[grim humor] Disgusting ad of the day
Edward Lipsett /t
The subway was entirely postered in ads from Tohato, a manufacturer of
snacks and cookies. Hanging in front of the door was a two-panel ad
featuring a line of seafood-flavor snacks (ebi and stuff), and across the
top it read
シー
おいSEA
シー
たのSEA
What a great way to teach pronunciation, I thought to myself!
----------
Edward Lipsett, Intercom, Ltd.
translation€@intercomltd.com
Publishing: http://www.kurodahan.com
Translation & layout: http://www.intercomltd.com
David J. Littleboy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
シー
おいSEA
シー
たのSEA
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sheesh. I can tell I only slept 3 hours last night: it took me an age to get
it.
> What a great way to teach pronunciation, I thought to myself!
Don't you mean _mispronunciation_???
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Tom Donahue
> シー
> おいSEA
That reminds me of my favorite cover from The Basic (aka ザ・ベ) , which
was a magazine for hobbyist programmers. Around the time when everyone
was making the transition from Basic or Turbo Pascal to C言語, they
did a special on C with the subtitles
たのC
のぞまC
うらやまC
--
Tom Donahue
Ginstrom IT Solutions (GITS)
> That reminds me of my favorite cover from The Basic (aka ザ・ベ)
> , which was a magazine for hobbyist programmers. Around the
> time when everyone was making the transition from Basic or
> Turbo Pascal to C言語, they did a special on C with the subtitles
Japanese playing on English aren't the only ones to get in on the act.
There's a restaurant in my village named おいシーサー, with a picture of a
シーサー.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B7%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC
Regards,
Ryan
--
Ryan Ginstrom
trans...@ginstrom.com
http://ginstrom.com/
William Taylor
>
> Japanese playing on English aren't the only ones to get in on the act.
> There's a restaurant in my village named おいシーサー, with a picture of a
> シーサー.
Regards,
William Taylor
Krzysztof Łesyk
unfortunately quite popular (にんKEY?). What can you do - SHOWがないね (ugh,
that was painful to write).
I wonder if one day the company releases an ultimate snack: "Let's W(ダブ
ル) おいSEA" ;)
Anyway, just so I'm at least a bit on topic - you think this is bad
for teaching (mis)pronunciation? Yesterday I saw a fragment of a show
on NHK in which children were made to write an English sentence as
they hear it _in katakana_ and then a serious announcer voice would
read it, so that viewers can decide if it's close enough (presumably).
It was absolutely atrocious - I could suffer through it only for
approximately 15 seconds before I turned the TV off and went to buy
some ice cream (just changing the channel seemed inadequate at the
time).
All right, enough venting - if everyone here spoke perfect English I'd
have to look for another job, so I can only complain so much.
よろSEAく,
Krzysztof
Takehiko Ito
それで E のだ。
Takehiko
Marc Adler
> それで E のだ。
The difference is, this is actually funny.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Matt Stanton
> for teaching (mis)pronunciation? Yesterday I saw a fragment of a show
> on NHK in which children were made to write an English sentence as
> they hear it _in katakana_ and then a serious announcer voice would
> read it, so that viewers can decide if it's close enough (presumably).
> It was absolutely atrocious - I could suffer through it only for
> approximately 15 seconds before I turned the TV off and went to buy
> some ice cream (just changing the channel seemed inadequate at the
> time).
>
> All right, enough venting - if everyone here spoke perfect English I'd
> have to look for another job, so I can only complain so much.
>
> よろSEAく,
> Krzysztof
you had, you probably would have understood the point of it. You'd
also remember what actually happens on the program.
What actually happens is that an NES announcer reads a question, like
"What's your favorite food?", and the three children write it down in
katakana as they hear it. They then take turns to read what they wrote
to a famous NES guest. The winner is the kid whose question is
understood. While it still relies on katakana, it's very useful
because it shows them and the children watching the dangers of using
katakanaized English words as is. The kid who understands the meaning
of the question and writes down "food" as フード may not be understood
when reading it to the guest later, while the kid who just tried to
write down what he heard, i.e. フー, will often be understood perfectly.
It's a fun, easy way of getting kids to think about what English
actually sounds like.
Matt
Shinya Suzuki
> おいSEA
Can ordinary Japanese pronounce C/SEE/SEA correctly?
Isn't おいSHE closer to おいしい?
Related joke:
Approaching an empty seat in a crowded movie theater, a Japanese guy
asked people nearby:
"May I s**t here?"
Dasoku:
NESs have problems too, like distinguishing in pronunciation between
kawaii
and kowai, basu and busu, etc.
These are from: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4896846788
Shin-ya, not Sin-ya <sigh>
Krzysztof Łesyk
<snip>
> It's a fun, easy way of getting kids to think about what English
> actually sounds like.
seems, to me it's still very, very wrong. There's a reason why I don't
try to use hangul to write down Polish words and have never tried
expressing English sounds using devanagari - those scripts are just
not well suited for that. Most languages already have writing systems
that express all sounds of that language pretty well - why trying to
fit a square peg in a round hole by using other ones?
Let's face it - katakana is useless in expressing sounds of _any_
language _except_ Japanese. I don't care if anyone writes フード or フー
when they hear "food" - both options are wrong, because Japanese フ is
bilabial and English "F" isn't. Sounds nitpicky, yes, but it is a
problem - how do you differentiate between "food" and "hood" in
katakana? And what about words like "they", "think" or even "apple"?
No matter how hard you try, there is _no_ way to pronounce them
properly when they're written in katakana...
Yes, in Japan my views are considered extreme, but since I'm not a
native English speaker, I know what it means to learn English and I'm
a living proof that you can do it using its native script - I NEVER
used phonetic Polish transcription to learn English (and I graduated
from romaji when learning Japanese in about 2 weeks, for that matter -
that's how long it took me to learn hiragana and katakana).
Anyway, this group is probably not the right place to rant about how
much I hate katakana as a tool to teach/learn English, so I'll end
this now - they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions,
and from your description it sounds like that program is a perfect
example of that...
Alan Siegrist
> NESs have problems too, like distinguishing in pronunciation between
> kawaii and kowai, basu and busu, etc.
>
> These are from: http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4896846788
I tachi-yomied a little from the book, and it was hilarious! Thanks for the
pointer!
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Marc Adler
> Allow me to disagree with you here. Or rather, as fun and easy as it
> seems, to me it's still very, very wrong. There's a reason why I don't
> try to use hangul to write down Polish words and have never tried
> expressing English sounds using devanagari - those scripts are just
> not well suited for that. Most languages already have writing systems
> that express all sounds of that language pretty well - why trying to
> fit a square peg in a round hole by using other ones?
But if you were Korean, starting with hangul to write Polish would
make sense. You have to start somewhere. Most people don't like
learning languages and don't have an inclination for it, so you have
to take things in small steps. Designing language-teaching methods to
fit the best learners is going to fail the rest. Your purist approach
would be a total failure for 90% of the population.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
David Farnsworth
Written languages are codes, and are NOT necessarily suited to one language
over another. English happens to use the Roman system, but that is only
because the ancestors of the English people happened to fall under Latin
influence, NOT because Roman letters are better suited to their spoken
Germanic language. And the Latin is just an adaptation from Greek, and
before that Pheonician. Nothing to do with suitability to spoken Latin at
all.
Theoretically, ANY written language can be used to write down any spoken
language.
For an extreme example, large portions of Buddhist sutras in Japan are
transcriptions of Indian words spelled out in Chinese kanji. This can be a
royal pain for translators of Japanese (or Chinese) into English, but it is
certainly not an impossible task, once the translator realizes what is going
on.
Japan is a great example of this, using kanji, hiragana, katakana, and now
romaji to spell out Japanese words. None of these are perfectly suited to
the original, pristine Japanese spoken language. But so what? All are just
practical adaptations anyway...
David Farnsworth @ Offering my own rant on the history of written language
Tigard OR 97224
Karen Sandness
Marc Adler
> Theoretically, ANY written language can be used to write down any spoken
> language.
My favorite example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao%27erjing
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Nora Stevens Heath
> Another student told the class 趣味はすりです, again providing
> my assistant with the laugh of the day. It was a great object lesson
> in the difference between す and つ, which a lot of English-speakers
> have trouble hearing, much less producing.
The が行, pronounced palatally so が is closer to "nga" than "gha", can
also be tricky. I admit it tripped me up when I was transcribing lyrics
by ear back in the day.
In my Berlitz training class, I had to teach a fellow (Spanish)
instructor some simple phrases in Japanese without using English. We
did the whole お元気ですか？ routine, but when it came time for her to
repeat おかげさまで, she instead said オカマさまで. The other Japanese
speaker in the class fell off his chair laughing. She tried again:
お亀さまで？ We called it a day.
Nora
--
Nora Stevens Heath <no...@fumizuki.com>
J-E translations: http://www.fumizuki.com/
Kirill Sereda
fail the rest.
guy in the classroom determine the speed at which everyone has to move is
very PC, but it has been ruining American education. I say, if you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen -- and let others cook. At least that
was the policy when I studied Chinese at ??.
k
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc Adler
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:29 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Marc Adler
> I am with Krzysztof on that. The American tradition of letting the dumbest
> guy in the classroom determine the speed at which everyone has to move is
> very PC, but it has been ruining American education. I say, if you can't
> stand the heat, get out of the kitchen -- and let others cook. At least that
> was the policy when I studied Chinese at ??.
Yeah, but that's the opposite of the position I took. I never said it
should be designed for the dumbest person in class. (Although I doubt
language ability is correlated with intelligence--I, for example, am
remarkably stupid, but can read a newspaper in about 7 languages.) All
I said was it shouldn't be designed for the most adept language
learner, which is basically what Krzysztof was arguing.
Why not the middle? Design it for the median learner. I don't know how
you can argue against that.
That said, I agree that American language courses in college are
designed for the laziest person in class, but it's not because of PC.
It's because, unlike in a lot of European programs, in US colleges,
you can choose which courses to take irrespective of your major.
Languages which are perceived as difficult have a particularly hard
time, because people will take them for a week, and drop the course.
In order to ensure their own sonzoku, those depts have to make sure no
one (including the lazy guy) drops the class. Hence, dumbing down.
Nothing to do with PC, everything to do with allocation of funds.
An illuminating story: when I was in Russia (St. Petersburg) for my
year abroad, I met a student in the Chinese department at the
university (of St. P). He told me they learned some crazy number of
characters in the first two years (3000 or something). I asked him if
people ever dropped out. He said that no, "because dropping out of the
program would mean dropping out of the university." They couldn't
choose _any_ of their courses! The curriculum was decided by the
department, and everyone took the same classes in the same order (and
with the same people). To this American, it sounded crazy, like
kindergarten or something, but when you think about it, leaving a
curriculum up to the student is kind of insane, since, by definition,
the student doesn't know anything about the field.
Anyway, with that kind of setup, you can teach students 1500
characters a year, because their other option is dropping out.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Matt Stanton
"water" for example. All British people can understand it when an
American says it, even though they pronounce the t like a d or or an r
(waada, waara). For us, that's just an American accent - not a wrong
pronunciation. Similarly, I've come to feel that "shii" for sea is
just a Japanese accent. Most English speakers can understand it just
fine when it's used in context. I think you should chill out. Just
because you learned English in this way or that way, it doesn't mean
everyone else has to.
Matt
Derek Lin
>
> Why not the middle? Design it for the median learner. I don't know how
> you can argue against that.
>
Handbooks by The Japan Foundation（国際交流基金）for teachers teaching
Japanese as a foreign language suggest pitching at a level
"ちょうど真ん中よりちょっと上". I believe it's so most of the class receive just the
right amount of challenge. (You don't pitch it right at the middle
because then they get complacent.)
Derek
Marc Adler
> Handbooks by The Japan Foundation（国際交流基金）for teachers teaching
> Japanese as a foreign language suggest pitching at a level
> "ちょうど真ん中よりちょっと上". I believe it's so most of the class receive just the
> right amount of challenge. (You don't pitch it right at the middle
> because then they get complacent.)
Makes perfect sense. (Told ya I was dumb.)
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Kirill Sereda
easy.
mathematical/musical talent. I think it must be related to some kind of core
"structural" intelligence, from which other structure-based types of
intelligence spring.
languages.
course, economic concerns are the most important underlying factor in the
adopted educational style.
years (3000 or something).
the first year.
out of the program would mean dropping out of the university."
(remember Sean Scot from American Pie?) so they dropped him out, but he very
easily returned the next year and graduated just one year later. The other
one simply had no "language ability", at least no ability for memorizing
graphical shapes. He dropped out after a titanic struggle with those 3,000
chars and there were rumours that he had to be hospitalized for a mental
disorder. Funny thing, I did not know what happened to him later, until one
day I met him at the Tretiakov gallery explaining something about Rublev
icons to a crowd of Chinese diplomats. Yes, he was "with the Foreign
Ministry now", as he proudly explained.
>>The curriculum was decided by the department, and everyone took the same
classes in the same order (and with the same people).
started my Japanese as a second Asian language in my second year. With that
system, the ones willing to learn, could learn anything _in addition_ to the
main program. And the results were not so bad.
k
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc Adler
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:40 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Kirill Sereda
labor, passio in Latin, always associated with nasty "kitchen heat".
pls
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM, David Farnsworth <dfa...@value.net> wrote:
>
>> Theoretically, ANY written language can be used to write down any spoken
>> language.
>
> My favorite example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao%27erjing
That's a nice example, Marc, but not of what David asserted. :-)
But let's not try to be logical when talking about language. ;-)
Regards: Hendrik
--
pls
> Just because you learned English in this way or that way,
> it doesn't mean everyone else has to.
Wise words! Just keep in mind, please that Krzysztof did not say what
you caution against - he pointed out that kana is unsuitable for
English, and he is right.
Regards: Hendrik
--
Alan Siegrist
> >> Theoretically, ANY written language can be used to write down any
> >> spoken language.
Marc Adler replied:
> > My favorite example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao%27erjing
And Hendrik writes:
> That's a nice example, Marc, but not of what David asserted. :-)
I am sorry, but I don't follow you. This is clearly an example of using one
script (Arabic) to write a completely different language (Mandarin Chinese).
I think it very clearly corroborates David's assertion. If the Arabic script
can be used to write Chinese as in this case, then this seems to imply that
there is no limit as to the possible combinations of script and language.
I am no linguist, but David's assertion appears to be true on the face of
it, assuming that the script is modified as needed to take care of the
idiosyncrasies of the spoken language that must be reflected in the script.
Even the Latin (Roman) alphabet has been considerably modified to be able to
write English.
And Hendrik further writes:
> Krzysztof did not say what you caution against - he pointed out that kana
> is unsuitable for English, and he is right.
I believe that kana could be suitable as a script for writing English, were
it to be suitably modified. I have in fact seen efforts to modify the
straight kana (mostly katakana) so as to more closely reflect the
pronunciation of English and other languages. Naturally, as with any of
these sorts of borrowing of scripts, the reader and writer must be aware of
the nuances of the other language that the modified script is intended to
convey.
pls
> I am sorry, but I don't follow you. This is clearly an example of using one
> script (Arabic) to write a completely different language (Mandarin Chinese).
Modified Arabic...
> I think it very clearly corroborates David's assertion. If the Arabic script
> can be used to write Chinese as in this case, then this seems to imply that
> there is no limit as to the possible combinations of script and language.
and
> I am no linguist, but David's assertion appears to be true on the
> face of it
What you can prove with the example is that that Arabic script, if
sufficiently modified, is suitable to represent Chinese - it does not
prove (not even support) David's generalized assertion.
, assuming that the script is modified as needed to take care of the
> idiosyncrasies of the spoken language that must be reflected in the script.
Roger...
> Even the Latin (Roman) alphabet has been considerably modified to be able to
> write English.
Roger...
> I believe that kana could be suitable as a script for writing English, were
> it to be suitably modified.
Quite right... it _could_ be, given _substantial_ modifications... :-)
Regards: Hendrik @ anything can be done with sufficient modification
--
David Farnsworth
>
> Regards: Hendrik @ anything can be done with sufficient modification
>
Which thereby shows that katakana is perfectly suitable for rendering any
other language... Just tweak it enough...
Besides, anybody who thinks that the Latin alphabet is perfectly suited to
language should just remember how badly people misspell in our language (and
probably French, too). Our alphabet is a hodge-podge that has extreme
difficulty deciding what letters correspond to which sounds, so that English
transliteration of Asian texts are completely different from French
transliterations. It suffices (but just barely)...
In other words, I stand by my theory...
The idea that any writing system can stand for any spoken language hit me
while I was studying at UC Berkeley grad school over a decade ago. The
Classical Chinese professor there was showing how British placenames might
have evolved from Roman times to now if they had been written in kanji,
instead of the Latin alphabet. A fascinating exercise...
But I happen to know of many instances of languages written in unusual
scripts. There is a text circa 4th C BC found in Egypt. It is written in
Hieratic script, but when it was deciphered, it was plainly Hebrew, not
Egyptian. Another, sillier, example is the Deseret alphabet, invented in
Utah in the 1850s, to write in English. I have seen examples of it, having
grown up in that state. (No, I never bothered to learn it...)
David Farnsworth
Tigard OR 97224
pls
> [...] katakana is perfectly suitable for rendering any
On that note i am comfortable agreeing to agree with your theory.
That is to say, it's easy to agree on the above as long as we make the
modification part clear in any such discussion and not simply use
words like "katakana" as if they meant what most people think they
mean... ;-)
Regards: Hendrik @ happy to use words any possible way, as long as we
define them...
--
Marc Adler
> On that note i am comfortable agreeing to agree with your theory.
>
> That is to say, it's easy to agree on the above as long as we make the
> modification part clear in any such discussion and not simply use
> words like "katakana" as if they meant what most people think they
> mean... ;-)
"Most people"? I don't think anyone else in this discussion would
think that "modification" is some big exception we need to clearly
state at the beginning, because a little bit of common sense will show
you that there are no unmodified writing systems. The kana are
modified kanji. The kanji themselves are modified (look at the
original ones). The Roman alphabet is modified Greek is modified
Phoenician, etc. etc. etc., and today the Roman alphabet has been
modified to suit West European languages and even some Asian
languages.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Manako Ihaya
When I landed in the US of A a monolingual Japanese girl of 11, it took me a while to figure out that the word 「グロー」 I was hearing in katakana was actually supposed to be 「ガール」that I had learned in Japan as meaning 女の子. That's when I realized that the katakana English I knew had no relevance whatsoever with real English being spoken. I guess I was lucky I hadn't been polluted with English being taught in Japanese schools at that point, and went on to learn real English by ear.
I also realized later that the Meiji-era Japanese rendering of English words like メリケン (as in メリケン粉) instead of the modern rendering of アメリカン and ラムネ instead of レモネード was much more faithful to the way English really sounded.
Wonder why the modern-day katakana rendering is so out of touch with the way the English words really sound (it's more or less a ローマ字 pronunciation of the English words, I think).
FWIW,
Manako
--
Manako Ihaya (aka Monica)
ATA-Certified Japanese-English Translator
Lake Forest, California
JimBreen
> Even the Latin (Roman) alphabet has been considerably modified to be able to
> write English.
original
version (nabbed from the Etruscans) didn't quite work, e.g. C had to
do
for both voiced and unvoiced until someone added a diacritic mark and
invented the G. Y and Z were pinched from the Greeks a few centuries
later. Claudius tried to introduce some more letters to fill in gaps.
Come to think of it, probably every script that wasn't specifically
designed for a language, e.g. hangul, has needed modification.
Cheers
Jim
David Farnsworth
----- Original Message -----
From: "JimBreen" <jimb...@gmail.com>
To: "Honyaku E<>J translation list" <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
> Come to think of it, probably every script that wasn't specifically
> designed for a language, e.g. hangul, has needed modification.
>
And hangul needs modification, too, to compensate for drift in the Korean
language since the 15th century...
David Farnsworth
Alan Siegrist
> Come to think of it, probably every script that wasn't specifically
> designed for a language, e.g. hangul, has needed modification.
I think you are quite right about that. In fact, even hangul is not complete
in and of itself, since it has required the addition of hanja (漢字) in
order to disambiguate Korean personal names.
Krzysztof Łesyk
Let me just post more of my thoughts then, in response to some ideas
here.
I believe that the fact that you CAN do something doesn't necessarily
make it right or optimal. Just to give you an exaggerated example,
it's definitely possible to learn to play table tennis using a frying
pan (especially a modified one), a slipper or a book. The question is,
why would you do it if there's a better, more convenient tool for
that? Sure, you CAN approximate English using katakana, hangul and
possibly hieroglyphs, but why?
When learning languages, I always ask myself - why do I want to learn?
Other people may have different answers, but mine is "so I can
interact with people speaking that language, so I can read books
written in it, so I can understand TV programs and songs". Now, going
back to my analogy, if you are comfortable in your frying pan table
tennis club and don't want to interact with other players, it's fine
to use your tool and customize it as you like. But if your objective
is to win a gold medal in an international championship, you'll have
to use the equipment that everyone else uses - even if you like your
frying pan, even if it's easier and more fun to play that way and even
if you're pretty good with it.
What I'm getting at is this: no (or very few) English books are
written in katakana. Very few people have Japanese "katakana" accent
when they speak English. You won't hear it very often when watching
BBC or CNN. In that case, what is the point of learning it in the
first place? Wouldn't it perhaps be smarter to learn how to read and
write English using its own script from the start, without artificial
crutches like katakana? Wouldn't it be smarter to use native teaching
materials, books and tapes? Oxford, Longman, Collins - you name it,
the choices are endless.
To reiterate my point, I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE to use katakana
for English - I just think it's wrong and it does more harm than good.
On an academic level we sure can argue that writing Chinese in Arabic
is great, we can devise ways to express Cantonese using kipu and talk
about historical changes in latin script. These are all really
interesting topics and I do enjoy talking/reading about them. Still,
if we want to learn a language to really USE it and not just to talk
about it, we should probably try to find an optimal way to do it,
which katakana isn't by any stretch of imagination.
And that's about it (in so many words) - like I said before, I realize
my views can be seen as extreme, but based on anecdotal evidence,
Japanese people who refuse to use katakana in their learning process
speak, read and write English better than ones who don't and that's
what matters to me (again, this claim is based on a group of people I
know personally, it's not scientific and I haven't seen any research
on this topic).
Alan Siegrist
> To reiterate my point, I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE to use katakana
> for English - I just think it's wrong and it does more harm than good.
Just to be clear, I do not believe that anyone on this list is *advocating*
katakana as a script for writing English. Also, we are not discussing how to
*learn* the language, but rather how to *write* the language.
Let us say, in a fantasy historical revisionist type of proposal, that the
British Isles had been invaded and conquered not by the Roman Empire but
rather a nascent Japanese one during a period when kana was in use in Japan
to write Japanese.
In such a situation, it could very well have come about that the Japanese
kana script rather than the Roman one would have been used to write what has
become the English language. My point was that with suitable modification,
the kana script would probably have served just as well as the Roman one to
represent written English.
Marc Adler
> To reiterate my point, I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE to use katakana
I think you missed the point. The thing about katakana and English was
strictly as a writing system. You're talking about using English
*pronounced* as katakana. Nobody suggested that that is a useful
ultimate goal, only that it's a good first step, especially in the
context of teaching Japanese children English. Remember, in the
example Matt gave, it was the child whose pronunciation was *furthest*
from the katakana pronunciation that won.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
David Farnsworth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFS...@Comcast.net>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:45 AM
Subject: RE: Disgusting ad of the day
Alan writes:
> Just to be clear, I do not believe that anyone on this list is
> *advocating*
> katakana as a script for writing English. Also, we are not discussing how
> to
> *learn* the language, but rather how to *write* the language.
>
> Let us say, in a fantasy historical revisionist type of proposal, that the
> British Isles had been invaded and conquered not by the Roman Empire but
> rather a nascent Japanese one during a period when kana was in use in
> Japan
> to write Japanese.
>
> In such a situation, it could very well have come about that the Japanese
> kana script rather than the Roman one would have been used to write what
> has
> become the English language. My point was that with suitable modification,
> the kana script would probably have served just as well as the Roman one
> to
> represent written English.
>
I add:
Or Egyptian hieroglyphics, Mayan script, or whatever...
(I know, I know, its getting into the realm of bad fantasy history... but my
point is that Roman script is not intrinsically better suited to English, or
Polish, or whatever, than any other. Even katakana.)
Fred Uleman
> it could very well have come about that the Japanese kana
> script rather than the Roman one would have been used
> to write what has become the English language.
Kana is only useful for giving a rough approximation of English (or Korean or any other non-Japanese language -- just as romanization is only useful for giving a rough approximation of Japanese -- and these rough approximations are only useful for entry-level people (including people who do not aspire to go beyond entry level) for whom the choice is that between a rough approximation and no approximation at all.
--
Fred Uleman
Alan Siegrist
Fred Uleman writes
Off in fantasyland, Alan
writes:
> it could very well have come about that the Japanese kana
> script rather than the Roman one would have been used
> to write what has become the English language.
In which case, what has become the English language would have developed
differently -- would not have become the same English language that it is today
-- and the use of kana representation would not be a problem.
I am not sure that I am so far off in fantasyland, but you are right in that it is unlikely that only a script would be borrowed. It is likely that vocabulary and a certain amount of grammar would also be borrowed at the same time, so the resulting language would of course be considerably different, especially in its written form.
But the underlying language need not change so much simply because of a change in the script used to write it.
Wolfgang Hadamitzky
words correctly than katakana?
ニホンハシマグニデス Nihon wa shimaguni desu
アニマトゥ−ル animatûru/animatuuru
Even in Japan there is a strong movement advocating the use of
romanization to replace kana (and kanji).
Wolfgang Hadamitzky
Derek Lin
language, then certainly any suitably modfiied alphabetry will
suffice. Heck, just use the IPA.
But the Japanese language as a written form is far more expressive
than it is spoken. I can't speak for other people, but when my eye
first encounters a page peppered with 草かんむり and 木へん, I get a mental
image of grasses and trees, of plants, and the natural environment the
beauty of which Japan is known for before even reading the text. (And
the actual content might wildly surprise me by being about medication,
machinery, or even metaphysical structures.)
That is why replacing kana and kanji with roman letters is, really, a Bad Idea.
Derek
2009/3/16 Wolfgang Hadamitzky <w...@hadamitzky.de>:
Kirill Sereda
>>But the Japanese language as a written form is far more expressive
than it is spoken.
>>That is why replacing kana and kanji with roman letters is, really, a Bad Idea.
Kirill
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Derek Lin
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:13 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Wolfgang Hadamitzky
please read my text carefully. I wrote:
Why do you think roman letters are less suited to pronounce Japanese
words correctly than *katakana*? [asterisk not in original sentence]
Wolfgang
Kirill Sereda
"Even in Japan there is a strong movement advocating the use of romanization
to replace kana (and kanji)."
Kirill
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Wolfgang Hadamitzky
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:49 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Derek Lin
did say that, if *sounds* (i.e., pronunciation) were all you were
concerned with, then yes, katakana is not any better intrinsically
than roman letters.
But if we're talking about meaning-making (which is what I was talking
about, since to me a "word" is not merely a sound, it is also
meaning), then an "a" is not a "あ" is not a "ア" is not a "亜" is not a
"阿".
Please think about my text carefully.
Ryan Field
> I believe that the fact that you CAN do something doesn't necessarily
> make it right or optimal. Just to give you an exaggerated example,
> it's definitely possible to learn to play table tennis using a frying
> pan (especially a modified one), a slipper or a book. The question is,
> why would you do it if there's a better, more convenient tool for
> that? Sure, you CAN approximate English using katakana, hangul and
> possibly hieroglyphs, but why?
gross compared to the
small and very precise ones require for language production. Even just
the smallest difference in
production will result in an "accent" in the target language and
possibly even unintelligibility.
While others have pointed out that this conversation is about writing,
and not necessarily speaking,
even if it were, how you learn and how other people learn (and their
goals, reasons, etc. for doing so)
are going to be completely different.
For child language acquisition, sure your method of teaching (well,
insomuch as you "teach" language
to children, anyway) the correct pronunciation from the start is the
optimal method for achieving
native-like speech, but for adult learners (or those that have already
acquired a first language)
you have to start somewhere they're familiar with. Your method is also
quite impractical--it would
require a (near-) native speaker of the target language in every
language-learning class.
While I agree that immersing oneself in the target language (i.e. either
travelling to or living in
the actual country, or finding such a community and making friends
within one's own town or city),
that's just not an option for the majority of the populace.
Linguistically yours,
Ryan Field
ryan....@gmail.com
Kirill Sereda
travelling to or living in the actual country, or finding such a community and making friends within one's own town or city), that's just not an option for the majority of the populace.
Kirill
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Field
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 1:42 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Wolfgang Hadamitzky
"Why do you think roman letters are less suited to pronounce Japanese
was directed at Fred Uleman who claimed
"Kana is only useful for giving a rough approximation of English (or
Korean or any other non-Japanese language -- just as romanization is
only useful for giving a rough approximation of Japanese -- and these
rough approximations are only useful for entry-level people (including
people who do not aspire to go beyond entry level) for whom the choice
is that between a rough approximation and no approximation at all."
> I was aware that you were comparing roman letters to katakana. And I
> did say that, if *sounds* (i.e., pronunciation) were all you were
> concerned with, then yes, katakana is not any better intrinsically
> than roman letters.
> But if we're talking about meaning-making (which is what I was talking
> about, since to me a "word" is not merely a sound, it is also
> meaning), then an "a" is not a "あ" is not a "ア" is not a "亜" is not a
> "阿".
Thank you for enlightening me and all the other list members about
kanji.
Wolfgang
Derek Lin
> My remark
> "Why do you think roman letters are less suited to pronounce Japanese
> words correctly than katakana?"
> was directed at Fred Uleman who claimed
Unlike yourself, Fred did not imply that he was merely concerned with sounds.
> Thank you for enlightening me and all the other list members about
> kanji.
You're most welcome. I try not to assume what other people do and do not know.
Derek
Wolfgang Hadamitzky
>
> "Even in Japan there is a strong movement advocating the use of
> romanization
> to replace kana (and kanji)."
>
> You seem to support this strong movement. We don't.
>
> Kirill
I don't understand why my remark makes you think I support
romanization movement.
This remark was made in response to Fred Uleman's claim:
"romanization is only useful for giving a rough approximation of
Japanese -- and these rough approximations are only useful for
entry-level people (including people who do not aspire to go beyond
entry level) for whom the choice is that between a rough approximation
and no approximation at all."
My remark was meant to demonstrate that even a portion of the Japanese
people – including many linguists – think that romaji may be useful for
them.
Sorry if I was not clear enough on that point.
Wolfgang
Kirill Sereda
romanization movement.
sure, no one's arguing about that; but replacing kanji with romaji... that
would be a revolution à la John DeFrancis who advocated the same idea for
Chinese.
Kirill
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Wolfgang Hadamitzky
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 2:00 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Ryan Field
>>> While I agree that immersing oneself in the target language (i.e. either
>>>
> travelling to or living in the actual country, or finding such a community and making friends within one's own town or city), that's just not an option for the majority of the populace.
>
> This was only true before the advent to the Internet. Now anyone can immerse him or herself to his/her heart's content: find friends, read newspapers, listen to the radio, watch TV, etc., all in the target lanuguage.
>
internet is an okay source for finding text, internet radio,
and television, but still won't be enough to learn a language properly.
And, as I stated before, finding friends is not as easy as
it sounds, and is definitely out of the question for people who work 40
or more hours a week at full-time jobs. The question, then,
I suppose, is why someone would want or try to learn a language with
insufficient time for doing so adequately, but that's really
none of our business.
Ryan Field
ryan....@gmail.com
Stephen A. Carter
"Derek Lin"さんは書きました:
> when my eye
> first encounters a page peppered with 草かんむり and 木へん, I get a mental
> image of grasses and trees, of plants, and the natural environment the
> beauty of which Japan is known for before even reading the text.
So the forms of the characters are very pretty.,,
> (And
> the actual content might wildly surprise me by being about medication,
> machinery, or even metaphysical structures.)
...but provide zero information about the actual content of the text.
> That is why replacing kana and kanji with roman letters is, really, a Bad Idea.
Wouldn't you still be able to look at the round fullness of all those pretty O's and U's and get a mental image of Hello Kitty?
Kirill Sereda
Not simply "pretty", they form the basis of a separate art form, calligraphy
(practically non-existent or on its last legs in Latin- and other
alphabet-based scripts)
>>...but provide zero information about the actual content of the text.
provides an additional layer of meaning, an additional effect "beyond
words". I am sure many Japanese people, when they write, are aware of the
different shades of meaning afforded by the different kanji available for
the same basic idea.
Kirill
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Stephen A. Carter
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:52 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Cc: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Stephen A. Carter
> If you read poetry, you will find many examples where the graphical form
> provides an additional layer of meaning, an additional effect "beyond
> words".
That's wonderful (and incidentally not exclusive to kanji-based
scripts), but the OP mentioned texts on "medication, machinery, or even
metaphysical structures," not poetry.
--
Stephen A. Carter
sca...@hticn.com
Nagoya, Japan
Mark Spahn
> Romaji is "useful",
> sure, no one's arguing about that; but replacing kanji with romaji... that
> would be a revolution à la John DeFrancis who advocated the same idea for
> Chinese.
>
> Kirill
There is a precedent for draconian spelling reform, such as the
one imposed by Mustafa Kemal on Turkish on January 1, 1931:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/wturk.htm
(Are there similar examples of script-change by fiat?)
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Karen Sandness
of its minorities, including the Mongols, who already had a script,
and the Central Asian ethnic groups, who had traditionally used Arabic
script. However, all these populations had low levels of literacy to
begin with, so it was a matter of devising a new script and teaching
it to illiterate majority of the population.
I recall hearing that the same thing happened with Malay in the
colonial period, with a British-devised Latin script replacing the
Arabic script that few people could read anyway.
Alphabetically yours,
Karen Sandness
Marc Adler
> That is why replacing kana and kanji with roman letters is, really, a Bad Idea.
You argue to emotion and aesthetics in defending kanji usage, which
all proponents do, because there are no other arguments. It's a
cumbersome and inefficient system which indubitably lowers the
literacy rate (Japan does not report a literacy rate, so all we can do
is guess). It's fine for us language-lovers to luxuriate in the layers
of meaning contained in a particularly exquisite ku, but language and
writing are tools first and foremost. Overly complex tools should be
tossed out, and kanji is one heck of a Rube Goldberg device (aka
ピタゴラスイッチ).
I, personally, would shed a couple of tears if they replaced the
current writing system with an alphabet or maybe just kana or
something, but ultimately the new tool would be so much more useful
that nobody would look back.
All that said, it's not going to happen, just because it's such a
profound part of the Japanese identity.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Kirill Sereda
part of the Japanese identity.
of cultural identity, is the main reason why proposing romaji is simply
illogical.
Kirill Sereda
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Marc Adler
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:54 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
JimBreen
> I recall hearing that the same thing happened with Malay in the
> colonial period, with a British-devised Latin script replacing the
> Arabic script that few people could read anyway.
a protectorate rather than a colony, but yes, colonizing
countries often enforce their own scripts. The French did it in
Indo-China (where it was resisted by the locals until the French
were kicked out, whereupon the romanized version was made
mandatory.) And didn't the Japanese ban hangul during their
occupation of Korea?
Spare a thought for the poor much-invaded Persians/Iranians. I
think they're on their third or fourth script (currently based
on the Arabic alphabet.)
Jim Breen (<- note use of full name)
Kirill Sereda
including the Mongols, who already had a script, and the Central Asian
ethnic groups, who had traditionally used Arabic script.
In the same manner, using the Cyrillic alphabet, with special letters
designed in accordance with the particular phonological systems of the
respective languages, was a huge upgrade for the languages that originally
used the Arabic or Mongolian script. Plus, several dozen languages that had
no writing systems, received it, and in each case the Cyrillic system was
appropriately modified, new letters were introduced to exactly match their
phonology. Hundreds of linguistic teams were dispatched and worked around
the country for decades to create these writing systems. I believe that many
small languages were saved because they received a writing system of their
own.
Kirill Sereda
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Karen Sandness
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:50 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Karen Sandness
people in those groups were illiterate. They didn't have to reprint
large numbers of books or teach adults new reading habits.
If someone tried to impose the Latin alphabet on Russian, I imagine
that Russian speakers wouldn't put up with it because of their high
rate of literacy and several centuries worth of existing books. I know
that Russian underwent a spelling reform after the 1917 Revolution,
but that was a minor matter compared to wholesale substitution of a
different alphabet.
Scriptly yours,
Edward Lipsett /t
> If someone tried to impose the Latin alphabet on Russian, I imagine
> that Russian speakers wouldn't put up with it because of their high
> rate of literacy and several centuries worth of existing books.
They managed to do something similar in the PRC, although it did take
several generations... Now all the classics exist in simplified versions as
well.
And the PRC cleverly didn't make the traditional glyphs illegal, just
"old-fashioned."
No doubt it helped to be able to enforce government policy at gunpoint, too.
----------
Edward Lipsett, Intercom, Ltd.
translation€@intercomltd.com
Publishing: http://www.kurodahan.com
Translation & layout: http://www.intercomltd.com
Fred Uleman
Why do I think romanization is inadequate for representing Japanese phonetically?
A prime example is the ら業. Would you use an r? An l? Or perhaps a new letter that combines the r and the l with a little bit of d thrown in? The Japanese sound does not map to either r or l, which is why Japanese typically have such trouble with rs and ls. And the same non-map occurs in the other direction.
The movement to write Japanese in romanization.
It is my understanding that this is largely dormant and, when it was conspicuous, was largely driven by a feeling that romanization is not ideal but is a good thing because otherwise non-Japanese will never be able to learn any Japanese.
The idea of dropping kanji and going just with kana.
Somebody said it would not make any significant difference and nobody would look back. Yet a similar experiment was tried in Korea -- dropping kanji and going entirely to hangul. Korea is having serious second thoughts on this.
Finally, if someone wants to ask me a question and will get upset when others also answer it, he should write me offlist. It is the nature of mailing lists that everyone is free to speak up.
--
Fred Uleman
Kirill Sereda
Latin script could never be adopted because it represents a different faith
(Roman Catholic), while the Cyrillic alphabet, based on the Greek script,
represents a spiritual link to Byzantium and the Christian Orthodox faith.
Marc Adler
> A prime example is the ら業. Would you use an r? An l? Or perhaps a new
Does it matter? Flip a coin. If it's really that much of a problem,
they could use x or q. To most Westerners' ears, it mostly sounds like
an r, so I don't think you could go wrong with that.
> Somebody said it would not make any significant difference and nobody
> would look back. Yet a similar experiment was tried in Korea -- dropping
> kanji and going entirely to hangul. Korea is having serious second thoughts
> on this.
Interesting. Where did you hear this?
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Marc Adler
<kvse...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> From a technical standpoint, the Latin script was a big upgrade for Turkish.
> In the same manner, using the Cyrillic alphabet, with special letters
> designed in accordance with the particular phonological systems of the
> respective languages, was a huge upgrade for the languages that originally
> used the Arabic or Mongolian script. Plus, several dozen languages that had
I think what makes Arabic script difficult to modify for Turkic
languages is the vowels. The extent of modification required to fully
represent them would seem excessive, especially in view of the
position of fusha as the "language of God."
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Edward Lipsett /t
>> Somebody said it would not make any significant difference and nobody
>> would look back. Yet a similar experiment was tried in Korea -- dropping
>> kanji and going entirely to hangul. Korea is having serious second thoughts
>> on this.
There was a period of several years when hanja were not taught in Korean K12
schools. When the generation of students stared looking for jobs, corporate
Korea refused, and demanding they learn how to read.
Dropping hanja is not impossible, but it proved rather difficult to
implement on top of an existing culture which made extensive use of hanja...
The Korean govt put hanja back.
Fred Uleman
If it's really that much of a problem,
they could use x or q.
In other words, use romanization and impose new rules on how the different letters are supposed to sound -- which sort of defeats the purpose of using romanization.
Where did I hear that Korea is having serious second thoughts?
From my wife, who is studying Korean and follows the Korean papers.
Fred Uleman
JimBreen
On Mar 16, 1:51 pm, Fred Uleman <fule...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If it's really that much of a problem,
> > they could use x or q.
>
> In other words, use romanization and impose new rules on how the different
> letters are supposed to sound -- which sort of defeats the purpose of using
> romanization.
pronunciations of the 26 letters as canonical. I've heard people
argue that the use of "q" and "x" in Pinyin are somehow "wrong"
on these grounds, even though the "x" is very similar to its
use in some Romance languages.
In English quite a few letters are sounded differently from other
Latin-alphabet-using languages, and indeed from Latin itself.
(caesar anyone?)
Jim Breen
Derek Lin
>
> You argue to emotion and aesthetics in defending kanji usage, which
> all proponents do, because there are no other arguments.
I disagree. Selecting the right kanji for the nuance you wish to
communicate disambiguates between which のぞむ (望む or 臨む) or いく (行く, 往く
or 逝く) you mean without having to rely on context. (These examples are
from the top of my head. I'm sure there're more.) Even non-poetic
texts can benefit from a greater nuanced use of language.
Incidentally, this is why Mandarin can never be satisfactorily
replaced with a phoneme-based writing system. There are so many words
with the same sound trying to disambiguate them from context would
take you much longer than just learning the kanji.
Also, speed reading supposedly works through the eye registering
larger blocks of text than individual words at a glance. Mixed
kanji/kana usage makes this even simpler by demarcating where the text
should be parsed. The lexical component of a verb is (often) written
in kanji; the conjugations can be found in the okurigana -- this
applies to the i-adjectives as well. On a sentence level, hiragana
(the particles 助詞) marks where the brain should parse and having the
bits that do not 活用 written in kanji makes this easier.
Finally, if I encounter a kanji compound word I don't know the meaning
of, I can hazard a pretty good guess if I know what component
characters mean.
All of these are functional arguments. I'm sure there're more.
> but language and writing are tools first and foremost.
Exactly. Don't you agree that a higher precision tool would enable you
to attempt to create better (in the sense of more clearly understood,
without ambiguity) products? You can still slice an apple with a
scalpel, but you can't perform neurosurgery with a fruit knife.
> Overly complex tools should be tossed out, and kanji is
> one heck of a Rube Goldberg device (aka ピタゴラスイッチ).
I do think you're not advocating that kanji should be tossed out
completely, but in the case you are, why should portions of the native
speaking population of a language be barred from creating texts that
function on multiple and higher levels just so the non-native
population (people who have the option not to speak it, and who can do
their languaging in another language) can learn it more easily?
It is not that simpler pedagogical systems do not exist. I am not
against people starting with romaji or deciding to ignore kanji
initially when learning Japanese (or staying that way their whole
lives if that's what their objective in language learning is). And
writing everything in hiragana with spaces to aid parsing does get the
job done (cf. RPGs on the NES in the 80-90s). But "so it's easier to
be learnt" seems to be the only argument I'm hearing for the abolition
of kanji.
And as has been mentioned, the only country that did have kanji and
experimented with doing away with it is looking back.
--
Derek Lin
Peter Clark
Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos are the three nations in Indochina. Laotian is a Thai language that still uses a script based on Brahmic script from India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_language#Script
Cambodia uses Khmer script, also probably developed from an Indian script, to write their austroasiatic language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_script
Vietnamese, also austroasiatic, uses a romanized script with a long history of development, embraced by the Vietnamese after independence. The previous writing system was based on Chinese characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_language#Writing_system
So only one of the Indochinese nations went through romanization, and it is debatable whether there was much force involved in introducing the writing system. That romanization was from Chinese characters.
I'll leave it to others to decide whether the change was for good or ill.
Peter Clark
Find car news, reviews and more Looking to change your car this year?
kanji saito
> one heck of a Rube Goldberg device (aka ピタゴラスイッチ).
漢字を一画一画手書きしていた時代と異なり、「キー入力で変換」が主流の
今、読みさえ分かれば「魑魅魍魎」でも「憂鬱」でも簡単に書けるようになっ
たわけですから、Overly complex toolsというのもどこまであてはまるものな
のか、疑問です。
ということで、漢字はなくならない方に一票。
いっちゃんたね、かれ。
果たして、彼は、言ったのか、逝ったのか、行ったのか、はたまた煎ったのか？
斉藤 完治
Marceline Therrien
>From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Ryan Field
>Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:42 PM
>To: hon...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
>
>but for adult learners (or those that have already acquired a first language)
>you have to start somewhere they're familiar with.
Why?
Marceline Therrien
J2E Business Translations
San Francisco, California, USA
*Do not forward or repost this message without the author's permission*
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
>That is why replacing kana and kanji with roman letters is, really, a Bad Idea.
Empirical evidence disproves your statement though.
In 'Literacy and Script Reform in Occupation Japan' James Marshall Unger
details the various script reform policies that took place during the time
before and after the second World War. Kanji and kana were replaced by a
Latin-based script. As a result students got better grades at, for example,
mathematics, and general reading/writing. Even when they later had to learn
the kanji, they did so far faster than their counterparts who followed the
standard curriculum.
--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B
Sometimes I wonder why are we so blind to face...
Fred Uleman
--
Fred Uleman
Marc Adler
> In other words, use romanization and impose new rules on how the different
> letters are supposed to sound -- which sort of defeats the purpose of using
> romanization.
"Supposed" to sound? Tell that to the Italians, who pronounce "chi" as
"kee," to the Portuguese, who pronounce "x" as "sh," or to the
Croatians, who use the letter đ for our "j" sound, and who even use
letters like č, ć, and ž.
The point of Romanization in this case is very different from the
point of the Romanization that the Japanese currently use. If they
were to completely Romanize Japanese, Kunrei-shiki might be the best
choice.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Marc Adler
> I disagree. Selecting the right kanji for the nuance you wish to
> communicate disambiguates between which のぞむ (望む or 臨む) or いく (行く, 往く
> or 逝く) you mean without having to rely on context. (These examples are
> from the top of my head. I'm sure there're more.) Even non-poetic
> texts can benefit from a greater nuanced use of language.
Yeah, but Japanese people speak to each other without kanji, and have
no trouble understanding each other. I think the whole question of
homonym is a bit of a canard.
> Incidentally, this is why Mandarin can never be satisfactorily
I don't know about Chinese. Maybe that's true.
> Also, speed reading supposedly works through the eye registering
> larger blocks of text than individual words at a glance. Mixed
I can think of a few modifications to optimize the language for speed
reading, but that's not what we're talking about, is it?
> Finally, if I encounter a kanji compound word I don't know the meaning
> of, I can hazard a pretty good guess if I know what component
> characters mean.
Writing systems shouldn't be designed for facilitating vocabulary
acquisition, though.
> All of these are functional arguments. I'm sure there're more.
There might be, but they're not very strong arguments. At least,
they're not as strong when balanced against the indisputable
advantages of a phonetic writing system, I think.
> Exactly. Don't you agree that a higher precision tool would enable you
> to attempt to create better (in the sense of more clearly understood,
> without ambiguity) products? You can still slice an apple with a
> scalpel, but you can't perform neurosurgery with a fruit knife.
Let's avoid the trap of arguing over metaphors. The tool best suited
to the job is the tool which fulfills its purpose with the least
effort.
> I do think you're not advocating that kanji should be tossed out
> completely, but in the case you are, why should portions of the native
I would be, if I thought it were realistic. I don't think it's going
to happen, though.
> speaking population of a language be barred from creating texts that
> function on multiple and higher levels just so the non-native
> population (people who have the option not to speak it, and who can do
> their languaging in another language) can learn it more easily?
That's not what I'm arguing. Non-native learners should be left out of
the discussion totally. I'm saying that an unambiguous phonetic
writing system would make it easier for Japanese people to read and
write Japanese.
> It is not that simpler pedagogical systems do not exist. I am not
Yes, I see how the discussion got kind of confused. We went from
Romanization as a tool for learning Japanese for non-natives, to
writing systems in general, and it's the latter that I was talking
about. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> job done (cf. RPGs on the NES in the 80-90s). But "so it's easier to
> be learnt" seems to be the only argument I'm hearing for the abolition
> of kanji.
I think the total abolition of kanji would, on balance, be
advantageous. There are some things which would be lost, but there are
more advantages.
> And as has been mentioned, the only country that did have kanji and
> experimented with doing away with it is looking back.
I don't know if we can really throw that out as a fact right now.
Don't forget Vietnamese. There's probably more examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanja#Hanja_usage
"Opinion surveys show that the South Korean public do not consider
hanja literacy essential, a situation attributed to the fact that
hanja education in South Korea does not begin until the seventh year
of schooling.[10] Hanja terms are also expressed through hangul, the
standard script in the Korean language. Some studies suggest that
hanja use appears to be in decline. In 1956, one study found
mixed-script Korean text (in which Sino-Korean nouns are written using
hanja, and other words using hangul) were read faster than texts
written purely in hangul; however, by 1977, the situation had
reversed.[11] In 1988, 80% of one sample of people without a college
education "evinced no reading comprehension of any but the simplest,
most common hanja" when reading mixed-script passages.[12]"
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_mixed_script
Neither of these citations (there might be more) indicate that there's
any looking back. I'm interested in seeing citations to the contrary.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
Derek Lin
>
> Yeah, but Japanese people speak to each other without kanji, and have
> no trouble understanding each other.
I think that when people speak to each other in a face-to-face setting
(or even over a distance on the phone), other factors such as tone of
voice, timing, and situational context provide the context necessary
to disambiguate between homonyms. There's also the option, most of the
time, to ask the speaker for clarification.
> they're not as strong when balanced against the indisputable
> advantages of a phonetic writing system, I think.
What are some of these indisputable advantages you're thinking of?
> The tool best suited
> to the job is the tool which fulfills its purpose with the least
> effort.
I think that's where our fundamental disagreement lies. You seem to
think the sole purpose of language is merely to allow people to
understand each other, and that understanding is satisfactory as long
as the gist, if not all the nuances, is understood. I think language
has more purposes than that.
> I'm saying that an unambiguous phonetic writing system
> would make it easier for Japanese people to read and
> write Japanese.
Given your premise above (correct me if I'm wrong), I would concede
this point, and that based on personal experience too.
I wrote:
>> And as has been mentioned, the only country that did have kanji and
>> experimented with doing away with it is looking back.
>
> I don't know if we can really throw that out as a fact right now.
Agreed with hindsight.
--
Derek Lin
Marceline Therrien
>From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On
>Behalf Of Marc Adler
>Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:32 AM
>To: hon...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
>I'm saying that an unambiguous phonetic
>writing system would make it easier for Japanese people to read and
>write Japanese.
But Japan _has_ an unambiguous phonetic writing system (two, actually).
As far as I know there is nothing that would prevent Japanese people from
writing notes and letters to each other written entirely in their own
phonetic alphabets. Have we ever seen a post like that to Honyaku?
Japanese people __choose__ to write using characters rather than just
phonetic symbols.
Why?
Because your premise is false. Using a phonetic writing system does _not_
make it easier for Japanese people to read Japanese. Japanese written
entirely phonetically == whether using romaji, katakana, or hiragana --
could possibly be easier to write (not so much now that we all write using a
keyboard), but it is a royal pain to read.
Derek Lin
>
> make it easier for Japanese people to read Japanese. Japanese written
> entirely phonetically == whether using romaji, katakana, or hiragana --
> could possibly be easier to write (not so much now that we all write using a
> keyboard), but it is a royal pain to read.
I think what Marc is saying is that if you never learnt kanji to begin
with, then all-hiragana texts *work*. (Actually, he claims they're
optimal.) The effort spent disambiguating between homonyms is, on the
whole, less than the initial effort put into learning kanji.
And he might be right. There are games targeting pre-school or lower
elementary school students which make almost no use of kanji at all.
Presumably, if they found it a pain to read, those games wouldn't
sell.
But my point is we lose the affective aspect of language that way,
amongst other things. And I'm so glad they shortened あまてらすおおみかみ to
天照大神.
--
Derek Lin
Kirill Sereda
people to read Japanese.
sounds, but in the realm of ideas, as kanji do, helps understand written
Japanese much more than a phonetic based system can.
I think Marc is overlooking a cardinal difference here. A hyeroglyphic
system has a different relationship with the "host language" than an
alphabetic system. An alphabetic system exists on the surface, in the realm
of sound, unattached to the language itself. A hyeroglyphic system
penetrates and fills the pores of the language itself, becoming inseparable
from it.
In Japan, a phonetic system is probably only useful for disambiguating the
reading of postal addresses and things of this nature. Otherwise, it's
totally irrelevant.
Kirill Sereda
Kirill Sereda
> would make it easier for Japanese people to read and
> write Japanese.
Kirill Sereda
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Derek Lin
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 11:10 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Disgusting ad of the day
Mark Spahn
Kirill Sereda writes:
> An alphabetic system exists on the surface, in the realm
> penetrates and fills the pores of the language itself, becoming
> inseparable
> from it.
I'm not sure what that pore-filling metaphor means,
but consider the set of language symbols known as
Bliss (or Blissymbolics):
http://www.blissymbolics.org/bliss.shtml
This perhaps illustrates the claim,
"If kanji did not exist, someone would invent them."
Bliss was originally conceived by Charles K. Bliss (who
died in 1985) as an ideographic system of writing
to be used internationally, somewhat in the way that
Japanese and Chinese can communicate via 漢字.
Bliss has since been "re-purposed".
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
P.S. By the way, as sometimes happens, the content
of this thread has drifted far from its original,
unchanging title, "Disgusting ad of the day".
Ryan Field
> snip
>
>
>> but for adult learners (or those that have already acquired a first language)
>> you have to start somewhere they're familiar with.
>>
>
>
> Why?
>
people have the capacity and confidence to delve right into another
language without any familiarity, this just isn't the case for most
people that don't have any second-language experience and need some
familiar place to start, whether that be translations of the language
being learnt in their native language or pronunciation guides in their
native language's writing system.
That being said, most are capable after becoming somewhat familiar with
the target language to abandon such pronunciation guides. (Well, it also
depends on how different their native language/writing system is from
the one they're learning.) Keep in mind that we're talking about the
very first steps to language learning here.
Ryan Field
ryan....@gmail.com
pls
> consider the set of language symbols known as
> Bliss (or Blissymbolics):
> http://www.blissymbolics.org/bliss.shtml
> This perhaps illustrates the claim,
> "If kanji did not exist, someone would invent them."
Of course!
<anecdote>
When i was in still in elementary school, and following my initial -
not school related - forays into English and French, i proposed to my
elders that we should create a system of symbols that would represent
meanings, not sound, so that people could communicate more easily - if
someone like me at that age can come up with such an idea, it stands
to reason that uncounted numbers of other people have come up with the
same idea over the years.
</anecdote>
It was not surprised when i found the following:
"Charles [Bliss] had been impressed by two wonderful logical languages
expressed in the symbols of mathematics and chemistry which could be
read by anyone no matter what their mother-tongue might be."
(from http://www.blissymbolics.us/ )
Duh.
<anecdote>
Starting with my father's old school textbooks on math, physics, and
chemistry, i moved on to radio magazines from the 1920s (when radio
enthusiasts would build their own receivers and have their batteries
of liquid cells recharged at the drug store), and by age 12 i was
heavily into electronics and spent my free time designing tube-based
radio receivers and audio amplifiers (i built a few of those, too). By
age 15 i had gotten to writing musical scores (much of which were
"junk", ;-) but there also a few gems that my music teacher would praise).
</anecdote>
Circuit diagrams, maps, math, chemistry, musical scores - all
unpronounceable symbols full of meaning (and like native language to
me). Kanji is just one of many, and while they may be abolished in
some places they are being (re-)created in others. ;-)
http://www.gov.nu.ca/inuktitut/
And to go back to near the beginning of this thread - people can argue
until they are blue in the face about why kanji "should" be abolished
- with the ongoing political and economic changes in the world chances
are very high that kanji will be increasingly useful and "popular" in
the near future... ;-)
Regards: Hendrik @ learning Chinese right now
--