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
, but you have no way of knowing if that's true or not.I should have a MUCH better grasp on the language after one year of study this way, than i would any other fashion.
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 , 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.
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 misunderstood my explanation of the san thing, by the way.
So, does that mean you can explain the difference; whom they refer to as 息子?and no, i got it.
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.one that still is kind of curious is the Kanji for "tree" and "origin" seem very similar as well
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.I was telling my friend yesterday that though I have learned a lot, I am probably barely above a pre-school level japanese wise.
The silence is deafening.
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.
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'm afraid you have totally missed it. I will elaborate later.
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.
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?
that is my 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".
こ・そ・あ・ど: demonstratives in Japanese
Kore/Kono, Sore/Sono and Are/Ano
Kore/Kono, Sore/Sono and Are/Ano