> I actually think this is because our opinions differ. I'm running under the assumption that "learning Japanese" involves all aspects, spoken and written. You're running under the assumption that "learning Japanese" involves only being able to speak the language.

You've rather misconstrued what I'm saying. I object, specifically, to the idea that the writing system determines pronunciation. It's also less than clear (it is contentious among educators, at any rate) that learning the writing system first is the best way to learn Japanese -- although, hey it worked for me.

If you want to argue that you have to learn the writing system that Japanese people use to read and write Japanese and hope to have people understand you, well, of course that's true, but it's so blindingly obvious I don't know why you feel the need to argue about it.

> the country isn't going to change all their signs to romanizations of the language just so they can find their way around town.

Probably a bad example since you have to go pretty damn far afield before the signs aren't all also in the Roman alphabet.

Also, nobody says "x-go ga sittemasu" to mean "I know such-and-such a language."