Radical question

[maji]

Hi,
sorry for this simple question but:
I'm unsure which of the lines of kanji of the Japanese "three" is radical? The one on the top? Or the large one on the bottom. somehow my books tell me only what the radical looks like but not where it is in this case.

 

[Keiichi]

That character has a radical? I would assume it would most likely be the top one since the middle and bottom one would make a kanji for 'ni' (two).

 

[PaulTB]

Originally posted by maji
Hi,
sorry for this simple question but:
I'm unsure which of the lines of kanji of the Japanese "three" is radical? The one on the top? Or the large one on the bottom. somehow my books tell me only what the radical looks like but not where it is in this case.

Does it really matter?

The only reason I can think of that you'd need to know is if you are looking it up in a kanji dictionary in which case they will state where to look first. (For example my huge Tuttle kanji dictionary

0. Character = radical (人、水、・・・
1. Radical on left (体、湖、・・・
2. Radical on right (外、教、期、・・・
3. Radical on top (今、谷、花、・・・
4. Radical on the bottom (想、
etc, etc.

So in your case - if you had my dictionary - the radical in 三 would be the top stroke because you look on the top before you look on the bottom.[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[maji]

Well, I write an exam soon and noticed that I don't know all the kanji radicals I have to know.
Since one possible part of the exam could be marking the radical of a kanji, I need to know which stroke it is.
I also mark the radicals on the kanjis on my kanji cards, and just marking a random one on the "san" is something I would like to avoid.

 

[PaulTB]

Originally posted by maji
well, i write an exam soon

Which exam?

since one possible part of the exam could be marking the radical of a kanji

'Could be'? If it's soon you really should know what aspects are covered by the exam. In fact it'd be normal practice to have done at least one or two past exam papers.

it is important for me to know which stroke it is.

In my considered opinion if they ask 'which stroke of san is the - radical' they deserve writing up for cruel and unusual punishment.

I mark the radicals on the kanjis on my kanji cards, and just marking a random one on the "san" is something I'd like to avoid.

Well seeing as my dictionary approach and Keiichi's logic approach had exactly the same answer you shouldn't have any problem on that score.

 

[Elizabeth]

The kanji 三 doesn't have a radical according to any dictionary I've ever used. It is always instead entered in the "null" section (Oa) where characters are ordered by stroke count and within that the number of intersecting lines. San/Mi obviously coming under Oa3.1.

 

[PaulTB]

Originally posted by Elizabeth
The kanji 三 doesn't have a radical according to any dictionary I've ever used.

In one of my dictionaries there are no '1 stroke radicals' in the other 6 are listed (two of which have two different forms).

WWWJDIC lists the same six (but not the alternative forms) on its multiple-radical look-up page.

ichi 一
bou ｜
ten 丶
no ノ(alternative 'no' is much more vertical)
otsu 乙 (alternative 'otsu' is L shaped)
hanebou 亅

(Not sure those will all display correctly)

So this all goes back to my doubts of the significance of knowing radicals outside of the context of finding characters in a dictionary.

Incidentally in WWWJDIC and the Kodansha Learner's Dictionary 三 is found under 一 radical + three strokes.

 

[Elizabeth]

Originally posted by PaulTB
In one of my dictionaries there are no '1 stroke radicals' in the other 6 are listed (two of which have two different forms).

I remember reading at some point that the historical 214-radical system did recognize six 1 stroke radicals while the simplified, post WWII 79-version set does not. Once you get used to the latter, the one stroke system may seem overly engineered and counterintuitive ending up with characters like 悪 under 一 rather than 心 which is where its original meaning was derived or 形、彫 under ノrather than the right-side one used today. But as you say, there's nothing intrinsically correct or not with either approach, it's simply a matter of what is easiest and most functional for each user.

 

[PaulTB]

Originally posted by Elizabeth
I remember reading at some point that the historical 214-radical system did recognize six 1 stroke radicals while the simplified, post WWII 79-version set does not. Once you get used to the latter, the one stroke system may seem overly engineered and counterintuitive

Well maybe.

ending up with characters like 悪 under 一 rather than 心 which is where its original meaning was derived or 形、彫 under ノrather than the right-side one used today.

But I think not those. The 亜 in 悪 would be the radical it's listed under in the both paper dictionaries I have because
a) You look for a distinct 'top' radical before the 'bottom' radial
and
b) The horizontal stroke in 亜 is 'stuck' to other strokes - it would only count if it was separate.

Similarly 形 would be under 彡 because you look for a right hand side before you look for radicals in 'any position left over'.

So for both those cases the 'one stroke' radicals don't make any difference.

[Now having said that I really ought to check that that is actually where they are shown
]

 

[Elizabeth]

Originally posted by PaulTB
Similarly, 形 would be under 彡 because you look for a right-hand side before you look for radicals in 'any position left over'.

Looking now at a comparison table, it appears as if 彡 was indeed one of the pieces disassembled from a more complex character that included 長 (now thrown in the null pile) and something else underneath on the left side. I'm not sure about "kata," though, going by the rule of looking first on the left side for a fully formed radical, whether that would have matched anything in the old system or not.

 

[maji]

Thx for the replies. I just assume then that its the upper one. And same with "go", I guess? as we are already at radical questions in numbers.

Which exam?

just one here at the university. Nothing special. at the end of a grammar course.

'Could be'? If it's soon, you really should know what the exam covers aspects. In fact, it'd be a normal practice to have done at least one or two past exam papers.

there is no "this is always in the exam" part. the profs say only, "you should learn this and that and that MIGHT appear too... and this MAYBE as well...". *shrugs*