Well, when I started reading I probably only knew about 60-70% of the words I saw I wrote about this in detail elsewhere but suffice it to say I made very rapid progress by skipping literally everything I didnât understand â most of the time not even looking up words unless I was totally lost, all in pursuit of increasing the chances of encountering grammar or vocabulary that I had recently studied. Iâm not going to pretend itâs for everyone, but it worked for me and I was certainly reading well above my level for the first few months. Fortunately mass exposure works by magic so it turned out alright in the end.
Just not sure I can get on board with this one. A friend of mine has been on Duolingo for almost three years (ever since they first added Japanese support) and heâs still functionally illiterate. Why? Duolingo is fun; itâs got that whole gamification thing and my friend is consistently at the top of the daily leaderboard. Duolingo is also easy; the total vocabulary across the whole course is super limited and the quizzes are almost all multiple-choice. Somehow, this friend of mine is still functionally illiterate.
Obviously, itâs a silly comparison. Everyone (hopefully) knows that Duolingo for Japanese is bad. The Japanese-learning community Iâm part of constantly has people coming in asking what the difference between ăă ă and ăăă is, and nearly every time itâs because Duolingo doesnât properly teach combination kanaâŠand thatâs just one easy example.
The point is that on the gradient of Easy/Fun vs Difficult/Boring, thereâs a huge range of possibilities besides âmake it as easy as possibleâ. Max difficulty+max boring? yeah people are probably going to drop out. That doesnât mean that going all the way to the other end of the spectrum is the best answer.
Quick edit to add something I forgot earlier (regarding ânative material by native speakersâ):
It seems almost disingenuous to say âwe have a native Japanese translator on the teamâ when the output has so evidently been altered in a way that no normal person would speak. It makes me think of books like âFun with Dick and Janeâ, which are full of phrases that, while grammatically valid (âLookâ, said Dick âSee it go. See it go upâ) donât in any way reflect actual language.
Iâm not sure if I feel better or worse about the ăăă»ăă consolidation now that I know it was a conscious decision. Maybe better, because at least it demonstrates that it wasnât done out of ignorance â you at least know the difference between the two. But maybe worse, because you willfully made a choice to contradict the information in the guide, which I feel like I personally would be even more confused by (âif ăă means âthat over thereâ, then how far away is âover thereâ? is it for things that you arenât holding directly in your hand?â)
I dunno. Itâs very frustrating. Iâve probably spent more time than was prudent on this topic.