Do you think kanji/hanzi/logographic writing systems do a good

That's the only way I can read them

>>15816524

But how do you subvocalize a non-phonetic writing system. Kanji is sort of a language of it's own. Individual kanji represents ideas, and not the speech itself.

Chinese and Japanese can manage to communicate using kanji/hanzi, despite speaking different oral languages.

>>15816563
>Chinese and Japanese can manage to communicate using kanji
Not with each other.

It's fine with Chinese, but Kanji applied to Japanese is about the same as if you applied kanji to English.

>>15816570
無語法 理解 可能

英語 不 可比

>>15816570

I know Japanese has way different grammar than Chinese. My point is, any language can adopt kanji. So this means kanji does not represent speech, but represents ideas instead.

With a phonetic writing system, such as the Latin alphabet English used, the words/speech are directly linked to the writing. If I'm reading something, and I run into a word I'm unfamiliar with, I can simply sound the word out. You can't do this with kanji.

>>15816618
>You can't do this with kanji.
The radicals have sound components that give a sort of guide on how they should be pronounced if Japanese isn't just using them stuck over a random word.

If it's Chinese, you probably shouldn't have that problem.

>>15816563
>how do you subvocalize a non-phonetic writing system
they still represent words

>>15816727

It's pretty inefficient.

I don't think it does a good job at representing speech. It does a good job at representing concepts, making writing clear and more meaningful. And if you are subvocalizing I think you are learning Japanese wrong, or at least treating it incorrectly.

>>15816865

Thought so. I have tried to bring this subject up in /a/'s Japanese learning threads, but they always end up getting angry.

What is it like reading Japanese novels? If it's like you're describing, then it must be kind of weird.

japanese is about as phonetic as english

File: 1414537078085.jpg (117KB, 772x525px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 772x525px

>>15816563
>But how do you subvocalize a non-phonetic writing system.
The same way you do it in English. The letters in a word can be pretty loosely related to how it's pronounced, but you and I still manage.

>>15816994

No, it's the opposite, actually.

>>15817150
ok

japanese is about as unphonetic as english

>>15817172

English has quite a few irregular elements, enough so that "sounding out" words can be pretty unintuitive for non-native speakers but to call it as unphoenetic as kanji is a stretch.

I think han characters are truly a gift to mankind. Despite not knowing any east asian language, I'm glad to know the 80 or so han characters I know, and plan to know more in the future.

>>15817335
hahahahahaha get fucked

>>15816618
>kanji does not represent speech, but represents ideas instead
Philosophically this begs the question, "then why do they need grammar?"
This post is rhetoric.

>>15817179
>English has quite a few irregular elements, enough so that "sounding out" words can be pretty unintuitive for non-native speakers
So does Japanese, it's just that most non-natives are never taught them so they don't even know how poor their Japanese is. I mean this thread has people saying that subvocalizing words written in kanji is wrong; good luck getting /jp/'s japanese "experts" to explain something like nasalization to you.

>>15816618 #
>My point is, any language can adopt kanji.
You can't use Chinese characters alone for anything but pure synthetic languages, even Japanese has to use non-logographic characters to convey it's grammar

man jaypee sure sucks these days.

>>15816509
>do you subvocalize?
That slows me down way too much. I don't like reading slowly. It was one of the biggest frustrations when I started learning Japanese.

>Do you think kanji/hanzi/logographic writing systems do a good job at representing speech?
Kind of? In a language like Japanese which is rife with homophones and has a limited syllabary, the kanji definitely make it easier to read things than to listen to them.

>When you read kanji, do you subvocalize?
Depends on how well I know it. For the really basic ones (colors, directions, etc) not really. I see them and I know what they are without having to read the kanji itself or the furigana. For things I'm not familiar with but I still know the readings, I'll obviously subvocalize, and for compounds in general it just depends on how well I know it. Certainly I unconsciously subvocalize far less than when I am reading something in English.

>>15816509
>When you read kanji, do you subvocalize?
Well, when I don't know the kanji, I don't subvocalize. It feels very weird.
>>15817388
>philosophically
>misuses "begs the question"
Good fucking job