Proper spelling - is it that important?

Quote:

Non-English-speaking countries have been simplifying their spelling for centuries: Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Norway, Ireland, Indonesia and Japan

It's interesting that they mention Japan, because Japan doesn't really have "spelling" per se, but uses borrowed Chinese characters, kanji 漢字, and combines them together like we tie together certain root words in English. So in English, for instance, the prefix "-ing" is used to nominalize verbs (e.g. the verb "read" becomes the noun "reading"). Now in Japanese, a single character can sometimes function in much the same way. So for example, the word kanji is formed with kan- 漢 (which means China) and -ji 字 (character, letter, etc.)--thus giving kanji the literal translation Chinese character. Individual kanji, in turn, can be further broken down into components, sometimes with amusing results (e.g. kusuri 薬 meaning drug, is formed from 楽 which means "comfort" and an abbreviated 艸 meaning "grass"--thus, "comfort grass").

This is all well and good, but unfortunately, like with English, the reasoning for why certain roots were together to form a particular word isn't always clear. Thus, remembering which kanji to use is a constant issue, particularly in the modern world where modern Japanese language software has made it simply a matter of typing in the phonetic form of the word and then selecting the correct word from a pop-up list, compared to the old days where it was all handwritten. As Nuttyturnip pointed out, spelling-correction software has simplified (a.k.a. dumbed down) writing in English and, far from being a tool, may more accurately be described as a crutch that actually degrades language ability. The results have been similar in Japanese. My point in saying all this is that while the article makes it sound like other countries have been "simplifying their language for centuries," I suspect that all countries' respective group of linguists exercise a certain reluctance to let laziness dictate their respective language's progression.

Basically, this problem isn't isolated to English.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Scarletdeath

You forgot that Japan doesn't use Kanji alone. Kana is used on a more common basis than Kanji, and they do shorten their "spelling" on them. Particularly, English derived words written with Katakana. Words that have more than 4 syllables are commonly shortened to 4 syllables or so.

I'm aware of hiragana and katakana. I chose not to discuss them because I wanted to make a general point without getting bogged down on details that only someone studying Japanese would know.

Although, honestly, aside from particles, verb stems, and those occasional foreign words, do you really think kana get used more than kanji? I haven't found that to be the case at all.

Originally Posted by Scarletdeath

Even on Kanji, words that have more than 4 letters are often shortened. For example, South Korea and China's full name has about 4 Kanji chara. altogether, but are known as 韓国 and 中国 instead, only with 2 Kanji chara.

Right and you can even come up with constructions like 和英 for 和英辞書. But this just goes to my point that kanji can roughly be analogized to root words in English in the way they can be used as abbreviations and such.

Quote:

And besides, this:

Isn't the same as:

Yeah, I guess if you want to get technical, a true equivalent to -ing in the nominalizing sense would be 事 as in 読む事 which nominalizes 読む. Again, though, I was just trying to illustrate a general point of how one could compare English and Japanese.

Oh and since you bring it up, I wasn't referring to reading as in "I'm reading." Yes, that would be 読んでいる. But I was talking about the nominalized verb form, not the present participle form that you would use that for. Afterall, when you say "I'm reading," you don't actually mean "I am the noun reading." We're talking about two very different usages for the English usage of "-ing."

I do like your example of "home" and "work" forming homework, though. I guess that does illustrate the 漢字 example better.

Quote:

Why are you explaining how Kanji characters are made? It has nothing to do with spelling at all.

I disagree. The way you remember spelling is by taking note of patterns where they exist while being mindful of exceptions. Similarly, the way to develop proficiency in kanji is to learn radicals that form kanji and the patterns that develop in their usage. 金 illustrates this point well, I think, as it's used in a lot of various metals, over and over again.

Quote:

Friendly reminder; you might want to actually try speaking Japanese first before jumping ahead on this.

I'll admit that having been at it for a few years now, there's a lot that I don't know, and it could very well be the case that you're more knowledgeable on the subject than I am as well, but I actually have studied the language.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Scarletdeath

Mind elaborating on how Kanji is used more than Kana?

Actually, on second thought, you're right. When I think about the sheer number of times certain hiragana must get used just to provide grammar, they probably do outweigh kanji, even factoring in long strings of kanji for proper names and such. It's just that you originally said "Kana is used on a more common basis than Kanji," which almost makes it sound like you could get by just knowing kana. Of course, we both know that's not the case. Anyway, I agree with you.

Quote:

I'm fully aware on the usage of -している. I was also pointing out the difference between Kanji and verbs.

And I'm fully aware that you do. My point wasn't to lecture you on the て-form, but to point out that you're not talking about the same -ing usage that I was. Your original response said verbs use kana for form changes which is generally true, and certainly true for ている. However, I was talking about turning a verb into a noun. Let's put it this way:

1) それを食べる事が嫌いだ --> I hate eating that.
2) それを食べている --> I am eating that.

The English equivalent uses -ing in both cases, but it has different functions. When I referred to nominalizing a verb in Japanese, I meant it in the sense of 1) not 2).

Quote:

Actually, no. Like my "homework" example, these aren't spelling, these are nouns. A word that uses 金 all over are still nouns. For example, remembering which Kanji makes up 金属 or 金銭 is the same as remembering home goes with work for homework. Spelling are such as 殺された; knowing the 送り仮名 that follows or how to spell　コンビニエンスストア properly.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear. I meant 金 in the sense of a radical, as in 銀, or 鉄. Remembering the radicals can help break down the kanji itself into components, just as remembering certain letter combinations in English (e.g. -ation), even though they are never used by themselves, can help in remember many words that use them.

Quote:

I'll give you the slack since Japanese is a hard language, and you can very well forget plenty without practicing constantly. As for my qualification on the language, I have studied in an actual Japanese school, gotten enough exposure on the Japanese culture, and interacted with plenty of Japanese. In fact, my Japanese Proficiency Level is at 2. I hardly include actual Kanji/Kana in this because I'm too lazy to change the languages with the toolbar.

Haha, well to be honest it doesn't really feel like you're giving me much slack at all, but thanks I guess.

Congrats on passing the JLPT2, though. Any plans to ever try for JLPT1 anytime soon? I hear that thing's a monster.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Dhsu

I thought spelling is by knowing what letters make what sounds. From what I understand, while radicals may provide some indication as to meaning (and even then I'm sure there are some completely obscure etymologies), they often have no bearing whatsoever on pronunciation.

生 (sei) which is used as a radical in the kanji 性 (sei). Knowing the first kanji, you can guess the pronunciation of the second, more complicated one. This principle doesn't always apply, but it sometimes does and can serve as a mnemonic device as kanji became more complex.

Quote:

In English, if you know how a word sounds, you can usually figure out its spelling, or something reasonable close (I'd actually support spelling reform for the purposes of creating a 1-to-1 phonetic mapping). If one were to give you the pronunciation (or even meaning) of a Japanese word, would you be able to reconstruct the appropriate radicals purely from that?

There, their, they're
Too, two, to

Without context, how would you know which one to choose? I guess if you define "reasonably close" as picking one of the options, then sure; you're all set. But despite what the guy in the article says, I think to be taken seriously, knowing the correct spelling is important. Also, let's not forget about "silent" letters in English words. There's nothing intuitive about them, and sometimes certain letter combinations that are frequently used (-tion) would most certainly be spelled entirely different if the sound was isolated (shun).

Also, I don't know if 1-to-1 mapping would actually necessarily be a good thing. Although many people have trouble using the above examples correctly, there are distinct meanings for each word and different spelling helps make this more clear.

Regarding your question, I don't think that's a fair comparison. In English, when you're guessing spelling, you already have a large vocabulary and have been drilled on spelling all through grade school (although if the article is anything to go on, some people would say that's a waste of time). You pick the correct spelling based on a combination of context, vocabulary, and general rules of spelling. In Japanese, you get drilled on kanji instead of spelling. But just as English has patterns of spelling that can aid in memorization, Japanese has its radicals.

Quote:

If you're not Japanese, then knowing Japanese is usually a good sign that you're a weeaboo. If you are Japanese, then...well, fine, you've got me there.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you're against learning foreign languages, or that you're just against learning Japanese as a foreign language?

I always understood weeaboo to mean someone who thinks you can learn Japanese from just watching anime all day.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Dhsu

Citing an exception that "sometimes" applies does nothing to support your argument that the radical system is anything akin to spelling. Do even 40% of kanji follow the convention you just described?

Try 90%.

Quote:

Keisei-moji (形声文字)

These are called "phono-semantic", "semantic-phonetic", "semasio-phonetic" or "phonetic-ideographic" characters in English. They are by far the largest category, making up about 90% of characters. Typically they are made up of two components, one of which indicates the meaning or semantic context, and the other the pronunciation. (The pronunciation really relates to the original Chinese, and may now only be distantly detectable in the modern Japanese on'yomi of the kanji. The same is true of the semantic context, which may have changed over the centuries or in the transition from Chinese to Japanese. As a result, it is a common error in folk etymology to fail to recognize a phono-semantic compound, typically instead inventing a compound-indicative explanation.)

As examples of this, consider the kanji with the 言 shape: 語, 記, 訳, 説, etc. All are related to word/language/meaning. Similarly kanji with the 雨 (rain) shape (雲, 電, 雷, 雪, 霜, etc.) are almost invariably related to weather. Kanji with the 寺 (temple) shape on the right (詩, 持, 時, 侍, etc.) usually have an on'yomi of "shi" or "ji". Sometimes one can guess the meaning and/or reading simply from the components. However, exceptions do exist -- for example, neither 需 nor 霊 have anything to do with weather (at least in their modern usage), and 待 has an on'yomi of "tai". That is, a component may play a semantic role in one compound, but a phonetic role in another.

Granted, the system isn't perfect, and this only helps with guessing the on-yomi (Chinese reading) of the kanji, but I have heard that after learning a certain number of kanji, it does become possible to guess at meanings and pronunciation.

As for English, it's easy for you to dismiss examples I give as "exceptions," but if spelling is so intuitive, why do we have spelling tests? Why does most people's spelling suck? Why was this article written? Someone who only has studied the alphabet and learned about what vowels and consonants are isn't going to have good spelling. Even with a decent "speaking" vocabulary, in writing, it would not be unexpected to see a child misspell words, substituting in what they feel are more intuitive spellings. An educated adult will certainly do better, because they will have gotten lots of reading practice, and will be used to English conventions. For instance, if you ask a child to spell the word "phonetically," it probably won't go so well, because they aren't used to the Ph- F sound, and even if they are, may not recognize that this is a root word being used in this longer construction.

All I'm saying is being able to break down words into subcomponents is really useful for spelling correctly in English, and likewise being able to break down words and kanji in Japanese into subcomponents is also useful.

Quote:

Honestly I don't see why you're so intent on pushing this point when Japanese has actual spelling system in the form of kana.

I just thought it was interesting that they mentioned Japanese in an article about spelling. That's why I made the original post, at least. As for this long discussion that's followed, I don't know.

Quote:

Not a fair comparison? You're the one who made it. :/

I was talking about being able to guess meaning/pronunciation when seeing a new word in print. You're talking about hearing a word and then putting it to print yourself.

Incidentally, since you make Japanese sound so completely unintuitive, "thousands upon thousands of unique squiggle configurations," why is Japan's literacy rate so high? Human Development Report 2007/2008 - Adult literacy rate (% aged 15 and older)

Quote:

weeaboo

I guess I take offense to it because it trivializes something that I've worked hard at for several years now. When most people use this term, that is the intended meaning, anyway. But then, it doesn't seem like you really meant it seriously, so nevermind.

I was speaking idiomatically.