Does anyone know of a pair of distinct characters (other than the pair 土/士) whose two elements are identical in appearance, except that one uses the 士 radical where the other one uses 土? (This question is not limited to RTK characters.)

In other words, is it meaningful to distinguish these two primitives.

TIA!

I know a few Chinese people who mix them up all the time. But yes, it is useful to distinguish them. That's what we have RTK for.

It's pretty important not to mix up similar looking primitives. While Japanese people will probably still understand the kanji, you will definitely be made fun of if they are friends of yours. Trust me, before RtK it happened quite a few times.

Ryuujin27 Wrote:It's pretty important not to mix up similar looking primitives. While Japanese people will probably still understand the kanji, you will definitely be made fun of if they are friends of yours. Trust me, before RtK it happened quite a few times.

As I said, in this particular case, it sure looks like "a difference that makes no difference." It makes no difference while reading stuff, since (I gather) there is no pair of kanzi (besides 土/士) in which the distinction between the two of them hinges solely on being able to distinguish the radical 土 from the radical 士. It makes no difference while typing kanzi using a computer, for the same reason. And it makes no difference when writing, judging by the fact that, in handwriting, the two radicals are routinely substituted for each other. (Again, I repeat, none of this applies to the full characters 土/士; here I'm talking only of the radicals 土/士 as used as part of more complex characters.)

Here's one very concrete example of this last point, which comes from my (ancient) copy of RTK 1 (3rd edition, 1986, ISBN 0-87040-739-2). In this version at least, all the characters are presented in handwritten form in a section in the back, and the handwritten rendition of #343, 詰 ("packed") clearly uses the incorrect radical 土, instead of the correct one, 士. I reason that, if even in a case like this one, in which the handwritten character was written carefully for a didactic purposes, the writer disregarded the distinction between the 土 and the 士 radicals, then it is to be expected that in everyday handwriting this distinction also disregarded as a matter of routine.

It would be interesting to see more examples of handwritten versions of 詰, to see how often the lower horizontal stroke of the upper-right quadrant radical is kept short.

More generally, it would be great to see true a collection of kanji as they appear in true everyday handwritten Japanese, as opposed to artistic calligraphy, using a pen or pencil, rather than a brush. I have not been able to find such a collection online. The only one I have is the one that appears in the back of my RTK1, so I can tell how common the particular error I just mentioned is.

BTW, my (also ancient) copy of the Nelson dictionary also disregards the distinction, and treats the 士 radical as merely a variant of the 土 radical.

If you are using your imaginative memory to create mnemonics for the kanji, you will have zero (read that: Z - E - R - O) problems keeping the two distinct from each other. I fail to see why anyone would want to go out of their way, knowing there is a difference, and memorize a bunch of kanji incorrectly.

jajaaan Wrote:If you are using your imaginative memory to create mnemonics for the kanji, you will have zero (read that: Z - E - R - O) problems keeping the two distinct from each other. I fail to see why anyone would want to go out of their way, knowing there is a difference, and memorize a bunch of kanji incorrectly.

Why are you telling me this? It's irrelevant to my question. I asked: "Does anyone know of a pair of distinct characters (other than the pair 土/士) whose two elements are identical in appearance, except that one uses the 士 radical where the other one uses 土?"

Do you know the answer to this question? Do you of know such a pair of characters? If not, then why do you insist in answering a question that was never asked?

Sheesh.

未 末

Is another example, on their own people will never mess them up but in context of other Hanzi I've had some very well educated teachers mess them up before.

That's not a good example because those characters don't have the components 士 and 土 in them.

I don't know of any pair of characters that differ only in those elements, but gfb345, you asked two questions -- people were answering your second question, "In other words, is it meaningful to distinguish these two primitives." Yes, it is.

gfb345 Wrote:

jajaaan Wrote:If you are using your imaginative memory to create mnemonics for the kanji, you will have zero (read that: Z - E - R - O) problems keeping the two distinct from each other. I fail to see why anyone would want to go out of their way, knowing there is a difference, and memorize a bunch of kanji incorrectly.

Why are you telling me this? It's irrelevant to my question. I asked: "Does anyone know of a pair of distinct characters (other than the pair 土/士) whose two elements are identical in appearance, except that one uses the 士 radical where the other one uses 土?"

Do you know the answer to this question? Do you of know such a pair of characters? If not, then why do you insist in answering a question that was never asked?

Sheesh.

U mad

A canonical example is ? and 吉. One of them may not show up properly depending on your computer settings and/or this forums' restriction. It's not that important to distinguish ? and 吉 when it comes to daily kanji use, but the two kanji are both used in proper names so it might be better to know there are two versions. It's a fairly common problem to unable to write/print one of the versions on a PC.

In a practical sense I think you can get away with it as long as you know 土 and 士, i.e., it's not that big of a problem not to know which is which when it's a component of a complicated kanji. But I guess it's not a huge waste of time to learn the proper form of each kanji because a longer stroke vs. shorter stroke thing can make a big difference in some pair of kanji such as 未 vs. 末.

Handwriting and penmanship are personal things to a large extent. Some people like to write letters and characters beautifully rather than properly. Some prefer efficient writing styles to write them quickly. It's also a good habit to always write clearly rather than beautifully or efficiently. Of course, there are people who don't give a crap. Also, standards are much lower when it comes to non-native speakers' writing. Personally I don't recommend ignoring the difference, but it's all up to you as long as your handwriting is legible.

By the way, there is a famous Japanese adage that says, "Your penmanship represents who you are."

Yeah as Megaman said



Take the first character for example, on the first character, ink, the last stroke isn't extended. I personally love exaggerated extensions when writing characters, but meh who am I to judge a Chinese calligrapher's work.

magamo Wrote:A canonical example is ? and 吉. One of them may not show up properly depending on your computer settings and/or this forums' restriction. It's not that important to distinguish ? and 吉 when it comes to daily kanji use, but the two kanji are both used in proper names so it might be better to know there are two versions. It's a fairly common problem to unable to write/print one of the versions on a PC.

That's really good to know. I was not aware that ? was still in use in any way. Also, the proper-names angle is an important one that I tend to overlook. Thanks!

BTW, it's insanely hard (I've discovered) to find examples of handwritten Japanese online, other than calligraphy, of course. (Nothing wrong with calligraphy, but there's too much artistic license going on in it to be a good indicator of everyday handwriting practices.)

Here's the best one among the (very) few that I found:

http://kanji4.us/language-learning/handw...sample.jpg

Far more legible than waitperson's scribbles in the occasional check at a Chinese or Japanese restaurant.

More on its origin here.

I have not been able to find a systematic/comprehensive collection of handwritten Chinese characters of any kind, which surprised me a little, given how much general info on the subject one can find online. Maybe as tablet-laptops become more common we will have more of these samples...

Buy a dictionary of pen-ji..

Your linked pic looks nothing like a real person's normal handwriting, it is clearly stylized. That isn't unexpected since it's a flyer.

Jarvik7 Wrote:Buy a dictionary of pen-ji..

Well, I couldn't find any such dictionaries for sale online (a difficult task if one can't yet read Japanese very well), but having the ペン字 keyword made all the difference. I immediately found some very cool samples of Japanese handwriting. They still look artistic/stylized, but some of them at least have the appearance of rapid writing. For example:

http://www004.upp.so-net.ne.jp/penji/p_saku6.htm

Very cool-looking stuff! If I were to try to learn any Japanese calligraphy, this is what I'd be going for...

Thanks for the pointer!

gfb345 Wrote:Why are you telling me this? It's irrelevant to my question. I asked: "Does anyone know of a pair of distinct characters (other than the pair 土/士) whose two elements are identical in appearance, except that one uses the 士 radical where the other one uses 土?"

Do you know the answer to this question? Do you of know such a pair of characters? If not, then why do you insist in answering a question that was never asked?

ATTENTION EVERYONE

If you are thinking of making a post in this thread that does not answer the question in the first paragraph of gfb345's first post, stop now. It is a violation and misuse of this thread.

If you are thinking of commenting on the merit of distinguishing 士, and 土 thorughout the study of RTK, forget about it. That's Not The Question gfb345 Asked (even if it is).

As you were.

JimmySeal Wrote:

gfb345 Wrote:Why are you telling me this? It's irrelevant to my question. I asked: "Does anyone know of a pair of distinct characters (other than the pair 土/士) whose two elements are identical in appearance, except that one uses the 士 radical where the other one uses 土?"

Do you know the answer to this question? Do you of know such a pair of characters? If not, then why do you insist in answering a question that was never asked?

ATTENTION EVERYONE

If you are thinking of making a post in this thread that does not answer the question in the first paragraph of gfb345's first post, stop now. It is a violation and misuse of this thread.

If you are thinking of commenting on the merit of distinguishing 士, and 土 thorughout the study of RTK, forget about it. That's Not The Question gfb345 Asked (even if it is).

As you were.

(Don't feed the troll.)