ファブリス Wrote:don't you have anything better to do ?

Do you really want an answer to that question? lol.

You know who also had a brain good for studying math and Japanese....?









Barney Rubble!!!

kazelee Wrote:Wise man once say grammar cannot be drilled in... grammar must come with time and exposure. The question becomes, which takes longer, studying grammar similar to your own languages grammar, or studying grammar completely foreign?

Could someone please point me to an English speaking person who has passed JLPT1 with only 900 hours of study, because I've been at this almost 1000 hours and I'm barely above 3kyuu?

I think it's possible for a native English speaker to do it, but it would take some really amazing work. First of all, said person would probably have had to be decently proficient in some other east asian language such as Korean to get the bonus of cross-referencing etc. Second, the person would probably have to spend all of his study hours focusing on the most effective ways of studying everything for the test in particular... something like Alyks movie method coupled with SRS straight from a JLPT1 word list... of course SRSing every single grammar point from the Kanzen Master books. Still has to get enough exposure to reading and listening to pass those parts of the test. Possible in 900 hours of study? Yeah, but it sure would be something to see!

BTW, I found why HSK Adv takes longer to study for: You have to produce in it, it's not just multiple choice like the JLPT1. HSK Adv includes writing AND speaking.

Talk about comparing apples and oranges, eh?

Every time I see this thread on top, the "thing" freaks me out. Someone please fix it. Thanks.

Tak47 Wrote:What do you mean you cannot study grammar systematically? That is what sentence mining and the SRS are for! Of course you can learn it systematically! What make it any different from vocabulary or characters? They are all part of the language, not separate entities.

I think he maybe referring to the fact that grammar cannot be drilled. Seeing a grammar point and knowing what it does is totally different from "owning it" for lack of a better term. It's been proven. I think....

Quote:You speak of the AJATT method yet you follow almost NONE of its guidelines.

AJATT is a living entity personal to those who use it. Consider it the Jeet Kun Do of language learning. The creator of the site even admits that any road up the mountain will work, and gives details of his personal experiences and theories. It is not do x, do y, do not deviate. It's is have fun while learning and immersing yourself. Either that or it really is some weird internet cult, with Khatzumoto being the charismatic leader.... (Sounds more sensational though less likely)

kazelee Wrote:Either that or it really is some weird internet cult, with Khatzumoto being the charismatic leader.... (Sounds more sensational though less likely)

I've run into a few "true believers", so the cult thing might not be too far fetched.

"you all"

Personally I think Tae Kim's grammar guide is overly simplistic, doesn't go beyond very basic grammar, and he talks out of his ass a LOT.

In other words, I don't use it. Appeal to authority (especially a non-authority like Tae Kim) is a fallacy anyways.

His complaint seems to just be about his discomfort with the "cave-man" speak of Chinese. In any case, this is a stupid thing to argue about. If Tobberoth (and most of the rest of the forum) find Chinese easier to learn than Japanese, then that is their personal experience. If you find Japanese easier to learn, that is YOUR experience. Why are you taking this personally?

Jarvik7 Wrote:"you all"

Personally I think Tae Kim's grammar guide is overly simplistic, doesn't go beyond very basic grammar, and he talks out of his ass a LOT.

In other words, I don't use it. Appeal to authority (especially a non-authority like Tae Kim) is a fallacy anyways.

I totally agree - for beginners who are starting from nothing, TK's notes are better than nothing, but it doesn't carry you very far. Is it enough to pass 3 kyuu? It's definitely not enough for 2 kyuu.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Personally I think Tae Kim's grammar guide is overly simplistic, doesn't go beyond very basic grammar, and he talks out of his ass a LOT.

In other words, I don't use it. Appeal to authority (especially a non-authority like Tae Kim) is a fallacy anyways.

ad hominem

(j/k)

I'd like to, without getting into any form of discussion with Tak47 again (I'm actually planning to listen to what Fabrice said), point out that Tae Kim himself says, on that very site, that he still find Chinese easier to learn than Japanese. He might have a different view of Chinese grammar than me, but we still seem to be in agreement overall.

kfmfe04 Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:"you all"

Personally I think Tae Kim's grammar guide is overly simplistic, doesn't go beyond very basic grammar, and he talks out of his ass a LOT.

In other words, I don't use it. Appeal to authority (especially a non-authority like Tae Kim) is a fallacy anyways.

I totally agree - for beginners who are starting from nothing, TK's notes are better than nothing, but it doesn't carry you very far. Is it enough to pass 3 kyuu? It's definitely not enough for 2 kyuu.

That's news to me. Any source recommendations? Barney Rubble.


Edit: Call me crazy but I could have sworn there was a post below this one....やっぱり

This is interesting:

http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/...s-japanese

Don't know how much credit you want to put into his graphs, but they are interesting, nonetheless.

kfmfe04 Wrote:This is interesting:

http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/...s-japanese

Don't know how much credit you want to put into his graphs, but they are interesting, nonetheless.

I posted that a while back in this thread to illustrate my point.

Tak47 Wrote:

kfmfe04 Wrote:This is interesting:

http://www.sinosplice.com/life/archives/...s-japanese

Don't know how much credit you want to put into his graphs, but they are interesting, nonetheless.

I posted that a while back in this thread to illustrate my point.

Maybe it got ignored due to too much ranting...

kazelee Wrote:Could someone please point me to an English speaking person who has passed JLPT1 with only 900 hours of study, because I've been at this almost 1000 hours and I'm barely above 3kyuu? Maybe they're only counting classroom hours or something....

You know, that is a deeper question that would merit it's own thread. It also brings up the question of what qualifies as studying.

Reason it caught my attention was I had a thread that asked: How much college credit would you say finish RTK is worth? In it, I calculated roughly how much study time I put into RTK via RevTK. I came out to about 200 to 250 hours (5 credit hours) on the assumption of average of 20 seconds per kanji review. I count this as active study time.

In other threads I calculated how much how much time I made doing sentences. For me, due to writing out words and sentences, it came to average about 10 minutes per sentence over it's life. So 2200 sentences for me (700 Tae Kim, 1500 iKnow), comes to about 360 hours. I also count this as active study time.

What I don't count as study time is watching dramas, the news, reading mangas, etc. I count that as active immersion time if I'm not distracted. However, some people want to count this as study time (based on only one person's reply in another forum).

Anyway, Kazelee, how did you arrive at having over 900 hours of study time?

kazelee Wrote:

Tak47 Wrote:What do you mean you cannot study grammar systematically? That is what sentence mining and the SRS are for! Of course you can learn it systematically! What make it any different from vocabulary or characters? They are all part of the language, not separate entities.

I think he maybe referring to the fact that grammar cannot be drilled. Seeing a grammar point and knowing what it does is totally different from "owning it" for lack of a better term. It's been proven. I think....

Quote:You speak of the AJATT method yet you follow almost NONE of its guidelines.

AJATT is a living entity personal to those who use it. Consider it the Jeet Kun Do of language learning. The creator of the site even admits that any road up the mountain will work, and gives details of his personal experiences and theories. It is not do x, do y, do not deviate. It's is have fun while learning and immersing yourself. Either that or it really is some weird internet cult, with Khatzumoto being the charismatic leader.... (Sounds more sensational though less likely)

I would also like to know why Fabrice decided that the post kazelee quoted above needed to be deleted.

ファブリス Wrote:Since you started the arguments with a direct attack I'll ask you, Tak47, to refrain from further arguing in this topic.

How did I start this "argument"? The *other* user is the one who started arguments by posting culturally insensitive and offensive comments, calling one language a joke. How did any of the messages that you decided to delete contain any kind of arguing? Of course I need to voice my arguments against other peoples' claims, that is the entire reason a forum for discussion exists. That is not the same as arguing; arguing is nonconstructive, while debate is constructive. This is a debate. I voiced a logical, well thought out, and supported opinion that both languages have their difficulties, and neither is necessarily more difficult than the other overall. I would have left it at that, but a certain user decided it was a good idea to keep the ball rolling.

Take it to Feedback?

~J

Tak47 Wrote:The *other* user is the one who started arguments by posting culturally insensitive and offensive comments, calling one language a joke.

In the context of his post, his comment was not offensive or culturally insensitive, as he has already explained since.

You responded straightaway with such virulent comments as:

Quote:convey to me that Tobberoth is the one who is "a joke."
...
You should probably stop and think before you post any more overly-dramatic propaganda.

That is what Mr. Fabrice is referring to by "starting the arguments with a direct attack."

Tak's entire tirade seems to be in defense of "the dignity of the Chinese language" and nothing directly linguistic in nature.

People are misinterpreting the graphs on that site by the way. The way you would determine "overall hardness" is by measuring the area under the curve (who wants to bust out some calculus?). Japanese spends more time at a higher level, so it is harder overall. (if one assumes that the graphs have any merit in the first place and that language difficulty wasn't affected by one's prior experience)

Learning languages is easy for a person who realizes it takes time.

Learning languages is hard for a person who doesn't realize this.

Therefore, I think they are both easy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know recently Kazelee had an epiffany about the uses of 「やっぱり」, but Barney Rubble, I'm just lost on that one.

Tak47 Wrote:Edit: Why in the world did Fabrice delete my previous post? It was exactly the same as this one I am posting right now. I am appalled at this kind of behavior. If you are going to censor anything I say that doesn't conform to your ideas then that proves that this forum is filled with nothing but elitists.

Sure you didn't delete it yourself, like, by accident or something? I figured you just changed your mind.... that's rather unusual.

Quote:Anyway, Kazelee, how did you arrive at having over 900 hours of study time?

I've studied on average 4 hours a day, reading, shadowing, and listening (actively) included for about 7-8 months (since starting RTK). If didn't include listening (actively) then the hours would probably be cut by a third.

When I first started iKnow, I would go 4 hours a day on it alone. I got way faster when I learned the system, though.

I won't even try to calculate the hours I spent doing RTK by hand before I discovered anki and this site.

If I go by the model you showed, given that I don't write out every sentence (just some).... 200 rtk +90mins/day iknow*90=135 +35 hours readiing + 60 anki + 15 shadowing + 9 dictation
=
454 Being conservative.

250 + 120m/day*100 + 40 + 60 + 15 + 18
=
543 splurging a bit.

So somewhere close to 500 (damn I was expecting more). I'm not counting scriptorium as I haven't done that consistently enough to give any accurate numbers.

Neither of these take listening, active or not, into account at all.

Do subbed animes count too? lol.

Seriously though,

According to these numbers I should have no problem passing JLPT1 at the end of the year.

Ummm.....yeah

>_>


@_@

Again I ask, where the hell 900 hours came from....

TAK47 Wrote:How did I start this "argument"? The *other* user is the one who started arguments by posting culturally insensitive and offensive comments, calling one language a joke.

I learned a new term today. It's called chasing the straw man. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to use that term at this very moment.

Quote:I would also like to know why Fabrice decided that the post kazelee quoted above needed to be deleted.

That's even more unusual. This topic, as I know it, is a lie!

Jarvik7 Wrote:Tak's entire tirade seems to be in defense of "the dignity of the Chinese language" and nothing directly linguistic in nature.

People are misinterpreting the graphs on that site by the way. The way you would determine "overall hardness" is by measuring the area under the curve (who wants to bust out some calculus?). Japanese spends more time at a higher level, so it is harder overall. (if one assumes that the graphs have any merit in the first place and that language difficulty wasn't affected by one's prior experience)

No, I voiced my opinion and stated facts about the Chinese language. What do you mean "Japanese spends more time at a higher level"? Chinese grammar becomes much more complex as you go, that is a fact. It relies heavily on word order and context since there is no inflection. A noun can change to a verb, or even an adjective depending on the context. There are no tenses, and thus it must be inferred or implied. If you learn in context and through immersion, all grammar in any language is negligible, as it is part of the language itself, not separate. This is why neither language is more difficult.

Those graphs are not a true representation of the actual languages, they are merely for visual purposes, not scientific. The author even states that it is not scientific in any way, shape, or form. It is only taken from his own personal experience with both languages. The graphs do have some merit, but take them with a grain of salt.

theasianpleaser Wrote:I know recently Kazelee had an epiffany about the uses of 「やっぱり」, but Barney Rubble, I'm just lost on that one.

Due to the poor advice of his personal physician, Hitler was also lost on that one.

~J

theasianpleaser Wrote:I know recently Kazelee had an epiffany about the uses of 「やっぱり」, but Barney Rubble, I'm just lost on that one.

It's Cockney; Barney Rubble = trouble.

And also double .