+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Remembering the Kanji (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition (/thread-792.html)
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - bendyarm - 2007-09-12
Has anyone seen a list of errata for RTK1, 5th edition?
I am up to #450. I have only noticed one mistake so far.
At least I think it is a mistake.
In #195, "tree", the picture of the primitive
meaning "pole" has an extra stroke in the upper right.
Is this stroke supposed to be there? It is not present
in the kanji for "tea" (252). Are there other kanji
that contain this radical? (An index that maps radicals
to kanji that contain them would be useful.)
Maybe not a mistake, but I think the primitive "pole"
should be in index II because its writing and meaning
differ from its parent kanji.
-Bendyarm
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - JimmySeal - 2007-09-12
Hm, I thought pole with a dot was "resin" (in 4th ed. at least), as found in 術 and 述. You've probably found a mistake.
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - skinnyneo - 2007-09-22
I have the fourth edition and that extra dot is not there for the primitive. So I would assume it is a mistake as that is not the primitive pole.
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - bendyarm - 2007-09-30
Here's another mistake, I think.
On p. 163, the printed form of the *siesta*
primitive looks like something else.
Also, does anyone understand what is going
on with character #501, or do you have a
good story for the *increase* primitive?
The description starts out as "this primitive ...".
The story given is fine for #formerly#, but
the primitive meaning Heisig uses is *increase*,
and there is no good story for that. (I think the
description for #501 should be rewritten
to be more clear. At least it is confusing to me.)
-Bendyarm
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Penguin - 2007-10-02
On frame 982 Buddhist Priest, the book lists the primitive as increase instead of formerly. The same mistake is also made on another kanji, but I can't remember which one it was.
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Kieron - 2007-10-02
Penguin Wrote:On frame 982 Buddhist Priest, the book lists the primitive as increase instead of formerly. The same mistake is also made on another kanji, but I can't remember which one it was.That's not an error - it's given different meanings as a primitive and as a stand-alone kanji. Check frame 501.
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Shibo - 2008-06-28
Back from the dead, an old topic, haha. Frame 1991, captive. Heisig lists the primitives as "tiger" and "male". But, he changed the keyword for that primitive to "man", did he not?
Of course, the next time "male" came up in the SRS after I learned captive, I wrote down the wrong kanji.. Bah. ~_~
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - furrykef - 2008-06-28
A few problems which stand out to me, a bit different from mere printing errors:
Heisig says that map 図 contains Milky Way 斗 as an element, but does not explain that the shape and the stroke order change. In fact, they change enough that I wouldn't really consider it to use 斗 at all.
Not quite the same kind of mistake, but Heisig does not provide any way to distinguish 天 and 夭 as primitives, even though both do occur as primitives. (Strangely, I think he does begin to distinguish them in RTK3.)
Solemn 粛 has two problems. One is that he claims that "sieve" is an element, but the bottom part of this "sieve" is clearly not "rice grains", but "rice", with a horizontal middle stroke, whereas "sieve" is always written with "rice grains". (For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to call it "sieve" anyway since otherwise we have no name for it.) The other is that I believe he has the wrong stroke order. Heisig draws the vertical stroke down the middle, then the left post, then the rest of "sieve", then the right post. Both diagrams at WWWJDIC -- they have two different stroke order diagrams made by different people -- finish "sieve" before drawing the posts. This does seem to be the more logical way to write the character. What's funny is that, despite this, Heisig says to "take special care in writing this character, even though it follows the general rules we learned back in frame 4". I think it probably doesn't terribly matter which order you use, though... I imagine many natives might be a bit confounded on that one themselves and just use whichever order comes to mind.
- Kef
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - fergal - 2009-08-16
粛 is entry 2227 in the Kodansha Learner's Dictionary which shows "rake" without the hook at the bottom of the vertical, then complete the "rice" character in the usual order (except the vertical stroke is already done) then the outer "fence posts".
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Jarvik7 - 2009-08-16
furrykef Wrote:Heisig says that map 図 contains Milky Way 斗 as an element, but does not explain that the shape and the stroke order change. In fact, they change enough that I wouldn't really consider it to use 斗 at all.Most of the Heisig primitives are just based on his own invention, they don't reflect the actual reality of the characters. Any explanation he gives is just for the sake of remembering characters and is not etymology. Ex: 月vs肉 are treated as the same primitive.
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Rooboy - 2009-08-17
Publishers errata listed here:
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/miscPublications/pdf/RK1/5th-1st%20errata.pdf
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - furrykef - 2009-11-02
(Sorry for necroposting... didn't see this post until now.)
Jarvik7 Wrote:The difference is that the 月 and 肉 primitives are written identically in Japanese (though not in Chinese), so there's no reason to treat them as distinct. By contrast, 斗 and the inside of 図 look completely different, so they should not be considered the same primitive. One of the central tenets of Heisig is that things that look different (even only slightly) should be treated as if they were completely different; the character 図 breaks that rule.furrykef Wrote:Heisig says that map 図 contains Milky Way 斗 as an element, but does not explain that the shape and the stroke order change. In fact, they change enough that I wouldn't really consider it to use 斗 at all.Most of the Heisig primitives are just based on his own invention, they don't reflect the actual reality of the characters. Any explanation he gives is just for the sake of remembering characters and is not etymology. Ex: 月vs肉 are treated as the same primitive.
- Kef
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Ciaran12 - 2009-11-06
Has anyone noticed that the primitive for "hood" is also given later as "belt"?
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - exitmusic3 - 2009-11-06
Ciaran12 Wrote:Has anyone noticed that the primitive for "hood" is also given later as "belt"?I recently came to this part of the book as well. I believe that the primitive only means belt when it sits on the vertical stroke of another kanji or primative, such as thorn, system, etc. Of course, the primatives have no meaning of their own, so it only really matters that it helps you to remember each kanji.
Mistakes in RTK1, 5th edition - Katsuo - 2009-11-06
It's important to get such distinctions correct when going through RTK.
(Note: the following is based on the 3rd Edition. Later editions may be different.)
hood (as in 同,融 etc.): the hood contains something, and is not pierced at the top.
belt (as in 両,内 etc.): if something pierces the top of the "hood" it is instead called "belt".
However, there are one or two exceptions/mistakes to watch out for:
Shredder: (in 幣弊蔽瞥鼈) the book lists "belt" among the primitives, but really it is "hood" (if you look closely, the vertical stroke is in two parts, and does not pierce the hood).
South: (in 南楠献) the book lists "belt" as a primitive, though strictly it should be "hood".
Number 1880 繭 contains "hood" (stated correctly in the book), but in my copy (3rd Ed.) the kanji is drawn incorrectly with "towel".
Note that "hood" occasionally loses its "hook" (e.g. in 興), and sometimes has a sloping left side (e.g. in 角).
And watch out for number 1826 冊, which from the definitions above contains neither "hood", nor "belt".