wiseman standards

[Guest guest]

At 02:40 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 AM

> >

> > RE: wiseman standards

> >

> > If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity in

> > the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due to

> > such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where essential

> > qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most people

> > have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency implies

> > on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

>

>I always thought that a major translational Wiseman argument against people

>using common terms is so that people DO NOT get the wrong idea from just

>assuming they understand the term from the 'word'; therefore they have to

>look it up and be precise. Obviously there are many Wiseman words that

>people have no idea what they mean, hence the backlash from some. But the

>response has always been said, just look it up...I agree... but it is the

>same thing here.

>

>Ask 100 people what comes to mind if you say to them " The impaired

>depurative downbearing function of the lung is due to lung vacuity. " Does

>that invoke clarity without a CM dictionary???

 

Or to any practitioner of CM who has taken the time to understand the

technical language of CM.

 

 

>Well maybe to .001% of the

>population that are linguists...

 

 

>Comments?

 

Yes - Did you have to take a Medical Terminology class at the beginning of

your TCM program? Why? So that you could be familiar with the language of

medicine and understand what you were reading when you saw

" Vasoconstriction and vasodilation apparently occur in response to local

humoral condtions, even though the pulmonary circulation in innervated by

the ANS in the same manner as the systemic circulation. "

 

This statement is relatively easy to understand because you have learned

the language of medicine. But to most of the population it would not

be. And, everyone who is trained in the language can understand it without

having to wonder if a term is referring to some other meaning or if a

different term than the normally used one has been used - it is a

technical language. So too, for the most part, is the language of Chinese

medicine.

 

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]

At 02:51 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

 

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:14 PM

> >

> > RE: wiseman standards

> >

> > Jason -

> >

> > One could read this and think that you were arguing for the other

> > side. For, if a book uses a term and gives a bad explanation and the

> > reader of the book misunderstands, then indeed, the problem was with the

> > language!

>

>Yes, or just a bad author / translator who doesn't understand the language

>and communicated things wrong... Yes I agree, but missed the point...

 

 

The point is that there are many, many author/translator's out there who

aren't that great or who don't have sufficient access to the target

language to make their work readable. But, with a commonly accepted,

standardized (yet still flexible) terminology, this will not be a problem.

And, the other point, as I have said before, is that the burden of judging

the quality of work is placed on the uneducated reader, rather than on the

author/translator to come up to certain standards. If the

author/translator is willing to work within certain standards, and to

publish those standards and make them freely available, then it becomes

much easier for the reader to guage the quality of the work - even if they

don't read Chinese and do not care to to.

 

And, quite honestly, I think that is enough. How many times has this

discussion happened on CHA? When there is something real to discuss (i.e.

a published, readily available gloss that is comparable to the PD, with a

clearly stated methodology for the selection of terms, then the discussion

will be interesting. Until then, why bother - there is nothing else other

than PD that meets my standards for translation.

 

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]

Well, I have a problem with the word and I don't want to tell my patients

that I am giving them herbs to sedate them. That is what Paxil or Clonopin

do, not zhen zhu. And I bet that your average student is not able to make

the distinction between what Bensky means by sedate and what their

pre-existing notion of sedation is.

>>>>Except that the word sedate is used in the context of tonify vs sedate.I

thought we are talking about professional terms not patient communication.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

We are - and I don't use the term tonify either! Professionally or with my

patients. Look it up in the dictionary. It doesn't exist.

 

Marnae

 

At 05:03 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

 

>Well, I have a problem with the word and I don't want to tell my patients

>that I am giving them herbs to sedate them. That is what Paxil or Clonopin

>do, not zhen zhu. And I bet that your average student is not able to make

>the distinction between what Bensky means by sedate and what their

>pre-existing notion of sedation is.

> >>>>Except that the word sedate is used in the context of tonify vs

> sedate.I thought we are talking about professional terms not patient

> communication.

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity in

> the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due to

> such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where essential

> qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most people

> have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency implies

> on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought people that work with CM has to learn somewhere what

the term Deficiency means in CM.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Where do they learn that? Is it defined somewhere? Or do they learn it

from their teachers, who may not have really understood it as different in

the first place? Or, who may not have the language skills to define

it. Thus perpetuating an incorrect understanding.

 

Marnae

 

At 05:13 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

>If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity in

> > the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due to

> > such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where essential

> > qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most people

> > have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency implies

> > on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought people that work with CM has to learn somewhere

> what the term Deficiency means in CM.

>

>

>

>

>Oakland, CA 94609

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good example - or that giving " sedating " herbs will cause sedation rather

than drain evil.

>>>>>Where in these books they use the term sedating herbs for draining type

herbs? At the same time, draining herbs are sometimes used for what one would

think of the be using the word sedation. Should the writer than use drain?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Too many students think that putting needles in points when

'sedating' is designed to put them to sleep or numb pain as if they

were giving an anaesthetic.

>>>>>Really? When doing four needle technique and using 2 point with tonifying

technique andn two points with sedation technique does not wake their mind up.

Interesting, what do you guys teach them in class when using these words?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

>

At least they can look it

> up. If they come accross the equivalent in a EP book, they won't find

> it in a gloss, or dictionary to access the pinyin or chinese and they

> would place a layman's understanding of the word " deficiency " in

> " .....lung deficiency " on a medical term and miss the boat for years.

>

Steve,

 

Just to be clear. This discussion is based on the premise that the EP gloss

is available (Go back to the 1st post and a few after that)..Meaning you can

look up the word and get to the PD... That is precisely the point... I agree

if it not available there is a problem and there can be confusion... but I

think you are missing the point of the posts...

 

-

[Guest guest]

On 15/07/2005, at 7:42 AM, wrote:

 

>>

>>

>> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

>>

>>

> At least they can look it

>

>> up. If they come accross the equivalent in a EP book, they won't find

>> it in a gloss, or dictionary to access the pinyin or chinese and they

>> would place a layman's understanding of the word " deficiency " in

>> " .....lung deficiency " on a medical term and miss the boat for years.

>>

>>

> Steve,

>

> Just to be clear. This discussion is based on the premise that the

> EP gloss

> is available (Go back to the 1st post and a few after

> that)..Meaning you can

> look up the word and get to the PD... That is precisely the

> point... I agree

> if it not available there is a problem and there can be

> confusion... but I

> think you are missing the point of the posts...

>

> -

>

 

I am clear on what is being discussed.

 

This discussion is not based on the premise that the EP gloss exists,

that is an area you attempted to divert the thread onto at around 30

messages into the thread.

 

The simple fact is it is NOT available and so it IS a problem and

nobody can say if it is better/worse/same as Wiseman's or if it

contains terms that are simplified or clinically troublesome until it

has been released.

 

Why must we be continually bombarded with question about a thing that

does not exist and be asked to produce endless evidence that it is

not as good as something that does actually exist?

 

Regardless, if we still need the PD to understand this phantom gloss

why not just use the PD terms to begin with?

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

The translation methodology used by Paradigm and Blue Poppy has been

explicitly spelled out for years. Many many papers have been written

about their methodology and their reasons for their methods.

 

The big question is what is Eastland's methodology? There is more to

translation than coming up with a list of terms. There is linguistic

theory, there is an academic foundation from other disciplines to

integrate, there are definitions to be contended with, etc. It isn't

just a matter of using terms consistently.

 

You speak as though Eastland has some established and published

methodology. What is it? Where can we read about it?

 

One camp has been printing articles for decades on how different types

of works should be translated, how to use Language for Specific

Purposes vs Language for General Purposes, comparing translation

approaches with philology, with Western medicine, etc. The other camp

has been saying that there are only a few hundred technical terms

total and that is all we hear from them. If there is a methodology,

present it. If there is a term list, present it. But don't try to

hold an argument without bringing anything of substance to the table.

 

Eric

 

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> >

> > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:35 AM

> >

> > RE: wiseman standards

> >

> > Jason -

> >

> > Until such time as EP makes their glossary and its methodology

public your

> > questions cannot be completely answered.

>

> My first question, we have talked much about methodology, but what

are we

> really talking about? Once the gloss is in place how does EP or BP /

> paradigm/ Wiseman differ in methodology. If one group likes one

word i.e.

> vacuity and the other another i.e. deficiency then this is just a

difference

> in term choice. Could someone explain what they feel the difference in

> methodology is? What does one mean by standardized then? I would

say EP is

> just as standardized (They use the same English word for the Chinese

when it

> is applicable and change it when it doesn't fit) - I would assume

this is

> the same thing that Eric is talking about..... am I missing something?

>

> -Jason

[Guest guest]

Where do they learn that? Is it defined somewhere? Or do they learn it

from their teachers, who may not have really understood it as different in

the first place? Or, who may not have the language skills to define

it. Thus perpetuating an incorrect understanding.

>>>

Marti,

These are good points but in 2005 i would think most teachers have already

learned much of the basic information-terms, and would hope all have read and

studied WT texts and dictionary. And while understanding the different words

used to describe the various uses of various substances is imperative I do not

think it important if one author chooses to say brake stasis disperse mass or

crack stasis or any other such term, as long as there is internal consistency

and correct relation to specific herbs.When using huang lian to drain damp-heat

than one may choose the word drain but when used to treat irritability due to

heart fire i would have no problem using the word sedate by the mechanism of

clearing or draining or whatever word one chooses.

I do see your point regarding backward translation however and to that end

having a standard makes things easier, and perhaps when " translating " works this

would have an advantage. But if the goal is to communicate principles than i

believe clarity within a text is more important than a standard.I think EP warm

disease text is a good example of one of the best books that communicates

clinical Chinese medicine.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Look it up in the dictionary. It doesn't exist.

>>>Is that important? to me its lingo\

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> Slater

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:09 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

>

> On 15/07/2005, at 3:59 AM, wrote:

> > One still has to understand

> > what that means either through the discussion of the book or cross

> > referencing it to the Chinese and further to the PD...

>

> To me this is the issue.........where is it clear what terms Bensky

> is referring to when he says sedate, drain, deficiency etc that you

> have been talking about today? They are not in the glossaries of

> either edition of the MM.

>

> How can we know what pinyin and chinese is of these terms if there is

> not an easy way of looking it up so we can then reference the PD or

> another text? Sure you may know or assume you know what they are

> after long study, but I think the point is that things can't be so

> easily cross-referenced as you keep saying. And if they can't be

> cross-referenced they can't be clearly argued for or against at all.

 

Please listen.. this discussion is a based on the premise that the EP

glossary is public... We are not discussing issues about whether you can

look up a word or not. Please re-read my posts if you are unclear, this was

stated from post #1 and beyond... you are missing the discussion points and

issues...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> Slater

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:20 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

>

> On 15/07/2005, at 4:31 AM, wrote:

> >

> >

> > Well I think until someone finds an example from EP that

> > demonstrates these

> > arguments then these general statements should be taken with a

> > grain of

> > salt... I agree, as well as most people involved in terminology (I

> > would

> > assume), that there are many questionable authors that leave a lot

> > to be

> > desired. And many do oversimplify. But I would like to keep this

> > discussion to its original intention, discussing EP & Wiseman.

> >

> > -

> >

>

> In the past Eric has given examples of EP simplifying types of

> spermatorrhea and concepts of supplementation (which Marnae also did

> today). These are real examples and have not been refuted or

> addressed to the contrary. Perhaps you believe they are not

> clinically important, and you are free to believe that, but I think

> if this were really the case, they would not be so clearly separated

> in chinese. At the very least using more specific subtypes of these

> terms drives us more accurately from signs/symptoms to patterns to

> treatment principle to treatment than does lumping them all together.

 

Steven,

 

I don't think Eric, Marnae, yourself, or anyone else has shown in the new MM

where he lumps terms together... Please give us a page number and reference

and I will investigate.. I have yet to find what people are talking about...

Hey I am just curious, and specifically looking for these type of weaknesses

because I investigating translation from both sides, trying to assess to

pluses and minuses... But without references with some specific example I am

at a loss..

 

But BTW, niao4 jing1 is translated by Wiseman as Spermaturia...

 

-

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the welcome back Z'ev!

I am amazed to see that a whole bunch of regulars are still contributing to the

group, Jason , snakeoil, Alon, and I am sure others will present themselves.

I look forward to contributing again.

Heiko

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

This discussion was inspired by the WHO developments with terminology

and was started by Todd on the 2nd of July. On the 11th July you

asked a hypothetical question regarding the non existant EP gloss

with questions such as :

 

" If EP opens up their gloss to the public does anyone on the list see

any fundamental translation issues with EP's style / terms? If EP

opens up their gloss how is it fundamentally any different that

Wiseman's list? "

 

Perhaps you are the one who should listen; this premise of this

discussion is not based on your questions that appeared over 9 days

after the topic started!

 

Not to mention that your question are illogical as nobody can comment

on something that does not exist.

 

Steve

 

On 15/07/2005, at 8:50 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

>

>>

>>

>> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

>> Slater

>> Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:09 PM

>>

>> Re: wiseman standards

>>

>>

>> On 15/07/2005, at 3:59 AM, wrote:

>>

>>> One still has to understand

>>> what that means either through the discussion of the book or cross

>>> referencing it to the Chinese and further to the PD...

>>>

>>

>> To me this is the issue.........where is it clear what terms Bensky

>> is referring to when he says sedate, drain, deficiency etc that you

>> have been talking about today? They are not in the glossaries of

>> either edition of the MM.

>>

>> How can we know what pinyin and chinese is of these terms if there is

>> not an easy way of looking it up so we can then reference the PD or

>> another text? Sure you may know or assume you know what they are

>> after long study, but I think the point is that things can't be so

>> easily cross-referenced as you keep saying. And if they can't be

>> cross-referenced they can't be clearly argued for or against at all.

>>

>

> Please listen.. this discussion is a based on the premise that the EP

> glossary is public... We are not discussing issues about whether

> you can

> look up a word or not. Please re-read my posts if you are unclear,

> this was

> stated from post #1 and beyond... you are missing the discussion

> points and

> issues...

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> 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]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

>

> Why do you keep asking for evidence of mistakes or simplification

> from EP terminology when the simple fact is that they don't even give

> us the opportunity to know what the original terms are they are

> referring to most of the time?

 

Yes... This is a good point... But as you said previous people have noticed

supposed examples. People are always saying there are... So I ask for them,

simple as that... But my point and question as before is this:

1) We assume the gloss is available

2) Therefore one can reference any term in MM and look it up in the PD

 

What is the problem with this. This is the question. And maybe this can't

be assessed without the gloss... but

 

2nd part - Has anyone noticed any Clinical errors due to not being able to

due this (above)... One reads GHL's book and because of the terminology can

someone show some clinical weakness / error... Like I said previously I

think it is one of the most clinically useful books in print, and personally

never found any issues with it. Actually I don't think I ever did not know

what was being referenced. Very clear... And if the gloss is available then

all the 'jonesers' can look up every word and be happy.... Hope the gloss

comes soon...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:37 PM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> At 02:18 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > >

> > > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > > Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:59 AM

> > >

> > > Re: wiseman standards

> > >

> > > Good example - or that giving " sedating " herbs will cause sedation

> rather

> > > than drain evil.

> > >

> > > marnae

> >

> >Marnae,

> >

> >I am unsure what you are getting at... Are you referring to zhen4 =

> 'settle'

> >(Wiseman) and 'sedate, pacify, suppress, hold down, settle???' (Bensky) -

>

>

> Jason -

>

> Here is the problem - you listed 5 words from Bensky for a single Chinese

> character. Do these all refer to the same word? How does the reader

> know? He/She CAN'T look it up - the glossary supplied is insufficient

> (deficient but not necessarily vacuous). You keep referring to the EP

> gloss but where is it? 57 terms is not enough.

 

Hey we all know we want the gloss, but let's let this go... lets look at the

bigger picture...

 

But yes there are multiple words attributed to 1 Chinese word... Why is this

a problem?. Wiseman does the same thing, Multiple English words for a

Chinese character.. That is one of the major translation points I think made

by EP. There is not a 1 to 1 correspondence and never will be... Authors

use term differently in different situation hence the English must be

different. Wiseman supports this idea!

And this goes both ways, there are multiple Chinese words for a single

English word (in Wiseman's gloss that is) - That is just language...

Therefore this complicates all the fanatic's dream to be able to backwards

translate EVERYTHING! There will never be 100% accuracy because of the

above facts.

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> At 02:18 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

> Jason -

>

> Here is the problem - you listed 5 words from Bensky for a single Chinese

> character. Do these all refer to the same word? How does the reader

> know? He/She CAN'T look it up - the glossary supplied is insufficient

> (deficient but not necessarily vacuous). You keep referring to the EP

> gloss but where is it? 57 terms is not enough.

>

>

> >Same character zhen4... I would say that these herbs definitely can

> sedate

> >someone or settle the spirit...

>

> I don't think that settling the spirit is the same as sedating - have you

> ever been sedated? It can really disturb the spirit.

 

Whatever... this is a sematical 'no win' game. You can like your word and

hate the others.. But the fact remains the clinical picture is presented

accurately and one knows how to prescribe the herb and get results. I do

not have a problem with sedation, and other obviously don't either...

 

>

> >If you don't believe me take 120 grams of

> >zhen zhu (or whatever else) and let me know if you are sedated???

 

Slightly incorrect on my part It was supposed to basically say zhen zhu and

whatever else.. Referring in mind to the Rx I posted a couple of weeks ago,

which was about 180 grams of shells for 2 days. So it is not far off, is

it?

 

 

> Well, I have a problem with the word and I don't want to tell my patients

> that I am giving them herbs to sedate them. That is what Paxil or

> Clonopin

> do, not zhen zhu. And I bet that your average student is not able to make

> the distinction beween what Bensky means by sedate and what their

> pre-existing notion of sedation is.

 

Again the students / teacher fault. That is why there is discussion in

class and in the book explaining exactly what the herb treats and how... If

one wants to believe that the herbs will sedate tremors or settle tremors,

fine... whatever.. But the reality is the clinical usage is intact!

 

>

>

> >Anything outside of the texts and PD are the students / teachers

> >MSUing, I would assume....Can you elaborate?

>

> But why? Because they are reading the books and not getting a full

> understanding.

>

>

> >Again this is a minor semantical issue that I see zero clinical relevance

> >what word you use... The proof is in the condition and the herbs used...

> If

> >one can look up the word and get to the Chinese or PD that is all that

> >matters.

>

> But if you use the wrong herb or the wrong dose because you don't

> understand that they are settling and not sedating

 

How is this going to happen? This is a perfect example where you can prove

your point based on the linguistic nuance that you claim so important. I

don't see any problem and actually never thought about this issue prior and

never had any problems prescribing the herb... Go figure... You are looking

at some nuance you believe inherently important in the word, I am looking at

the whole picture, meaning the paragraph, and herb information on the whole

page... The term becomes alive with its surrounding words and context. One

cannot analyze it individually. This is IMO the typical western way to view

things (due to the western mind) - meaning, to look at things in isolation

and pick it apart. The typical Asian mind will look at things and evaluate

it meaning with the context around... I will stick with the later and be

satisfied...

 

Just as your classmates and teachers (from the same school) all use terms

slightly differently describing the same phenomenon, this also exists in the

HUGE PRC, and has for 2000 years... Language is a flexible entity that will

never be pinned down to 1 book... People conceptualize things differently

(and cultures do also) and therefore use terms slightly differently.. They

mean different things to different people. I think it is arrogant to just

KNOW that this word is just better, when there are great minds that see it

differently. IMO, one should try to see flexibility in this and allow some

wiggle room. I personally see both and have no problem either way...

 

Furthermore, as the premise of this conversation is that there is an EP

Gloss, then one could, in theory, just look up the word and read about it...

Problem solved...

 

-

[Guest guest]

Marnae,

 

I think you are missing the point..

 

If I use the word 'depurate' than one might interpret this as the standard

definition, " to cleanse or purify something, especially by removing toxins "

- This does not fit for CM... You say, but you have to look it up you, this

is a technical term, you shouldn't use what you think it means.. I agree!

But you can't have it both ways, meaning if I use deficiency you cannot

complain if someone misinterprets it based on there preconceived belief

(without looking it up). I say this is a technical term and you should look

it up...

{and for Steven et al, this is under the premise that the EP gloss is open,

and since it isn't¡¤ I will supply you with the pinyin and character

So you have no excuse. (xu1 µõ¡Ë}

 

IMO, unless I am missing something, You are defeating your own stance...

 

-

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:45 PM

>

> RE: wiseman standards

>

> At 02:40 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

>

>

> > >

> > >

> > > On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> > > Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:30 AM

> > >

> > > RE: wiseman standards

> > >

> > > If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up

> vacuity in

> > > the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due

> to

> > > such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where

> essential

> > > qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most

> people

> > > have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency

> implies

> > > on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

> >

> >I always thought that a major translational Wiseman argument against

> people

> >using common terms is so that people DO NOT get the wrong idea from just

> >assuming they understand the term from the 'word'; therefore they have to

> >look it up and be precise. Obviously there are many Wiseman words that

> >people have no idea what they mean, hence the backlash from some. But

> the

> >response has always been said, just look it up...I agree... but it is the

> >same thing here.

> >

> >Ask 100 people what comes to mind if you say to them " The impaired

> >depurative downbearing function of the lung is due to lung vacuity. "

> Does

> >that invoke clarity without a CM dictionary???

>

> Or to any practitioner of CM who has taken the time to understand the

> technical language of CM.

>

>

> >Well maybe to .001% of the

> >population that are linguists...

>

>

> >Comments?

>

> Yes - Did you have to take a Medical Terminology class at the beginning of

> your TCM program? Why? So that you could be familiar with the language

> of

> medicine and understand what you were reading when you saw

> " Vasoconstriction and vasodilation apparently occur in response to local

> humoral condtions, even though the pulmonary circulation in innervated by

> the ANS in the same manner as the systemic circulation. "

>

> This statement is relatively easy to understand because you have learned

> the language of medicine. But to most of the population it would not

> be. And, everyone who is trained in the language can understand it

> without

> having to wonder if a term is referring to some other meaning or if a

> different term than the normally used one has been used - it is a

> technical language. So too, for the most part, is the language of Chinese

> medicine.

>

> 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]

MArnae,

 

 

But the fact is this, tonify is a word that people understand and use

readily in the healing community. Words and word uses evolve and there are

1000's of new words a year... I could care less if it is not in your

dictionary. Do a Google search and see the hits... Oh but the word google

probably didn't exist 15 years ago... hhhmmm.. Language is a fluid evolving

creature and I feel you are looking at things quite pedantically.

 

Wait a second check it out - first hit on google.. wow a definition of

tonify

" (BU sounds like " boo " ) 1: repair; 2: supply, fill; 3: nourish; 4: benefit.

In TCM it is therapy to reinforce or strengthen deficiency Qi energy "

 

I guess it does exist!

 

But as a side bar: What does 'outthrust' mean from the dictionary?? Does

that word exist as Wiseman uses it, no? Knife cuts both ways...

 

-

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:06 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> We are - and I don't use the term tonify either! Professionally or with

> my

> patients. Look it up in the dictionary. It doesn't exist.

>

> Marnae

>

> At 05:03 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

>

> >Well, I have a problem with the word and I don't want to tell my patients

> >that I am giving them herbs to sedate them. That is what Paxil or

> Clonopin

> >do, not zhen zhu. And I bet that your average student is not able to

> make

> >the distinction between what Bensky means by sedate and what their

> >pre-existing notion of sedation is.

> > >>>>Except that the word sedate is used in the context of tonify vs

> > sedate.I thought we are talking about professional terms not patient

> > communication.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Oakland, CA 94609

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Marnae Ergil

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:19 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> Where do they learn that? Is it defined somewhere? Or do they learn it

> from their teachers, who may not have really understood it as different in

> the first place? Or, who may not have the language skills to define

> it. Thus perpetuating an incorrect understanding.

>

Yeah you are right, all those Chinese that taught me were wrong and didn't

understand anything because they used the term deficiency... come on... I

see no clinically difference!

 

-

 

 

> Marnae

>

> At 05:13 PM 7/14/2005, you wrote:

> >If you wish to use the term deficiency / vacuity - then look up vacuity

> in

> > > the PD (pg 645). " weakness of right qi...Vacuity patterns may be due

> to

> > > such causes as a weak constitution, damage to right qi ...where

> essential

> > > qi is despoliated, there is vacuity. " I do not think that most

> people

> > > have this idea come to mind when they say deficiency - deficiency

> implies

> > > on " not enough " , not weakness or damage.

> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I thought people that work with CM has to learn somewhere

> > what the term Deficiency means in CM.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >Oakland, CA 94609

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> Slater

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:08 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

>

> On 15/07/2005, at 7:42 AM, wrote:

>

> >>

> >>

> >> On Behalf Of Dr Steven J

> >>

> >>

> > At least they can look it

> >

> >> up. If they come accross the equivalent in a EP book, they won't find

> >> it in a gloss, or dictionary to access the pinyin or chinese and they

> >> would place a layman's understanding of the word " deficiency " in

> >> " .....lung deficiency " on a medical term and miss the boat for years.

> >>

> >>

> > Steve,

> >

> > Just to be clear. This discussion is based on the premise that the

> > EP gloss

> > is available (Go back to the 1st post and a few after

> > that)..Meaning you can

> > look up the word and get to the PD... That is precisely the

> > point... I agree

> > if it not available there is a problem and there can be

> > confusion... but I

> > think you are missing the point of the posts...

> >

> > -

> >

>

> I am clear on what is being discussed.

>

> This discussion is not based on the premise that the EP gloss exists,

> that is an area you attempted to divert the thread onto at around 30

> messages into the thread.

 

Steven you can go back to the beginning of my question (Because I started

this current debate...) and I started with that premise... I did not change

the heading because the heading fit, but this whole slew of msg.'s started

with that premise you can check it out...

 

 

 

>

> The simple fact is it is NOT available and so it IS a problem and

> nobody can say if it is better/worse/same as Wiseman's or if it

> contains terms that are simplified or clinically troublesome until it

> has been released.

>

> Why must we be continually bombarded with question about a thing that

> does not exist and be asked to produce endless evidence that it is

> not as good as something that does actually exist?

 

Well you missed the real question that is what happened... you just want to

hear what you want to hear and say 'hey it doesn't exist' - whatever...

there was at one point some important issues and as soon as they got hairy

people started whining, but it doesn't exist we can't look anything up -

obviously - , so we can't answer anything... It didn't stop people in the

beginning and for sometime before saying things like Bensky is simplifying

terms... can you have it both ways - you can go back and look if you like...

 

>

> Regardless, if we still need the PD to understand this phantom gloss

> why not just use the PD terms to begin with?

 

Exactly the point and my original question.. If the EP is released what is

the objection to having two systems... and what is the problem with having

the student, when they come into contact with a word, i.e. in the new MM

that they don't understand, then looking it up in the PD to understand it...

this is the process that WOULD happen, and I.E.... One reads deficiency,

looks it up and sees xu1 then reads about it in the PD... IS that inherently

different than reading vacuity and looking it up in the PD? Again my term

is better than your term arguments aside! The reason for not JUST using the

PD term, to begin with, is style, flexibility, possible more accuracy in

some situations, choice, and possibilities. I am all about multiple

choices, not 1 dictatorship. And if the EP gloss is released I have yet to

see any argument that suggests this to be a problem...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:09 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> The translation methodology used by Paradigm and Blue Poppy has been

> explicitly spelled out for years. Many many papers have been written

> about their methodology and their reasons for their methods.

>

> The big question is what is Eastland's methodology? There is more to

> translation than coming up with a list of terms. There is linguistic

> theory, there is an academic foundation from other disciplines to

> integrate, there are definitions to be contended with, etc. It isn't

> just a matter of using terms consistently.

>

> You speak as though Eastland has some established and published

> methodology. What is it? Where can we read about it?

>

> One camp has been printing articles for decades on how different types

> of works should be translated, how to use Language for Specific

> Purposes vs Language for General Purposes, comparing translation

> approaches with philology, with Western medicine, etc. The other camp

> has been saying that there are only a few hundred technical terms

> total and that is all we hear from them. If there is a methodology,

> present it. If there is a term list, present it.

 

I am unsure who this is directed to ??.. surely not me... I have nothing to

do with EP nor their methodology... I am as curious as you...

 

-