Skip to main content

Stupid Japanese writing system.

If you could choose between writing a word (in this case, 'go' [language]) in 15 strokes or the same word in 4 strokes, what would you choose? The Japanese dig the 15 stroke option. Supposedly, it helps them understand what they're reading to use Chinese characters (kanji) instead of their own letters. Nevermind that when they talk, they don't carry around signboards to help people understand them, they just speak phonetically and everyone gets it. And when they want to use a Japanese word processing program, they don't type in kanji; they type phonetically and then have to have the program switch the letters to kanji.

Kanji doesn't save time writing, learning, or typing. Even when it comes to reading, there are several ways to read the same kanji depending on the circumstances, and most publications end up havig to give the phonetic readings of at least some kanji just so their consumers can keep up. So, other than wasting time, what's the purpose of kanji? To keep calligraphers employed? To make it fucking hard to read or learn their goddamn language? To keep the Japanese proletariat down? Shoot, I don't know, and I'll bet they don't either, but I wish they'd wise up.

Kanji is fucking annoying.

Comments

  1. Additionally, the history of kanji is one of class oppression and misogyny. The Japanese wouldn't even have a phonetic system if they hadn't disallowed women the use of kanji in feudal times. It would be interesting to set about a survey of the former and present effects of the patriarchal militarist domination of the Japanese langauge, but that would require research and work. >_>

    ReplyDelete
  2. i bet japanese doesn't have enough vocabulary. That's why they have kanji. To read all hiragana and katagana in newspaper, i will faint.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Well now.

I think I'm going to try to revive my online writing habits, outside of Facebook.

And what have I been thinking or feeling in the interim, across the last couple years or so? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In part, this.