I've never read a book in Chinese since I'm still at a beginner level, but I would think that the amount of classical remaining in modern writing is much like the amount of classical Japanese that remains fossilized in modern Japanese writing. There is a fair amount of it, but you don't have to learn it as classical Japanese itself, you just learn it as a lexicalized chunk of language.

ex: せず in modern Japanese is learned just as a single unit, but it's actually する's 未然形 + the 終止形 of negative ず aux. verb. (it's actually the same construction as modern しない)

Hmm in my school in Japan we learned せず when we learned the ず form. 食べずに etc.

Tobberoth Wrote:Then why do I find Korean much harder to learn than Mandarin?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the connections you're making. And besides, even if I find Mandarin very easy because I already broke this barrier, how does that make what I said in my first post any different? WHY I find Mandarin much easier isn't important, the point is that I do. The basic premise is still true: The difficulties i had learning Japanese, the difficulties I have learning Korean.... aren't there when I'm learning Mandarin. Other difficulties are there, but I explained why I find them to be minor.

I would say this is because the basic syntax of Mandarin is similar to English (SVO). Maybe you find Korean difficult because you are trying to study it using grammar rules instead of just diving into it. As for the "difficulties" in learning Mandarin being minor, that would mean the "difficulties" in learning Japanese are minor as well. Your excuse was "it becomes second nature," just like grammar does. If they both become second nature, then how is one any different from the other?

Tobberoth Wrote:Hmm in my school in Japan we learned せず when we learned the ず form. 食べずに etc.

-ず itself is also fossilized classical Japanese. I'm assuming they taught you せず as something irregular, instead of being standard サ変格活用 (which no longer exists).

For "fossilized classical Japanese", I encounter it all the bloody time.

~J

Tak47 Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:Then why do I find Korean much harder to learn than Mandarin?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the connections you're making. And besides, even if I find Mandarin very easy because I already broke this barrier, how does that make what I said in my first post any different? WHY I find Mandarin much easier isn't important, the point is that I do. The basic premise is still true: The difficulties i had learning Japanese, the difficulties I have learning Korean.... aren't there when I'm learning Mandarin. Other difficulties are there, but I explained why I find them to be minor.

I would say this is because the basic syntax of Mandarin is similar to English (SVO). Maybe you find Korean difficult because you are trying to study it using grammar rules instead of just diving into it. As for the "difficulties" in learning Mandarin being minor, that would mean the "difficulties" in learning Japanese are minor as well. Your excuse was "it becomes second nature," just like grammar does. If they both become second nature, then how is one any different from the other?

But it's different and I explained why. Hanzi is a bigger hurdle in Chinese than in Japanese because you need to know more, that's the common argument. Using Heisig-like techniques coupled with the knowledge that hanzi in the vast majority of cases only have one reading, tells me it's a pretty small hurdle. Learning kanji wasn't hard, learning hanzi is easier. Having to learn more of them won't be a problem. Doing something easy several times is just repetition. Doing something complex a few times, that's when it gets hard. As for intonation, like I said before, pronunciation is something you work at and then you perfect it. It takes a while and some effort, but you'll eventually be done with it. I'd estimate it would take me at most 5 months if I actively tried my best at it, though I want to emphasize that it's nothing but an estimate (that's not perfect pronunciation i'm talking about btw, it's the skill to recognize tones on-the-go and pronounce them correctly). The difficulties I have in Japanese won't be passed. I will always have to learn new vocabulary. I will always have to learn new constructs. I will always have to work for creative usage and natural ability in Japanese more than I'm doing in Chinese. From my perspective, the main hurdles in Chinese can be passed, the main hurdles in Japanese can not. So no, the hurdles in Japanese aren't minor. Not what I consider minor in any case.

As for Korean, I'm learning it just like I'm learning mandarin. Entering sentences into an SRS, learning from podcasts like those on chinesepod.com. The exposure needed to correctly use even just the basic conjugations is quite a lot. It takes a lot longer and a lot more exposure to use korean creatively than it takes to use Mandarin creatively.

EDIT: And of course, what I consider hard in a language is to use it creatively and natural. If I have to analyse every sentence I produce for a while to make sure it's good to go, that means it's hard and complex IMO. Latin being a prime example. If I can say a sentence with the certainty that it's the same way a native person would phrase it, I consider it simple.

woodwojr Wrote:For "fossilized classical Japanese", I encounter it all the bloody time.

Which is exactly my point. Fossilized in the linguistic sense doesn't mean dead and buried.

Like the fossils of dinosaurs, which have stuck around after the originals are gone for one reason or another. They are still here, but not quite complete & as they were originally. The ones that never died out evolved into something else.

-ず's 連体形 is ぬ, which eventually underwent a sound change (evolution) into ない (in Kanto) and ん (in Kansai) (which is what we have in modern today). However, for some reason, the un-sound-changed 終止形 (ず) also stayed around, but isn't quite as whole as it used to be, just like the fossilized dinos (you can no longer conjugate it and the usage is much more limited).

So in short, we have the fossils of the dino (ず) and the beast that it evolved into (ない).

Tobberoth Wrote:But it's different and I explained why. Hanzi is a bigger hurdle in Chinese than in Japanese because you need to know more, that's the common argument. Using Heisig-like techniques coupled with the knowledge that hanzi in the vast majority of cases only have one reading, tells me it's a pretty small hurdle. Learning kanji wasn't hard, learning hanzi is easier. Having to learn more of them won't be a problem. Doing something easy several times is just repetition. Doing something complex a few times, that's when it gets hard. As for intonation, like I said before, pronunciation is something you work at and then you perfect it. It takes a while and some effort, but you'll eventually be done with it. I'd estimate it would take me at most 5 months if I actively tried my best at it, though I want to emphasize that it's nothing but an estimate. The difficulties I have in Japanese won't be passed. I will always have to learn new vocabulary. I will always have to learn new constructs. I will always have to work for creative usage and natural ability in Japanese more than I'm doing in Chinese. From my perspective, the main hurdles in Chinese can be passed, the main hurdles in Japanese can not. So no, the hurdles in Japanese aren't minor. Not what I consider minor in any case.

What? You have to do that in any language. Also, the majority of words in modern Mandarin are two characters or more. Knowing characters doesn't mean you know all the words.

So you are saying that it is impossible to become fluent in Japanese? I don't understand what you are trying to convey here... And what do you mean by, "I will always have to work for creative usage and natural ability in Japanese more than I'm doing in Chinese."? Once you reach a proficient level in any language you no longer have to struggle with it. Why are you trying to mystify Japanese and make it sound like some impossible-to-learn language? Once you know the grammar, you know the grammar. It doesn't change weekly or monthly, it stays the same for hundreds of years.

What I find difficult in Chinese is that because it lacks/has less gramatical modifiers, the meaning sometimes are implied rather than explitcitly stated. The fact that there apprears a translation of Lao tzu work every two years suggests that this may be the case.

I remember reading an article about machine translation algorithm in its early days. There was a test to see in which language it takes the least time of translations and reverse before one completely "lost" the original meaning. For example, feed a text in language A to get a translation in B. Use this very result to feed the machine to get yet another version in A and so forth. I remember that chinese won hand down. These days even with the latest technology in MT, I suspect that this record still holds.

If I am not mistaken, due to the presence of the particles o, ni etc, one can change the word order in japanese sentence without problem of the type "dog bits man/man bits dog" that occurs in english or chinese. In this respect german is similar to japanese.

I remember parsing the following sutra from Huang Po:

法本法不法
不法就是法
今傳不法法
法法何曾法

Which can be loosly translated as

The fundamental truth is that there is no truth.
This truth-of-no-truth is itself the truth.
Now that the truth-of-no-truth has been transmited,
How can the truth-of-truth ever be the truth.

I think that this is chinese at its best.

To be fair, people who speaks bei hua don't sound anywhere near this, but the fact is chinese has its own challenge.

Sorry I don't think that I contributed anything at all in settling the debate. I found the discussion terribly interesting and couldn't resist.

Michuco

Tak47 Wrote:What? You have to do that in any language. Also, the majority of words in modern Mandarin are two characters or more. Knowing characters doesn't mean you know all the words.

So you are saying that it is impossible to become fluent in Japanese? I don't understand what you are trying to convey here... And what do you mean by, "I will always have to work for creative usage and natural ability in Japanese more than I'm doing in Chinese."? Once you reach a proficient level in any language you no longer have to struggle with it. Why are you trying to mystify Japanese and make it sound like some impossible-to-learn language? Once you know the grammar, you know the grammar. It doesn't change weekly or monthly, it stays the same for hundreds of years.

It seems quite possible that you haven't understood anything I've been saying.

That's right, you have to do it in every language. I find the activity easier in Mandarin than in Japanese. Thus, Mandarin is easier than Japanese. Simple logic. Of course knowing the characters doesn't mean one knows every word. Are you forgetting I know Japanese and that I've studied Mandarin? I didn't read some form of articles about the languages. I know what it entails to learn them. I've never said learning hanzi somehow magically makes you learn words.

Reaching fluency in Japanese impossible? Hardly. I'm just saying it's harder to become fluent in Japanese than in Mandarin. I'm also saying that one can start being creative with mandarin earlier. I'm also saying one can start comprehending mandarin earlier. I'm not trying to mystify Japanese. I'm just saying it's harder to make creative native sentences on the go in it than in Mandarin since the grammar is more complex, there's a MUCH bigger area of ambiguity. Proficiency doesn't help here. I've studied Japanese for quite some time now, I've passed JLPT2. I should be beyond the level of proficiency you're talking about. Yet I'm ALWAYS second-quessing my Japanese output. Am I using the proper politeness for what I'm saying? Should I have used ha instead of ga in this situation? Should I have made the sentence longer? Should I have included the pronoun? Should I have used another conjugation? Grammar doesn't change every week, but it changes in every context. A language with very few grammatical intricacies have less to keep in mind in such situations.

After 3 years of hard AJATT style studies in Mandarin and Japanese, will I be more or less equally good in both? Maybe, yeah. But 1 year of Mandarin will make me better and more fluent in it than 1 year in Japanese or Korean. That's the point I'm making. Any language takes ages to perfect, but that might not be your goal.

EDIT: I suddenly realized I worded myself very badly in that last paragraph. Saying that after 1 year I would be better in Mandarin then after 3 years it would be the same sounds like I mean that over the next 2 years, mandarin progress would be slower than the Japanese progress. That is not what I meant. What I meant is that regardless of how much harder I view Japanese, I still think that if enough time and effort is put in, you will still reach the high levels. I will probably always find Mandarin an easier language to learn IE less effort needed every day while studying it, but I see no problem in getting really good in both if one puts the time and effort into the languages. So my rewording is: If you put 3 years into learning Chinese or Japanese, you will be good at both, regardless whether one is harder to learn than the other.

Tobberoth Wrote:Reaching fluency in Japanese impossible? Hardly. I'm just saying it's harder to become fluent in Japanese than in Mandarin. I'm also saying that one can start being creative with mandarin earlier. I'm also saying one can start comprehending mandarin earlier. I'm not trying to mystify Japanese. I'm just saying it's harder to make creative native sentences on the go in it than in Mandarin since the grammar is more complex, there's a MUCH bigger area of ambiguity. Proficiency doesn't help here. I've studied Japanese for quite some time now, I've passed JLPT2. I should be beyond the level of proficiency you're talking about. Yet I'm ALWAYS second-quessing my Japanese output. Am I using the proper politeness for what I'm saying? Should I have used ha instead of ga in this situation? Should I have made the sentence longer? Should I have included the pronoun? Should I have used another conjugation? Grammar doesn't change every week, but it changes in every context. A language with very few grammatical intricacies have less to keep in mind in such situations.

Yes, you can comprehend very basic Mandarin earlier than Japanese, but it gets much more complex than that later on once you get into longer sentences and you have to rely on context since the same word can function as a noun, verb, and adjective based on the situation.

Like I stated before, the biggest initial hurdle for Japanese is grammar, and for Chinese it is pronunciation since there are over 400 syllables (1600 when you count the tones). Japanese has about 100 syllables with no tones (pitch-accent is completely different).

This page illustrates my point quite nicely.

Please, let's just put this to rest. The only reason I responded in the first place was because of the snobbish manner in which you worded your original post. Next time, try to word your message in a more academic and civilized manner so as not to cause problems.

What about homophones?
Chinese has even more homophones than Japanese.
For example this is a poem with 92 syllables, all variations of “shi”. The title of the poem is “Shī Shì shí shī shǐ” and it means (Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den).

« Shī Shì shí shī shǐ »
Shíshì shīshì Shī Shì, shì shī, shì shí shí shī.
Shì shíshí shì shì shì shī.
Shí shí, shì shí shī shì shì.
Shì shí, shì Shī Shì shì shì.
Shì shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì, shǐ shì shí shī shìshì.
Shì shí shì shí shī shī, shì shíshì.
Shíshì shī, Shì shǐ shì shì shíshì.
Shíshì shì, Shì shǐ shì shí shì shí shī.
Shí shí, shǐ shí shì shí shī, shí shí shí shī shī.
Shì shì shì shì.

What this all means :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating..._Stone_Den

usis35 Wrote:What about homophones?
Chinese has even more homophones than Japanese.
For example this is a poem with 92 syllables, all variations of “shi”. The title of the poem is “Shī Shì shí shī shǐ” and it means (Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den).

« Shī Shì shí shī shǐ »
Shíshì shīshì Shī Shì, shì shī, shì shí shí shī.
Shì shíshí shì shì shì shī.
Shí shí, shì shí shī shì shì.
Shì shí, shì Shī Shì shì shì.
Shì shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì, shǐ shì shí shī shìshì.
Shì shí shì shí shī shī, shì shíshì.
Shíshì shī, Shì shǐ shì shì shíshì.
Shíshì shì, Shì shǐ shì shí shì shí shī.
Shí shí, shǐ shí shì shí shī, shí shí shí shī shī.
Shì shì shì shì.

What this all means :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating..._Stone_Den

That is awesome.
But kindof irrelevant, since classical chinese is a literary language, not a spoken language.

Tak47 Wrote:This page illustrates my point quite nicely.

Please, let's just put this to rest. The only reason I responded in the first place was because of the snobbish manner in which you worded your original post. Next time, try to word your message in a more academic and civilized manner so as not to cause problems.

Finally some new information. You forgot Japanese's crazy compound frenzy, though. That gives it a slight nudge in the more difficult direction.

Anyway, you both have just been going in circles with those incredibly long posts. I find it hilarious how there seem to be two separate conversations going on in this one thread.

Did someone mention Apple Pie?

usis35 Wrote:What about homophones?
Chinese has even more homophones than Japanese.
For example this is a poem with 92 syllables, all variations of “shi”. The title of the poem is “Shī Shì shí shī shǐ” and it means (Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den).

« Shī Shì shí shī shǐ »
Shíshì shīshì Shī Shì, shì shī, shì shí shí shī.
Shì shíshí shì shì shì shī.
Shí shí, shì shí shī shì shì.
Shì shí, shì Shī Shì shì shì.
Shì shì shì shí shī, shì shǐ shì, shǐ shì shí shī shìshì.
Shì shí shì shí shī shī, shì shíshì.
Shíshì shī, Shì shǐ shì shì shíshì.
Shíshì shì, Shì shǐ shì shí shì shí shī.
Shí shí, shǐ shí shì shí shī, shí shí shí shī shī.
Shì shì shì shì.

What this all means :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-Eating..._Stone_Den

LOL.

kazelee Wrote:Finally some new information. You forgot Japanese's crazy compound frenzy, though. That gives it a slight nudge in the more difficult direction.

At least 90% of the words in modern Mandarin are compounds or have 3+ characters.

Anyway, this topic is rather unnecessary. The person who started the thread is obviously trying to incite some sort of reaction amongst the users here. Note their atrocious spelling and the date that they joined (the same day they posted).

As someone who has put considerable effort into both languages, I am actually with Tobberoth the whole way on this one.

Tak47 Wrote:I said all languages are of the same difficulty if you learn them in context via immersion.

I see this statement with increasing frequency in language-related discussions and I feel it has become a Politically Correct Thing to Say, devoid of any original thought.

Tak47 Wrote:I would like to see you try to read 文言 since you find Chinese to be so "easy" compared to Japanese; most native Chinese cannot even understand it. Also, 3000 characters is nowhere near enough to read most novels. If you want to read 西遊記 you need to know around 4800 characters (not including the massive vocabulary needed) and know some 文言. Most novels use bookish language and incorporate 文言 to some extent; very few are written in 白話.

How is bringing a totally different language (文言) into this discussion relevant?! And if it is relevant because of the literary heritage and occasional modern usage, why has no one mentioned the Japanized 漢文, its heritage and influence? To properly learn the Japanese take on 文言 is even more difficult than learning 文言 itself from scratch.

kazelee Wrote:Did someone mention Apple Pie?

Do you know who else liked Apple Pies and thought Chinese was hard?! :-)) Hitler!!!

Serge Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:Did someone mention Apple Pie?

Do you know who else liked Apple Pies and thought Chinese was hard?! :-)) Hitler!!!

The Serge Meister enters to dot the eyes and cross the tease.

For some reason, though, the moment I saw that you quoted me, I knew this was gonna be your response. LOL.

tak Wrote:At least 90% of the words in modern Mandarin are compounds or have 3+ characters.

Are they less predictable than compounds like 昨日 and 昨日. If not, J for the win. JK. What I mean is, it's not the compounds themselves that are the difficulty but reading them.

Quote:Anyway, this topic is rather unnecessary. The person who started the thread is obviously trying to incite some sort of reaction amongst the users here. Note their atrocious spelling and the date that they joined (the same day they posted).

Come now, too much time and effort has been invested to let something as trivial as the unknown OP's original intentions stop this discussion, though I have an idea who this unknown troll really might be

That is, unless, you're just done. To that I says...

Heil Heisig

Nothing goes together with genocide like a warm slice of apple pie.

Serge Wrote:How is bringing a totally different language (文言) into this discussion relevant?! And if it is relevant because of the literary heritage and occasional modern usage, why has no one mentioned the Japanized 漢文, its heritage and influence? To properly learn the Japanese take on 文言 is even more difficult than learning 文言 itself from scratch.

文言 is not an entirely separate language. Students in China have to learn basic 文言 for formal/ceremonial occasions as well as university entrance exams. It is still very much alive in the modern language; however, if you want to be able to understand pre-1915 texts, you must be substantially proficient in it.

Different people from different backgrounds will always have differing opinions. In conclusion, they are different languages and thus it is apples to oranges.

I see this topic in the same way I view political and religious discussions: they never end and only cause problems.

If you want to understand pre-1945 Japanese texts, you need to be proficient in classical Japanese (which isn't written phonetically due to historical kana usage and frequent absence of dakuten/handakuten & small versions of the kana). If you want to understand even older texts you need to be proficient at kanbun kundoku and hentaigana as well (and possibly some man'yougana). Students in Japan have to learn classical Japanese at a decent level during highschool (as well as kanbun kundoku).

Sorry, Japanese still wins

One thing I think is interesting is how some Chinese people take pride in their language being easy (for an East Asian language), while some Japanese people take pride in Japanese (supposedly) being hard.

Personally I don't think Japanese is hard, just harder than Chinese.

Tak47 Wrote:I see this topic in the same way I view political and religious discussions: they never end and only cause problems.

Well, that is definitely true, if one misconstrues other people's statements of opinion as statements of fact. But that's just a truism that applies to anything, regardless of subject. However, I don't think these types of discussions "only cause problems" - I have learned some new things from this thread.

To me, languages are not the same, and they are not equal. Also, everything is based on our previous knowledge. Perhaps it is easier to learn Chinese and then Japanese, than to study Japanese and then Chinese (proponents of doing RTK at the very beginning of Japanese studies may concur).

What is wrong with thinking that one language seems to be harder to learn than another? Some of us may express this viewpoint in stronger ways than others, but I have no problems with that.

If you spend a lot of time studying Japanese or Korean grammar, perhaps you can see how studying Mandarin almost seems like a breath of fresh air - at least initially...

Tak47 Wrote:

Serge Wrote:How is bringing a totally different language (文言) into this discussion relevant?! And if it is relevant because of the literary heritage and occasional modern usage, why has no one mentioned the Japanized 漢文, its heritage and influence? To properly learn the Japanese take on 文言 is even more difficult than learning 文言 itself from scratch.

文言 is not an entirely separate language. Students in China have to learn basic 文言 for formal/ceremonial occasions as well as university entrance exams. It is still very much alive in the modern language; however, if you want to be able to understand pre-1915 texts, you must be substantially proficient in it.

One other short note - if you have been around these boards for a while, you would know that in all probability, Serge knows that 文言 is technically not a separate language (I would bet on that). I think he is just trying to make a point of not throwing in more complexities not pertinent to the original argument; as Jarvik7 illustrates, Japanese also has its nasty equivalents of 文言.

Instead of jumping on other people's posts or be so easily offended at the posting of any personal opinion, take a deep breath and try to understand what the writer is trying to convey. Even more importantly, realize that on many, many boards, people are usually just conveying their personal experiences opinions, and not necessarily trying to impose their ideas unto others.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Yeah, Vietnamese has something like 14 tones :O

Naw, it's only 6...

6 tones used in the Northern dialect and 5 in the southern dialect, because in Southern, two of the tones are pronounced the same.

Learning the tones should be done by first learning to hear and recognize them (input), then learning to reproduce them (output). There were a large number of people in my Vietnamese class (4 years ago), who just could not get the tones. Most people in the class (~75%) only knew them superficially and made lots of mistakes in reproduction. But there were two students who had a 0% grasp of the tones, both of which were 50+ years old. One of them had a Vietnamese wife and was a former professor. But in addition to the tones, he could not even pronounce the most basic words with any accuracy whatsoever. I vividly recall a fight between him and my professor that was a lot like the "hamburger" scene from Pink Panther, except with the word for "no" (khong) in place of hamburger. Prof" "khong", student: "cung", prof "no, khong", student: "cung", prof "no... khong", student: "cung".. That one guy was an exception, however, I think that with a little effort and listening practice that the remaining students could have learned the tones fairly quickly. And considering that they are crucial in understanding, and being understood, they should be learned before anything else.

*I still think Japanese pronunciation is just as difficult.

Tak47 Wrote:Yes, you can comprehend very basic Mandarin earlier than Japanese, but it gets much more complex than that later on once you get into longer sentences and you have to rely on context since the same word can function as a noun, verb, and adjective based on the situation.

Japanese also gets a lot more complex as you learn longer sentences and have to rely on context. It really doesn't change anything unless the difference in complexity is bigger in Mandarin than in Japanese, something I doubt.

Tak47 Wrote:Like I stated before, the biggest initial hurdle for Japanese is grammar, and for Chinese it is pronunciation since there are over 400 syllables (1600 when you count the tones). Japanese has about 100 syllables with no tones (pitch-accent is completely different).

And I found Japanese pronunciation very easy while I find Mandarin pronunciation harder. Still not harder than I found Japanese grammar, not even close.

Tak47 Wrote:Please, let's just put this to rest. The only reason I responded in the first place was because of the snobbish manner in which you worded your original post. Next time, try to word your message in a more academic and civilized manner so as not to cause problems.

Um, excuse me? Read that part yourself. The topic asks for ones opinion on which language is easier. I gave my opinion. Compared to studying Japanese, Chinese will be a joke (compared to Japanese, quite obviously) after getting over the hurdles, I find the structure and stuff like that simpler to learn. I don't need to post in an academic way to give my opinion on which language is easier to learn, this is just an internet forum and it was an initial post. I expected to protect my opinions if someone questioned them in particular, I didn't expect to write one post then have to leave it at that, in which case the post would have to be 5 times as long.

You're the one who should try keeping it civilized in the future and stay away from wordings such as: "You couldn't be more wrong. You are making sweeping generalizations that do not have any basis whatsoever. Comments such as "Mandarin is a joke" and "it's MUCH harder to speak/write natural good sounding Japanese than Chinese. This is a more complex goal..." convey to me that Tobberoth is the one who is "a joke." These comments make absolutely no sense. You should probably stop and think before you post any more overly-dramatic propaganda."

If you would have instead written something like "I have to disagree with Tobberoth. Personally I find intonation to be a huge problem which one has to spend several years to learn, so I would hardly call learning Chinese "a joke"."

If that was the case, I would probably not have even replied to your post since it wouldn't have contained any ad hominem nor any direct attacks on my opinions.

I think that chinese is harder: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html

Yufina Wrote:I think that chinese is harder: http://www.pinyin.info/readings/texts/moser.html

That site is a joke right? All of those points except "tonal" are the same in Japanese... and as most people on this site seems to believe, Hanzi/Kanji/Hanji isn't all that hard. It's a huge hurdle compared to reading in alphabetical languages, but it's a hurdle one can pass quite quickly and easily with proper techniques.