Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

[Guest guest]

I have a question to those that know Chinese. A few years ago I so an experiment

where the subjects had to describe a so called objective technical situation in

Japanese and English. The conclusion of the study was that it is much more

difficult to transmit accurate technical information in Japanese than in

English. Is Chinese similar to Japanese regarding accuracy of information, ie,

is it difficult to transmit technical information in such a way that multiple

readers can read a section and come to the exact conclusion on what was written?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason - you have referred to your difficulty using the

Wiseman terminology in reference to Wen Bing Xue

several times because of the fact that it is a

pre-modern text and so the terms do not apply? Do you

then feel that the Mitchell/Wiseman/Ye Shang Han Lun

is not an accurate translation because it used the

terminology?

 

Marnae

 

IF I had never translated

> wenbing/ werelun material

> and was a beginner it would be so far over my

> head... Actually even at my

> (intermediate) level I found it quite tricky, I

> tried to fit the Wiseman

> term in, and was shown how it didn't work... >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bob - would you please contact me off-list to discuss

this.

 

Marnae

 

--- Bob Flaws <pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

>

>

> , " Z'ev

> Rosenberg "

> <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> > Marnae,

> > I have enjoyed this post so much, I think you

> should edit it

> into an

> > article and get it into one of our (few)

> professional journals.

>

> Marnae,

>

> I second all of Z'ev's comments on your rebuttal.

> Brava. If you would

> like to see this published in Blue Poppy's on-line

> journal, we would

> be happy for it to apear in our Jan. 1 issue.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> marnae ergil [marnae]

> Friday, October 29, 2004 7:22 PM

>

> RE: Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

> Jason - you have referred to your difficulty using the

> Wiseman terminology in reference to Wen Bing Xue

> several times because of the fact that it is a

> pre-modern text and so the terms do not apply? Do you

> then feel that the Mitchell/Wiseman/Ye Shang Han Lun

> is not an accurate translation because it used the

> terminology?

[Jason]

Marnae,

 

No I feel it is accurate, or at least it makes sense to me... but really I

have no authority to answer such a question, maybe you could ask Dan... I

have never even spent time with SHL Chinese commentary and only looked at

the Chinese through the Eyes of that text... But Wiseman was on the project

and could remedy any issues in translation that came up... I think that was

actually clarified in a previous post...

 

But to elaborate, Nigel just sent me an email in regard to the Jiayijing -

he says, " If I had been doing the jia yi, I would no doubt have embarked on

an immense expansion of my database. " I think that says it all... and I

think this applies to the wenrelun or any historical text... IMOHO The WT

account for the greater majority of instances but, especially when one gets

into time period stuff, there can always be a tweakin'...

And as far as me saying, 'the terms do not apply' - I never said that at

all! I have always stated the obvious, as Nigel of course agrees, that

there are TIMES that WT do not fit - How could it be any other way? The

wenrelun was just the latest thing I have been working through; therefore

fresh examples are on my mind.

 

Marnae, do you have comments on my rebuttal on your mounting disorder

example? DO you have other examples where you feel like the Bensky text is

simplified or unclear?

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

, " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I have a question to those that know Chinese. A few years ago I so

an experiment where the subjects had to describe a so called objective

technical situation in Japanese and English. The conclusion of the

study was that it is much more difficult to transmit accurate

technical information in Japanese than in English. Is Chinese similar

to Japanese regarding accuracy of information, ie, is it difficult to

transmit technical information in such a way that multiple readers can

read a section and come to the exact conclusion on what was written?

> Alon

>

 

Alon,

 

I don't know much about Japanese. However, Chinese is not as

effective of a language for technical purposes as English in alien

fields such as WM, chemistry, physics, etc. In Taiwan, these subjects

typically use English textbooks at the university level. This is not

the case in mainland China (for WM, anyway). WM in the mainland is

like TCM in the West, most students only know it in their native

tongue, and only Chinese students with international inspirations or

those seeking to access the widest range of materials pursue advanced

studies in English. I don't know for sure about their tests in China

with regard to English content, but for sure the Taiwanese tests for

med school entrance require relatively strong written English skills.

Although English is a better language for expressing WM than Chinese,

Chinese has evolved a technical lingo for WM that is adequate to

convey its complexities for most purposes that I am aware of.

 

Despite its shortcomings in technical expression for WM, Chinese

language is very effective for delivering information about Chinese

medicine. Chinese texts are very dense with information and their

curt method of expression allows for far greater density of

information page-for-page than an English book of CM. While some

concepts are indeed vague, I believe it has to do with the fact that

the Chinese did not rely as heavily on mechanical explanations in the

evolution of their medical theory as we do in WM. I believe that

Chinese is very specific at conveying a number of technical points and

I think it is a very sophisticated language when it comes to

expressing concepts such as the ones we find in TCM.

 

Take a term like spermatorrhea. It is rooted in WM but vaguely

defined by comparison to the traditional TCM diseases of seminal

efflux and seminal emission (hua jing & yi jing). Yet it is

impossible to say that English is not a technically specific language

for medicine. It just lacks the specificity on certain issues that

are clearly differentiated from the Chinese viewpoint.

 

My only point is that when it comes to studying pure CM, we should

make an effort to study Chinese medicine as it is represented to the

Chinese. We should not reduce the potential application of CM theory

by giving it an artificially narrow focus by compromising its

complexity. Its theory is compromised by defining it in WM terms or

by omitting aspects of its conceptual framework in order to make it

palatable to a market that seeks simplicity. Defining CM in WM terms

seeks to make CM a respected field by Western science; I think it is

unlikely to achieve this goal by such term choices, because these

terms obscure its traditional rationale. Omitting aspects of CM

theory to produce easy-reading texts either reflects a denial that CM

has this complexity in the first place or else it reflects financial

interests.

 

I have no problem whatsoever with using herbs/minerals/animals based

on pharmacology. Many TCM meds are likely to be useful based on

modern research and an integrated, evidence-based approach. I am not

at all opposed to advancing our knowledge of these substances and

developing their use in new directions. I simply think that authentic

CM should be presented with minimal filtering of its concepts, and I

think that Western influences should be noted and presented on their

own merit.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

At 05:34 PM 10/28/2004, you wrote:

 

 

 

> >

> > marnae ergil [marnae]

> >

> > For example, last week we

> > were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi.

> > In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term

> > " bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia,

> > and translated by Wiseman as mounting).

> > Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging

> > to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the

> > 7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term

> > bulging for all types (as far as I can see).

>[Jason]

>Marnae, First I want to say thanx for putting your input in on this

>important subject, but what you say above I don't think is true... i.e.

>looking at our friend Chuan Lian Zi Bensky, Clavey et al says " with... xiao

>hui xiang and wu zhu yu for pain in association with COLD-type bulging

>disorders " ... or " with yan hu suo for... pain from bulging disorders... due

>to liver qi stagnation... "

 

Yes, when he speaks about dui4 yao4 or substances in combination he shows

how by combining substances they treat different things. And I appreciate

this immensely. It leads to a greater understanding of the individual

substance. But, to differentiate cold-bulging and pain from bulging

disorders due to liver qi stagnation is not the same as using a term like

qi mounting/bulging, sinew mounting/bulging etc to specify what is being

spoken of.

 

>Clearly he is differentiating... But even if he didn't you are comparing a

>dictionary vs. a MM... I think we should be careful to compare apples and

>oranges. I.e. the original texts may have not mentioned such

>differentiates, and therefore a dictionary or anther source may have more

>(differentiated) material.

 

 

I certainly realize that the MM is not a " theory text " per se, nor is is an

encyclopedic dictionary. But, by using precise terminology it would allow

the student/practitioner to have a direct correlation to either a specific

condition (cold mounting) or a general condition (mounting) and, there was

confusion to refer to the dictionary or some other book that uses the same

term in order to clarify. Instead, we are left wondering, when he speaks

of pain from bulging disorders due to liver qi stagnation, which of the 7

types of mounting he is referring to. I do not expect him to do a

thorough theoretical discussion - the MM is not that type of text, but

precision in language allows the reader to do the work required to

understand the more succinct language used in a MM.

 

 

>I don't see your (above) beef being about

>translation of terms, or oversimplification because of terms - but about

>more detailed information... Am I missing something?

 

 

Yes. It is about translation of terms. It is about giving the reader

access to precise information so that they can delve further into the

theoretical ideas that underlie a concept that pertains to a particular

substance or a particular category of substances.

 

Marnae

 

 

 

> >

> > Jason, I believe it was you who brought up the topic

> > of trusting an author/translator. This is a very, very

> > difficult proposition.

> Sticking solely to the issue

> > of translation, what are the criteria that would be

> > used to allow us to trust a translator. Is is

> > clinical experience? How does one's clinical

> > experience affect one's ability to read and translate

> > Chinese? I know the argument - if the translator is

> > not a clinician how can he/she expect to really

> > understand what a book is talking about? Well, if a

> > clinician decides to become a translator, is it not

> > more likely that his/her clinical

> > experience/viewpoints will shape his/her translation

> > choices?

>[Jason]

>[Jason]

>You are right, and I don't have a good answer, but I trust Dan & Steve... As

>well as a handful of others...

>

> Would it not be better for that clinician to

> > either: 1) write a book that he/she clearly indicates

> > is his/her perspective and to explain his/her

> > qualifications for holding that perspective or 2) to

> > translate a book using a standard terminology thereby

> > removing his/her own experience as much as possible,

> > but inserting commentary (a much revered tradition in

> > China) into footnotes where appropriate? This allows

> > the reader to know much more clearly what is

> > translation and what is opinion/clinical experience.

> > I would rather place my translation trust in someone

> > who is well-grounded in the source language and also

> > in the standards for translation and translation

> > theory. Obviously, ideally this individual would work

> > in a team or with a partner who is a clinician so as

> > to clarify issues that might be obscure without a

> > clinician's insight. The team of Feng Ye and Nigel

> > Wiseman seems to me to fit this bill pretty perfectly.

>[Jason]

>I don't think anyone is arguing with this... I of course prefer sourced

>terms and Wiseman is an easy & accurate solution... I don't think my

>argument is about who is better or worse. It is not about what I think, or

>you think, should be the best way to approach translation... I agree with

>You, Eric, Bob, Bob, et al on this Wiseman translation issue... The

>point is about the other side of the coin, and the claim that Chinese

>Medicine cannot be sufficiently translated in this other manner. The claim

>is that it over-simplifies things... Does it?? I am not sure. It can of

>course like CAM, but is it possible that it doesn't have to... Remember we

>are not talking about a vacuum.. meaning judging a book on its own, we have

>to remember that we have the PD, as well as other sources... I still would

>like to see more proof...

>

>

> > Does this mean that I do not trust Bensky? No, but

> > it does mean that I am more apt to question how

> > interpretive his translation is and how much it is

> > influenced by his own clinical experience. This is

> > not a bad thing. It is simply something that I, as a

> > reader, want to know.

>[Jason]

>That is a good point... IS it influenced by his clinical practice.. I would

>say no, but a good question for Dan & Steve...

>

> > I do not know how or why being an " academic " has

> > become an insult in this field, but as a teacher, a

> > scholar and a clinician I have no problem demanding

> > the same type of rigor from my students. I expect

> > them to have completed the required reading before

> > coming to class and if they come to class and ask me

> > what a word means - I will send them to the dictionary

> > - a place they should have been before they came to

> > class. We all feel free to gripe about the quality of

> > our CM educations, but how many of us can really say

> > that we went the extra mile or did the extra work to

> > really understand what was being taught. Yes, it is

> > incumbent on teachers to teach well but it is also

> > incumbent on students to work well and to be prepared

> > for class so that they do not need to be spoon fed.

> > In the end, spending the extra five minutes it takes

> > to look up a word will greatly enhance the student's

> > understanding and, in the end, make them a better

> > clinician.

>[Jason] Agreed here...

>

> >

> > Translation in our field is still young. When I first

> > translated Practical Diagnosis I had no idea what I

> > was doing. I was someone who spoke Chinese, who had

> > some understanding of Chinese medicine and who was

> > willing to work hard for very little reward. Later,

> > when working with Craig Mitchell, Michael Helme and

> > Nigel on Jiao, I learned a lot about translation and

> > looking back on Practical Diagnosis now, it is riddled

> > with errors and odd language. I have even offered to

> > do a revision but Churchill was not interested. So,

> > as Bob Flaws said, to use some of the older

> > translations using Wiseman terminology as examples of

> > how it does not work is problematic. Yes, these books

> > are out there, and they are examples of how this

> > terminology can be misused.

>[Jason]

>I think that was my point (a while back) that you DO have to trust someone

>on either end, and just using WT does not guarantee anything.. For Example,

>I am a TA for a Translation class and of course we all use Wiseman Speak

>(most of the time)... The Students papers are of course riddled with

>misuse... As are most people... But I AM NOT SAYING that using connotative

>or BEnsky Speak or whatever is some solution... IT just requires hard

>work... And I have always supported using Wiseman as a foundation...

>

> > I wish to express my thanks to individuals like Bob

> > Felt, Bob Flaws and Nigel Wiseman who have put

> > themselves out there and opened themselves up to

> > criticism, who have taken the more difficult path and

> > are making a comittment to this medicine. I also wish

> > to again openly thank Dan Bensky, Steve Clavey and

> > Eric Stoger for the revised edition of the Materia

> > Medica. It is only by continuing to improve our work

> > that we will advance our profession.

>[Jason]

>3 cheers to that!

>

>-Jason

>

>

>

>

>

>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]

>

> Marnae Ergil [marnae]

> Friday, October 29, 2004 9:55 PM

>

> RE: Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

> At 05:34 PM 10/28/2004, you wrote:

>

>

>

> > >

> > > marnae ergil [marnae]

> > >

> > > For example, last week we

> > > were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi.

> > > In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term

> > > " bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia,

> > > and translated by Wiseman as mounting).

> > > Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging

> > > to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the

> > > 7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term

> > > bulging for all types (as far as I can see).

> >[Jason]

> >Marnae, First I want to say thanx for putting your input in on this

> >important subject, but what you say above I don't think is true... i.e.

> >looking at our friend Chuan Lian Zi Bensky, Clavey et al says " with...

> xiao

> >hui xiang and wu zhu yu for pain in association with COLD-type bulging

> >disorders " ... or " with yan hu suo for... pain from bulging disorders...

> due

> >to liver qi stagnation... "

>

> Yes, when he speaks about dui4 yao4 or substances in combination he shows

> how by combining substances they treat different things. And I appreciate

> this immensely. It leads to a greater understanding of the individual

> substance. But, to differentiate cold-bulging and pain from bulging

> disorders due to liver qi stagnation is not the same as using a term like

> qi mounting/bulging, sinew mounting/bulging etc to specify what is being

> spoken of.

[Jason]

I am very intrigued by this stance / example and I wish you can take it 1

step further with me...

How does saying the WT (above)change things clinically? If I say cold

mounting or bulging from cold - I think any intelligent person can see that

both are saying the same thing... no? If I say the bulging is caused from

liver qi stag, here are signs, and these are the herbs you use, how does

this not lead me to the road of clinically prescribing the correct herbs...

I am having a hard time understanding what one is losing...? I think it

should be emphasized (at least IMO) that Bensky is less about the word but

more about the whole sentence/ paragraph/ context of the herb... If

everything is described in the paragraph and you know what is meant, where

is he off?

Furthermore, he references bulging with the character and Wiseman term if

you are unsure what 'bulging' means. Then he shows how the patterns are

differentiated and gives you the herbs to use with chuan lian zi (which is

said the treat bulging). he then differentiates different kinds of bulging

and the herb combos that are used. Please explain why his differentiation

is not the same as using the WT... (well.. obviously it is not the same) but

maybe you could show how Bensky's choice will give you less of a correct

clinical picture or treatment or something...

 

 

 

 

>

> >Clearly he is differentiating... But even if he didn't you are comparing

> a

> >dictionary vs. a MM... I think we should be careful to compare apples and

> >oranges. I.e. the original texts may have not mentioned such

> >differentiates, and therefore a dictionary or anther source may have

> more

> >(differentiated) material.

>

>

> I certainly realize that the MM is not a " theory text " per se, nor is is

> an

> encyclopedic dictionary. But, by using precise terminology it would allow

> the student/practitioner to have a direct correlation to either a specific

> condition (cold mounting) or a general condition (mounting) and, there was

> confusion to refer to the dictionary or some other book that uses the same

> term in order to clarify.

[Jason]

Ok lets play this out - I will be the simpleton... Let's say I have no idea

what bulging is, so I look in Bensky's glossary. It says some weird

character some meaningless pinyin, then in brackets it says [mounting] [WT]

- then it actually gives you Bensky's definition... Ok I don't know what

Bensky is saying so I look in the PD under Mounting. It tells me what it

means and shows me 7 different specific kinds... I say wow look at that, I

wonder which one this chuan lian zi is for... Well in Bensky I see chuan

lian zi with XYZ (herbs) are good for bulging due to cold... Oh that must be

cold-mounting... I really think your example is a stretch. You can easily

look this example up in the PD and get more info. Even on its own the

Bensky text offers enough info to understand the herb and the pattern it is

used for... Please show me where I am off... The way I see it: Bulging is a

technical term for Bensky and he differentiates this within the context of

the herb info. And if you really want more you have the ability to look it

up in the PD.

 

 

Instead, we are left wondering, when he speaks

> of pain from bulging disorders due to liver qi stagnation, which of the 7

> types of mounting he is referring to. I do not expect him to do a

> thorough theoretical discussion - the MM is not that type of text, but

> precision in language allows the reader to do the work required to

> understand the more succinct language used in a MM.

[Jason]

I really think that if you take the info Bensky presents for chuan lian zi

and bulging you not only know how to use it but can cross reference it with

the PD without too much thinking... I think it is unfair to act like Bensky

has to be a stand alone book with all the answers... The PD exists, and if

it offers further explanation for something in Bensky that is great... The

question is can you get there? It would be a different story if Bensky said

chaun lian zi treats cucumber disorder due to excess watering. Not only do

I understand what he means by bulging due to cold (especially with the

context) and how to use the herb I can easily reference it with the PD to

gain additional information. By Bensky using the term cold-mounting does

not gain me entry to any additional information.

 

>

>

> >I don't see your (above) beef being about

> >translation of terms, or oversimplification because of terms - but about

> >more detailed information... Am I missing something?

>

>

> Yes. It is about translation of terms. It is about giving the reader

> access to precise information so that they can delve further into the

> theoretical ideas that underlie a concept that pertains to a particular

> substance or a particular category of substances.

[Jason]

 

I do get your idea of precision; I just would like to see where Bensky does

not allow you to get more information? Show me an instance that you are

scratching your head and wondering what the hell he is saying? Show me

where if he used a WT term you could prescribe the herb more correctly... I

am not saying this does not exist, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

-

[Guest guest]

, JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

>

 

> This bothers me a lot, and I think it is wrong for a journal to

dictate what

> terminology must be used. I for one would never read such a thing.

>

> Julie Chambers

 

So, if the Journal used a brand new author specific terminology and

people could only understand about 20% of the ideas presented because

there were no references to the original Chinese concepts, would you

read it then?

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

<marnae> Jason - yes, you are correct - Bensky does reference mounting in

his glossary which gives the reader the ability to read further. But, tell

me, what is so different about the term bulging from the term

mounting? This profession is full of instances where multiple terms have

been used to translate one character. Why must this continue? It feels

like a bunch of stubborn individuals who are unwilling to just say OK,

these are basically the same and I will go ahead and use the term that is

already defined. And of course there is the further issue that one of the

7 types of mounting is translated as bulging mounting so by choosing the

term bulging for shan4 we just add the potential for another layer of

confusion.

 

<marnae>

> > > > For example, last week we

> > > > were discussing Substances that Regulate (Rectify) Qi.

> > > > In the new edition, Bensky has begun to use the term

> > > > " bulging " for shan4 (previously translated as hernia,

> > > > and translated by Wiseman as mounting).

> > > > Unfortunately, while I greatly prefer the term bulging

> > > > to the term hernia, Bensky does not differentiate the

> > > > 7 types of mounting/bulging, using simply the term

> > > > bulging for all types (as far as I can see).

 

 

 

> > >[Jason]

> > >Marnae, First I want to say thanx for putting your input in on this

> > >important subject, but what you say above I don't think is true... i.e.

> > >looking at our friend Chuan Lian Zi Bensky, Clavey et al says " with...

> > xiao

> > >hui xiang and wu zhu yu for pain in association with COLD-type bulging

> > >disorders " ... or " with yan hu suo for... pain from bulging disorders...

> > due

> > >to liver qi stagnation... "

> >

> > <marnae>Yes, when he speaks about dui4 yao4 or substances in

> combination he shows

> > how by combining substances they treat different things. And I appreciate

> > this immensely. It leads to a greater understanding of the individual

> > substance. But, to differentiate cold-bulging and pain from bulging

> > disorders due to liver qi stagnation is not the same as using a term like

> > qi mounting/bulging, sinew mounting/bulging etc to specify what is being

> > spoken of.

>[Jason]

>I am very intrigued by this stance / example and I wish you can take it 1

>step further with me...

>How does saying the WT (above)change things clinically? If I say cold

>mounting or bulging from cold - I think any intelligent person can see that

>both are saying the same thing... no?

 

<marnae>Yes - although I personally think that bulging from cold is less

like the original chinese and also less elegant.

 

 

 

><jason>If I say the bulging is caused from

>liver qi stag, here are signs, and these are the herbs you use, how does

>this not lead me to the road of clinically prescribing the correct herbs...

 

<marnae>This is not as straightforward. Several of the types of mounting

have qi stagnation as one part of the pattern - after all there is often

pain present in these conditions. But, one has to ask, is the mounting

" caused by liver qi stagnation " or is the mounting the result of another

disease mechanism that has resulted in liver qi stagnation. Yes, in either

case the liver must be coursed (dredged?) but knowing the type of mounting

may help to make the correct choice of substances.

 

 

><jason>I am having a hard time understanding what one is losing...? I think it

>should be emphasized (at least IMO) that Bensky is less about the word but

>more about the whole sentence/ paragraph/ context of the herb...

 

<marnae> But, if a single word, though admittedly a word that is not as

" easy " to read can portray the meaning that the Chinese give to a single

character why should we use a sentence/paragraph to express this? If the

sentence/paragraph is meant as Bensky's commentary on his understanding of

the term in a particular context then that's great! Just let me know

that. But, if the sentence/paragraph is required to convey the meaning

that a slightly more complex, slightly more jarring word uses, then use the

other word.

 

><jason> If

>everything is described in the paragraph and you know what is meant, where

>is he off?

 

<marnae>: Then this is not a translation. It is a commented translation -

commented with the translators understanding. Just be straightforward

about it.

 

><jason>Furthermore, he references bulging with the character and Wiseman

>term if

>you are unsure what 'bulging' means. Then he shows how the patterns are

>differentiated and gives you the herbs to use with chuan lian zi (which is

>said the treat bulging). he then differentiates different kinds of bulging

>and the herb combos that are used. Please explain why his differentiation

>is not the same as using the WT... (well.. obviously it is not the same) but

>maybe you could show how Bensky's choice will give you less of a correct

>clinical picture or treatment or something...

 

<marnae>It might not. It might be just as good. Just a bit more

roundabout. And, as I said earlier, while it may not create confusion for

one individual, when you take this on a larger scale and you start to get

people talking about what is said - they are constantly looking for the

words to use to explain what Bensky meant. By using WT and referencing the

dictionary throughout Bensky would have created a text that opened up the

MM to the possiblity of much greater understanding of the theoretical

concepts. As I said, the MM is NOT a theory textbook and it should not

be. But most theory textbooks don't actually discuss some of the more

complex theoretical ideas presented in any MM. But the dictionary gives

the reader access to information that is not in other textbooks. So, why

not open the MM to a broader understanding in a fairly simple way - rather

than forcing the individual to go to Bensky's glossary and then, if

sufficiently motivated, on to the dictionary - if the term is one that

Bensky saw fit to gloss and to reference the dictionary. But, if not, then

you just have to guess what CHinese term he was referring to. How

frustrating!

 

As I said, I love the combinations that Bensky has included. But, also, as

I said before, it is about precision, clarity, creating consistency where

it can be done so that we do not end up confused. I guess that what it

feels like to me is that rather than clearly referring to the specific

types of mounting that are expressed in the Chinese, Bensky has made the

choice to use the general term (bulging/mounting) . This leaves us with

the same problem that choosing to use the word supplement/tonify (which

isn't actually an English word at all) for all of the numerous words that

appear in the Chinese presents. We are not able to definitively identify

what is being discussed and we lose the nuance of the original chinese.

 

 

>

>

>

> >

> > ><jason>Clearly he is differentiating... But even if he didn't you are

> comparing

> > a

> > >dictionary vs. a MM... I think we should be careful to compare apples and

> > >oranges. I.e. the original texts may have not mentioned such

> > >differentiates, and therefore a dictionary or anther source may have

> > more

> > >(differentiated) material.

> >

> >

> > <marnae>I certainly realize that the MM is not a " theory text " per se,

> nor is is

> > an

> > encyclopedic dictionary. But, by using precise terminology it would allow

> > the student/practitioner to have a direct correlation to either a specific

> > condition (cold mounting) or a general condition (mounting) and, there was

> > confusion to refer to the dictionary or some other book that uses the same

> > term in order to clarify.

 

 

 

>[Jason]

>Ok lets play this out - I will be the simpleton... Let's say I have no idea

>what bulging is, so I look in Bensky's glossary. It says some weird

>character some meaningless pinyin, then in brackets it says [mounting] [WT]

>- then it actually gives you Bensky's definition... Ok I don't know what

>Bensky is saying so I look in the PD under Mounting. It tells me what it

>means and shows me 7 different specific kinds... I say wow look at that, I

>wonder which one this chuan lian zi is for... Well in Bensky I see chuan

>lian zi with XYZ (herbs) are good for bulging due to cold... Oh that must be

>cold-mounting...

 

<marnae>But, can you identify which type of mounting " is caused by liver qi

stagnation " ?

 

> <jason>I really think your example is a stretch. You can easily

>look this example up in the PD and get more info. Even on its own the

>Bensky text offers enough info to understand the herb and the pattern it is

>used for... Please show me where I am off... The way I see it: Bulging is a

>technical term for Bensky and he differentiates this within the context of

>the herb info. And if you really want more you have the ability to look it

>up in the PD.

 

<marnae> yes, it is a technical term for him. But why did he have to

choose yet another term?

 

 

> <marnae>Instead, we are left wondering, when he speaks

> > of pain from bulging disorders due to liver qi stagnation, which of the 7

> > types of mounting he is referring to. I do not expect him to do a

> > thorough theoretical discussion - the MM is not that type of text, but

> > precision in language allows the reader to do the work required to

> > understand the more succinct language used in a MM.

>[Jason]

>I really think that if you take the info Bensky presents for chuan lian zi

>and bulging you not only know how to use it but can cross reference it with

>the PD without too much thinking... I think it is unfair to act like Bensky

>has to be a stand alone book with all the answers... The PD exists, and if

>it offers further explanation for something in Bensky that is great... The

>question is can you get there? It would be a different story if Bensky said

>chaun lian zi treats cucumber disorder due to excess watering. Not only do

>I understand what he means by bulging due to cold (especially with the

>context) and how to use the herb I can easily reference it with the PD to

>gain additional information. By Bensky using the term cold-mounting does

>not gain me entry to any additional information.

>

> >

> >

> > >I don't see your (above) beef being about

> > >translation of terms, or oversimplification because of terms - but about

> > >more detailed information... Am I missing something?

> >

> >

> > Yes. It is about translation of terms. It is about giving the reader

> > access to precise information so that they can delve further into the

> > theoretical ideas that underlie a concept that pertains to a particular

> > substance or a particular category of substances.

 

 

 

>[Jason]

>

>I do get your idea of precision; I just would like to see where Bensky does

>not allow you to get more information? Show me an instance that you are

>scratching your head and wondering what the hell he is saying? Show me

>where if he used a WT term you could prescribe the herb more correctly... I

>am not saying this does not exist, I just haven't seen it yet.

 

<marnae> I'm not sure I have seen it yet either. But you and I both have a

certain amount of experience. Perhaps we understand not because of what

Bensky says but because of what we know or have seen clinically. Would you

have felt the same way when you were a first year student?

 

Marnae

>-

>

>

>

>

>

>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]

, JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

 

>

> This bothers me a lot, and I think it is wrong for a journal to dictate what

> terminology must be used. I for one would never read such a thing.

>

 

 

One journal dictating a terminology does not prevent another journal from

publishing the

rejected works. Seems like it would be shooting yourself in the foot to reject

possibly

useful clinical material based upon this criteria. Do you likewise reject all

blue poppy and

paradigm books as those publishers also require wiseman terminology? Do you

read the

BP online journal, which also has that standard. Were you aware that Bensky

also has his

own limited internal standards for about 300 terms and that Eastland will not

publish

works using terms other than these. A journal in our field that was written

with such

attention to transparency between the source and target languages is long

overdue. All

other print journals in our field appear to have no consistent publication

standards at all.

Is that a preferable state of affairs?

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks Z'ev, I honestly had nothing to do with the name, but I think it was

becasue we were all involved with NESA at the time. I just try to make the

English readable and the cover pretty.

 

Par

-

" " <zrosenbe

 

Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:50 AM

Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

 

 

>

> 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)?

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > This bothers me a lot, and I think it is wrong for a journal to

> dictate what

> > terminology must be used. I for one would never read such a thing.

> >

> > Julie Chambers

>

> So, if the Journal used a brand new author specific terminology and

> people could only understand about 20% of the ideas presented because

> there were no references to the original Chinese concepts, would you

> read it then?

 

Of course not. I don't understand your question.

 

Julie

>

> Brian C. Allen

>

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]

>

> One journal dictating a terminology does not prevent another journal from

publishing the

> rejected works. Seems like it would be shooting yourself in the foot to

reject possibly

> useful clinical material based upon this criteria. Do you likewise reject

all blue poppy and

> paradigm books as those publishers also require wiseman terminology?

 

No, I don't.

 

Do you read the

> BP online journal, which also has that standard.

 

I do.

 

Were you aware that Bensky also has his

> own limited internal standards for about 300 terms and that Eastland will

not publish

> works using terms other than these.

 

No, I was not aware.

 

A journal in our field that was written with such

> attention to transparency between the source and target languages is long

overdue. All

> other print journals in our field appear to have no consistent publication

standards at all.

> Is that a preferable state of affairs?

 

In other fields, do journal publishers dictate to such a degree exactly what

terms can be used? I have a problem with being forced to use words like

" disinhibit " which are so awkward when we have plenty of other ways to

express ourselves. A senior administrator at the school where I teach asked

in a faculty meeting whether we (faculty) should all agree to one set of

terms to use when teaching, and most faculty strenuously resisted. We are

teachers, we are communicators, we have (hopefully) the ability to express

ideas using many different terms and expressions. I want to have that

freedom.

 

Julie

>

 

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]

Lets look at mounting again. If memory serves me right WT uses foxy mounting to

describe bulging in the scrotum that is not predictable thus the term foxy. If

one is to use this term what does that tell us about the patient. Does it tell

us if it is a hernia, a changeable lump, affecting the epididimus, fluid field

which accounts for changeability or actual retraction of small intestines, and

so on. We always have to add other terms and/or descriptions to further

elaborate what we are talking about. Now, is the Chinese term give us this

information in a unifying way. Is the character ALWAYS used in the same way. Not

according to Dr Hui (PhD from Guangzhou) which I just asked. So again we will

need to qualify it further. If used for inguinal hernia than stating that gives

me more information, if used in regarding to changing bulges in the epididimus

than stating that will give me more information. I am sure some would feel that

the foxy charecter (ie not predictable) give them a sense of deeper

understanding, but to me a more precise description that describes which of the

multiple possible presentations of foxy mounting is used is much more useful.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric

How about Chinese as compared to English in conveying non technical information.

Is a news paper article as likely to be understood to the same extent as English

article by different people? or would there be a higher degree of ambiguity?

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Lets look at mounting again. If memory serves me right WT uses foxy

mounting to describe bulging in the scrotum that is not predictable

thus the term foxy. If one is to use this term what does that tell us

about the patient. Does it tell us if it is a hernia, a changeable

lump, affecting the epididimus, fluid field which accounts for

changeability or actual retraction of small intestines, and so on. We

always have to add other terms and/or descriptions to further

elaborate what we are talking about. Now, is the Chinese term give us

this information in a unifying way. Is the character ALWAYS used in

the same way. Not according to Dr Hui (PhD from Guangzhou) which I

just asked. So again we will need to qualify it further. If used for

inguinal hernia than stating that gives me more information, if used

in regarding to changing bulges in the epididimus than stating that

will give me more information. I am sure some would feel that the foxy

charecter (ie not predictable) give them a sense of deeper

understanding, but to me a more precise description that describes

which of the multiple possible presentations of foxy mounting is used

is much more useful.

> Alon

 

 

What you are talking about is a disease " foxy mounting " and then

various symptoms of it. Of course the symptoms tell us more about the

foxy mounting.

 

It is the same with " wind-heat evil " . In order for that to be used

clinically, it is useful to know which systems are present - red eyes,

sore throat, etc.

 

That does not change the fact that " foxy mounting " is a literal

translation of the Chinese hanzi.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

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

 

>

>

> What you are talking about is a disease " foxy mounting " and then

> various symptoms of it. Of course the symptoms tell us more about the

> foxy mounting.

>

> It is the same with " wind-heat evil " . In order for that to be used

> clinically, it is useful to know which systems are present - red eyes,

> sore throat, etc.

>

> That does not change the fact that " foxy mounting " is a literal

> translation of the Chinese hanzi.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

 

 

Another example would be looking at Western Medical terminolgy.

 

It can be said that a person has " lung cancer. " Surely this is

understandable. However, it does not tell us the stage of the cancer

or which lobes are affected.

 

I would guess that everything can be explained further than the word

that it used to label it.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

That does not change the fact that " foxy mounting " is a literal

translation of the Chinese hanzi.

 

>>>Brian that is my point. I am not arguing that it is not a literal

translation. I think, as far as i can tell, WT tries to be as literal as is

possible. The question is if that should be the way all translations should be.

I for one do not think so, but again I think we need many types of approaches. I

do not teach much TCM and do not have the experience that Todd and others have

shared as to the confusion for students multiple term base creates. But since as

I am an older practitioner, i.e. one that did not grownup with WT, and I do not

have any trouble reading W talk, i am not sure why a multitude of terms is

negative. Flexibility is highly valued in CM

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> That does not change the fact that " foxy mounting " is a literal

> translation of the Chinese hanzi.

>

> >>>Brian that is my point. I am not arguing that it is not a literal

translation. I think, as far as i can tell, WT tries to be as literal

as is possible. The question is if that should be the way all

translations should be. I for one do not think so, but again I think we

 

That is almost like saying that the original Chinese texts should not

say what they say, if, that is, a literal translation is not a good one.

 

Maybe your problem is the Chinese texts themselves.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

That is almost like saying that the original Chinese texts should not

say what they say, if, that is, a literal translation is not a good one.

 

Maybe your problem is the Chinese texts themselves.

>>>>>I can tell you for example if i translate literally from Hebrew to English

the meaning can easily be lost. To me its the accuracy of the idea that is

important

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

 

> express ourselves. A senior administrator at the school where I

teach asked

> in a faculty meeting whether we (faculty) should all agree to one set of

> terms to use when teaching, and most faculty strenuously resisted.

We are

> teachers, we are communicators, we have (hopefully) the ability to

express

> ideas using many different terms and expressions. I want to have that

> freedom.

>

> Julie

 

The Chinese in China use their own techinical medical language to

convery the concepts of the medicine. Are their teachers complaining

that they have to use the same words that are in the textbooks?

trying to think of a better way to say " xu " or " shi " ???

 

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, JulieJ8 <Juliej8@b...> wrote:

>

> > > This bothers me a lot, and I think it is wrong for a journal to

> > dictate what

> > > terminology must be used. I for one would never read such a thing.

> > >

> > > Julie Chambers

> >

> > So, if the Journal used a brand new author specific terminology and

> > people could only understand about 20% of the ideas presented because

> > there were no references to the original Chinese concepts, would you

> > read it then?

>

> Of course not. I don't understand your question.

>

> Julie

> >

> > Brian C. Allen

 

If the journal does not dictate the terminology to be used, Julie,

then anybody could explain things any way they wanted to. This could

result in all sorts of words being used to explain things. Someone

could, in fact, use the names of Presidents of the USA to stand for

the names of the Extra Points used in acupuncture. The result could

be the clinical advice of using Abraham Lincoln for a crick in the neck.

 

Why would anyone want something like this? Standardized terminology

keeps everyone on the same page and avoids those kinds of misconceptions.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

 

Ok.. I get your point, but 1st I think your post deviates from the stance

that most of us have been expressing, being, " One can use any term one likes

as long it is footnoted " to one of " One must use Wiseman Terms " ... I don't

agree (as do many) and without concrete proof that CM ideas cannot be

transmitted without some standardized term set then such a stance is based

purely on individual preference... You ask why he chooses his term over a

already standardized one. That is simple he doesn't like it, he glosses his

and you can only except his freedom to choice what he likes. But does

Bensky / Clavey miss something (for the reader)? I don't think so... let's

explore.

 

The main thrust of this thread was to prove that Bensky for some reason,

because of his translation style, could not present the information

accurately. [Or as some say 'simplified' - or whatever] I think MArnae

states below that she can't really find an instance. Or she says in response

to my question, " ...will Bensky give us less accurate information? "

 

Marnae states, " It might not. It might be just as good. Just a bit more

roundabout.[sic] " Marnae further states that WT is more elegant or more

close to the Chinese... Elegant obviously is debatable, because as we have

heard, many find WTs far from elegant. Is it closer to the Chinese? that is

also very hard to say... I think this is highly nitpicky and is far from

proving a case that 'everything must be standardized.'

I think everyone will agree that Wiseman's " cold-mounting " has nothing over

Bensky's " cold-type bulging disorders " as far as understanding- Any

disagreement? (Remember bulging is glossed) - Therefore IMO, it comes down

to personal preference.

 

Marnae's other example is also IMO weak.

 

<<Marnae>> states that " Several of the types of mounting have qi stagnation

as one part of the pattern - after all there is often pain present in these

conditions. But, one has to ask, is the mounting " caused by liver qi

stagnation " or is the mounting the result of another disease mechanism that

has resulted in liver qi stagnation. "

 

<<Jason's Response>>

 

Good question... But 1st you are assuming that the Chinese MMs that Bensky/

Clavey (B/C) used had some further term differentiation that they could of

used and chose not too.. For example you are saying that instead of B/C

saying " symptoms from... bulging disorder " They could have differentiated

this more finely with something like Foxy Mounting. Giving more precision.

Correct? The only problem is I checked three Chinese MAteria Medicas and 1

English and they do not offer this differentiation. Meaning B/C are just

stating it the way that it is recorded. So of course there can be more fine

tuning but I don't see that in the source text... But let me clarify: There

are instances in i.e. in the <<Zhong ya da ci dian>> that offer more

details. Under Bensky's 3rd combo and ZYDCD's 3rd entry the latter offers

the additional patterns that are treated:

 

Pian1 zhui4 (unilateral sag), & xiao3 chang2 shan4 tong4 (small intestinal

mounting pain) (as with Bensky's 'pain associated with cold type bulging) -

for chaun lian zi with xiao hui xiang & wu zhu yu (and mu xiang from the

ZYDCD)

(Bensky obviously doesn't contain all the information out there, but this

Bulging example does not in anyway show that the term choices he picks gives

any less precision, less ability to apply the herbs in a clinical setting,

or any less ability to look up more information (via the PD). It just shows

that he presented the most important (for them) information. Just like

Wiseman does with his PD... and there is nothing wrong with this.

 

Xu li and Wang wei write about chuan lian zi and yan hu suo for " distension

and pain in the hypochondrium... and Shan disorders due to Liver depression

and qi stagnation or Liver-Stomach disharmony. "

To review Bensky says: " ...pain from bulging disorders... These problems are

due to Liver constraint with heat... "

Very similar ey?

 

IF Bensky is just communicating what he reads in Chinese he shouldn't be

required to MSU and add i.e. Foxy Mounting. Maybe it is kept vague (no

further mounting differentiation besides what Bensky mentions) because it

can treat multiple mounting patterns... I am not sure and it is just not

clear, but the Chinese seems to support what Bensky is doing (as far as I

can see with my limited skills) Does someone else see it another way?

 

Finally, maybe Shan/bulging/mounting disorders due to liver constraint with

heat might not 100% line up with the PD. So maybe this is another instance

that the PD doesn't match a Chinese source 100%. One must be flexible and

be able to line things up as close as possible. The more I read these

discussions the more I believe that this constant desire for black and white

terminology (without room for others) is more about a reflection of one's

personality then actually reality or the ability to

transmit CM accurately. (Just my opinion.)

 

 

Happy Halloween,

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

>> >>>>>I can tell you for example if i translate literally from

Hebrew to English the meaning can easily be lost.

 

 

Alon, 100% literal translation is naturally imperfect between any

languages, as all languages have their own style of expression. The

word order at a bare minimum must be adjusted to fit the target

language. In a text like the SHL the translator must be literal and

explain things in footnotes, because they cannot alter the text

itself. What the SHL says must be preserved because readers want to

know what it said, not what we take it to mean.

 

However, what the Wiseman translation standard aims for in modern

texts is fluid English prose that conveys the meaning as accurately as

possible, and leaves all the technical expressions and metaphors

intact. We believe that the readers should see all the technical

phrases in a transparent manner. Thus, the translation of a modern

text is not `literal,' but it does attempt to consistently convey all

substantial technical terms without excessive interpretation. If a

technical term is vague, it is due to vagueness within the Chinese

original definition; if it is specific and highly descriptive, our

translation should illustrate that as well. Simplifying multiple

Chinese terms into a single English unit like spermatorrhea does not

give the reader the option to pursue the concept past the author's

interpretation. We believe the reader is intelligent enough to

approach literature just as the Chinese do.

 

Our actual clinical use may be guided by Chinese medicine, WM,

pharmacology, etc. But I think our core TCM texts should present

pure, unfiltered TCM.

 

Alon, you said " To me its the accuracy of the idea that is important "

 

That is all that matters to us, as well.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> That is almost like saying that the original Chinese texts should not

> say what they say, if, that is, a literal translation is not a good one.

>

> Maybe your problem is the Chinese texts themselves.

> >>>>>I can tell you for example if i translate literally from Hebrew

to English the meaning can easily be lost.

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

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

this terminology in order to become required textbooks.>>

 

Bob,

 

Besides reading Maciocia's own comments on the terminology issue,

I've discussed terminology with him. The reason you give for his use

of terminology - so that his works can become required textbooks - is

not among his stated reasons for his terminology.

 

Do you have any objective evidence to substantiate your

interpretation of his motives?

 

I am not a Chinese speaker, so I'll not engage in arguing about the

terminology issue. However, the simple fact is that amongst English

speaking scholars, there is no consensus that Wiseman's terminology

should be adhered to. Various scholars have presented their own

objections to Wiseman terminology, or perhaps have sidestepped the

issue by adopting terminological practice that they feel is

appropriate. Needless to say, no scholar is under any obligation to

adopt Wiseman's terminology, nor even to justify their reasons for

not adopting it.

 

For the sake of both polite and informed discussion, I would suggest

that people be very careful about imputing motives for various

scholar's choices, when there is no direct evidence that such motives

exist.

 

Wainwright Churchill