Who's learning japanese here?

[M.Holmes]

I know hiragana, but next to no kanji or katakana. Needless to say I can speak it better than I can read it, but I wouldn't rate myself as proficient with either medium. I'm sure that, like most, I just can't seem to find the time to learn it.

[KangarooGirl]

Hehe I know Mandarin so I can recognise some kanji but yeah I'd love to learn Japanese properly at some point.

[Eclipse]

Mandarin? Isn't a kind of chinese?

[ranger]

Mandarin? Isn't a kind of chinese?

Mandarin is a dialect of Chinese, all east-asian languages are derived from the Chinese language, so they share many common characters.

[Callid]

Mandarin? Isn't a kind of chinese?

Mandarin is a dialect of Chinese, all east-asian languages are derived from the Chinese language, so they share many common characters.

Nope, they're not. Japanese, for example, is quite different from Chinese. In fact, linguists are not quite sure to which language group Japanese (and Korean) belong, but if they are assigned to one, it's the Altaic one. Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetean one.
Japanese does use Chinese characters, but that's the writing, not the language, which is a totally different thing.  For example, Swahili is written with the Latin alphabet, even though it isn't related to the Latin language at all.

[PhoenixTears]

So wait.... you're saying that writing isn't a form of language?

Japanese does use Chinese characters, but that's the writing, not the language

I dunno about you, but I write in English, and that's part of the language.

[Callid]

So wait.... you're saying that writing isn't a form of language?

Japanese does use Chinese characters, but that's the writing, not the language

I dunno about you, but I write in English, and that's part of the language.

No, you are writing Latin characters. It's just that the way you arrange them, the only meaningful way to interpret them is as a written representation of the English language.
To give you an example, let's take "Lack". In English, it means an absence of something needed. In German, it means "varnish". The only way to deduce which is meant is from the context, i.e. the (hopefully only) meaningful way to interpret it. The character sequence "Lack" does not carry a meaning in and of itself, and does not belong to any language. The same goes for any other writing, including Chinese characters.

[PhoenixTears]

Latin characters or not, they're still part of the English language, so yes, I'm writing in English. Writing is part of a language, whether the characters used are originally derived from another language or not.

[Callid]

Latin characters or not, they're still part of the English language, so yes, I'm writing in English. Writing is part of a language, whether the characters used are originally derived from another language or not.

Uhm, no, writing is not part of a language. A language is defined by the units of which it is combined and the rules that define how these units may be arranged. In the case of English, these are certain sounds and sound-combinations (words) and grammar. How these sound-combinations are represented if they are transmitted by another medium (e.g. paper) is not part of the language. Of course, there are common ways by which these transmission takes place, but these are just conventions. In fact, it isn't that uncommon that other conventions are used, for example, to keep the message secret (i.e. cryptography).
To make a comparison with physics: the fact that bodies of a large mass attract each other is always true, and is part of the rules this universe is constructed by. However, mass being measured in (kilo)gram is just a convention - the physical laws remain untouched, even if we use the average mass of a computer mouse to measure them.

[mangaluva]

I think Callid is trying to differentiate between alphabets and languages here. I think he's pointing out that multiple languages can share an alphabet without the vocal language being at all similar, although I think comparing German and English is a bad example there because they do share some linguistic roots :x

[Callid]

I think Callid is trying to differentiate between alphabets and languages here. I think he's pointing out that multiple languages can share an alphabet without the vocal language being at all similar, although I think comparing German and English is a bad example there because they do share some linguistic roots :x

That's pretty much what I'm trying to say, though I wouldn't call it "alphabet", as alphabets are only a specific kind of writing :x
Also, note that the other way around is also true; one language may use multiple alphabets.

[Jd-]

I have only one reaction:

[spoiler]rofl[/spoiler]

[PhoenixTears]

Callid, you're just splitting hairs.

Multiple languages can use the same alphabet, which means that you use the same characters for writing in different languages.

Writing is a part of a language. French and English, for example, use the same alphabet, yet French people (and people communicating in French) write in the French language, whereas people communicating in English write in the English language.

My favorite color is blue. <- English
Ma couleur préférée est le bleu. <- French (apologies if this is horrible French, had to use a translator since I don't remember much)

Same root language, same alphabet (at least, as I was taught, it's the same alphabet and accents are separate, rather than an accented letter being a letter on its own - this could be wrong, so if a French speaker would like to correct me on this, I'll take it), but written in different languages.

[Kaito Lady]

I have only one reaction:

Spoiler:

rofl

^ same here

[c-square]

Time to wade into the battle here (I'll probably regret this...)

The original point of contention was ranger's statement that:

all east-asian languages are derived from the Chinese language

This statement could be interpreted in a few ways.  Let's make it more specific by saying:

"All East-Asian languages contain words, grammar or other features that were originally derived from the Chinese language"

I wonder if Callid would be more agreeable to that statement.  (Or perhaps the same statement replacing the word 'all' with the word 'most')

I'm not going to get into whether or not written characters are part of a language or not.  However, I do believe the fact that Chinese characters are part of the Japanese writing system, and that they often represent words with similar sounding readings and similar meanings, is good evidence to support the statement above.