But to compare the visual elements of these two languages speciously offers a fair playing field wherein the semantic indicators provided “h-a-p-p-y” are tested according to rubrics external to their system. I suppose everyone already knows this, but we fall into the trap anyway. Lantian is perhaps correct to suggest that his cognition has been honed to pick up on visual clues in Chinese writing that remains beyond his capacity in his native language, if only because the value of the “h-a-p-p-y” is first and foremost designed to stimulate an audible pattern (and in audible patterns it may or may not be proven true that one has more difficulty picking out roots as semantic indicators).

If one were truly seeking to measure the comparative efficiency of these two languages in this aspect, one would at the very least need to add a parallel question to the one Lantian posed above: Does knowing how to accurately, atomistically (breaking them down to singular phonemes) represent the-sounds-one-makes-which-one-comes-to-recognize-have-been-given-the-significance-of-words (i need a good, meaty, Heideggerian German word for this, not linguistic terminology; and yes this “accurately” is contestable) provide a greater frequency of reinforcement for terms already learned and more provisions for the acquiring and redeployment of new terms than learning, say, 26 characters and expecting them to elucidate a chinese language (via their use as components) the way the Roman alphabet does for English?

An aside:
Wise to remember that the Spartans were known for laconic speech (where the term is derived from, in fact), yet never matched the Athenian capacity for rapid deliberation, decision-making, or pragmatism. They did have the one Bush-making quality of “conviction”, though.

I think this is a good idea. I ‘ll take you up on it. We just committed to a slew of new ideas last week. You’ll start to see them in the coming weeks. This could be an edition to the format.

Ken Carroll

I like how she said “The point is to express an idea.” How about mixing up the podcasts with a different format, instead of a dialogue and then a breakdown.

How about discussing how to express something. First propose an idea, for example “I really like China” Then the scripted dialogue would have short little vignettes with different ways of expressing the thought.

A: Hey Joe, so how’s it in China?
B: It’s good, I like China.

A: Joe, doesn’t the traffic drive you crazy?
B: Not really, I’m kinda used to it. I like China now.

A: Joe, how was Shenzhen?
B: The city is great, it’s amazing how fast China is changing.

Then a chat about it afterwards.

The above example kinda is too much just sentences, I’m thinking more kind of like some stories or something. Just some format that makes us first start thinking about expressing something. Rather than the ‘detective’ clues of trying to figure out the dialogues.

This is why it is also better to learn Mandarin through lexis rather than grammar - through lexis you learn what Chinese people are most likely to say, rather than a sentence that illustrates a piece of grammar.

Ken Carroll

An example: 当我回来的时候，
In french this sentence would be translated by “Au moment où je suis rentré”. But though it is grammatically correct no one would say it and rather use : “A mon retour”. 3 little words.

And the same could be done for the sentence : 我脱了鞋走进教室。
“J’ai retiré mes chaussures pour entrer dans la classe”. But depending on the context, the action of taking off the shoes might not be the most important and the simple “J’ai pénétré la classe pieds-nus” would be enough.

Sorry for using french, my english is not good enough.

The claim in the original article, that 1000 Characters are enough to read 90% of current publications, is quite clearly wrong. Let’s put it this way: Suppose you read an article in the news, and what you read is
“On Sunday, Vice President … again defended his role as a leading … for invading Iraq, for a … program and for … treatment of suspected …”.
So, yes, you can read 90% of the words, but you still cannot understand the text with crucial words missing. Hence, as Michele said above, you need well above 1000 characters to understand a fraction of what is going on in a newspaper.

Next, the disconnect between written and spoken language makes acquisition of words so much harder. In Spanish, I can hear something, and I can look it up. Or I can read something, and connect it to something I heard earlier. This is obviously much harder in Chinese.

Finally, to Lantian’s disingenuous claim about the “meaning” hints:
“And I also get bonus hints to guess at words like 打开 or 放心. What do I get for knowing the letters h-a-p-p-y? Does hap get me any bonus hints? Does p-p mean anything?”
Well, no, p-p doesn’t mean anything, but say a few strokes in a character don’t mean anything, either. Some mean something, fair enough. But the same holds true for English - there are so many English, Latin, or Greek roots that do give you a hint to the meaning.

“galaxy” - milky way, as in “lactose” - milk sugar, as in “fructose” - fruit sugar, obviously related to fruit, as is “frugal”. Now, here, already, you see a problem - recognizing that “frugal” might be related to “fruit” does not really tell you much about its meaning. “dis+in+gen+uous” is, well, “apart” or so, “in” or “not”, then “birth/born”, and an adjective ending. So, what does it mean?
Even if you recognize the “lac” in “galaxy”, you won’t be able to conclude what it means without, well, knowing it. Same, lamentably, holds true in many Chinese compounds - you say that knowing “心” gives you a hint in guessing the meaning of “放心”. Well, it might, or it might not. I am sure I have learned that first character, but I don’t know it now. It’s probably pronounced “fang”, and might have something to do with space, or square. And there is the culture aspect to it. So, “space culture heart” - does it mean generous? Maybe, I don’t know. Oh, wait, the first character is “to place, to put”, so “put heart”? Emotional? To really put all your heart in an issue, so committed? Maybe, maybe not.

In other words, the “hints” of meaning might be just as present (or, well, not) in (compound) Indo-European words as in Chinese, and, at the end of the day, you still have to learn what it means.

To cut a long story short: Moser is right, Chinese is hard.

“Ich zog meine Schuhe aus und betrat das Klassenzimmer”

But you won’t say it like this, its only the written version. In speach you would use perfect instead of imperfect