newnar wrote:Having a deep & strong foundation of Chinese doesn't really help that much in my japanese learning. Granted,I'm not studying it academically, just picking stuff I can understand here and there. But being as well-versed in English as I am in Chinese, I have to say that Japanese is closer to English than Chinese, albeit being graphically similar.
Chinese characters are structured like a 2D building, with strokes as "building blocks". English's building blocks are letters of the alphabet, but they are organized in a linear fashion instead of planar. Japanese works like English. Put the characters in a line and the resulting word will be pronounced according to the sequence and type of characters used.
For example, わたし(watashi which means me) is formed by わ(wa), た(ta) and し(shi). Perfectly logical. But only to western-natives.
See the same word in chinese. 我. It is formed by horizontal strokes called "heng", verticals called "shu", left/right diagonals called "pie" and "na" respectively and the short stroke called "dian" which means dot. However the word is not pronounced as "pie-heng-shu-na-pie-dian". It's simply pronounced as "wo". See the difference and why Jap is alot closer to English on a fundamental level?
One thing knowing Chinese does help with is the kanji, but the advantage is only a slighty more educated guess at the meaning. Pronounciation-wise, I still don't know how to read the kanji on my own.
For more info, see
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_writing_systems. Under logographic writing systems.
Oh man. Bad memories of stroke names. We were regularly tested on them along with characters, and I always failed those since I didn't see the point in learning them. I would just learn the entire characters and their readings. I can see the benefit of maybe having it improve your handwriting, but I just couldn't get into it.
What you're talking about isn't apples to apples, though. The syllabaries exist, yeah, but they're not the whole story of the writing system. It's almost like bopomofo/zhuyin/whatever it's called. I think if possible, Japanese would rather use as few kana as possible and use as many kanji as possible. Your example of watashi, can be (is almost always) written 私, which you probably wouldn't know how to read/pronounce if you hadn't seen it before. In that regard, it's similar to Chinese. So there's not really the difference you say there is to people who speak neither Chinese nor Japanese because the language acquisition will be about the same: memorize how to write the characters and how to read/pronounce them. Why I always say Chinese is easier to learn is that characters are mono-syllabic. 私 is wa-ta-shi, but 我 is only wo. It makes speaking fast. So fast, that I can rarely understand Chinese people speaking, even though I learned loads in class.
It's interesting to hear your opinion, however, that Japanese seems closer to English than to Chinese. I feel Chinese is closer to English, with its mostly-English sentence structure. The subject-object-verb thing Japanese does, while easy on paper, makes it hard for me to parse spoken sentences, or to form understandable sentences when speaking myself. I feel with Chinese, I can speak mostly naturally. Though everyone complains about my terrible accent.
I definitely agree, though, that Chinese and Japanese are way different. Chinese seems borne of necessity and practicality: "Hey, we need a way to talk about this." "Okay, let's call it this." Done. Whereas Japanese seems engineered, like they were purposefully trying to make it a poetic and complicated language. That is probably NOT how it was created, but I kind of feel that way.
All that said, I downloaded the Act 1 thing and am kind of interested in playing through in Japanese and Chinese and maybe Spanish (since I can understand it okay) to see how it is.