最近就是查＂最＂字，才知道新出版的牛津字典把＂最＂字列入冂部，因為＂最＂字上方的不是日。以前的字典把＂最＂字列入日部，而非冂部。
竟然是日部！
究竟是康熙字典對，還是牛津對？
看看冒和冑，古代字型小篆是怎樣。
原來像個長袋，或者一個袖，或者一頂帽。
但怎可能與最字有關？原來最字的小篆是這樣。
《說文》最，犯而取也。小篆的最字，好好描繪了從袋裡拿走東西的動作。因此，最字，應該是屬於冂部。
牛津字典修正了康熙字典！
2015年8月27日 星期四
部首之迷
查中文字典，最難是找到適當的部首，字與部首的關係永遠撲朔迷離。可恨的是字典自己沒有附上解釋。
最近就是查＂最＂字，才知道新出版的牛津字典把＂最＂字列入冂部，因為＂最＂字上方的不是日。以前的字典把＂最＂字列入日部，而非冂部。
那麼比較權威的康熙字典呢？
竟然是日部！
究竟是康熙字典對，還是牛津對？
看看冒和冑，古代字型小篆是怎樣。
原來像個長袋，或者一個袖，或者一頂帽。
但怎可能與最字有關？原來最字的小篆是這樣。
《說文》最，犯而取也。小篆的最字，好好描繪了從袋裡拿走東西的動作。因此，最字，應該是屬於冂部。
牛津字典修正了康熙字典！
最近就是查＂最＂字，才知道新出版的牛津字典把＂最＂字列入冂部，因為＂最＂字上方的不是日。以前的字典把＂最＂字列入日部，而非冂部。
竟然是日部！
究竟是康熙字典對，還是牛津對？
看看冒和冑，古代字型小篆是怎樣。
原來像個長袋，或者一個袖，或者一頂帽。
但怎可能與最字有關？原來最字的小篆是這樣。
《說文》最，犯而取也。小篆的最字，好好描繪了從袋裡拿走東西的動作。因此，最字，應該是屬於冂部。
牛津字典修正了康熙字典！
Replying a Question on Shifting of Historian View of Chinese History
One of my old buddies have raised a serious question recently on the certain article without quoting it. Even though I cannot retrieve the reference, I still have some ideas on it especially the argument on the historian view of Chinese history. The key point of argument is about whether we should be treat the Chinese history as the history of Hans only.
Chinese people sometimes refer themselves as Hans. It is because of the prosperity and power of Han Dynasty around 200 BC. That is 2200 years ago. Such naming convention has last for two thousand years. During the Qing Dynasty, the rulers from Manchuria still referred the subjects in area once ruled by Ming dynasty as Hans. You may find that there is a great meal called Manchu Han Imperial Feast.
In 1904, the slogans and the propaganda of Dr Sun Yat Sen revealed that the Manchurian did not belong to Chinese. "To expel the Tatar barbarians (the Manchuarians) and revive Chinese". The "Chinese" here in certain sense was equivalent to Han before 1904.
Therefore, when we follow such idea, we can trace back that the Mongolians in Yuan Dynasty have never treated as Hans. In the Hans' point of view before 1904, the "nation" of Hans was collapsed during Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty.
After the establishment of Republic of China, "Five Races under One Union" became one of major principle which was originated by the Manchurians in the late Qing Dynasty. Hence, the concept of the race "Chinese" was widely spread. The concept has been further changed after 1949 in order to include the 56 races.
If we simply stick to the modern definition of the race "Chinese", it is wrong to treat Chinese as Hans only. On the other hand, you may find that the definition of "Chinese race" is revised by the political power. If we think by simply following the ideas of the authority, it is authoritarian personality. It is not healthy. Moreover, it was very typical in the ancient time especially in China, Japan and India. The Europe in the Dark Age followed the same pattern until Renaissance. The European culture have evolved greatly as well as the scholarly debate afterwards.
Whatever the context is, the scholarly debate can help self-reflection and the revision of the ideology of the society. Thus leads the cultural exploration which can help the societal evolution. Therefore, it is healthy to question or discuss whether the definition of "Chinese race" is reasonable. Proposing various interpretations of Chinese history is acceptable.
It is only not suitable to take any fierce action based on some premature principles.
Chinese people sometimes refer themselves as Hans. It is because of the prosperity and power of Han Dynasty around 200 BC. That is 2200 years ago. Such naming convention has last for two thousand years. During the Qing Dynasty, the rulers from Manchuria still referred the subjects in area once ruled by Ming dynasty as Hans. You may find that there is a great meal called Manchu Han Imperial Feast.
In 1904, the slogans and the propaganda of Dr Sun Yat Sen revealed that the Manchurian did not belong to Chinese. "To expel the Tatar barbarians (the Manchuarians) and revive Chinese". The "Chinese" here in certain sense was equivalent to Han before 1904.
Therefore, when we follow such idea, we can trace back that the Mongolians in Yuan Dynasty have never treated as Hans. In the Hans' point of view before 1904, the "nation" of Hans was collapsed during Yuan Dynasty and Qing Dynasty.
After the establishment of Republic of China, "Five Races under One Union" became one of major principle which was originated by the Manchurians in the late Qing Dynasty. Hence, the concept of the race "Chinese" was widely spread. The concept has been further changed after 1949 in order to include the 56 races.
If we simply stick to the modern definition of the race "Chinese", it is wrong to treat Chinese as Hans only. On the other hand, you may find that the definition of "Chinese race" is revised by the political power. If we think by simply following the ideas of the authority, it is authoritarian personality. It is not healthy. Moreover, it was very typical in the ancient time especially in China, Japan and India. The Europe in the Dark Age followed the same pattern until Renaissance. The European culture have evolved greatly as well as the scholarly debate afterwards.
Whatever the context is, the scholarly debate can help self-reflection and the revision of the ideology of the society. Thus leads the cultural exploration which can help the societal evolution. Therefore, it is healthy to question or discuss whether the definition of "Chinese race" is reasonable. Proposing various interpretations of Chinese history is acceptable.
It is only not suitable to take any fierce action based on some premature principles.