taiwan wrote: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!
Question --- if it is a proven methodology (not negated thus far), why is it not used by educators? Why let the young students keep doing the old way and face the lessons as the damn hard subject.
The key of that claim is all about the methodology which is discussed at
http://www.chinese-etymology.com/exhibite.php
Note: the Yahoo url on this is
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 025AA8jm9H
What is your opinion on this?
r.green wrote:taiwan wrote: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!
Question --- if it is a proven methodology (not negated thus far), why is it not used by educators? Why let the young students keep doing the old way and face the lessons as the damn hard subject.
The key of that claim is all about the methodology which is discussed at
http://www.chinese-etymology.com/exhibite.php
What is your opinion on this?
The world record is solid and sound.
The premises of this new etymology is solid and sound.
Then, those universities are wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
Calista wrote:r.green wrote:
The world record is solid and sound.
The premises of this new etymology is solid and sound.
Then, those universities are wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
If all of them do so, they obvious do not give a damn about Gong's claim. What can they lose? If none, why should they care?
kenny wrote:Calista wrote:r.green wrote:
The world record is solid and sound.
The premises of this new etymology is solid and sound.
Then, those universities are wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
If all of them do so, they obvious do not give a damn about Gong's claim. What can they lose? If none, why should they care?
They have a lot to lose, their honesty, their dignity and their conscience. They better care about the issue of wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
kenny wrote:They have a lot to lose, their honesty, their dignity and their conscience. They better care about the issue of wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
Calista wrote:kenny wrote:They have a lot to lose, their honesty, their dignity and their conscience. They better care about the issue of wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
Is this story widely known by the academic community?
Tienzen wrote:Calista wrote:kenny wrote:They have a lot to lose, their honesty, their dignity and their conscience. They better care about the issue of wrong to their students, 誤 人 子 弟.
Is this story widely known by the academic community?
Many reply letters from the presidents of American universities are available at http://www.chineseetymology.com/2009/12 ... iversities
Dr. Richard C. Levin, Yale University
http://www.yale.edu/about/levin.html
Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University
http://president.harvard.edu/biography/
Dr. Jolene Koester, California State University, Northridge
http://blogs.csun.edu/president/
Calista wrote:Thanks for the info. Many presidents of universities did forward your info to some appropriate departments.
Dr. Richard C. Levin (Yale University) passed the info to his colleagues on October 23, 2008.
Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust (Harvard University) passed the info to the Department of East Asian Language and Civilizations on October 17, 2008.
Dr. Jolene Koester (California State University, Northridge) forwarded the into to the appropriate departments on October 22, 2008.
Is there any following up after those letters? If there is no following up, they will be responsible to their conscience.
hantze wrote:The improvement by Gong’s system is not 50% or 200% but is about 2,400% (from 6 years of humility to 3 months of success and enjoyment). With this kind of revolution, anyone who ignores it will be responsible to carry the conscience and karma for his/her heartless intentional non-action.
taiwan wrote: Every new knowledge sits there as the Mount Everest, blocking all paths for the old and the unworthy which will have no place to go. The true new knowledge will always prevail.
taiwan wrote:hantze wrote:The improvement by Gong’s system is not 50% or 200% but is about 2,400% (from 6 years of humility to 3 months of success and enjoyment). With this kind of revolution, anyone who ignores it will be responsible to carry the conscience and karma for his/her heartless intentional non-action.
"Not 誤 人 子 弟 (wrong to the students)" is not a part of the core of Harvard's philosophy.
david wrote:taiwan wrote:hantze wrote:The improvement by Gong’s system is not 50% or 200% but is about 2,400% (from 6 years of humility to 3 months of success and enjoyment). With this kind of revolution, anyone who ignores it will be responsible to carry the conscience and karma for his/her heartless intentional non-action.
"Not 誤 人 子 弟 (wrong to the students)" is not a part of the core of Harvard's philosophy.
This is a moral issue. Intentionally or knowingly denying students the new knowledge is immoral.
hantze wrote:Any educator who ignores the above facts and wrongs to his students is carrying the karma of shame which is growing daily.
optimax wrote:hantze wrote:Any educator who ignores the above facts and wrongs to his students is carrying the karma of shame which is growing daily.
These are serious charges. Should someone make a rebuttal?
kenny wrote:optimax wrote:These are serious charges. Should someone make a rebuttal?
There are two reasons for not having any rebuttal. No one is able to rebut or the issue is not worthy of any rebuttal.
Someone here must show the true proofs on Gong’s claim for eliminating the second reason above.
hantze wrote:Chinese language is my mother tongue. I am a Chinese language teacher in Taiwan over 30 years. Any Chinese philologist or Western Sinologist in any university does not know more about Chinese language than I do. I can make the following statements about Gong’s system with absolute confidence and pride.
1. Gong’s new Chinese etymology is new.
a. It was never known by any Western sinologists, such as,
Dr. F.S.C. Northrop ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._S._C._Northrop )
Dr. John DeFrancis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_DeFrancis )
Dr. Joseph Needham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham )
b. It was never known by any Chinese philologist, such as,
魯 迅 (lǔ xùn, the greatest Chinese linguist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Xun )
錢 玄 同 (Qian_Xuantong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuantong )
胡 適 (Hu Shih, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Shih )
林 語 堂 (Lin Yu Tang, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Yu_Tang )
c. Most importantly, it is new to me. I was never taught about it all my life until I began to study his work.
2. Gong’s system is valid. The entire framework of his new Chinese Etymology is available at this forum. The url for the thread is the-new-chinese-etymology-f16/the-entire-framework-of-this-new-chinese-etymology-t33.html
Gong’s system presented in the above thread is simply an axiomatic system. And, the validity of his system can be understood by anyone with common sense, without a prerequisite knowledge of Chinese language. Not knowing Chinese language is not an excuse for not being able to determine the validity of his system. Please read the thread “Read the meaning of every Chinese character from its face” at general-discussion/read-the-meaning-of-every-chinese-character-from-its-face-t34.html
3. Gong’s system has revolutionized the language acquisition, changing Chinese written language from the most damn hard subject (with six years humility) to the easiest one to learn in the world (90 days of success and joy). Please read the thread “Why Chinese Is So Damn Hard?” at general-discussion/why-chinese-is-so-damn-hard-t32.html
Please also examine the data and facts about the World Record of learning Chinese written language in 90 days with success and joy from the site at http://www.chineseetymology.com/
4. Gong’s system is not just about Chinese language but is now the foundation for entire linguistics. Please read the “Linguistics Manifesto” (ISBN 978-3-8383-9722-1) at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cwy.htm
The book is available at
amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Manif ... 552&sr=8-3
Barnes & Noble
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Lingui ... +manifesto
Any educator who ignores the above facts and wrongs to his students is carrying the karma of shame which is growing daily. Please read the thread “Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!” at general-discussion/is-it-wrong-to-the-young-students-t36.html
kenny wrote:optimax wrote:hantze wrote:Any educator who ignores the above facts and wrongs to his students is carrying the karma of shame which is growing daily.
These are serious charges. Should someone make a rebuttal?
There are two reasons for not having any rebuttal. No one is able to rebut or the issue is not worthy of any rebuttal.
Someone here must show the true proofs on Gong’s claim for eliminating the second reason above.
optimax wrote:kenny wrote:optimax wrote:These are serious charges. Should someone make a rebuttal?
There are two reasons for not having any rebuttal. No one is able to rebut or the issue is not worthy of any rebuttal.
Someone here must show the true proofs on Gong’s claim for eliminating the second reason above.
Perhaps, no one knows about this forum and this thread.
Tienzen wrote:optimax wrote:kenny wrote:There are two reasons for not having any rebuttal. No one is able to rebut or the issue is not worthy of any rebuttal.
Perhaps, no one knows about this forum and this thread.
The newsletter of this forum sent out an issue “Educators' karma and conscience! Wrong to the young students” to its members. This newsletter is available on web at http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=85f ... acb8425e20
I personally forwarded this article to the following Sinologists.
...
American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan governments?
American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan government?
American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan governments?
papabear wrote:American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan governments?
That is, China is reacting to this conscience issue by having a concrete plan (用 簡 識 繁, writing with simplified while reading with traditional). ...
China cannot escape from this conscience issue of wrong to her young kids (誤 人 子 弟) after Gong’s system is now known.
kenny wrote:Seemingly, there are strong proofs on Gong’s claims. However, I do not think that the Western institutions will care about this issue. Let me make my bet precise.
“Both Dr. Richard C. Levin (Yale University) and Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust (Harvard University) will not care for this educators’ conscience and karma issue, raised on this thread. There will be no action from either one of them on this before the end of this year (December 31, 2011).”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests