What language ....

[Kirby]

...

Clearly outside of Go, Chinese is the most useful.

On a practical level, for go study, am I correct that Korean might be the easiest, particularly to read?

...

People learn in different ways, so I think it is difficult to say that one language is "harder" than another. There's also the point that learning any language can be a continuous process. Even when you have achieved "fluency", there's a good chance that there are still new vocabulary or slang words to learn. For example, English is my native language, but I'd still say that there's room for me to learn more English.

That said, I will give my opinion, based on how I learn.

In my opinion, if you are going to learn any of the three languages seriously, learning Chinese characters is helpful. Even in Korean, where Chinese characters are typically not used anymore, many words are based on Chinese characters.

In that regard, I think that Japanese is a little bit easier in terms of reading, because the Chinese characters are clearly visible. If I see a particular character, there is no guessing what the meaning is. The character is plainly visible.

With Korean, on the other hand, Hangeul is very easy to learn, but it is a purely phonetic alphabet. This means that, while many words are based on Chinese characters, the actual Chinese characters are hidden from view. The result, to me, is a language that is easier to read phonetically, but harder to extract meaning from.

Chinese characters are extremely helpful in the three languages, and these characters are visible in Chinese and Japanese. Because of that, Korean can be a little bit more difficult to get meaning from.

In addition, I think that the actual sounds that are used in Japanese are easier to distinguish, typically. With the exception of the "n" sound, everything ends in a vowel sound, so it is a bit easier to pick out what people are saying. In Korean, combinations of the batchim and the next hangeul character sometimes lead to pronunciations that are non-intuitive to me. This may be due to the way that I learned hangeul in the first place.

But in any case, I think that people learn in different ways. For me, I think that Korean is a bit harder than Japanese in several regards. This could also be due to the fact that I lived in Japan for a longer period of time, though.

In the end, again, pick the language that's interesting to you.

I will agree with Horibe's point that, disregarding go, Chinese might be the most practically useful. After all, there are a LOT of Chinese people in the world.

[Bartleby]

I think the level of effort involved probably should be a big factor. Specifically, Chinese is considered to be one of the hardest languages for Westerners to learn.

According to Daniel Kane in "The Chinese Language: Its History and Current Usage" the U.S. Foreign Service Institute (which, among other things, trains U.S. diplomats in foreign languages) for many years estimated that it would take a Westerner approximately 520 hours of language training to reach the level of basic professional competence (both speaking and reading) in a Western European Language, and approximately 2,400 hours of language training to reach the same level of competence in Chinese. So learning Chinese took well over four times the effort for a Westerner than learning a Western European language.

That having been said, Mandarin Chinese is spoken by more people by any other language, so it might be more productive in some ways to learn it rather than, say, learning four Western European languages. But learning Chinese definitely constitutes a major effort.

[kokomi]

I think the level of effort involved probably should be a big factor. Specifically, Chinese is considered to be one of the hardest languages for Westerners to learn.

According to Daniel Kane in "The Chinese Language: Its History and Current Usage" the U.S. Foreign Service Institute (which, among other things, trains U.S. diplomats in foreign languages) for many years estimated that it would take a Westerner approximately 520 hours of language training to reach the level of basic professional competence (both speaking and reading) in a Western European Language, and approximately 2,400 hours of language training to reach the same level of competence in Chinese. So learning Chinese took well over four times the effort for a Westerner than learning a Western European language.

That having been said, Mandarin Chinese is spoken by more people by any other language, so it might be more productive in some ways to learn it rather than, say, learning four Western European languages. But learning Chinese definitely constitutes a major effort.

Do you have the statistic for the other way? How long does it take a chinese to reach the level of basic profeesional competence in a Western European Language? It took me 8 years, 6 years middle school and 2 years universtiy to learn english. Most boring thing in my life...

[palapiku]

According to Daniel Kane in "The Chinese Language: Its History and Current Usage" the U.S. Foreign Service Institute (which, among other things, trains U.S. diplomats in foreign languages) for many years estimated that it would take a Westerner approximately 520 hours of language training to reach the level of basic professional competence (both speaking and reading) in a Western European Language, and approximately 2,400 hours of language training to reach the same level of competence in Chinese. So learning Chinese took well over four times the effort for a Westerner than learning a Western European language.

Yep, if you're a "Westerner" (I suppose that actually means "native English speaker") then it's harder to learn Chinese than a "Western European" language (I assume that means things like Spanish, and not like Basque).

But here we're comparing Chinese with Japanese and Korean. Chinese is quite likely easier to learn than Japanese. Dunno about Korean.

[Bartleby]

Yep, if you're a "Westerner" (I suppose that actually means "native English speaker") then it's harder to learn Chinese than a "Western European" language (I assume that means things like Spanish, and not like Basque).

But here we're comparing Chinese with Japanese and Korean. Chinese is quite likely easier to learn than Japanese. Dunno about Korean.

Yes, you're right. I lost track of the original question a bit and my post wasn't really responsive.

I note that the Foreign Services Institute's present ranking of language learning difficulty for English speakers suggests that you are also right that Japanese may be harder for English speakers to learn than Chinese. All three languages (Chinese, Japanese, and Korean) are Category III languages, but Japanese gets an asterisk for being especially problematic.

See http://web.archive.org/web/200710140059 ... tions.html

It's kind of sad that the three major Go playing countries all have languages in the highest category of learning difficulty.

[palapiku]

It's kind of sad that the three major Go playing countries all have languages in the highest category of learning difficulty.

Sad, but probably not a coincidence

[nagano]

I've chosen Korean because the level of play and teaching materials are better than Japan's. Also, the language takes much less time to learn to read than Chinese or Japanese because it uses Hangul, a featural alphabet. The only real disadvantage is it is harder to find adequate English language teaching materials than with the other two.

[Jedo]

I've chosen Korean because the level of play and teaching materials are better than Japan's. Also, the language takes much less time to learn to read than Chinese or Japanese because it uses Hangul, a featural alphabet. The only real disadvantage is it is harder to find adequate English language teaching materials than with the other two.

Level of play is better, really? I'm sure the difference between the top korean pros and the top japanese one is less than two stones, so unless you're an aspiring pro I can't see this making a difference.

Definitely true about the alphabet though, kanji is a serious pain.

[Loons]

I suspect that what nagano is meaning, by better teaching materials, is that someone spending the same effort with their materials improves faster.

This is the kind of thing that you could probably get a real statistic on, if only there was an unbiased observer...

I agree with the people who say pick the one the most people around you speak (ie where I live, there are many more chinese people).

[kokomi]

I've chosen Korean because the level of play and teaching materials are better than Japan's. Also, the language takes much less time to learn to read than Chinese or Japanese because it uses Hangul, a featural alphabet. The only real disadvantage is it is harder to find adequate English language teaching materials than with the other two.

Level of play is better, really? I'm sure the difference between the top korean pros and the top japanese one is less than two stones, so unless you're an aspiring pro I can't see this making a difference.

Definitely true about the alphabet though, kanji is a serious pain.

two stones!!!!do you mean 20 moku? exagerated =,=!!!

[nagano]

I suspect that what nagano is meaning, by better teaching materials, is that someone spending the same effort with their materials improves faster.

What I mean is there is an organised curriculum for all levels of players. Maybe Japan has something like that by now, but I haven't heard of it. In an interview with the head of a Japanese Go school I read recently, which I cannot currently find, the question "What training method do you use?" was asked. The shocking reply was (paraphrased) "We basically let the students do whatever they want. We have no plan." What? If this is true, no wonder Japan is behind.

[Kirby]

For improving with go, I think, you can use any of the study materials from any of the CKJ countries.

What will differentiate you comes from within yourself. There may be differences in the types of curriculum, etc., and people have their own opinions about this.

To the OP, I think you should form your own opinion, get some books, and then study. You don't have to worry about the details of countries.

[schultz]

For improving with go, I think, you can use any of the study materials from any of the CKJ countries.

What will differentiate you comes from within yourself. There may be differences in the types of curriculum, etc., and people have their own opinions about this.

To the OP, I think you should form your own opinion, get some books, and then study. You don't have to worry about the details of countries.

Again, I think it goes back to two main things:
1) Which one are you more interested in?
2) Which one will be easier to find real people to help you practice?

The first one will keep you going, the second one will actually help you learn and keep up in all that you've learned.

And like Kirby said, most of the differentiation will come from yourself. I have all kinds of go books, but they only do as much good as the time I put into them (very little currently ). So right now, I'm not too worried about the "level" of the material when I can't even get myself to work on them anyway.

[Mivo]

Learning a language is something personal and individual, especially if you get to choose the language. Which of the three cultural backgrounds appeals the most to you? In my case, it would be China's background, both cultural and philosophical, as well as the history, so if I had the time and motivation to learn a fourth language, Chinese would be my choice. (I really should, seeing how my partner is half-Chinese, though only her relatives speak Chinese, she doesn't.)

From a job perspective, Chinese might be a good choice as well. Huge, widely still "closed" market and very many people who speak the language (without being likely to speak English). If China opens up more, and it just might over the next few decades, there will be numerous opportunities for people who are fluent in English and Chinese.

But as I said, I think it's a personal choice. Like art.

[hyperpape]

The point about difficulty would extend to European languages with grammars, historical origins and suchlike similar to English. For the same reasons that an English speaker has a substantial edge learning German, and a mild edge learning French, speakers of those languages would face the same difficulties in learning Chinese.