wiseman standards

[Guest guest]

How can tonify and sedate even be thought of

as professional terms when they are completely inaccurate to the

professional-level concept?

>>>>>>>Why not if defined?

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

>

> Jason, we've been through this all months ago. Spermatorrhea is used

> in Bensky for 4 different Chinese disease names, which have different

> treatments, different causes, different pathomechanisms, and different

> gradations. This is a simplification. It doesn't expand students

> understanding of theory. It obscures the issue of concretely

> different diseases with concretely different treatments.

 

Eric,

 

Actually we never went through anything, you just told us what you thought

was true and that was it. I never saw any evidence presented (unless I

missed something major, please direct me if I did)... Therefore, I don't

believe it anymore now than I did then. You never demonstrated anything

beyond the statement " Bensky lumps these terms together " and that is that...

It is not as cut and dry as you think. I have just been reading quite a bit

of Chinese sources on the internet and I find adequate support for Bensky's

stance. If you are going to prove to us that what you say is true, I think

you need to show some sources that support this case. But really I think

that this whole stance is just splitting hairs. But let us look further...

 

You originally brought up Huang Bai as 'proof'

 

Here Is what I uncovered:

 

Terms:

1) Wiseman :

yi2jing1 - (Western Medicine) Spermatorrhea; seminal emission

hua2jing1 - seminal efflux

 

Your claim is that Bensky with huang bai has missed the important disease

entity of seminal efflux (hua2jing1).

 

* So first I checked all the MAteria Medicas (MM) I have at home (Chinese)

and looked up huang bai - None mentioned anything except yi2jing1. No

hua2Jing1

* Then I checked online (Chinese) (probably 40+ sites, including a

zhongyaodadian, various huang bai discussions, and basic MM Entries) and

found no reference to hua2jing1.

 

So all references I checked do not acknowledge this differentiation that you

claim, or should I say they ALL just list 1 entity, and that is yi2jing1.

As far as I am concerned Bensky is just representing what he has found in

Chinese. You might not like his term, but hey that is another issue.

 

Now maybe somewhere out there is some obscure MM that mentions hua2jing1,

but this is far from the mainstream, at least for what I have seen. To

parallel: Wiseman in is his definitions has only included the most

important, useful and mainstream information. He has edited out more

obscure entries as well as less valuable definition material.

When one creates a MM one chooses not only what he/she feels most important

but more importantly what the Chinese feel is most important. Bensky has

done this. Until you can supply evidence for your argument I will stick to

what I just uncovered.

 

Furthermore, when one reads definitions of hua2jing (Chinese), it does not

seem to be that great of clinical difference, hence maybe why material

madicas just lump them together. I.e. One source says hua2jing1 is just a

more severe version of yijing - no different treatment principle in

mentioned - So if there is a difference or not, (most) MM's don't seem to

differentiate.

 

>

> You keep telling Marnae that she is missing the point. I think she

> sounds like she knows exactly what she is talking about. You keep

> asking for examples and ignore examples given months ago on the exact

> same topic. It is pointless to try to discuss something with someone

> who doesn't listen to what is being said.

 

Sorry, I am listening, I just have not heard anything convincing enough...

Without pages numbers, Chinese references, or something I can not just take

your word for it...You made the claim, I say the burden of proof is on

you... My preliminary time spent does not support your stance. But don't

get me wrong I am totally open to your side and actually want you to prove

me wrong, then I will learn something quite interesting...

 

Awaiting further info...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

>

> Can you direct me to the latest paper on Paradigm & BP / Wiseman(?)'s

> methodology. Do these publishing houses train their translators in such a

> methodology? is it required to publish with them?

>

> Thanx,

>

> -

>

>

>

I would like to make a second request for this and discuss what this

methodology really means.... For example I have been re-reading some of

Wiseman's papers and it seems to me that the methodology mentioned is about

picking the best term and the theory behind that. I don't really see

anything (yet) discussing his 'translation' methodology)... can someone

help me out...?

 

-

[Guest guest]

" the use of a less frequently used English word makes readers stop and think

before they

jump to unjustified conclusions based on Western ideas or notions associated

with

individual English words... " , an argument which is highly relevant when

discussing the

nuances and subtlies of traditional Chinese medicine. Wiseman's linguistic

choices are not

set in stone, nor does he reject well supported critiques of his choices, but as

he states,

" failure to reflect the concepts and distinctions of the original Chinese,

failure to use terms

consistently, and failure to relate terminological choices to the Chinese

language are

entirely unacceptable because these practices violate the integrity of Chinese

medicine " (Wiseman 1990, p. xlvii)

http://www.sotcm.com/ATTENTIONS.htm (Marnae Ergil)

 

Z'ev, you know this is at the core of the Wiseman tenants. And to Jason: all

this is at the

core, about translation, if there should be one to one correspondence to the

Chinese. And

as was pointed out years ago at the COMP meeting in San Diego a discussion with

hundreds of years of history. In the above statement from Wiseman we see " that

failure to

relate terminological choices to the Chinese language are entirely unacceptable

because

these practices violate the integrity of . " The issue of

Eastland revealing

a secret term list is a bit of a red herring. The whole point, if I understand

the Bensky

writings on this, is that English writings should be fluid, consistant and

understandable to

those in reading in English. In other words except in special cases there

shouldn't need to

be a glossary. (I believe this is called Transparency) If students can't define

Du or Toxin or

whatever, it isn't a problem of vocabulary, only of pedagogy.

So for me, again it comes down to use the Wiseman for translation... be smart

and

consistent with your own writings.

doug

 

 

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> I am sorry, but this is an absurd argument in my mind. No one is

> suggesting that terms be deliberately obscure. A vast majority of

> terms in the PD are not in any sense obscure. Is " defense (PD) " for

> wei more obscure than " protective " ? " Constructive " (PD) for ying

> more obscure than " nutritive " ? It just takes a bit of intellectual

> effort. Of course the PD gives more of a description, it's a

> dictionary, after all. You must have missed the last several months

> of posts by Eric Brand to ask " who is he to define them? " The

> dictionary is a product of a linguist/Chinese scholar, a Chinese

> physician, and quite a bit of consensus.

>

> >

> > If translators want to work back and forth from text to text

> > language to language, fine.

> > Mitchell's Shan Han Lun is great but at what a price, 3 languages!

> > As for me, and with

> > apologies to Marnae, I've learned more about from

> > those texts without

> > the PD: Clavey, Warm Diseases, Cancer Management and yes, the

> > Bensky texts.

>

> One of the purposes of the Mitchell/Wiseman SHL is to teach medical

> Chinese to the reader. It is difficult to present classical texts

> without Chinese, pinyin and English together. That is what makes

> this such a great translation. The other books you mention are

> excellent, but because they lack definitive glossaries, I need to use

> the PD to explain specific terms, by giving the Chinese character,

> pinyin, and choice of English term when I teach from them.

>

>

>

>

> >

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> Friday, July 15, 2005 11:15 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> Z'ev, you know this is at the core of the Wiseman tenants. And to Jason:

> all this is at the

> core, about translation, if there should be one to one correspondence to

> the Chinese. And

> as was pointed out years ago at the COMP meeting in San Diego a discussion

> with

> hundreds of years of history.

 

Doug thanx for the post,

 

This 1 to 1 correspondence is a very intriguing issue to me. For example

everything I have read about Wiseman states this premise. But this is

clearly not reality when Wiseman translates or if one just looks at his

gloss. HE seemingly believes in one of the basic premises of Bensky in that

there are some different usages of the Chinese words that requires not a

pegged term but a slightly different English word.

For example, Wiseman gives a one a one pegged correspondence to the word

xing3 equalling 'rouse', that is it. But based on context he will translate

this same term as arouse, awake (awakening), restore, waking. Most of these

words are synonyms and make sense, but 'restore' has a very different

English connotation and hence a different meaning and actually different

treatment principle when it comes to herbs. Therefore if one just plugged

in the xing3 with arouse one could mislead the reader and miss the clinical

boat.

 

Isn't this saying that the 1 to 1 correspondence just doesn't fit

everywhere? Isn't this exactly what Bensky says? I think Bensky just

thinks it happens more often than Wiseman (If I was to guess)...

 

So when examples come up that don't fit the pegged term for Wiseman the

response is that of course there are times where the term doesn't fit and

one must footnote it. I get that! But all this says to me that there is

just some middle road that people are not letting on about. As much that we

strive for a 1 to 1 correspondence there are going be times that this

doesn't fit. But I get the sense the real battle is about someone else

having their terms out there. Who knows...

 

Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

>

> Z'ev, you know this is at the core of the Wiseman tenants. And to Jason:

> all this is at the

> core, about translation, if there should be one to one correspondence to

> the Chinese. And

> as was pointed out years ago at the COMP meeting in San Diego a discussion

> with

> hundreds of years of history. In the above statement from Wiseman we see

> " that failure to

> relate terminological choices to the Chinese language are entirely

> unacceptable because

> these practices violate the integrity of . " The issue of

> Eastland revealing

> a secret term list is a bit of a red herring. The whole point, if I

> understand the Bensky

> writings on this, is that English writings should be fluid, consistant

> and understandable to

> those in reading in English. In other words except in special cases there

> shouldn't need to

> be a glossary. (I believe this is called Transparency) If students can't

> define Du or Toxin or

> whatever, it isn't a problem of vocabulary, only of pedagogy.

 

Well I wonder how much this is true either (from Bensky that is)...But I

agree that terms like toxin should be glossed and hopefully soon will be...

But I think the real issue is Bensky does not put out translations but books

based on Chinese sources. It really is just comparing apples and oranges.

He explains concepts (or terms) via the text, for better or worse. People

say they want to know what the Chinese say, but there is none, it is not a

translation. But I agree some / most terms could be made clearer with a

better gloss... No argument there...

 

Side note:

 

There must be something to this style because fundamentals (wiseman) has

been around for 15 years(?) But still schools and the National board list

don't seem to adopt this book, I wonder why? I think it is because it is

hard to read and extract information for reasons that you can decide upon.

But other books that came along later have been added in Deadman, even

Deng's Practical DX (Wismenese - The only one I think). Maciocia still

reigns supreme (for better or worse) - I guess we have been through this

before, but I just see it as a testament to communicating CM effectively and

there is not just 1 way... One sacrifices something on either end of the

stick, but hey what about the middle road...

 

-

[Guest guest]

Again, I would suggest people look through this recent book. Even if you

disagree with the

word choices he writes fairly well about the Chinese Language and he sees the

various issues.

On the Standard Nomenclature of Traditional by Xie Zhufan.

Foreign Language Press

http://www.redwingbooks.com/products/books/StaNomTCM.cfm

 

Note that he wrote the Classified Dictionary of TCM in 1994, a little thick blue

book which I

agree is pretty crappy in terms of choices.

doug

[Guest guest]

I'm too busy to start digging through books just to find examples to

humor someone who ignores all the arguments that are made. When I

have leisure, I can find some more stuff and give you page numbers,

etc. I would rather spend my time writing books that preserve the

information and influence the community rather than waste my time

arguing with people who ignore sensible arguments.

 

> Your claim is that Bensky with huang bai has missed the important

disease

> entity of seminal efflux (hua2jing1).

>

> * So first I checked all the MAteria Medicas (MM) I have at home

(Chinese)

> and looked up huang bai - None mentioned anything except yi2jing1. No

> hua2Jing1

 

This is exactly the point. Some drugs treat seminal emission, some

treat seminal efflux, some treat both. Dream emission is different as

well. These different effluxes and emissions of semen have different

causes, treatments, gradations, and pathomechanisms. They are all

lumped into one term- spermatorrhea- by Bensky. He doesn't even offer

spermatorrhea as a technical term, gives no definition, no

distinctions, no explanation for why the Chinese original is less

accurate than his simplified version, not even an explanation for why

he simplifies the concepts and not even a listing in the gloss to

alert the reader that there are 4 types of abnormal seminal discharge

in CM. He just gives a simple WM word so that students think they

have mastered the concept- but then they never have the chance to know

when huang bai is used clinically. If you don't know that a

distinction is made between kidney vacuity seminal efflux and stirring

ministerial fire causing dream emission, you will run the risk of

picking the wrong drugs. Sure, they are all indicated for

" spermatorrhea, " but as you have seen in your investigations of huang

bai, it is never listed for seminal efflux (hua jing), only seminal

emission. It is only indicated for certain types of abnormal sperm

discharge, which are differentiated in CM and Chinese language and

lumped together in Bensky. You are demonstrating my example as though

it somehow proves your point, when in fact it proves just the opposite.

 

Somehow denying that these are clinical concepts by not even giving

the reader the courtesy of a glossary listing is helping the reader to

understand CM better? Does Bensky know Chinese medicine better than

the Chinese? If so, he should go talk to them, because the Chinese,

Japanese, and Koreans all agree that meng yi, yi jing, hua jing, etc

are distinct concepts and terms. Bensky can say that they aren't, but

who is he to say? The top people in the field in Asia have all agreed

on the opposite- they are distinct terms that are clinically and

linguistically different. Even Xie Zhu-Fan and Zhu Jian-Ping's term

lists differentiate these diseases, and those guys have done massive

amounts of term research and are the only other real names in the

terminology field besides Wiseman, unless people who are denying that

CM has technical terminology that should be preserved are counted as

big players. I would rather an author respect my intelligence enough

to give me a non-diluted version and let me decide for myself what

things are similar and which are distinct. I don't want some

middleman simplifying the concepts before I even have the opportunity

to approach the subject and judge for myself.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

>

> > Can you direct me to the latest paper on Paradigm & BP / Wiseman(?)'s

> > methodology. Do these publishing houses train their translators

in such a

> > methodology? is it required to publish with them?

> >

> > Thanx,

> >

> > -

> > >

> I would like to make a second request for this and discuss what this

> methodology really means.... For example I have been re-reading some of

> Wiseman's papers and it seems to me that the methodology mentioned

is about

> picking the best term and the theory behind that. I don't really see

> anything (yet) discussing his 'translation' methodology)... can someone

> help me out...?

>

> -

 

 

There's tons of stuff written on this. I can put up some power points

and essays and stuff onto the site. I am too busy at this minute, but

remind me again if I take a few days and I will direct people to good

things to read. In short, there is a very well-developed methodology,

and authors must be versed in how to translate effectively if they are

to publish with reputable publishers. Paradigm has many in-house

standards which generally follow Nigel's theory. I'm sure Blue Poppy

has standards as well.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Honestly, how did people get this 1 to 1 myth in their head?

Consistency is important, but no one advocates inflexibly equating

words one to one. The word choice is only the same if the meaning is

the same. A different nuance often uses a different word, this

happens all the time. But it is still consistent and traceable. Why

is this so difficult to understand?

 

I feel the frustration that Bob Flaws was referencing a couple months

back when someone starting talking about the communist destruction of

chinese medicine. How can people fail to understand these basic

things? How can they be communicated? Read your books, people!!!!!

No one wants to waste their time dispelling the same silly myths over

and over again.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

 

> But I think the real issue is Bensky does not put out translations

but books

> based on Chinese sources.

 

Don't be silly. Pick up the standard books in Chinese and you will

see that Bensky is essentially a direct translation. Sure, maybe its

a " complilation " to get out of copyright laws, but let's face it, the

TCM info in that book is identical to the Chinese source books. The

only thing that makes it an original work is the degree of extra

research into quality discernment, history, etc. And it must be an

original work because it slips in unjustified, unreferenced, and

unsupported cautions about stuff like ginseng and coffee right in the

middle of the TCM material.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " " <@c...>

wrote:

 

> >

> I would like to make a second request for this and discuss what this

> methodology really means.... For example I have been re-reading some of

> Wiseman's papers and it seems to me that the methodology mentioned is about

> picking the best term and the theory behind that. I don't really see

> anything (yet) discussing his 'translation' methodology)... can someone

> help me out...?

>

> -

 

I am not sure if this is what you mean. the methodology of using single target

terms for

single source terms is broadly accepted in all fields of technical translation,

including as

Marnae mentioned, medical anthropology. There may be multiple standards in some

social sciences, but they all accept the basic principles of target to source

singularity.

Denotative translation is a given in all the sciences and western medicine.

Debates on

translation such as we have here don't even exist in those fields and never

have. When any

other technical field has been translated in the past 50 years or more,

translators in that

field just used the conventionally accepted international methodology that

already existed.

I continue to fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this.

 

It is certainly clear after all these years that any energy devoted to this

topic on my part is

quite futile. Professions that continually infight about structural matters

long settled

worldwide in every other technical field are likely doomed to obsolescence.

That is road

down which we are heading with this and any number of other debates on this list

that

seem to begin with the relativistic premise that any approach is as good as any

other. If

one wanted to seriously understand the foundations of this consensus, start with

website

devoted to technical translation such as those of journals andprofessional

organizations in

the field. I assume that if you wanted someone to have good information about

TCM, you

would not advise them just to figure it out on their own and ignore all of

history and

tradition and research in the process.

 

Wiseman defends this international methodology in a paper stored in the CHA

passwrod

protected files section at

http://f4.grp.fs.com/v1/

QGfZQlHS7eAXGVX9G833C14Kd0fdwqiQB_5IVIQT3psLpqpsIPbos2IxIpu-

reHvptgxT5NzliVQLRWCJxw/IntPrincip.pdf

 

or if that link won't work, then go to the files section at

http://health./

group//files and scroll 2/3 of the way down the page for the

file

named IntPrincip.pdf

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:55 AM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> I'm too busy to start digging through books just to find examples to

> humor someone who ignores all the arguments that are made. When I

> have leisure, I can find some more stuff and give you page numbers,

> etc. I would rather spend my time writing books that preserve the

> information and influence the community rather than waste my time

> arguing with people who ignore sensible arguments.

 

Eric,

 

With all do respect, I have thought much about your argument and just find

it flawed... I have presented why this is so... You only presented the

'idea' that Bensky lumps terms together with no proof. You can bow out

anytime you want, but don't put it on me, I presented a very substantial

reason why your thesis is not true, IMO you have never presented anything.

I think before you make such strong statements you should have already dug

through the books and had your proof, instead of just spouting.

 

 

 

> This is exactly the point. Some drugs treat seminal emission, some

> treat seminal efflux, some treat both. Dream emission is different as

> well.

 

You will need to show this from Chinese, but your huang bai example just

doesn't demonstrate what you say...

 

 

These different effluxes and emissions of semen have different

> causes, treatments, gradations, and pathomechanisms. They are all

> lumped into one term- spermatorrhea- by Bensky. He doesn't even offer

> spermatorrhea as a technical term, gives no definition, no

> distinctions, no explanation for why the Chinese original is less

> accurate than his simplified version, not even an explanation for why

> he simplifies the concepts and not even a listing in the gloss to

> alert the reader that there are 4 types of abnormal seminal discharge

> in CM. He just gives a simple WM word so that students think they

> have mastered the concept- but then they never have the chance to know

> when huang bai is used clinically. If you don't know that a

> distinction is made between kidney vacuity seminal efflux and stirring

> ministerial fire causing dream emission, you will run the risk of

> picking the wrong drugs. Sure, they are all indicated for

> " spermatorrhea, " but as you have seen in your investigations of huang

> bai, it is never listed for seminal efflux (hua jing), only seminal

> emission. It is only indicated for certain types of abnormal sperm

> discharge, which are differentiated in CM and Chinese language and

> lumped together in Bensky. You are demonstrating my example as though

> it somehow proves your point, when in fact it proves just the opposite.

 

Come on, this makes zero sense... Let's look at simple logic... Bensky is

presenting Chinese Material in the form of a material medica. This issue is

not, if the concepts (huajing or yijing) are different or the same, but if

Bensky is presenting what the majority of Chinese Materia Medicas are saying

ACCURATELY. He is presented EXCATLY the way the Chinese present their

Materia Medicas, atleast when I researched haung bai in Chinese. How can

one argue with this. The Chinese DO NOT include huajing and only yijing,

therefore Bensky does the same. Very simple and clear. You will have to

argue with the Chinese on why they just say yijing and not huajing.

 

Think of it this way - If someone did a straight translation of huang bai -

word for word. It would still be the same as what Bensky says, meaning only

yijing (spermatorrhea).

 

I just don't buy your logic at all, and I think your stance towards Bensky

without putting anything substantial down is disrespectful.

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:12 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> Honestly, how did people get this 1 to 1 myth in their head?

> Consistency is important, but no one advocates inflexibly equating

> words one to one. The word choice is only the same if the meaning is

> the same. A different nuance often uses a different word, this

> happens all the time.

 

Exactly, that is obviously my point in the previous post and all along! We

agree!

 

But also my point is that Bensky and Wiseman are not that far off in there

methodology, IMO... But that is yet to be seen until some formal gloss is

released...

 

But I am sure the myth started because Wiseman says things like, " we have

aimed to create a one to one relationship between Chinese Characters and

English words. (Wiseman) " When reading his papers he seems to deemphasize

the plurality and emphasizes the 1 to 1, IMO. Bensky does the opposite...

That is the way I see it...

 

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Saturday, July 16, 2005 12:18 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> , " "

> <@c...> wrote:

>

> > But I think the real issue is Bensky does not put out translations

> but books

> > based on Chinese sources.

>

> Don't be silly. Pick up the standard books in Chinese and you will

> see that Bensky is essentially a direct translation. Sure, maybe its

> a " complilation " to get out of copyright laws, but let's face it, the

> TCM info in that book is identical to the Chinese source books. The

> only thing that makes it an original work is the degree of extra

> research into quality discernment, history, etc.

 

So you are saying that Bensky is essentially just presented what is

identical in the Chinese source books...? IS that right?

 

Well I guess this applies nicely to out huang bai debate/ example... It

further supports my stance that He is just translating exactly what is

written in the Chinese. He just uses spermatorrhea for yijing and huang bai

treats yijing, simple as that...

 

So to spell it out... Eric's job will be to show where Bensky uses

spermatorrhea for another herb where the mainstream Chinese sources equate

'that herb' with treating i.e. huajing not yijing... Then we can say Bensky

is lumping terms together... Then I will buy Eric's stance.

 

 

 

And it must be an

> original work because it slips in unjustified, unreferenced, and

> unsupported cautions about stuff like ginseng and coffee right in the

> middle of the TCM material.

 

I find your jabs towards Dan unwarranted and disrespectful. Your comment

has nothing to do with the discussion. Bensky may have a great source...

and you probably will never know because of the way you approached the issue

from the beginning was IMO disrespectful and he probably had no desire to

answer your questions. Just my opinion though...

 

-

[Guest guest]

I find your jabs towards Dan unwarranted and disrespectful. Your comment

has nothing to do with the discussion. Bensky may have a great source...

and you probably will never know because of the way you approached the issue

from the beginning was IMO disrespectful and he probably had no desire to

answer your questions. Just my opinion though

>>>>>This was probably not Dan but the pharmacologist

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Menometrorrhagia and tachyarrhythmia after using oral and topical ginseng.

AA Kabalak, OB Soyal, A Urfalioglu, F Saracoglu, N . - J Womens Health

(Larchmt), 2004 - ingenta.com

.... The procedure was postponed for 2 weeks so that the patient would stop

taking ginseng,

smoking, and drinking coffee. Arrhythmia stopped 10 days later. .

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>

> On Behalf Of

> I am not sure if this is what you mean. the methodology of using single

> target terms for

> single source terms is broadly accepted in all fields of technical

> translation, including as

> Marnae mentioned, medical anthropology. There may be multiple standards

> in some

> social sciences, but they all accept the basic principles of target to

> source singularity.

> Denotative translation is a given in all the sciences and western

medicine.

> Debates on

> translation such as we have here don't even exist in those fields and

> never have. When any

> other technical field has been translated in the past 50 years or more,

> translators in that

> field just used the conventionally accepted international methodology that

> already existed.

> I continue to fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this.

 

I think one of the arguments in this: Chinese language has gone through

many changes. Modern CM still uses classical books and quotes. One can

almost read any modern passage and it will have some classical reference.

This classical language does have a technical side but also a very poetic

side, which leaves a lot of room for translation. That is my take on it and

think the Chinese generally agree; just look at the reams of commentary on

classical texts. They argue all the time what they really meant by the

various words / terms. It is not that easy... One can liken classical

medical books to as much philosophy & poetry, as medicine. Here are five

translations of the same passage from Chapter 42 of Laozi (Complied by Chip

Chace)

 

" Through a blending of [yin and yang] qi they arrive at a state of harmony. "

(Henriks)

" It is on this blending of breaths [of yin and yang] that their harmony

depends. " (Waley)

" All things are wrapped in yin and contain yang and their pulsing qi's

marry. " (Cheng).

" They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve a state of harmony. "

(Mair)

" Empty qi brings harmony. " (Lafargue)

 

Interesting eh?

 

 

>

> It is certainly clear after all these years that any energy devoted to

> this topic on my part is

> quite futile. Professions that continually infight about structural

> matters long settled

> worldwide in every other technical field are likely doomed to

obsolescence.

> That is road

> down which we are heading with this and any number of other debates on

> this list that

> seem to begin with the relativistic premise that any approach is as good

> as any other. If

> one wanted to seriously understand the foundations of this consensus,

> start with website

> devoted to technical translation such as those of journals andprofessional

> organizations in

> the field. I assume that if you wanted someone to have good information

> about TCM, you

> would not advise them just to figure it out on their own and ignore all of

> history and

> tradition and research in the process.

 

I like what you say, and it makes sense, I will investigate... Do you

have some websites you recommend?

 

-

[Guest guest]

For interaction between coffee and ginseng (Increases stimulation, tachycardia

and hypertension) see

11. European Scientific Cooperative on

 

Phytotherapy (ESCOP). ESCOP Monographs

 

on the Medicinal Uses of Plant

 

Drugs. Exeter, United Kingdom: ESCOP;

 

1997, 1999.

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Herbal medicines and epilepsy: the potential for benefit and adverse effects

M Spinella - Epilepsy Behav, 2001 - ingentaconnect.com

.... cocoa, coffee, tea, maté, guarana, cola or kola) can exacerbate seizures in

people

with epilepsy, especially when taken in combination. Ginkgo and ginseng may

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The Chinese DO NOT include huajing and only yijing,

> therefore Bensky does the same. Very simple and clear. You will

have to

> argue with the Chinese on why they just say yijing and not huajing.

 

They are saying yi jing because they MEAN yi jing, not hua jing.

Huang bai doesn't treat hua jing, that is why it is not stated. When

meds treat hua jing, they are indicated to treat hua jing. Tell me,

what is Bensky's term for hua jing? Does he have one? It's not

published. How do we know what drugs treat hua jing vs yi jing?

These two terms are distinct, you can look them up in any TCM

dictionary, in English or in Chinese.

 

I'm not arguing with the Chinese, the meaning in Chinese is perfectly

clear. It is in the process of transmission into English that things

are being left out.

 

> Think of it this way - If someone did a straight translation of

huang bai -

> word for word. It would still be the same as what Bensky says,

meaning only

> yijing (spermatorrhea).

 

But if huang bai was instead indicated for seminal efflux (hua jing)

instead of seminal emission (yi jing), how could you tell? The English

would be the same. Why should it be necessary to go look up the drug

in a Chinese book just to figure out what kind of spermatorrhea is

being discussed?

 

Spermatorrhea is generally used when translating Western medical

language. Chinese medicine texts that try to turn traditional

concepts into WM lingo end up looking like CAM. Of course, you can

still understand it and learn from it, but it hardly qualifies as a

good translation.

 

> I just don't buy your logic at all, and I think your stance towards

Bensky

> without putting anything substantial down is disrespectful.

 

I respect Bensky and respect his work. He seems to be a nice and

knowledgeable guy, and he has created some vast books that all of us

could keep learning from for a lifetime. My only issue is that I find

it ridiculous to pretend like Chinese medicine has only a few dozen or

a few hundred technical terms and to think that all of a Materia

Medica's terminology problems can be solved by putting 57 terms in the

back of the book.

 

I'd be happy to find more examples once I sit down with a copy of his

book. I need to borrow it from a friend, and I am on the road. I

haven't bothered to buy a $125 book when I can read the exact same

data with greater accuracy in a $3 paperback PRC textbook. So I

apologize for not having the time or patience to deal with the issue

now. Furthermore, I have very little interest in criticizing Bensky's

book. It is a good book with many more positives than negatives. I

am interested in general principles relating to the transmission of

CM, I am not interested in nitpicking minor differences from one

author to the next. Out of all the non-Blue Poppy, non-Paradigm works

(which I prefer for their clarity and accountability), Eastland is

clearly the best. Let's face it, Eastland books are transmitting

clear and authentic TCM. The problem is mass amounts of MSU-ing by

the general community. Big name people defending the notion that

terms are not important perpetuates this fantasy that CM is somehow

this fluffy intuitive process and not the detailed study endeavor that

it truly is.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> For interaction between coffee and ginseng (Increases stimulation,

tachycardia and hypertension) see

> 11. European Scientific Cooperative on

>

> Phytotherapy (ESCOP). ESCOP Monographs

>

> on the Medicinal Uses of Plant

>

> Drugs. Exeter, United Kingdom: ESCOP;

>

> 1997, 1999.

 

 

Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

, " "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> Herbal medicines and epilepsy: the potential for benefit and

adverse effects

> M Spinella - Epilepsy Behav, 2001 - ingentaconnect.com

> ... cocoa, coffee, tea, maté, guarana, cola or kola) can exacerbate

seizures in people

> with epilepsy, especially when taken in combination. Ginkgo and

ginseng may

 

Gingko and ginseng may do what?

[Guest guest]

, " Eric Brand "

<smilinglotus> wrote:

> , " "

> <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > Herbal medicines and epilepsy: the potential for benefit and

> adverse effects

> > M Spinella - Epilepsy Behav, 2001 - ingentaconnect.com

> > ... cocoa, coffee, tea, maté, guarana, cola or kola) can exacerbate

> seizures in people

> > with epilepsy, especially when taken in combination. Ginkgo and

> ginseng may

 

 

This study has nothing to do with the combination of ginseng and coffee.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Eric,

 

I am sorry I do not buy your stance a bit, especially until you supply a

real example; Your huangbai does not pan out, which was your original

attempt... I have further looked up 4 other herbs (in Chinese) that Bensky

says treats spermatorrhea (yijing) and guess what, the Chinese also only use

yijing and NO other 'type' of seminal emission. There is no huajing or

anything else that you claim. They just use 1 term - yijing! Bensky is not

lumping anything, he is just representing exactly what the Chinese say.

Bensky does not need a term for huajing because the Chinese aren't even

using it in their (mainstream) MM's. Now if Bensky was translating a piece

on male disorders he would probably have many more terms like one for hua

jing. You can email him if you like and ask him his preferred term for

huajing. It might be nice since you are putting words in his mouth.

 

You know what you have to do to prove your point...

 

I will wait until you have time, and I stated how, IMO, this can done. I am

OUT until I see tangible evidence. I have done far more researching than I

should have when you came to the table with nothing but talk and no

references...

 

-

 

 

 

 

>

>

> On Behalf Of Eric Brand

> Saturday, July 16, 2005 7:58 PM

>

> Re: wiseman standards

>

> The Chinese DO NOT include huajing and only yijing,

> > therefore Bensky does the same. Very simple and clear. You will

> have to

> > argue with the Chinese on why they just say yijing and not huajing.

>

> They are saying yi jing because they MEAN yi jing, not hua jing.

> Huang bai doesn't treat hua jing, that is why it is not stated. When

> meds treat hua jing, they are indicated to treat hua jing.

 

No you are wrong, when one looks up huajing they will mention huangbai as a

treatment. This just further solidifies the point that there is little

clinical significance between the terms (according to some) and the MM's

choose to represent only yijing, and Bensky follows this...

 

-

 

 

Tell me,

> what is Bensky's term for hua jing? Does he have one? It's not

> published. How do we know what drugs treat hua jing vs yi jing?

> These two terms are distinct, you can look them up in any TCM

> dictionary, in English or in Chinese.

>

> I'm not arguing with the Chinese, the meaning in Chinese is perfectly

> clear. It is in the process of transmission into English that things

> are being left out.

>

> > Think of it this way - If someone did a straight translation of

> huang bai -

> > word for word. It would still be the same as what Bensky says,

> meaning only

> > yijing (spermatorrhea).

>

> But if huang bai was instead indicated for seminal efflux (hua jing)

> instead of seminal emission (yi jing), how could you tell? The English

> would be the same. Why should it be necessary to go look up the drug

> in a Chinese book just to figure out what kind of spermatorrhea is

> being discussed?

>

> Spermatorrhea is generally used when translating Western medical

> language. Chinese medicine texts that try to turn traditional

> concepts into WM lingo end up looking like CAM. Of course, you can

> still understand it and learn from it, but it hardly qualifies as a

> good translation.

>

> > I just don't buy your logic at all, and I think your stance towards

> Bensky

> > without putting anything substantial down is disrespectful.

>

> I respect Bensky and respect his work. He seems to be a nice and

> knowledgeable guy, and he has created some vast books that all of us

> could keep learning from for a lifetime. My only issue is that I find

> it ridiculous to pretend like Chinese medicine has only a few dozen or

> a few hundred technical terms and to think that all of a Materia

> Medica's terminology problems can be solved by putting 57 terms in the

> back of the book.

>

> I'd be happy to find more examples once I sit down with a copy of his

> book. I need to borrow it from a friend, and I am on the road. I

> haven't bothered to buy a $125 book when I can read the exact same

> data with greater accuracy in a $3 paperback PRC textbook. So I

> apologize for not having the time or patience to deal with the issue

> now. Furthermore, I have very little interest in criticizing Bensky's

> book. It is a good book with many more positives than negatives. I

> am interested in general principles relating to the transmission of

> CM, I am not interested in nitpicking minor differences from one

> author to the next. Out of all the non-Blue Poppy, non-Paradigm works

> (which I prefer for their clarity and accountability), Eastland is

> clearly the best. Let's face it, Eastland books are transmitting

> clear and authentic TCM. The problem is mass amounts of MSU-ing by

> the general community. Big name people defending the notion that

> terms are not important perpetuates this fantasy that CM is somehow

> this fluffy intuitive process and not the detailed study endeavor that

> it truly is.

>

> Eric

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>