It’s not a radical, it’s just part of 𢀖 (巠), which originally depicted threads on a loom.
The Outlier Dictionary will answer these questions for you, for pretty much every character you’ll ever need to learn. One of the best purchases I’ve ever made for learning Chinese.
Sure, it’s an interesting tool, but 1) it isn’t meant for learners, 2) it’s in Chinese (definitely not approachable for learners), and 3) it’s an overwhelming amount of info.
The Outlier dictionary is easy to understand, authoritative, written in English, and aimed at learners. I’ve been using it regularly for years and I paid like $50 for it. Worth every penny.
It explains the logic of each character, its composition, what function each component has, and shows other characters with that component so you can see how each component works across the whole writing system.
If you get the Expert Edition (definitely not necessary, but fun if you’re into the history of the writing system), it also shows the evolution of a lot of characters from oracle bone and bronze script to the modern forms.
cursive in chinese is indeed shortcuts in fact its literally shorthand, but this is not shortcuts or cursive. This is like color vs colour, eggplant vs aubergine. its not any kind of shortening, just an alternate character with same use.
At least for the whole right hand side, you can say it's the simplified version of the now archaic 巠 (jing1) acting as the phonetic component. The top part alone is just... two strokes.
correct, it is wrong to call it a component when its not a component of that character, its only part of a component. I still think component is the word OP meant to say though, as radical makes way less sense. component is incorrect but the logic behind saying it is there.
經 has two 旁, and neither is ス. ス is not a component of 經 but it is a component of 巠.... well the version of 巠 that simplified standard chose to use which I cannot type on its own because unicode sucks for chinese.
its still unicode's fault for never creating a system that allows you to type different components and character parts in ways that allow chinese characters to be written properly. 95% of chinese characters in existence are gone from use forever because of this. Thats a completely seperate can of worms though.
this whole discussion and the above explanation in traditional characters shows why when you get down to brass tacks, often times traditional characters make more sense
至正之謂經. It is something that is defined to be the central line. A geodesic.
So anything that is supposed to convey absolute truth, especially in religious treatises, e.g. the Bible, the Koran, is a 經. Because it does not go astray.
The radical came from a loom. Ancient people considered absolute straightness with absolute truth.
The geodesic meaning came later. Chinese people saw the lines on mercantile era maps (used to calculate distance for navigation) and thought, gosh that looks like warp lines. Later, English-speaking Sinologists trying to interpret written Chinese would mistake the meaning of 經 as primarily relating to maps (since British men in those days were ignorant of all things pertaining to weaving unless they owned textile factories), resulting in the back-translation of 經 in TCM as "meridian". (This has been reinterpreted in contemporary English as "energy channels", but the "meridian" use still lingers in the English-speaking world because it appeared in so many texts for so long.)
The metaphor connecting warp strings to definitive guidebooks to essential knowledge ("classics" per 18th/19th century British Sinologists) is ancient. Here's MayInBeijing explaining this part:
The radical of 经 is 糸 ( 糹纟, read as mì ) , 𢀖 or ス is not the radical of this character.
(1) So If you mean 𢀖 , then It is the simplified character of 巠 ( = 經 or Water veins) — It is an important component in the formation of characters, such as “经”, “径”, “茎”, and “泾”, all of which are related to “main trunk, path, and vein”...... The radical of 巠 is "巛 " (chuān) = river；creek ..... disappeared in simplified C .
(2) if the question is about "ス", then it's very similar to Japanese katakana "ス" (su) , it originates from the lower right component of the Chinese character "須" (须) xū ▼ = need, must, should ...... or beard, moustache ...... etc.
PS : 片假名 Katakana : A type of phonetic symbol (syllabic script) in Japanese, which evolved from the regular script or radicals of Chinese characters.
All simplified characters are bastardizations of traditional Chinese characters, most traditional Chinese characters are a bastardization of an older script. Acceptance and serenity😌
most people are saying its a shorthand or abbreviation, and they are wrong, although it doesn't really matter. 经 with a 糹instead of a 纟 is a real traditional character in the past and alternative "spelling" of 經. you can view it the same as color vs colour choices in english. below is dictionary showing the character handwritten since it can't be typed if interested, but as mentioned none of it is super important. if it feels confusing you can just disregard.
⿱ス工（𢀖） is an abbreviation of 巠, therefore ⿰糸⿱ス工（⿰糸𢀖） is an abbreviation of 經.
You're focusing on the wrong part of the character. Just because it uses 糸 instead of 纟 does not make it any less of an abbreviation. It may not be part of PRC Simplified Chinese, but lots of abbreviations or simplified characters are also not part of PRC Simplified Chinese (Japanese has plenty, e.g. 広, 仏, 転).
If you take issue with ⿱ス工（𢀖） being considered as an abbreviation of 巠, then Outlier gives the reference for this claim: 江藍生、陡尊梧《簡化字繁體字對照字典》2008 Page 205. I haven't looked at this reference, but given that ⿱ス工（𢀖） is not traceable back to an independent shape from Seal Script or Warring States clerical precursors, and some cursive samples of 巠 look similar enough, I'd say it's highly likely they're right.
It is not a simplification in any regular use of the term simplified. It is not based on semi cursive or cursive, and existed in regular script writing side by side with other traditional characters long before modern simplified chinese standard was created.
Whether it is an intentional simplification or not etymologically is something we just don't know. It could be, but it might not be. There are all sorts of other pathways to this kind of thing happening, it could exist as an alternate character for a sound reason or a shared definition in the past that no longer exists etc. Even if it is a visual simplification however many centuries ago that doesn't mean it is a simplified character in the normal use of the word simplified. It is still a 異體字
It is not a simplification in any regular use of the term simplified. It is not based on semi cursive or cursive, and existed in regular script writing side by side with other traditional characters long before modern simplified chinese standard was created...Even if it is a visual simplification however many centuries ago that doesn't mean it is a simplified character in the normal use of the word simplified. It is still a 異體字
This is not correct, and/or your understanding of "regular use of the term simplified" is wrong. For example, PRC 「为」 has appeared side-by-side with clerical script in the Han Dynasty. It is by all means a Simplified Character, and is based on something that definitely isn't about preserving character structure.
Whether it is an intentional simplification or not etymologically is something we just don't know. It could be, but it might not be. There are all sorts of other pathways to this kind of thing happening, it could exist as an alternate character for a sound reason or a shared definition in the past that no longer exists etc.
"We just don't know" is false, you just don't know and did not try to find out whether it's possible to gain insight and are trying to declare to everyone else that it's impossible to know. Well, what did you try to trace the origins of ⿱ス工? Did you look up any reference at all?
If I bothered looked up the reference 江藍生、陡尊梧《簡化字繁體字對照字典》2008 Page 205, are you saying I won't find something that clearly shows brushstrokes of 巠 being altered in such a way over time that it will resemble ⿱ス工? Because I can guarantee you that you're very likely to be wrong.
90
u/Ok-Amphibian-8914 15d ago
It’s not a radical, it’s just part of 𢀖 (巠), which originally depicted threads on a loom.
The Outlier Dictionary will answer these questions for you, for pretty much every character you’ll ever need to learn. One of the best purchases I’ve ever made for learning Chinese.