Talk:茸

Glyph Origin

In my opinion, the glyph origin of 茸 should only be cited as specifically 'Unknown.' if and only if that determination has been made in a reliable source.

I propose the following as the glyph origin of 茸:

Shuowen Jiezi (說文解字): Phono-semantic compound (形聲／形声, OC *njoŋ): semantic 艹 (“grass”) + phonetic 聦 (OC *sʰloːŋ, “聰/聦省聲”).

Vulgar Explanation (民間說法): Ideogrammic compound (會意／会意): 艹 (“grass”) + 耳 (“ear”) – soft as the downy hair on an (animal’s) ear.

In my understanding, a character can be a Xingshengzi and Huiyizi at the same time.

Here are my sources for the Shuowen Jiezi Explanation:

《艸部》茸：艸茸茸皃。从艸，聦省聲。

http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?char=茸

艸茸茸皃。从艸，聦省聲。而容切

http://www.zdic.net/z/22/sw/8338.htm

形声；从艹、聪省声

http://www.zdic.net/z/22/js/8338.htm

I have no source for the vulgar explanation, but it seems like it could easily be a popular saying.

For the time being, I am deleting 'Unknown.' since I know of no source that says the glyph origin of 茸 is actually unknown and I know the Shuowen Jiezi gives a specific explanation for the glyph origin of 茸.

Look forward to working through this process!

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative, While Shuowen Jiezi is a valuable resource, it may not be reliable; we need not follow it like a Bible. With the discovery of the oracle bones and other ancient writings, many of Shuowen's claims have been disproved (e.g. 有). We should rely on more modern sources for glyph origins if possible. I would suggest the Multi-function Chinese Character Database as a starting point. For this particular character, however, Shuowen may be right, and I have yet to see any better explanation. I've removed the "vulgar explanation", as I have not found basis for such a claim. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 21:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Justinrleung, The "vulgar explanation" wasn't my contribution; it was what I found when　I landed on this page. In my experience, many people like to come up with this kind of story to explain characters so I thought it might be reflective of a widespread belief/ tactic for helping students study the character.--Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: I see. If we can find it being widespread, we might want to keep it only as "folk etymology" for lack of a better phrase. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 22:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)