming apparent to Westerns with the appearance of

numerous works applying PD terminology that there is a continual

appearance of the same terms in different works. Concepts that are

lost in the work of Bensky, Maciocia, and other free translators

continually appear in works using PD terminology. There are many

terms that appear in Fundamentals of , 10 Lectures

of Jiao Shu De, and PD that don't appear in appear clearly labelled

in the works of the free translators. There are many terms that are

clearly defined in Chinese medicine that have been lost in the

freely translated literature. To understand what I mean, look

through the footnotes and appended glossaries in Fundamentals of

and Jiao Shu De. These terms can be found in PD,

but they are much harder to find in the works of Bensky and other

free translators. People have said before that Nigel Wiseman " makes

things up to make Chinese medicine look more complicated. " Nigel

Wiseman says that he is just conveying what is in Chinese medical

literature and that others are simply trying to simplify

everything. Dan Bensky's free translation simply simplifies. It

reduces Chinese medicine in the West to Dan Bensky's personal

version of it.

Dan Bensky wants to be a big fish in a little pond; to do this, he

is trying to keep the pond as small as possible. Wiseman has

developed a system that intends to keep the pond of Chinese medicine

as large as possible, to present Chinese medicine in all its

magnitude and in all its detail. People who don't realize this are

placing their trust in someone who cannot even spare the time to

explain his position clearly.

It would be very good if American adherents of Chinese medicine were

to put their little gods away, and act on reason. In the wider

context, it would be a really good thing if Americans, in their

external politics, would put their gods away and act according to

reason in world politics. Many people involved in Chinese medicine

are aware of folly their present government is engaged in its policy

toward the Middle East. They should take a little bit of that home

to Chinese medicine. For decades, Bensky has tried to define the

reality of Chinese medicine for Americans according to his

appreciation of it. We need to reach out to discover what Chinese

medicine is to the people who invented it. As long as Chinese

medicine is what it is, there will be people trying to transmit it

to the West. As more people learn about Chinese medicine from

primary Chinese sources and produce translations that bring the

depth and detail of Chinese medicine to the Western community, the

support for the Bensky approach will dwindle. He knows this and

fears it.

Nigel Wiseman

October 27, 2004

, " smilinglotus "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

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

>

> This is not even close to true. All three thousand single terms are

> in the PD, most of the 30,000 compound terms refer to set phrases

> (like gan qi yu jie- binding depression of liver qi, binding is in

> the PD, as is qi, as is depression, as is the liver). I call

> bullshit on this point.

>

Eric, I think Jason may be referring to the green Wiseman's English

Chinese Chinese English Dictionary of . It is that

book in which an English equivalent is given for a chinese character

or compound without further explanation.

Personally, I do not see that as a flaw, but rather a starting point.

The PD is already immense and a great resource. If we had to wait

for all the terms in the green book to be elaborated upon (like in the

PD) we would out of yet another valuable resource.

I applaud Wiseman's efforts, especially in face of the opposition that

he encounters.

Brian C. Allen

October 27, 2004

Bob,

I took part in a similar thread on another CM mailing list, and

respondents came up with the same 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.

Basically, this is fear of domination of the profession by 'vested

interests' who want to standardize terminology. It reminds me of the

meme theory developed by Richard Dawkins, where misinformation spreads

from mind to mind until it is taken to be true by all parties. When I

attempted to defend the Wiseman terminology, one individual compared me

to the quackbusters and the pre-reformation Church! Paradoxically, a

text such as the Practical Dictionary, which can be used by anyone to

further their knowledge of our field, is seen as a tool of world

domination!

Z'ev RRosenberg

On Oct 27, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Bob Flaws 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? 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

>

October 27, 2004

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.

There's a pdf file in the CHA files section that shows what you can

understand in Jiao's text with only 500 central terms.

Pick some, show us the misunderstanding created, show us that the

misunderstanding created is of greater consequence than the

misunderstaning created by not knowing the source term and being

unable to relate it to the word used by any other writer.

The point is not that Nigel Wiseman is a god who has never made a

mistake, the point is that without some open sourcing, mistakes are

never found and misunderstandings become establish truth.

Bob

October 27, 2004

Jason,

As you've pointed out, there are many other dictionaries in Chinese

that refer to more specialized topics within Chinese medicine, and

these are not available in English at this time. This, however, is not

a flaw in the PD itself. Stephen Birch pointed out to Bob Felt some

time back that a specific dictionary would need to be made available

for practitioners of Japanese schools of acupuncture and kampo. Paul

Unschuld will have a separate volume for a concordance/glossary of

technical terms in the Su Wen. In such cases, as in translating the

Jia Yi Jing, the PD will not be able to list all of the technical

terms. The PD is a general and comprehensive dictionary that more than

fulfills the needs of practitioners and students, and up to a certain

point, teachers as well. Translators and teachers of more advanced

materials will need other dictionaries and glossaries, and will have

the burden of translating these concepts into English.

Even the Mitchell/Wiseman Shang Han Lun has some specialized terms

that are not in the Practical Dictionary. These are listed at the

back of the book. and explained in the commentary and footnotes.

I can't imagine that anyone on this list has an issue with this.

On Oct 27, 2004, at 6:34 AM, wrote:

>

> 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...

October 27, 2004

just talked to miki shima he does not believe having a standarized lingo is a

good idea

alon

October 27, 2004

Brian,

I am referring to the electronic form of the cd dictionary, it is

basically like the new wave of the old green hunan dictionary. It is

unlike the Practical Dictionary in that it does not have definitions.

It simply has all the terms referenced, exactly as the green one

does except that it is more complete, and a few problematic entries

have been revised (very few terms have needed to change). It also has

the benefit of being updated frequently, fine tuned, and is digitally

searchable. It is basically a tool that translators use when they are

seeking to publish a text that uses Wiseman terms.

Few people perhaps realize that Nigel's work is also extensively used

in China and Taiwan. The little green dictionary that you have

referenced has had a significant presence in mainland China, and his

PD is published in mainland China by ren min wei sheng (chu ban she),

one of the most respected publishers in China. His English language

textbooks for TCM students (he has one also for WM students for WM

English) are available in every TCM bookstore in Taiwan.

Another virtue of Wiseman terminology is that it offers a natural

standard for producing publishable work. It allows more people to

create publication-quality work that is well-accepted by their peers.

I maintain that it is not necessary for everyone in the TCM field to

learn Chinese in order to be well-informed and to practice well,

though I do think that our incoming sources of new information should

be derived from translation of primary texts.

Wiseman terms give people a model for professional publication, and a

text on a timely subject of interest can then be considered for

publication simply by speaking the same language as your colleagues.

For Western medicine students, I think the network of technical Latin

and Greek words in medicine provide comfort to the writer when they

are preparing something for publication. They know that the most

critical part of their message is formed with the most precise word

possible. WM writers (writing to professionals, not the lay) will

always express words within the technical terms of WM. It is

comfortable to write technically because you run less risk of being

misunderstood.

The immensity of the information available to students who learn

Wiseman terminology is intense. If you are trained in Wiseman

terminology through your classes at school, all the topics and vocab

come naturally and the work of learning medical Chinese is

immeasurably easier. The enjoyment of being able to read a library of

Chinese books and access an endless amount of information has been

vastly revolutionized with Wiseman's system of language study texts,

the CD-Dictionary, the PD, and dozens of interrelated texts that can

be trusted on a wide range of topics. The concepts are easy to

acquire and the satisfaction of learning is rapid when you approach

Chinese language with the aids that Wiseman created. People should

spend less time criticizing what Nigel created and more time

appreciating it, IMHO.

Your insightful comments have been appreciated.

Eric

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

>

> , " smilinglotus "

> <smilinglotus> wrote:

> >

> > , " "

> > <@c...> wrote:

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

> >

> > This is not even close to true. All three thousand single terms are

> > in the PD, most of the 30,000 compound terms refer to set phrases

> > (like gan qi yu jie- binding depression of liver qi, binding is in

> > the PD, as is qi, as is depression, as is the liver). I call

> > bullshit on this point.

> >

>

> Eric, I think Jason may be referring to the green Wiseman's English

> Chinese Chinese English Dictionary of . It is that

> book in which an English equivalent is given for a chinese character

> or compound without further explanation.

>

> Personally, I do not see that as a flaw, but rather a starting point.

> The PD is already immense and a great resource. If we had to wait

> for all the terms in the green book to be elaborated upon (like in the

> PD) we would out of yet another valuable resource.

>

> I applaud Wiseman's efforts, especially in face of the opposition that

> he encounters.

>

> Brian C. Allen

October 27, 2004

Paradoxically, a

> text such as the Practical Dictionary, which can be used by anyone to

> further their knowledge of our field, is seen as a tool of world

> domination!

Weird, huh? Something liberating that opens up worlds of knowledge and

limitless potential for interesting studies, and people think it is

limiting their world.

Eric

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Bob,

> I took part in a similar thread on another CM mailing list, and

> respondents came up with the same 'conspiracy theory' nonsense.

> Basically, this is fear of domination of the profession by 'vested

> interests' who want to standardize terminology. It reminds me of the

> meme theory developed by Richard Dawkins, where misinformation spreads

> from mind to mind until it is taken to be true by all parties. When I

> attempted to defend the Wiseman terminology, one individual compared me

> to the quackbusters and the pre-reformation Church!

>

> Z'ev RRosenberg

> On Oct 27, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Bob Flaws 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? 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

> >

>

October 27, 2004

>

> Bob Flaws [pemachophel2001]

> Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:54 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

> > 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.

>

[Jason]

Hey I personally agree and understand exactly what you are saying, but

obviously there is another side that doesn't see it that way ie. Bensky,

Clavey and others... One can blame their choices purely on economic

reasons, but I think that devalues the issue. They have a viewpoint that is

different, for better or worse. But, I think the real issue at hand, which

spawned this whole debate, is, does the new MM lack clarity in some way

because of their style... I have yet to see this, but welcome all input...

-

October 27, 2004

>

> Bob Flaws [pemachophel2001]

> Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:10 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

> 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.

[Jason]

Yes, but that book was 20 years old... Just as Wiseman terminology has

evolved, I am sure Bensky-Clavey speak has also... This book is light years

beyond the last one...

-

October 27, 2004

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> But, I think the real issue at hand, which

> spawned this whole debate, is, does the new MM lack clarity in some way

> because of their style... I have yet to see this, but welcome all

input...

No one has said that they didn't like the new MM. People have not

been taking digs at the book. The issue is an issue of how CM should

be transmitted and what translation styles are most effective.

Eric

> >

> > Bob Flaws [pemachophel2001]

> > Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:54 AM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> [Jason]

> Hey I personally agree and understand exactly what you are saying, but

> obviously there is another side that doesn't see it that way ie. Bensky,

> Clavey and others... One can blame their choices purely on economic

> reasons, but I think that devalues the issue. They have a viewpoint

that is

> different, for better or worse.

>

> -

October 28, 2004

>

> Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:48 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

> , " 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.

>

[Jason]

I respect your desire to bow out, but I find the above non-substantial...

IMO, the core argument is NEW and has been sidetracked... If you can defend

the arguments made against what you have said (i.e. no middle road etc etc)

that is fine, but to say that just because you say that others have no leg

to stand on or whatever, and you can't continue because it has all been said

before is IMO untrue... (If I remember correctly you also agreed with eric

that the MM was deficient...(you passed this off to Eric) Your rebuttals (so

far) are good and I agree with them, but they don't IMO address the issues

that I have brought up...

-

October 28, 2004

> > [Wiseman:]

> > If that is really the case, why would he have a book created in

> > Wiseman terminology redone in Bensky non-terminology?

> [Jason]

> I am curious what this is reference to? Could someone explain this...

>

> -

This is referencing a text submitted to Eastland for publication by a

prominent author in the field. The author writes in Wiseman

terminology when he translates from the Chinese source. Eastland

refused publication unless the terminology was simplified.

Similarly, another colleague presented an article for publication in a

major Western periodical of TCM. The article was thoroughly

researched and of a highly technical nature. However, prior to

publication it was requested that the terms be changed from Wiseman

terminology to common TCM vernacular. Our colleague struggled when it

came time to convert technical phrases that were featured in the

research because vernacular forms do not exist for several of the

phrases that important to communicate the research in its entirety. I

do not know the outcome, but the only thing I can think of was that

the terms were omitted to permit publication. In my opinion, this

represents a loss to the integrity of the article simply to satisfy

the demands of marketing.

Are people who cannot be bothered to research a few simple terms over

the course of their medical education really the people that we should

be tailoring our publications to?

Eric

October 28, 2004

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> (If I remember correctly you also agreed with eric

> that the MM was deficient...(you passed this off to Eric)

Jason, you continue to assert that Todd and I are saying that Bensky's

MM is deficient in content. Todd has repeatedly stated on this forum

that he thinks the new Bensky text is an excellent addition to the

English literature and represents a substantial improvement on the

previous edition. The text is comprehensive in scope and offers the

reader a great deal of valuable information about Chinese herbal

medicine. It has a great deal of information that is relevant to

modern practice (such as substitute drugs and counterfeits), as well

as a wide range of classical influences.

The text by the Chens has also been lauded as being a comprehensive

text that not only presents the core information necessary for

students and practitioners, but also provides valuable pharmacology

and information about the modern applications of a wide range of

medicinals.

We are not asserting that Bensky (or Chen) are omitting massive

amounts of clinical information. We are simply stating that the

presentation of a major pillar of CM education should use terms that

do not simplify concepts. I offered concrete examples such as the use

of the word tonify to include all seven nuances of supplementation

that are indicated in Chinese, or the example of the single term

'spermatorrhea' to represent what in Chinese are four different types

of involuntary loss of semen (with correspondingly different causes

and treatments).

I am not nitpicking individual medicinals because any one medicinal

has more technical information written about it than any one text can

be considered to convey. As I explained to Rory, we do not have a the

Chinese text used by Bensky to compare translations. Bensky's method

of translation does not give us a clear way to know exactly what was

said in the Chinese original, so it cannot assumed by reading an

entry. Bob Felt has already done a comparison of the same drug in

common vernacular and technical translation anyway. For me to produce

a few extra paragraphs on a drug from a Chinese source to show

information that is omitted in Bensky is unfair to him, as I have a

shelf of books to draw from and his entry is finite. Thus, the main

argument rests on the notion that concepts of TCM are simplified by

his terminology.

is diligent and is motivated to research the nuances of the words

that apply to the meds that is studying. He simply wants to see

literature that gives him a means of knowing what the original text

says. It is a fair request. He understands that Chinese medicine

comes from Chinese books, and he wants to see professional texts that

allow him to have access to the material in a degree of complexity

equal to what is given to Chinese readers.

Everyone acknowledges that Chinese translation is fraught with

imperfections and discrepancies. No one claims that they have all the

answers and their work represents every term in existence and every

possible meaning of those terms. But providing data in a way that can

be referenced respects the intelligence of the reader because it

respects that the fact that some readers are motivated to learn more

about the terms presented. All we are asking for is the opportunity

to do our own interpretation and not have Bensky interpret everything

for us and leave us no trace of what the original term was.

I have not denigrated Bensky's scholarly abilities in any way. I have

taken issue with his opinion on what constitutes the best way to

transmit Chinese medical information, nothing more, nothing less. I

do not target my arguments towards John and Tina Chen because I have

never heard them profess the concept that Chinese medicine has only a

handful of technical terms. I have never heard them speak about how

free translation techniques should be, so I have no material basis

upon which to contend with them. I suspect that one factor in the

decision of the Chens not to use Wiseman terminology is due to the

absence of Wiseman terms on board exams and the economic necessity of

having their text be eligible to compete with Bensky's for the board

exams and the market provided because of them.

I learned med therapy with Bensky's terminology. I felt like I was

equipped to understand all the critical concepts and the application

of medicinals based on it. However, when I began to approach more

advanced literature in English, I had to adopt a more specific way of

relating to the TCM concepts. When I started focusing more on Chinese

sources, I had to spend a year getting Bensky terms out of my head so

that I had a way to sense of the Chinese. When one first learns to

read CM books in Chinese, one does not have the experience in

translation that Bensky has; thus, his method of translating

differently in each context is not reliable and provides no quality

control for publications.

If students have central texts in Wiseman terminology, they have the

benefit of having all the concepts they study perfectly

cross-referenced with many advanced texts in English, as well as

language texts that make the acquisition of Chinese medical language

much easier. Rather than being elitist, it promotes the flowering of

academia by giving everyone a great opportunity to take their skills

to any level they choose. Chinese medicine starts in Chinese,

motivated students with the luxury to focus their lives on advancing

their knowledge can access limitless realms of information by simply

acquiring the language skills.

Chinese doctors in the mainland do not need to learn English to

practice WM effectively nor to understand WM. However, the

opportunities they have and the information they can access increases

exponentially if they study English. English is not harder to learn

than Chinese, yet we see a great willingness to learn English in the

Chinese community yet a great resistance to learning Chinese in the

English community.

And we see a great resistance to the only practical tool that we have

available to approach the information contained in TCM Chinese-

Wiseman terminology.

Eric Brand

> >

> > [@c...]

> > Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:48 AM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> > , " 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.

> >

>

> [Jason]

>

> I respect your desire to bow out, but I find the above

non-substantial...

> IMO, the core argument is NEW and has been sidetracked... If you can

defend

> the arguments made against what you have said (i.e. no middle road

etc etc)

> that is fine, but to say that just because you say that others have

no leg

> to stand on or whatever, and you can't continue because it has all

been said

> before is IMO untrue... Your rebuttals (so

> far) are good and I agree with them, but they don't IMO address the

issues

> that I have brought up...

>

> -

October 28, 2004

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>> [Jason]

> That is a good point, but again I have come across many of the compound

> terms that are not in the dictionary (because they are 'terms')... and

> aren't simply liver qi stag... but you are right the number should be

> lower, but many examples exist... you can check it out..

Eric:

Once again, you make a sweeping statement while failing to provide a

single concrete example. Either produce an issue of contention or

stop arguing a point based on repeated, vocal, yet insubstantiated

claims. Our asking you for examples is like a European nation trying

to find substance in claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I use the dictionary in question seven days a week, and I am yet to

find a term where a definition is needed yet not provided. I'm sure

Wiseman knows some flaws in it, but I haven't come across anything

more serious than a small typo. We do collect words that appear in

the literature that need to be added to it, so it is a process that is

never complete. However, terms that appear as standard terms without

a corresponding definition are very difficult to find. Perhaps that

is why you can't name a single example, despite that you report

finding " many examples, " and terms that do not fit " every week. "

Wiseman is not the final word, he is always open to any new additions

and any cogent points that need to be addressed. He is not without

mistakes and his work will forever be a work in progress.

Nonetheless, his work has progressed beyond what anyone else has

offered and thus that is our starting point.

Eric Brand

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> > Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:35 PM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> > , " "

> > <@c...> wrote:

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

> >

> > This is not even close to true. All three thousand single terms are

> > in the PD, most of the 30,000 compound terms refer to set phrases

> > (like gan qi yu jie- binding depression of liver qi, binding is in

> > the PD, as is qi, as is depression, as is the liver). I call

> > bullshit on this point.

> [Jason]

> That is a good point, but again I have come across many of the compound

> terms that are not in the dictionary (because they are 'terms')... and

> aren't simply liver qi stag... but you are right the number should be

> lower, but many examples exist... you can check it out...

>

> -

October 28, 2004

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> Translators and teachers of more advanced

> > materials will need other dictionaries and glossaries, and will have

> > the burden of translating these concepts into English.

> [Jason]

> Yes that is all I am saying... So you agree that the PD is

limited... Why

> does no one want to hear or admit this statement of fact...

Everything is

> limited... get over it...

>

Nigel would be the first to admit the limitations. No one is

contending that the PD has its limits, after all, it is only an 900

page encyclopedia. But it is the only encyclopedia we have, so we

should make use of it because it represents an incredible amount of

work and saves people like you and me a tremendous amount of effort.

I know you do not disagree with its value. I do not disagree with its

limits. I have not found it to be limiting when it comes to

approaching any of the central works of TCM. Future texts will always

need footnotes explaining rare terms or rare uses of common terms, but

without a common starting point, we have nothing besides our implicit

trust in a handful of authors.

Eric

>

> >

> > [zrosenbe@s...]

> > Wednesday, October 27, 2004 4:20 PM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> > Jason,

> > As you've pointed out, there are many other dictionaries in Chinese

> > that refer to more specialized topics within Chinese medicine, and

> > these are not available in English at this time. This, however,

is not

> > a flaw in the PD itself. Stephen Birch pointed out to Bob Felt some

> > time back that a specific dictionary would need to be made available

> > for practitioners of Japanese schools of acupuncture and kampo. Paul

> > Unschuld will have a separate volume for a concordance/glossary of

> > technical terms in the Su Wen. In such cases, as in translating the

> > Jia Yi Jing, the PD will not be able to list all of the technical

> > terms. The PD is a general and comprehensive dictionary that more

than

> > fulfills the needs of practitioners and students, and up to a certain

> > point, teachers as well.

> >

> > Even the Mitchell/Wiseman Shang Han Lun has some specialized terms

> > that are not in the Practical Dictionary. These are listed at the

> > back of the book. and explained in the commentary and footnotes.

> [Jason]

> Again my point precisely, these are the ones that were added/

adjusted as

> almost any project would need...

>

> >

> > I can't imagine that anyone on this list has an issue with this.

> [Jason]

> Me either, why the fuss??

>

> -

October 28, 2004

> [Jason]

> First of all - I said nothing of the matter about feng ye... Please

re-read

> my post, it is misintrepetation....

E: Ok, I re-read it. This is what Todd said, followed by your comment.

: A native

> chinese or any other person without expertise in professional

translation

> has nothing to

> offer on this topic, IMO, regardless of how well they know TCM.

[Jason]

Come on... get real.. So feng ye has nothing to offer the PD???

Eric:

This is clearly calling out Feng Ye, by name, and assuming that he

lacks the expertise in professional translation, and thus would have

nothing to offer to the topic. This demonstrates your propensity to

make an assumption on something that you personally know nothing

about. It is one thing to assume incorrectly, but it is entirely

different to voice an opinion in public that has no basis in reality.

> [Jason]

> So I don't understand here... you admit that it is not possible for

the PD

> to have everything, but you whine because I have not presented

examples...

> Come on.. Like I said, I could care less about proving this to the

group, it

> si self-evident IMO... You can believe what you want...

Eric:

Of course it is not possible for the PD to have everything. It is

only a single book and our field is lagging way behind other fields.

Every major written language on the planet has adopted local

terminology for WM. The fact that the PD is not complemented by any

other texts does not show a limit in the PD, but rather a limit in our

community's ability to form a cohesive and profession method of

communication. CM terminology in English has only been recently

developed and it still is not accepted.

I agree that both vernacular terms and technical terms can peacefully

co-exist. I simply feel that technical terms are more appropriate for

professional discourse. I think vernacular is fine for speech and

common purposes, because people can always switch to technical lingo

anytime clarity is needed. No one contests the use of technical

language in Western medicine. Does that mean that TCM is less

sophisticated? Or does it simply mean that practitioners are less mature?

As an aside, since I am constantly being requested to provide

examples, I will provide another example of where confusion can result

from non-standard terms. If you look at Doug's response to the Chuan

Lian Zi inquiry in the past day or so, you will see a mention that

chuan lian zi treats swelling and bulging disorders (aka mounting qi).

Now, to my knowledge, chuan lian zi is not indicated for water

swelling (often translated as edema), although it is indicated for

mounting qi. This may be due to inadequate knowledge of obscure

functions on my part, but I don't see any indications of chuan lian zi

for water swelling. Is Doug extrapolating that it reduces swelling

because it treats bulging disorders? Or maybe he just knows something

that I don't know. Interestingly, edema is not a very accurate

translation for water swelling, as edema includes toxic edema, which

is not referred to as water swelling in Chinese sources. Water

swelling is a more narrow term than edema.

I'm sorry that I am " whining " for you to provide examples. However,

despite the requests from Z'ev, myself, and Bob (who even provided a

perfect way for you to bring to light any contention with minimal

effort), you have provided none. You have argued again and again

without substance. I have provided multiple examples, as has Bob

Flaws. I'm sick of arguing with someone who doesn't have the time to

give a rational response.

Eric

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> > Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:17 PM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> > Readers, please bear in mind that I am writing this message off the

> > top of my head and it is about one day overdue- it follows up on

> > previous themes, I have not yet read the flood of new discussions on

> > CHA today beyond the first one that caught my eye.

> >

> > First, I would like to address a few points before I launch into a

> > full tirade. Todd has politely informed Jason that his unnamed

> > Chinese colleagues and other advisors that are finding holes in

> > Wiseman terminology should be expected to have a knowledge of

> > translation theory, both languages, and modern Chinese medicine in

> > order to have their opinions be fully grounded and applicable.

> [Jason]

> And they do...

>

> Todd

> > has in no way suggested that his influences do not have these

> > qualities. Absolutely no one has asserted that Jason's colleagues are

> > anything less than experts, and no one has claimed that Bensky is not

> > fully qualified to produce top works in Chinese medicine. Despite

> > criticisms of Bensky's translation methodology, no one has questioned

> > his ability, qualifications, or experience.>

> > Jason countered this point with the assertion that Feng Ye may not be

> > fully capable by these standards since his primary training is not in

> > linguistics and translation but is instead in the realm of clinical

> > medicine. While Nigel Wiseman has a Ph. D in applied linguistics,

> > different professionals have different arenas of expertise, and are

> > capable of having sophisticated skills in other fields beyond what is

> > listed on their diploma. While Feng Ye does not have a degree in

> > linguistics, he has had a thorough education in translation

> > methodology in the 10+ years that he has been working with Nigel

> > Wiseman. I guarantee you that Feng Ye has a complete grasp of the

> > many issues in translation, he has a strong command of English, and he

> > has an inspiring degree of knowledge in CM. The strength of the

> > Paradigm Shang Han Lun comes directly from Feng Ye's patient

> > explanations and tutoring of Craig and Nigel in SHL commentary.

>

> >

> > You also assert that financial interests have nothing to do with the

> > approach to translation and textbook creation. Bensky has long been

> > the standard text for all board exams in the US because no other

> > substantial texts existed. The exams thus feature the terminology

> > that Bensky utilizes in his expression, which generates substantial

> > revenue for him and a substantial interest in maintaining the status

> > quo. I wonder whether the exams will change to reflect the fact that

> > Chen & Chen have produced a text that is his equal. Chen's text

> > represents the most significant materia medica that is written with

> > native speakers of Chinese on the team. Does anyone debate that it

> > should have anything less than equal footing with Bensky when it comes

> > to examination purposes?

> >

> > Do we think that the omission of Wiseman terms on exams serves the TCM

> > community?

> >

> > Ok, now I will launch into it.

> >

> > We are yet to have Jason present a concrete example of any term that

> > appears in CM that is in direct conflict with PD terminology (the

> > argument that characters will not display has no validity because many

> > people on this list can consult the original sources and find the

> > target words by using accented pinyin, general English, and an

> > indication of where the debated term appears). Jason argues that

> > there are many terms in his Chinese dictionaries that are not included

> > in the PD term list. Naturally, if 30,000 pages exist in Chinese on

> > the subject, it is impossible for one book to contain them all, just

> > as it is impossible for any one materia medica to elucidate everything

> > about Chinese meds.

> [Jason]

> So I don't understand here... you admit that it is not possible for

the PD

> to have everything, but you whine because I have not presented

examples...

> Come on.. Like I said, I could care less about proving this to the

group, it

> si self-evident IMO... You can believe what you want... I think we

should

> keep this debate to the original argument centering around the new

MM's...

> Let's see something that shows that I clinically will not use an herb

> correctly because Bensky is missing something...

>

> As far as this, us vs. them strawman, I could care less, I am with

Alon, and

> accept both... I feel no need to defend Bensky or any other's

position...

> There are 2 sides... period...

>

> >

> > Nonetheless, the Wiseman term list contains 30,000 compound character

> > phrases and 3000 individual characters, presented in detail in a text

> > of nearly one thousand pages. Benksy's glossary has under sixty

> > entries. Wiseman's terms cover virtually the entire range of

> > character phrases found in modern Chinese literature, and have been

> > shown to effectively translate texts spanning from the personal notes

> > of Jiao Shu De all the way to the Shang Han Lun.

> [Jason]

> I consider all of this a major straw man attack... ( I have never

claimed

> that Bensky has superior terminology nor one should adopt Bensky

speak, nor

> Bensky has more terms or whatever, has anyone?... ) This whole thing

(above)

> is silly... The comparing of glossaries clearly shows a

misunderstanding of

> the issue at hand... The claim was made that Bensky's new MM was missing

> clarity (simplified), or whatever... It further centers around his style

> (what ever you want to call it, 'simplified' 'connotative' is

inferior in

> presenting the information from Chinese into English... I am

sticking to

> defending only that- I think it works, and I wait to see people show

> otherwise, then we can continue... All this other stuff is just BS....

> I have a hard time entertaining or even continuing when relatively new

> practitioners are slamming Bensky's methodology, without concrete

examples.

> He is probably one of the most intelligent Chinese Medical

practitioners /

> and translators I have ever met... I has the ability to present his

> information without using the word vacuity. WOW imagine that...

>

> Jason claims

> > that his research of terms has led him to (as-yet-unnamed) definitions

> > that differ from the definition espoused by Wiseman. He is ignoring

> > the fact that only Wiseman terminology respects his intelligence and

> > academic diligence to the point where he can even identify what

> > character was referenced so that he may begin his research.

> [Jason]

> I am unsure what this means??? Can you explain... as mentioned

before, many

> times a strange usage has a paragraph (footnote in Chinese)

explaining what

> it means, this is one way to gather info... It has nothing to do with

> Wiseman... And when this definition is different then it is just that ,

> different. What does this have to do with identifying the character>??

>

> >

> > Ma2 zui4 may be too complex to coin an English equivalent, requiring

> > the last-resort technique used in Wiseman translation methodology when

> > no equivalent expression can match effectively in English. This

> > method is used to render words in pinyin such as we do with qi4, yin1,

> > yang2, lai4, gan1, gu3, etc. Because so many characters share the

> > same pinyin sounds, pinyin should only be used as a last resort when

> > an English term chosen runs a high risk of misunderstanding. Remember

> > we are talking about 30,000 terms and counting, so pinyin is out the

> > window as a means to convey all the concepts, it is truly a

> > last-resort when all other translation methods fail.

> >

> > Consider the dangers of loose translation on a term like ma2 zui4. If

> > one author translates it differently in different contexts (a la

> > Bensky-school), we have the chance that a translator describing the

> > effects of datura will say that it causes hallucinations and delirium.

> > They may translate the same word in the context of poppy husk as

> > saying that it has a " narcotic " or " analgesic " effect. If five

> > translators do an entry on cannabis and one reports that it is

> > " hallucinogenic, " one says it is " mellowing, " one says it is

> > " disorienting, " one says it is " inspiring, " and one says it results in

> > " confusion, " do we really feel like we are getting a better idea of

> > how it was perceived in Chinese medicine by these interpretations?

> >

> > This is simply taking the logic of Bensky's methodology to its logical

> > extremes.

> [Jason]

> Maybe I missed something major here, but how does it help us if we

just use

> a Wiseman term that has no definition or description of what it

is... That

> is his interpretation of what the word would translate as without

seeing the

> context of the passage in question. And if it is a neutral word, like

> cucumber, or the pinyin , or even the characters, how does this help the

> reader understand what it being talked about... There is no

definition so

> the reader cannot look it up... It is just back to my word is better

than

> your word game, which is silly, but I would tend to side with the

person who

> has the contextual passage (in front of them), not a entry in a

e-file with

> no definition or context (granted that the translator is of high

caliber ala

> Clavey / Bensky)... But I agree and never said otherwise that the

majority

> of the time WTs work and work well...

>

> -

October 28, 2004

The New England Journal of Traditional (has a nice

ring to it, and quite original:) uses Wiseman-speak. Very high quality

journal with articles in Chinese and English side by side. Also, the

unfortunately now defunct Clinical Journal of Acupuncture and Oriental

Medicine.

On Oct 28, 2004, at 12:03 AM, wrote:

>

> Although I have yet to see 1 journal article or book (English

> versions of

> course) (coming out of tawian or china) use Wiseman speak (has

> anyone)... I

> wish they would though... If it is so prevalent, why aren't we seeing

> it

> used (often)?

>

October 28, 2004

No one has ever said Bensky gloss is

bigger, Who said we shouldn't use wismean?

>>>>By the way to compare a gloss for one book with a dictionary just shows how

entrenched people are on this issue. Also while chuan lian zi is not the first

choice to treat any h2o accumulation it is quite useful when the accumulation is

associated with liv qi stagnation, heat and pain. moving qi is one of the most

important aspects of treating h2o accumulations. so again cm is not standardized

there are many opinions on almost any issue. while both in us and china we are

trying to ignore this flexibility or problem (depending how you want to see it)

this is the issue that people see differently as far as the translation

issues.If anyone can show me the deficiency in the warm diseases Eastland press

text I will appreciate the insight.

alon

October 28, 2004

In Chinese journals, TCM is rendered in a form of translation suitable

for biomedicine. There is very little use for Wiseman terminology

within Chinese journals for the Chinese TCM community, as the journals

are purely in Chinese and use no English. However, for journals

reporting on TCM in English for WM practitioners, the terminology used

is a hybrid of biomedical & TCM concepts.

For reasons that have already been discussed, using WM language to

translate traditional Chinese texts is problematic, since it invokes

concepts that never existed in historical Chinese thought. The

classically quoted example of wind-fire-eye illustrates the point.

Translating wind-fire-eye as acute conjunctivitis is not acceptable in

an ancient text that predates any Chinese conception of a conjunctiva.

However, in a modern biomedical journal discussing the application of

pharmaceutical huang qin preparations to the eye for acute

conjunctivitis this translation is acceptable, and endorsed by the

biomedical community. Wiseman terminology is an excellent terminology

for traditional Chinese medicine, both TCM and pre-TCM.

WM terms will prevail in WM journals. Jason has referenced the

absence of Wiseman terms in Chinese journals of TCM. This is due to

the simple reason that the journals are published in Chinese, not

English. Wiseman terms are, by definition, terms in English.

Eric

-- In , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> The New England Journal of Traditional (has a nice

> ring to it, and quite original:) uses Wiseman-speak. Very high quality

> journal with articles in Chinese and English side by side. Also, the

> unfortunately now defunct Clinical Journal of Acupuncture and Oriental

> Medicine.

>

> On Oct 28, 2004, at 12:03 AM, wrote:

>

> >

> > Although I have yet to see 1 journal article or book (English

> > versions of

> > course) (coming out of tawian or china) use Wiseman speak (has

> > anyone)... I

> > wish they would though... If it is so prevalent, why aren't we

seeing

> > it

> > used (often)?

> >

>

October 28, 2004

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

>

> WM terms will prevail in WM journals. Jason has referenced the

> absence of Wiseman terms in Chinese journals of TCM. This is due to

> the simple reason that the journals are published in Chinese, not

> English. Wiseman terms are, by definition, terms in English.

>

> Eric

>

[Jason]

Not true.,. I get journals (from China) in English and in Chinese... Every

Journal I get in Chinese also has a English Index... I do not see Wiseman

terms there or in the books I have bought from China (English books)... I

just thought you were saying how prominent the Wiseman speak is in China...

I just ask, if so, what are they doing with it - or where is it prominant?

-Jason

Sign In

Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest