[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Kanjidic and JLPT kanji levels



I think it would be better to leave the entries as-is and let people determine on their own which kanji from which JLPT level they should study. Everyone's going to have their own definition of which ones should appears in which of the new JLPT levels. In the long run it would probably be more convenient for people to use the old levels as a reference point since those levels were better defined by the Japan Foundation/Japan Educational Exchanges and Services.

-Matthew

--- In edict-jmdict@yahoogroups.com, Jim Breen wrote:
>
> As some of you will know, the JLPT has changed from having 4 levels
> of tests to 5 levels. The actual change involved inserting a new intermediate
> level below level 2, and renumbering the lower levels; 3->4 and 4->5.
>
> At the same time, they announced they were no longer going to publish
> lists of kanji and vocab for each level - "Therefore, we decided that
> publishing
> "Test Content Specifications" containing a list of vocabulary, kanji
> and grammar
> items was not necessarily appropriate."
> See: http://www.jlpt.jp/e/faq/index.html#anchor28
>
> At present in Kanjidic I have tags assigning kanji to the old levels
> 1-4. It would
> be easy to amend the levels 3 and 4 tagging, but there is no clean solution
> for splitting the 739 kanji which were listed for level 2. Some sites
> are offering
> lists for the 5 levels, but it seems the people running the sites are
> making their
> own split. Nothing authoritative is available.
>
> Since a lot of apps, etc. draw on kanjidic, I think it's important not
> to put out
> misleading information. I'm also reluctant to withdraw the lists entirely.
>
> What I could do is renumber them thus:
>
> 1 - 1
> 2 - 23
> 3 - 4
> 4 - 5
>
> and make clear in the docs that they are the 2010 lists retagged, and that no
> later lists are officially available.
>
> Alternatively, I could just leave the old lists there with a note about why they
> are not updated.
>
> I think I favour the first approach. Any comments?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jim
>
> --
> Jim Breen
> Adjunct Snr Research Fellow, Japanese Studies Centre, Monash University
>