is an extended sense from ‘melt, dissolve’), whereas for ‘scrape’ 刀/刂 ‘knife’ was added, giving 削. Thus, while we find ‘resemble’ given as the central meaning of 肖in character dictionaries, its associated meaning in 消 and 削 is ‘small, make small; scrape (and make small)’.
In most of the examples above, members of the same word-family share a common graph element as phonetic. Note, though, that the graph element that serves as phonetic within a particular word-family is not necessarily always the same; in fact, often it is different, as the example below shows:
word-family: ‘round, surround’ (TA1965:619-20)
垣 (‘fence, hedge’) original meaning: ‘encircling earthen wall’; the phonetic is 亘.
玩 original meaning: ‘hold and fondle precious stone in cupped hands’; the phonetic is 元.
Conversely, one and the same graphic element can have different associated senses (representing different word-families) in different graphs, as in the following example:
隅 (‘corner’) original meaning: ‘folds/creases in hills’ (禺 here represents word-family with core meaning ‘bend, complicated in detailed way’ [TA1965:307-11]).
愚 (‘foolish’) original meaning: ‘mind is stiff/inflexible’ (禺 here represents a word-family with core meaning ‘stiff ’ [TA1965:313-15]).
In addition to reconstruction of words in early Chinese by means of the methodology of historical linguistics, reliance is also placed on information gleaned from early dictionaries such as Shuowen jiezi (see Section 5 below). Often there is scope for variation in interpretation of what can be gained from this method also, and so scholars frequently differ in their analysis of a particular word or graph. To give just one example: while Schuessler acknowledges 里 may represent a member of a word-family meaning ‘divide into equal sections’, he questions this as the basis for ‘village’ as an extended meaning, on the grounds that prehistoric and early historic Chinese villages ‘probably were not systematically planned’ (AS2007:349). This kind of diversity of interpretation is reflected in the individual entries in this book, many of which give alternative etymologies for the same graph. Thanks to the cumulative efforts of scholars both premodern and modern, a vast amount of knowledge on historical stages of both the Chinese language and the script has been built up, but even so, much of that knowledge is as yet tentative and incomplete, and further work is needed.
The above summary of word-families in Chinese in relation to the script has been presented in as straightforward a way as possible, but this is a complicated area involving significant linguistic technicalities and interpretation of material. Scholars often diverge in their analysis of the phonetic component of graphs, hence frequently several different interpretations are made. In the analysis of the graphs in this book, for word-families reliance has been placed on the published work of established scholars, particularly Tōdō, Mizukami, and Katō.
4 Fluctuation in the Script: Variant Forms
In handwritten texts, even in an alphabetical script with a modest number of different symbols, some degree of variation in the shape of individual signs is common. The potential for shape variation naturally increases in the case of a script that uses hundreds if not thousands of separate symbols or graphs. In Chinese and Japanese texts, variation in graph shape from the earliest period onwards is often seen. This situation is normally handled by taking one form of a graph as representative, and other forms as variants. The earliest major dictionary of Chinese characters compiled in China, the Shuowen jiezi, sets out over 9,000 characters. Each entry begins with a character in seal form which served as the standard, but in some cases an alternative form is noted. Thus, for instance, the Shuowen has 鬽 as the entry heading—and hence main form—for a word meaning ‘malevolent spirit, demon’, and notes 魅 (the standard form in modern Japanese usage) as an alternative form. This illustrates the point that the standard form of a graph in one period can change to be regarded as the variant form in another period. An early example of a dictionary focused on character shapes, prescribing which ones were to be used in official texts as opposed to corresponding variants, is 干禄字書 Ganlu zishu (Character Dictionary for Seeking a [Government] Stipend; J.: Kanroku jisho), a work compiled around the beginning of the eighth century by 顔元孫 Yan Yuansun (? – 714 AD). What is a variant form in one country or jurisdiction can occupy the position of standard in another. Variant forms are in fact very common in all historical periods, though possibly less prominent today due to such factors as widespread education, official script simplification in countries/jurisdictions such as Japan and mainland China, and the regularizing influence of computerization of text with its relatively limited support of variant forms. Other examples of variant forms, selected here at random, are 畄 for 留 ‘stop’, and
5 Early and Pre-Modern Character Dictionaries
A number of character dictionaries are referred to in the explanations for individual characters listed in this book, and so these are described briefly below for the convenience of readers. Titles in Chinese characters are followed by the Chinese romanization of the title together with an English translation and the corresponding Japanese romanization.
説⽂解字 Shuowen jiezi (Explanation of Indivisible Characters and Analysis of Compound Characters; J.: Setsumon kaiji)
In discussing the beginnings of character dictionaries in early China, mention is sometimes made of a few short texts of characters for learners such as 急就篇 Jijiupian (Rapid Access Text; J.: Kyūshūhen), compiled in the 1st century BC. Whether these warrant being regarded as actual dictionaries, though, is questionable, and raises the question of how the word ‘dictionary’ is defined.
The first Chinese character dictionary proper to have survived from early times is the Shuowen jiezi. Completed ca.100AD, this was a large-scale work and one which was highly innovative in that it organized characters according to a system of formal recurrent elements (radicals or determinatives, 540 in total). The compiler 許慎 Xu Shen (J.: Kyo Shin) (born sometime in the period 58–75 AD, died ca. 147–149 AD), set out the small seal forms for some 9,400 characters together with a number of older and variant forms. Xu Shen analyzed the meanings of characters, dividing them into indivisible characters (文) and compound (i.e., divisible) characters (字). Through his work he provided valuable insights for later generations of scholars. Xu Shen’s analyses cannot be relied on in all cases, as he was limited by not having access to very early bronzes or oracle bone characters. However, in assessing and understanding his analyses, modern scholarship is in a position to make allowance for this. Unfortunately, the surviving manuscripts of Shuowen jiezi are all late, with the earliest dating from about 850 years after the time the work was compiled.
For the present book, reliance has been placed to some extent on the treatment and recognition of individual seal forms by scholars such as Mizukami Shizuo, and to some extent on the variorum text of Shuowen jiezi with its parallel modern Chinese translation (published 2009, Wanjuan Publishing Co.).
⽟篇 Yupian (Jade Chapters; J.: Gyokuhen or Gokuhen)
Dating from the early 6th century AD, this work compiled by 顧野王 Gu Yewang is a dictionary in which 12,158 characters are arranged according to pronunciation. As a general trend, the number of characters listed in dictionaries increased with the passage of time. For the present book, quoted excerpts from Yupian appearing in scholarly works have been used.
集韻 Jiyun (Collected Rhymes; J.: Shūin)
A very voluminous dictionary completed in 1039AD;
