Can someone please explain the distinct differences between hiragana, katakana, and kanji? … - Feed Post by Ace1941
Can someone please explain the distinct differences between hiragana, katakana, and kanji? What are their uses? I've learned most hiragana at this point. Though I have a hard time remembering the order in which they go. Anyways, thanks for any input. ありがとございます。
posted by Ace1941
Comments 43
Hiragana: Japanese characters for Japanese words (basically the equivalent to the Alphabet for English)
Katakana: Japanese characters for loan/foreign words.
By this, I mean, literally any and all non-Japanese words. For example, if your name is Takuya, you'd use Hiragana to "spell" it since it is a Japanese name. However, if your name is Bob, you'd use Katakana to "spell" it since it is not Japanese.
Keep in mind, however, that often times, Japanese people put some Japanese words in Katakana - only for the purpose to add emphasis to it. Also, sound effects are usually in Katakana.
Kanji: Chinese characters
Kanji is crucial to learning Japanese, and is also useful in the way that it helps differentiate homonyms/homophones in a sentence. Since the Japanese language is rather limited in the sounds it produces, imagine reading a complex sentence in completely Hiragana... Scary thoughts.
I hope I helped a bit! Good luck on learning Japanese! ^__^
Oh, and by the way, it should be *ありがとうございます (you forgot the う).
Katakana is also used for science textbooks regarding the names of animals, even if the words are Japanese in origin. Kanji originated from China, but I'd be loathe to call them Chinese characters now just because they often differ quite a bit from the Chinese versions of the same character.
Yeah I'd say hiragana is the original writing system, but Japanese has a lot of words which mean the same thing, so kanji comes in to give each of those words a separate identity in a way that makes them easier to read, I couldn't imagine reading an entire paragraph in hiragana D:- Yeah, the US tried to eradicate kanji at the end of WWII during the occupation because it was "too hard". Thank goodness that didn't go through.
- It's not that hard really, and I never liked the U.S. xD
- @Arachkid: Ah, that is definitely true! That's a mistake on my part. I agree with you that Kanji isn't necessarily just Chinese characters, since many were indeed modified..
For example,
Kanji: 気 ; 話 ; 顔
Hanzi: 气 ; 话 ; 颜
etc. 
Thank you all. Very informative. As far as the comments about the United States and World War II, this most definitely wasn't the first time that an attempt has/had been made to 'romanize' the Japanese language. And I'm sure there were several reasons behind many of them. I don't know to what lengths this was expected to go, but I'm sure the plan wasn't to abolish the current Japanese writing system. The language has already been romanized; that doesn't mean the Japanese have to use it. Katakana does the same thing in reverse order am I right? Anyways, thanks for the input all! :)- As a citizen of the United States with a heavy interest in World War II, I couldn't refrain myself from saying at least something. xD
- (At one stage there was a proposal from an advisor in the Occupation administration to change the writing system to rōmaji, however it was not supported by other specialists and did not proceed.) (Unger, 1996)
http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/written-language-reforms.html
There was an idea to completely remove kanji and move over to the complete use of romaji - which would have been a complete mess. - That would suck. I love how the language sounds and looks, it's what makes it so beautiful and unique. Would definitely be a mess if they had to use romaji for everything, I'm already starting to read words better with kanji xD
- To make things even better, romaji isn't English. It's Japanese put into the alphabet, but the sounds aren't the same if you're reading them from an English point of view. For example, つ, or tsu, is written "tu", or ち, chi, is written ti.
- I agree, I love the Japanese language the way it is. All I'm saying is that there wouldn't have been any changes made without approval from the Japanese government. The U.S. wasn't conducting some new form of language warfare xD. It also depends on which romaji system would be used. I'm sure they'd figure out a way to make it all work, but I personally am glad they didn't.
- Again, same goes for katakana. In a way.
- Not implying that the Japanese expect all English speakers to use it. I'm only saying that they both operate in a similar fashion.
- Ace, the point in time you're talking about is when Japan was occupied by the Allied forces. Their newspapers were censored from many topics, but you're right, the Japanese government totally could have stood up to them on the point of language since they were incapable of printing stories about how their people were being raped and killed on a large scale by the occupying soldiers. Or the bombs. They suffered through them, but were not allowed to print stories about them at all.
- Incapable? What was there to 'stand up' to? And I'm not being rhetorical. Enlighten me.
- I realize that there was censorship by the Japanese Government, what I'm asking about is how large this issue really was. I mean are you saying that the U.S. swooped in and decided to reconstruct the entire Japanese communication system? (A little exaggeration there, but you get what I mean.) I just don't see the purpose.
- I guess I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at.
- Ah. haha. I misread your comment.
- Disregard my previous question xD
- I don't think most of the shit the US does has a purpose, they're most hypocritical government ever lmao.
- Lol none of you European's like us. Nothing new xD
- Just remember who saved you all from having to speak German today ;)
- *helped save. I should say.
- Helped;) wouldn't have even helped if Japan didn't spank your butt. Wouldn't have won if Germany didn't double cross Russia, everyone saved everyone yay!
- lol.
- Heh. The more troublesome censorship was the one dictated by the Commander of the Allied Powers (Douglas McArthur, an American assigned to that post by Truman). The censorship imposed by American military at that time was troublesome because not only did it not allow for mention of controversial topics (Allied soldiers raping and murdering Japanese, the atomic bomb, any criticism of the US or other Allied countries), it also prohibited notation of the censorship itself. This was a US imposed censorship, so on top of being nuked, and then their citizens being abused by the American military, they weren't allowed to talk about it. The reason the censorship imposed by the US couldn't be mentioned? Kinda runs against that whole Freedom of Speech thing they deem important. So, in a time when not only could the Japanese not do anything about crimes committed against them by Americans, they couldn't even SAY anything about them in print, I find it humorous to think that you are sure that they had much say in anything at the time of the occupation.
- First of all, the United States Constitution only applies to the United States government. Therefore, in this case, the bill of rights from which we gather this freedom of speech most definitely does not apply to citizens of a country that we were at war with.
It was a World War. Things had to be done. I'm not saying this to justify or condone the raping and murdering of Japanese war prisoners and citizens. Those acts were committed by individuals who took it upon themselves to do so. Not the entirety of the U.S. military. Every country has bad people.
The Japanese government issued censorship on it's own people just as much if not more than the United States; in fact, until today I have not heard of such things, and have yet not been able to find an article on the subject. Please send a link to a document of some sort that describes how U.S. Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur managed to control what Japan said or didn't say to its people. The only censorship conducted by the U.S. was applied to citizens of the United States. Douglas MacArthur helped rebuild Japan into what it is today. I am fully accepting of any proof you can show me that I'm wrong.
I fail to understand what this has to do with romaji. XD
- Where are you from?
- What this has to do with romaji is this, you said "I'm sure the plan wasn't to completely romanize the Japanese language", I pointed out that there had been such a plan, but it fell through since it would have made the language almost difficult to read, given the amount of similar sounding words. You went on to say the changes, if they had gone through, wouldn't have been made without approval of the Japanese government. I went on to say at the time of the occupation the Japanese had pretty much no say in anything. The Allies came in, abolished all forms of censorship and put freedom of speech into the Japanese constitution and then IMMEDIATELY put their own censorship into place. This was not a wartime act, nor were the rapes of people that couldn't be published because of said censorship. This was in "times of peace".
The fact that the Japanese government couldn't protect their own people from being raped by occupying forces or even make sure people knew about these crimes being committed so they could avoid the occupying forces leads me to believe the Japanese government had absolutely zero say in anything at that time.
Or are you saying that although the Japanese government couldn't stop their people from being raped, or speak out against it, or even mention the censorship in place which stopped them from speaking out against it, they would have had the power to stop the phasing out of the Japanese writing system if that came through as a good idea from the occupying forces? - Oh well. At least we can agree that it's a good thing romaji didn't develop into a mainstream form of writing.
- True. You sincerely think that although the Japanese couldn't complain about crimes being committed against them by the occupying Allied forces, all of a sudden they could have stood up against language changes? Odd.
- I sincerely think that we both have two different perspectives and that it's best that we just respectfully end the discussion lol. Nice try though. No hard feelings.
- It was more a general question - I'm surprised to think one would believe that when Japan couldn't stop their people by being raped by Allied (multiple countries, even though the SCAP was an American, so your question about which country I'm from is noted, but not relevant)soldiers, that somehow language is where they'd draw the line. The thought that a government wouldn't protect their people from rape and murder but would argue against their language being changed is just... something I could never understand. Definitely different perspectives.
- Are you letting this bother you? I think you're assuming that I feel a certain way. I joined this website to learn Japanese, and sure, discussions are fine too, but I'm not going to keep going back and forth about something that honestly doesn't effect either of us. If this was actually going somewhere, or reaching a conclusion, it would be different. In fact I've tried twice now to wind things down and move on lol. You can think what you want about the way I feel regarding America and Japan during the early to mid 20th century, it really doesn't matter. As I said, send some wiki links if you think I've got the wrong idea. Again, no hard feelings.
Have a nice day.
- Is 'effect' used in the right context? Or is it 'affect'. I can never remember lol. Oh well.
- Your point you indicated above seems to show that you think the Japanese government would have gotten angry about the possible changing of their language where they were unable to do anything about the rape and murder of their citizens. If you sincerely do think that, I think you have mixed up priorities, as the protection of a country's citizens should be its top priority. If you don't agree that, then there is something in your statement that is flawed. That's all. If you do believe that protection of language should come before protection of a country's citizens, well... I suppose nothing else needs to be said. LOL indeed.
- Hahaha. Trust me, if that was my implication, I would have made it very clear. In no way did I hint or lean towards that. I didn't intend to at least. It isn't my fault that you happened to take it that way. And I don't see what it means to you regardless. This will be my last response to this post. Find better things to get so analytical about.
- Ah. I see now. After reading another feed post, you commented that your wife is Japanese. No wonder you got so defensive. But, whatever the case may be, you clearly were pulling words out of my mouth. Either that or you there was a severe miscommunication.
- *don't know how that 'you' slipped in there.*
- *don't know how that 'you' slipped in there.*
- Miscommunication. Your statement indicated that you thought while Japan couldn't protect its people, it wouldn't let its language be changed. That's not what you meant, so I don't know, maybe you mistyped. Anyhow, water under the bridge. Have a good day. (And I would be offended by ANY country that thought its language was more important than its people, so my wife's nationality, or mine, has nothing to do with it)
- Take it easy, no hard feelings. And I agree. See ya in the feed.
