Jack Halpern, Kodansha Kanji Learner's Dictionary
Value For Money
Jack Halpern, Kodansha Kanji Learner's Dictionary
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works.
User Reviews
Value For Money
Jack Halpern, Kodansha Kanji Learner's Dictionary
Jack Halpern, Kodansha Kanji Learner's Dictionary - I got the older leatherbound edition. The first thing you notice with this book is its Japaneseness - the print quality, down to the nice texture of the paper, the nice colours of the paper and fonts. The layout is ok, it could be better, but it's certainly not bad.
The problem with this dictionary - and it's a big problem - is that the author has deliberately ignored the normal way of counting the radicals.
(You'll have to imagine the accents on top of the vowels)
e.g.: the character KU/aku/akeru/sora/kara... (as in air/space/open...)
The character is made up of a five-stroke radical on the top ("roku") with its 3-stroke phonic part underneath ("ko").
Consequently, you can spend absolutely ages getting neck-ache searching for it, using his not so wonderful and not so original SKIP system, and get very frustrated to find that it's listed in the wrong place.
This character should be called a (2)4-3, instead, because the author thinks he knows better, it's a (2)2-5.
He has split the radical.
Throughout the book, this is done in an arbitrary fashion, which only leads to confusion, as no oriental (never mind Japanese speaker) can use or follow this silly book as it makes no sense to them.
You will find that this arrogant approach by the author can cause conflict with your studies as this book is the only one in common circulation which uses this bastardised system.
On top of that, the author has the pretentiousness and gall to make a big thing out of copyrighting and trademarking his silly system.
Let me just say that nobody is going to steal your ideas Jack - they're utter twaddle.
The idea of searching in this way (and dividing characters into vertical and horizontal groups, etc...) is not especially radical or new either - you can see it in plenty other books and without the fanfare; so I doubt any patents will hold much water.
Basically, the groups are not entirely correct, and this quasi-autistic ordering system is fundamentally flawed; (I speak as a high-functioning autistic).
Another gripe is the insistance of putting in characters for personal names, and abstruse names of plants. I can see it's nice to have, but I think it's better off in an appendix.
I think a good section of appendices to help you find names for things in useful categories like science and engineering, politics, etc., might be useful.
I appreciate it's a dictionary to help assist the understanding of the meaning of sinoglyphs, but most people who use it are going to want more than that from it.
It is a shame, as the quality of the presentation is probably among the highest of any dictionary of anything anywhere. The content, however, is flawed. It doesn't make it an unwise purchase though. It does help you get to grips with the spectrum of meaning of characters and the idiomatic usage of nipponic verbs and some impressive phrases like "sekinin o ninau". But if you do get it, don't bother with the SKIP system, because the radicals have been split and reordered in an illogical way, and it will confuse you. If the radicals had not been adulterated this would be a top-class book.
For me, I used it on my Japanese degree with a trusty old Collins Shubun dictionary and a pocket dictionary from Japan.
I would like to make this final comment for the benefit of reviewcenter
readers who may be confused by "our" ranting after coming across this
review.
I'd like to clear up any possible confusion concerning macdaddy's main
complaint about this book that radicals are "incorrectly split".
This refers to is the second century Chinese "bushou" system of
classifying kanji by ordering them according to what radical (there are
214 radicals) occurs in a character's key position. In this system,
you do not split radicals, you separate them (intact) from each other
in order to analyze the structure of a given character to classify it.
Unfortunately, in the application of this system there is no standard
on which position is the key position in each character without
memorizing every single kanji character. Additionally, many radicals
change shape and stroke count when they occur in certain positions
(within a kanji character) often making positive identification
difficult for not only the novice, but the native reader, as well.
Indeed, if you ask ANY Japanese when was the last time they used
a "bushu hiki" index to locate a kanji character in a kanbun
dictionary - they will look at you and laugh! They hate it with a
passion and are only aware of it because Japan's Meiji era education
system (that's still used today) forces it down their throat. Any
Japanese, given a choice, will opt for a stroke count index anytime.
In addition, there are no Japanese-English or Chinese-English
dictionaries (that I am aware of) that use the bushou system
to classify kanji. So even if you are an expert in this antique
system, you still can't figure out what a character means
unless you already read Japanese (or Chinese).
On the other hand, The Kodansha Kanji Learner's Dictionary
contains all of the Joyo kanji with a modern system (SKIP) of
finding characters by appearance that any novice can quickly
learn and become proficient at. And it is a system that is, by far,
more trouble-free that the despised bushou system.
So why such reverence to this fossilized rule? Ask him, not me.
I'll venture to say that most readers feel as I do, and the sanctity of
an 1,800 year old rule should be totally ignored when a signficant
functional convenience can be attained by breaking it. Geez...
what's next? Are we gonna start complaining that paper books
can be eaten by worms, or ruined if they get wet. Let's go back
to carved stone tablets!
Personally, I prefer what works most efficiently, and indeed, I think
macdaddy really does too, that's why he freely admits...
"I use this book a lot; I like it...." because it serves its purpose well.
Cheers to all, you too, macdaddy!
P.S. I never harp on a book's errors unless they are excessive or
very obvious, and in this case, they are not.
< あな >
穴 slit
Kanji with this 5 stroke radical :
空 うつ
クウ, そら, あ.く, あ.き, あ.ける, から, す.く, す.かす, むな.しい, き, く
empty, sky, void, vacant, vacuum
(52 compounds
http://www.nuthatch.com/kanji/demo/r116.html
This character, like many others, are classified incorrectly in this book.
Jack Halpern has decreed that the 5-stroke semantic radical must be split asunder; thus students will struggle to locate the ten or so common kanji that are identied by this radical.
Another example is:
順 あや
ジュン, あり, おき, おさむ, しげ, したがう, とし, なお, のぶ, のり, まさ, むね, もと, ゆき, よし, より
obey, order, turn, right, docility, occasion
The character's left-hand radical is split into two meaningless ones, and classed as 1-1-11 as far as I can remember.
It should probably go under this radical (at least it will in a Chinese dictionary):
頁 ケツ, ぺえじ, おおが.い, かしら
page, leaf
Learning Japanese is frustrating enough (especially for a student of Chinese) without the piles of obfuscating learner manuals around (usually produced by Americans). It is right that they are slammed, because there's no need for it.
This book is a nice, pretty book with some interesting stuff in it, spoilt by unnecessary and annoying "character radical" errors; overladen with useless information and a silly array of supposedly innovate search systems; whilst lacking some useful stuff - how about limiting the contents to the JOYO kanji and having other stuff some smaller categorised appendices of kanji - like weights and measurements; personal names; professions; numbers etc..? Some more colour-coding of kanji based on frequency or JOYO or JLPT level? There's any number of more useful things that could be included in a revised edition - I'll definately look forward to that.
It doesn't change the actual focus of the issue, which is that character's have been incorrectly "split", and some radicals are wrong, which can make finding them difficult.
There's a lot of unwarrented "tetchy-ness" and aggression flynig about, which I find a little queer.
No I didn't sit down with an array of books to supply anal detail; I knew that there were some kanji categorisation anomalies, and I could just about remember off the top of my head, one of them. There are a number of others, which I can list; when I have access to my copy of the book again.
Whatever assumptions you hold about me, I've made a balanced review of pros and cons, and ended up on-balance recommending it.
I use this book a lot; I like it; but it has flaws. This is an oppotunitry to bring them to the attention of others, nothing else. I'm not getting paid for this, if I was I'd probably present it in far more detail.
I have not changed anything
Back to the boring "sora" (空) issue; I'm going to put it in simple terms.
Whatever way you say it (and there are a number of ways), it's a character made up of two elements: one is the meaning part, and one is the sound part (the On-yomi pronounciation derived from Chinese)
I've called it "KOu" for no particular reason other than perhaps to highlight that the character's "meaning" radical is wrong - the radical is not "roof", but "hole" - this eludes to the fact that the character's meaning is similar to "hole": meaning things like "vacant" and "empty".
To say I changed it from "roku" to "ana" due to your comments is silly, vain, and in fact shows that the only things that are personal here are you weird remarks.
The contents have not been changed as a result of your wild ranting.
It's as a result of reading my own original review - there was no editing feature. I wrote that review a year ago and forgot about it.
Yes I made a mistake, and I corrected it - clearly you are capable of neither.
It doesn't change the actual focus of the issue, which is that character's have been incorrectly "split", and some radicals are wrong, which can make finding them difficult.
So when coming to the question of whether this book is fit for the purpose intended, I've already repeatedly stated YES, BUT! It has problems that people should be aware of - highest among them that you can't always find characters when you want.
The apparent vanity of the author is, however, not high among them, save to say that the claims made about the SKIP system (including that by implication of copyrighting it, that it deserves copyrighting) appear unsubstantiated.
It's a useful book, but not that useful.
As for your comments about me, I'm not bothered, you look sillier than I do.
It doesn't change the actual focus of the issue, which is that character's have been incorrectly "split", and some radicals are wrong, which can make finding them difficult.
I'm sorry macdaddy, but once again, you are wrong.
Let's look at "sora" again. Either 2 or 3 elements, depending on how
you want to look at it. I'll start with the simple one, (kou).
You say "the phonetic element KOu". This is already incorrect. The term
phonetic element refers to characters that are used for their phonetic content,
as opposed to their meaning. This is actually called "ateji" in Japanese.
You seem to want to say "kou" because this is the onyomi pronunciation of
the character in Japanese. Since we are talking about a radical within a kanji
character, neither "ateji", phonetic element, or onyomi is appropriate. The ONLY
appropriate term to use is the name of radical itself. This clearly radical #48 in
both the Japanese bushu system as well as the Chinese bushou system.
Considering we are talking about Japanese kanji, the only correct term is the
radical name "takumi".
I am glad to see that you have corrected the error of your original review in
this rebuttle, undoubtedly after reading my comments. Your first review called
the top of the "sora" character "roku" (six). After reading my comments you
realized that it is, indeed, not six (which consists of radical numbers #8 "nabebuta"
and radical 12 "eight") , but is actually "ana" (which consists of radicals
#40 "ukanmuru" and #10 "hitoashi" ) which is exacty as I said. "ukanmuri" and
"hitoashi" form the character "ana" (hole).
Feel free to check the accuracy at either of the following:
Chinese: http://chineselanguage.org/cgi-bin/bushou.php?dbase=ccdict&mode=bushou&sound=0&pagesize=20&beijing=pinyin&canton=jyutping&meixian=default&fields=pinyin,english〈=en&show=frequent
Japanese: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1R
It is only, as you said, "...unfortunate .... attack" because unfornunately, my
comments clearly showed your incorrect analysis of "sora", one of the only
non-emotional assessments made in your review.
I don't like to get personal because I don't get my jollies by hurting others,
and I sense that you're probably a nice chap. But you made an error in judgement
and took that error on stage with the aire of kanji scholar in slamming this dictionary.
If you're going to play the part of the sage, be sure you know the mantra!
In counter-conclusion, the accusations made by "bedouin" are clearly founded
by the fact that macdaddy changed the content of his original rant after
rechecking the facts himself. And futhermore, I wouldn't dare suggest that any
teacher, nor one of his books deserves reverence, for that is not the question.
The question is: "Does this book serve a useful purpose in the hands of someone
studying kanji?" After all, it is supposed to be a review of the content of the
usefulness of the book, not a personal judgement about the arrogance of the author.
And for your personal information, I've lived in Japan since the late '70s and
write books about English in Japanese and books about Japanese in English.
(Sometimes as a ghostwriter and sometimes in my own name.) But it's nothing
to brag about -- none of them are big sellers... it's just a living.
Cheers
I must respond to bedouin's unfortunate and personal attack on my review.
Apart from coming from a background of studying East Asian languages (including Chinese and Japanese for over a decade and at a leading British University, and actually working on the production of a Japanese-English dictionary), it appears I have used this book for longer than s/he seems to have; and have thought long and hard about my comments, which are based upon clear reasoning and hard evidence.
Firstly, the comments about "sora" are incorrect. If bedouin has studied Chinese as well as Chinese characters in Japanese, s/he would know that this character is made up of two elements: one is the phonic element "KOu"; the other is the radical or "category of meaning" - the "ana" (=hole) element.
The dictionary used by bedouin is probably equally flawed, or perhaps bedouin simply hasn't gained enough proficiency in the language.
Secondly, it is indeed "arrogant" of an author of a dictionary to impose a ridiculous artificial structure on it in place of millennia of indigenous evolution, and then to make a big show of copyrighting it; especially when this SKIP system is nothing new to Japanese. That is an act of supreme arrogance. I don't know the author, and it is not necessary to know him in order to state the obvious.
As I clearly stated, I actually still enjoy using this book occasionally despite its flaws; but I will not heap blind and vapid praise on it. I offer an experienced and objective view upon it. Note that I recommend it, but state clearly its flaws as well as the flaws of the author in attempting to lay claim to a great discovery, which is neither great, nor a discovery - it's butchery of a language.
And thirdly, anyone who does not know what a radical is not likely to be looking for a book like this anyway. This book is geared towards those attempting JPLT levels 1 & 2.
Fourthly, this final Parthian shot, really does demonstrate the incipience:
"When the you've learned enough to be in a position to critize the teacher, don't forget where you got that knowledge from!"
All teachers are students themselves; and knowledge does not emanate from them like light from a star. Knowledge comes from questioning and challenging, and no teacher deserves reverence simply for possessing the title of "teacher".
In conclusion, the accusations made by "bedouin" are clearly unfounded. There is nothing "emotional" or "arrogant" about my review. I suggest that this rant was typed in haste without enough time taken to check facts, and hence it lacks credibility and legitmacy. I really wonder what kind of books bedouin has "published".
Q&A
There are no questions yet.