Comments on Nigel Wiseman s A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine(Ⅰ)——On the“Word-for-word”Literal Approach to Translation

Comments were made on the ＂word-for-word＂ literal translation method used by Mr. Nigel Wiseman in A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine. He believes that only literal translation can reflect Chinese medical concepts accurately. The so-called ＂word-for-word＂ translation is actually ＂English-word-for- Chinese-character＂ translation. First, the authors of the dictionary made a list of Single Characters with English Equivalents, and then they gave each character of the medical term an English equivalent according to the list. Finally, they made some minor modifications to make the rendering grammatically smoother. Many English terms thus produced are confusing. The defect of the word-for-word literal translation stems from the erroneous idea that a single character constitutes the basic element of meaning corresponding to the notion of ＂word＂ in English, and the meaning of a disyllabic or polysyllabic Chinese word is the simple addition of the constituent characters. Another big mistake is the negligence of the polysemy of Chinese characters. One or two English equivalents can by no means cover all the various meanings of a single character which is a polysemous monosyllabic word. Various examples were cited from this dictionary to illustrate the mistakes.

Comments on Nigel Wiseman's A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine (Ⅱ) ——On the Use of Western Medical Terms to Express the Concepts of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Mr. Wiseman believes that Western medical terms chosen as equivalents of Chinese medical terms should be the words known to all speakers and not requiring any specialist knowledge or instrumentation to understand or identify, and strictly technical Western medical terms should be avoided regardless of their conceptual conformity to the Chinese terms. Accordingly, many inappropriate Western medical terms are selected as English equivalents by the authors of the Dictionary, and on the other hand, many ready-made appropriate Western medical terms are replaced by loan English terms with the Chinese style of word formation. The experience gained in solving the problems of translating Western medical terms into Chinese when West- ern medicine was first introduced to China is helpful for translating Chinese medical terms into English. However, the authors of the Dictionary adhere to their own opinions, ignoring others＂ experience. The English terms thus created do not reflect the genuine meaning of the Chinese terms, but make the English glossary in chaos. The so-called true face of traditional Chinese revealed by such terms is merely the Chinese custom of word formation and metaphoric rhetoric. In other words, traditional Chinese medicine is not regarded as a system of medicine but merely some Oriental folklore.

Use of Non-Verbal Representations to Define Concept of Pulse Conditions in Traditional Chinese Medicine Standards

The standardization of terms and definitions is fundamental to all activities in the domain of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM).For decades,definitions of TCM terminology relied on conventional verbal representations to differentiate between related concepts.However,the ancient Chinese is obscure and comprises a massive volume of information,making it difficult to convey the definition accurately in other languages.This article proposes a potential solution that the definition for pulse terminology can be supplemented by modern means of non-verbal representation,i.e.,using pulse waveform graphs and parameters to complete the definition of each pulse.A discussion of the challenges of obtaining reliable data is also included.

Research and Analysis on the Origin of the Term“Xinche”in Traditional Chinese Medicine and Its Translation

Translating the terminology of traditional Chinese medicine(Thereafter referred to as TCM)is the core of translating TCM culture.By analyzing the connotation and denotation of the word“Xinche”(心掣)in Huangdi Neijing(Yellow Emperor’s Canon of Medicine),the earliest existing TCM classic,and by comparing different English translations of the term“Xinche,”we hope to provide certain reference for the standardization of TCM terminology and to share some ideas for the translation of TCM classics.

Terminology Standardization in Chinese Medicine： The Perspective from UCLA Center for East-West Medicine（Ⅰ）

INTRODUCTION by Ka-kit Hui, M.D. Because we recognize the clinical, educational, and cultural importance of translation and terminology in Chinese medicine, we feel that it is imperative to understand the perspectives of all concerned parties. This article thus addresses the issue of terminology standardization in English language Chinese medical publications from the point of view of multiple stakeholders in this field at the UCLA Center for East-West Medicine. A great deal of discussion about the issue has arisen among faculty and staff at the Center, prompted especially by my invitation by the World Health Organization （W.H.O.） Western Pacific Region to review the draft document of English terminology standards in Chinese medicine. As the discussion within the Center reflects the wider debates within the field, we would like to address the topic by inviting seven Center staff and faculty, all of whom have been trained as clinicians and teachers rather than translators or linguistic scholars, to formally provide their insights into the matter. Sonya Pritzker, M.S., M.A., L.Ac. will first offer a brief background derived from her presentation at the original Grand Rounds at the Center upon which the current article is based. Staff and faculty from the Center then offer their contributions to the discussion, after which I discuss participants＇ views and conclude by suggesting that a biomedical interface syste in combination with a system of open standards offers a possible solution to the several divergent views brought up by the terminology debates.

Terminology Standardization in Chinese Medicine:The Perspective from UCLA Center for East-West Medicine (Ⅱ)

Center staff and faculty below provide their commentary and perspective on the two major issues （single standards versus plural terms and the basis for standards） comprising the terminology standardization debate as outlined by Sonya Pritzker above. Where most or all members of the discussion agree, that perspective is summarized. Members with distinct or outstanding positions on an issue are offered the opportunity to describe their viewpoint in their own words.