More on a disorder of qi

February 15, 2005

Ok, well I suppose there is a little more to this than I realized. Distention

can be abdominal distention, which the PD escorts us to abdominal fullness (fu4

man3)when referencing the former, as well as others. There are several causes of

abdominal fullness but I believe that each of them disrupts the qi dynamic. So

although a qi disturbance may not be the cause, there is certianly is a

disruption of the qi dynamic.

I think this is also true of the other forms of distention listed in the PD. So,

although I may not of given as clear an answer as, perhaps, I should have I

think ultimately I am correct.

What I was trying to get at is that in all these cases the qi is being affected

adversely and one of the manifestations of that is distention. As an example,

the tx for food damage listed in the PD on page 143 is to disperse food and

transform stagnation. If I am not mistaken they are referring to qi stagnation.

If you lump to much ice cream on the spleen/stomach the spleen/stomach qi is

damaged or otherwise disturbed, so although the ice cream " caused " the ensuing

dampness, isn't the qi disordered? And, don't you use qi rectifying medicinals

to treat this " illness " .

On page 229 of the Jiao Shu De abdominal distention and distention and

oppression between the diaphragm and stomach duct are treated with qi rectifying

medicinals such as mu xiang, xiang fu, etc. On page 281 he mentions distention

and pain in the head under the long dan cao heading and goes on (on the next

page) to put long dan xie gan tang forth as the primary formula to treat this

(and other sx) Bensky and Barolet pg. 96 state that chai hu is used in this

formula to " disperse heat due to constrained Liver and Gallbladder qi. " Eariler

in B & B's presentation of the formula they say, " when heat enters these channels

[Liver and Gallbladder] it [heat] becomes constrained and cannot drain out. This

leads to fire blazing upward to the head where it manifests in the symptoms

described above. " And later, " A disturbance in one of the lesser yang channels

usually affects the other. " These all sound like a disturbance of qi to me, what

do you think.

In the end, I agree with Holly that the teacher missed a good opportunity to

have a good discussion about what he/she meant and that is one of the great

downfalls in our system, the teachers are sometimes preaching rather than

inspiring students. I commend you, Holly, for not taking their word for gospel

and looking into it further.

And thanks for making me explain myself, I eagerly await your or anyone's

reply. Please correct me.

Thomas

Please cite sources, because it appears from reading strict definitions

that this is a

converse issue. distention, according to the PD, has no asociation

with qi, per se. It

merely refers to the stretching of the abdomen. Distention is a key

sign of qi stagnation

but just does not always indicate it. According to our chinese

classical lit expert here, he

concurs with the PD. but as I said, this may be semantics. but since

numerous texts of

mine list dampness and food stag as also causes of distention as well

as liver yang rising

(head distention), I think I would defer to Holly here. what she read

clearly called the issue

into dispute and it will notbe satifactorily resolved by just stating

one's opinion with no

further evidence provided either way. As for your contention that damp

only comes from a

disorder of the qi, it also comes from excess consumption of certain

foods. But again,

there is a semantic issue as all food and damp rx include qi movers.

Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

February 15, 2005

From my understanding, the word distention (zhang) in Chinese has a

somewhat wide range of use, which may account for some of our

conflicting opinions. It generally refers to objective (visible)

distention, but in some contexts it can also refer to extreme

fullness. It is distinct from " fullness " (man) because it is more

severe. This variance is an problem that comes from the source

language.

China is in the process of unifying their own terminology so that the

meanings of words become more standard. They are the ones who have to

sort out when it is acceptable to use man vs zhang, etc when

describing drug actions. Our job in transmitting Chinese medicine is

simply to present Chinese medicine as it appears in the original

Chinese. We cannot sort out all the ambiguities present in the source

language, nor can we give students or readers our own interpretations

without making it clear that the interpretation is our personal idea.

Thus, our only option is to translate and teach in a way that

references the source material. Translators are not responsible for

providing their own interpretation of CM, they are simply responsible

for reporting exactly what the source books say while staying out of

the way. Good translation eliminates the middleman and gives the

English reader the Chinese material, intact with its specificity and

ambiguities.

Distention and fullness are distinguished in Chinese medical

dictionaries, and that is what is reflected in the PD. PD is simply a

translation of Chinese medical dictionaries, it is not an author's

opinion or interpretation. Distention often is visible distention,

but some authors use it to indicate severe subjective fullness. We

cannot sort out this variance in the Chinese author's word selection,

we can merely tell the reader clearly when the book says distention

and when it says fullness.

Most good practitioners are aware of the flexibility that is required

to understand Chinese medicine. Many students are expecting a perfect

package that shows that 1+1=2, but Chinese medicine is not always that

way. Westerners cannot resolve the irrational or vague aspects of

traditional theory, we can simply attempt to understand it as

authentically as possible. This means that we shouldn't get in the

way by filtering Chinese medical information and making it fit the way

we think it should fit.

Eric

February 16, 2005

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:03 AM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

> From my understanding, the word distention (zhang) in Chinese has a

> somewhat wide range of use, which may account for some of our

> conflicting opinions. It generally refers to objective (visible)

> distention, but in some contexts it can also refer to extreme

> fullness. It is distinct from " fullness " (man) because it is more

> severe. This variance is an problem that comes from the source

> language.

>

> China is in the process of unifying their own terminology so that the

> meanings of words become more standard. They are the ones who have to

> sort out when it is acceptable to use man vs zhang, etc when

> describing drug actions. Our job in transmitting Chinese medicine is

> simply to present Chinese medicine as it appears in the original

> Chinese. We cannot sort out all the ambiguities present in the source

> language, nor can we give students or readers our own interpretations

> without making it clear that the interpretation is our personal idea.

> Thus, our only option is to translate and teach in a way that

> references the source material. Translators are not responsible for

> providing their own interpretation of CM, they are simply responsible

> for reporting exactly what the source books say while staying out of

> the way. Good translation eliminates the middleman and gives the

> English reader the Chinese material, intact with its specificity and

> ambiguities.

>

> Distention and fullness are distinguished in Chinese medical

> dictionaries, and that is what is reflected in the PD. PD is simply a

> translation of Chinese medical dictionaries, it is not an author's

> opinion or interpretation. Distention often is visible distention,

> but some authors use it to indicate severe subjective fullness. We

> cannot sort out this variance in the Chinese author's word selection,

> we can merely tell the reader clearly when the book says distention

> and when it says fullness.

>

> Most good practitioners are aware of the flexibility that is required

> to understand Chinese medicine. Many students are expecting a perfect

> package that shows that 1+1=2, but Chinese medicine is not always that

> way. Westerners cannot resolve the irrational or vague aspects of

> traditional theory, we can simply attempt to understand it as

> authentically as possible. This means that we shouldn't get in the

> way by filtering Chinese medical information and making it fit the way

> we think it should fit.

>

[Jason]

Eric,

I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can do is

represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT reflect

the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only common

sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that author's

usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the author

is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected correctly

by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is using

the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term for that

situation or another option is of course footnote the term and keep the

unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator has to do

something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader fend for

themselves..

A perfect example, was the term, ganmao... I.e. I could have just translated

it as 'Common Cold', but as we saw, that would do a disservice to the

original Chinese meaning, and paint an incorrect and limited picture...

Authors use terms differently and since China currently DOES NOT conform to

a standard term base, we can only be flexible to author's varied term

choices, usages, and definitions... Translation is much more than just plug

and play... Finally the Dictionary that you reference, the ZYDCD, is only

one opinion, a major one at that, but as we have seen there are plenty of

instances that authors do not conform to this, especially pre-modern, and

hence therefore to the PD.... Yes we have been through all of this before,

but I think we have seen examples to show that there is another side to this

coin... My 2 cents...

-

February 16, 2005

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

> Eric,

>

> I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can do is

> represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

> disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT

reflect

> the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only common

> sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that author's

> usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the

author

> is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected

correctly

> by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is

using

> the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term for that

> situation or another option is of course footnote the term and keep the

> unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator

has to do

> something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader

fend for

> themselves..

I understand your point, and the languages are very different and it

is hard to draw one-to-one equations between them, especially when

each has its own range of variance. However, in many circumstances,

it is very difficult for the translator to be certain that they

understand the exact nuance that the word is being used in.

For example, many problems that come up when Nigel translates get

sorted out by Feng Ye- his input resolved many problems that arose

when the PD was created. Feng Ye continues to resolve all the

difficult questions we have (as in " are these terms synonymous, what

gradation of intensity is implied, etc " ). So if you are doing any

translation that goes beyond common texts, you really need to work

with a native speaker who is extremely well-educated in CM and you

need to have perfect spoken fluency to be able to understand the

nuances of their explanation. There are many times when clarification

and interpretation needs to happen, but the clarification needs to

come from people who really understand the nuance.

The Western CM community can't be relying on non-native speakers to

take their best guess at an interpretation to for the sake of

transparency. In many examples, how can we be sure that our guess is

correct? We are not native speakers and have not spent twenty years

reading a range of literature, so it is essential to have someone that

the questions can be posed to. Most of the problems that come up are

much more ambiguous or challenging than the gan mao example, so having

a native speaker with a Master's level or higher in CM is essential if

the questions are to be resolved responsibly.

I know how hard it is to confront these problems, so I will never be

convinced that a non-native speaker is qualified to provide

transparency, simply because we cannot assume that they understand the

meaning correctly. A native Chinese speaker must know CM to

understand the nuance, and they must have perfect English to select a

word that approximates the nuance in English. A non-native translator

with twenty years experience in a wide range of texts may be able to

surmise the nuance, and someone with spoken Chinese fluency can get

clarification from their Chinese colleagues. But having new

translators coining their own terms for the sake of transparency

sounds inherently dangerous to me.

I've read interpretative translations by novice translators who didn't

conform to professional translation standards, and it is totally

unintelligible. The English makes perfect sense, but I don't have a

clue what the Chinese original said. The test of a good translation

is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

Felt or Paradigm. You read those books and you are insured of their

authenticity, because as a translator you can read the English and

know word-for-word what the Chinese original said.

I think people do need to make an effort to understand the varied

nuances of terms when they learn TCM English. This is important.

Transparency allows the reader to assume that they understand the

concept, but do they? Are we assured that the translator understood

it correctly? Are we assured that the reader understands it

correctly? The English reader in the CM field must be familiar with

many technical terms and the range of their use. Too many ideas in CM

are foreign, we have no natural equivalents that are capable of

transparency in English.

Transparency has its place, but there are not any basic works in CM

that do not work well with PD terminology. There is no need to make a

materia medica " transparently translated " because every single term

that appears in a drug monograph produced by a authoratitive PRC

publisher conforms to the standard use provided in the ZYDCD and the

PD. More interpretation is necessary for all the quotes from ancient

literature, etc, but the core information requires no transparency.

The basic works of Chinese medicine are very consistent in their use

of terminology. The obscure and historical books have greater

variance, but that is the place for advanced translation teams that

have native speakers of both languages working together to clarify the

ambiguities.

Respectfully,

Eric Brand

February 16, 2005

Typo correction:

The test of a good translation

> is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

> exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

> into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

> like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

> Felt or Paradigm.

That should say: " any of the new books by Bob FLAWS or Paradigm. "

Bob Flaws is extremely prolific. He has produced a wide range of

books on a variety of topics. All of his new books are obviously

authentic CM information, because any translator can read one random

paragraph and know exactly what the original said. To me, that is

much more transparent and defensible than anything else could ever be.

Eric

, " smilinglotus "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > Eric,

> >

> > I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can

do is

> > represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

> > disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT

> reflect

> > the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only

common

> > sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that

author's

> > usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the

> author

> > is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected

> correctly

> > by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is

> using

> > the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term

for that

> > situation or another option is of course footnote the term and

keep the

> > unclear term intact, explaining things. Either way the translator

> has to do

> > something more than just 'stay out of the way' and let the reader

> fend for

> > themselves..

>

> I understand your point, and the languages are very different and it

> is hard to draw one-to-one equations between them, especially when

> each has its own range of variance. However, in many circumstances,

> it is very difficult for the translator to be certain that they

> understand the exact nuance that the word is being used in.

>

> For example, many problems that come up when Nigel translates get

> sorted out by Feng Ye- his input resolved many problems that arose

> when the PD was created. Feng Ye continues to resolve all the

> difficult questions we have (as in " are these terms synonymous, what

> gradation of intensity is implied, etc " ). So if you are doing any

> translation that goes beyond common texts, you really need to work

> with a native speaker who is extremely well-educated in CM and you

> need to have perfect spoken fluency to be able to understand the

> nuances of their explanation. There are many times when clarification

> and interpretation needs to happen, but the clarification needs to

> come from people who really understand the nuance.

>

> The Western CM community can't be relying on non-native speakers to

> take their best guess at an interpretation to for the sake of

> transparency. In many examples, how can we be sure that our guess is

> correct? We are not native speakers and have not spent twenty years

> reading a range of literature, so it is essential to have someone that

> the questions can be posed to. Most of the problems that come up are

> much more ambiguous or challenging than the gan mao example, so having

> a native speaker with a Master's level or higher in CM is essential if

> the questions are to be resolved responsibly.

>

> I know how hard it is to confront these problems, so I will never be

> convinced that a non-native speaker is qualified to provide

> transparency, simply because we cannot assume that they understand the

> meaning correctly. A native Chinese speaker must know CM to

> understand the nuance, and they must have perfect English to select a

> word that approximates the nuance in English. A non-native translator

> with twenty years experience in a wide range of texts may be able to

> surmise the nuance, and someone with spoken Chinese fluency can get

> clarification from their Chinese colleagues. But having new

> translators coining their own terms for the sake of transparency

> sounds inherently dangerous to me.

>

> I've read interpretative translations by novice translators who didn't

> conform to professional translation standards, and it is totally

> unintelligible. The English makes perfect sense, but I don't have a

> clue what the Chinese original said. The test of a good translation

> is " back-translation, " you should be able to read the English and know

> exactly what the Chinese said, you should be able to translate it back

> into Chinese without any loss. This can be easily done with a book

> like Fundamentals of or any of the new books by Bob

> Felt or Paradigm. You read those books and you are insured of their

> authenticity, because as a translator you can read the English and

> know word-for-word what the Chinese original said.

>

> I think people do need to make an effort to understand the varied

> nuances of terms when they learn TCM English. This is important.

> Transparency allows the reader to assume that they understand the

> concept, but do they? Are we assured that the translator understood

> it correctly? Are we assured that the reader understands it

> correctly? The English reader in the CM field must be familiar with

> many technical terms and the range of their use. Too many ideas in CM

> are foreign, we have no natural equivalents that are capable of

> transparency in English.

>

> Transparency has its place, but there are not any basic works in CM

> that do not work well with PD terminology. There is no need to make a

> materia medica " transparently translated " because every single term

> that appears in a drug monograph produced by a authoratitive PRC

> publisher conforms to the standard use provided in the ZYDCD and the

> PD. More interpretation is necessary for all the quotes from ancient

> literature, etc, but the core information requires no transparency.

> The basic works of Chinese medicine are very consistent in their use

> of terminology. The obscure and historical books have greater

> variance, but that is the place for advanced translation teams that

> have native speakers of both languages working together to clarify the

> ambiguities.

>

> Respectfully,

> Eric Brand

February 16, 2005

It should be noted that our CM community is a very tiny piece of the

larger world of translation. Translators have basic standards in all

disciples, and the highest aim of translation is that it should be

possible to " back-translate " the work. Whether it is a newspaper, a

WM text, a biology text, or whatever, the translation should be able

to be converted back to the original language with minimal loss. This

is not something of recent creation, this is just the normal standard

that applies to all academic work in all disciples.

Creating text that can be back-translated is easily done with PD

terminology. Back-translating a work that is not in PD terminology is

much more difficult. If every phrase was glossed (in the PD or a

personal glossary), it could be back-translated no matter which words

were coined. If gan mao is translated as 'contagious disease' and

glossed, and the rest of the book conforms to some traceable standard,

it is a good translation because it could be converted back to the

original Chinese. But if many words are selected for transparency and

left unglossed, it becomes difficult to know what the original said.

These arguments aren't my arguments, they are the basic arguments that

have dominated professional discourse in every field that has crossed

cultures throughout history.

Eric

February 16, 2005

Just for the record I have never suggested that someone, (anyone), should

just pull some term out of the air, 'coin there own terms', or take there

'best guess' and replace a PD term without glossing or footnoting... This I

agree is silly... Furthermore, I also have never suggested that one should

not double check with native speakers on unclear terminology issues... My

point, though, is totally different.

Furthermore, gan mao, is instructive because it shows that even a novice

like me realized that the PD definition and translation was incomplete... I

have polled numerous senior practitioners and translators, and even sent

Nigel an email, which he did not return... I have come to the conclusion

that I am NOT going to use 'common cold'... Now was a native speaker's input

necessary here? Probably not, but of course it always helps, and I agree

with Eric on that. But personally I would never put anything out without

glossing or footnoting such a term. With footnoting it is completely valid

to pick a translation that will be more transparent towards the passage.

That is ONLY what I mean by 'transparency' I AM NOT suggesting that one

should just sub some random word and not make any reference with footnotes

etc...

Also, I am not sure about this 'back-wards' translating idea... Again there

are always going to be times when one CANNOT get back to the original

Chinese even if you use Wiseman Speak. Things are never going to be 100%

backwards translatable... For example, if I say the patient has Fatigue,

which Chinese term am I referring to??? There are of course more than 1

term that equals fatigue, so one is out of luck. [and does it even really

matter because fatigue is transparent anyway right?] Furthermore, a given

author may use the different words for fatigue with slight nuance that is

lost by translating them all as fatigue (hypothetical)... Furthermore

taking the distension example, if the original Chinese is Zhang1 yet the

Chinese author was using it differently than the PD suggests then this

backwards idea is moot. One must always take into consideration all

variables and make the best decisions, accordingly.

I should also remind you that the ganmao example is from 2 mainstream books.

So even in Eric's statement of " ...basic works of Chinese medicine are very

consistent in their use of terminology. " There are always exceptions...

I still say that works like the new MAteria MEdica leave one with a clear

understanding of CM. Bensky is a native writer and has used non-Wiseman

speak to communicate herbs effectively and accurately... I have never had

problem with understanding anything and could always look up anything that

was not clear. I have never seen a valid example where he missed the

meaning due to non-PD terminology...

Eric, you may believe that 'there are no basic works that do not work with

the PD' and I agree with you... Almost everything can be made to work with

the PD (or other systems), especially if you have Nigel's input on issues

that are unclear. But some people just DO NOT like how Nigel's translations

turn out, personal preference. They think the sentences are many times

awkward and cumbersome... I have seen this myself... They opt for other

words... Some believe that the Chinese do NOT use terms the same in every

situation, i.e. ganmao or distension, therefore one must choose words that

are better suited for that situation... I support that freedom... The belief

that the PD style is the only way one can communicate an accurate medicine

IMO is over-zealous. I personally like the Wiseman approach 98% of the

time, so I see that side... But i.e. if I just subbed in common cold for

ganmao it would surely not be the best representation of the CHinese- One

has to think and judge by the context, therefore I also see the other side

and support other's freedom and independence to represent a valid authentic

transmission with their (i.e. Bensky's) method... This is again not to say

that any under the sun can do such a feat... Nuff said for now... This

is sounding all too familiar...

-

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:54 PM

>

> Re: More on " a disorder of qi "

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > Eric,

> >

> > I agree that if the original language is unclear, then all one can do is

> > represent via the PD, what word/ term the Chinese are using... But I

> > disagree that if the original author is using a term that does NOT

> reflect

> > the typical meaning, or the definition in the PD, then it is only common

> > sense to translate the word into a 'better' term that fits that author's

> > usage... This is the strength of transparency.. Ask yourself, if the

> author

> > is using a term, i.e. distension, in a way that is NOT reflected

> correctly

> > by the PD, why would I use that term and mislead the reader, who is

> using

> > the PD, i.e. to get a definition.... I would pick a better term for that

> > situation or another option is of course footnote the term and keep the