Whither 日本語?
Jon Johanning
some Japanese writers) pondering the effects of technology on the
Japanese language.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/books/review/EParker-t.html?_r=1&ref=books
Jon Johanning // riverr...@gmail.com
Fred Uleman
--
Fred Uleman
Jacob Dunlap
> This reads like something she was assigned to write.
A sign of the dumbing-down of English? ;)
Jacob Dunlap
Marc Adler
>
> A sign of the dumbing-down of English? ;)
Supports my contention that the cause of death of the newspaper
industry is suicide by crappy writing.
--
Marc Adler
www.adlerpacific.com
nirebloga.wordpress.com
mudawwanatii.wordpress.com
blogsheli.wordpress.com
Tom Donahue
> Supports my contention that the cause of death of the newspaper
> industry is suicide by crappy writing.
I thought it was pretty well written, actually. The problem is that
she probably knows less about the subject than we do, so the
superficiality is more apparent.
Lately this is my impression of articles by columnists and
editorial writers in general. Today there was a piece in the
NYT by Nicholas Kristof about bisphenol A in our food.
To which my reaction was "What do you know? You're
just a columnist."
On the other hand, I do trust the NYT environment blog by
Andrew Revkin. He's a reporter and knows his stuff.
The articles on the World Series were also excellent.
State-of-the-art baseball analysis.
--
Tom Donahue
Carl Freire
>Marc Adler writes:
>
> > Supports my contention that the cause of death of the newspaper
>> industry is suicide by crappy writing.
>
>I thought it was pretty well written, actually. The problem is that
>she probably knows less about the subject than we do, so the
>superficiality is more apparent.
I think it was pretty well written, too. I agree that it's possible
that she knows less about the subject than we do, but equally--if not
more--likely is the fact that as a newspaper writer she needs to
consider all of her audience rather than just the experts out there.
*Of course* it seems dumbed down to specialists, but she's not
writing for the specialists. You simply can't do that as a newspaper
or wire service journalist. You *have* to write for people whose
curiosity might be piqued by the subject but are coming at the issue
from a lower starting point. At AP, the rule of thumb was to write
our stories for the reader who knows next-to-nothing whatsoever about
the subject ("Joe Sixpack" came up more than a few times). At the
NYT, they can start higher than that (our readers actually know where
Japan is and may indeed have eaten sushi), but they still have to
assume there's only a minimal foundation for the reader to build on.
Incidentally, Mizumura is out to lunch when it comes to who started
the "postwar" kanji simplification drive. Began in the 1930s and
picked up pace during the war years--yet another matter on which the
Occupation reformers were able to pick up on work that had already
been begun under the discredited regime.
FWIW.
Carl
--
**********
Carl Freire
cfreire /[@]* ix.netcom.com
Tokyo, Japan
Lawrence Rogers
Carl Freire writes:
> At AP, the rule of thumb was
> to write
> our stories for the reader who knows next-to-nothing whatsoever
> about
> the subject ("Joe Sixpack" came up more than a few times).
Earl
change to the Roman alphabet, Mizumura said,..."
Well, thank G-d for that. I cannot even begin to imagine Japan,
Japanese, or Japanese culture without kanji. If they decided to use
Romaji, how would one tell which "hashi" was meant (橋, 箸, or 端)? And
such a bone-headed move would instantly render two millenia of
Japanese history essentially incomprehensible to the Japanese in a
generation or two.
One thing I have noticed, even in the only 35 years that I have been
involved with the Japanese language, is the rapidly decreasing number
of kanji used on a regular basis. I often have a little trouble
reading as quickly as I used to, as I have to sound out the kana for
words and phrases that only a few years ago would have been written in
kanji and then try to figure out what is being said. I had the same
problem reading children's books to my kids all those years ago.
Kanji are a bitch to learn, but they have a richness that letters
don't (to me, anyway). I certainly hope that they never get rid of
them.
I agree on the inability of many otherwise educated Japanese to write
a coherent sentence, however. But it is much the same in the US, so
what else is new? Not everyone can write well, no matter the language.
Marc Adler
Well, thank G-d for that. I cannot even begin to imagine Japan,
Japanese, or Japanese culture without kanji. If they decided to use
Romaji, how would one tell which "hashi" was meant (橋, 箸, or 端)? And
such a bone-headed move would instantly render two millenia of
Japanese history essentially incomprehensible to the Japanese in a
generation or two.
You're right that people would have to read older books in kana versions, but on the other hand they could read Genji Monogatari as it was written (all in kana).
I don't think getting rid of the kanji and writing in all kana would be the catastrophe people make it out to be. Japanese culture is greater than a few thousand hieroglyphs imported from China.
I don't think they'll ever get rid of them, though, because of the Japanese nation's perverse fascination with complex systems.
Earl
written Japanese.
And the issue to which I was referring wasn't a move to abolish kanji
and replace it with kana only, it was the idea mentioned by Mizumura
that the Japanese should replace their writing system with the Roman
alphabet, that is, English letters.
Also, if you are referring to the written language, unless I am
mistaken, 橋, 箸, and 端 are not homonyms in a strict sense (words that
are spelled the same way but mean something different) but homophones,
(words that sound the same, may or may not be spelled differently, but
mean something different). It is true, though that 橋, 箸, and 端 would
become homonyms if kanji were abolished.
On Nov 10, 11:07 am, Marc Adler <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeremy Angel
I don't think they'll ever get rid of them, though, because of the Japanese nation's perverse fascination with complex systems.
--
Jeremy Angel
Nagano, Japan
Marc Adler
The Chinese communists tried to switch to Pinyin after taking over in 1949, but gave up in the end. I can't find any reference to why they failed, but no doubt others on this list could provide enlightenment.I do remember being surprised, on my only visit to China way back in 1976, being surprised by all the street name signs in Pinyin rather than characters.
For all the complexity of the original Chinese characters, I think the Japanese actually succeeded in making the whole system more complex.
Jon Johanning
systems.
It would be perfectly logical, and not all that difficult, to reform
English spelling to make it completely phonetic, and quite a few systems
for doing it have been proposed. But they have never gotten anywhere,
and probably never will. (Though the Internet-induced rise in horrible
spelling mistakes may eventually reduce English orthography to complete
chaos.) It's just too darned difficult to make that big a change. Such
changes occur very gradually over long periods, as current spelling
practices developed from the sort of thing you can see in unmodified
Shakespeare editions.
The recently attempted reform of German spelling doesn't seem to have
worked out too well.
Jon Johanning // riverr...@gmail.com
Marc Adler
The recently attempted reform of German spelling doesn't seem to have
worked out too well.
I think English is the only language that hasn't had any real reforms. Which is the problem, because now spelling and pronunciation are so diverged that a total reform wud luk laik toudl jibrish. If we had implemented reforms periodically, the changes would've been gradual.
Minoru Mochizuki
I am not quite sure whether the statement “Japanese nation's perverse fascination with complex systems” is an accurate observation.
Somewhat related to it, I was surprised the other day to see a news clip on TV showing some kindergartens in Japan are teaching relatively high level kanji and succeeding in the attempts. A scholar who appeared on the screen who was introduced as a supporter of the particular early kanji education said that the kindergarten children subjected to the kanji teaching seem to identify the characters, not by combinations of individual strokes, but by general figurative shapes of the characters. Incidentally, they are taught only to read them, not to write them. They are also taught the original pictograph that matches each kanji at the same time. Whether such an attempt will save the deterioration of Japanese is questionable.
Learning now Chinese first time at this late stage of my life, I am flabbergasted by the dramatic change China made in their kanji. In the simplified Chinese character set, traditional complex characters are often replaced by simple characters having the same sound but totally different meanings, simply because of similarity of sounds. For example, the second character 華 of 中華人民共和国 is replaced by the simplified character (化 on top of 十) of the second character 貨 of 貨物, while華 meant beauty and 中華 meant the beautiful center of the world, which Chinese used to denote their country with pride. I suppose there must have been some resistance to this change in China but was suppressed by Mao Zhe Dong. Now the two major user countries of kanji, Japan and China, are going diametrically apart in the simplification attempts and unification is hopeless. China is reported here in Japan that China has no intention of compromising and working together to have a uniform computer based kanji set because they believe that China is the home of kanji.
Minoru Mochizuki
Doug Durgee
On Nov 11, 3:51 am, Earl <earl.s.hart...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I have noticed, even in the only 35 years that I have been
> involved with the Japanese language, is the rapidly decreasing number
> of kanji used on a regular basis.
漢字表 by about 200 characters or so next year? If they go through with
it, it would be the first change in about 30 years. Thanks to
computers and phones, people are much more likely to use complicated
characters than they were 10-20 years ago, so kanji might be on the
rebound... albeit only in reading. No one seems to be able to (hand)
write anymore, but kanji are definitely here to stay.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ek20091021mn.html
Doug Durgee in Tokyo
Wolfgang Bechstein
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Jon Johanning <riverr...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > The recently attempted reform of German spelling doesn't seem to have
> > worked out too well.
> >
>
> The German speakers on the list can let us know how it went, ...
Not too well. Decades in the making, the final set of prescribed rules
is an extremely half-baked affair that just ended up sowing more
confusion and was (and still is) rejected by a sizable part of the
population and the media (some of which have actually reverted to the
old orthography). Even on the issue of replacing all occurrences of
ess-zet by ss (which would have been an infinitely simpler step than for
example starting to represent all Japanese words by romaji), the
commission that concocted the rules ended up replacing it in _some_
instances but not in others, so one still must know a rule in order to
avoid spelling mistakes. The capitalization of nouns wasn't even
addressed properly.
I think for a successful example of a drastic writing reform, entirely
replacing one script set by another, one has to look to Turkey, but that
example also shows that a dictatorship is the only way to do it.
That said, I personally think I could get used to all-romaji Japanese...
Wolfgang Bechstein
Peter Clark
> I think for a successful example of a drastic writing reform, entirely
> replacing one script set by another, one has to look to Turkey, but that
> example also shows that a dictatorship is the only way to do it.
Peter Clark
View photos of singles in your area! Looking for a date?
Karen Sandness
Marc Adler
That said, I personally think I could get used to all-romaji Japanese...
I actually think an all-kana system would actually be better, because it's naturally suited to the phonetics. あんい and あに would have to be differentiated with apostrophes (or something) in romaji, for example.
Either way, I agree with Earl. They're never going to get rid of the kanji.
Jon Johanning
Somewhat related to it, I was surprised the other day to see a news clip on TV showing some kindergartens in Japan are teaching relatively high level kanji and succeeding in the attempts. A scholar who appeared on the screen who was introduced as a supporter of the particular early kanji education said that the kindergarten children subjected to the kanji teaching seem to identify the characters, not by combinations of individual strokes, but by general figurative shapes of the characters. Incidentally, they are taught only to read them, not to write them. They are also taught the original pictograph that matches each kanji at the same time. Whether such an attempt will save the deterioration of Japanese is questionable.
Learning now Chinese first time at this late stage of my life, I am flabbergasted by the dramatic change China made in their kanji. In the simplified Chinese character set, traditional complex characters are often replaced by simple characters having the same sound but totally different meanings, simply because of similarity of sounds. For example, the second character 華 of 中華人民共和国 is replaced by the simplified character (化 on top of 十) of the second character 貨 of 貨物, while華 meant beauty and 中華 meant the beautiful center of the world, which Chinese used to denote their country with pride.
On the other hand, this doesn't explain why Korea and Vietnam were able to almost completely jettison the kanji; were Koreans and Vietnamese less attached to them? Perhaps because they felt resentful of how China treated them in their history?
I suppose there must have been some resistance to this change in China but was suppressed by Mao Zhe Dong. Now the two major user countries of kanji, Japan and China, are going diametrically apart in the simplification attempts and unification is hopeless. China is reported here in Japan that China has no intention of compromising and working together to have a uniform computer based kanji set because they believe that China is the home of kanji.
Jon Johanning // riverr...@gmail.com
kanji saito
力で変換という形式が当たり前となった今、漢字を排除する理由は以前より薄れ
ているのではないかと思います。
手書きの場合、細部まで正確に覚えかつ再現できなければなりませんが、変換な
ら「たしか、こんな感じだった」で充分なので。
斉藤 完治＠このぶんしょうをすべてをひらがなでかいたら、いみがはたしてと
れるのだろうか？
Marc Adler wrote:
> 2009/11/10 Wolfgang Bechstein <bech...@netprisma.com
> <mailto:bech...@netprisma.com>>
>
> That said, I personally think I could get used to all-romaji Japanese...
>
>
> I actually think an all-kana system would actually be better, because
> it's naturally suited to the phonetics. あんい and あに would have to be
> differentiated with apostrophes (or something) in romaji, for example.
>
> Either way, I agree with Earl. They're never going to get rid of the kanji.
>
> --
> Marc Adler
> nirebloga.wordpress.com <http://nirebloga.wordpress.com>
> mudawwanatii.wordpress.com <http://mudawwanatii.wordpress.com>
> blogsheli.wordpress.com <http://blogsheli.wordpress.com>
>
> >
Chris Moore
> almost completely jettison the kanji; were Koreans and Vietnamese less
> attached to them? Perhaps because they felt resentful of how China treated
> them in their history?
Not really my speciality, but fwiw (from wikipedia):
Hangul, literacy, and education
Hangul, a phonemic Korean alphabet invented around 1446 by scholars in
the court of King Sejong ,[14][15] was little used for several
centuries because of the perceived cultural superiority of Classical
Chinese (a position similar to that of Latin in Europe). However, the
Catholic Church became the first Korean organization to recognize
officially the value of using Hangul, and Bishop Berneux mandated that
all Catholic children be taught to read it.[16][17] Christian
literature printed for use in Korea, including that used by the
network of schools established by Christian missionaries,
predominantly used the Korean language and the easily-learned Hangul
script. This combination of factors not only resulted in a sharp rise
in the overall literacy rate, but also enabled Christian teachings to
spread beyond the elite, who predominantly used Chinese. As early as
the 1780s, portions of the Gospels appeared in Hangul; doctrinal books
such as the Jugyo Yoji (주교요지) appeared in the 1790s and a Catholic
hymnary was printed around 1800.
John Ross, a Scottish Presbyterian missionary in Manchuria completed
his translation of the Bible into Korean in 1887 [8] and Protestant
leaders immediately began emphasizing its mass-circulation. In
addition, they established the first modern educational institutions
in Korea.[18] The Methodist Paichai School (배재고등학교) for boys was
founded in 1885, and the Methodist Ewha School (이화여자고등학교) for girls
(later to become Ewha Womans University) followed in 1886. These, and
similar schools established soon afterwards, facilitated the rapid
expansion of Protestantism among the common people, and in time
Protestants surpassed Catholics as the largest Christian group in
Korea. As a side effect during this period, female literacy rose
sharply, since women had previously been excluded from the educational
system.[19]
I'm not convinced that missionaries trying to reach uneducated masses
is the whole of the story, but I have heard this connection before.
The story goes that the only ones that could read before missionary
schools were the rich elite that preferred to be elite and used
Chinese. The missionaries established schools and spread information
using hangul, which was a script that could be easily and rapidly
learned by many. Perhaps Vietnam's history bears out a similar
pattern?
Chris
Karen Sandness
was devised by the first Catholic missionaries in the 17th century.
The common people were not literate to begin with, so for them it was
not a matter of replacing their writing system but of learning to read
for the first time.
Southeast Asianly yours,
Karen Sandness
Minoru Mochizuki
Even Chinese people have to be taught to read and write Kanji. In other words, they are not born with that capability.
簡字体 was invented under Mao's control to make the learning process easier for people who are too poor to go to school for many years.
Hangul was forced by the Korean government to be used solely after 1945, expelling the use of Kanji, which were favored by their major oppressors Japanese and Chinese before the Liberation Day, August 15, 1945 and it was done under a patriotic/nationalistic thought. I visited Korea several times on business in late 1980's and met several Korean individuals and heard their opinions about the issue. They unanimously said that well-educated old Koreans still prefer to use Kanji to show off their education. But, even then, when most of the characters you see on the newspaper were Hungul characters, you could still see sporadic use of Kanji. I understand that Kanji is coming back slowly into Korea these days, coincidental with the government’relaxing policy, as Korea has to deal with Chinese and Japanese in trades. It was interesting for me to note that Koreans use Shajan, Bujan and Kajan corresponding to Japanese words in Kanji社長、部長、and 課長 respectively in those days of 1980's.
Mongols and Manchurians tried to force their languages to Chinese (Han) during their respective reigns of Yuan and Qing Dynasties, but failed ultimately without leaving any trace of their efforts.
Minoru Mochizuki
-----Original Message-----
From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Moore
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:50 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Whither 日本語?
Richard Thieme
Sounds to me as if they also don't want to discuss the contributions to
literacy made by the Japanese colonial government as well, which prior to
the final push for unification, actually put into action a quite
comprehensive program of Hangul education, or at least so I have heard
(would be happy to be corrected here, I am not trying to start a flame war).
Regards,
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Moore" <moor...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:50 AM
John Ross, a Scottish Presbyterian missionary in Manchuria completed
his translation of the Bible into Korean in 1887 [8] and Protestant
leaders immediately began emphasizing its mass-circulation. In
addition, they established the first modern educational institutions
boys was
founded in 1885, and the Methodist Ewha School ( $B!&%(yyHnN.!&@l%& (B� $B!&%"yuRl%*!& (B
Chris Moore
Korea," not the article on the history of Hangul or its adaptation.
Thus lack of further discussion beyond the topic of the article. The
wikipedia articles on Hangul and its history only give passing mention
to this aspect, but it was the one I had heard given before and
thought I should bring up.
Chris
2009/11/12 Richard Thieme <rdth...@gol.com>:
Toshihiro Nagasaka
いたのに、次第にハングル文字だけになり、最近は漢字を知らない世代
が増えて来ています。
韓国の呉善花さんが日本語で書かれた『「漢字廃止」で韓国に何が起き
たか』（2008年PHP研究所）には、その深刻な状況が書かれています。
過去の漢字で書かれた文献を読める人が次第に少なくなり、文化の断絶
が起こり、また、専門書をハングル文字だけで正確に書くことの困難さ
が語られています。つまり、それまで長く表意文字を使用して来た言語
をハングル文字のような表音文字だけにしてしまうことの犠牲の大きさ
が強調されています。
また、助詞がなく、あたかも単語を並べただけの中国語の問題点も金文
学さん(中国語、韓国語、日本語に堪能)や石平さんなどが指摘しておら
れます。
漢字だけによる表記(中国語)に色々不都合なことがあり、そうかといっ
てカナだけで表記(韓国語のハングル文字もそれに近い)しても別の不都
合さがあることを考えると、音読み、訓読みも含めた漢字仮名交じりで
今のところ、一番都合がよいような気がします(一番いいところに落ち
着いている)。外国人の方の学習には負担が非常に大きいのではありま
すが。
カナだけで表記すると、簡単な短い文章や即物的なことであればある程
度用が足りても、深い意味合いや味わい深い文章を表現することは難し
いし、日本語は同音異義語があまりにも多いので、カナだけではわけが
分からない文章になるため、それを補っているのが表意文字の漢字であ
ると思います。
鈴木孝夫さんは近著の『日本語教のすすめ』(新潮新書)で表音文字を使
用した言語をラジオ型言語であるのに対して、日本語はテレビ型言語で
あると言っておられます。
いずれにしても、日本でも1970年代末に日本語ワープロが発売され(発
売当初は630万円)、それ以降はあまり日本語をカナ表記だけにせよ、と
いう議論はなくなってしまったので、ある意味、ほっとしています。
info> 文書を書くにあたりいちいち手書きしなければならなかった時代
と違い、キー入
info> 力で変換という形式が当たり前となった今、漢字を排除する理由
は以前より薄れ
info> ているのではないかと思います。
info> 手書きの場合、細部まで正確に覚えかつ再現できなければなりま
せんが、変換な
info> ら「たしか、こんな感じだった」で充分なので。
info>
info> 斉藤 完治＠このぶんしょうをすべてをひらがなでかいたら、い
みがはたしてと
info> れるのだろうか？
info>
--
Toshihiro Nagasaka
長坂俊宏
Marc Adler
着いている)。外国人の方の学習には負担が非常に大きいのではありま
すが。
外国人の学習など今までの話の流れの中で問題にされてないと思います。あくまでも日本人にとってどうか、ということです。たとえば、外国人が日本語を習う場合より日本人が小学校で漢字教育に使う時間の無駄のほうがはるかに大きい問題のように思われます。
カナだけで表記すると、簡単な短い文章や即物的なことであればある程
度用が足りても、深い意味合いや味わい深い文章を表現することは難し
いし、
断言する根拠はたとえばどんなものがありますか。僕はただたんに慣れの問題だと思っています。
ちなみに、源氏物語はかなのみで書かれましたが、当時の書き手や読み手は深い意味あいをその中に見出せなかったのですか。
日本語は同音異義語があまりにも多いので、カナだけではわけが
分からない文章になるため、それを補っているのが表意文字の漢字であ
ると思います。
話すときは同音異義語はべつに問題にならないんじゃないですか。どれだけ高度で専門的な話題でも、その分野の用語に通じている者同士なら、不自由なく会話できる、というのが僕の経験です。
Toshihiro Nagasaka
いと思います。あくまでも日本人にとってどうか、ということです。た
とえば、外国人が日本語を習う場合より日本人が小学校で漢字教育に使
う時間の無駄のほうがはるかに大きい問題のように思われます。
漢字には、既存の漢字を読む側面と自分で書くという側面があります。
平かなだけの文章を書くのはその人の自由ですが、漢字を知らないと人
の書いた漢字混じりの文章を読めなくなります。
時間の無駄かどうかはなんとも言えません。誰でも学校時代は無駄なこ
とのように見えても、成人して社会人になってみると、あの頃もうちょ
っと勉強しておけばよかった、ということはよくあります。
英語は26文字しかありませんが、それでも難しくて長いスペルの英語を
覚えなくてはならない、という点では似ています。
やや脱線しますが、英語ではラテン語などから来た意味がさっぱり分か
らない難しい学術用語でも、それに相当する日本語では漢字交じりの用
語だと部首などから意味が容易に想像できることも多いです。
marc.adler> > カナだけで表記すると、簡単な短い文章や即物的なこと
であればある程
marc.adler> > 度用が足りても、深い意味合いや味わい深い文章を表現
することは難し
marc.adler> > いし、
marc.adler>
marc.adler>
marc.adler> 断言する根拠はたとえばどんなものがありますか。僕はた
だたんに慣れの問題だと思っています。
marc.adler>
marc.adler> ちなみに、源氏物語はかなのみで書かれましたが、当時の
書き手や読み手は深い意味あいをその中に見出せなかったのですか。
なるほど。大和言葉の比率が大きい当時の文章は特に小説ということも
あって平かなだけで書いても大きな混乱はなさそうです。(ラテン語や
ギリシア語の影響を受ける前の古代英語みたいなもの？？)
岩波文庫の源氏物語を見て見ましたら、漢字交じり文になっていました。
これは後世の校閲者が気を利かせて漢字を混ぜたのかなぁ。まぁ、源氏
物語はオリジナルがなくて、いずれも後世の写本なので、異本が多いよ
うですが。
(ちなみにここで「後世」をカナで書くと、「後世」と「校正」があっ
て紛らわしいですね)
marc.adler> > 日本語は同音異義語があまりにも多いので、カナだけで
はわけが
marc.adler> > 分からない文章になるため、それを補っているのが表意
文字の漢字であ
marc.adler> > ると思います。
marc.adler> 話すときは同音異義語はべつに問題にならないんじゃない
ですか。どれだけ高度で専門的な話題でも、その分野の用語に通じてい
る者同士なら、不自由なく会話できる、というのが僕の経験です。
会話では、確かに、「化学」と「科学」を区別するのにいちいち「化け
学」の化学とか、短い説明を加えますが、ここでは表記のことを問題に
しているので、書き言葉に限定すると、そこではいちいちそのような説
明を付加するわけにもいかず、漢字で区別して明確にするしかありませ
ん。
確かに小説や会話体の文章であれば、それほど大きな読みにくさはなさ
そうです。しかし、間延びがして、スペースを大量にとり、速読しにく
いです。一字一字文字を追いながら読む感じで、どのようなことが書か
れているかを一瞬で概要を視覚的にとらえるには向いてないかも。
カナだけでは、いわゆる発音を示す記号に堕してしまって、元の漢字が
持っていた含みがすべて脱落してしまいます。
特に専門書、医学書、歴史史料などはカナだけの表記には向いていませ
ん。しかも、専門家だけが読むとは限らないので、やはり正確さが要求
されます。
「加熱」と「過熱」、「恒温」と「高温」、「印加」と「引火」、「伝
送」と「電送」「電装」、「期間」「機関」「基幹」「帰還」のように
似たような分野や文脈に同じような発音のものが多いです。
ありふれた言葉遊びですが、
「すもももももももものうち」→「スモモも桃も桃のうち」
「にわしのにわににわのにわとりがいる」→「庭師の庭に二羽の鶏がい
る」
こういうのは分かち書きをしてもなかなか読みにくいです(極端な例で
すみません)(汗;;)。
marc.adler>
marc.adler> --
marc.adler> Marc Adler
marc.adler> www.adlerpacific.com
marc.adler> nirebloga.wordpress.com
marc.adler> mudawwanatii.wordpress.com
marc.adler> blogsheli.wordpress.com
marc.adler>
--
Toshihiro Nagasaka
長坂俊宏
Tom Donahue
> 「加熱」と「過熱」、「恒温」と「高温」、「印加」と「引火」、「伝
> 送」と「電送」「電装」、「期間」「機関」「基幹」「帰還」のように
> 似たような分野や文脈に同じような発音のものが多いです。
the mistake may actually be closer to the truth.
But to concede one of Mark's points, kanji are a barrier. Right now there
are hundreds of 介護 assistants from Indonesia working in Japan, all
trained and qualified, but in a few years they'll have to go home
because not one has been able to pass the Health Ministry's test.
Because of kanji, which they are too busy to learn. Someone
should have seen this coming.
--
Tom Donahue
Marc Adler
Toshihiro Nagasaka writes:Exactly. By coincidence, one of my favorites is 集団的加熱取材, where
> 「加熱」と「過熱」、「恒温」と「高温」、「印加」と「引火」、「伝
> 送」と「電送」「電装」、「期間」「機関」「基幹」「帰還」のように
> 似たような分野や文脈に同じような発音のものが多いです。
the mistake may actually be closer to the truth.
Someone might want to inform all the specialists and technicians in Japan that they aren't actually understanding each other when they speak.
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler [mailto:marc....@gmail.com]
writes:
> 「加熱」と「過熱」、「恒温」と「高温」、「印加」と「引火」、「伝
> 送」と「電送」「電装」、「期間」「機関」「基幹」「帰還」のように
> 似たような分野や文脈に同じような発音のものが多いです。
Exactly. By coincidence, one of my favorites is 集団的加熱取材, where
the mistake may actually be closer to the truth.
Someone might want to inform all the specialists and technicians in Japan that they
aren't actually understanding each other when they speak.
Marc, you appear to be ignoring the fact that written Japanese and spoken Japanese are often somewhat different, and in some cases completely different. A specialist may write 「加熱すると」 but to avoid ambiguity when speaking s/he may say 「熱を加えると」.
Now, if kanji were abolished by some sort of orthographic reform, it would be necessary to start writing in a form analogous to spoken Japanese. It would not do to simply replace kanji with the equivalent kana (or romaji).
If Japanese people wished to write in all-kana right now, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. I believe they use the current 漢字混じり form for clarity and accuracy in writing and it seems to work well, so I see no overarching reason to change.
If it ain’t broke…
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Marc Adler
Marc, you appear to be ignoring the fact that written Japanese and spoken Japanese are often somewhat different, and in some cases completely different. A specialist may write 「加熱すると」 but to avoid ambiguity when speaking s/he may say 「熱を加えると」.
If Japanese people wished to write in all-kana right now, there is nothing stopping them from doing so. I believe they use the current 漢字混じり form for clarity and accuracy in writing and it seems to work well, so I see no overarching reason to change.
If it ain’t broke…
I'm not. It's fine the way it is. All I'm saying is that the thing about homonyms is an easily dismissed red herring. Just look at the spoken language. People don't speak in kanji, and they don't need to. There might be a few minor modifications, but people would still understand each other without having to spend so much time learning kanji. Think about the years of otherwise productive labor lost to "typing" with old Japanese typewriters or having to write out memos, etc. Remember your Commodore 65? Your Apple IIe? The Japanese were *unable* to participate in that in their own language. Is this an advantage?
Obviously not. But to reiterate, I don't think it matters much in the big scheme of things. Their current system is inefficient and wastes time, but as I say, the Japanese have this fascination with complex systems and enjoy dealing with huge font sets, etc. So let 'em, I say. It's not my problem. Plus, I think kanji are really cool and being able to read them and write them makes me look real smart.
Jon Johanning
> Think about the years of otherwise productive labor lost to "typing"
> with old Japanese typewriters or having to write out memos, etc.
> Remember your Commodore 65? Your Apple IIe? The Japanese were *unable*
> to participate in that in their own language. Is this an advantage?
they now have 携帯, which are even suitable for writing novels.
> Obviously not. But to reiterate, I don't think it matters much in the
> big scheme of things. Their current system is inefficient and wastes
> time, but as I say, the Japanese have this fascination with complex
> systems and enjoy dealing with huge font sets, etc. So let 'em, I say.
> It's not my problem. Plus, I think kanji are really cool and being
> able to read them and write them makes me look real smart.
folks with only a passing acquaintance with Japanese, if any, is that
they often seem to think that the Japanese people cling to this horrible
writing system only because they are emotionally, sentimentally attached
to the quaintness of it all, and don't stop to think that there might be
a few practical problems with switching to a phonetic system.
By the way, I think I heard or saw somewhere that 森 鷗外 suggested that
the Japanese drop their language altogether and start using French.
Perhaps he was not entirely serious?
Jon Johanning // riverr...@gmail.com
Kirill Sereda
Marc Adler
Exactly. Also, sometimes, a different melodic stress pattern is applied to the word. Frankly, this fervent insistence on the supremacy of the alphabetic approach has something Maoist in it :))
READ THE FUCKING DISCLAIMERS!!!!! ;-)
David Farnsworth
Or Japanese will perform the time-honored method of tracing the kanji character out on their hand to show the other party what word they mean when an ambiguity threatens.
(This would no longer be possible if kanji were abandoned for katakana…)
David Farnsworth
--
To post: mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com
List home: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not
review messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.
Kirill Sereda
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Adler [mailto:marc....@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:30 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
--
Marc Adler
Or Japanese will perform the time-honored method of tracing the kanji character out on their hand to show the other party what word they mean when an ambiguity threatens.
(This would no longer be possible if kanji were abandoned for katakana…)
Yeah, but they wouldn't have to, if there were no kanji...
Marc Adler
Aha... "Du passé faisons table rase, Le monde va changer de base!" :))
Kirill Sereda
Alan Siegrist
Kirill Sereda [mailto:kvse...@worldnet.att.net] writes:
>>il serait un tout petit mieux sans les caractères
Soyons sérieux, serait-il plus facile de traduire un brevet écrit phonétiquement en kana?
Ce serait un cauchemar.
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Marc Adler
>>il serait un tout petit mieux sans les caractèresSoyons sérieux, serait-il plus facile de traduire un brevet écrit phonétiquement en kana?
Il n'y a pas de question.
Anyway, I rest my case. No one has tried to explain the mystery of how Japanese people perform the magic of talking without kanji (David Farnsworth proposes that they write all the kanji out on their hands), and nobody will ever be able to, because kanji are not essential to the Japanese language.
And again, everyone can put their panties back on, because I'm not advocating getting rid of kanji. They're here to stay.
Kirill Sereda
Alan Siegrist
Kirill Sereda [mailto:kvse...@worldnet.att.net] writes:
>>Ce serait un cauchemar.
Cela serait plus effroyable qu'un film d'horreur. L'adoption d'un système d'écriture phonétique rendrait une compréhension et traduction integrale et correcte de documentation technique quasi impossible ou tout bonnement impossible, sans parler de la dégradation de la culture en général.
Je suis entièrement d’accord. Ce serait presque comme la révolution culturelle de Mao en Chine, comme vous l’avez suggéré précédemment.
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Bakabon
What about the notion that the Japanese system actually makes reading
faster and more efficient, because most of the main ideas are
highlighted with kanji, whereas the grammar uses kana. Thus the mind
jumps from idea to idea faster than both a phonetic-only system AND a
kanji-only (Chinese) system. I guess Korean written in mixed script
would also have these properties.
On Chinese simplification:
I actually think the Chinese round of simplification made more sense
than the Japanese version. Japan seemed to haphazardly change some
characters but not others, whereas China applied the simplification of
each radical consistently. Both simplifications were based on
commonly used quick hand forms of the characters, so they weren't a
radical departure from the tradition. The second round of
simplification in China failed because the new forms were too
different from that tradition. I think China will eventually switch
back to fully unsimplified characters thanks to the computer and the
desire for culture influence. There was a debate about switching back
in the government even this year.
Bon Fleming
Kirill Sereda
>>The second round of simplification in China failed... I think China will eventually switch back to fully unsimplified characters thanks to the computer and the desire for culture influence.
I don't know where you get this idea that simplification in China failed. It succeeded. Now, compare the number of people using simplified hanzi with the number of people who still use the old system. Why would ten thousand people switch from their easier system to please one person who still uses the old, more complicated one? Especially considering the fact that these fantizi die-hards are becoming more economically and politically irrelevant with each passing day?
Kirill
Earl
Japanese people perform the magic of talking without kanji
People can speak English without the alphabet, too. It is possible to
speak perfectly well and be illiterate. A written language, in
whatever form, is not necessary for speaking.
One of the reasons I like kanji is that I can read without having to
sound things out. I realized this after I came back to the US after
many years in Japan and found I could still read even though I had
forgotten how to pronounce certain kanji since I had stopped using
them every day. Once I had assimilated the meaning of the kanji, the
pronunciation became almost irrelevant. I still knew what it meant,
even though I had forgotten how to "read" it. I don't know about
anyone else, but I find this extremely useful.
On Nov 13, 12:59 pm, Marc Adler <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/11/13 Kirill Sereda <kvser...@worldnet.att.net>
BJ Beauchamp
People can speak English without the alphabet, too. It is possible to
speak perfectly well and be illiterate. A written language, in
whatever form, is not necessary for speaking.
I disagree. Learning how to write and speak sorta go hand in hand with learning the grammatical construction of your own language. While it may seem that people can speak perfectly well, if you actually engaged them in a conversation, you'd notice that their vernacular is quite lacking (over time that is). Reading improves ones ability to speak, at least I tend to think so.
-- BJ
--
--
BJ Beauchamp
University at Buffalo
/ Linguistics Major / Japanese Major /
---
Born in a war of opposite attraction
It isn't, or is it a natural conception
Torn by the arms in opposite directions
It isn't, or is it a Modernist reaction
相対するのが惹かれ合う諍いの中で生まれた
これは自然の摂理？ それとも違う？
逆の方向から両腕を引っ張られて
これはモダニスト的な反応？ それとも違う？
---
Marc Adler
People can speak English without the alphabet, too. It is possible to
speak perfectly well and be illiterate. A written language, in
whatever form, is not necessary for speaking.
So what I meant by the "magic" was that for the people who think kanji are essential for Japanese to make any sense, the only way they can explain the fact that Japanese people do indeed successfully communicate without them is to invoke magic or something.
And since no one has even tried to explain how it is that Japanese people speak without kanji even though kanji are so "essential" to communication, I'm assuming the argument is over.
Jonathan
> And since no one has even tried to explain how it is that Japanese people
> speak without kanji even though kanji are so "essential" to communication,
> I'm assuming the argument is over.
essential/ to communication, but some people have been saying, for one
thing, that kanji are useful and that their existence makes many
language tasks more efficient.
I'd have to agree with that. An example that sometimes comes up in
work: I find myself looking through a long list of patent titles in
Japanese, in all manner of fields, looking for ones that my client
might be interested in. Would I still be able to do that if they were
all written in all kana? Well, probably, yes. It sure would take
longer though, probably many times longer, especially if I'm not an
expert in every single technical field represented.
Another personal example: much of my knowledge of advanced Japanese
vocabulary comes from reading, so on more than one occasion I've been
warned by my interpretation teachers, after trying out a certain
technical term, "don't use that word in speech; it works in writing
but orally people won't know what you're talking about." I wish I
could think of a specific example right now but I'm sure everyone here
knows what I mean. The concept in question can always be expressed
orally, but only in a more roundabout, less efficient way. Thus, if
we were restricted in our writing to only words that work orally, we
would find our vocabulary reduced, and it would take us more words to
say some things.
Jonathan Michaels
Monterey, CA
Jonathan
forked and that the other fork had pretty much come to an end.
Jonathan Michaels
Alan Siegrist
Earl Hartman <earl.s....@gmail.com> wrote:
People can speak English without the alphabet, too. It is possible to speak perfectly well and be illiterate. A written language, in whatever form, is not necessary for speaking.
I do not think anyone is arguing that it is not possible to write Japanese in either an alphabet like one of the current forms of rōmaji or in a phonetic syllabic script like kana. It is certainly possible as Marc A. argues, but the question is: is it an efficient and effective mode of writing and communication?
As you say, it is also possible for illiterates to speak and of course they in fact can and do carry on everyday ordinary conversations. However, it would be difficult or practically close to impossible for illiterates to discuss matters that are typically taught in school such as literature, mathematics and science.
Have you ever heard of an effective system of modern education that relies solely on spoken communication and no writing?
I think the first step of any type of modern education is to teach a writing system.
And Marc Adler writes:
And since no one has even tried to explain how it is that Japanese people speak without kanji even though kanji are so "essential" to communication, I'm assuming the argument is over.
I do not believe that kanji are essential to write Japanese. It is obviously possible to write Japanese phonetically in a written equivalent of the speech of illiterates. But is this desirable? Would this be an effective and efficient, or even an esthetically pleasing, mode of written communication?
I would say no.
Regards,
Jon Johanning
I do not believe that kanji are essential to write Japanese. It is obviously possible to write Japanese phonetically in a written equivalent of the speech of illiterates. But is this desirable? Would this be an effective and efficient, or even an esthetically pleasing, mode of written communication?
Sadly, however, they found themselves off the coast of the Asian mainland, and so were presented with the kanji as a writing system. They started writing Chinese itself and only later decided to try to adapt that writing system to their own language, a completely unrelated one. So here they are, centuries later, much too late to go back and start over.
Jon Johanning // riverr...@gmail.com
Dale Ponte
>But is this desirable? Would this be an effective and efficient,
>or even an esthetically pleasing, mode of written communication?
cause for concern, encompassing the familiar humanistic gamut among
other values, that I would raise as to the idea of homogenizing kanji
out of the picture: That their elimination would be tantamount to a
kind of cultural lobotomy.
~
Dale Ponte
Alan Siegrist
Jon Johanning [mailto:riverr...@gmail.com] writes:
If the Japanese had had the "good fortune" to be situated off the coast of Europe, like the inhabitants of the British Isles, they would have started writing by adopting the Roman alphabet, and would no doubt have developed the language in a very different way, writing it phonetically. (Though this is probably impossible to imagine, they might have borrowed many Latin and Greek words, as English speakers did, for vocabulary they lacked, or they might have constructed words for many abstract concepts out of their native words, as German speakers did.)
Yes, exactly. And the converse may also have been true. Had the British Isles been situated off the coast of Asia, the ancient Britons may have become vassals of Chinese emperors and adopted the Chinese characters for writing and borrowed Chinese vocabulary.
This may have resulted in the English being written in Chinese characters, although this too might be difficult to imagine. I think any proposal to begin writing English with Chinese characters now would meet just as much resistance to proposals to begin writing Japanese with Roman characters. But essentially such proposals are equivalent.
But the way it did work out, each nation modified their adopted writing system over the centuries to suit the needs of the language, which we now see.
Either way, the adoption of a written language, however written, was a great boon to both cultures and paved the way to modern education and civilization. As you say, it is too late to go back.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Aaron Madlon-Kay
> possible to write Japanese phonetically in a written equivalent of the
be discussed as such. The second is entirely relative, and cannot be
answered empirically.
I think what's most frustrating about this discussion is that people
are answering the empirical questions with answers based on emotion or
appeals to tradition. My viewpoint is similar to Marc's: I _like_
kanji, and I _don't_ advocate actual language reform of any sort. But
I think the question* "are there demonstrably superior** writing
systems?" is an interesting one, and it's disappointing to see
intelligent, open-minded people dismiss the question off-hand.
*I would ask this question of _all_ writing systems, not just ones
that use Kanji.
**I'll leave the exact definition of "superior" as an exercise for the
reader, but off the top of my head I would start with something like
"has an optimal balance between ease of memorization, ease of use, and
'expressive power'". And now we need to define "expressive power"...
> I think any proposal to
> begin writing English with Chinese characters now would meet just as much
> resistance to proposals to begin writing Japanese with Roman characters. But
> essentially such proposals are equivalent.
stumbled across a fascinating English-Hanzi hybrid writing scheme. Of
course it's meant to be _art_, not any sort of practical system.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/11/13/now-here-is-an-idea-for-people-looking-for-chinese-looking-tattoos/
-Aaron Madlon-Kay
Kirill Sereda
systems?"
to assert their false "superiority". In this case, we are superior because
we invented a smarter system... Is that really so?
You cannot compare a phonetic system to a symbolic one. Each one has its
own modus videndi. The phonetic one lives as a shell, as a meaningless
utilitarian instrument on the outer surface of a language, practically
completely detached from it. The symbolic system (hanzi/kanji) lives inside
a language, giving this language a symbolic plane of meaning that no
phonetic system is capable of creating. Hanzi/kanji are not letters! It is
an entirely different animal. A hieroglyphic system is always part of
culture, whereas an alphabet is not. Please do not compare apples and
oranges.
Kirill
Mark Spahn
> A hieroglyphic system is always part of
> culture, whereas an alphabet is not.
Hmmm. I wonder whether
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bliss_symbols
is part of culture, even though it was invented
as an ideographic character set to be read in
any language.
-- Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
Kirill Sereda
in any language.
The difference is between the ROLE the script PLAYS in a particular
language. AUXILIARY role in European languages (so superior, yeah) and the
LOAD-BEARING CULTURAL role hanzi/kanji play in Japanese and Chinese.
Kirill
Marc Adler
Incidentally, Korean seems to be in a similar situation as Japanese vis-a-vis the number of kango in its language, but they write patents without a single kanji.
Also: the irony of the mojibake in the subject header.
Aaron Madlon-Kay
> >>But I think the question* "are there demonstrably superior** writing
>
> systems?"
> As I suspected, for some people, all this boils down to an insatiable desire
> to assert their false "superiority". In this case, we are superior because
> we invented a smarter system... Is that really so?
tested by empirical means, and you turn around and accuse me of some
sort of language bigotry. Nowhere did I state any hypothesis that
phonetic systems are superior to symbolic ones. I have _zero_ opinion
on the relative merits of those systems because I am not aware of any
actual scientific studies on the subject.
> You cannot compare a phonetic system to a symbolic one.
compared. Of course we need to restrict the comparison to _testable_
aspects of both (e.g. not "which one is more aesthetically pleasing").
> Each one has its
> own modus videndi. The phonetic one lives as a shell, as a meaningless
> utilitarian instrument on the outer surface of a language, practically
> completely detached from it. The symbolic system (hanzi/kanji) lives inside
> a language, giving this language a symbolic plane of meaning that no
> phonetic system is capable of creating. Hanzi/kanji are not letters! It is
> an entirely different animal.
> A hieroglyphic system is always part of
> culture, whereas an alphabet is not.
for this?
> Please do not compare apples and
> oranges.
please stop trying to confuse the issue.
-Aaron Madlon-Kay
Earl
over another.
It is true that compared to letters or a system of phonetics, kanji
are hard to remember
and quite labor intensive. However, I think they have definite
advanatges,
especially when encountering new 熟語. I think kanji are superior to
letters in this respect.
For example, if I encounter the word "pneumonia" for the first time,
either in conversation
or in writing, if I do not know Latin or Greek, I will have no idea
what it might mean,
except from context if I'm lucky. If I only hear it, I might start
wondering why I can't
find it under "N" in the dictionary. Someone will have to tell me how
to spell it, and then I will
have to look it up.
However, if I see 肺炎, even if I have never sen this combination
before, and even if I do not
know how to pronounce it, I will be able to make a completely accurate
guess that it
means "inflammation of the the lungs" if I know the meaning of the
individual kanji
of which the compound is composed. I don't know about anyone else, but
I think that's
pretty damn slick.
Could the Japanese have come up with an easier writing system? Sure.
English could be
spelled phonetically too. I am not an expert by any means, but I have
heard it said
that Hangul is the best phonetic writing system ever invented.
My only point was to object to the idea of replacing the Japanese
writing system with
Romaji. I did not object because in theory this would not be more
"efficient" (it
probably would in the long run) but because it would render two
millenia of Japanese culture
completely incomprehensible to the Japanese people in a generation or
two, much like
how nobody in Scandanavia can read runes now. And that would be a
shame, that's all.
Earl Hartman
On Nov 15, 6:53 pm, Marc Adler <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
>The symbolic system (hanzi/kanji) lives inside a language, giving this
>language a symbolic plane of meaning that no phonetic system is capable of
>creating.
when it is not solely symbolic. In fact, only a small portion of the entire
set is.
>Hanzi/kanji are not letters! It is an entirely different animal. A
>hieroglyphic system is always part of culture, whereas an alphabet is not.
evolve in many different ways. Kanji/hanzi is in that manner no different
from a writing system like Arabic or an alphabet. Or will you now state that
Futhark or Hindi are also not part of a culture, either historically or
presently?
--
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
I have not yet begun to fight...
Kirill Sereda
when it is not solely symbolic. In fact, only a small portion of the entire
set is.
values that are "assigned" to them, "linked" to them, carried along like
luggage, but these phonetic values are never purpose of their creation, as
is the case with alphabetic symbols. The sole purpose of their creation is
their meaning. It is a common Western mistake to point to mnemonic phonetic
hints contained in their structure and say, "hanzi do indicate sound (and we
have a better system for that! Jesus, we are so smart! :)". They never do.
The hints are there for your learning pleasure and nothing else. Or, in case
of Japanese, the on readings are simply borrowed lexical elements that are
associated with kanji, but these lexical entities are not what kanji
"indicate".
>>like Arabic or an alphabet
The Arabic writing system is an alphabet.
>>will you now state that Futhark or Hindi are also not part of a culture,
either historically or presently?
different from the relationship between Japanese and its writing system.
Hindi can change its writing system today without a massive
information/cultural loss, Japanese cannot.
Kirill
Marc Adler
Yes, all hanzi/kanji are symbolic, 100% percent. They do have phonetic
values that are "assigned" to them, "linked" to them, carried along like
luggage, but these phonetic values are never purpose of their creation, as
is the case with alphabetic symbols.
Are you sure about this? And even if this is so, you're talking about soothsayers and oneiromancers from thousands of years ago. How applicable is that today?
The sole purpose of their creation is
their meaning. It is a common Western mistake to point to mnemonic phonetic
hints contained in their structure and say, "hanzi do indicate sound (and we
have a better system for that! Jesus, we are so smart! :)". They never do.
I don't think anyone here has said "we're smarter because we have a more efficient writing system," so this is a total straw man. Unless you mean that that's the hidden undercurrent or implied argument in what I'm saying, which I can assure you it isn't.
In fact, you're the one who's arguing that kanji are superior to alphabets (although you have yet to explain why). What troubles me about your position is that a majority of the people who write with kanji wouldn't care less if they were eliminated. Most people aren't interested in the fascinating history of kanji, etc. They're not even interested in language. They just want to make themselves understood.
Is it fair for an overeducated minority to force everyone else to use this clunky writing system, just because it's beautiful and profound and whatever else?
Hindi can change its writing system today without a massive
information/cultural loss, Japanese cannot.
How so? People would be unable to read old books -- that's the only difference. The situation would be the same in English if we switched to writing with, say, the Russian alphabet.
Kirill Sereda
Marc Adler
What troubles me about your position is that you assume that your own cultural nihilism is what "most people" dream about. I assure you, I have yet to meet a Chinese person or a
Nihilsm?!?
Japanese person who "wouldn't care less". All Chinese and Japanese people I know consider the writing system they use an essential part of their culture and are pround of it.
>>They just want to make themselves understood.That's all they want, really? Sure, but don't forget panem et circenses!
Your strategy is failing.
Why don't you just address the statement itself instead of your made-up version of whatever ideology you think is behind it? It shouldn't be hard. You're one of the smartest people on this list, and I respect your opinions. We can discuss my latent European supremacism later. ;-)
So far, you've talked about a cultural patrimony that would be lost, but haven't specified what this loss would entail. I've said several times that other than not being able to read old books (which could conveniently be kana-ized) and maybe some kakejiku or inscriptions on temples, there wouldn't be much loss, because Japanese culture is greater than a few thousand Chinese characters. (I think I've written that now about three times.)
Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't see how switching to an all-kana writing system would be such a tremendous loss. That is why I'm asking you: enlighten me. I sincerely want to know why you think it would be such a huge loss. I'm convincible! I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong in this situation. All I want is some proof.
The other point is about the homonyms. I have asked for an explanation of why context, together with some approximation of the written language to the spoken language as Alan suggested (ねつをくわえる for 加熱), wouldn't be enough to make any homonyms perfectly understandable in writing. I've been present at and partly participated in outrageously technical discussions among Japanese engineers, and as I've said many times so far not once did they have to draw kanji on their hands, etc. to make themselves understood. My wife is an architect, and I've heard her discuss things with her coworkers that I could not make head or tail of. They had no trouble understanding each other.
And lastly, I'll say it again, but I also see the benefits of using kanji, which are many. I just happen to think that an all-kana writing system would be more efficient. This statement is not the same as saying that the current kanji-kana majiri system is broken or hopelessly unworkable, etc.
Kirill Sereda
Marc Adler
>>Nihilsm?!?And how should we describe it when one denies the intrinsic value of an important aspect of culture?
I'm asking you to describe that important aspect, which you still haven't, even in this message.
>>All I hear is 読めるけど、書けない and 漢字は難しいね.Ay, there's the rub: those people who say "漢字は難しいね" _do not_ imply: "kanji are so *** difficult I wish they didn't exist"! Quite the opposite, it's an expression of humility in the face of beautiful complexity as well and an admission of one's own imperfection and a desire to improve.
So it's a good thing to have a writing system so elaborate that it requires a reevaluation of self worth to master?
>>my straightforward statement ("phonetic writing is more efficient")Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. This statement is false if applied to Japanese and Chinese: phonetic writing, in case of Japanese and Chinese, would be LESS efficient than the current system.
I'm still waiting for evidence that it wouldn't be more efficient.
(1) make communication less efficient due to the loss of clarity and concision,
Evidence, please. I've presented my evidence. Now it's your turn.
(2) cost money because text will take more space,
This is totally trivial, not to mention that this isn't the reason people use kanji.
But now that you mention it, going all-kana would be a great economic stimulus.
(3) cause gradual vocabulary loss due to homonym competition,
New words are added to the language every day. New words are added to all languages every day.
(4) curtail the abilty of the language to form new words,
What?? This is a joke, right? Japanese can only form new words because of kanji? You seem to think that people would have to stop using kango. こう- would still be available for use as "high-," てい- for "low-" and so on.
(5) create a new/old rift in the body of culture
That's happening anyway, all the time. The only thing that would change is that pre-change novels would be published in all-kana recensions. People would still read the books. Old movies would be fine. Old music, ditto. Painting, ditto. Dance, ditto. Theater, ditto. Comedy, ditto. Calligraphy would still be done, just as it's done in Korea. There's nothing stopping people from learning the kanji if they want to, after all. In fact, I believe that Koreans study kanji sort of the way Brits used to study Latin in school -- to learn about the roots of the vocab. So they'd know some of these things, if they did it the same way.
(6) lead to loss of whole branches of art and aesthetic value in everyday life.
And, all this should be tolerated just to please a few lazy foreigners?
Kirill Sereda
Marc Adler
>>I'm asking you to describe that important aspect, which you still haven't, even in this message.The aspect you've slated for destruction, kanji!
That's it? You made it sound as though getting rid of kanji would somehow affect the culture at large.
If you had just stated clearly at the beginning that your position was that getting rid of kanji would be bad because it would get rid of kanji, we could've avoided this exchange.
>>So it's a good thing to have a writing system so elaborate that it requires a reevaluation of self worth to master?Older cultures respect complexity; younger ones don't.
Horse-and-buggy, space shuttle.
実るほど頭を垂れる稲穂かな (you probably prefer みのるほどこうべをたれるいなほかな)
As I've said many times before, I personally like the kanji. This discussion has nothing to do with my preferences.
>>I'm still waiting for evidence that it wouldn't be more efficient.Dixi quod potui, dicant meliore potentes.
Jonathan
On Nov 16, 12:31 pm, Marc Adler <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting. All I hear is 読めるけど、書けない and 漢字は難しいね.
A familiar refrain indeed. However it's been my perception that said
refrain is almost always either an expression of self-deprecation/
humility ("oh no, I'm not good at all, really"), or flattery/comforing
("wow you must be smart for knowing kanji/don't feel bad for having
trouble with kanji").
> こう- would still be available for use as "high-," てい- for "low-" and so on.
mean "hard"? I mean "oral"? I mean "thick"? No, I guess in most
cases it'd be fairly obvious from context which was meant. But I
imagine the mental process of determining which is meant would take a
non-zero amount of time.
Note that in the above I assume we're talking about a comparison
between "reading Japanese with kanji" and "reading Japanese without
kanji". If we're in fact talking about a comparison of "reading
Japanese" and "reading Korean", or perhaps a comparison involving
speech, then I apologize for misunderstanding the discussion.
> I'm still waiting for evidence that it wouldn't be more efficient.
where we time how many milliseconds it takes people to look at set of
scribbles 1 ("ねつをくわえる") and ascertain the meaning, and then time how
long it takes to look at set of scribbles 2 ("加熱") and ascertain the
meaning, and then compare.
A bit tricky to do in practice though, because we'd first have to give
the first group time to get used to reading all-kana Japanese.
However it serves as an interesting thought experiment. The fact that
the first set of scribbles is almost 3.5 times wider than the second
might be relevant, since the first step in reading and comprehending
is simple visual perception. And then there are also some people
(admittedly a minority) who pronounce words in their heads as they
read them; they might take roughly 2.3 times longer to read the first
set of scribbles.
Jonathan Michaels
Kirill Sereda
Marc Adler
Wait, wouldn't こう- mean "falling"? I mean "good"? I mean "anti"? I
mean "hard"? I mean "oral"? I mean "thick"? No, I guess in most
Again, there's no kanji when you talk. And people talk Japanese all day long without any problem. Why would it be a problem when writing all kana? It's the same thing.
What kind of evidence would be appropriate, I wonder? Perhaps a study
As for your suggestion about reading, I'm pretty sure people read words as single units, so "it" and "guitar" and "pronunciation" all take the same amount of time to read. This is why it doesn't take Germans or Finns longer to read than Americans, for example. Therefore, ねつを くわえる would take as long to read as 加熱する.
Ｎaturally it would take some getting used to, but people interpret the initial feeling of unfamiliarity as an insurmountable wall of sheer impossibility. This is a very human reaction -- people display this kind of resistance to most change.
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
>What kind of evidence would be appropriate, I wonder? Perhaps a study
>where we time how many milliseconds it takes people to look at set of
>scribbles 1 ("ねつをくわえる") and ascertain the meaning, and then time how
>long it takes to look at set of scribbles 2 ("加熱") and ascertain the
>meaning, and then compare.
>A bit tricky to do in practice though, because we'd first have to give
>the first group time to get used to reading all-kana Japanese.
>However it serves as an interesting thought experiment. The fact that
>the first set of scribbles is almost 3.5 times wider than the second
>might be relevant, since the first step in reading and comprehending
>is simple visual perception. And then there are also some people
>(admittedly a minority) who pronounce words in their heads as they
>read them; they might take roughly 2.3 times longer to read the first
>set of scribbles.
half-width katakana if space is a concern.
I am sure there's enough cases where you look at the kanji compounds and
have to figure out if it is all onyomi, on-kumyomi, or a kun-onyomi mix,
thus also adding to the time to parse. And why would the hiragana-only case
take longer? Hiragana is a finite set of characters which, if aided with the
spaces for logic separation, would actually read faster than any random
string with kanji combined with hiragana, methinks.
But this entire topic is starting to read like a rehash of a similar one
from March this year where I pointed out some of the post-WW2 research done
on fully romanized Japanese and their effects.
--
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
Marc Adler
What's that? A good Georgian joke? Or maybe its a randomly selected sentence fragment from a Georgian Wikipedia article on communication?
Maybe we can avoid this kind of confusion by sticking to one of the seven languages we actually speak in common. ;-)
Jonathan
> > Wait, wouldn't こう- mean "falling"? I mean "good"? I mean "anti"? I
> > mean "hard"? I mean "oral"? I mean "thick"? No, I guess in most
> It would take as long as it takes to figure it out when someone is talking.
> When someone says こうせいぶっしつ, you don't henkan it in your mind to figure it
> out. You just know it means "antibiotic."
coining new words, in response to:
> > (4) curtail the abilty of the language to form new words,
> What?? This is a joke, right? Japanese can only form new words because of
words--I remember one patent with a term like "可繊維化性" (I may have
slightly mangled it but that was the gist). I think that in Japanese
coinages like these (and I'm referring to the word かせんいかせい, not to the
concept, which of course can be described orally) are more easily
introduced for the first time in writing than in speech, kanji being
the presumable reason. In English though, not so much
("fiberizability" or something?) since each morpheme is chosen from a
larger phoneme space, reducing collisions.
> As for your suggestion about reading, I'm pretty sure people read words as
> single units, so "it" and "guitar" and "pronunciation" all take the same
> amount of time to read.
I haven't yet formally studied any linguistics, so I'll take your word
for it.
Jonathan Michaels
Marc Adler
Existing words may be no problem, but engineers do like coining new
Right, but all words were at some point neologisms, so there should be no more difficulty with future neologisms than with past ones.
Laurie Berman
On Nov 16, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Marc Adler wrote:
> 2009/11/16 Jonathan <ist...@gmail.com>
>
> Existing words may be no problem, but engineers do like coining new
>
> Right, but all words were at some point neologisms, so there should
> be no more difficulty with future neologisms than with past ones.
Maybe we should just ask the Koreans how they do it.
Laurie Berman
Marc Adler
The difficulty would be in figuring out what they mean.
Maybe we should just ask the Koreans how they do it.
This actually presents an interesting possibility. After 100 years of this kind of thing, our hypothetical (and impossible, since it won't happen) Japanese-speakers will probably start thinking that past generations were かなりバカ to have 1000 こうs meaning everything from "high" to "against," and further they might even gradually ditch the whole on-yomi thing and start moving towards greater use of yamatokotoba, since the introduction of so many katakana English words is I think partly due to the fact that neologizing with kango elements can create some pretty impenetrable beasts. In other words, eliminating the kanji might actually solve the homonym problem, since people wouldn't have the kanji to rely on to figure out what kango words mean, and they would therefore (perhaps) use more native elements for neologisms. This would be a process of course. Initially, confusion between, say, 過熱 and 加熱 would lead to a simpler ねつを くわえる and then maybe just to あつさを くわえる。 Although, I don't think that last step would happen, since ねつ would probably remain.
Anyway, it's fun to speculate, and the language will certainly change in ways we can't even imagine today, but as I say, kanji are here to stay.
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler [mailto:marc....@gmail.com] writes:
What kind of evidence would be appropriate, I wonder? Perhaps a study
Any kind. I've put forward several reasons why I think it would be more efficient
As for evidence, perhaps literacy statistics might be useful.
If the kanji-kana system used in Japan were so extremely difficult to master and inefficient or ineffective in learning to write, as Marc suggests, one would expect to see a significantly lower literacy rate in Japan than other countries. However, look at the most recent ranking of countries by literacy rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
As we see, Japan has a 99.0% literacy rate, on par with most Western nations which use alphabetic languages. Any perceived difficulty of learning the Japanese writing system has not been reflected in a low literacy rate.
As one other example, Vietnam, despite having abandoned kanji for an alphabetic writing system, still has a significantly lower literacy rate of 90.3%.
I do not see the great effectiveness of an alphabetic writing system in lowering illiteracy.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
Marc Adler
literacy rate in Japan than other countries. However, look at the most recent ranking of countries by literacy rate:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
As we see, Japan has a 99.0% literacy rate, on par with most Western nations which use alphabetic languages. Any perceived difficulty of learning the Japanese writing system has not been reflected in a low literacy rate.
Also, here's a fun challenge: try to find any proof of any literacy surveys done in Japan since 1956.
I do not see the great effectiveness of an alphabetic writing system in lowering illiteracy.
Cuba has a significantly higher literacy rate than China.
BOOM! Your argument is demolished.
Isn't this a fun game?
Alan Siegrist
Marc Adler [mailto:marc....@gmail.com]
writes:
As we see, Japan has a 99.0% literacy rate, on par with most Western nations which use alphabetic languages. Any perceived difficulty of learning the Japanese writing system has not been reflected in a low literacy rate.
That's all well and good, but it's beside the point. I never said kanji were impossible to learn. I'm just saying it would be easier not to learn them.
OK, what evidence do you have that it is easier not to learn them? I mean statistics rather than just people you talked to.
Also, here's a fun challenge: try to find any proof of any literacy surveys done in Japan since 1956.
You are welcome to provide such evidence if you have it.
I do not see the great effectiveness of an alphabetic writing system in lowering illiteracy.
Oh wait, we can play the cherry picking game? Oh goody.
I only picked Vietnam because they had previously used kanji and now use an alphabetic system, like what you appear to be advocating for Japan.
I merely wanted to point out that an alphabetic system has not turned out to be a panacea for eliminating illiteracy.
Cuba has a significantly higher literacy rate than China.
Yes, but Cuba never used kanji.
BOOM! Your argument is demolished.
Boom back! Besides, I can imagine how they conduct literacy surveys in Cuba.
Survey taker: Can you read?
Respondent: No.
S.T.: You do know that illiterates will be “reeducated” in the gulag, right? Now, can you read?
R.: Yes, yes.
S.T.: Excellent. Another perfect day of 100% literacy in Cuba.
David Farnsworth
Marc,
You failed to see Alan’s point entirely (perhaps because he elided it, assuming it to be obvious, but nevertheless…). He brought up Vietnam because it is an example of a nation that switched from kanji to roman alphabet in recent times.
Explosions can go both ways…
David Farnsworth
--
To post: mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com
List home: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku
FAQ: http://groups.google.com/group/honyaku/web
Posters assume all responsibility for their posts; list owners do not
review messages and accept no responsibility for the content of posts.
Marc Adler
<AlanFS...@comcast.net> wrote:
> OK, what evidence do you have that it is easier not to learn them? I mean statistics rather than just people you talked to.
easier than learning 2000 characters?
> You are welcome to provide such evidence if you have it.
back it up, don't bring it up.
> I only picked Vietnam because they had previously used kanji and now use an alphabetic system, like what you appear to be advocating for Japan.
Now tell me you weren't cherry picking.
> I merely wanted to point out that an alphabetic system has not turned out to be a panacea for eliminating illiteracy.
men, Alan, because I never said anything about literacy.
It's a non-issue. Japanese literacy would remain the same. Or fall. Or
rise. Who cares? You yourself have already established that writing
with or without kanji doesn't affect literacy.
And that's all I'll say about literacy, which is not the topic.
Now, if you have any evidence that using kanji is more efficient,
which was the original question, I'll be glad to look at it.
Or the question of the tremendous cultural patrimony which would be
irrevocably lost. Let's talk about that.
Michael Hendry
now racist jokes... This is a professional list guys. Please let's keep it
that way. We have asked several times but now finally, please stop
responding to this and similar off-topic, rambling games of one-upmanship.
As I said previously, there are other forums for this sort of thing.
Michael Hendry
One of three tired owners
Marc Adler
<li...@letstalktranslations.com> wrote:
> This thread has degenerated into nonsense. Swearing, personal attacks, and
> now racist jokes... This is a professional list guys. Please let's keep it
> that way. We have asked several times but now finally, please stop
> responding to this and similar off-topic, rambling games of one-upmanship.
JimBreen
> As for evidence, perhaps literacy statistics might be useful.
>
> If the kanji-kana system used in Japan were so extremely difficult to master
> and inefficient or ineffective in learning to write, as Marc suggests, one
> would expect to see a significantly lower literacy rate in Japan than other
> countries. However, look at the most recent ranking of countries by literacy
> rate:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate
government policy. There has been no serious survey
carried out in the last half-century, and earlier studies
were petty flawed in methodology (e.g. a study in the
late 1940s defined "illiterate" as being only able to read
a few kana, and then defined "literate" as NOT illiterate.)
There is a fair bit of evidence that the kanji reading ability
of many adult Japanese is really quite limited. I have
heard of attempts to carry out real surveys being blocked
on the grounds that they were unnecessary.
I really wonder how blind Japanese people seem to be able
to speak quite fluent Japanese without access to kanji as
a disambiguation aid.
Jim
Alan Siegrist
>
> "Racist jokes"?
Yeah, racist jokes?
Maybe I missed something.
Marc Adler
Redux list for whoever's interested.
Marc
Marc Adler
2009/11/16 Marc Adler <marc....@gmail.com>:
Doreen Simmons
pretty thoroughly and it was discovered that there had never been an
investigation in Japan that could be used for comparative studies. In
one report, anybody who had ever been to school was classed as
'literate'; and subsequent attempts to get a real investigation were
strongly opposed by those who already had the 'figures' to assert their
own claims of superiority. IMNSHO, NO Japanese figures can be accepted
in this kind of comparison. We are still awaiting a genuine report.
Doreen Simmons
On 2009/11/17, at 7:37, Alan Siegrist wrote:
> ....
> nations which use alphabetic languages. Any perceived difficulty of
> learning the Japanese writing system has not been reflected in a low
> literacy rate.
jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp
Karen Sandness
certainly semi-literate people in Japan.
I once did a pro bono translation of a statement by a young woman who
had been brought up in an orphanage. She not only avoided using all
but a few kanji but had trouble with kana spelling as well.
Years ago, the author of a book on Japanese high schools sat in on the
国語 class at a night school for working youth and was surprised to
note that the young people stumbled over kanji that he considered easy
and basic.
There are also fictional accounts of illiterate people, such as an
episode of the 1970s cop show in which the police are astounded to
learn that a young man they question doesn't know which kanji his name
is written with. I also recall a manga story in the 人間交差点
series in which a young woman spends her whole life in the underground
economy and never attends school because her parents never registered
her birth.
When I taught Japanese, I saw that my students differed tremendously
in their ability to understand how the writing system works. Some
never did catch on to the principles for when to use the kun reading
and when to use the on reading, nor did they seem to absorb my
repeated assurances that we were learning only the kanji for words
that had appeared in previous lessons, so they'd look at a word like 銀
行, think for a moment, and say hesitantly, "Gin-iku?"
Anecdotally yours,
Karen Sandness
Mika Jarmusz
脱線しますが、
日本の識字率は現在不明なのでしょうか。
取り立てて知りたいわけではありませんが、
こういう話は、英語でばかり進んでしまうのもなんですので。
（「ご苦労様」の使い方についても私なりに思うところはあるのですが、これも横道ですね。）
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
http://inJapanese.us
Alan Siegrist
Yes, I intended to continue this discussion only on the Not Honyaku Rules
list, but the Honyaku moderators have, in their infinite wisdom, allowed
continued criticism of Japanese reporting of literacy rates, despite
publicly censuring me for jocularly criticizing the Cuban reporting of same.
Given this tacit approval for further discussion on this list, I shall
continue here. My apologies if this is presumptive of me.
Mika Jarmusz [mailto:mik...@gmail.com] writes:
> 日本の識字率は現在不明なのでしょうか。
The Japanese version of Wikipedia does give literacy rates for Japan from
the 2002 UNESCO survey.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AD%98%E5%AD%97%E7%8E%87
| 以下では、UNESCOが公開した2002年時点の国別の識字率を中心に、
| 地域ごとの傾向を示す（ただし、日本の99.8%という数値を含め、これ
| らのデータの信頼性は低い。参考文献を参照） 。
<snip>
| 日本 - 99.8% (男性99.9%、女性99.7%)
As you see, the reported figure for Japan is given as 99.8%, the same as
that for Cuba in the more recent 2009 figures. (Interestingly, Cuba is
reported here to have a 97% literacy rate in 2002, so they have obviously
made great strides to achieve the 99.8% rate in 2009, only 7 years later.)
Now, I will leave it up to others to determine exactly what is meant by the
proviso「これらのデータの信頼性は低い」above.
Minoru Mochizuki
appearing on the NBR forum denouncing Japanese statistics are opinionated
and groundless, not based on factual studies of their own. The general
tendency of those posters is that they believe only those they can read,
i.e., written in English.
I wonder if you have conducted any statistical study on literacy on your
own.
Minoru Mochizuki
-----Original Message-----
From: Doreen Simmons [mailto:jz8d...@asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:22 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Whither 日本語
JimBreen
wrote:
> appearing on the NBR forum denouncing Japanese statistics are opinionated
> and groundless, not based on factual studies of their own. The general
> tendency of those posters is that they believe only those they can read,
> i.e., written in English.
on literacy levels, I would be delighted to be shown the details of
recent surveys of Japanese literacy levels. I have been asking about
this for nearly 20 years, including at several language education
conferences in Japan and numerous online forums. So far no-one
has come up with any backing for the 99+% apart from a small
study in the late 1940s and the (possibly anecdotal) view that it
is based on school attendance.
In the absence of any evidence of recent and thorough surveys,
I reserve the right to be skeptical.
Jim
Minoru Mochizuki
If you are interested in the literacy rate, I would suggest you to check the following Wikipedia article which include data published by UNESCO (sorry if someone already mentioned it in this thread), which includes the rate for Japan. It is interesting to note that it writes: アメリカ合衆国、多くのヨーロッパ諸国、オセアニア諸国については他国と比較できる統計が公表されていない。
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AD%98%E5%AD%97
If U.S. and European nations are not strong believer of the statistical literacy figure, I suppose that pretty much ends our discussion.
It may also explain why you cannot find any significant surveys in Japan that satisfy your interest. Perhaps you should be content with the situation as you would not be able to find similar statistics in your own country as well.
Minoru Mochizuki