Total kanjis you need to learn: 3000
It is not the best use of the learning time to learn first 3000 kanjis , and then readings grammar and vocab, because you won't be using the less frequent 2000 kanjis or so until you have an intermediate level of japanese. So, you are wasting learning time reviewing kanjis that you won't use for more than one or two years. I think this would be far more efficient:

1. RTK LITE (up to 1000 kanji) (equivalent JLPT 2)
2. Readings, grammar and vocab (equivalent JLPT4 and JLPT3)
3. RTK1 complete (up to 2000 kanji)
4. Readings, grammar and vocab (equivalent JLPT2)
5. RTK3 (up to 3000 kanji)
6. Readings, grammar and vocab (equivalent JLPT1)

RTK LITE is a subset of Heisig's RTK, including the primitives necessary for those more frequent 1000 kanji. For more info, check:
http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?tid=993&page=1
If you are already studying RTK, you can switch easily. For example, when I was at frame 600, I switched to RTK LITE, so I keep reviewing the 600 already learned, but began to add new kanji in another sequence. Once I finish RTK LITE, I will have learned 1300 kanji (not 1000 because started from frame 600).

Sounds resonable-divide and counqure.
I will say however, that you ARE likely to incounter the next 1000 kanji more often then the final 1000, so an argument could be made that there is merit to finishing the first 2000 before going on to voc and grammer.

Howerver, if you are going for the JLPT, there lite is probably very resonable option!

I would also recommend just doing all of rtk1 before getting into vocab. You WILL run into those kanji (and more) and it really helps to know the kanji when learning a word.

My JLPT2 deck is still ~1000 or so words short of complete and I already have nearly 100 non-Jouyou kanji in the cards.

I think in general, Heisig would be more effective if it was shorter. Unfortunately Heisig doesn't get to pick that number, so 2000 it is. I think anybody that "gets it" can make it through 1000 kanji in a few weeks, and to be able to enjoy the fruits of that labor after only a few weeks would be very rewarding. For me, who suffered through *most* of RTK1, I could never see myself going back for more, despite how helpful I found it.

On the other hand, after that first 1000, and getting accustomed to those, one might be able to take another 1000 if they were provided some context (as in, "this group is used in names of locations"), otherwise, having already gotten to know so many kanji, learning them as isolated as RTK teaches might be hard to justify. I don't know if that makes any sense, it is kind of late here.

danieldesu Wrote:I think in general, Heisig would be more effective if it was shorter. Unfortunately Heisig doesn't get to pick that number, so 2000 it is. I think anybody that "gets it" can make it through 1000 kanji in a few weeks, and to be able to enjoy the fruits of that labor after only a few weeks would be very rewarding.

I think this is the point where we can make a distinction. If you are capable of the doing 2000 kanji in two months, then go for it. On the other hand, if it is hard for you, or you are not willing to commit the huge amount of daily time that RTK requires, insisting on going for the whole 2000 kanji RTK will become very hard. RTK works fine when it is done in a few weeks. If you linger for many months, or over a year, reviews pile up constantly, and it is discouraging, you don't get to see the results of the hard work. It is for this group of people that I would advice to go first for 1000 kanji.

doing the frequent kanjis only is losing the whole RTK point.
because one kanji uses the anotherm and the method itself linger a lot of kanji to be clear on our minds, and i think is a bigger lose of time to only learn 600 and then strive when reading real text...

I've read a lot lately about how normal 'learning' doesn't actually work for learning languages, and only 'acquisition' will actually teach you. But obviously, 'learning' gives you a head start on the language, to allow you to understand enough to acquire more.

To me, that says 'Get the most from learning as quickly as possible, and move to usage of the language (reading, speaking) as soon as possible. If you can read books at 600 kanji, that's where you should start doing that. If you really need more than that, that's where it should happen.

But, all books aren't the same. With some decent vocab, and 600 of the most common kanji, I think you could read really easy mangas like Yotsuba& enough to enjoy them, and start picking up other things.

If you were doing that at the same time as learning more kanji, you'd be picking up the pronunciations from the reading (assuming you were reading the furigana, and not just picking the meanings and going on) and still learning more kanji all the time.

Short form: Rote learning should be a booster to get you to a better starting point... A means to an end, not the end itself.

Does anyone have a good grammar book to suggest? Or maybe a website, which would be much easier...

A lot of people like Tae Kim's grammar guide. Just google it, you'll find it. (Hard to miss.)

Book-wise, it all depends on your level. If you're a total newbie, then you should probably grab a good textbook just to get the basics down. Preferably one with audio available, so you can do listening exercises. I like the Genki series by Japan Times, and I like Japanese for Everyone. Minna no Nihongo is also good, but it's all in Japanese, and you have to buy an English supplement.

If you want to learn Japanese grammar alongside kanji, then you should stop everything and learn the two alphabets, hiragana and katakana, first. You won't be able to function at all without them. Don't bother with "romaji," which is Japanese expressed using the English alphabet. It's just a crutch that doesn't help you one bit.

For learning the alphabets, I recommend Heisig's book, Learning the Kana. It's a quick read for the most part, and will give you an idea of how RTK works.

They are syllabaries not alphabets... (actually linguistically they are morae not syllables, but you can't expect everyone to be a linguist.)

Jarvik7 Wrote:They are syllabaries not alphabets... (actually linguistically they are morae not syllables, but you can't expect everyone to be a linguist.)

Er, doesn't that 'liguist' bit apply to 'syllabaries', too? I don't have a problem with anyone saying they're alphabets because people will know exactly what you mean, even if the term isn't technically correct.

I second rich_f suggestion. Tae Kim's Japanese Guide to Japanese Grammar is one of the best resources for learning some grammar available for free. For more advanced learners, 庭三郎の現代日本語文法概説 is another great resource.

もしかして、rich_fさんとrichvhさんは同一の人ですか？

Nope. That ain't me.

Discussions about jargon aside, you need to know hiragana and katakana. The sooner, the better.

wccrawford Wrote:Er, doesn't that 'liguist' bit apply to 'syllabaries', too? I don't have a problem with anyone saying they're alphabets because people will know exactly what you mean, even if the term isn't technically correct.

Syllables are a lot closer in meaning to morae than alphabets are. 'Syllabaries' is also the commonly used word for it in non-linguistics Japanese texts. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a word for a defined group of morae anyways. Just the singular and plural. Calling them alphabets can only lead to misunderstandings about how the writing system works.

I see someone who has never written for mass media.

forums aren't mass media I see no reason to dumb down.

One thing to keep in mind is that "morae" and "syllables" are used to talk about phonological structure (the sound system of the language), where as a "syllabary" refers to an orthographic system, so the latter IS the correct word to use here. The ん does represent a mora and not a syllable, but for the most part as far as orthographic systems go there is nothing wrong with calling the kana a syllabary.

Jarvik7 Wrote:To the best of my knowledge there isn't a word for a defined group of morae anyways. Just the singular and plural.

This seems unimportant here but incidentally they are usually grouped into "feet" if you want to get technical...

tuuli Wrote:One thing to keep in mind is that "morae" and "syllables" are used to talk about phonological structure (the sound system of the language), where as a "syllabary" refers to an orthographic system, so the latter IS the correct word to use here. The ん does represent a mora and not a syllable, but for the most part as far as orthographic systems go there is nothing wrong with calling the kana a syllabary.

えっ？

日本語ですか？

@_@