Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have just finished my first reading of Classical Chinese Medical Texts by Richard Goodman (I think I will have to read it more than once). Every once in a while, a book comes along that changes my orientation toward Chinese medicine. Dr. Goodman's text, more than anything that has come out in the last 10 years or so, has led to insights about the medicine I would have not had otherwise. I'm curious if other people have worked with this book and their thoughts on some of the potentially controversial things the author brings up both in the book and on his blog. For example, he hints that the terminology debate has outgrown its usefulness. He seems to hold definitions of characters in English much more lightly than other books I have seen, preferring to rely on more on the Chinese character itself over a rigid definition of it in English. Additionally, he pushes for a complete paradigm shift in the way that people approach the language, including less reliance on translation and more reliance on understanding not just the characters, but how they appear in context. while he praises just a couple of translations, he has called many of them more damaging to the field than helpful (he doesn't name names, but doesn't leave much to the imagination either). I agree with his overall sentiment, and will go even further to say that some of the translations we have seen have actually pushed people away from reading classical texts. I hope this book will change this for the betterment of our profession. All in all, I think this book is going to be very beneficial to the field. I have felt invigorated for further study, and hope to dialogue with others who are using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have worked with this text as well. I recommend it be used alongside or before Paul Unschuld's text, " Chinese Life Sciences " , which has a larger selection of classical Chinese medical texts with glossaries to work with. I have to disagree with Richard on one major point here. While for the individual reader it is very important to have a contextual knowledge of medical Chinese language, when it comes to textbooks, dictionaries and clinical reports, a clear, concise terminology is indispensable. Otherwise, practitioners will become bogged down in incomprehensibility of translation. This is nowhere more clear than in communicating pulse diagnoses. Pegging terms down to English (and Pinyin) equivalents is necessary in order to develop a clear English language terminology for our fledgling profession, where unfortunately few are proficient in Asian languages. Then if writers/translators/ readers feel different English term equivalents suit them better, they can choose by comparing with a standardized terminology. This is simply par for any professional or academic endeavor. On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:08 AM, d_munez wrote: > > > I have just finished my first reading of Classical Chinese Medical > Texts by Richard Goodman (I think I will have to read it more than > once). Every once in a while, a book comes along that changes my > orientation toward Chinese medicine. Dr. Goodman's text, more than > anything that has come out in the last 10 years or so, has led to > insights about the medicine I would have not had otherwise. > > I'm curious if other people have worked with this book and their > thoughts on some of the potentially controversial things the author > brings up both in the book and on his blog. For example, he hints > that the terminology debate has outgrown its usefulness. He seems to > hold definitions of characters in English much more lightly than > other books I have seen, preferring to rely on more on the Chinese > character itself over a rigid definition of it in English. > > Additionally, he pushes for a complete paradigm shift in the way > that people approach the language, including less reliance on > translation and more reliance on understanding not just the > characters, but how they appear in context. while he praises just a > couple of translations, he has called many of them more damaging to > the field than helpful (he doesn't name names, but doesn't leave > much to the imagination either). I agree with his overall sentiment, > and will go even further to say that some of the translations we > have seen have actually pushed people away from reading classical > texts. I hope this book will change this for the betterment of our > profession. > > All in all, I think this book is going to be very beneficial to the > field. I have felt invigorated for further study, and hope to > dialogue with others who are using it. > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hi Z'ev, I think what Richard said is in line with what you have just said. In the into he says " Those who are interested in learning to read classical Chinese need not focus on details of how individual characters are rendered into English...On the other hand, a standard terminology such as the one developed by Wiseman is helpful to those who will never study classical Chinese medical texts. " From what I gather, he is saying that if you can read the Chinese, the English terminology is not as important. I was saying that if the paradigm moves to everyone learning Chinese, the need for a terminology becomes lessened. I'm not sure if Goodman would agree or not. I read all of Unschuld's books, and I like his work, but I was very disappointed with the book you reference. I tried to use it when it came out. Unschuld assembled a very interesting group of texts, yet as a former language teacher, I find he makes some huge errors: he ignores grammar throughout, does not explain any sentences, provides no examples, and includes far too many vocabulary words per section. It's an interesting read, but I find it a very poor language tool. After using Goodman's book, Unchuld's does become more approachable. Best, D. Munez Chinese Medicine , <zrosenbe wrote: > > I have worked with this text as well. I recommend it be used > alongside or before Paul Unschuld's text, " Chinese Life Sciences " , > which has a larger selection of classical Chinese medical texts with > glossaries to work with. > > I have to disagree with Richard on one major point here. While for > the individual reader it is very important to have a contextual > knowledge of medical Chinese language, when it comes to textbooks, > dictionaries and clinical reports, a clear, concise terminology is > indispensable. Otherwise, practitioners will become bogged down in > incomprehensibility of translation. This is nowhere more clear than > in communicating pulse diagnoses. Pegging terms down to English (and > Pinyin) equivalents is necessary in order to develop a clear English > language terminology for our fledgling profession, where unfortunately > few are proficient in Asian languages. Then if writers/translators/ > readers feel different English term equivalents suit them better, they > can choose by comparing with a standardized terminology. This is > simply par for any professional or academic endeavor. > > > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:08 AM, d_munez wrote: > > > > > > > I have just finished my first reading of Classical Chinese Medical > > Texts by Richard Goodman (I think I will have to read it more than > > once). Every once in a while, a book comes along that changes my > > orientation toward Chinese medicine. Dr. Goodman's text, more than > > anything that has come out in the last 10 years or so, has led to > > insights about the medicine I would have not had otherwise. > > > > I'm curious if other people have worked with this book and their > > thoughts on some of the potentially controversial things the author > > brings up both in the book and on his blog. For example, he hints > > that the terminology debate has outgrown its usefulness. He seems to > > hold definitions of characters in English much more lightly than > > other books I have seen, preferring to rely on more on the Chinese > > character itself over a rigid definition of it in English. > > > > Additionally, he pushes for a complete paradigm shift in the way > > that people approach the language, including less reliance on > > translation and more reliance on understanding not just the > > characters, but how they appear in context. while he praises just a > > couple of translations, he has called many of them more damaging to > > the field than helpful (he doesn't name names, but doesn't leave > > much to the imagination either). I agree with his overall sentiment, > > and will go even further to say that some of the translations we > > have seen have actually pushed people away from reading classical > > texts. I hope this book will change this for the betterment of our > > profession. > > > > All in all, I think this book is going to be very beneficial to the > > field. I have felt invigorated for further study, and hope to > > dialogue with others who are using it. > > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Paul put out other books that focus on grammar. He assumes the reader has studied the grammar elsewhere, such as in his " How to Read Chinese " . Have you looked through his " Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen " dictionary? On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:00 PM, d_munez wrote: > > > Hi Z'ev, > I think what Richard said is in line with what you have just said. > In the into he says " Those who are interested in learning to read > classical Chinese need not focus on details of how individual > characters are rendered into English...On the other hand, a standard > terminology such as the one developed by Wiseman is helpful to those > who will never study classical Chinese medical texts. " From what I > gather, he is saying that if you can read the Chinese, the English > terminology is not as important. I was saying that if the paradigm > moves to everyone learning Chinese, the need for a terminology > becomes lessened. I'm not sure if Goodman would agree or not. > > I read all of Unschuld's books, and I like his work, but I was very > disappointed with the book you reference. I tried to use it when it > came out. Unschuld assembled a very interesting group of texts, yet > as a former language teacher, I find he makes some huge errors: he > ignores grammar throughout, does not explain any sentences, provides > no examples, and includes far too many vocabulary words per section. > It's an interesting read, but I find it a very poor language tool. > After using Goodman's book, Unchuld's does become more approachable. > > Best, > D. Munez > > Chinese Medicine , > <zrosenbe wrote: > > > > I have worked with this text as well. I recommend it be used > > alongside or before Paul Unschuld's text, " Chinese Life Sciences " , > > which has a larger selection of classical Chinese medical texts with > > glossaries to work with. > > > > I have to disagree with Richard on one major point here. While for > > the individual reader it is very important to have a contextual > > knowledge of medical Chinese language, when it comes to textbooks, > > dictionaries and clinical reports, a clear, concise terminology is > > indispensable. Otherwise, practitioners will become bogged down in > > incomprehensibility of translation. This is nowhere more clear than > > in communicating pulse diagnoses. Pegging terms down to English (and > > Pinyin) equivalents is necessary in order to develop a clear English > > language terminology for our fledgling profession, where > unfortunately > > few are proficient in Asian languages. Then if writers/translators/ > > readers feel different English term equivalents suit them better, > they > > can choose by comparing with a standardized terminology. This is > > simply par for any professional or academic endeavor. > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 12:08 AM, d_munez wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I have just finished my first reading of Classical Chinese Medical > > > Texts by Richard Goodman (I think I will have to read it more than > > > once). Every once in a while, a book comes along that changes my > > > orientation toward Chinese medicine. Dr. Goodman's text, more than > > > anything that has come out in the last 10 years or so, has led to > > > insights about the medicine I would have not had otherwise. > > > > > > I'm curious if other people have worked with this book and their > > > thoughts on some of the potentially controversial things the > author > > > brings up both in the book and on his blog. For example, he hints > > > that the terminology debate has outgrown its usefulness. He > seems to > > > hold definitions of characters in English much more lightly than > > > other books I have seen, preferring to rely on more on the Chinese > > > character itself over a rigid definition of it in English. > > > > > > Additionally, he pushes for a complete paradigm shift in the way > > > that people approach the language, including less reliance on > > > translation and more reliance on understanding not just the > > > characters, but how they appear in context. while he praises > just a > > > couple of translations, he has called many of them more damaging > to > > > the field than helpful (he doesn't name names, but doesn't leave > > > much to the imagination either). I agree with his overall > sentiment, > > > and will go even further to say that some of the translations we > > > have seen have actually pushed people away from reading classical > > > texts. I hope this book will change this for the betterment of our > > > profession. > > > > > > All in all, I think this book is going to be very beneficial to > the > > > field. I have felt invigorated for further study, and hope to > > > dialogue with others who are using it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Hi Z'ev, I want to keep this all very positive. What I like about Goodman's book is that everything is presented in way that conforms with the most up to date research on learning to read a foreign language. I have been involved in second language acquisition for over 20 years, and Goodman uses great care to adhere to those principles. He builds the grammar very purposefully. I have no idea how he was able to select texts that reinforce the new vocabulary, while also introducing a perfect amount of new vocabulary. As someone who has edited many language textbooks, I have seen that most authors can't even write materials themselves in a way that adheres to language acquisition principles. I think I am slightly more impressed with the book because I see the underlying principles at work. Not too much, not too little, and in perfect order. As far as putting together a language teaching textbook goes, Goodman's book is pure genius. I have not yet seen Unschuld's new dictionary, but I have heard good things. I am a big fan of his earlier book on the Nei Jing, and believe that every first year student should read History of Ideas. The How to Read Chinese series, in my opinion, does not compare in any way to Goodman's book. That series teaches modern texts-the grammar simply does not transfer. If people read that book and expect to understand the grammar in " Chinese Life Sciences " , they will be disappointed. I won't comment further on his methodology in that book, since I do not believe the books have a similar purpose. I won't say more on a forum because I respect Unschuld's work in the History of Medicine so much. I think this is where he shines. I will say I'm glad that Goodman has come along and provided a much needed resource for classical Chinese medical language. Best, David Chinese Medicine , <zrosenbe wrote: > > Paul put out other books that focus on grammar. He assumes the reader > has studied the grammar elsewhere, such as in his " How to Read Chinese " . > > Have you looked through his " Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen " dictionary? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2009 Report Share Posted April 22, 2009 Dr. Munez, Don't get me wrong, I really like Goodman's book, and have been enjoying it immensely. And I agree that the " Learn to Read Chinese " is only useful for modern texts. In fact, I found (and find) modern CM texts much more difficult to read than classical ones. There are fewer compound terms in the classical texts, and a much more succinct style. However, as you and I know, different eras in Chinese history used terminology in a different manner, so that one often needs glossaries/dictionaries aimed at a specific era, such as Han, Sung, Tang, etc. I can't explain it, but I enjoy tackling/reading classical Chinese medical texts much more than modern ones. I find the more 'poetic' language of the classical literature sits with me better. . . On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:30 PM, d_munez wrote: > > > Hi Z'ev, > I want to keep this all very positive. What I like about Goodman's > book is that everything is presented in way that conforms with the > most up to date research on learning to read a foreign language. I > have been involved in second language acquisition for over 20 years, > and Goodman uses great care to adhere to those principles. He builds > the grammar very purposefully. I have no idea how he was able to > select texts that reinforce the new vocabulary, while also > introducing a perfect amount of new vocabulary. As someone who has > edited many language textbooks, I have seen that most authors can't > even write materials themselves in a way that adheres to language > acquisition principles. I think I am slightly more impressed with > the book because I see the underlying principles at work. Not too > much, not too little, and in perfect order. As far as putting > together a language teaching textbook goes, Goodman's book is pure > genius. > > I have not yet seen Unschuld's new dictionary, but I have heard good > things. I am a big fan of his earlier book on the Nei Jing, and > believe that every first year student should read History of Ideas. > The How to Read Chinese series, in my opinion, does not compare in > any way to Goodman's book. That series teaches modern texts-the > grammar simply does not transfer. If people read that book and > expect to understand the grammar in " Chinese Life Sciences " , they > will be disappointed. I won't comment further on his methodology in > that book, since I do not believe the books have a similar purpose. > > I won't say more on a forum because I respect Unschuld's work in the > History of Medicine so much. I think this is where he shines. I will > say I'm glad that Goodman has come along and provided a much needed > resource for classical Chinese medical language. > Best, > David > > Chinese Medicine , > <zrosenbe wrote: > > > > Paul put out other books that focus on grammar. He assumes the > reader > > has studied the grammar elsewhere, such as in his " How to Read > Chinese " . > > > > Have you looked through his " Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen " dictionary? > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 Hi Z'ev, I like reading classical Chinese much better too. The beauty and the simplicity makes for beautiful writing. I have not found modern texts that are written in a very beautiful way-it seems the modern language does not allow for poetic writing. I have also found that it takes more than just language skills to read a classical text-one also needs historical knowledge and knowledge of other classics that may be referred to indirectly (when the author just assumes his readers have read all of Chinese literature up to that point and they will get the reference). I love studying the language because it keeps things fresh for me. There is always something new to ponder. I hope more books like this come out, and apparently Goodman is planning for at least three volumes. I'm wondering if the schools will start incorporating a book like this one. It seems to me (though I am not a teacher at a school) that this book would fit in perfectly with the language programs some of the schools are developing. I wish I had a book like this in my first year, instead of my 15th. Chinese Medicine , <zrosenbe wrote: > > Dr. Munez, > Don't get me wrong, I really like Goodman's book, and have been > enjoying it immensely. And I agree that the " Learn to Read Chinese " > is only useful for modern texts. In fact, I found (and find) modern > CM texts much more difficult to read than classical ones. There are > fewer compound terms in the classical texts, and a much more succinct > style. However, as you and I know, different eras in Chinese history > used terminology in a different manner, so that one often needs > glossaries/dictionaries aimed at a specific era, such as Han, Sung, > Tang, etc. > > I can't explain it, but I enjoy tackling/reading classical Chinese > medical texts much more than modern ones. I find the more 'poetic' > language of the classical literature sits with me better. . . > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:30 PM, d_munez wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2009 Report Share Posted April 23, 2009 D. Munez, We are using the Goodman text in the doctorate program at Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, and I recommend it to my students in my Shang Han Lun course. Of course, the Mitchell/Wiseman/Ye translation of the Shang Han Lun is also a great tool for learning medical Chinese, because of its relative simplicity of language and the layout of the text (Chinese character/pinyin/English/glossary/commentary). I agree that the poetry of classical Chinese medicine is something I am very attracted to and find missing in a lot of modern work, which tends to be very dry and didactic. I know I am generalizing here, but so be it. . On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:09 PM, d_munez wrote: > > > Hi Z'ev, > I like reading classical Chinese much better too. The beauty and the > simplicity makes for beautiful writing. I have not found modern > texts that are written in a very beautiful way-it seems the modern > language does not allow for poetic writing. I have also found that > it takes more than just language skills to read a classical text-one > also needs historical knowledge and knowledge of other classics that > may be referred to indirectly (when the author just assumes his > readers have read all of Chinese literature up to that point and > they will get the reference). > I love studying the language because it keeps things fresh for me. > There is always something new to ponder. I hope more books like this > come out, and apparently Goodman is planning for at least three > volumes. > I'm wondering if the schools will start incorporating a book like > this one. It seems to me (though I am not a teacher at a school) > that this book would fit in perfectly with the language programs > some of the schools are developing. I wish I had a book like this in > my first year, instead of my 15th. > > Chinese Medicine , > <zrosenbe wrote: > > > > Dr. Munez, > > Don't get me wrong, I really like Goodman's book, and have been > > enjoying it immensely. And I agree that the " Learn to Read Chinese " > > is only useful for modern texts. In fact, I found (and find) modern > > CM texts much more difficult to read than classical ones. There are > > fewer compound terms in the classical texts, and a much more > succinct > > style. However, as you and I know, different eras in Chinese history > > used terminology in a different manner, so that one often needs > > glossaries/dictionaries aimed at a specific era, such as Han, Sung, > > Tang, etc. > > > > I can't explain it, but I enjoy tackling/reading classical Chinese > > medical texts much more than modern ones. I find the more 'poetic' > > language of the classical literature sits with me better. . . > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:30 PM, d_munez wrote: > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I received a question by email for more information about Goodman's book, and looking back at my post, I noticed I didn't even mention the title. I will give Classical Chinese Medical Texts (http://tinyurl.com/classchinmedtexts) its due here. I highly recommend buying this book. I used to be very satisfied with my knowledge, and CCMT has opened up a whole new world. Now I have access to the classics, which has changed the way I understand the medicine. Goodman does an excellent job on every level. Each chapter introduces the perfect amount of vocabulary, never too much and never too little. He selected texts brilliantly for a book like this. They are interesting, challenging enough to keep readers learning, but not so difficult that the reader gives up. Everything is explained clearly, from vocabulary to grammar. Although I have finished reading it, I find myself going back to it over and over to reference the grammar notes. This book makes attempting to read Chinese texts much easier. By Ch. 8 (if I remember correctly) you can read an entire chapter of the Nan Jing. To top it all off, the author is very approachable. If you have a question, you can email him. He's very eager to help people in any way he can. He lives in Taipei, so you probably won't be able to schedule lunch:) I cannot recommend that you buy and use this book enough. I used to be very satisfied with my knowledge, and this book has opened up a whole new world. I was getting quite bored with Chinese medicine (my responsibility), and I'm excited once again to be learning on a whole new level. If you're ready to take the leap, get this book! Hope you all enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.