Mailing List ArchiveSupport open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- From: John De Hoog <excess@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 07:57:54 +0900
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <199810180007.AAA00682@example.com>
- References: <3625D206300.48DFDEHOOG@example.com> <199810180007.AAA00682@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Sender: owner-tlug@example.com
This arrived just today. I'll give a brief answer, than continue any further discussion off line. Karl-Max Wagner <karlmax@example.com> wrote: > > > Anyway, you are trying to repeat history, perhaps because you are > > ignorant of the experiment tried by the American occupation forces after > > the war. They took groups of students and gave them all-romaji > > textbooks. After a while, the academic performance of the romaji > > students fell behind that of their kanji-studying counterparts. Then > > they took a random selection of ordinary citizens and tested their > > understanding of kanji. To their surprise, they showed a very high level > > of literacy. The experiment was dropped from that moment. > > Hmmm. Very weird. How can academic performance have to do > anything with writing systems ? I suspect rather that there were > other reasons for that. However, before commenting on that much > more data on the details of the experiment are required before > its validity can be asserted. > > At least my intellectual capacities weren't affected by learning > Kanji - they were at a certain level before and at pretty much > the same after. However, there should be a difference according > to the above experiment. No, it was not studying kanji that made the difference. The difference was that the students who studied in kanji had a deeper understanding of what they were studying than those who studied the same material in romaji. This is the whole point of the necessity of kanji. Japanese is limited phonetically. It borrowed lots of words from Chinese, which is richer phonetically. To distinguish words that end up sounding the same in Japanese, it needs the kanji. Even over the phone, people have to resort to explaining which kanji they mean sometimes. The rest of your argument, about the Japanese "missing out on all the scientific and technical evolution of the last 500 years," shows too much ignorance of Japanese history and culture to deserve a reply. I suggest you stick to doing sendmail exegesis for the cult novices, since that's obviously more vital to you than something as trivial as the Japanese language. -- John De Hoog, Kichijoji, Tokyo dehoog@example.com dehoog@example.com http://dehoog.org --------------------------------------------------------------- Next Nomikai: 20 November, 19:30 Tengu TokyoEkiMae 03-3275-3691 Next Meeting: 12 December, 12:30 Tokyo Station Yaesu central gate --------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsor: PHT, makers of TurboLinux http://www.pht.co.jp
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- From: Scott Stone <sstone@example.com>
- References:
- Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- From: John De Hoog <dehoog@example.com>
- Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- From: Karl-Max Wagner <karlmax@example.com>
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: tlug: Re: Intranet
- Next by Date: Re: tlug: sendmail question
- Prev by thread: Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- Next by thread: Re: tlug: kanji or romaji for Japanese? (was: parallel-port IDE)
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links