I’m an idiot so any help is welcome to be honest. Its also cool that you can add your own synonyms if you make up your own radical names. If you prefer an official mneomonic you can just copy paste a dictionary definition on the reading notes and add a synonym, so that’s pretty cool.
I’ve recently reset after about 4 years away and revisiting the basics has definitely brought up some old feelings. I voted useful because in general the radicals are helpful but WK doesn’t follow the original meaning for every radical nor does it follow “traditional” mnemonics. So, I find myself unmotivated to take them too seriously here.
1 Like
After a while, they are useless and counterproductive, but at first they are somewhat useful (as a utility in the short-term)
Aye, that was part of my explanation to @CDR-Strawberry.
There are no “official” lists of radicals that everyone agrees on and even standardization efforts like using the Kangxi system are never going to be one to one.
So that makes WK’s list no worse than any of the others. They all adhere to their intended purpose.
I kind of like “radicles” 
2 Likes
That is true, but I don’t think that this:
So that makes WK’s list no worse than any of the others.
is actually a logical conclusion from there.
In a way, everything about language, including the meaning of certain words, is created and defined through consensus. E. g. the meaning of “determination” (a word which we discussed in detail a couple of days ago on here) does not have one canonical definition, different dictionaries define it in different ways, and its actual usage depends on people’s intuition (which is also somewhat individual). And yet, if I said that “determination” means “a small horse from South Tyrol”, I’d pretty clearly be in the wrong.
And I think the same logic can, to an extent, be applied to radicals: they aren’t perfectly standardized but there is to some extent a “canon” of radicals and their names, and I feel like just making up an entirely new set of radicals and radical names is not equally valid as adhering to that canon as long as it is practical.
That is not to say that I disagree with WaniKani’s decision to throw out some of the more obscure radical names and replace them with more intuitive meanings. I am somewhat ambivalent on that decision but I think it kind of works for the purpose of learning. But it does kind of irk me the wrong way that WaniKani doesn’t draw a clear line between the concept of radicals as it is generally understood, and the kanji components that WaniKani misleadingly labels as “radicals”.
3 Likes
I don’t disagree. I think the misunderstanding here is that WK’s radicals really do include a large majority of the traditional radicals. They leave some out and they change some names, but they have been good enough for me that I haven’t had any issues searching unknown Kanji in Jisho using 部首 entry.
The logical conclusion for me is that the differences are tailored to WK’s own system, just as other classification systems will tailor them for things like dictionary lookups.
So I think the internal consistency from WKs point of view makes it just as valid as any other system.
I’d actually argue that the general understanding is that the conflation between “radical” and “component” is so widespread that the distinction becomes a matter of pedantry.
I mean, I still call them radicals because it’s easier to communicate what I’m taking about that way, even when both I and the person I’m talking to know what they really are.
Where I draw the line at is Kanji as radicals. But I just add a synonym and move on.
2 Likes
I’ll be mostly echoing others here, but as I have learned at least one kanji due to radicals and mnemonics, I consider it useful.
What drives me up the wall is when the radical and the kanji are the same - in that case, I don’t like the extra repetition. I don’t see the point. (like Fur) If reviews stack up over the day and I’m encountering the radical and the kanji in the review it annoys me b/c of time spent.
It is better to learn the radicals directly in Japanese instead.
It is useless to know the “scooter” radical when trying to explain a kanji to someone, why not “しんにょう” instead?
How dare you say things that are entirely true, and call me names that are this appropriate?
2 Likes
Because to someone who is just learning Japanese, “shin’nyou” is absolutely, entirely meaningless. Because the radical looks like a scooter, not like a shin’nyou. Because “That is a turkey on a scooter” is easier to memorize than “that is a tori on a shin’nyou”.
(According to Wikipedia, it should be しんにゅう, not しんにょう, but my point still stands.)
3 Likes
I agree with everything else you said, but しんにょう is fine…? しんにょう appears to be older than しんにゅう as well.
Well, I’m not the one who wrote the Wikipedia radical list so…
Not sure where you’re referring to, but this page doesn’t seem to list しんにゅう, while it probably should have it in addition to しんにょう.
And this page, which I was looking at initially after your post, of course lists both.
Ah, I see. That history is what I was exposed to first. It didn’t occur to me either that linguists, teachers/teaching websites, and the average Japanese person probably have different terminology. I just figured WK’s use was wrong after seeing some topics about it. It’s silly now that I think about it to not have considered that.
That is good to know. I’ve used components to look up kanji before but it is good to know there is at least a degree of standardization.
I see, I see. Thank you!
1 Like
Lemme just clarify @alo’s point before you start a crusade. The distinction is this:
Let’s take the kanji 闇, say.
Under the official, technical definition, the radical for this kanji is 門 and nothing else. The components are 門, 立, 日 and 音.
However, since all of those components are also radicals for other kanji, they’re generally just regarded as radicals all the same - for example, in Jisho’s search-by-radical function. But that paragraph above, where I made a distinction between radicals and components? That was pedantry.
1 Like
I’m referring to this one List of kanji radicals by stroke count - Wikipedia
… i mean, Wikipedia being internally inconsistent and / or wrong is definitely not unheard of…
I know it as しんにょう, here is called that way.
I understand what you say, I just didn’t think enough about it, still don’t agree learning something that is just wrong, as the real name indicates how it is written in the Kanji.
Can’t be helped, it is necessary to level up anyway.
I understand alo’s point and agree with it. If you think I’m starting a crusade, maybe re-read the bit you’re quoting.
Oh, didn’t realise you were joking. You tend to come across a bit strong.
… Like this post, for example.
3 Likes
I didn’t see this being mentioned anywhere but I feel like people have missed the point on the usefulness of radicals. They can be extremely useful for remembering or even guessing the onyomi pronunciation since they’re borrowed from Chinese, which also generally has similar pronunciations for similarly written words. For example:
荘、装、壮 (sou)
姓、性、牲、生 (sei)
製、制 (sei)
政、征、整、正 (sei)
精、清、静、青 (sei)
漂、標、票 (hyou)
被、披、彼、皮 (hi)
版、販、板、飯、反 (han)
And this is just off the top of my head. There are a lot more that follow the same pattern. All of these onyomi pronunciations basically come for free once you memorize the major contributing radical (I’ve listed them at the end in all my examples). Yes, there are some that break this rule but it is still a useful shortcut for those times where you just need to guess. Don’t be lazy, learn your radicals!
3 Likes