Talk:隶

@Justinrleung, Frigoris How can the Glyph origin section under Translingual be merged into the Chinese section? It's not clear to me, as Chinese Etymology 1 describes a 簡體字 and Etymology 2 describes a 異體字. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: I've tried something. This should be consistent with some other entries that have multiple glyph origins (can't remember which ones right now, though.). — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 07:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: I wasn't sure if {{Han etym}} / {{Han compound}} was applicable to any of the Etymologies. Etymology 2 is referring to 隶 being a variant of 逮. Unless 隶 is actually the ancestral form of 逮, I'm wary of placing this information under Etymology 2. (I note that Zhengzhang's reconstructed Old Chinese pronunciation is different.) —Suzukaze-c (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Hanyu Da Zidian says "后作‘逮’", so that would mean 隶 may be an earlier form. I'm not sure if this is necessarily supported by the archaeological evidence, though. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 08:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c, I don't think the Glyph origin section is a concern. What goes in there typically explains the evolution of the shapes that constitutes the character, its classification according to the Liushu, etc. In this case as you can see the character is used as variants (or "aliases") to other ones, so the substantial information about Etymologies can simply go into the respective "target" character entries.

@Justinrleung, I think the "隶 as a form of 逮" can be seen in the Guodian codices 《郭店楚簡·尊德義》 as 坓不隶於君子 > 刑不逮於君子.