Here is, I think, the original post and the original author.
Edited to add sources.
Kirby wrote:For native korean speakers, that's cool, but for learning korean as a non native speaker, i recommend studying chinese characters - with the korean pronunciation and meanings. For a lot of chinese characters, meaning is similar between chinese, japanese, and korean, but there are sometimes funny differences.
tajimamori wrote:Wow. That's a really good and short lesson of hangeul. I bet those of you who learned hangeul just now are having that awkward moment when you can read everything and have no idea what it means![]()
Mike Novack wrote:This might be a good time to add something to these discussions.
With regard to reading go books in some particular language the problem isn't really the same a learning the language (in full) but learning the language as it appears in a limited realm of discourse. That is usually a very small subset of the full language. That's the reason computer programs can often succeed passing the "Turing Test" (can you tell if a person or a computer) provided the discussion is limited to a small subset of the language.
Has anybody investigated just how large or small a subset of Korean or Japanese or Chinese appears in a typical go book written in one of these languages?
tajimamori wrote:Hmm. I disagree that non-native speakers should learn hanja. It's not used much, so it's not practical to study it. Chinese characters (hanzi/hanja/kanji) are logograms and hangeul uses phonemes. Logograms take longer to pick up. Hangeul is much easier to learn and hanja would just confuse a Korean beginner, unless of course, you already know Chinese and Japanese kanji. I guess if you study all three languages and are fairly comfortable, looking at similarities through hanzi, hanja, and kanji would be an interesting supplement to your learning.
Mike Novack wrote:This might be a good time to add something to these discussions.
With regard to reading go books in some particular language the problem isn't really the same a learning the language (in full) but learning the language as it appears in a limited realm of discourse. That is usually a very small subset of the full language. That's the reason computer programs can often succeed passing the "Turing Test" (can you tell if a person or a computer) provided the discussion is limited to a small subset of the language.
Has anybody investigated just how large or small a subset of Korean or Japanese or Chinese appears in a typical go book written in one of these languages?
By the way, I have a new print edition of learn to Read Korean! I made it just to sell at various bookstores and comic shows in Korea, but it can be snagged along with a bunch of comics (Korean and English) right here:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rya ... inter-2013
Ryan Estrada
http://www.ryanestrada.com
http://www.the-whole-story.com