Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who barely scraped by the Kanji/readings of my N2 but have to do a chunk of my work in Japanese, I gotta disagree. Sure, reading isolated sentences with only 90% coverage is really hard sometimes. But usually you're reading whole blocks of text, so you have context. Also, maybe you don't know some kanji but it has similar radicals to other, so you can make educated guesses (only sometimes of course). I mea…
When I was learning English, the most memorable/epic lesson of advanced English I ever took was trying to understand what we were told was an "advanced" poem; the Jabberwock! We were a class of 6-8 students, in pairs making our guesses of what the words that we didn't "understand" meant. We all got pretty advanced ideas and all got to similar conclusions. The teacher would tell us afterwards how those were made up wo…
The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
151–160 of 214 posts
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#152Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the meaning of 可爱 would be fairly straightforward to guess To be honest this whole thread about 可愛い is more or less bonkers, because it's an ateji. The word's meaning doesn't derive from the characters, the characters got arbitrarily attached to an existing word because they were similar in sound and meaning. As such, the whole thing is about as meaningful as talking about how easy it is to guess that 珈琲 means "cof…
I must say I don't know much about ateji in Japanese. In this case, though it does seem that the characters where chosen at least partly because of their actual meaning. It seems that it is both an ateji and a jukujikun [1] because the word does not come from the characters but the characters do have the correct meaning. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8F%AF%E6%84%9B%E3%81%84#J...
Sure, didn't I say they were in my post?
The point was, in a discussion of how well X predicts Y, it's not very useful to examine a test case where Y came first and X was chosen post-hoc to match it.
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#154If you're going to rote memorize something, I'd probably start with the radicals.
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must say I don't know much about ateji in Japanese. In this case, though it does seem that the characters where chosen at least partly because of their actual meaning. It seems that it is both an ateji and a jukujikun [1] because the word does not come from the characters but the characters do have the correct meaning. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%8F%AF%E6%84%9B%E3%81%84#J...
> the characters where chosen at least partly because of their actual meaning Sure, didn't I say they were in my post? The point was, in a discussion of how well X predicts Y, it's not very useful to examine a test case where Y came first and X was chosen post-hoc to match it.
No, quite the opposite actually ;)
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#156The thing is, 90% coverage is not that great. What happens is that you understand common words that make up for a lot of structure, but when an uncommon word appears it's probably important to the sentence. For example, "son, if you go to the plumbf tomorrow morning don't forget to pick up some zlonks." 98% is closer to what you need in order to read a text and have an idea of what's going on. See this article: https…
Being fluent in Japanese as a second language, I agree with this. It's Zipf's law and sounds great, but 90% isn't as useful as it sounds. You'll mostly recognize a single common Kanji of compound words consisting of 2-3 characters, or common structural words. It's a far cry from being able to understand content you find in the wild. Also, "understanding" a Kanji is an ill-defined term. Most Kanji have multiple meanin…
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the characters where chosen at least partly because of their actual meaning Sure, didn't I say they were in my post? The point was, in a discussion of how well X predicts Y, it's not very useful to examine a test case where Y came first and X was chosen post-hoc to match it.
> Sure, didn't I say they were in my post? No, quite the opposite actually ;)
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#158This means very little though. Take me as English learner for example. I would say I was only able to understand everyday English without too much of a hassle, after I acquired like around 10k words, which as I just checked had a coverage about 98%+. Noted, it is still NOT enough, actually far from enough. Right now I believe I master around 15k to 20k words, by various estimates, and navigating English on the intern…
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#159If Japanese people just used kana (like Korean people use hangul today), kids in Japan don't have to spend countless hours learning this complex (and often irrational) writing system. http://kanamozi.org/hikari959-04.html > If you really want to be native-level Japanese, kanji are essential There are visually impaired people who have difficulty learning kanji but speak Japanese fluently. Language is not just for peop…
Have you read japanese written only with hiragana? The language has so many homonyms it is hard to distinguish them from a text as it is a heavily context based language. I’d argue abolishing kanji and using only hiragana/katakana or roman alphabet makes learning the language harder after the very beginning when your vocab starts to increase.
Re: The most frequent 777 characters give 90% coverage of Kanji in the wild
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure, didn't I say they were in my post? No, quite the opposite actually ;)
> the characters got arbitrarily attached to an existing word because they were similar in sound and meaning
I do take your point that using that word in the discussion above, which is about Japanese was not the best example. On the other hand, it is a good example in chinese.