The Phantom Category of Chinese Characters

Author: Lawrence J. Howell (admin at kanjinetworks dot com) 17 April 2013 Keywords: Chinese characters; categories; semantic compounds; ; networks Attempts to arrange Chinese characters logically have a long history. I joined the crowd about ten years ago with an online dictionary that highlights word families of characters based on ancient pronunciations. Typically, however, lexicographers and other compilers present the Chinese characters in groups based on visual cues. An early and famous example is the (Shuwn Jiz; early second century CE) of (X Shn), which distributed characters by (bshu: headers, or classifiers; habitually mistranslated as "radicals"). and earlier references describe the characters as being of four types: Pictographs, Ideographs, Phonosemantic Compounds, and Semantic Compounds. (Another two types concern usage, not typology.) Pictographs and ideographs are self-explanatory. Phonosemantic compounds combine 1) an element suggesting both the character's pronunciation and a concept and 2) a purely semantic element. An example of a series of phonosemantic compounds is , in which the phonosemantic element is . In all of these characters, suggests the pronunciation and also a concept: Spread in alignment (to right and left). "Semantic compounds" is one of many ways the Chinese term (huyz; Japanese: kaiimoji) has been rendered in English. [1] The category was devised because X Shn and the commentators who preceded him lacked data (forms of the characters inscribed in oracle bones and turtle pastrons, excavated only at the end of the nineteenth century CE) and analytical tools (reconstructions of the Old Chinese pronunciations of the characters) available to modern scholars. As a result, they were hampered in detecting the phonosemantic element in certain characters and in tracing how the phonosemantic element became altered or was lost when variant forms took over as standard ones. The traditional four-category classification scheme remains the norm even in scholarly treatments of Chinese characters. This holds true despite the fact that, as we will see below, questions about the validity of the semantic compound category have been in circulation for nearly two decades. This paper argues that is a phantom category, devoid of substance as a descriptor for how compound characters were actually formed in ancient China. It concludes that interpretations of Chinese characters and their arrangement into meaningful networks will benefit by eliminating from the traditional classification scheme. Terminological note: This treatment of refers to Chinese characters, (hnz: "characters of the Han"). Characters created in Japan (: kokuji) are not , merely modeled after them, and so are excluded from consideration. Lagging Scholarship Here follow five statements taken from recently published scholarly papers. " ... is a Logical-aggregate character , where the signifies 'meat' and the signifies 'a person down on his knees.'" [2] " (forest) follows the principle of 'combined' ideogram: it is a stack of three (tree)." [3]

" + = "; " + = " [4] " can be decomposed into (one) and (a person standing up, or big)." [5] "Initially, the character (sky) refers to the head, the primary part of a person, by placing a bar over the character (person, big)." [6] How Things Actually Work Let's examine the statements (and mathematical formula) in reverse order. The top horizontal line of (Proto-Chinese: *tan [7]) is not *kat "one." Nor is it a bar, but a single-stroke character pronounced *tan that represented the horizon. This now-disappeared character also appears at the bottom of *tan, which originally indicated the sun rising upon the long, flat line of the horizon. In both and , the horizontal line functioned as the phonosemantic element of the compound character. How do we arrive at the conclusion that the horizontal line in and is distinct from *kat, and that its pronunciation was *tan? By inferring, from conceptually related characters, the pronunciations of elements that did not survive as independent characters. Like all *tan characters, and are informed by the concepts Straight (the concept conveyed by initial T-) and Adhere/Be Proximate (conveyed by final -N). Compare *tan ("dawn"), which too is connected with the sun rising over the horizon in bringing the light of morning. The variant oracle bones styles of show a squarish object below the sun, as opposed to the horizontal line in the present style. This object is also seen in some oracle bones variants of , although most show the horizontal line. The present state of evidence does not allow us to determine what the object was intended to represent, but what we do know is that as time went on it dropped in favor of the horizontal line, which was taken as referring to the horizon. As the completely different pronunciations tell us, this line was etymologically distinct from the independent character . The line and the character were written identically, or nearly so, but normally when an element disappears it is absorbed into another, more common one that in early stages of the characters was clearly graphically distinct. In the present form of *tat, the original elements (a chisel + a hand holding a bar) have morphed into etymologically unrelated ones ( *kan and *tug). The apparent + construction prompted the early commentators to reason that because lacks an element that can convey the sound *tat, the character must have been created purely for the semantic value of and of . Nowadays, however, we can discover the phonosemantic element of *tat by comparing it with a cognate term, *tat (tongue). Characters belonging to the *tat word family are informed by the concepts Straight (the concept conveyed by initial T-) and Cut/Divide/Reduce (conveyed by final -T). Representative characters in this word family include (originally: cut/trim to control the growth of a tree) and (originally: chop/cut lumber). In , the top element was a slender chisel. The addition of *kug mouth indicated the slender, chisel-like tongue protruding from the mouth in speaking. Given that and are cognates, and that the chisel element in is the phonosemantic element, we can infer that it performs the same function in as well. As a side note, observe how the chisel in came to be written (speaking), another overlap with . Chinese Characters are not Mathematical Formulas Now let's turn to the formulas + = and + = . To assert " + = " makes sense only on the premise that what is being discussed is the way

 appears, as opposed to the way was created, which is an entirely different matter. *mang ("bright"; "clear" etc.) originally combined *kuat moon + not *nat sun/day but *kang (penetrate a window or hole), indicating bright moonlight penetrating an open window. was the phonosemantic element, via consonant shift in the initial from K- to M-. As we have seen above with respect to character formation, it would be nonsense to claim that + = . The same applies to the equation + = . For its part, *lam is most certainly not *muk + *muk. Rather, is a representation of two trees, devised in accordance with the phonosemantic influence of initial L- (Continuum) and final -M (Encompass). originally indicated (multiple) trees growing alongside each other and encompassing villages, sacred ground and other spaces. If the formation process of seems counter-intuitive, recall the role of ancient readings in revealing how, despite appearances to the contrary, the horizontal line element in and is not the independent character . With having been brought into the discussion, we can continue working in reverse order to treat the statement: " (forest) follows the principle of 'combined' ideogram: it is a stack of three (tree)." Attuned as we are to the sounds of the character, the *lam pronunciation of is a tip-off that is not *muk + *muk. The same attention to sound permits us to determine that *sam is not a stack of three *muk but rather a combination of the semantic element and the phonosemantic element *lam. The transition from L- to S- between *lam and *sam represents another example of consonant shift in the initial, as we observed in the K- to M- shift between and . Abbreviated Elements in Compound Characters Now we arrive at the first statement: " ... is a Logical-aggregate character , where the signifies 'meat' and the signifies 'a person down on his knees.'" Before plunging into an analysis of , let's review the key points. Elements contained in ancient and present forms of compound characters are not necessarily identical. When the elements are not identical, the ancient readings of the characters can provide important interpretive clues. These clues are obtained by analogy with cognate terms. Cognate terms refers both to terms pronounced exactly alike and to those in which consonant shift is at work. (Some terms feature vowel shift.) Here is an additional key point: Elements in compound characters are often abbreviated forms of more complex, cognate characters. After considering the information presented in the three charts that follow, we will be prepared to discuss the etymology of . In Chart 1, we can confirm the use of abbreviated forms in compound characters by means of our eyes. Note how part of the phonosemantic element is eliminated when the semantic element is inserted.

Chart 1: Abbreviated Elements Verifiable by Sight 1 *kar *tag *tog 2 *kar *tag *tog 3

*pam *pam

1 = Character/Proto-Chinese Pronunciation; 2 = Abbreviated Phonosemantic Element/ProtoChinese Pronunciation; 3 = Semantic Element Note: For scholarly reconstructions of the Old Chinese pronunciations of the characters in Chart 1 and in those following, see the Appendix of this paper. In , the element at lower left has disappeared in being replaced by . In , the disappeared element is , a reduced form of water. Meanwhile, it may appear that the same element, , vanished when added hand/action indicator to an abbreviated form of and when added mountain to an abbreviated form of , but this is not the case. The "lost" of is a variant of fire that appears in characters such as , , , and . In bird, the four strokes were originally part of the pictograph on which is based. In Chart 2, we can confirm the use of abbreviated forms of elements in compound characters by means of our ears. Note the cognate pronunciations of the compound characters in Column 1 and the abbreviated phonosemantic elements in Column 3. Also note the unrelated pronunciations of the apparent constituent elements in Column 2, the kind of discrepancies that led early analysts to the mistaken conclusion that some characters were created as semantic compounds. Chart 2: Abbreviated Elements Verifiable by Sound 1 *kan *kuan *tang *tat *tog *tuan 2 *mok *pog *puat *puat *tar 3 *kan *kuan *tang *tat *tuan 4

*suan *tog

1 = Character/Proto-Chinese Pronunciation; 2 = Phonosemantic Element in Disguised Form/ProtoChinese Pronunciation; 3 = Abbreviated Phonosemantic Element/Proto-Chinese Reading; 4 = Semantic Element Notes: A) Having been devised later in history, has no proto-Chinese reading; its reading is via *pog, the parent character of . B) is the traditional form of *tat. Another example is *nog (phonosemantic element *kog), with consonant shift in the initial. In Chart 3, we can confirm the use of abbreviated forms of elements in compound characters by

how they are attested in ancient forms of the characters. A handy online reference for reproductions of these and other ancient forms is chineseetymology.org. For and , refer to the bronze inscription style; for the others, the seal inscription style. Chart 3: Abbreviated Elements Verifiable by Ancient Forms of the Characters 1 *kuang *kuan *pog *sag *sat *tang *tog 2 *kuang AF *suan AF *kog Rock damming a stream *sag *tang *log Arrow 3

(= AF *sat) Narrow ridges

1 = Character/Proto-Chinese Pronunciation; 2 = Ancient Phonosemantic Element/Proto-Chinese Pronunciation; 3 = Semantic Element Note: AF = Abbreviated Form of Note the pronunciation shift in the initial consonant for , and . Having familiarized ourselves with the use of abbreviated forms of elements in compound characters, we are now prepared to examine . To say that, with respect to , the element "signifies 'a person down on his knees'" is not entirely mistaken, although *pag is a pictograph of a person spread flat on the ground (not "down on his knees"). signifies "spread" in many characters, including , , , , , , , and , the Proto-Chinese pronunciations of which were all *pag. The pronunciation *puar for suggests that the element in is not the original form. By inspecting various of the seal-inscription forms of another character cognate with *puar ( *puar), we find that in too the element now written was originally identical with the kneeling figure that features in . That is to say, the kneeling figure element now transcribed as in and as in functioned as the phonosemantic element in both compound characters. Further, just as we saw abbreviated forms of elements at work in the characters listed in Chart 2 (and for some of the characters in Chart 3), so too in is the element an abbreviated form, in this case bearing the concept "aligned" that is attached to . The conclusion is that , like , , , , and , is by no means "a Logical-aggregate character" but rather, like all compounds, a phonosemantic character. Additional Examples Let's inspect two more characters that are generally denoted as semantic compounds: and . As it happens, and are phonosemantic compounds via a mechanism now familiar to us from the discussion above: The use of abbreviated elements. *kog ("rest; stop") is person with being an abbreviated form of the phonosemantic element *kog (a dehydrated or withered tree): A person resting against a withered tree. As for *kog ("like"; "prefer"), woman is the semantic element and is the phonosemantic element.

In ancient times there were (at least) two characters used to represent a child. One (*sag) was a pictograph of a small child. The other (*sog) was a pictograph of a small child with (rapidly) growing hair. is the present-day form of the *sag character: The *sog character went out of use, and so eventually did the reading *sog, but not before it influenced the pronunciation of . In *kog, the *sog character is the phonosemantic element, via consonant shift in the initial (S- to K-). Reasons for the Absence of Among Chinese Characters It has been posited [8] that the apparent absence of a phonosemantic element in the characters regarded as semantic compounds can be explained by secondary readings borne by these characters in ancient times. This proposition is almost as much a phantom as the category itself. To be sure, it was not unknown for characters to possess secondary readings in ancient times. As the example of suggests, it was also not unknown for the secondary reading of a phonosemantic element to influence a compound character, but such cases are extremely rare. The mechanisms at work in the transformation or loss of the phonosemantic element in the characters traditionally regarded as semantic compounds are quite transparent. There is no need to conjure up unattested readings to account for the apparent absence of phonosemantic elements in these characters. The mechanisms detailed above include: Absorption of Unrelated Character/Element Abbreviated Phonosemantic Element Consonant Shift etc. etc.

Here are others. (PE = Phonosemantic Element; PC = Phonosemantic Compound Character) PE Lost in Character Simplification Unrelated Element Substituted for the PE Entire Character a Variant of a PC Character Devised from Part of a PC Consonant Shift in the Final PE Died Out and was not Absorbed into another Character PE Unrecognized on Account of Rarity (Note: In , the slanting strokes were originally written as ) Identifying the lost/transformed phonosemantic element in all alleged semantic compounds is labor intensive but a productive undertaking that is well worth the effort. Conclusion As a descriptor for how compound characters were actually formed in ancient China, the category is meaningless. All characters assigned to this category originated as phonosemantic compounds; the apparent absence of a phonosemantic element is accounted for by a variety of transformation mechanisms. Supplement: Application to Creation of Elemental Character Networks What practical difference arises from how we interpret Chinese characters? Let's look at another piece of data that appears in the recent scholarly publication entitled, "Chinese character structure analysis based on complex networks." [9] The abstract of this paper states, "We ... simulate the formation of Chinese phono-semantic // (//) ( ), (/), /, ( ) *puan (PE is *puat) (PE was a bamboo tube) ( )

characters using bipartite graph theory. The bipartite graph model generates non-Poisson distributions and disassortative mixing as the empirical networks, which effectively explain the origin and formation of phono-semantic characters." [10] But how effectively can the origin and formation of phonosemantic characters be carried out when a network presents etymologically unrelated characters in a single network? Figure 2 of the paper offers *tan in a network with *mog and *sag. Such a network is completely flawed: The only way it can be significant is if the element is the common factor. However, in *mog, *tan (field) is the semantic element, with *sog the phonosemantic element (in the reduced form ) via shift in the initial consonant. Much worse, the element in is not "field" at all but rather derives from a pictograph showing a profusion of fine bones in fontanels (open spaces in an infant's skull [over which the skull bones eventually fuse]). This fontanels element was once an independent character with the pronunciation *kag, as can be deduced from the phonosemantic compound *kag (the traditional form of ) where the semantic element is *nan (human figure). In other words, the *kag fontanels element been transformed in , coming to be written . As we know from the discussions of , , and , this sort of transformation is commonplace. To find the flawed network of , and in a scholarly work that purports to "... effectively explain the origin and formation of phono-semantic characters" is astonishing. Suggestions for Elemental Networks of Chinese Characters How should constructors of elemental networks of Chinese characters proceed? To ensure that the networks are based not on (apparent) similarities in the present-day forms but on actual etymological relations, it is necessary to expunge all data that assumes the viability of the category, elucidating the phonosemantic nature of all compound characters. Taking a network centering on as an example, the only characters qualifying as proper members are those in which functions as the phonosemantic element (, , , , etc.). As for characters such as and , in which is either the semantic element or a replacement element for a character no longer in existence, students may find it helpful if network creators distinguish them by color or other method and cross-reference them to their appropriate networks.
Notes [1] Other English glosses of the term include logical aggregate characters, ideogrammic compounds, associative compounds, compound indicatives, compound ideographs, combined ideograms, and semasiographs. [2] Ho Cheong Lam: "A Critical Analysis of the Various Ways of Teaching Chinese Characters"; Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 2011, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5770; Page 12 of electronic version at http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v8n12011/lam.pdf [3] Xiaoyong Yan, Ying Fan et al: Efficient learning strategy of Chinese characters based on network approach; March 8, 2013; Page 7 of electronic version at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.1599v1.pdf [4] David Al-dabass and Manling Ren: "Interweaving of Syntax and Semantics in Algorithms For Recognising Chinese Characters"; Undated; Page 1 of pdf version downloadable at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.105.9675 [5] Xiaoyong Yan et al op. cit. Page 1 [6] Xiaoyong Yan et al op. cit. Page 7 [7] Proto-Chinese readings in this paper are reconstructions by the author and his research collaborator, Hikaru Morimoto. [8] Boltz, William G. "The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System." 1994: American Oriental Society, pages 104110, ISBN 0-940490-18-8. [9] Jianyu Li and Jie Zhou: "Chinese character structure analysis based on complex networks." Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Volume 380, 1 July 2007, Pages 629638. Figure 2 as noted at Abstract Page at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437107002105 [10] Ibid.

Appendix: Scholarly Transcriptions of Old Chinese Terms Listed in Charts 1-3 1 = Character 2 = Schuessler, Axel: "ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese." http://www.scribd.com/doc/133129806/ABC-Etymological-Dictionary-of-Old-Chinese 3 = Starostin StarLing Database Server Chinese Characters http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/query.cgi? basename=\data\china\bigchina&root=config&morpho=0 4 = Baxter-Sagart Old Chinese reconstruction, version of 20 February 2011; William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart; order: by radical and stroke http://crlao.ehess.fr/docannexe.php?id=1203 (Note: StarLing Database Server gives two readings: Preclassic Old Chinese and Classic Old Chinese. When the two are the same, the reading is listed only once.)
1 *gi *ki (None) (None) *dkh (None) *t *ti *khns *muk *kns *s-win *win *tre 2 g(h)j kj (None) b(h)(r)am; b(h)(r)am dk (None) t; tm (None) khns (~ -rs); khnh mhuk kns; knh whin (None) (None) 3 (None) *kj *bom {*[b](r)om} (None) *dak {*[d]ak} *s-tak-s (None) (None) *kar-s {*ka[r]-s} *C.muk {*C.m(r)[u]k} *ken-s {*[k]en-s} *s-in {*s-[]i[n]} *i {*[]i[]} *tre (None) *te *t<r>ip-s {*[t]<r>ip-s} *m.lit {*m.li[t]} *tu *tsun-s {*[ts]u[n]-s} *s.tu-s *lun *l aj *l on-s {*l o[n]-s} *N-ka *ka *ar {*[]ar} (< uvular) *s-N-ar I! *pew *ew-s *ts {*[ts]} (None) *d {*[d]} *m-t du-s {*[d]u-s} *C-ru 4

*pts < *pops ? pts; pc *t (None) *m-dit ? (None) *tshns *-u *dn *lhe or *lhai (None) *w *kw *wan *dzwan (!) (None) (None) *ts (None) *d *d (None) *r t; t tit lit th; thm shns; shw nh tu; tu (None) (None) ns (~ -rs) wnh gh; ghw k; kw or uar; wan phew ew c (~ c-); c chots; chwac d(h) d(h) d(h)u; d(h)u rh; rhm