Re: Mixed writing systems (WAS: Newbie says hi)

>From: Florian Rivoal <florian@...>
>
>refer to http://www.zompist.com/yingzi/yingzi.htm for a good idea how of
>the system works).
Yep I've read that :)

>The japanese use of chinese characher (kanji) is closer to what you think.
>They use kanji without any phonetic values to write the many words they
>borowed to chinese language(which use could be vaguely considered similar
>to latin roots in romance languages) , nouns, as well as verbs and
>adjective stem. They use a separate sillabary (hiragana) to note all the
>"gramatical stuff" : post-positions, inflexions... Note that this silabary
>is also used to subtitle or even replace the chinese charachers that are
>too difficult to memorise.
>And this would have be too easy. They also have a second sillabary
>(katakana) with the exact same phonetic values, used for writing loan
>words, or for emphasys.
I *think* I understand this picture, but it's a little different from what I
had understood previously. I think I'd got the impression that all three
systems could be used independently. In particular I remember reading about
how in the Middle Ages Japanese women produced far more works of literature
than men. The reason was that women were not taught kanji, because it was
seen as harder, and they were expected not to be able to manage it. Whereas
the men were expected to be able to, so they had to struggle with it to
write anything. Since the syllabaries are basically easier (they are geared
towards actual Japanese phonology) women in fact found it much easier to
write than men, and hence they wrote much more. Ludicrous, but true - or is
it? What you say suggests the syllabaries are only used to complement and
complete kanji.

>What make the use of chinese characters dificult in japanese, is that a
>single kanji often have many readings: the "original" (yet modified through
>borowing prosses) chinese reading, and the various pronounciation of the
>(some times many) japanese concepts that fit into a single characher. only
>the context, that is which gramatical function or which compound, allow to
>know the actual pronounciation.
What you are describing is a classic case of a writing system being totally
unsuited to a language. Japanese and Chinese are after all totally different
morphologically (and hence typologically).

>This pronounciation problem makes the system quite long to master. On the
>other hand, once you know it, the reading is incredibly efficient. From the
>first look, you can catch the main words, and then pay more attention to
>the gramatical details.
But doesn't it make it more inefficient: for instance you are having to look
at several different elements to understand the meaning of the *same* word.

>If you don't belevie that using ideograms is more efficient to catch the
>meaning, just think of the closest thing to ideograms we have in english:
>numbers.
I take your point here, but this is just ideograms. That would suggest that
the Chinese system is even easier.

>Once you manage to learn the system, the whole language gets this easy and
>fast to read. ... I personaly consider the japanese writing system to be
>the most efficient and confortable system to the READer, though it is a bit
>harder to WRITE, and quite awfull to LEARN.
That is the point tho, it is not just about how easy it is to absorb or
produce meaning from a writing system, but also how long it takes you to get
to the point where you can do so in the first place. Consider the claims
that an entire year of children's education is wasted learning irregular
spellings in English and getting over it to be able to read and write. How
much longer does it take to learn an ideographic system, how much education
time does it eat up?

Mat


_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections -- switch to MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

Replies