Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

[Guest guest]

Good point, Brian.

 

 

On Oct 30, 2004, at 5:18 PM, bcataiji wrote:

 

>

> 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]

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.

>>>>>I agree, although according to miki shima this is also about the western

mind not understanding the history of CM

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

If a

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

original definition;

>>>>>Eric the question is how terms have been used by the various authors in

china. The job of each translation is to go as deep as possible and understand

each author's usage. If all use a term in the same way then a standard English

term works well. If not then we are better off leaving it to the translator and

then judged by the translator reputation and the quality of the final product.

Again I think the argument has been between those that believe many terms are

standard and those that do not. While confusing to students we should not try to

create what has never been so. The other side of this discussion is other

eastern traditions and their interpretations of the literature. I just talked to

Miki and he states for example that the Japanese have very different

interpretations and read some of the characters in the SHL very differently than

the Chinese.

Alon

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> I just talked to Miki and he states for example that the Japanese

have very different interpretations and read some of the characters in

the SHL very differently than the Chinese.

> Alon

 

There can be no doubt that the Japanese medical system has gone a

different route and must be interpreted on its own accord by experts

trained in that field. I have little knowledge of the Japanese

traditions, but I understand their needs for terminology and

interpretation are different and must be respected. I am only

referring to Chinese medicine.

 

Eric

 

 

If a

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

> original definition;

> >>>>>Eric the question is how terms have been used by the various

authors in china. The job of each translation is to go as deep as

possible and understand each author's usage. If all use a term in the

same way then a standard English term works well. If not then we are

better off leaving it to the translator and then judged by the

translator reputation and the quality of the final product. Again I

think the argument has been between those that believe many terms are

standard and those that do not. While confusing to students we should

not try to create what has never been so. The other side of this

discussion is other eastern traditions and their interpretations of

the literature.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

After an in-depth conversation with Feng Ye on the subject, he has

told me that Chinese is a perfectly articulate language for explaining

Western medicine because each Western medical term has been assigned a

unique phrase in Chinese. Because WM is well-defined to begin with,

its derivative terminology in Chinese is also well defined and equally

specific.

 

As to your inquiry of whether Chinese is an effective language for

communicating specifics of contemporary events, the conclusion I have

reached based on speaking with bilinguals is that general information

is expressed with perfect clarity in Chinese. This should hardly come

as a surprise, just because people have a different language and a

different color of skin, they can not be expected to be in the dark

about contemporary issues, with all statements of modern facts,

science, and technical information conveyed only in vague and

imprecise language. Languages have evolved as circumstances have

evolved, and Chinese, like other languages, has accomodated an

increasingly complex world with an increasing complex way of

communicating and relating information. I'm sure you would not

suggest that Israelis have a primitive grasp of science and the

intricacies of the modern world because they do not speak a romance

language or a germanic language.

 

Respectfully,

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

, " smilinglotus "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

>

> , " 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]

This should hardly come

as a surprise, just because people have a different language and a

different color of skin, they can not be expected to be in the dark

about contemporary issues, with all statements of modern facts,

science, and technical information conveyed only in vague and

imprecise language.

>>>>My question came about from the study I read on Japanese. It has nothing to

do with color of skin or any such thing

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> alon marcus [alonmarcus]

> Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:25 AM

>

> Re: Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

> 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.

> >>>>>I agree, although according to miki shima this is also about the

> western mind not understanding the history of CM

[Jason]

Yes, good point... It is interesting because I to a few Chinese

Journals, and one of them is in English. I just read it this AM and I was

thinking how glad I am that I didn't just learn WTs, and that I had been

exposed to multiple systems of translation. Not only is the English poor,

but many of the term choices are the same as these touted English authors

and many are just plain bizarre. I am glad that have the flexibility to

understand what they are saying. I can only imagine a student just schooled

in WTs trying to think outside the box and figure out what these people are

saying without the PD to help them out. In a perfect world all translations

would use the same terms and even better there would be only one language

spoken worldwide - but reality is reality. I think the more flexible we can

be with life, medicine, and language the better.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Again I would say that the WT may be most appropriate for translations while for

those

writing original works or original explaining Chinese texts then a more flexible

approach

may be needed or neccessary. This is because we need all the word choices

available in

English to explain what and how the Chinese concepts (and words) fit within the

medicine.

doug

 

 

, " alon marcus " <alonmarcus@w...>

wrote:

> If a

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

> original definition;

> >>>>>Eric the question is how terms have been used by the various authors in

china.

The job of each translation is to go as deep as possible and understand each

author's

usage. If all use a term in the same way then a standard English term works

well. If not

then we are better off leaving it to the translator and then judged by the

translator

reputation and the quality of the final product. Again I think the argument has

been

between those that believe many terms are standard and those that do not. While

confusing to students we should not try to create what has never been so. The

other side

of this discussion is other eastern traditions and their interpretations of the

literature. I

just talked to Miki and he states for example that the Japanese have very

different

interpretations and read some of the characters in the SHL very differently than

the

Chinese.

> Alon

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I know you meant no such offense. I know that are respectful

of other cultures. The problem is that I was asking people in Taiwan

and Taiwanese are hypersensitive because there are far too many

foreigners here that criticize the Chinese. When you ask them if they

have equal capacity for technical language in Chinese they get a bit

stunned that we white folks could ask that question. Chinese are

sensitive to feeling academically and culturally dominated by the

West, which is a source of tension in our community.

 

Alon, I know you personally and know that you are the last person who

would make such an assumption. I intended my comment not towards you

in any way, but rather towards the general concept that in the West we

don't sufficiently recognize the contributions Asians make to our

academic world.

 

Sincerely,

Eric

 

, " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> This should hardly come

> as a surprise, just because people have a different language and a

> different color of skin, they can not be expected to be in the dark

> about contemporary issues, with all statements of modern facts,

> science, and technical information conveyed only in vague and

> imprecise language.

> >>>>My question came about from the study I read on Japanese. It has

nothing to do with color of skin or any such thing

> alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

>

> Again I would say that the WT may be most appropriate for

translations while for those

> writing original works or original explaining Chinese texts then a

more flexible approach

> may be needed or neccessary. This is because we need all the word

choices available in

> English to explain what and how the Chinese concepts (and words) fit

within the medicine.

> doug

 

I agree with you. I think that everyone naturally needs to be exposed

to a variety of ways about speaking about things, we must all live

together in the same world. I like Wiseman terms because I feel their

meaning can be trusted and is consistent throughout texts. Good

individual authors can choose good ways of expressing things, and

their book quality can be assessed based on the content of info and

the reputations of the authors. By all these standards, the new herb

texts are very good.

Eric

 

 

 

>

> , " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > If a

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

> > original definition;

> > >>>>>Eric the question is how terms have been used by the various

authors in china.

> The job of each translation is to go as deep as possible and

understand each author's

> usage. If all use a term in the same way then a standard English

term works well. If not

> then we are better off leaving it to the translator and then judged

by the translator

> reputation and the quality of the final product. Again I think the

argument has been

> between those that believe many terms are standard and those that do

not. While

> confusing to students we should not try to create what has never

been so. The other side

> of this discussion is other eastern traditions and their

interpretations of the literature. I

> just talked to Miki and he states for example that the Japanese have

very different

> interpretations and read some of the characters in the SHL very

differently than the

> Chinese.

> > Alon

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> I was

> thinking how glad I am that I didn't just learn WTs, and that I had been

> exposed to multiple systems of translation.

 

Nobody would only be able to read Wiseman terms. Anyone who can read

Wiseman terms can make as much sense out of common terms as anyone

else. Our TCM world is far too complex to expect to see any universal

standards anytime soon. I only endorse having a standard that people

know how to use because it is the only medium we have that is so

comprehensive.

 

Eric

 

 

>

> >

> > alon marcus [alonmarcus@w...]

> > Sunday, October 31, 2004 9:25 AM

> >

> > Re: Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> >

> > 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.

> > >>>>>I agree, although according to miki shima this is also about the

> > western mind not understanding the history of CM

> [Jason]

> Yes, good point... It is interesting because I to a few

Chinese

> Journals, and one of them is in English. I just read it this AM and

I was

> thinking how glad I am that I didn't just learn WTs, and that I had been

> exposed to multiple systems of translation. Not only is the English

poor,

> but many of the term choices are the same as these touted English

authors

> and many are just plain bizarre. I am glad that have the flexibility to

> understand what they are saying. I can only imagine a student just

schooled

> in WTs trying to think outside the box and figure out what these

people are

> saying without the PD to help them out. In a perfect world all

translations

> would use the same terms and even better there would be only one

language

> spoken worldwide - but reality is reality. I think the more

flexible we can

> be with life, medicine, and language the better.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

In a perfect world all translations

would use the same terms and even better there would be only one language

spoken worldwide - but reality is reality.

>>>>Jason that does not address the different usage of similar terms by

different authors in Chinese

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> alon marcus [alonmarcus]

> Sunday, October 31, 2004 12:46 PM

>

> Re: Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

> In a perfect world all translations

> would use the same terms and even better there would be only one language

> spoken worldwide - but reality is reality.

> >>>>Jason that does not address the different usage of similar terms by

> different authors in Chinese

[Jason]

Yes that is so true... That is one of my favorite points to make, How did I

overlook that one??

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

> >>>>Jason that does not address the different usage of similar terms

by different authors in Chinese

> alon

 

Indeed, similar authors use similar terms in different contexts.

Nourish (yang), boost (yi), enrich (zi), supplement (bu), fortify

(jian), etc all have flexibility and a particular realm where they are

used frequently. These words have slightly different nuances and are

chosen by Chinese authors in different situations, yet all these terms

are combined into the expression tonify by many authors. So sometimes

we reduce the flexibility of choosing how we express terms by common

terms. It may be that Wiseman terms have a stronger command of

flexible synonyms (in direct proportion to the original Chinese) than

we find in some compiled texts.

 

Eric

 

 

, " alon marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> In a perfect world all translations

> would use the same terms and even better there would be only one

language

> spoken worldwide - but reality is reality.

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Readers, text from previously threads is denoted with ***** for

clarity, before and after the quote*****. I really hate to keep

harping on this subject, but I cannot stand to let these points go

unchecked without challenge.

 

*************Eric: Nigel stated that of course the PD has holes; what

could be expected

> when CM is thousands of years old? He also mentioned that if he

> worked on the jia yi, he would have embarked on an immense expansion

> of his database.********

 

*******[Jason]It is funny because this is all I said in the beginning

and there was such

an uproar... It was said " Prove it... Give me examples, " no need

anymore...

Thanx Nigel for Chiming in...**********

 

Now Eric in real time:

 

So Nigel's modesty has absolved you of the need to back your arguments

with evidence?

 

Let's put this in perspective. Nigel has spent 10 years working on

translating dictionary entries to provide TCM with a standard basis

for interpreting its technical terms. He is referencing that he

didn't specifically expand the database for the jia yi jing because he

has never done the text, that it would naturally have introduced

additional terms to reference. These additional references were never

added to expand the terminology to the benefit of all because Chip

never once approached him with any questions, ideas about terms,

suggestions, or comments on integrating Wiseman terms. Nigel has said

that even though his dictionary includes the vast majority of terms in

common use, it cannot be expected to include every possible term in a

literature that spans thousands of years.

 

This does not mean that his terms have not proven perfectly acceptable

for everything from the Shang Han Lun to the modern works that define

the literature that we primarily use today. Nigel has spent ten years

defining over 5000 terms; the tradition has no end, we simply haven't

yet had someone willing to spend ten more years of their life to add

another five thousand terms. Maybe if several generations of people

sacrifice a good chunk of their lives for minimal profit to expand our

resources, we will have a database inclusive of every term that has

EVER been used. Many people find that Wiseman terms can be used to

translate virtually any body of literature with at most a few

footnotes elaborating unusual or archaic terms. Nigel is not saying

that his work is full of holes, filled with errors, applicable to a

small range of works, not at all; he is simply expressing modesty

because he knows how vast CM is and he knows that one lifetime of work

by one scholar is not sufficient to uncover all the mysteries within

thousands of years of CM. You have turned his modesty around and

interpreted it to mean that his system is fundamentally lacking and

that you have no need to provide examples to demonstrate your vocal

but as yet ill-substantiated opinions.

 

In fact, Nigel has personally challenged you to provide examples where

his terminology is wrong. Bob Flaws has expressed fundamental

problems in the jia yi jing text due to the competence of the

translators at the time of translation. Bob Flaws has produced an

incredible array of very reliable material on a wide variety of topics

without any apparent difficulty in applying Wiseman terminology,

beyond a few footnoted changes and personal/contextual modifications.

Z'ev, myself, Brian, Steve, and Bob Felt have all challenged you to

produce concrete examples to demonstrate your point that Wiseman

terminology has many errors and limited applicability. You said that

you find errors " every week, " that it is a " no-brainer " and not even

worth wasting your time to discuss these errors and insufficiencies

because they are so common.

 

Bob Felt even gave you a very simple way to demonstrate

insufficiencies in the terminology:

 

*********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

misunderstanding created by not knowing the source term and being

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

 

Real-time Eric:

Now, you didn't answer that challenge because you didn't think there

were any errors in the basics with Wiseman terminology. So you

provided a few examples of advanced material to demonstrate your

point. You claim in your correspondences with Nigel that you hesitated

to provide such examples since it is not even worth bothering to bring

up such advanced subjects to the CHA group, because 99% of the people

on this list do not have the skills to even consider whether these

points are right or wrong or to evaluate the passages (since we are

all so unversed in advanced wenbing literature, presumably).

 

Well, I am not an expert in wenbing by any stretch of the imagination,

but I don't need to be in order to see some very obvious reasons why

these examples prove virtually nothing. Let's have a look at your

examples:

 

***********(start quote)[Jason] This is outrageous, by constantly

asking for examples you resign yourself to

a position of denying that what I say is true... Are you saying that

Wiseman

accounts for everything....? Are you saying that you think every term

is in

the dictionary?.. this is outrageous.. So I will waste some time to prove

some points...

 

1) First and easiest is to prove that incomplete definitions of terms

exist... One can look at yinfire or rough pulse... Talk about

simplified...

But I am not saying that Wiseman should every possible definition and

usage,

how could he... this is general dictionary with the most mainstream

view ...

 

2) Now the more involved part: Check out the wenrelun , do a search

for (M8

7g SZ HH Mb #, ;r Ix J* SZ HH OB) tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 and shen4

shi1 yu2

re4 xia4 - A) there is no definition is the Wiseman dictionary for this

technical term! (you asked for an example of this) - b) Furthermore if you

translate straight with Wiseman speak (it is in the term list) it gives a

misrepresentation of the paragraph at hand. It gives the completely wrong

meaning, check it out... (you asked for an example of this) and C)

here is a

technical term that is not even in the list of Wiseman Terms. W*E1V.;z@(

zhuan3 nue4 zhi1 ji1 kuo4 - It shows up in a MODERN discussion of the

SanJiao (yet from a pre-modern quote, as they so often do) - It comes

with a

paragraph explanation of what the 'term' means. Point 4) Even if Wiseman

had an entry of this term (w/o definition) it would be completely useless

because it is so bizarre... There you have the 4 examples elucidating all

the 4 points in question. Trust me there are many more, and there should

be... I can't believe you or Nigel even require examples.**********

(end quote)

 

 

Again, back to real-time Eric:

 

Ok.

So point 1) doesn't really require any debate, as you have already

stated that the PD is meant to convey the mainstream core information

as opposed to every possible detail about every possible subject. Yin

fire and rough pulse are issues that people have written about and

discussed in length. The job of the PD is to accurately present the

consensus view as it is presented in a Chinese term dictionary. The

PD can no more be comprehensive on everything about these subjects

just as Bensky or Chen cannot be comprehensive on everything related

to chai hu. There are entire books on chai hu alone, Ph. D

dissertations on chai hu, etc; the job of a MM, like a dictionary, is

to present the core information that reflects the basic, mainstream

information. Neither dictionaries nor materia medicas are expected to

contain every piece of information on a topic that people can write

entire papers on, so this point doesn't need to be harped on, as

agreed by both parties.

 

Now, point 2) is a slightly different matter.

 

The first phrase you have introduced is: tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 which

is present in the cd dictionary as one phrase, meaning " outthrust wind

to allow clearing of internal heat. " I'm not sure what point you are

trying to make here. You haven't indicated where such a term can be

found, what the Wiseman English version is, what alternate meaning you

have in mind. You say this is referenced in the cd dictionary without

a definition in the PD. Now, if this is the phrase you mean, the

meaning is not rocket science, since outthrusting is in the

dictionary, as are wind, clearing, and internal heat. Is this the

phrase you feel is an error?

 

You say to search for tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 in the wen re lun,

presumably you mean that we should search in an electronic version of

this text with Chinese characters to be lead to this mistranslation

(since you obviously can't be bothered to take the time to say what

English words you mean, i.e. `tou4 as in outthrust,' `feng1 as in

wind,' etc). But what yu2 re4 do you mean for us to input in Chinese

to find this phrase? Do you mean yu2 re4 as in residual heat? Or yu2

re4 as in allow heat [to be cleared]? Already we have the pinyin

insufficiency point being proved, as a side-effect of this discussion.

How do you expect to make a point with such a vague phrase?

Depending on the characters, we could theoretically assume at least 2

possible sentences: " outthrust residual heat to the outer body " or

" outthrust wind to allow clearing of internal heat. " These sentences

are significantly different, though they have identical pinyin. You

are trying to make a point that we have the wrong translation, but you

have given us no indication about what phrase you are talking about in

the first place, nor any way to find the phrase in the text. How can

you be so certain that we have the wrong translation when we have no

idea what you are talking about in the first place? How can you

assert that the PD doesn't offer any insight or gives the wrong

meaning here? Every single term: outthrust, residual heat, outer

body, wind, clearing, and internal heat are all defined terms and they

seem quite logically linked in both sentence possibilities. If you

are going to argue that Nigel is wrong, you have to take the time out

of your precious day to explain what phrase you are referencing- you

give no inkling as to the characters, your translation of them, the

chapter, the section, the general discussion- you just vocally

complain that the terms are not in the dictionary and if they were

used, they'd be wrong.

 

Next.

 

" shen4 shi1 yu2 re4 xia4, " rendered in the CD dic as " percolate

dampness through the heat; or heat-releasing dampness percolation. "

Again, same problem, different words. Is the pinyin for shen4 shi1

supposed to be referencing `kidney impairment,' `percolate dampness, "

or what? Do you mean yu2 re4 as in `residual heat' or `allow heat [to

precipitate or release],' or something altogether different? Did the

original Chinese say " percolate dampness [in order to] precipitate

(i.e., release/descend) residual heat? " How do you expect us to find

words by electronically searching in Chinese without giving us a clue

as to what words we should be inputting? Or are you trying to say that

dampness, percolating, heat, etc are not in the PD or that their

meaning is not reliable? How can you hope to prove a flaw without

dedicating time to express your argument? All you have effectively

argued is that there is no hope for pinyin as a technical language.

 

Next.

 

 

*************[Jason:]zhuan3 nue4 zhi1 ji1 kuo4 - It shows up in a

MODERN discussion of the

SanJiao (yet from a pre-modern quote, as they so often do) - It comes

with a

paragraph explanation of what the 'term' means. Point 4) Even if Wiseman

had an entry of this term (w/o definition) it would be completely useless

because it is so bizarre...***********

 

Back to real-time Eric:

 

Right. So you are arguing that Wiseman hasn't even translated this

term, and if he did, he would translate it incorrectly? You have a

term that we have no clue as to what you could be possibly

referencing, a term you think is bizarre. All this shows is that you

have to look pretty hard for Wiseman errors, and the best thing you

can find is something that doesn't exist in his references at all

because it is an obscure pre-modern quote on the san jiao. So you are

implying that Wiseman, if he could see the Chinese for this, would

translate it wrong, but you will surely translate it correctly?

 

Maybe you think that Nigel would simply string together whatever PD

terms he happens to have corresponding to each individual character

with no thought as to what these characters mean when grouped

together? How can you imply that Nigel would make a mistake on a

problem that he has never approached? Surely you would not just link

together standard terms without taking account of their meaning in a

group. We all agree that `ya2' as tooth/teeth means tooth, and yi1 as

in medicine/doctor means medicine/doctor, but no one translates ya2

yi1 as tooth medicine or tooth doctor, we say dentistry or dentist.

You don't see the word " xie4 xie4 " (two different words, sharing the

identical sound once again), and express that as " discharge-drain, "

you translate it as diarrhea (or " thank you " outside the medical

context, different characters, of course). No one accidentally

translates da4 huang2 as " great yellow, " we all know it is rhubarb.

You see words together and you alter your translation accordingly, you

say dentist, diarrhea, rhubarb. Why would you possibly assume that

Nigel, upon seeing this phrase, would translate it incorrectly? And

what point can you possibly be making that he is in error on a term

that he has never translated?

 

At this point, we are left without a single reference of a single term

in which Wiseman terminology has been perceived to be inaccurate. We

are certainly very far away from any convincing evidence to Bob Felt's

challenge to: *** " show us the misunderstanding created, show us that

the misunderstanding created is of greater consequence than the

misunderstanding created by not knowing the source term and being

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

 

Respectfully,

Eric Brand

 

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> > Friday, October 29, 2004 12:47 AM

> >

> > Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

> >

> >

> >

> > First off, Nigel has always been the first to admit that the PD does

> > not have all the answers. As many people have said, it is just a

> > starting point. The phrases you referred us to as holes in the

> > terminology were all complex, advanced, multi-character expressions

> > that would be perfect to resolve with footnotes in the text in which

> > they occurred. Nigel responded to Jason's inquiries with the humble

> > admission that he does not have all the answers.

> >

> > Nigel stated that of course the PD has holes; what could be expected

> > when CM is thousands of years old? He also mentioned that if he

> > worked on the jia yi, he would have embarked on an immense expansion

> > of his database.

> [Jason]

> It is funny because this is all I said in the beginning and there

was such

> an uproar... It was said " Prove it... Give me examples, " no need

anymore...

> Thanx Nigel for Chiming in...

>

>

> > Nigel has always been open to making additions and receiving new

> > input. Everyone has always endorsed that terms can be coined in any

> > way as long as they leave a trace of which terms they came from.

> > Footnotes for the exceptions are easy to accomodate. But the fact

> > remains that the vast majority of the terms are perfectly acceptable

> > within the PD framework. Jason illustrated his examples by pointing

> > out complex phrases in advanced texts, he himself stated no problem in

> > any of the commonly used terms from the example of the Jiao text. His

> > examples illustrate things that should be explained in commentary and

> > submitted to the PD as new things for inclusion on future editions.

> > The PD is dynamic, as are all dictionaries and encyclopedias.

> [Jason]

> YES.. that has been my point all along... we agree...

>

> >

> > Jason, you are asserting that Brian's skills are at a low standard

> > because he cannot read Chinese. Never mind the fact that you cannot

> > speak Chinese and thus have no way of asking actual humans your

> > questions instead of only consulting books. Limiting the people you

> > can communicate with to pure bilinguals cuts you off from many sources

> > of knowledge, especially because bilinguals with the depth of English

> > required for precise term choices are few and far between.

> >

> > You should refrain from insulting your colleagues, we are all in this

> > together.

> [Jason]

> I really was not insulting Brian, Sorry if it came off like that...

It was

> purely about his skills in evaluating such a complex example and

obtaining a

> copy of the wenrelun. 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... So sorry to make

assumptions,

> but for someone who doesn't have a copy of the wenrelun it makes it

hard to

> continue in showing the example... Precisely why this should be a

private

> matter, with parties that can evaluate it.

>

> How can Brian judge the examples for himself if you

> > don't even give him the opportunity to see alternate renderings in

> > English?

> [Jason]

> Exactly, I am sick of typing in stuff... If one cares to check out the

> examples then look at the Chinese.. It is clear... Even if I type in the

> English you still have to look at the Chinese passage to evaluate it so

> there in a no win w/o the Chinese, and no win without experience

translating

> wenbing area medicine... Therefore you need skills to evaluate it

PROPERLY.

> There was no personal degradation aimed at Brian...Sorry if Brian

actually

> fits the bill...

>

> -Jason

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I made a typo on my comment on tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4, the

alternate meaning could have been " outthrust wind and residual heat to

the outer body. " I accidently left out the " wind " on my previous

post. oops.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Monday, November 01, 2004 10:21 AM

>

> Re: Bensky compared with Chen & Chen

>

>

>

> Readers, text from previously threads is denoted with ***** for

> clarity, before and after the quote*****. I really hate to keep

> harping on this subject, but I cannot stand to let these points go

> unchecked without challenge.

>

> *************Eric: Nigel stated that of course the PD has holes; what

> could be expected

> > when CM is thousands of years old? He also mentioned that if he

> > worked on the jia yi, he would have embarked on an immense expansion

> > of his database.********

>

> *******[Jason]It is funny because this is all I said in the beginning

> and there was such

> an uproar... It was said " Prove it... Give me examples, " no need

> anymore...

> Thanx Nigel for Chiming in...**********

>

> Now Eric in real time:

>

> So Nigel's modesty has absolved you of the need to back your arguments

> with evidence?

[Jason]

Get real... Nigel and everyone participating on this list's discussion have

acknowledged there are times that the PD is limited, how could it not be (as

Nigel himself said). He further says to me, " I am sure that Chip could give

you lots of examples of where PD terminology either had no equivalents to

offer or where equivalents built out of PD terminology would have " not fit. "

Call it modesty or whatever, but reality is reality.

Furthermore, in the beginning of the JiaYiJing there are specific examples

also. Your arguing is completely silly and proving nothing at all... But I

will briefly respond so as not to let this slanderous post go unchecked. AS

well as allow you to check out the examples I provided, and hopefully this

will stop wasting so much time and bandwidth.

 

>

> Let's put this in perspective. Nigel has spent 10 years working on

> translating dictionary entries to provide TCM with a standard basis

> for interpreting its technical terms. He is referencing that he

> didn't specifically expand the database for the jia yi jing because he

> has never done the text, that it would naturally have introduced

> additional terms to reference.

[Jason]

Yes, precisely... That is all I am saying there are terms that the PD

doesn't have - Again a no-brainer that you have been constantly debating???

What gives???

 

Nigel has said

> that even though his dictionary includes the vast majority of terms in

> common use, it cannot be expected to include every possible term in a

> literature that spans thousands of years.

[Jason]

Exactly that is all I am saying...

 

>

> This does not mean that his terms have not proven perfectly acceptable

> for everything from the Shang Han Lun to the modern works that define

> the literature that we primarily use today.

[Jason]

Yes acceptable for the majority of instances, but as He and I point out, not

for everything...

 

Nigel has spent ten years

> defining over 5000 terms; the tradition has no end, we simply haven't

> yet had someone willing to spend ten more years of their life to add

> another five thousand terms.

[Jason]

Ok... So he is invested in his terms... and???

 

Nigel is not saying

> that his work is full of holes, filled with errors, applicable to a

> small range of works, not at all;

[Jason]

And for the record no one has ever said this...

So... it is one way or the other... Everyone admits (as Nigel does) that it

is Incomplete or one can say it accounts for everything... I have only said

the former... And find it funny you keep going on about it...

 

You have turned his modesty around and

> interpreted it to mean that his system is fundamentally lacking

[Jason]

I never said that...And you are keep harping on this idea, thinking that

someone has insulted the POPE.

 

and

> that you have no need to provide examples to demonstrate your vocal

> but as yet ill-substantiated opinions.

[Jason]

I provided 1 example of each request that asked of me... I see no reason to

do anything more on 'providing examples' because everyone agrees with what I

am saying...

 

 

> In fact, Nigel has personally challenged you to provide examples where

> his terminology is wrong.

[Jason]

Really I could care less... and I stand by everything I have said...

 

>

> Bob Felt even gave you a very simple way to demonstrate

> insufficiencies in the terminology:

[Jason]

As I have explained, this idea does not suffice, and I have no beef with the

PDF / 500 terms... that is a different issue completely.

 

>

> Real-time Eric:

> Now, you didn't answer that challenge because you didn't think there

> were any errors in the basics with Wiseman terminology.

[Jason]

Yes, that is what I have said...

 

So you

> provided a few examples of advanced material to demonstrate your

> point.

[Jason]

Exactly that is where there are more issues, obviously...

 

You claim in your correspondences with Nigel that you hesitated

> to provide such examples since it is not even worth bothering to bring

> up such advanced subjects to the CHA group, because 99% of the people

> on this list do not have the skills to even consider whether these

> points are right or wrong or to evaluate the passages (since we are

> all so unversed in advanced wenbing literature, presumably).

[Jason]

Well you are twisting my words, but I will rephrase.. I hesitated because a)

character do not come through! B) One Needs the Chinese character with

context to make an evaluation as well as knowledge of the subject (i.e. in

this case wenbing writings)... So with only a handful of people on the list

that can even read Chinese I said why should I prove what everyone agree

with.. It is silly... You are being silly... and I am done...

 

>

> Well, I am not an expert in wenbing by any stretch of the imagination,

> but I don't need to be in order to see some very obvious reasons why

> these examples prove virtually nothing.

[Jason]

You haven't even checked it with the original context yet... ??? what

gives???

 

Let's have a look at your

> examples:

>

> Again, back to real-time Eric:

>

> Ok.

> So point 1) doesn't really require any debate, as you have already

> stated that the PD is meant to convey the mainstream core information

> as opposed to every possible detail about every possible subject. Yin

> fire and rough pulse are issues that people have written about and

> discussed in length. The job of the PD is to accurately present the

> consensus view as it is presented in a Chinese term dictionary. The

> PD can no more be comprehensive on everything about these subjects

> just as Bensky or Chen cannot be comprehensive on everything related

> to chai hu. There are entire books on chai hu alone, Ph. D

> dissertations on chai hu, etc; the job of a MM, like a dictionary, is

> to present the core information that reflects the basic, mainstream

> information. Neither dictionaries nor materia medicas are expected to

> contain every piece of information on a topic that people can write

> entire papers on, so this point doesn't need to be harped on, as

> agreed by both parties.

[Jason]

Of course but you (or someone) asked for an example of this... So I gave

it... Like I said these certain things are obvious. Someone harassingly

asks, I post, then you say hey but that is obvious.. what gives???

 

So we both agree... I.e. Different authors will use a se mai pulse in

different ways. In which the PD doesn't have every possible use... and with

yinfire, there is much material that the basic definition doesn't suffice

for... ok we agree...

 

>

> Now, point 2) is a slightly different matter.

>

> The first phrase you have introduced is: tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 which

> is present in the cd dictionary as one phrase, meaning " outthrust wind

> to allow clearing of internal heat. " I'm not sure what point you are

> trying to make here. You haven't indicated where such a term can be

> found,

[Jason]

I did, its called the wenrelun!

 

what the Wiseman English version is, what alternate meaning you

> have in mind. You say this is referenced in the cd dictionary without

> a definition in the PD. Now, if this is the phrase you mean, the

> meaning is not rocket science, since outthrusting is in the

> dictionary, as are wind, clearing, and internal heat. Is this the

> phrase you feel is an error?

[Jason]

Exactly and if you look at the Wenrelun the pegged term *does not* fit.

There is no definition explaining what it really means (PD), and therefore

what you call 'not rocket science' would lead you down to a incorrect

version of the wenrelun (if you just put in the term from the WT).

 

>

> You say to search for tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 in the wen re lun,

> presumably you mean that we should search in an electronic version of

> this text with Chinese characters to be lead to this mistranslation

[Jason]

Yeah its as easy as that , takes about 3 seconds...

 

> (since you obviously can't be bothered to take the time to say what

> English words you mean, i.e. `tou4 as in outthrust,' `feng1 as in

> wind,' etc).

[Jason]

There is no need, you just search the wiseman cd by pinyin and get the

english like you did, again takes 3 seconds. OR if you don't have the CD

you can look in the green dictionary, takes a few more seconds, but easy to

find with the pinyin + tones given.

 

 

But what yu2 re4 do you mean for us to input in Chinese

> to find this phrase? Do you mean yu2 re4 as in residual heat? Or yu2

> re4 as in allow heat [to be cleared]?

[Jason]

It is all 1 term, as I have indicated previous, and you have shown above...

Why are you separating the term out???

 

Already we have the pinyin

> insufficiency point being proved, as a side-effect of this discussion.

[Jason]

Yes I agree with that, pinyin does not work! So why do you think I was so

hesitant discussing such issues in a public forum when we cannot use

characters. Just think it I typed in the whole paragraph... ha.... Again

you have proven this point with your complete confusion with my pinyin...

This is wasting serious time!

 

 

> How do you expect to make a point with such a vague phrase?

[Jason]

Vague phrase??? It is very clear if you look it up...

 

> Depending on the characters, we could theoretically assume at least 2

> possible sentences: " outthrust residual heat to the outer body " or

> " outthrust wind to allow clearing of internal heat. "

[Jason] No it is pegged in the CD - that is why I picked it and mentioned

that it was on the CD (so that you could look it up and not be soooooooo

confused) There is only one possibility with the pinyin.

 

These sentences

> are significantly different, though they have identical pinyin. You

> are trying to make a point that we have the wrong translation, but you

> have given us no indication about what phrase you are talking about in

> the first place, nor any way to find the phrase in the text. How can

> you be so certain that we have the wrong translation when we have no

> idea what you are talking about in the first place? How can you

> assert that the PD doesn't offer any insight or gives the wrong

> meaning here? Every single term: outthrust, residual heat, outer

> body, wind, clearing, and internal heat are all defined terms and they

> seem quite logically linked in both sentence possibilities.

[Jason]

You are so far off the mark, I am very clear what I am talking about...

 

If you

> are going to argue that Nigel is wrong,

[Jason]

I am not arguing with Nigel - I never said he was wrong! - The PD just

doesn't account for everything. I could care less about this anymore... IMO,

this (all) was a complete diversion from the real issue, the blatant slander

of Bensky by many people on this list in regard to his economical motives

and his 'Simplicity' of term set with no proof for either... I still am

waiting for an instance...

 

you have to take the time out

> of your precious day to explain what phrase you are referencing- you

> give no inkling as to the characters,

[Jason]

Again using some common sense... a) characters don't come through, so I

presented the pinyin with tones ( & characters for people who can view

them)... But, it is very easy (as above) to search the CD and get the

characters (or look in the green book). You have the complete phrase - you

quoted the Wiseman translation how come you can't just look and see the

characters.???? It all should take about 3 seconds (with a new computer)...

You act like I have a choice and purposely did not show the characters. What

gives???

 

your translation of them, the

> chapter, the section, the general discussion- you just vocally

> complain that the terms are not in the dictionary and if they were

> used, they'd be wrong.

[Jason]

Never said that.. you are so off....

 

>

> Next.

>

> " shen4 shi1 yu2 re4 xia4, " rendered in the CD dic as " percolate

> dampness through the heat; or heat-releasing dampness percolation. "

> Again, same problem, different words. Is the pinyin for shen4 shi1

> supposed to be referencing `kidney impairment,' `percolate dampness, "

> or what? Do you mean yu2 re4 as in `residual heat' or `allow heat [to

> precipitate or release],' or something altogether different? Did the

> original Chinese say " percolate dampness [in order to] precipitate

> (i.e., release/descend) residual heat? " How do you expect us to find

> words by electronically searching in Chinese without giving us a clue

> as to what words we should be inputting?

[Jason]

Same answer you have the characters right in front of you. I used these

examples also because they both have precisely 1 possibility when searching

the CD or Book. There should be no confusion.

 

Or are you trying to say that

> dampness, percolating, heat, etc are not in the PD or that their

> meaning is not reliable? How can you hope to prove a flaw without

> dedicating time to express your argument?

[Jason]

Again I could care less...

 

>

> *************[Jason:]zhuan3 nue4 zhi1 ji1 kuo4 - It shows up in a

> MODERN discussion of the

> SanJiao (yet from a pre-modern quote, as they so often do) - It comes

> with a

> paragraph explanation of what the 'term' means. Point 4) Even if Wiseman

> had an entry of this term (w/o definition) it would be completely useless

> because it is so bizarre...***********

>

> Back to real-time Eric:

>

> Right. So you are arguing that Wiseman hasn't even translated this

> term, and if he did, he would translate it incorrectly? [Jason]

 

No, not at all... It was requested that I give an example of a term that was

not in the PD, so I did.. it is no big, because it is obvious that these

exist.

 

You have a

> term that we have no clue as to what you could be possibly

> referencing, a term you think is bizarre. All this shows is that you

> have to look pretty hard for Wiseman errors, and the best thing you

> can find is something that doesn't exist in his references at all

> because it is an obscure pre-modern quote on the san jiao.

So you are

> implying that Wiseman, if he could see the Chinese for this, would

> translate it wrong, but you will surely translate it correctly?

[Jason]

No! where are you getting any of this from?>?? I never said he would

translate it wrong and I right...

 

>

> Maybe you think that Nigel would simply string together whatever PD

> terms he happens to have corresponding to each individual character

> with no thought as to what these characters mean when grouped

> together? How can you imply that Nigel would make a mistake on a

> problem that he has never approached? Surely you would not just link

> together standard terms without taking account of their meaning in a

> group. We all agree that `ya2' as tooth/teeth means tooth, and yi1 as

> in medicine/doctor means medicine/doctor, but no one translates ya2

> yi1 as tooth medicine or tooth doctor, we say dentistry or dentist.

> You don't see the word " xie4 xie4 " (two different words, sharing the

> identical sound once again), and express that as " discharge-drain, "

> you translate it as diarrhea (or " thank you " outside the medical

> context, different characters, of course). No one accidentally

> translates da4 huang2 as " great yellow, " we all know it is rhubarb.

> You see words together and you alter your translation accordingly, you

> say dentist, diarrhea, rhubarb. Why would you possibly assume that

> Nigel, upon seeing this phrase, would translate it incorrectly? And

> what point can you possibly be making that he is in error on a term

> that he has never translated?

[Jason]

I don't know where you are getting any of this from... I never even alluded

to this...

The point is this... No matter anyway you translate (the term) If I, Nigel,

or Bensky do it, it will not make any sense to the reader without a

definition because it is a bizarre term. This was said before. Not what

you are reading into what I said.

 

>

> At this point, we are left without a single reference of a single term

> in which Wiseman terminology has been perceived to be inaccurate.

[Jason]

Oh I guess you are right, Wiseman works for every instance out there.. Yeah

whatever... Get off the religious High-horse... This has taken enough of my

time...

 

-