The correct way to write kana (hiragana and katakana) etc
Saturday, September 2nd, 2006 by Agro RachmatullahThe correct way to write kana (hiragana and katakana) - 10:46 AM 9/1/2006
Kana writing is among the first things I learn in my Japanese study. My reference was the Japanese Wikibook.
In writing Japanese characters, there is a prescribed way of writing. The correct way of writing is stressed as important. This is especially so in calligraphy, because the stroke order and direction will greatly affect the final look.
(All the teachings successfully reached me. Writing a Japanese character without really knowing “the correct way” (or deliberately deviating from it) feels like doing a sin without being seen by anyone.)
For example, here’s the correct way to draw あ (a):

The problem with the Japanese Wikibook was that they give the stroke order but not the direction/orientation. Here’s an example:

From that image, you can’t know how to draw the strokes. Is the first stroke drawn from left to right or right to left?
Back then, I didn’t really care about the direction and just use the one that feels right for me: left to right for horizontal strokes and top to bottow for vertical strokes. However I kept a note that someday I will find a reference for the stroke direction.
I actually started the quest some time ago. Tae Kim’s Guide to Japanese Grammar pointed to a site on Geocities for the reference.
Most of the stroke direction matched my usual practice. The surprising ones were ふ, ツ, and ソ. Here are the surprising strokes:

However the real problem was that some of the stroke orders didn’t match Wikibook’s.
The problematic characters were そ, も, メ, and ヲ. Here’s how they differed:

(W is for Wikibook and G is for the Geocities site. Stroke direction isn’t compared because Wikibook didn’t have the information.)
I proceeded to ask about this matter on Tae Kim’s Guide to Japanese Grammar Forum. The summary:
- そ: so can be written in either 1 or 2 strokes. However the shape is different:

- も: Faumdano said that the horizontal strokes are drawn before the vertical one. taniwha said the reverse.
- メ: Faumdano said to treat it like kanji, so it the long stroke is drawn first and then the short one (like 父 and 文).
- ヲ: 3 strokes, with the horizontals drawn first.
I remembered seeing someone copy a book about hiragana and katakana on the library a long time ago, so I was curious what the book had to say about those 4 characters. Yesterday I finally found time to go the the library.
The books were “Let’s Learn Hiragana” and “Let’s Learn Katakana” by Yasuko Kosaka Mitamura. The book’s teaching:
- そ: 2 strokes (with the shape being different from the 1-stroke variant)
- も: vertical stroke first
- メ: long stroke first
- ヲ: 3 strokes
While searching for those two books, I randomly picked “The Japanese Writing System: A Structural Approach” by “Anthony Alfonso”. It was a 1975 book, and its antiquity is obvious from the typesetting. Hoping that the book will reaffirm the contents of Yasuko’s, the book instead surprised me by teaching many characters differently! For the originally-4 troublesome characters:
- そ: 1 stroke
- も: horizontal strokes first
- メ: same as Yasuko’s
- ヲ: same as Yasuko’s
And here are the surprising ones:
- き: 3 strokes. In other sources, the last stroke is divided into 2.
- さ: 2 strokes. In other sources, the last stroke is divided into 2.
- た: 3 strokes. In other sources, the last stroke is divided into 2.
- と: 1 stroke! In other sources, it is 2.
- な: 3 strokes. In other sources, the last stroke is divided into 2.
- に: 2 strokes. In other sources, the last stroke is divided into 2.
The old books seems to use a way of writing that minimizes brush lifting. Here’s one comparison:

But there’s still one more surprising thing. With that “flowing” style, I expected that the stroke count would be less than or equal to the stroke count of other references. However, for ひ, the book divided it into 2 strokes! The rightmost tip is considered a separate stroke.
So, after all that adventure, which will I use?
First of all, except for そ, I wouldn’t consider the reduced-stroke-count variants described in “The Japanese Writing System: A Structural Approach” by “Anthony Alfonso”. The book is the oldest reference I found, so I am led to believe that the writing method is archaic (but probably still used for a specific calligrapy style).
With that in mind, here’s my decision for the 4 characters:
- そ: 1 stroke. The fonts I normally see on computers use the 1-stroke shape. Therefore I’m more familiar with it.
- も: vertical stroke first. The other option is in Anthony’s book so I wouldn’t regard it as wrong.
- メ: long stroke first. Only the Wikibook differs on this matter and until I find another reference I will regard the Wikibook version as wrong.
- ヲ: 3 strokes. Same as above.
PS: I used Paint.NET for editing the images.
新YIC - 10:27 AM 9/1/2006
During my last visits to YIC, I observed these changes:
Reappearance of players: After the holiday, Irham & Welldan is now playing again. Mas Erwin is also making a comeback after doing his final paper.
New players, strong and determined: Hari and Rizki, to name a few.
Of course, a lot of familiar faces are still there: Mas Erik, Mas Jiyuu, Mba Shinda, Gustra, Hyu Zen, Mas Tommy, Mba Hacchan, and Mba Mutia are always around.
I expect YIC to have more active boards this year. Hopefully the increased competition will boost the playing level of YIC.
KKN is over, and I can start studying Go again. However I’m still on the stage of gathering willpower. My last goal was to play at 15 kyu KGS level. Am I there yet?
Word dump: random - 8:04 AM 9/1/2006
Words I’ve gathered for various reasons:
| Kanji | Kana | English |
|---|---|---|
| うちゅう | universe | |
| 雨中 | うちゅう | in the rain |
| 生々しい | なまなましい | fresh |
| 生生しい | なまなましい | fresh |
| あさい | shallow | |
| こい | dense | |
| さす | to raise (stretch out) hands | |
| 父子 | ふし | father and child (son) |
| はい | ash | |
| はっぴょう | announcement | |
| しけん | test |
うちゅう (universe) is an astronomical object but I forgot to include it earlier. I first heard it from Momusu’s “Dekkai Uchuu ni Ai ga Aru”: “dekkai dekkai uchuu ni aru marui marui chikyuu de”.
雨中 is a homophone of うちゅう (universe) and because I know the kanji, I included it. I already know the kun reading of 雨 from 雨水 (うすい, rain water).
As for 生々しい, I encountered the word when searching for “green” in EDICT. However the “green” in 生々しい doesn’t stand for the color green, but for “fresh”.
When searching for color related terms, I found that the kanji 浅 was in the compound for “light blue” and “light green” and 濃 was in “dark blue” and “dark green”. Although I won’t learn the kanji now, I thought it would be worthwile to memorize the words itself. That’s how あさい (浅い) and こい (濃い) got in the list.
For さす and 父子, I forget how those words made into the list.
はい comes from はいいろ (gray).
はっぴょう, that’s a word repeated lots of times in Momusu auditions (”daihappyou daikettei”). Hearing the word over and over without knowing the meaning irritated me, so I searched it in EDICT and put it on the list.
しけん comes from 日本語のうりょくしけん.
With those 11 new words, my word count is 1491.
Memorizing a note? - 9:22 PM 8/30/2006
Memorizing a word? As an Indonesian and English speaker, I’ve memorized thousands of words. Memorizing a color? I know quite a lot of it. Memorizing a note? Now that’s a different matter.
The problem is, I’ve never viewed a musical note in an absolute sense. I know that the note “a” should be so-and-so Hz (actually 440 Hz), but never actually bothered to memorize how that sounds. What I know is how to sing the solfage “do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-(do)” (and any frequency can be the starting “do”).
So, I tried to memorize the note “c” which is 262 Hz (exact? rounded?). Outputing the sound in C# (the language, not the note) is as easy as:
Console.Beep(262, duration);
where duration is in ms (miliseconds, not Microsoft).
I’ve played around with it for some days (occasionally singing the note and comparing it with computer’s output) and still can’t get it anchored perfectly. I usually get “d” or a lower “b”. Harder than expected!
PS: My knowledge of music theory is close to nil so I may have misused some terminologies.









