Absolutely not.
Japanese writing differs largely from Chinese with the exception of a variety of kanji (while the Chinese characters may match in meaning with the Japanese kanji, they are almost always pronounced entirely differently). In addition, they are not even in the same language family, and have different gramatical systems.
According to the 2013 census, 20,200 people speak NZSL, which is related to British Sign Language, though not mutually intelligible.
Chinese bellflower that's what it means in Japanese Chinese bellflower that's what it means in Japanese
Haitian creole and St.Lucian creole are certainly related however there are differences in pronunciation and there are slight differences in vocabulary. St.Lucian creole has been significantly influenced by the English language whereas Haitian creole has not. The two are however for the most part mutually intelligible.
The font is NOT Japanese or Chinese it is binary code. All zeros and ones.
Croatian is not one of the languages available through the Babylon translation software that accompanies online availability of "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" by Gregory Maguire (b. June 9, 1954). Specifically, the book is available for reading online. The complete novel can be read in a number of languages: Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Swedish, and Turkish. Croatian and Serbian are mutually intelligible in terms of grammar and vocabulary, but Serbian may pose a problem if available only in Cyrillic script and if the Croatian language speaker is not comfortable moving outside the Latin alphabet.
Because the person who wrote that encyclopedia didn't have much contact with the Chinese language or Chinese people.
Yes they are related but not mutually intelligible.
Yes. Russian and Polish are separate languages. They are not mutually intelligible.
While Mandarin and Cantonese are both Chinese languages, they are not mutually intelligible. They have different vocabularies, pronunciations, and grammatical structures. Sometimes speakers of either language may be able to understand some basic phrases or context, but overall they are considered distinct languages.
If you mean "close to each" in terms of language, they are not as closely related as you seem to think. Filipino and Japanese are extremely different. Korean and Japanese share some grammatical similarities, and Japanese Kanji evolved from Chinese Hanzi, but the languages are not at all mutually intelligible. A somewhat analogous question would be "Why don't all Americans understand other Western languages like French, German, or Dutch?"
No. Arabic and Amharic are distantly related, but they're too distant to be mutually intelligible.
Yes! Some people find it harder than others to understand the language of the neighbor country, but many words are almost the same. Norwegian is also mutually intelligible with danish and swedish.
Lango language, or Luo, is mutually intelligible with Acholi and Kumam, and related to other Luo languages of Uganda and Kenya
Japanese doesn't have an actual language group like most languages do (e.g. Danish is part of the North Germanic language group, closely related to Swedish and Norwegian), however, I have heard that Korean would be the most closely related, as both languages borrowed common characters from the chinese language and also my guess would be they are reasonably similar given they are geographically close, however, by no means mutually intelligible.
No. While the two official languages of each country are similar, they are not the same, nor are they mutually intelligible languages.
Dari dialect of Persian is only spoken in Afghanistan, but it is mutually intelligible with other dialects, such has Iranian Farsi.
Chinese people who speak Mandarin Chinese may not be fully understood by those who speak Cantonese Chinese due to differences in pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar between the two dialects. While there are some similarities, the two dialects are distinct enough that mutual intelligibility may be limited without additional effort to bridge the linguistic gap.