Speaking Japanese

are there kana that does count as kanji? because I do know hiragana and katakana and can produce them at will. not as quickly as i would like, but i imagine that will take time

Yes and no. There are some kana that look exactly like some kanji, but shouldn't be confused for them.

Examples:
katakana ニ and 二 (ni, futa, fu, fuu, ji)
katakana カ and 力 (chikara, ryoku, riki, rii)
katakana エand 工 (kou, ku, gu)
 
Three weeks of learning anything, by any method, isn't really enough to tell how well it's working. You say things like
I should have a MUCH better grasp on the language after one year of study this way, than i would any other fashion.
, but you have no way of knowing if that's true or not.

If you have commute time or similar where audio materials are the only thing you can use then sure, Rosetta Stone audio (or JPod101, or whatever) is a helpful supplement. I'm going to suggest that if you just took that one hour you currently spend in the evenings and switch out whatever you're currently doing during that time to using either a physical textbook or a similarly structured online course (e.g. Erin's Challenge or even just working through Tae Kim's grammar website), that you would see faster improvement than via your current method. It's not all or nothing.

What was "Level 4" on the old system (as previously linked to) would now be N5 in the new JLPT. Test yourself if you like. You are, I suspect, misunderstanding how much is covered under phrases like "basic grammar". Eight months to bring yourself from the start up to N5 level is a quite reasonable timespan - an hour a day spent with a textbook is 200 hours in a bit under 7 months, not counting listening practice on your commute. JPod101 is quite good for that, I would say better than Rosetta Stone as they do explain the grammar they use and it's conversations rather than single phrases - I used to listen to it walking to work and back.
 
Yes and no. There are some kana that look exactly like some kanji, but shouldn't be confused for them.

Examples:
katakana ニ and 二 (ni, futa, fu, fuu, ji)
katakana カ and 力 (chikara, ryoku, riki, rii)
katakana エand 工 (kou, ku, gu)

I have noticed that.

one that still is kind of curious is the Kanji for "tree" and "origin" seem very similar as well
 
Three weeks of learning anything, by any method, isn't really enough to tell how well it's working. You say things like , but you have no way of knowing if that's true or not.

If you have commute time or similar where audio materials are the only thing you can use then sure, Rosetta Stone audio (or JPod101, or whatever) is a helpful supplement. I'm going to suggest that if you just took that one hour you currently spend in the evenings and switch out whatever you're currently doing during that time to using either a physical textbook or a similarly structured online course (e.g. Erin's Challenge or even just working through Tae Kim's grammar website), that you would see faster improvement than via your current method. It's not all or nothing.

What was "Level 4" on the old system (as previously linked to) would now be N5 in the new JLPT. Test yourself if you like. You are, I suspect, misunderstanding how much is covered under phrases like "basic grammar". Eight months to bring yourself from the start up to N5 level is a quite reasonable timespan - an hour a day spent with a textbook is 200 hours in a bit under 7 months, not counting listening practice on your commute. JPod101 is quite good for that, I would say better than Rosetta Stone as they do explain the grammar they use and it's conversations rather than single phrases - I used to listen to it walking to work and back.

Jpod101 has been a great help. and keep in mind i DO use a text. while Human Japanese is not an academic text, it IS a tried and true textbook. it may not be physical, but it is a textbook. with exercises and quizzes and explanations to boot.

and no, I don't misunderstand it. I understand "basic grammar" to mean what it would mean in english.

a child in america who knows how to say "she has the ball" or "she is eating rice" can't claim to have mastered basic grammar. while my level isn't quite that low I have gotten quite used to other sentence structures. I do understand that i'm at the very basic level.

I was telling my friend yesterday that though I have learned a lot, I am probably barely above a pre-school level japanese wise.

I hold no presumptions to being super advanced here, the japanese language is VAST and can be complicated, I know I am BARELY scratching the surface. I feel like I am acquiring the tools that I will need to understand when i REALLY get into the language.

but that being said, given the fact that 3 weeks ago I knew what amounts to 0 japanese, to now where I have a basic (VERY basic) understanding of the BASICS of the language. I am very pleased with my progress. and i'm learning more and more every day.
 
What was "Level 4" on the old system (as previously linked to) would now be N5 in the new JLPT. Test yourself if you like.

and for the record......as for the sample questions.

I could read them :)

like i said, I hold no claim to being super advanced. Just that i'm pleased with the progress I see in myself, one of the very cool things about teaching myself is that I don't have to particularly care how advanced I am at any particular time, as long as i'm learning and enjoying it and can tell i'm getting better. that's all that matters to me.

though, now i have a goal. to get up to level 5 in 4 months time! why the heck not. :p
 
You misunderstood my explanation of the san thing, by the way.
and no, i got it.
So, does that mean you can explain the difference; whom they refer to as 息子?

A: どれが息子さんですか。
B: あれが息子です。

A': どれが息子ですか。
B': あれが息子さんです。

A'': どれが息子さんですか。
B'': あれが息子さんです。

one that still is kind of curious is the Kanji for "tree" and "origin" seem very similar as well
Unlike examples Angel Valis-san listed, 木 and 本 are considered completely different. If they seem very similar to you, you would come across quite quite so many similar kanji groups in the future.
FYI, the word "book" is usually used when referring to the kanji 本, not "origin". (What came to my mind first by "origin" was 元 or 源.)

I was telling my friend yesterday that though I have learned a lot, I am probably barely above a pre-school level japanese wise.
You can check yourself where the level of native-speaking pre-school children is and whether your assumption "I am probably barely above a pre-school level japanese wise" is correct or not. See the following thread.

Any Good Children's Books You'd Recommend? | Japan Forum
 
Last edited:
The silence is deafening.
 
The silence is deafening.

sorry, i'm still here. Just been working a lot lately. I saw the questions, but i haven't had the chance to really look at them and answer them.

but i did understand what you said. but i'm still here. and i WILL answer the questions.

you have to understand something, i know about 20 Kanji. I can't read a lot of stuff that has it, i'll get there. and will answer the questions. just give me a little time. dont' give up on me just yet :)
 
Oh, I see what you mean.

息子 Is read むすこ.
 
About to get caught up with work yet? I notice that you found time to visit us on the 17th.
 
About to get caught up with work yet? I notice that you found time to visit us on the 17th.

yes I have, for the most part. I have taken the last week or so and just really tried to hammer in the basics. Like committing the 200 words/phrases that i have on flash cards and really committing them to memory, and really focusing on creating my own sentences and such. I have also picked up a "reading japanese script" book (yes, actual book. only one i could find at the book store) to help me with my kanji to I can actually read more things in japanese. I just haven't had any things to ask you guys because I am not really pushing forward, I want to make sure I have what i have learned down before moving on. if that makes sense.
 
Glad to hear it.

The single most useful online resource for Japanese learning...free or paid...took the time to create a set of questions to help check your comprehension on an important point. He works very hard to help folks and his only rewards are an all-too-rare expression of thanks and the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from having done a stranger a kindness. If you wouldn't mind taking a minute or two to answer his questions it would be appreciated; we like to keep him encouraged.
 
A: どれが息子さんですか。
this is asking which son, but since it is asked in a fashion that implies that it's not the person who is asking the question. I suppose it could be, but i would need more context to say that

B: あれが息子です。
this one is clearly an answer to "who's son?"......"that(over there) son". though I would imagine this would confirm that the son is not that of the asker of the question. Every sentence i have come across up to this point the sentence is always watashino (or bokuno) musumesan. so....that would be the answer

A': どれが息子ですか。
B': あれが息子さんです。
same question, "who's son?"

no, thought they are reversed, i'm a little confused due to the lack of the "no" particle. my gut tells me that it is the speakers son over there.



A'': どれが息子さんですか。
B'': あれが息子さんです。

using the logic of the previous two, i would have to go with it being the speakers son as well.

just did a quick review of what Mike said way back when.....actually it's the exact reverse to the logic I used. :p

well, now i know. THAT is the benefit of having real people to talk about it instead of just a program which doesn't really specify or give ANY description.

Thanks again for your help guys. :)
 
I'm afraid you have totally missed it. I will elaborate later.
 
Glad to hear it.

The single most useful online resource for Japanese learning...free or paid...took the time to create a set of questions to help check your comprehension on an important point. He works very hard to help folks and his only rewards are an all-too-rare expression of thanks and the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from having done a stranger a kindness. If you wouldn't mind taking a minute or two to answer his questions it would be appreciated; we like to keep him encouraged.

I had already done that when you asked. :)

and then reviewed what you taught me originally, and edited said post.

don't want him to think it was ignored or unappreciated.
 
No problem. I'm at work now and won't be able to write a proper reply for several hours. Someone else may step in and straighten things out for you in the meantime.
 
I'm afraid you have totally missed it. I will elaborate later.

I know.....I went back to what you originally said. and what i originally put was the exact opposite.

elaboration is always good. I just wanted to keep the post with the incorrect answer and my addition as a reminder to myself that while i have learned a lot, and feel really good about where I am.

I do not know everything, and I have barely scratched the surface of where I need to be, or where i want to be.

that's all.
 
You seem not to be clear on the distinction between:

これ / この
それ / その
あれ / あの
どれ / どの

which is one of those basics you talk about hammering down, and a crucial one at that.

None of the questions inquire "which son?" or "whose son?" They all inquire "which is ___ son?", with the blank being a possessive pronoun and the appropriate one (my, your, his, etc) being surmised from the social clues derived from the use or non-use of the honorific suffix "-san".

Each of the three poses a different social situation and any Japanese speaker hearing any of those three different exchanges would automatically and effortlessly understand the relationships between the parties involved. And for that reason it is crucial that anyone learning Japanese also be aware of this mechanism and apply it assiduously themselves.

You mention seeing things like "bokuno musumesan"....which for the purposes of this discussion is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Honorifics are not applied to one's own in-group (family being a prime example), whether addressing them or referencing them.

To answer Toritoribe's seemingly very simple exercise, you have to keep in mind the distinction between in-group and out-group as well as any vertical relationship between parties speaking and parties being spoken about. In this case, it can all be surmised by the presence or absence of "-san".

Give it another try.
 
You seem not to be clear on the distinction between:

これ / この
それ / その
あれ / あの
どれ / どの

which is one of those basics you talk about hammering down, and a crucial one at that.

None of the questions inquire "which son?" or "whose son?" They all inquire "which is ___ son?", with the blank being a possessive pronoun and the appropriate one (my, your, his, etc) being surmised from the social clues derived from the use or non-use of the honorific suffix "-san".

Each of the three poses a different social situation and any Japanese speaker hearing any of those three different exchanges would automatically and effortlessly understand the relationships between the parties involved. And for that reason it is crucial that anyone learning Japanese also be aware of this mechanism and apply it assiduously themselves.

You mention seeing things like "bokuno musumesan"....which for the purposes of this discussion is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Honorifics are not applied to one's own in-group (family being a prime example), whether addressing them or referencing them.

To answer Toritoribe's seemingly very simple exercise, you have to keep in mind the distinction between in-group and out-group as well as any vertical relationship between parties speaking and parties being spoken about. In this case, it can all be surmised by the presence or absence of "-san".

Give it another try.

ok.......i'll answer it better than just by saying "it's the opposite of what i said"
 
A: どれが息子さんですか。
which is my son?

B: あれが息子です。
that (over there) is son

still not super clear how he can reference his own son without the particle "no". but I guess i'm just not there yet.

A': どれが息子ですか。
B': あれが息子さんです。
which is son?
there is my son


A'': どれが息子さんですか。
B'': あれが息子さんです。
which is my son?
there is my son
 
You still have it swapped around. Actually, I think you got some of them right and some wrong in the earlier attempt, despite the confusion about the あ・そ・こ・ど words - you were on the right track with the first answer there.

Just like you don't append さん to your own name, you don't say 息子さん about your own kid. You could say "watashi no musuko", but it's not necessary if it's otherwise clear from context.
 
Last edited:
A: どれが息子さんですか。
which is my son?

B: あれが息子です。
that (over there) is son

A: どれが息子さんですか。"Which is your/his/her son?" (Anything but the speaker's son)
B: あれが息子です。"That is my son." (Context makes it clear that A was speaking of B's son)

still not super clear how he can reference his own son without the particle "no". but I guess i'm just not there yet.

Context. Always context. If it can be inferred at all from context, people usually drop it. As a native English speaker, I want to say 私 (don't like the sound of ぼく personally, so I rarely use it) ALL the time, but I fully understand that I say it about 1000 times more often than I need to to make myself clear. The same is happening here. Since you don't use さん when referring to yourself/your family, it is 100% clear that this person is talking about their own son by not using it.

A': どれが息子ですか。
B': あれが息子さんです。
which is son?
there is my son

A': どれが息子ですか。 "Which is my son?"
B': あれが息子さんです "That is your son."

A'': どれが息子さんですか。
B'': あれが息子さんです。
which is my son?
that is my son

A'': どれが息子さんですか。"Which is his/her/your son?"
B'': あれが息子さんです。 "That is his/her son." (Context makes it clear that it is neither A or B's son)

To answer Toritoribe's seemingly very simple exercise, you have to keep in mind the distinction between in-group and out-group as well as any vertical relationship between parties speaking and parties being spoken about. In this case, it can all be surmised by the presence or absence of "-san".

This becomes even more important when talking within one's own group and learning to use honorifics appropriately. For example, when talking to your older sister you would call her おねえさん (or ちゃん etc...), but when talking about her to a friend, you would call her あね. It's because of the situation. In the former, you're inside your own group, so you should show respect to those who are older, while in the latter example, you are outside your own group and thus should show deference to your listener.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom