I'm curious why the shape of a primitive/component would be different in 2 different kanji using the same font. I'd rather not bother trying to be so careful with minute differences if they really don't matter...or even exist?

For eg: With some fonts, the shape of the "anti" primitive in 板　and　仮 is the same. However with the font I use, HGPKyokashotai, the "anti" in 仮　is different: the top stroke extends over the vertical stroke. (It looks more like a ceiling over walking legs).

I've noticed the very same thing. It may be related to the fact that 仮 is not really part of the 反 family of characters but is actually a simplified form of 假. That also explains its ON reading of カ (like 暇). Beyond that, I suppose it's only a stylistic thing. Only a few cursive fonts seem to show a difference, and it's marginal at best.

Likewise, in some fonts, 栃 is drawn with a drag primitive instead of a cliff. This doesn't seem to happen to 励 though. I don't know why... It tripped me up when 栃 came up in a review and I thought I had made a mistake. These issues are similar to 辻: one or two dots in the road primitive? It doesn't really matter as long as you know it is the road primitive: you recognize it either way.

While I don't think bothering to memorize these stylistic differences is important for someone learning kanji, it definitely helps to be aware that they exist and that using primitives as building blocks for kanji isn't an exact science. I often wish it were, though...

[Katsuo]

Thora Wrote:"anti" in 仮　is different: the top stroke extends over the vertical stroke. (It looks more like a ceiling over walking legs).

Number 1183 "equip" 備 is also drawn that way in the kyokasho fonts I've used.

WolfErrant Wrote:It may be related to the fact that 仮 is not really part of the 反 family of characters but is actually a simplified form of 假. That also explains its ON reading of カ (like 暇).

I see. So 仮 gets lumped with the other non-"anti" "cliffs" (if you can understand what I mean!). Also... interesting that an etymological fork-in-the-road might explain some of the exceptions to the phonetic component readings. I hadn't thought about why. Thanks

btw What is a good source for kanji etymology? (Wrightak's recommended text in Japanese is bit more (in content and price) than I need.)

Yes, I suppose learning what's a variant and what's a meaningful difference happens gradually. I can recall having trouble with the 夂, 夊 and 攵radicals.

Katsuo Wrote:Number 1183 "equip" 備 is also drawn that way in the kyokasho fonts I've used.

Yes, I remember noticing that once. We must all be using the same font...

Thora Wrote:I see. So 仮 gets lumped with the other non-"anti" "cliffs" (if you can understand what I mean!). Also... interesting that an etymological fork-in-the-road might explain some of the exceptions to the phonetic component readings. I hadn't thought about why. Thanks

You're welcome! I love to find regular patterns and to organize things systematically. That's why I loved Heisig when I came across it. But there are enough exceptions in any systematic classification of kanji to keep the study interesting .

Thora Wrote:btw What is a good source for kanji etymology? (Wrightak's recommended text in Japanese is bit more (in content and price) than I need.)

I use http://www.kanjinetworks.com (if you use Firefox 3, I suggest using a different browser for accessing it, it has issues). I'm not certain how authoritative it is, but there is enough fascinating material there to satisfy my curiosity for quite a while yet.

By the way, according to it, 備 is 人 + a pictograph of arrows in a quiver (makes more sense than my story for equip!). So once again, 艹, 厂, and 用 show up in the character but are unrelated etymologically. Thankfully, though, over time the form of the character has adopted the shapes of common primitives which is what makes methods like Heisig so useful.

Thora Wrote:Yes, I suppose learning what's a variant and what's a meaningful difference happens gradually. I can recall having trouble with the 夂, 夊 and 攵radicals.

I know that I didn't care about any of this when I was doing Heisig. It's only when I started learning readings and finding exceptions and running into variant or old forms of primitives that I started getting interested in the etymology of the characters.

But you're getting ahead of me there. The extent of my studies don't cover the difference between 夊 and 夂 and I know little about the historical radicals. They seem like a bit of a kludge to me. I mean, 井 is completely unrelated to 二, etymologically or otherwise, right? But this is just a hobby for me anyway .