(Replying to PARENT post)

Native Chinese speaker here, and this is how I view Japanese before/after learning Japanese:

Before learning: Japanese is some hanzi/kanji characters and words in tons of unknown characters. To try to grasp a meaning from a Japanese sentence, just remove all the hiragana and katakana and try to make sense from the remaining words. I found that it is similar to reading Classical Chinese.

After learning kana: Could understand more things about a sentence by ใงใ™ ใชใ„ ใ‹... Also, can read some katakana words if it is originated from English.

Actually learning Japanese and start memorizing Japanese words: Grammar is quite different, but still can find some sentence structures that are similar. Such as โ€ฆใ‚‚โ€ฆใชใ„ and โ€ฆไนŸโ€ฆๆฒ’โ€ฆ It is easy to find that ่จ“่ชญใฟ words have similar pronunciation with some Chinese variants. It is usually more similar to Minnan(Hokkien), Cantonese... compared to Mandarin.

IMO, knowing Chinese do make me easier to learn and read Japanese. I am still trying to get JLPT N3 this year, so other people knows more about Japanese may have different experience.

๐Ÿ‘คmaple3142๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

This is interesting; I studied Korean in college / lived there for a bit. Randomly, met a Chinese woman there, who actually lived in the States, and we got married after we both moved back to the States.

If I could do it over again, I would learn Chinese before Korean or Japanese. My Chinese friends who learned Korean learned it way faster than any western learner.

Japanese students learned Korean even quicker than the Chinese students - in addition to using Chinese words, Japanese and Korean have the same grammar structure ( Subject Object Verb ) whereas Chinese and English are different (Subject Verb Object)

Learning Chinese is like learning Latin before learning a Romance language.

The added benefit is that Chinese isnโ€™t a dead language.

Both Japanese and Korean are distinct from Chinese and beautiful languages (I really do love Korean, such a pretty, logical language), but China has been an influence in the region for so long they canโ€™t have help absorbing and using pieces of the Chinese languages.

Fun random fact: a lot of Korean words are built on Chinese words; however, some of those words were taken from Chinese thousands of years ago.

The Chinese pronunciations have changed. Some researchers have been known to use Korean pronunciations of words to help triangulate to what ancient Chinese characters would sound like (in combination with poems where you know what rhymes to expect etc)!

๐Ÿ‘คstanrivers๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

If you know Turkish (or any Central Asian language barring Tajik[not familiar with Persian adjacent languages]), learning Japanese is a breeze because you can translate a Turkish text into Japanese word for word and out comes a perfectly constructed Japanese text. Obviously, it works in the other direction as well.

I remember trying to learn Japanese through Russian and having hell of a time untill I came across a Japanese textbook written in Turkish.

If you are from Central Asia, you can leverage both of your languages (native Central Asian & Russian) for learning English. It's better to learn English through Russian untill it's time to learn the English tense system at which point you can swith back to your native Central Asian as Russian is not very amenable for learning the English tense system whereas the tenses(rather aspects?) of C.A. languages line up with that of English in almost one to one manner. Thinking about the English tenses through the "Russian mind" was a nightmare untill I realized I already know the tenses through my native Kazakh.

Mathematicians never shy away from throwing everything at their disposal at a problem. Acting like them speeds up language acquisition process considerably.

๐Ÿ‘คms1234rth๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Not mentioned in the article, Hangul (the Korean alphabet) was created in 1443 by the King. It was meant to aid literacy because of the preexisting incompatibility of Chinese characters and the Korean spoken language. It's actually surprisingly easy to learn - you could do it in a really short time. But, because the symbols (24 of them) represent sound only, you won't usually know what you're saying.

Also, it was designed with a certain concept in mind: "The letters for the five basic consonants reflect the shape of the speech organs used to pronounce them, and they are systematically modified to indicate phonetic features"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul

๐Ÿ‘คinterestica๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Despite the title, there's not much commentary on how Chinese sounds to Korea and Japan. I was hoping for something like Prisencolinensinainciusol's supposed American-English-to-Italians:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/deep-roots-italian-son...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VsmF9m_Nt8

๐Ÿ‘คdanso๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Interesting observations.

As native Chinese speaker:

The Look:

1. Japanese: I like the kanji, it is very recognizable, even the character set is different. Most Chinese will have no problem reading traditional Chinese characters, though somewhat slower. The rest...not so much, kanas are my biggest headache.

2. Korean: First thing I noticed is the presence of circle, which is not part of Chinese radicals until very recently. Because it looks like bubbles, so it looks somewhat ... cute? No meaning can be inferred beyond that. Also the use of spaces are noticeable.

The Sound:

1. Japanese: Fast. Less variation in the speech itself. Notice the presence of pitch. The kanji based words sound very different from what it would sound like in Chinese

2. Korean: Not as fast as Japanese, but still faster than Chinese. A lot of unfamiliar sounds that are absent in Chinese pronunciation. Sometimes I would be able to find one word or two that sounds like Chinese and makes sense in the context, but the rest is just foreign.

Question to Korean speakers:

Do you guys recognize each individual Hangul character's meaning (under the context of the word of course) if that word has a Chinese origin? Or the word is recognized as whole. For example ๋ถ€๋™์‚ฐ(real estate), comes from the Japanese kanji word, ไธๅ‹•็”ฃ, which in Chinese means ไธ(not)ๅ‹•(moving)็”ฃ(assets). Does this inferential aspect of Chinese still apply in certain cases once it is written in Hangul?

๐Ÿ‘คkarmasimida๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

One addendum to this: some of the simplified printed characters actually date back centuries in China (e.g. the 14th and 13th centuries CE), and IIRC were used for easier carving of the woodblocks used for printing. And Japan has been introducing simplified printed characters for many centuries too. And that's before you even get into variant scripts used in calligraphy, shorthand, and personal seals. Point being, it's even more complicated than this, historically speaking.
๐Ÿ‘คHuShifang๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

but some time after WWII (I don't remember the exact dates) Japan and Mainland China adopted a simplified form.

I lived in Taiwan when I was younger and studied Mandarin there, and can read a limited vocabulary of traditional Chinese characters. I don't know enough about the history of simplified characters in Japan, but it doesn't seem to me that they are as widely used (with a few exceptions like ๅ›ฝ) as traditional forms. Maybe someone knows the history?

Also, regarding this statement:

่‡บ (Korea/Taiwan) ๅฐ (Japan/China)

In Taiwan, the latter form of tai (ๅฐ) is used 99% of the time in colloquial, news, and signage. The complex form (่‡บ) AFAIK is used almost exclusively in certain government situations (e.g. the name of a central government bureau) or on money. Street signs for famous buildings all use ๅฐ, i.e. ๅฐๅŒ—101, ๅฐๅŒ—ๆพๅฑฑๆฉŸๅ ด, etc.

๐Ÿ‘คilamont๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

That Japanese Man Yuta has a great video demonstrating just how much Chinese script do ordinary Japanese folk understand:

https://youtu.be/rzJqXd-1dEU

๐Ÿ‘คTade0๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I live in Japan and work at a Japanese company. I can't understand Chinese at all. Even though the Japanese version of the Chinese pronunciation is somehow vaguely familiar at times, there is no making any sense of it.

I suspect Japanese folks feel the same way so I turned to my right and asked a coworker what Chinese sounds like to him. His answer was ใกใ‚“ใทใ‚“ใ‹ใ‚“ใทใ‚“ (gibberish).

๐Ÿ‘คdwg๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Fun fact: on most proposed trees of human languages, Korean and English are closer to each other than Korean and Chinese.
๐Ÿ‘คPaulDavisThe1st๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I always consider that the CJKV (Vietnam) or ๆผขๅญ—/Kanji/Hanja (Kanji below) writing system is like CISC, and other alphabet systems are like RISC.
๐Ÿ‘คqlk1123๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Slightly different perspective, but while I lived in Japan I did the JLPT as a native English speaker.

Among my friends: Koreans have no problem with Japanese grammar, struggled with writing/reading. Chinese no problem with reading/writing, struggled with grammar. English speakers.. struggled with everything but pronunciation hah.

As per Chinese characters. There are a lot of subtle differences: 'Traditional Chinese' is the original. 'Simplified Chinese' was done by the Communist party, is the standard in Mainland China. With notable exceptions in Hong Kong and Taiwan

For Japanese, there was simplifications in the 50's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjitai

But for the most part they're pretty similar to the Traditional (closer to traditional than simplified)

I'm not super familiar with Hanja(korean), but I assume they are the equivalent of 'Traditional' Chinese.

Then you also get into subtle drifts in meaning. My favourite was:

ๆ‰‹็ด™ The characters mean 'hand' and 'paper' respectively.

In Japanese, it means 'Letter'

In Chinese it means 'Toilet paper'

๐Ÿ‘คmoufestaphio๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

When using the camera feature of the Google translate app, I got the idea for making something similar, but instead of translating, it would just blur out all the words that a certain person couldn't understand. That way people designing accessible spaces could get an idea of how other people experience the information in them.
๐Ÿ‘คtotetsu๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Article mentions Altaic theory without mentioning that Altaic theory is utter horseshit. Still an interesting article though.
๐Ÿ‘คdfalzone๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Just some context on Simplified Chinese, the origin of Simplified Chinese came before the communist years and was mainly aimed at modernizing the Chinese written language and making it easy to learn for the general population as the many strokes to write a character in Traditional Chinese was making it hard to spread knowledge and increase literacy rates among the poorer and rural populations in China.
๐Ÿ‘คforkLding๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

For other languages, there's a pretty interesting youtube channel called ecolinguist that frequently tries to test mutual intelligibility of language pairs to various extents. It's actually quite fascinting.

https://youtu.be/m9Dagt3SWoo

๐Ÿ‘คbane๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

imo Traditional written Chinese (what the Japanese call Kanji and that's used outside of China) is easier than simplified written Chinese. While hand writing traditional Chinese is harder, more complicated characters are made of other characters with a related meaning. Consequently, you can guess what the word means. Conversely with simplified, there less sub characters, so there's a lot of lost context. Easier to write by hand is also not so much of an advantage anymore given computers.

If you're going to learn to read or write, learn traditional. It's easy to read simplified, but not so great the other way around.

๐Ÿ‘คchaostheory๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

To me, the difference almost feels like Chinese is an acoustic instrument that has more flavor in how its played and Japanese feels more like a digital instrument in how its programmed.
๐Ÿ‘ค_5659๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

What abt vietnamese?
๐Ÿ‘คxiaodai๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Like Dutch to an English speaker?
๐Ÿ‘คdboreham๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

I agree that ๆ–ฐๅญ—ไฝ“ is preferable to ็ฎ€ไฝ“ๅญ— for exactly the etymological reason you cite, the thing with ่จ€ only being simplified when it is a radical in ็ฐก้ซ”ๅญ— really irritates me (especially since it is not a difficult or slow radical to write anyhow), and there are more examples than just that. For me I practice with ๆญฃ้ซ”ๅญ— most often despite being more familiar with Japanese; so my preference goes ๆ–ฐๅญ—้ซ” > ๆญฃ้ซ”ๅญ— > ็ฐก้ซ”ๅญ—.

P.S. adding lang attributes on those spans where you compare versions of the characters would be nice, though I get that you have to choose just one of several, when a character is nearly identical in two or more countries. In my browser it also fixes an issue where despite serif being in your CSS font stack, it will select a sans-serif/gothic font by default if no lang attribute is set.

๐Ÿ‘คmicrocolonel๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Interesting article, though it feels pretty unpolished, like a step above someone's train of thought.

Also odd that Catalan was chosen as the example, rather than french, latin, or German, which all have much stronger and more direct influence on English than Catalan or Spanish.

Also some odd linguistic claims. The Altaic theory is not really supported by most linguists, and is the author claiming that Japanese and Korean are incredibly easy to learn for English speakers, or that Japanese is incredibly easy to learn if you're a Korean speaker and vice versa?

Regardless, interesting blog. Would be great as a first draft to expand upon with more examples to make you imagine what it would feel like.

๐Ÿ‘คsilicon2401๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> Chinese characters (known as hanzi in Chinese, hanja in Korean, kanji in Japanese) have had a huge effect on the two languages similar to the effect of the Greco-Latin vocabulary present in English

This is simply misleading. Japan was the target of massive immigration from China. Modern Japanese people are of Chinese descent ("yayoi"), with aboriginal DNA. So it is not simply the case a writing system having an influential effect. Foreigners brought their language, mixed it with the local language and evolved a new one out of that.

๐Ÿ‘คkazinator๐Ÿ•‘5y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0