The primitives the book uses are NOT the primitives any other book uses. Some overlap, but many do not. This makes it harder in the end to look up things in a regular dictionary. I see no benefit in learning to split a kanji up in a way that is pretty much useless in any other context. It`s like... Instead of learning to spell words in English, you split them into little chunks without learning the spelling that normally would be used. Sure, it might help you at some point, but it`s going to be a weird crutch later on and make things harder in the long run.

As for the false etymology... It drives me crazy when someone who has leafed through that book comes up with "Oh, that kanji was formed from this and this and used to mean such-and-such (quoting a story from the book)" when the actual etymology is incredibly different.

Maybe that`s just a linguist thing though that normal people don`t care about.

I don`t have the book handy, would have to spend an hour tracking it down in the closet, so will have to put specific examples at a later date...

As for people finishing/not finishing it - I`m sure there are people out there who have. I just haven`t personally met any.

Nyororin, by false etymology, do you mean this for example? In the book, it said one of the kanji for "I" was the following. 吾. As you know, this is made of ;

五 = 5
口 = mouth

and putting them together, gives you = 吾　

He said in the book to think of your head and imagine your mouth to be a hole. Your head has 5 holes; nostrels, ears and mouth. The way to come up with this kanji is to think of this. As far as I remember, it sounded like this is how the kanji was created in the first place. However, it'd be pretty radical to believe such a story.

By the way, I saw this more than a year ago. His method is surprisingly effective are "remembering" a kanji. The way I see it, is that it seems to be pretty good to remember how to remember vocab (I know this isn't the right word, but I can't think of the word right now).

I'm surprised that people really believe that these kanji were created the way described in the book. I see the description as a method to remember. I use a similar method to remember things in Math and Physics. I imagine, sometimes ridiculous things, and I remember whatever it is I need to remember!

but thats my point.

I'd rather have the the readings pop up than "5 mouths" and think.. crap.

I don't think you're understanding me. My problem there is how to describe Vocob, nouns, adjectives etc etc in one word. I don't know if there is a word for it in English.

I remember perfectly well, that 吾 is a way of saying "I"

I don't think your understanding me.

What is 吾 in kana, noodle?

That`s an excellent example that strongly illustrates one of the points I made... It`s not in common use in this day and age.
Good luck finding it being used to say "I" in any modern context. In fact, try and find some examples outside of a name where it would carry no real meaning at all.

I have a book call "A Guide to Remembering Japanese Characters". I think it's fairly close to Remembering the Kanji. I don't find it all that bad but I have found other ways to learn kanji that are more effective.

On the side note, if you have the book, take a look at kanji 124, on page 35. Check out the example. :eek: They used the 'N' word for the example 黒人.
Hehe :D You have to see it to believe it.

Who cares? Now that you know that the Heisig keyword for 吾 is "I", you can look it up, and from there paste it into any one of the multitudes of free electronic dictionaries to get its meanings, readings, etc. There are other side benefits to doing RtK, but that's really the main thing you get out of it, in my opinion; a super-efficient kanji dictionary. Sure, only beginners are going to need to constantly look up kanji like this, but hey, the book is aimed at beginners.

And they'll have learned the Heisig keyword for every kanji long before they're learned the meanings and readings from the traditional rote method.

In the book it doesn't trick you in to believing that this is the main kanji for I. It actually says it is "one" of the ways to write I. Unless you're saying there is no need to learn things that aren't commonly used, there is nothing wrong with learning it.

At uni, I study French literature language. The French they use will only ever be found in literature and is of absolute no use for me in the real world. I am a science student, but I do not complain about learning this obscure, rarely used French. General knowledge is great, and learning different ways of saying/writing the same thing when learning a language is only a positive thing, in my opinion!

And I guess this is what my friend said about learning the language properly. I guess he meant learning kanji that isn't used commonly, yet still part of the language.

SHADOW, try reading before you comment on things. As others have said, this book doesn't pretend it will teach you anything other than the meaning of words. And like the example I gave you, a child looks at something and knows what it is before he/she can say the word or read the word or write the word! It's a similar concept. Learning one thing at a time!

Man, I did start quite an argument haven't I..

Everybody has their own way of learning! Some ways maybe be better then others for some. Why don't you understand that? After hearing everybody's comments and seeing part of the book, I see no reason why this is not an effective way to get a jump start on kanji.

Mods if you can, please close this topic, it has only led to nonsense and arguing. People take things so seriously..