Strict Standards: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d211477388/htdocs/chineselanguageforums/viewtopic.php on line 1049

Strict Standards: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /homepages/42/d211477388/htdocs/chineselanguageforums/viewtopic.php on line 1049
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4572: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4574: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4575: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /includes/functions.php on line 4576: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /viewtopic.php:1049)
Chinese Language Forums - Chinese Etymology Institute • View topic - Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby taiwan » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:05 am

The following is an issue discussed at Yahoo!Answers.

Question:
For a few weeks, I have been looking into the issue of learning Chinese as the second language. I have investigated the following issues.

1. Chinese (especially the written) is so damn hard, and this is a universal consensus. There are thousands sites discussing this topic.

2. One young American claimed "Mastering Chinese Written Language in 90 days!"

I have searched the web. I found that site which provides good supporting info for his claim, such as,
a. It was done openly, in front of many newspaper and TV reports.
b. It was reviewed by Taiwan government.
c. It was reviewed by many American universities.
d. I cannot find any negative report on it on web.
e. With the key word "Chinese etymology", it is on the first page on many search engines.


3. Trying to learn that methodology from universities, I cannot find any university which teaches that methodology.

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.

Additional Details:
Jeffrey said, "Just because one person could do it, doesn't mean it's a proven method for the masses. There's other factors, like maybe he was a savant and had perfect memory so that he only had to look at the character once and he could remember the strokes, the meaning and pronunciation."

This was the view of Dr. Chris Golston (Chairman of Linguistics Department, California State University at Fresno). Then, the Provost, Dr. Jeri Echeverria, made apology on that view on the behave of the university. Those documents are available at

http://www.chineseetymology.com/response.php

Jeffrey said, "Did it say how he learned? ... Maybe he doesn't quite know how to explain what his methodology was and the professors don't know how to replicate it."

The key of that claim is all about the methodology which is discussed at

http://www.chinese-etymology.com/exhibite.php



Answers:
From Seeker:
Chinese writing is based on simplify art representation of picture, and combination of those picture. If you find a better way of writing those character, I think people should change it, not stuck in stone age.


From Jeffrey:
Just because one person could do it, doesn't mean it's a proven method for the masses. There's other factors, like maybe he was a savant and had perfect memory so that he only had to look at the character once and he could remember the strokes, the meaning and pronunciation. Did it say how he learned? Did he have a knack for learning other languages? Maybe he doesn't quite know how to explain what his methodology was and the professors don't know how to replicate it.


From Maxijun:
To be honest, Chinese is a one of the most difficult language in the world. But it is not so difficult that you can not learn it! As a native Chinese, I think Chinese can be conquered when you learn it systematically and use it in daily life.


Note: the Yahoo url on this is
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 025AA8jm9H

What is your opinion on this?
Last edited by taiwan on Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
taiwan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:45 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby r.green » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:17 am

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?


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.
r.green
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby Calista » Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:57 pm

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.



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?
Calista
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby kenny » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:00 am

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
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby yijing » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:42 am

I am a Taiwanese with the Chinese as my mother tongue, now 60 years old. I studied Chinese philosophy for 45 years, and my expertise is on Yijing.

I knew the words 見, 看, 睡, 貨, 間, 乎, 最, 鏡 since my third grade. I knew their forms, sounds, meanings and their usages. I knew them as blobs without ever thinking about their internal structures although I did learn about the kangxi leading radcials.

Recently, I discovered Gong’s blog, http://chineselanguageetymology.blogspot.com/ , and learned the followings the first time.
見 (see or seeing) is 目 (eyes) over 儿 (child), Child sees without intention.
看 (looking) is 手 (hand) over 目 (eyes), putting a hand over eye is seeing with intention.
睡 (sleep or sleepy) = 目 (eyes) + 垂 (droop or droopy).
貨 (products, produces) = 化 (transform) + 貝 (treasure), money can be transformed into products.
間 (gap) = 門 (door) over 日 (Sun), there is a gap when seeing Sunlight through the door.

I was never taught these. Not a single my friend (in the entire Taiwan) knows about these. Anyone who says that this is not a new idea knows more than those great Chinese philologists and linguists, such as,

1. 魯 迅 (lǔ xùn, the greatest Chinese linguist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu_Xun ) wrote, 漢 字 不 廢, 中 國 必 亡 (without abandoning Chinese character system, China will surely vanish).

2. 錢 玄 同 (Qian_Xuantong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuantong ), one of the greatest Chinese philologist in 1930s, even promoted the replacement of Chinese with Esperanto.

3. 胡 適 (Hu Shih, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Shih ) and 林 語 堂 (Lin Yu Tang, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Yu_Tang ) agreed with Dr. Northrop that Chinese words are denotative and solitary -- no logical ordering or connection the one with the other.

But, he is lying to the entire world in addition to himself.


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.


They can never run away from their conscience. It will be in their karma.
yijing
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby Calista » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:20 pm

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?
Calista
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:48 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby Tienzen » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:27 pm

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?


Jason’s world record announcement (http://www.chineseetymology.com/2009/10 ... conference ) and the new Chinese etymology were provided to many presidents of American universities. Many reply letters from the presidents of American universities are available at http://www.chineseetymology.com/2009/12 ... iversities

The following is a partial list for those who received the announcement.

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/

Rev. John I. Jenkins, University of Notre Dame
http://www.nd.edu/aboutnd/leadership/co ... n-jenkins/

Dr. Albert K. Karnig, California State University, San Bernardino
http://www.csusb.edu/president/about_the_president.html

Dr. Eric Frank, Occidental College
http://departments.oxy.edu/ahva/arthistory/frank.htm

Dr. Brian King, Cabrillo College
https://babyface.cabrillo.edu/salsa/lis ... taffId=676

Dr. Jamillah Moore, Los Angeles City College
http://www.lacitycollege.edu/president/ ... 0-2-07.pdf

Dr. Paulette J. Perfumo, Pasadena City College
http://www.pasadena.edu/news/newsitem.cfm?ID=1834

Dr. Richard D. McCullough, Saddleback College
http://www.bio.purdue.edu/people/alumni ... llough.htm

Dr. Rita M. Cepeda, San Diego Mesa College
http://www.sdmesa.edu/president/skaters.cfm

Dr. Milton A. Gordon, California State University, Fullerton
http://www.fullerton.edu/president/biography.htm

Dr. James M. Rosser, California State University, Los Angeles
http://www.calstate.edu/administration/ ... sser.shtml

Dr. Joseph Subbiondo, California Institute of Integral Studies
http://www.ciis.edu/About_CIIS/Administration.html

Dr. Robert B. Lawton, S.J., Loyola Marymount University
http://www.sanfran.goarch.org/assets/fl ... onRSVP.pdf

Dr. Dianne F. Harrison, California State University, Monterey Bay
http://president.csumb.edu/

Dr. John D. Welty, California State University, Fresno
http://www.calstate.edu/administration/ ... elty.shtml

Dr. Timothy P. White, University of CA, Riverside
http://chancellor.ucr.edu/
Tienzen
Founder
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:10 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby Calista » Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:42 pm

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/


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.
Calista
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:48 pm

ok

Postby lychorcebtece » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:47 pm

ok
lychorcebtece
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:35 pm
Location: Deutch

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby hantze » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:51 am

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.


As the presidents of the greatest universities on this planet, Dr. Richard C. Levin (Yale University) and Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust (Harvard University) will carry the conscience and karma for the entire academic world on this issue of wrong to the young students.

As a Chinese language teacher over 30 years in Taiwan, I know that Gong’s system is valid. 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.
hantze
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:49 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby taiwan » Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:20 pm

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.



In an address to the Royal Irish Academy, June 30, 2010, Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust said, "Universities nurture the hopes of the world:
in solving challenges that cross borders;
in unlocking and harnessing new knowledge;
in building cultural and political understanding;
and in modeling environments that promote dialogue and debate...
The ideal and breadth of liberal education that embraces the humanities and arts as well as the social and natural sciences is at the core of Harvard’s philosophy."


"Not 誤 人 子 弟 (wrong to the students)" is not a part of the core of Harvard's philosophy. For unlocking and harnessing new knowledge, this is the key. 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
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 1:45 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby optimax » Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:48 am

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.


Very interesting and very true.
optimax
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:33 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby david » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:57 pm

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.
david
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby optimax » Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:39 pm

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.


In the post post239.html#p239 at the thread of “China Study”

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?
optimax
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:33 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby kenny » Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:06 pm

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.
kenny
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby yijing » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:51 pm

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 offered some proofs at the "China Studies" thread. The following is the quote.


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
yijing
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby optimax » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:07 am

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.


Perhaps, no one knows about this forum and this thread.
optimax
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:33 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby Tienzen » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:27 am

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.


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.

1. Dr. Joshua Goldstein (USC), http://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and- ... N=79730509

2. Dr. Mark Bender (OSU), http://ics.osu.edu/ics_faculty.html

3. Dr. Daniel Boucher (Cornell), http://www.lrc.cornell.edu/asian/faculty/bios/boucher

4. Dr. Karina H.Y. CHEN (Upenn), http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/chinese/faculty.html

5. Dr. Steven Carter, Stanford university http://ceas.stanford.edu/people/by_name.php

6. Dr. David Schaberg, UCLA http://www.international.ucla.edu/china/people/


7. Dr. Jane Kuo, University of California, San Diego http://chinesestudies.ucsd.edu/people/

8. Dr. Pieter P. Bottelier, Johns Hopkins university http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/directory/index.htm

9. Dr. Madeleine Yue Dong, University of Washington http://jsis.washington.edu/faculty/yuedong.shtml

10. Dr. James Robson, Harvard University http://rsea.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do? ... page394484

11. Dr. HO Chee Lick, National University of Singapore http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/chs/chinese_language.html

12. Dr. Anthony DeBlasi, University of Albany http://www.albany.edu/eas/faculty.shtml

13. Dr. Susan Daruvala, University of Cambridge http://www.ames.cam.ac.uk/general_info/ ... ruvala.htm


14. Dr Derek Herforth, University of Sydney http://sydney.edu.au/arts/chinese/staff ... orth.shtml

15. Dr. Benjamin Elman, Princeton University http://www.princeton.edu/~classbib/

16. Dr. Mary Anne Cartelli, Hunter College http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/classics/chinese/faculty

17. Dr. Michael Volz, University of Missouri http://chinesestudies.missouri.edu/faculty.html

18. Dr Anna Akasoy, University of Oxford http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/iw/aakasoy.html

19. Dr. Cynthia Chennault, University of Florida http://www.languages.ufl.edu/faculty/chennault.html

20. Dr. Marshall McArthur, University of Houston http://www.uh.edu/class/chinese-mcl/faculty/index.php

21. Dr. Ruth V Gross, NC State University http://fll.chass.ncsu.edu/faculty_staff/rvgross

22. Dr. Huike Wen, Willamette University http://www.willamette.edu/cla/jc/faculty/index.php

23. C. (Chin-hui) Lin, Leiden University http://www.hum.leiden.edu/lias/organisa ... /linc.html

24. Dr. William C. Griffin, Kennesaw State University http://foreignlanguages.hss.kennesaw.ed ... m-griffin/
Tienzen
Founder
 
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 12:10 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby American » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:15 pm

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.
...


Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan governments?
Last edited by American on Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
American
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:32 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby david » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:41 pm

American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan governments?



China is not a democracy and might not be care for the Educators' conscience.
david
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby yijing » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:00 pm

American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan government?


Every Chinese or Taiwanese has a lifetime to learn their mother tongue. Not a single one of them will truly fail. Even the retarded can get a modest proficiency on the verbal Chinese language. Most importantly, no one will drop out with a broken heart, self-esteem badly hurt.

On the other hand, the dropout rate for American kids from the old school Chinese language program after the first year is over 85%, with the self-confidence badly weakened. Those humility and the sense of defeat of those American kids are caused by American educators’ conscience which does not care for their suffering. Of course, they can be excused if there is no better way, or they are not informed about that better way.

Now, there is a proven better way, and they were informed about it. As this post is on the wide open World Wide Web, they are informed by this post too.
yijing
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:13 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby papabear » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:49 am

American wrote:Why are you pounding the Western institutions instead of China and Taiwan governments?


After reviewed Gong’s sites, I have found two points about China on this issue.

First, Gong’s book was highly praised by many presidents of Chinese universities. See those praising letters at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cw2.htm

Second, China has announced a ten year plan in 2010 to reinstall the traditional character system which was damned as being the culprit for the China’s demise in 1960s. There are at least four news clips about this issue, and they are available at http://www.chinese-word-roots.org/cw1.htm If you are new to Chinese language, you can read a similar page in English at http://www.chineseetymology.com/2009/12 ... ethodology

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). As a large nation with 1.35 billion people, she must move this kind of major issue slowly. It took over 30 years for launching the simplified system. It will take a bit of time to undo it too.

China cannot escape from this conscience issue of wrong to her young kids (誤 人 子 弟) after Gong’s system is now known.
papabear
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 7:38 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby kenny » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:09 am

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.


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).”
kenny
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: Is it wrong to the young students? (誤 人 子 弟)!

Postby hantze » Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:14 pm

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).”


You have won your bet.

However, this is not an issue for betting. I am quite confident that all of them will face up to this issue sooner or later. No one can escape from this conscience issue.
hantze
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 12:49 pm


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron