警告
警戒
戒告
And
廃絶
廃棄
投棄
I hate all of these with burning passion.
They are so similar to me, that I never know which is which. The reading is no problem.
1 Like
Oh, I’m struggling with those too right now lol.
And what about all those ～佐 millitary ranks? I never see them mentioned, am I the only one who has trouble with those?
大佐、中佐、少佐
1 Like
Another one:
灰 = Ashes → Ash
聴 = Listen → Hear
尞, 炭 = Charcoal → Coal
2 Likes
Colonel, lieutenant colonel, major.
Mnemonic idea: It’s kind of ironic how “major”, which literally suggests “great” or “big”, is the compound with “少” in Japanese. I think of Colonel Sanders (KFC dude) for 大佐 and lieutenant Colonel is naturally second in rank. I think I failed these twice before getting them…
Another switcheroo: the longer compound word
石炭 takes the shorter English gloss “coal”, while the shorter single kanji vocabulary 炭 (すみ) takes the longer “charcoal”.
I have trouble with the nonsensical “炭鉱”. In what universe is a “charcoal mineral” a “coal mine”? Thankfully it’s the only weird one for “鉱”…
All compounds for “廃” except “廃棄” and “廃墟” are given as “abolition”. All compounds ending with “棄” (放棄, 投棄) except “廃棄” (disposal) can be “abandonment”.
(Edit: in the WK vocab)
5 Likes
Ah, you’re right! Added now 
My b!
3 Likes
@RachelG
Can you or the mods explain to me the difference between a ‘discussion’ and a ‘conversation’? Because I keep getting wrong answers when I interchange the answers and it’s starting to drive me up the wall 
.
This is from Merriam-Webster:
Merriam-Webster also lists them as synonyms:
So I don’t know if I’m missing a subtle nuance there but I’ve never been told:
- I had a conversation with my friend about this.
- Oh you mean a discussion.
- Oh yes, sorry, my bad, thanks for correcting me.
I must admit this is grinding me gear a bit 
.
6 Likes
I’m not sure if this is the difference in nuance that you’re dealing with here (and indeed, it might not matter much in many cases), but a ‘discussion’ usually has a certain topic or set of topics, whereas a ‘conversation’ is simply an exchange, and can be completely unstructured and random.
In the example you gave here though,
yes, they’re completely interchangeable.
4 Likes
You might be right but WK is usually a lot more flexible when it comes to synonyms so I think it’s likely an oversight. You’re approaching this from a linguist perspective. I’d say that on a day-to-day basis the nuance is too small to justify a word being used in a context or another.
1 Like
Not that I want to argue, but I’d say that I definitely pick one or the other just because of the nuances I just mentioned, and I do it regularly. For that matter, ‘discussion’ has a tendency to be a little more technical, so I’d probably default to ‘conversation’ unless I’m thinking about an exchange that was quite focused and went fairly deep into a certain topic. It’s not something I do very consciously, but more of something related to how each word feels. (E.g. ‘join the conversation’ sounds open and inviting, if a little more formal than ‘come talk’, whereas ‘join the discussion’ evokes the ‘this be serious thread’ meme just a tiny bit more.)
Again, I don’t want to nitpick, and you raised a very good example of when they’re basically the same, but I think it depends on context. Do you have any examples of reviews for which one was considered wrong?
3 Likes
I understand that you’d want to tell them apart but from a learning perspective to set the two apart is counter-productive to me. I think to say that ‘conversation/discussion’ is wrong in a context to a student is borderline pedantic (to me). I’m not saying you are, you certainly have the right to meticulously use the right term in the context as you see fit. If the dictionary identifies them as synonyms… well they’re synonyms. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.
談 is one which comes to mind.
3 Likes
If you like, sure. It’s just that even synonyms are always context-based. That’s why they’re listed in a certain order, and often split based on how the word is used. That’s all I’m saying. ‘Discussion’ and ‘conversation’ do overlap a lot though.
For this kanji, is that right? OK, I don’t know which translation is preferred, but then yeah, I’d say no difference. Or better yet, 談 easily covers both and more, so there’s no point differentiating the two. I mean, you could say that 相談 is more a type of ‘discussion’ than a ‘conversation’, especially since the concept is a little more formal and focused, but from the kanji, it’s essentially about two (or more) people talking to each other, which leads to a consultation or an exchange of advice. Neither word is necessary to begin with.
3 Likes
Again, to be clear, I didn’t call you pedantic. Just to further develop this as I want to make sure my idea came across:
What I was/am trying to say is that the context of WK is different than a conversation between linguists.
In a pedagogical context, to tell someone that ‘conversation’ is wrong and ‘discussion’ is right is, in my opinion, counter-productive. You might argue that they’re not exactly the same, that there is a nuance there and I’d agree with that.
But considering the binary standpoint of WK (right or wrong), to have ‘conversation’ as right and ‘discussion’ as wrong; that’s what I’d call pedantic and counter-productive.
If two proficient English speakers want to debate the difference between the two words, that’s a different context, the end goal isn’t the same.
Just to clear, I was worried I might have given the idea that I was insulting you in some way so I wanted to make sure to clear it up.
2 Likes
Nah, don’t worry. I didn’t take it that way. I just felt that I wasn’t really taking it from the ‘linguistic’ point of view as much as I was just considering how each word tends to be used. In other words, I felt that what you said implied that my analysis was quite technical, which I felt wasn’t true. But OK, I know you’ve done some language teaching and you’ve studied how it should be done, whereas I haven’t (I just explain things to friends and on these forums for fun), so I understand why you’re bringing up pedagogy.
What I was trying to get at is that if, for whatever reason, the way a kanji/word is used is such that ‘conversation’ (or ‘discussion’) is completely wrong all the time as a translation, then that definitely should be included in what’s being taught. That’s why I felt context was important. On the other hand, if they are not too different for the purposes of understanding, then yes, that is pedantic, and we shouldn’t insist on using one word over the other.
My understanding is that “discussion” involves stating one own position or ideas (usually with the aim of having them adopted by the other you are talking with)
While “conversation” is talking with someone.
“Discussion” is more like a fight, you can win (or lose) a discussion. Wining or losing has no sense for a “conversation”; which is more like having a dinner with someone, it can be enjoyable.
PS: I think I see where your trouble comes from. In French the meaning of “discussion” is very blurry, and it is used in modern current French as a synonym of “conversation”. I think in English the distinction is sharper (it definitely is in Spanish, a “discusión” Is not a synonym of “conversación”)
Definitely this. I think there is more of “consultation”, “counseling” and “discussion” in 相談. One goes to a teacher or mentor for 相談. The 談 points in that direction, I think. 話 would be for more “conversation” related stuff.
I completely agree. That’s why it’s a good idea to add user synonyms as soon as a new vocab item pops up 
. That’s what I do for each review session since a couple of levels.
There is yet another group of words in that ballpark, I think, like 討論, 討議 and 議論.
On the topic of “close but not close enough” I would call into question this one:
I am somewhat certain this kanji does not mean “surpass”, but rather “exceed”, considering that it’s used in neutral (過去) or somewhat negative context (〜過ぎる). “Surpass” assumes positive context and there is 優 which carries that nuance.
4 Likes
think of it more like this. All discussions are conversations, but not all conversations are discussions. A discussion is a subtype of conversation. saying they are the same is like saying that since a tiger is a type of cat then they words tiger and cat should be synonyms.
having one word mean discussion and the other word mean conversation should imply that the word that means discussion has a more serious meaning behind it.
2 Likes
Rachel’s away on vacation this week so feel free to just tag Mods in case one of us can’t respond!
It looks like you got a lot of answers below in this thread…is there a specific kanji or vocabulary item that you think we should look into (unless you want to use your own user synonyms)?
Just to add, I guess you can have those two words be interchangeable but I personally only use the word discussion if we have a chosen topic and we have some sort of goal or reason for that discussion. Conversation to me is a bit more casual, and I’m not really going about with an agenda in mind.
3 Likes
@Jonapedia
My experience teaching doesn’t trump anything. I just don’t want to get a wrong answer if the synonym I’ve put forward works. It means I have to review that word over and over again when the answer I’ve given should be accepted.
I disagree with your hypothesis. I don’t think ‘discussion’ and ‘conversation’ have different meanings in French and in English. The etymology is the same, both from latin.
‘Discussio’ and ‘Conversatio’. Actually, if I understand my dictionaries correctly, the words originated from Latin to French and then to English. While you might argue that the meaning changed when it was borrowed from French, I don’t think that’s the case.
Regardless, the question is:
The thing is that for 談, it’s the meaning of a kanji, not a word. If it were the meaning of a word, it’d be easier to decide whether or not ''discussion" or “conversation” is ok. If the a Japanese word does make the distinction between “discussion” and “conversation” then I’d want to know so what I’m essentially asking here is: “Is it the case here?”
If I search for “discussion” I get this kanji: 議 for ‘deliberation’/ ‘discussion’. So is WK teaching that conversation is 議 and discussion is 談? If that’s the case, that’s the way I’m going to learn it.
What I wanted to bring up was whether or not this is the case. 対談 means ‘conversation’ according to Jisho. This means that if I use 対談 to refer to a ‘discussion’ is inaccurate. The kanji 談 (on its own) means ‘discuss’ however.
If that’s the case, when it comes to the individual kanji of ‘談’, does it convey exclusively ‘discuss’ or can it mean both ‘conversation’ and ‘discussion’?
談論: discussion
談合: discussion
I can understand that a combination of kanjis doesn’t mean the resulting vocabulary word keeps the meaning of each individual kanji, i.e. the word is the combination of both kanjis. Still, 談 seems to come up pretty often in ‘discussion’.
I was under the impression this was an oversight on WK. If that’s not the case and the difference is distinction is there, then I’ll learn it that way.
By the way, on another note, 百 accepts ‘100’ in digits but 万 doesn’t accept ‘10 000’. If I search 10000 it comes up with some results in the WK search bar so I assume it would accept it. I was under the impression people often wrote: 15 000 or 110 000 (with a space).
2 Likes
I get that, but what I meant was that maybe that was related to what you found ‘pedantic’. But I said that before I knew exactly what kanji/words you were talking about, so I guess it’s not relevant.
Yeah, pedantic was crossing the line. I was irritated yesterday (could you tell 
). If someone starts saying that 10000 and 10 000 are like cats and tigers though, I’ll turn Super Sayan.
@xplo
I agree with your sentiment provided that the distinction is a nuance. WK probably needs to balance accuracy with flexibility.
1 Like