The Chinese Herb Academy site (CHA) on yahoo-groups has been the venue for a much of what has been said about terminology. The following files were prepared in response to those discussions. The following papers stand-alone and those who wish to review the email debate can access the CHA site archive.

The first paper, which is entitled Westerners’ Alternative Health-Care Values Eclipsing a Wealth of Knowledge, questions certain widely held views about Chinese medicine, namely that Chinese medicine is natural, holistic, caring, non-mechanistic, and even spiritual in nature.

The second paper, entitled Why the Fuss About Terminology? , describes why we need to have a full set of equivalents for English terms that are related to the Chinese, and how failure to attend to terminological needs has led to a loss of information in the translation process.

The third paper, entitled English Translation of Chinese Medical Terms: A Scheme Based on Integrated Principles, is the English version of a paper submitted to a PRC journal. This paper is a synopsis of translation arguments that I have presented before, but it places emphasis on the need for integrated principles, a notion that has been neglected by PRC term translators.

The fourth paper, Against Anti-Terminology , is a critique of approaches to translation in the West and of the assumptions underlying them.