Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: Heisig's Method for Learning Kanji

Expand Messages
  • Otagiri Tatsuzou
    ... Ah ... there is no help for me. My swords are set in the obi as are the extra sandles. Foolish or not, I have already begun this journey. But if the
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > Of course none of this helps Otagiri-dono who wants to spend some
      > serious time self-studying Japanese. Which books would you recommend as
      > an alternative?

      Ah ... there is no help for me. My swords are set in the obi as are
      the extra sandles. Foolish or not, I have already begun this journey.
      But if the learned on the list can provide references to alternate
      approaches/books that can be used by rogue students, I am sure that
      others might benefit (as will I if this path ends prematurely).

      I have little doubt that an immersion method is superior in many
      respects, but I don't see how to accomplish that alone and on the road.

      (Tune of Green Acres)
      Rote memorization is the way for me.
      to learn two thousand Japanese kanji
      Filling notepads,
      with so many
      Endless Repitition,
      gives me the language key.

      (now ... Live! in VA!) Otagiri
    • Ii Saburou
      ... E.g. To Kiss --in Japanese you can say Kuchi(d)zukeru but it is not the same as to kiss , and when used in the English sense I ve most often seen the
      Message 2 of 26 , Jan 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Solveig wrote:

        >> The Chinese and Japanese are people from well developed societies, they
        >> have concepts and thoughts very similar to their Western counterparts.
        >> I'm not a subscriber to Nihonron or any of that silliness.
        >
        > I am not a subscriber to nihonron either, but the notion that Japanese and
        > English are equivalent is laughable. There are things which are easier and
        > more natural to express in each of these languages. Even if something can
        > be easily expressed in both languages does not mean that you will see a
        > 1:1 word mapping.

        E.g. 'To Kiss'--in Japanese you can say 'Kuchi(d)zukeru' but it is not the
        same as 'to kiss', and when used in the English sense I've most often seen
        the English ('kisu') used.

        -Ii
      • James Eckman
        ... I seem to remember period Japanese didn t kiss like Westerners, chalk up another one to corrupting Western influences ;) Most of our ancestors would not
        Message 3 of 26 , Jan 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > From: Ii Saburou <logan@...>
          >
          >
          >E.g. 'To Kiss'--in Japanese you can say 'Kuchi(d)zukeru' but it is not the
          >same as 'to kiss', and when used in the English sense I've most often seen
          >the English ('kisu') used.
          >
          >
          I seem to remember period Japanese didn't kiss like Westerners, chalk up
          another one to corrupting Western influences ;) Most of our ancestors
          would not understand many of our practices either. Hollywood, tourism
          and everything else has radically changed the modern Japanese in a very
          short period of time.

          > From: Solveig <nostrand@...>
          >
          >Greetings from Solveig! The Japanese were doing a very good job of nibbling
          >away at China until the U.S. intervened in the late 1930's early 1940's.
          >
          >
          Even afterwards. The current government had really lost the mandate of
          heaven!

          > From: Solveig <nostrand@...>
          >
          >Invading Korea and China was quite rational and a far better alternative
          >than trying to follow the example of the Minamoto following the Genpei War.
          >Basically, the Japanese had raised huge armies which expected loot. Not
          >to mention the large number off defeated soldiers who needed someplace to
          >go.
          >
          >
          I agree, this is a very important reason. They really didn't do so badly
          except that the Japanese naval forces stunk, this is not good for over
          the water invasions.

          >Remember the Iberians were there! The Japanese constructed fairly modern
          >(for the time) vessels toward the end of the sixteenth and the begining
          >of the seventeenth centuries.
          >
          >
          Japanese merchant vessels (at least to 1619) were limited to 250 koku
          capacity (approx. 52.25 cubic meters). So probably about 30 feet (10
          meters) long max. Adequate but not very impressive.

          It is also known that at least one of the ships Will Adams constructed
          for Ieyasu was of "more than 100 tons" (G. Sansom, _History of Japan,
          1334-1615_, n. p. 403). A bit more impressive but later!

          According to my book on Japanese Merchant Shipping, Date Masamune
          (1566-1636) built a ship in his own fief to send to Rome. I suspect it
          was at least a partial copy of Chinese/Korean or European vessels. It
          apparently reached Mexico also! It was probably quite decent sized.

          >From: Ii Saburou <logan@...>
          >
          >
          >If you look, there aren't easier pickings.
          >
          Especially for a folk who weren't really great sailors.

          >Then Perry comes in his Black Ships and forcibly requires Japan to open
          >its doors. Up and coming Japanese come to the realization that the world
          >will come to them unless they learn to keep the world out, and they build
          >up a Navy and Army that are able to dominate their section of the world,
          >defeating both the Chinese and the Russians.
          >
          >
          In a very short period of time too! In the mid 1880's they are about on
          par with the US, which is less impressive than it sounds.

          Jim Eckman
        • Solveig
          Noble Cousin! Greetings from Solveig! ... The Korean take on things is not so much that the Japanese naval forces stunk, but that the Korean naval forces were
          Message 4 of 26 , Jan 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Noble Cousin!

            Greetings from Solveig!

            >I agree, this is a very important reason. They really didn't do so badly
            >except that the Japanese naval forces stunk, this is not good for over
            >the water invasions.

            The Korean take on things is not so much that the Japanese naval forces
            stunk, but that the Korean naval forces were really good. They do have a
            point there. They had several turtles.

            >In a very short period of time too! In the mid 1880's they are about on
            >par with the US, which is less impressive than it sounds.

            It's still doing fairly well. Shortly afterward, the Japanese take on the
            Russians and win. The imperial navy mas modeled on the British navy and
            the imperial army was modeled on the Prussian army. At the time, the
            British was about the only real global navy. The Spanish were of course
            in serious decline by this point and were dispatched by the Americans in
            the Spanish-American War. The French Navy's fangs were pulled during the
            Napoleonic Wars and the Germans were always a primarily continental power.

            Equaling U.S. naval power during a period of projecting "manifest
            destiny" overseas is significant. U.S. expatriots in Hawaii stage a
            Coup d'Etat in 1893 and the Spanish American War was fought in 1898.
            --

            Your Humble Servant
            Solveig Throndardottir
            Amateur Scholar

            +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
            | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM, CoS, Fleur |
            | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
            | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
            +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
            | Note. Many popular "free" email services are automatically routed to the |
            | trash by my email filters. |
            +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
          • Ii Saburou
            ... Which is fairly well substantiated by the history of the region: The Korean kingdoms were the ones that seem to have been doing much of the coastal trade.
            Message 5 of 26 , Jan 6, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Solveig wrote:

              > The Korean take on things is not so much that the Japanese naval forces
              > stunk, but that the Korean naval forces were really good. They do have a
              > point there. They had several turtles.

              Which is fairly well substantiated by the history of the region: The
              Korean kingdoms were the ones that seem to have been doing much of the
              coastal trade. It was Korean ships and crews that piloted the Mongols
              over to Japan. I seem to recall it was even Korea that helped furnish the
              tributary ships which made it down around the tip of Africa (and possibly
              farther).

              In fact, the Japanese invasion only really seems to have worked because
              they caught the Koreans sleeping--they had no idea that an invasion was
              coming, and after the Japanese landed it was too late. Once they realized
              it, though, they played terrible havoc with the Japanese supply
              lines--attributed as one of the main reasons for Japanese defeat on the
              penninsula, iirc.

              -Ii
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.