From: rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns)
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan
Subject: Re: jiten FAQ?
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:26:58 GMT
	<1992Apr10.173319.5113@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Cambridge Research Lab, Digital Equipment Corp.

In article <1992Apr10.173319.5113@cs.yale.edu> horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne) writes:

   From: horne-scott@CS.YALE.EDU (Scott Horne)
   Date: 10 Apr 92 17:33:19 GMT

   In article <RWK.92Apr10113713@taunton.crl.dec.com>, rwk@crl.dec.com (Bob Kerns) writes:
   <
   <I think it would be very helpful to people if there were a FAQ
   <list about various Japanese dictionaries (wa-ei, ei-wa, kan-ei,
   <kan-wa, wa-wa, picuture-wa-ei, electronic, pocket, or whatever)

   Yes, but this is likely to result in a flamefest.  If anyone posts a FAQ
   with which I disagree, I'll prepare a counter-FAQ.

Sigh.  And here I thought you were finally starting to act
like a reasonable human being lately, instead of a knee-jerk
flamer.  But if you want to be a jerk, I'm not going to
stop you.  I'm going to ignore you instead, and avoid the
flame-fest.

Look, I have NO PROBLEM with including opinions which differ
from my own.  It's kind of insulting that you would assume
that I would.

You're also welcome to write your own FAQ.  But frankly, I suspect
mine will be a lot more useful, because it sounds to me like you'll
exclude any point of view that doesn't square 100% with your own.

If you don't mind, I'd like to include some of your message directly
in the FAQ.  The issue of lookup schemes is certainly an important
factor to consider in choosing a dictionary.  If you don't want me
to do this, I'll make the point myself.

   Spahn and Hadamitsky is annoying.  Frankly, I wish I hadn't bought it.
   First, it violates Scott Horne's Dictionary Principle No 1:  DO NOT EVEN
   THINK ABOUT INVENTING YET ANOTHER CHARACTER-LOOKUP SCHEME.  New students
   of Japanese may (or may not) find S&H's scheme more convenient than the
   tried-and-true (or at least established; that's good enough for me) scheme
   of Kang1 Xi1 (the one with 214 radicals); but they're going to have to learn
   the latter sooner or later, anyway, and they (and we) shouldn't be bothered
   with using all the various schemes which exist now.

Actually, for any dictionary that I use more than a few times, I
really don't find learning the lookup scheme to be an inconvenience.
If it's worse, THAT I find to be an inconvenience, but adapting to
S&H's scheme was, on the contrary, a small improvement.  It's other
benefits more than offset this.

I agree, introducing your own scheme isn't worth it.  Yet even Nelson
plays a few games like this.  But sometimes having alternative schemes
available helps, like when you're stumped as to what a slightly damaged
character is.  (That only helps people like me with several character
dictionaries, of course).

But I think you overstate the case.  Perhaps the same rigidity you
display in not tolerating other opinions means you cannot be flexible
in how you look up a character.

The people you should save your venom for are those who use the
straight stroke-count scheme.  Now THERE'S something that will
waste your time, turning pages.  Easy to learn; impossible to
use.

   Second, it is cheaply produced yet expensively priced.  For $40+, I expect
   signatures, not just glue.  (They could at least put the thing in a box.)

This was a real problem, but if you read my recent post, it has
been fixed.  By means of it being published by a different publisher
(Cheng & Tsui).  Don't ask me why Nichigai thought it was even remotely
plausible that a book that large could be perfect-bound.  I eventually
hardbound my copy; I haven't gotten around to making the box yet,
but I will.

   Third, it is full of characters of *NO* (yes, I said "*NO*", not "limited")
   use.

I think this is a silly gripe.  The amount of space consumed is negligable,
and publishers DO have a vested interest in silly marketing points like this.
It's hard to fault them for wanting to sell their book.

I'll include it anyway; as you point out, judging a dictionary
by whether they include this is a foolish approach.

   Spahn and Hadamitsky would do well to work on clearer, better definitions
   (and perhaps some examples of usage) instead of gimmicky nonsense.

My personal priority would be for MORE definitions of jukugo.
If I want BETTER definitions, I can then turn to a wa-ei jisho.

So why don't you be helpful, and suggest what you think the best
Xang1 Xi1 kan-ei jiten is?
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan