vosmiura Wrote:"友: Shows two hands doing the high five."
I doubt that the Chinese were doing high five's when this character was invented... but anyhow, this is a perfect example of why etymology is not as good as RTK for memorising the writing. The story is great... memorable... but gives little clue which components to write. You have two hands being used but they look different. If you don't give them distinct keywords you'll be relying a lot more on your visual memory to remember how to write each part, rather than learning the kanji by parts with Heisig's method.
In my experience having tried to learn the kanji from etymology based books, they were interesting and useful for learning some of the more simple kanji but nowhere near as effective as RTK for studying kanji en mass.
I'd consider the amount of time spent learning each kanji multiplied by 2042, and just how much benefit you get for your time spent. I average 2 to 3 minutes per kanji, because very often I find shared stories that work for me. That's one of the advantages of sticking to the tried and tested keywords. When I have to make up my own story it adds significantly more time.
Now consider if you add 1 minute to look up each kanji in the dictionary or etymology (just 1 minute seems optimistic to me), you add 34 hours extra study time, which for me would have added more than 1 month to completing RTK. That would suck IMO.
I think I have misguided people a bit with too much assumptions from my part, so I'll try to write some clarifications.
1st. The kanji descriptions are mine, what the book shows is a row of primitive pictographs of these kanjis (so no discussions about the etimology possibly being wrong) and descriptions took me less effort than scanning the pages. Maybe I've exaggerated a bit with the "High Five" description, heh.
2nd. I think the Heisig's method is good, of course (I'm using it afterall), also, I've read his advice, too, so I'm aware of problems that can appear and the problems with making changes or using other approaches. More than that, I agree with him on that part.
3rd. I think Heisig made some mistakes accross the book, which I can fix with careful consideration. That he ignored etymology is one of them, which happens almost exclusively due to poor choice of meanings for primitives, as Heisig uses known etymology everytime he can.
4th. You don't have to do a look-up in an etimology dictionary. You just "read" (as what I have is a bunch of drawings) from start to finish, and then you use that story for Heisig's. I think it takes less than 20 seconds per kanji following this method; also, you don't have to learn 2000 kanji this way (partly because I don't have pictographics for all of them). 214 radicals suffice.
5th. Even though there are many hand primitives, there are many hand gestures available, too (you can give 又 the meaning "palm", for example), and even though I don't have problems specifically with 又 being "crotch", many people do, according to the study page. Seeing that RTK I (the proven method) has a very high drop ratio, I would try anything that could reduce this number reliabily.
I hope that didn't sound as if I didn't agreed with your points.
Edited: 2007-12-26, 8:54 am