4 ms·
> However, it's disingenuous to say that writing is a lot harder. You quoted me wrong, and frankly 'disingenuous' sounds like an objectively incorrect vocab ch
by DemocracyFTW 5y ago
> However, it's disingenuous to say that writing is a lot harder.
You quoted me wrong, and frankly 'disingenuous' sounds like an objectively incorrect vocab choice. Apart from that I confess that I speak from experience gained with a small sample size (around 1), and things may differ with each person.
What's more, I assume neither you nor I have done any rigid testing in this matter. 1500 kanji in 60 days does sound a lot, so good for you. However you cannot say with confidence what the future retention rate will be, nor do you (strictly speaking) know how you would have fared with any other approach. Also consider recognition of kanji (and their correct readings) in actual texts and recognition of artistic, calligraphic, handwriting styles; no idea where I'm standing on those but I do feel I have some kind of grip. Training for the latter does include looking at lots of calligraphic samples, and I do repetitively write some of those, too; it's hard to gauge how much either of these activities contribute to the learning effort.
- Kelamir 5y ago> You quoted me wrong I'm sorry, you're right about that, and yes, I don't know how good other approaches would have done it for me. > However you cannot say with confidence what the future retention rate will be At the time I studied, I stopped doing Japanese whatsoever, so retention dropped as it should. But I think if I have continued reading texts, I would have retained the meanings of kanji, just like it works with other languages I managed to stick with. You have a fair point, I think we could conclude that both methods have its odds and cons and it's up to each to decide if they want to use it, so long as no rigid testing is provided, as you say.