Help With Learning Kanji
metaphist
drilling sets of kanji as they appear in actual reading? Or learning
the radicals first, then moving on to the complex stuff? I've been
experimenting with the first approach lately, but can't help but think
the second method might create a better foundation for the first in the
longrun.
What method do/did you use and how would you rate them?
Phil Yff
I think it's best to learn as you read along. The ones that recur will
stick with you. The ones that you come across infrequently you might
forget. If you try to learn them based on an arbitrary list rather than
practical use, or try to learn the abstract concepts like radicals, I think
you'll spend a lot of time spinning your wheels. In other words, you'll
start forgetting them before you get a chance to use them.
If you do want to learn kanji from a list, I would recommend "250 Essential
Kanji for Everyday Use, Volume 1". As you might surmise from the title,
there is a volume 2 with another 250 kanji. It'll teach you kanji that you
use in everyday life, like buying a train or subway ticket. The kanji is
fully explained with good mnemonics and just the right amount of discussion
about composition (such as radicals). You can see it on this URL and it
even provides info on vol. 2.
http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0804835586/ref=s9_asin_title_1/103-7808730-7259837
Phil Yff
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson
I think before I can recommend anything to you, I need to know why are
you learning kanji? Do you want to read material, or just "read"
material (eg: know the meaning without knowing the pronounciation), or
to write by hand or by computer, or what?
Ken
Ben Finney
> What you some of you better recommend for learning: looking up and
> drilling sets of kanji as they appear in actual reading? Or learning
> the radicals first, then moving on to the complex stuff?
My method is reductionist. I'm learning the writing-to-meaning
associations as a separate study, and learning the readings
(pronunciations) as they occur in vocabulary learning.
The latter is simply a matter of vocabulary drilling and other
methods. It's made much simpler, though, by the fact that I'm learning
the writing-to-meaning associations systematically, and can recognise
the kanji as familiar characters with core meanings that usually
associate easily with the word I'm learning.
The writing-to-meaning association is a systematic study, which I've
derived as a combination of James Heisig's _Remembering the Kanji
volume I_, the core meanings from Jack Halpern's dictionaries, the
_Zhong Wen_ and _KANJIDIC_ online dictionaries, and (following the
method Heisig gives) my own mental-image-based mnemonics for the
associations.
Remembering the Kanji volume I
<URL:http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/miscPublications/Remembering_the_Kanji_1.htm>
New Japanese-English Character Dictionary
Kanji Learner's Dictionary
<URL:http://www.kanji.org/kanji/index.htm>
Zhong Wen
<URL:http://zhongwen.com/>
KANJIDIC
<URL:http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic.html>
Be aware that Heisig's _RtK_ series, and especially _RtK:I_, is a
rather controversial topic among Japanese teachers and learners. Many
consider it to be at best useless, and at worst actively harmful, to
study kanji using Heisig's books.
I can sympathise with this, and find that many aspects of the series
are not worth the bother, but I do think that the first volume's
*method* is a very effective one for me. I'll go into some detail of
what I do and don't use from his work, since I believe I'm taking only
the good parts and leaving the rest.
Heisig's RtK:I teaches a method sometimes called by others "component
analysis". The kanji are analysed and sequenced based on their
composition from components: sometimes other kanji, sometimes
radicals, and sometimes other collections of strokes. Each of these
components is given a single meaning (Heisig calls it a "keyword")
that is unique to that component. The meaning is written as an English
word or short phrase, but must be learned as a nuanced conceptual
meaning independent of language, rather than rote learning of an
English phrase.
I try to choose meanings that are strongly associated with the actual
range of meanings the component or kanji has in use:
* For kanji found in Halpern's dictionaries (jouyou, jinmeiyou, and
many less-common characters), this is the "core meaning" given
there. This is much more useful than Heisig's "keyword", which I
disregard as irrelevant for my purpose.
Halpern's core meanings are carefully chosen to give a concept
that ties most or all of the actual in-use meanings of the
character together logically, which means that making this
association *first* in my mind is an aid to learning all the other
nuances for that character.
* For kanji found on KANJIDIC, I analyse the range of meanings and
derive a suitable "core meaning" for the kanji, using the same
principles as Halpern's dictionaries (but without the benefit of
his research).
* For components that are radicals but not kanji, I use the
commonly-accepted radical meaning, or something similar that works
better for my mnemonic stories.
* For components that are Chinese characters, I look up the meaning
of the character on Zhong Wen. These meanings are often helpful in
learning Japanese kanji that use this character as a component,
obviously since the Japanese kanji meanings are derived from the
Chinese meanings.
* For other components that are not separate radicals or characters,
I make up an arbitrary meaning (or use Heisig's suggested keyword)
that will aid in constructing a mnemonic story image.
This is a last resort, and is quite rare, but since the component
isn't a character I won't be using it outside the context of this
study, so it doesn't really matter what mnemonic I associate with
it, as long as it helps me learn others.
This gives me a single, nuanced meaning for every kanji and component
of the kanji I learn, and Heisig's _RtK:I_ gives a progression of
components and characters to learn that build knowledge up based on
components already learned.
Having chosen a core meaning for the component, I follow Heisig's
method, ignoring his often-unhelpful keywords, and making my own image
stories to associate the meaning of each of the existing components
found in the current character, with the meaning of that
character. (This is Heisig's recommendation; the stories given in the
book are actually just suggestions to help train the reader into the
practice of creating their own. Since I'm not using his keywords, most
of his suggested stories are virtually irrelevant to me anyway.)
Having learned a character, I have a flash card with the core meaning
written on one side and the character written large on the
other. Flash card drills consist of reading the core meaning and
writing the character, then checking to see if I've got it right. I
never need to drill the other way; drilling from established knowedge
to new knowledge is effective at making the reverse association as
well.
I have an empty Kim Chi box (bright red!) that nicely fits about 150
flash cards, with two spacer cards to separate to-be-drilled, correct
and incorrect cards inside the box. I carry that with me everywhere so
that I can use a spare ten minutes productively drilling a few dozen
cards, stopping and closing the box the moment my attention is needed.
I'm starting to use a Leitner-style spaced-repetition method to select
which cards to drill next, but don't know whether I'd recommend it
yet.
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashcard>
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition>
Another aspect that makes Heisig's work controversial is that he
teaches writing-to-meaning as a discrete study from writing-to-reading
(pronunciation). His argument is that the readings are not strongly
associated with the writings, so are less amenable to systematic
study; the meanings, on the other hand, are quite strongly associated
with the written composition of the components of the kanji, and thus
reward systematic study.
Thus, he argues, separating this association out as an early, separate
study can help the student through focus on the part of the kanji that
makes the most logical sense, and will give a solid foundation for the
much more arbitrary writing-to-reading association.
The requirement to learn readings and more nuanced meanings is not
eliminated, but, he argues, it gets rid of much of the senseless
repetition encountered by trying to learn all aspects of a kanji at
once and forgetting most of it many times over. This is probably one
of the more unproven parts of his method, but I can only anecdotally
say that it works great for me.
What some detractors seem to conclude from this is that Heisig
advocates learning *all* the jouyou kanji writing-to-meaning
associations before learning *any* other part of Japanese. I can
understand how a superficial reading of Heisig's books might give that
impression, but I don't agree that he advocates that.
I certainly haven't delayed any of my other Japanese learning while
studying writing-to-meaning of the kanji. On the contrary, I find that
I get far more effectiveness and satisfaction in my vocabulary
learning the more kanji I study this way. The association between the
word meaning and the kanji used to write it is often quite clear, and
is always amenable to a simple mnemonic, when I have learned core
meanings for the kanji in that word. For kanji that I haven't yet
learned, it's nowhere near as easy, and I would hate to learn kanji
only as I encountered them in vocabulary.
--
\ "If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer?" |
`\ -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
muchan
> What you some of you better recommend for learning: looking up and
> drilling sets of kanji as they appear in actual reading? Or learning
> the radicals first, then moving on to the complex stuff? I've been
> experimenting with the first approach lately, but can't help but think
> the second method might create a better foundation for the first in the
> longrun.
>
I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
The amount of effort you put to learn that character helps
fixing it in your brains as known, and if you ever forget it
later, (if you _can_ frget it) then you do the drill again
with two or three times more, in order not to forget it again...
And sure, start from easier and more fundamental characters,
(like 一、二、三、山、川、口、田, etc...)
And try to learn a character inside a word combined with another.
or in two or more words, thus every one character you practice,
you learn at least one more, (or two three more) associated with
that character. It's difficult for starting, but later as you
progress the network start to meet each other...
(there are only 1500 or so kanji to learn... it is not infinite.)
> What method do/did you use and how would you rate them?
>
I learned them at a school, with quite a lot of repetition...
...not writing with brush but with pencil...
I rate it highly, since I still remember those I learned when
I was 6 years old. :)
muchan
Ben Finney
> I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
> and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
>
> The amount of effort you put to learn that character helps fixing it
> in your brains as known, and if you ever forget it later, (if you
> _can_ frget it) then you do the drill again with two or three times
> more, in order not to forget it again...
While I don't see the need to drill a character multiple times in a
sitting, I must concur that *writing* the characters while learning
them and drilling them is an essential element to firmly fixing the
association in your mind. Our brains make much stronger experiential
connections with a kinaesthetic experience than mere scanning with the
eye.
When I drill my kanji flash cards, I read the core meaning and *write*
the character I have learned for that meaning, then check if I was
correct. If I don't have pen and paper, I write on my palm or my knee
with my finger -- but the writing is a very strong aid to memory when
I see that character in the future, and I never omit it from my flash
card drill.
--
\ "When I get new information, I change my position. What, sir, |
`\ do you do with new information?" -- John Maynard Keynes |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
james...@gmail.com
Ben Finney wrote:
> muchan <muc...@promikra.si> writes:
>
> > I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
> > and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
> >
> > The amount of effort you put to learn that character helps fixing it
> > in your brains as known, and if you ever forget it later, (if you
> > _can_ frget it) then you do the drill again with two or three times
> > more, in order not to forget it again...
>
> While I don't see the need to drill a character multiple times in a
> sitting, I must concur that *writing* the characters while learning
> them and drilling them is an essential element to firmly fixing the
> association in your mind.
While it may be helpful, there's an issue of efficiency here, and to
call writing "essential" seems a bit far-fetched. I covered the ~1000
kanji and associated vocab for JLPT2 in 6 months of moderate effort,
although I started out knowing ~300 kanji pretty well. I don't offer
this info as a boast as to how clever I am, but rather as an indication
as to the rate of progress that is reasonable to expect with an
efficient method, even for someone who is rather linguistically
challenged like me.
I used flashcards, exclusively J->E and focussed on the vocab rather
than kanji per se, following the "kanji in context" books (and other
JLPT material) so there was plenty of reading as well as pure
memorisation. Probably spent about 20 mins per day over 6 months. There
are of course plenty of gaps in my knowledge but my reading ability
came on in leaps and bounds in that time.
(I don't know if I passed or not, but it will be close either way and
kanji recognition was one of my relative strengths in any case.)
James
metaphist
Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson wrote:
> I think before I can recommend anything to you, I need to know why are
> you learning kanji? Do you want to read material, or just "read"
> material (eg: know the meaning without knowing the pronounciation), or
> to write by hand or by computer, or what?
>
> Ken
Ideally, I want to know the meaning of the kanji, but also be able to
read through japanese text in my head as if I was reading aloud with
correct pronounciation. I'm not sure how high that milestone sits, this
being my first foriegn language and all, but it's the goal that I'm
working towards. I have, until now, put ability to write at the bottom
of the list, but in reading the replies posted here I do realize the
benifit of writing out the kanji to help solidify the meaing.
Ben's system of writing the kanji based on the core meaning flashed
seems like a good method.
Thanks for the replies so far, I'm interested in hearing more thoughts.
Ben Finney
> Ben's system of writing the kanji based on the core meaning flashed
> seems like a good method.
That's direct from James Heisig's method in _RtK:I_. If you find it
interesting, I recommend you get the book I linked to, but please read
it with all the caveats I gave about its content.
--
\ "Too many pieces of music finish too long after the end." -- |
`\ Igor Stravinskey |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Ben Finney
> Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson wrote:
> > I think before I can recommend anything to you, I need to know why
> > are you learning kanji?
>
> Ideally, I want to know the meaning of the kanji, but also be able
> to read through japanese text in my head as if I was reading aloud
> with correct pronounciation.
I'm treating those as two separate, related goals. I'm currently able
to scan Japanese text and understand the grammar, and the meaning of
all the kanji I've learned and many I haven't.
In parallel, I'm learning vocabulary as I encounter new words, and
that aids my ability to read kanji words without furigana. This is a
slower process, because as you probably know the reading of a given
kanji is poorly-related to the written form and vice versa.
> I'm not sure how high that milestone sits, this being my first
> foriegn language and all, but it's the goal that I'm working
> towards.
I'm in the same situation: Japanese is my first language to study as a
means of communication (rather than the dabbling I've done in other
languages). The written Japanese language is infamously difficult
among the world's writing systems, so I have no illusions of mastery
or rapid acquisition.
This is why I decided early on to divide and conquer: it was clear I'd
not see any quick satisfaction from learning written Japanese, so I
decided to ensure the long process would be systematic and with as
little frustration as possible. It's working well so far.
None of this reflects on the *spoken* language; I find that to be a
well-ordered, sensible system much more logical than English, and
learning new points of grammar and style gives rapid satisfactory
feedback. The fact that from the beginning it's vastly different from
any other language I know only adds to the thrill :-)
--
\ "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do |
`\ so too." -- Voltaire, _Essay On Tolerance_ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
muchan
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> muchan <muc...@promikra.si> writes:
>>
>>> I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
>>> and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
>>>
>>> The amount of effort you put to learn that character helps fixing it
>>> in your brains as known, and if you ever forget it later, (if you
>>> _can_ frget it) then you do the drill again with two or three times
>>> more, in order not to forget it again...
>> While I don't see the need to drill a character multiple times in a
>> sitting, I must concur that *writing* the characters while learning
>> them and drilling them is an essential element to firmly fixing the
>> association in your mind.
>
> While it may be helpful, there's an issue of efficiency here, and to
> call writing "essential" seems a bit far-fetched. I covered the ~1000
> kanji and associated vocab for JLPT2 in 6 months of moderate effort,
> although I started out knowing ~300 kanji pretty well. I don't offer
> this info as a boast as to how clever I am, but rather as an indication
> as to the rate of progress that is reasonable to expect with an
> efficient method, even for someone who is rather linguistically
> challenged like me.
>
I think writing is definitely essential to learn writing Japanese. 8)
If your goal is onbly reading, or recognizing them, then writing
may not be essential. I don't know if JLPT test include writing,
but if you learned 1000 kanji with only flash card, I doubt how many
you can write from memory on a paper, like in a situation when you
need to leave written message to someone.
Or, if you will never need to write with pen or pencil, but only with
computer with the aide of IME, then you don't need writing drill,
just learn to recognize enough to chose from candidates.
But I don't consider someone who didn't learn to write kanji, as someone
who learned kanji... 8)
muchan
Kevin Wayne Williams
correct pronunciation, run away from all meaning-based systems as
quickly as you can. Your studies should always be based on associating
kanji and kanji compounds with Japanese words. If you need to associate
the Japanese words with English words at some other step, fine, most
people studying a second language do that, but don't associate the kanji
or kanji compounds with English.
KWW
Kevin Wayne Williams
> But I don't consider someone who didn't learn to write kanji, as someone
> who learned kanji... 8)
>
I'm willing to bet that it is far more difficult to retain kanji if one
never learns to write them.
KWW
Paul Blay
Don't know how you'd test that but I've never had any particular trouble
remembering how to read them. Well, no more than I'd expect.
I've got a little project going that is helping me to improve my ability to
remember what the darn things look like _without_ having them on the
screen first - but I've only finished grade 1 so far. (I learnt how to
write the first 250 or so when I did GCSE Japanese but thoroughly
forgot how to draw them through neglect afterwards).
Phil Yff
Are you in Japan. When I was in Japan in 1979, I would try to learn the
kanji for the place names on road signs and train stations. I would try to
figure out which ones were in common use and which ones were obscure kanji
used only in names.
Phil Yff
Phil Yff
I agree. I think it's especially good to try to write complete sentences
rather than just copy a character twenty times or so.
Phil Yff
metaphist
Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> If your goal is to be able to sight read Japanese text at speed with
> correct pronunciation, run away from all meaning-based systems as
> quickly as you can. Your studies should always be based on associating
> kanji and kanji compounds with Japanese words. If you need to associate
> the Japanese words with English words at some other step, fine, most
> people studying a second language do that, but don't associate the kanji
> or kanji compounds with English.
>
> KWW
Just for the record, you can basically consider me starting fresh in
terms of kanji. I only know a handfull right now, based off of those
used in the examples of the grammar lessons I took. I could recongnize
maybe 15 or so off hand, and could only write the extremely simple ones
from memory (kiyou, nani, miru, hito ect.). I know all the kana,
though.
Do you think it would be more effective to learn to sight read first,
then associate meaning to the spoken word second? Assuming I'll be
working all the angles simultaneously (speaking/listening, reading,
writing), It'd make sense to also assume that as I learn to pronounce a
kanji word for the purpose of reading, I'll immediately or eventually
associate the spoken word with it's meaning through the parallel
speaking/listening training.
On the other hand, I'd imagine that most people associate the meanings
first, so they can decipher text more readily. In that case, you'd be
translating the text to english while reading. You could then speak the
meaning, but that wouldn't be the same as actually reading it verbatim,
would it?
>From here it seems like it would be valuable to learn to sight read,
sense this would essentially lead to "thinking" in japanese with the
meaning becoming inherent. Or maybe I'm missing the mark, and that
Kevin Wayne Williams
> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>> If your goal is to be able to sight read Japanese text at speed with
>> correct pronunciation, run away from all meaning-based systems as
>> quickly as you can. Your studies should always be based on associating
>> kanji and kanji compounds with Japanese words. If you need to associate
>> the Japanese words with English words at some other step, fine, most
>> people studying a second language do that, but don't associate the kanji
>> or kanji compounds with English.
>>
>
> terms of kanji. I only know a handfull right now, based off of those
> used in the examples of the grammar lessons I took. I could recongnize
> maybe 15 or so off hand, and could only write the extremely simple ones
> from memory (kiyou, nani, miru, hito ect.). I know all the kana,
> though.
>
> Do you think it would be more effective to learn to sight read first,
> then associate meaning to the spoken word second? Assuming I'll be
> working all the angles simultaneously (speaking/listening, reading,
> writing), It'd make sense to also assume that as I learn to pronounce a
> kanji word for the purpose of reading, I'll immediately or eventually
> associate the spoken word with it's meaning through the parallel
> speaking/listening training.
You probably have a vocabulary of several hundred words, and can usually
add new vocabulary relatively easily. Vocabulary meanings need to be
studied, and you really shouldn't be learning kanji by spelling words
that you aren't studying in different contexts. Words you know should be
the basis of your kanji learning. "Parallel speaking/listening training"
is mandatory ... you're trying to learn a language, not a code.
I am saying that when you design your kanji drills, being prompted with
a words like みず, やま, and さんすい and being expected to pop up with
水, 山, and 山水 is better than being asked "water" and "mountain" and
being expected to pop up with 水 and 山. The other direction is a
valuable drill, too, being prompted with 水, 山, and 山水 and being
expected to pop up with みず, やま, and さんすい.
I also believe (and I am not supported by any rigorous methodology) that
a drill where you see 水, 山, and 山水 and pop up with "water",
"mountain" and "landscape" will actually interfere with learning Japanese.
山水 probably isn't in your day to day vocabulary, but I chose it to
illustrate one of the perils of trying to read by kanji "meanings" ...
going from "mountain water" to "landscape" is not something you are
going to do well by studying any "core meanings."
KWW
Ben Finney
> I also believe (and I am not supported by any rigorous methodology)
> that a drill where you see 水, 山, and 山水 and pop up with "water",
> "mountain" and "landscape" will actually interfere with learning
> Japanese.
>
> 山水 probably isn't in your day to day vocabulary, but I chose it to
> illustrate one of the perils of trying to read by kanji "meanings"
> ... going from "mountain water" to "landscape" is not something you
> are going to do well by studying any "core meanings."
Kevin and I have gone several rounds on this topic -- check the
archives if you're interested -- and the best we've both been able to
come up with is that his kanji-association method works for him, mine
works for me, and we both find each others' to be counter-productive.
--
\ "Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he |
`\ sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn |
_o__) up." -- Jack Handey |
Ben Finney
Paul Blay
> a drill where you see 水, 山, and 山水 and pop up with "water",
> "mountain" and "landscape" will actually interfere with learning Japanese.
>
> 山水 probably isn't in your day to day vocabulary
Heck it isn't in _mine_. It rather looks as if its main use is as a
proper noun.
Ben Finney
here, and my own. I'll also try to point out some possible
miscommunications.
Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.n...@verizon.nut> writes:
> You probably have a vocabulary of several hundred words, and can
> usually add new vocabulary relatively easily. Vocabulary meanings
> need to be studied, and you really shouldn't be learning kanji by
> spelling words that you aren't studying in different contexts.
Adding vocabulary is indeed something we already know how to do, and
it is working well enough for me to simply learn a new word and
associate the word sound with the kanji that comprise the word.
The difference here between Kevin's preferred method and mine is that
I find it much more helpful to become familiar with the kanji as
discrete items, so that as I learn words to match them they don't all
get confused together in my head.
> Words you know should be the basis of your kanji learning.
This principle is exactly what I use, but I take advantage of the fact
that someone who has already learned their own language to adult level
has an enormous vocabulary of *language concepts*. These are concepts
that we have internalised to the point where our native language is
transparent to them.
It's easy to learn a new word, or a new kanji, and attach it to one of
these concepts, because they're already familiar and distinguishing
between them is something we already know how to do.
> I am saying that when you design your kanji drills, being prompted with
> a words like みず, やま, and さんすい and being expected to pop up with
> 水, 山, and 山水 is better than being asked "water" and "mountain" and
> being expected to pop up with 水 and 山.
This is a persistent misunderstanding in my discussions with Kevin on
this topic. I'm not advocating attaching kanji to *English words*, as
Kevin seems to believe. I advocate learning a *concept*, a *meaning*
that is visualised or conceptualised inside one's head when first
learning the kanji.
The English word is a trigger for that, because I'm assuming a native
English speaker; but the connection is made to the concept, by
imagining a scene involving that concept, *without language words*.
The goal of this process is to build knowledge of the kanji as a set
of discrete characters encoding a language concept, a "core meaning",
and more importantly to keep each one separate from the others in
one's head.
The value I get from this is that when I encounter a new word using
those kanji, I immediately call to mind a core meaning for each one,
which in the vast majority of cases relates strongly to the actual
meaning of the word. From there associating the word with its writing
is simple: I'm attaching a small amount of new knowledge to existing,
familiar knowledge.
So, I concur completely with the principle that new knowledge is best
learned on a basis of existing knowledge. I've explicitly designed my
method for learning the Japanese writing system so that the amount of
new knowledge at each step is minimised, to increase the ease of
association and reduce the chance that I'll lose it.
> I also believe (and I am not supported by any rigorous methodology)
> that a drill where you see 水, 山, and 山水 and pop up with "water",
> "mountain" and "landscape" will actually interfere with learning
> Japanese.
This seems to be close to the core of our disagreement. I hope that
it's getting clearer that I don't advocate associating kanji and words
with *written English words*, but rather associating them with
*meanings*.
The rest is a process of vocabulary learning (associating *word
sounds* with meanings), which is common to just about any language.
> 山水 probably isn't in your day to day vocabulary, but I chose it to
> illustrate one of the perils of trying to read by kanji "meanings" ...
It seems to be about as relevant as presenting the english word
"woodstock" and showing the peril of associating core meanings to
"wood" and "stock".
> going from "mountain water" to "landscape" is not something you are
> going to do well by studying any "core meanings."
Likewise, making the connection between "wood stock" to the meanings
associated with "woodstock" isn't amenable to anything but vocabulary
learning. These exceptions are always present, but that doesn't
invalidate the majority of cases where the association between core
meanings of the kanji and the meaning of the word is quite strong.
This analogy doesn't stretch very far, because kanji aren't the same
as word roots like "wood" and "stock". But that's part of the whole
point of why I learn kanji separate from pronunciation and vocabulary:
kanji *aren't* like the word-parts that I learned as a child, and I
need to become familiar with them and disambiguate them in order to
apply my existing language-learning skills to the rest of the writing
system.
--
\ "I lost a button-hole." -- Steven Wright |
`\ |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Kevin Wayne Williams
time I encountered it was as the name of the Japanese restaurant by the
Kensington Hilton. Which is, I believe, far closer to you than to me.
KWW
Kevin Wayne Williams
>
>> I am saying that when you design your kanji drills, being prompted with
>> a words like みず, やま, and さんすい and being expected to pop up with
>> 水, 山, and 山水 is better than being asked "water" and "mountain" and
>> being expected to pop up with 水 and 山.
>
> This is a persistent misunderstanding in my discussions with Kevin on
> this topic. I'm not advocating attaching kanji to *English words*, as
> Kevin seems to believe. I advocate learning a *concept*, a *meaning*
> that is visualised or conceptualised inside one's head when first
> learning the kanji.
>
> The English word is a trigger for that, because I'm assuming a native
> English speaker; but the connection is made to the concept, by
> imagining a scene involving that concept, *without language words*.
that wet stuff in my pool, my brain will say water, agua, awa, or みず.
I can't make it stop. The whole goal of language acquisition was to make
the association with みず, and I don't see the value of weakening that
association by using the English word as a "trigger." My objection to
the meaning-based techniques would go down a hundred-fold if people
drilled the meanings using Japanese words as their trigger.
KWW
Paul D
<kww.n...@verizon.nut> said:
> metaphist wrote:
>> Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
>>> If your goal is to be able to sight read Japanese text at speed with
>>> correct pronunciation, run away from all meaning-based systems as
>>> quickly as you can. Your studies should always be based on associating
>>> kanji and kanji compounds with Japanese words. If you need to associate
>>> the Japanese words with English words at some other step, fine, most
>>> people studying a second language do that, but don't associate the kanji
>>> or kanji compounds with English.
[snip]
>
> You probably have a vocabulary of several hundred words, and can usually
> add new vocabulary relatively easily. Vocabulary meanings need to be
> studied, and you really shouldn't be learning kanji by spelling words
> that you aren't studying in different contexts. Words you know should be
> the basis of your kanji learning. "Parallel speaking/listening training"
> is mandatory ... you're trying to learn a language, not a code.
Throwing in my inflation-devalued two cents, I think Kevin's approach
is very sensible and ideal for many, if not most, Japanese learners.
>
> I also believe (and I am not supported by any rigorous methodology) that
> a drill where you see 水, 山, and 山水 and pop up with "water",
> "mountain" and "landscape" will actually interfere with learning Japanese.
I might slightly differ with you there. I agree that the Japanese
student has to learn what every compound means without making
assumptions, and I also agree that "learning" kanji without vocabulary
and context is a poor strategy for many students (Mr. Finney
notwithstanding).
However, I find it very useful to know what the overarching meaning of
a kanji is, whether you're using an English label (e.g. ”水 = water")
or, for more advanced students, a Japanese one. The Kanji Learner's
Dictionary is very good for supplying these semantic keywords and
grouping compounds according to nuance of meaning. My brain needs this
kind of scaffolding while my Japanese language centre develops.
In the case of words like 山水, the learner will eventually catch on that
there is another shade of meaning to 山 in addition to "mountain",
namely "wilderness", which (I theorize) shows up in words like 山賊,
"bandit", and 山火事, "forest fire".
Paul D.
Paul D
> metaphist wrote:
>> What you some of you better recommend for learning: looking up and
>> drilling sets of kanji as they appear in actual reading? Or learning
>> the radicals first, then moving on to the complex stuff? I've been
>> experimenting with the first approach lately, but can't help but think
>> the second method might create a better foundation for the first in the
>> longrun.
>>
>
> I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
> and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
I think incorporating calligraphy with your kanji learning is highly
underrated among Westerners! I haven't gotten into true shodo with the
brush and ink, but I have worked through elementary school
kanji-writing texts with calligraphic brush-pens like you get at the
stationery store. Learning the correct proportions and stroke technique
gives one a feel for the character, easy-to-read handwriting, and
muscle memory that may save you when your ability to consciously
remember a character fails.
Paul
muchan
>
> In the case of words like 山水, the learner will eventually catch on
> that there is another shade of meaning to 山 in addition to "mountain",
> namely "wilderness", which (I theorize) shows up in words like 山賊,
> "bandit", and 山火事, "forest fire".
>
In this discussion, I support "woodstock" analogy. And with 山水
example, first, I don't think it _means_ "landscape", (the best match
for "landscape" is 風景, IMO) and 山水 is essentially 山と水, mountain
and water, and the "big nature" including them.
As for 山賊 it's 山の賊, mountain bandit, against 海賊, 海の賊, sea bandit
( = pirates). 山火事 is indeed 山の火事, mountain fire. I don't know (and
almost don't care) if English speaker doesn't say "mountain fire" or
instead say "forest fire", I don't think the meaning or concept of
山 differs in these word.
So, basically it's good idea, or essential to learn the meaning of
kanji, often kun-reading of it shows its basic meaning in Japanese,
in this case, やま. Learning to read 山 as やま and knowing what
it means is essential.
muchan
Paul D
> As for 山賊 it's 山の賊, mountain bandit, against 海賊, 海の賊, sea bandit
> ( = pirates). 山火事 is indeed 山の火事, mountain fire. I don't know (and
> almost don't care) if English speaker doesn't say "mountain fire" or
> instead say "forest fire", I don't think the meaning or concept of
> 山 differs in these word.
So you wouldn't use 山賊 for bandits in non-mountainous area, or 山火事 if
the forest wasn't in a mountain?
Paul D.
Cindy
On Jan 20, 6:57 am, Paul D <p...@hiddenfortress.ten> wrote:
> > I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
> > and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.I think incorporating calligraphy with your kanji learning is highly
> underrated among Westerners! I haven't gotten into true shodo with the
> brush and ink, but I have worked through elementary school
> kanji-writing texts with calligraphic brush-pens like you get at the
> stationery store. Learning the correct proportions and stroke technique
> gives one a feel for the character, easy-to-read handwriting, and
> muscle memory that may save you when your ability to consciously
> remember a character fails.
If you take a shodo class, the instructors will be very meticulous and
expect you to follow their instructions precisely. Plus, you will have
to repeat over and over again. It is like a lesson on a musical
instrument. But, you'll be writing beautiful Japanese. It makes a
nice hobby as well.
Bart Mathias
> [...]
> Just for the record, you can basically consider me starting fresh in
> terms of kanji. I only know a handfull right now, based off of those
> used in the examples of the grammar lessons I took. I could recongnize
> maybe 15 or so off hand, and could only write the extremely simple ones
> from memory (kiyou, nani, miru, hito ect.). I know all the kana,
> though.
I can do all of those but "kiyou." (I suspect there are several words
so pronounced, but not a single one comes to mind.)
I (sort of) learned kanji so long ago I don't even remember how I did it.
Bart
Bart Mathias
I *strongly* recommend a book called _Decoding Kanji_ by Yaeko S. Habein.
(I would never have thought of recommending that book before, but
finding $290 royalties added to my bank account in December has given me
new appreciation of the book.)
Bart
Paul Blay
> I *strongly* recommend a book called _Decoding Kanji_ by Yaeko S. Habein.
>
> (I would never have thought of recommending that book before, but
> finding $290 royalties added to my bank account in December has given
> me new appreciation of the book.)
At the moment any plan that involves _spending_ money is pretty much on
hold. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Ben Finney
> Actually, Ben, I wasn't arguing with you at all. I don't fight by
> proxy.
Glad to know that. I've always viewed it as a vigorous discussion
rather than a fight :-)
--
\ "I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make |
`\ an exception." -- Groucho Marx |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Ben Finney
> On 2007-01-19 10:10:04 +0900, muchan <muc...@promikra.si> said:
>
> > I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
> > and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
>
> I think incorporating calligraphy with your kanji learning is highly
> underrated among Westerners!
This Westerner rates it highly. I don't use it because I don't have
the equipment, and if I did I know that it would detract from my
motivation (due to the extra effort involved and the requirement to
have calligraphy equipment) more than it would aid my study.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to take it up someday. But I want to
learn to read and write properly first, which is sufficient challenge
for now.
--
\ "Success is going from one failure to the next without a loss |
`\ of enthusiasm." -- Winston Churchill |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
muchan
Bandits who comes on ships are surely not 山賊...
Bandits on the plain land, well I'm not quite sure what range
English word "bandit" has but, if they are not in mountain area,
surely we wouldn't call 山賊. Now I wonder what range the English
word "mountain" has... 山 as mountain has meaning of contrasting
to 谷, that is lower part of mountain range is 谷, in between are
山, also it's used contrasting to 里, that is, where people live,
where villages are, is 里, outside, is 山, and in moutain range
of Japan, people usually live in 谷, so 山 as both concept
overlaps without coincidence. The bandit living in 山, that is
outside village, are 山賊.
Now forest fire. It's hard to imagine the place where "forest fire"
occurs in Japan, and the forest wasn't in a mountain...
「平地の鎮守の森の火事」wouldn't be called 山火事.
What kind of 山火事 would you suggest not in a mountain?
A fire in a forest of Siberian plain?
(By the way, there is a word 野火...)
So, for now, the answer is No, and No.
muchan
muchan
> Paul D <pa...@hiddenfortress.ten> writes:
>
>> On 2007-01-19 10:10:04 +0900, muchan <muc...@promikra.si> said:
>>
>>> I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
>>> and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
>> I think incorporating calligraphy with your kanji learning is highly
>> underrated among Westerners!
>
> This Westerner rates it highly. I don't use it because I don't have
> the equipment, and if I did I know that it would detract from my
> motivation (due to the extra effort involved and the requirement to
> have calligraphy equipment) more than it would aid my study.
>
> That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to take it up someday. But I want to
> learn to read and write properly first, which is sufficient challenge
> for now.
>
You didn't see the point. To learn to "write properly first",
learn to write with brushes will be a big help. Caligraphy teaches you
not only what stroke "order" youn use, but what each stroke suppose to be.
And writing/repeating/mastering each kanji "properly", will help you
remember that characte, it's like learning a song. The song you learned
only y listening is easier to forget. The one you learn to sing would
be remembered better, the song you learned to sing "well", you can't
forget. Writing with brush strokes would make each kanji "experienced",
that you will feel them familiar. That was my point.
muchan
Ben Bullock
"Cindy" <leftlatera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169305544.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> If you take a shodo class, the instructors will be very meticulous and
> expect you to follow their instructions precisely. Plus, you will have
> to repeat over and over again.
I used about two hundred sheets of hanshi writing 三人 over and over.
> It is like a lesson on a musical
> instrument.
Yes, it's exactly that kind of thing.
> But, you'll be writing beautiful Japanese.
I think it takes a while to get to that level.
> It makes a
> nice hobby as well.
If you want to learn it it's better to go to a class.
james...@gmail.com
muchan wrote:
>
> But I don't consider someone who didn't learn to write kanji, as someone
> who learned kanji... 8)
In an ideal world, sure. It would be great to be able to write too. But
with the time I and effort I spent learning to read ~1000 kanji and
associated vocab, would I be better off being able to read and write
some X<1000 kanji
(and maybe << 1000) instead? I don't believe that writing practice is
so helpful in memorisation that it would have resulted in my learning
>1000 kanji in that time.
I can't think of an occasion in the last 5 years when I would have
found it useful to leave a handwritten note in kanji (although
occasionally filling in forms with address would be handy). I can't
even write kana. I do have an IME for the occasions when I want to
write an email.
James
Cindy
On Jan 20, 6:43 pm, "Ben Bullock" <benkasminbull...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Cindy" <leftlateraldecubi...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1169305544.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If you take a shodo class, the instructors will be very meticulous and
> > expect you to follow their instructions precisely. Plus, you will have
> > to repeat over and over again.
> I used about two hundred sheets of hanshi writing 三人 over and over.
You really sucked, didn't you?
> > It is like a lesson on a musical
> > instrument.
> Yes, it's exactly that kind of thing.
> > But, you'll be writing beautiful Japanese.
> I think it takes a while to get to that level.
Many natives can tell by looking at the penmanship if the writer has
had the shodo lessons. In non-native's case, you must be able to write
legibly -- that's the first objective before thinking about writing
beautifully, OK?
> > It makes a
> > nice hobby as well.
> If you want to learn it it's better to go to a class.
In your case, you'll have to go to a class. However, if you do shodo
as your hobby, it is a very nice item to put on your rirekisho. Then,
your future employer will think "Ah, this guy knows how to write
beautifully." That's a very good advantage. You guys keyboard pushers
can not believe, can you?
Ben Bullock
On Jan 20, 6:43 pm, "Ben Bullock" <benkasminbull...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Cindy" <leftlateraldecubi...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1169305544.4...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If you take a shodo class, the instructors will be very meticulous and
> > expect you to follow their instructions precisely. Plus, you will have
> > to repeat over and over again.
> I used about two hundred sheets of hanshi writing 三人 over and over.
> You really sucked, didn't you?
Well, I felt like I did, but the teacher said to the other students that I
was an incredibly fast learner. You can see the photos of some corrections
he made here:
http://flickr.com/photos/bnz/sets/72157594289256010/
The teacher is very hard on mistakes, he says if he lets me make a mistaken
one now I'll have to pay for it later. I saw some other pictures on flickr
where a teacher put circles on something which I'm sure my teacher wouldn't
allow:
http://flickr.com/photos/shufla/258488754/
At the moment I'm doing four characters on one sheet, and last lesson my
efforts were rejected again so I have to keep on doing it for next time:
http://flickr.com/photos/bnz/sets/72157594432479868/
The teacher is using the order of "Essential Kanji" by P.G. O'Neill.
> Many natives can tell by looking at the penmanship if the writer has
> had the shodo lessons. In non-native's case, you must be able to write
> legibly -- that's the first objective before thinking about writing
> beautifully, OK?
I can write legibly, anyway.
>> If you want to learn it it's better to go to a class.
> In your case, you'll have to go to a class.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here, but never mind.
> However, if you do shodo
> as your hobby, it is a very nice item to put on your rirekisho. Then,
> your future employer will think "Ah, this guy knows how to write
> beautifully." That's a very good advantage. You guys keyboard pushers
> can not believe, can you?
My wife has been telling me to go to a shuji class for the last six or seven
years, but I never really got around to it until last August. Seeing the way
my kids' education focused very hard on penmanship was quite a big step to
making me want to learn it myself. I also think it's important in Japan. I
remember seeing a TV programme with Daniel Kahl where they focused the
camera on his writing so that everyone could see how he could write
Japanese. If I was going to learn Japanese again from the start I'd
certainly do this right from the beginning.
Ben Bullock
<james...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169340961.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> muchan wrote:
>>
>> But I don't consider someone who didn't learn to write kanji, as someone
>> who learned kanji... 8)
>
> In an ideal world, sure. It would be great to be able to write too. But
> with the time I and effort I spent learning to read ~1000 kanji and
> associated vocab, would I be better off being able to read and write
> some X<1000 kanji
> (and maybe << 1000) instead? I don't believe that writing practice is
> so helpful in memorisation that it would have resulted in my learning
>>1000 kanji in that time.
I'm not sure what your eventual goal of learning Japanese is, but 1,000
kanjis isn't enough to read anything substantial anyway. If the goal is "to
be good at Japanese", then you'd be much better off heading to a shuji class
than sitting at home memorizing kanji and you'd probably have a more
fulfilling experience.
> I can't think of an occasion in the last 5 years when I would have
> found it useful to leave a handwritten note in kanji (although
> occasionally filling in forms with address would be handy). I can't
> even write kana. I do have an IME for the occasions when I want to
> write an email.
So you don't need to write Japanese?
Paul D
> Bandits who comes on ships are surely not 山賊...
> Bandits on the plain land, well I'm not quite sure what range
> English word "bandit" has but, if they are not in mountain area,
> surely we wouldn't call 山賊. Now I wonder what range the English
> word "mountain" has... 山 as mountain has meaning of contrasting
> to 谷, that is lower part of mountain range is 谷, in between are
> 山, also it's used contrasting to 里, that is, where people live,
> where villages are, is 里, outside, is 山, and in moutain range
> of Japan, people usually live in 谷, so 山 as both concept
> overlaps without coincidence. The bandit living in 山, that is
> outside village, are 山賊.
>
> Now forest fire. It's hard to imagine the place where "forest fire"
> occurs in Japan, and the forest wasn't in a mountain...
> 「平地の鎮守の森の火事」wouldn't be called 山火事.
> What kind of 山火事 would you suggest not in a mountain?
> A fire in a forest of Siberian plain?
> (By the way, there is a word 野火...)
Thanks for the explanations, it's always interesting to see the way
Japanese think about even basic words like 山.
Paul D.
Paul D
> metaphist wrote:
>> [...]
>> Just for the record, you can basically consider me starting fresh in
>> terms of kanji. I only know a handfull right now, based off of those
>> used in the examples of the grammar lessons I took. I could recongnize
>> maybe 15 or so off hand, and could only write the extremely simple ones
>> from memory (kiyou, nani, miru, hito ect.). I know all the kana,
>> though.
>
> I can do all of those but "kiyou." (I suspect there are several words
> so pronounced, but not a single one comes to mind.)
I presume Metaphist just means 今日.
>
> I (sort of) learned kanji so long ago I don't even remember how I did it.
>
> Bart
What? I sort of assumed most of the longtime regulars here were fluent
speakers and masters of 3000 kanji.
Paul D.
Paul D
> Well, I felt like I did, but the teacher said to the other students
> that I was an incredibly fast learner. You can see the photos of some
> corrections he made here:
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/bnz/sets/72157594289256010/
I must say, the ones you earned spirals on look pretty darn good to me.
> If I was going to learn Japanese again from the start I'd certainly do
> this right from the beginning.
I think that's a telling statement, and a good reason for encouraging
novice learners to get involved.
Paul D.
Ben Finney
> Ben Finney wrote:
> > But I want to learn to read and write properly first [ahead of
> > learning kanji calligraphy], which is sufficient challenge for
> > now.
>
> You didn't see the point. To learn to "write properly first", learn
> to write with brushes will be a big help. Caligraphy teaches you not
> only what stroke "order" youn use, but what each stroke suppose to
> be.
You make it sound quite interesting, thank you.
> And writing/repeating/mastering each kanji "properly", will help you
> remember that characte, it's like learning a song. The song you
> learned only y listening is easier to forget. The one you learn to
> sing would be remembered better, the song you learned to sing
> "well", you can't forget. Writing with brush strokes would make each
> kanji "experienced", that you will feel them familiar. That was my
> point.
It's a point well taken. The description you give resonates with me;
when I learn the writing of a kanji (in block style, with a pen or
pencil) I do feel a similar experience to what you describe, and it
does appear to help the retention of that kanji's form and writing.
--
\ "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." -- |
metaphist
Paul D wrote:
> I presume Metaphist just means 今日.
That's the one. As for the individual characters, I'm not sure what the
first character means, but the second one means day, right?
All this talk about calligraphy makes me interested, me being a visual
artist and all. So, what you earn spirals on are what the instructor
deems worthy? Seems cool...I know I'd feel very proud if I could bust
out some of those 13 stroke characters with perfection.
james...@gmail.com
Ben Bullock wrote:
> <james...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169340961.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > muchan wrote:
> >>
> >> But I don't consider someone who didn't learn to write kanji, as someone
> >> who learned kanji... 8)
> >
> > In an ideal world, sure. It would be great to be able to write too. But
> > with the time I and effort I spent learning to read ~1000 kanji and
> > associated vocab, would I be better off being able to read and write
> > some X<1000 kanji
> > (and maybe << 1000) instead? I don't believe that writing practice is
> > so helpful in memorisation that it would have resulted in my learning
> >>1000 kanji in that time.
>
> I'm not sure what your eventual goal of learning Japanese is, but 1,000
> kanjis isn't enough to read anything substantial anyway.
Obviously, but it happens to be where I am. I suspect that most people
who are competent at reading could only read ~1000 kanji at some point
in their past. In fact there's a straightforward mathematical proof
under some fairly reasonable assumptions :-)
> If the goal is "to
> be good at Japanese", then you'd be much better off heading to a shuji class
> than sitting at home memorizing kanji and you'd probably have a more
> fulfilling experience.
Well, I have lessons, but don't generally waste them wading through
lists of kanji which I can do pretty well on my own for the most part.
> So you don't need to write Japanese?
Nope. Certainly, it is far far less important than reading. Even if I
ever get to being "good at [spoken/reading] Japanese" I can't see that
changing. If the need for (hand) writing raises its ugly head in the
future, of course I may come to regret my strategy.
James
Ben Finney
> Ben Bullock wrote:
>
> > So you don't need to write Japanese?
>
> Nope. Certainly, it is far far less important than reading. Even if
> I ever get to being "good at [spoken/reading] Japanese" I can't see
> that changing. If the need for (hand) writing raises its ugly head
> in the future, of course I may come to regret my strategy.
I'm given to understand that spending any significant amount of time
in Japan requires filling out many forms, on paper, in Japanese. Is
there a stay in Japan in your near future?
--
\ "Why should I care about posterity? What's posterity ever done |
`\ for me?" -- Groucho Marx |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
muchan
>
>
> Well, I felt like I did, but the teacher said to the other students that
> I was an incredibly fast learner. You can see the photos of some
> corrections he made here:
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/bnz/sets/72157594289256010/
>
Here you have learned three basic strokes, which you will repeat over and over.
Even when you write with ballpoint pen, or just reading in Mincho font,
you know how these strokes should look.
That's the point of learning the basic. Congratulation.
(BTW, I didn't recommended every beginner to go to shodoo lesson...
I just said learn to write with brush properly. I still believe it
helps learning and remember reading/writing kanji effectively.)
For me, I don't need more discussion on this topic.
Thank you.
muchan
Ben Bullock
"Paul D" <pa...@hiddenfortress.ten> wrote in message
news:2007012114333211272-paul@hiddenfortressten...
>> If I was going to learn Japanese again from the start I'd certainly do
>> this right from the beginning.
>
> I think that's a telling statement, and a good reason for encouraging
> novice learners to get involved.
Unfortunately Japanese teachers never seem to tell learners this kind of
thing, which is one of my quibbles with the way that Japanese is taught. I
think it's better to learn to write simple characters correctly than make a
fool of oneself trying to compete about "how many kanji I know".
Ben Bullock
"muchan" <muc...@promikra.si> wrote in message
news:DGIsh.301$553.2...@news.siol.net...
> Ben Bullock wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, I felt like I did, but the teacher said to the other students that
>> I was an incredibly fast learner. You can see the photos of some
>> corrections he made here:
>>
>> http://flickr.com/photos/bnz/sets/72157594289256010/
>>
>
> Here you have learned three basic strokes, which you will repeat over and
> over.
> Even when you write with ballpoint pen, or just reading in Mincho font,
> you know how these strokes should look.
Yes, I felt I understood "kanji" much better as a result of taking the
lessons.
> That's the point of learning the basic. Congratulation.
>
> (BTW, I didn't recommended every beginner to go to shodoo lesson...
> I just said learn to write with brush properly. I still believe it
> helps learning and remember reading/writing kanji effectively.)
Well, from what I've seen I think it's best to get feedback from a proper
teacher:
http://flickr.com/photos/hobo_pd/sets/263031/ (third line from top)
> For me, I don't need more discussion on this topic.
> Thank you.
I hope you will please consider any further discussion as not being solely
for your benefit.
james...@gmail.com
Ben Finney wrote:
> james...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > Ben Bullock wrote:
> >
> > > So you don't need to write Japanese?
> >
> > Nope. Certainly, it is far far less important than reading. Even if
> > I ever get to being "good at [spoken/reading] Japanese" I can't see
> > that changing. If the need for (hand) writing raises its ugly head
> > in the future, of course I may come to regret my strategy.
>
> I'm given to understand that spending any significant amount of time
> in Japan requires filling out many forms, on paper, in Japanese. Is
> there a stay in Japan in your near future?
There's a stay in Japan in my present. I've never found form-filling to
be a particular problem, and I'm sure that a large majority of
(western) foreign residents have negligible kanji writing ability. I've
already mentioned that learning to write my address would occasionally
be helpful, but even that has not seemed sufficiently worthwhile to
provoke me into practice (actually I did learn that much a few years
ago, but soon forgot through disuse).
If I could foresee it being a significantly bigger problem over the
next 5 years than it has been in the past 6, that might provide some
motivation. Can you suggest any reason why this is likely to be the
case?
James
Ben Bullock
<james...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169385039....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> If I could foresee it being a significantly bigger problem over the
> next 5 years than it has been in the past 6, that might provide some
> motivation. Can you suggest any reason why this is likely to be the
> case?
Since I don't know you very well, and I don't know your future plans or
anything else about you, and I don't know in detail why you're learning
Japanese, I can't really suggest any reasons. All I can tell you is that if
I was to start from the beginning again I'd do as I suggested, for the
reasons I've stated. You'll have to draw your own conclusions.
muchan
>> Thank you.
>
> I hope you will please consider any further discussion as not being
> solely for your benefit.
I only meant "I said all I was to say about this topic." :(
"I hope you will please consider..." is a difficult expression (for me).
I can't see how "hope" and "please" are related. I can get if either
"I hope you will consider..." or "Please consider...".
This discussion wasn't for my benefit, it was for benefit of learner
of kanji, and I just hoped my opinion may help someone who take it
seriously. So I don't know what you meant with "as not being solely
for your benefit." (But I don't want to discuss about it so much. ;)
And my "thank you" meanr genuine "thank you" to you.
(your example of shodo complemetd my opinion very well on this thread.
well, it was solely for my benefit? IDTS, it was for learners...)
On this thread I, was a good friend with you, Ben. ;)
muchan
Cindy
On Jan 21, 6:40 am, "Ben Bullock" <benkasminbull...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Paul D" <p...@hiddenfortress.ten> wrote in messagenews:2007012114333211272-paul@hiddenfortressten...
>
> >> If I was going to learn Japanese again from the start I'd certainly do
> >> this right from the beginning.
>
> > I think that's a telling statement, and a good reason for encouraging
> > novice learners to get involved.Unfortunately Japanese teachers never seem to tell learners this kind of
> thing, which is one of my quibbles with the way that Japanese is taught. I
> think it's better to learn to write simple characters correctly than make a
> fool of oneself trying to compete about "how many kanji I know".
Yeah, and flashcards and manga and tatoo and other crap.
Phil Yff
> metaphist wrote:
>> What you some of you better recommend for learning: looking up and
>> drilling sets of kanji as they appear in actual reading? Or learning
>> the radicals first, then moving on to the complex stuff? I've been
>> experimenting with the first approach lately, but can't help but think
>> the second method might create a better foundation for the first in the
>> longrun.
>>
>
> I recommend drilling to write with oriental brush... (毛筆）
> and learn to write each character properly and beautifully.
>
>> What method do/did you use and how would you rate them?
>>
>
> I learned them at a school, with quite a lot of repetition...
> ...not writing with brush but with pencil...
> I rate it highly, since I still remember those I learned when
> I was 6 years old. :)
>
Although I don't practice with an oriental brush, I do make a point of
practicing with a fountain pen that has a fine italic nib. First, the
fountain pen, itself, forces you to write more deliberately than with a
ballpoint pen or pencil (but not as deliberately as with a brush). Second,
the italic nib provides an effect similar to a brush (though not as
pronounced). Finally, you tend to approach your practice more seriously
and appreciate the result more when you are writing with a fine instrument.
Phil Yff
harry
1945 joyo kanji and includes kanji stroke order animations and
exercises to test your process in learning the kanji:
See here for details:
http://www.declan-software.com/japanese
On Jan 19, 9:05 am, "metaphist" <paulef...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you some of you better recommend for learning: looking up and
> drilling sets of kanji as they appear in actual reading? Or learning
> the radicals first, then moving on to the complex stuff? I've been
> experimenting with the first approach lately, but can't help but think
> the second method might create a better foundation for the first in the
> longrun.
>
Bart Mathias
> On 2007-01-21 03:22:53 +0900, Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> said:
>
>> metaphist wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Just for the record, you can basically consider me starting fresh in
>>> terms of kanji. I only know a handfull right now, based off of those
>>> used in the examples of the grammar lessons I took. I could recongnize
>>> maybe 15 or so off hand, and could only write the extremely simple ones
>>> from memory (kiyou, nani, miru, hito ect.). I know all the kana,
>>> though.
>>
>>
>> I can do all of those but "kiyou." (I suspect there are several words
>> so pronounced, but not a single one comes to mind.)
>
> I presume Metaphist just means 今日.
It turns out you were right! I wonder why he didn't write "kyou" if
that's what he meant?
>> I (sort of) learned kanji so long ago I don't even remember how I did it.
> What? I sort of assumed most of the longtime regulars here were fluent
> speakers and masters of 3000 kanji.
Probably most are. I've never had any talent for spoken language, though
I guess I could claim fluency in English anyway.
I can *read* 3000 kanji, I'm sure (especially if you're willing to
accept the
likes of 學 and 学 as two different kanji), but I can't even write all
the 常用 without peeking.
Ben Bullock
> On this thread I, was a good friend with you, Ben. ;)
Unfortunately this medium we're using (Usenet) is fraught with interpersonal
communication problems.
metaphist
Bart Mathias wrote:
> Paul D wrote:
> > I presume Metaphist just means 今日.
>
> It turns out you were right! I wonder why he didn't write "kyou" if
> that's what he meant?
Simple mistake on my part. I can display kanji just fine, but It'd be
cool if I could type it as well. How does that work anyway? Does the
keyboard mapping change to kana characters, or do you just type
romanized with an autocomplete type of thing going on? Is it even worth
messing with If I don't know enough kanji?
Ben Finney
> I can display kanji just fine, but It'd be cool if I could type it
> as well. How does that work anyway? Does the keyboard mapping change
> to kana characters, or do you just type romanized with an
> autocomplete type of thing going on?
One uses an Input Method (IM or IME), a small program that turns what
you type into the characters you actually want to input, and feeds
that to the program you're using. The IME will have its own
instructions.
Mine (an IM program called "scim" with a module called "anthy" for
kana-to-kanji conversion) allows me to type the kana for the words I
want to input, and pressing <Space> cycles through the IME's choices
for Japanese text (kanji+kana) for that input; I can also select the
one I want directly from a pop-up menu. Once I see the characters that
I actually want, I press <Enter> and the IME feeds that as input to
the program I'm using.
> Is it even worth messing with If I don't know enough kanji?
The IME will offer its guesses on what characters match your
typing. If you don't know which kanji you're trying to produce, then a
computer isn't going to be able to tell you.
--
\ "My roommate got a pet elephant. Then it got lost. It's in the |
`\ apartment somewhere." -- Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Phil Yff
Absolutely. Just a simple example. Most people start learning kanji that
pertains to the day of the week. The first part of each day tends to be
simple as is the last character for day. However, that 'you' in the middle
tends to be pesky. If you had your IME activated, you could click on JP
and enter g-e-t-s-u-y-o-b-i (Monday) in your word processor, transform it
into kanji and you get 月曜日. Enlarge the font and you can see what that 18
stroke character really looks like. You also have a drawing pad where you
can draw a kanji you've seen so you can look it up in an online dictionary.
It's really neat because it's very forgiving. You don't have to draw the
character very accurately, it will help you as you go along.
I see from your header information that you are in a Windows environment.
So, here's what you do:
Open control panel and click on Regional and Language options.
Chances are when you installed your operating system, you did not enable
Japanese.
If that’s the case, click on the languages tab and put a check mark in the
block that says install East Asian language support. Follow the
instructions and reboot when prompted.
After reboot, again open control panel and click on Regional and Language
options. Again click on the languages tab and click on the box that says
details. That will take you to a dialog called settings.
The main area is called installed services. Click on add and scroll down
to Japanese.Make sure you are at least adding Microsoft Japanese IME
Standard and Natural Microsoft Input. Click on Apply or Okay, I forget
which, and you’re in business.
If you don’t see a new little box on the taskbar of your computer, right
click on the task bar and make sure there is a check next to language bar.
Now, when you’re in a program like MS Word or Google Groups, etc., you can
click on the two letter code that depicts the language. Normally, it is
EN. Click on EN and select Japanese. JP will appear and some additional
symbols will show up on the right. Click on the A and click on hiragana
(the top choice).
Now when you type o m e d e t o u, you will get:
おめでとう
Congratulations
Phil Yff
Phil Yff
Once you get your IME up and running, you will want to change the IME JP
Help files into English. By default, they are in Japanese. The help file,
when you open it, is like an instruction manual so you will want to read
it. Here's how you get it into English:
Open Control Panel and click on Regional and Language Settings. Click on
Languages and the details. Scroll down to Japanese and under Japanese
scroll down to keyboard. Under keyboard, you should have something like
Microsoft Natural IME and Microsoft Standard IME. Highlight one of them
and click properties. Close to the bottom of the property list, you'll see
その他. In the drop down menu to the right, select English. Click OK.
This will bring you back to the language detail screen. If you click on
properties again, you will see the property menu in English. Now, go to
the next Japanese IME - click on properties and select English (in English)
in その他. Then click OK. Click OK at each of the other screens to get out
of Regional and Language Settings. Now when you use the JP IME, the help
file will be in English.
Depending how you've configured your machine, there may be slight
differences. However, this is the basic concept. If you hit a roadblock,
just ask questions. I, or someone else in the newsgroup will be happy to
help out.
Phil Yff
metaphist
ありがと ございます, フィルーサン。
Awesome! It makes certain study tasks a lot easier. I very much
appreciate your detailed explanation.