<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>(Part 1) Was the component form of 「舟」 ever differentianted from 「月」 in handwriting (from 楷書 onwards)?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>If you count handwritten dictionaries or volumes, then yes, they're usually recorded as variant characters. See a <a href="http://www.guoxuedashi.com/zidian/ytz_13379j.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">國學大師 record</a>:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/tJC67.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/tJC67.png" alt="http://www.guoxuedashi.com/zidian/ytz_13379j.html"></a></p>

<blockquote>
  <ol>
  <li>(Part 2) It seems that there were efforts to differentiate the various origins of 「月」 in a character, but were those efforts ever widespread?</li>
  </ol>
</blockquote>

<p>If you're talking about <em>handwriting</em>, I don't believe that this is true in a mass-scale sense:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ckJGf.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ckJGf.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><em>Excerpt from a Song Dynasty version of Shuowen</em></p>

<p>If you're talking about the print styles in the Kangxi dictionary, I'll draw your attention to the layout first:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/PiEee.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/PiEee.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>As you can probably infer, Kangxi print styles made a conscious effort to incorporate <em>Shuowen</em> small seal script features. General print shapes before or even after <em>Kangxi</em> did not really do this.</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/P6G13.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/P6G13.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p><em>Excerpt of</em> 《論語主疏》 <em>printed in the fourth year of Qianlong</em>, from <a href="https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&amp;res=77721&amp;by_collection=8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ctext</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Would it be seen as strange for someone make that distinction in their handwriting today (although the usefulness of actually doing this can be debated)?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We can take the ROC standard as an example, because we know that they differentiate between「月」and「⺼・肉」...</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/KZ7W9.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/KZ7W9.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>...but not with「舟」!</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1aHSp.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1aHSp.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>However, the effort in distinguishing them results in such a small change in the print shape that, if you carry this on in handwriting, I doubt that it'll be seen as weird. It'll be kind of weird if you fully wrote「舟」though, I'd imagine that someone not familiar with paleography might not even recognise the character.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T16:16:57.193Z
Great answer. Follow-up question: Kangxi print styles made conscious decisions to incorporate features from 小篆, but doesn't seem to differentiate 「月」 from the component form of 「肉」. Is there any reason for this?
wang_xiao_ming
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-25T18:18:11.963Z
@wang_xiao_ming I can only guess: (1)「月」is overwhelmingly found on the right hand side, and「肉」is overwhelmingly *not* found on the right hand side, so making a new printing cast for the shape is not economically viable. (2) If you look at 說文小篆 forms,「肉」isn't even that different from「月」.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-24T10:23:00.413Z
2019-07-24T10:23:00.413Z
dROOOze
<p>The shape of 「肉」 in its component form is differentiated from 「月」 in Taiwan and sometimes in Hong Kong's table of standard character forms, but appear the same in other regions' standards and in traditional print. Conversely, 「舟」 in its component form seems to be differentiated from 「月」 in traditional print. Take the entry for 「服」 from the Kangxi Dictionary for instance (notice the two "dots" in 「舟」 versus the two horizontal strokes in 「月」 in the characters above and below):</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lJXHb.png"></p>

<p>Interestingly enough, it seems that a large chunk of characters with 「舟」 in its component form is a result of being corrupted from 「凡」 (e.g. 「服」, 「前」, etc.), but traditional print shapes still differentiate it from 「月」.</p>

<p>In modern times, this distinction is not found in any regions' standard with the exception of South Korea I believe, which is largely similar to Kangxi dictionary's character forms (although I don't know if Koreans are taught to write that way as well, or if their handwritten forms are different). I'd like to understand:</p>

<ol>
<li>Was the component form of 「舟」 ever differentianted from 「月」 in handwriting (from 楷書 onwards)? It seems that there were efforts to differentiate the various origins of 「月」 in a character, but were those efforts ever widespread?</li>
<li>Would it be seen as strange for someone make that distinction in their handwriting today (although the usefulness of actually doing this can be debated)?</li>
</ol>

<p>Edit: Reworded the questions after reading a very informative answer here: <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/12402/is-there-any-character-with-radical-%e6%9c%88-that-has-a-meaning-of-%e6%9c%88-not-%e8%82%89/12455#12455">Is there any character with radical 月 that has a meaning of 月 (not 肉)?</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-22T21:03:10.187Z
You might want to specify what you mean by *handwriting*; are you specifically referring to 楷書? Obviously, the further back you go, the less corrupted the components are, so at one stage you'd have bamboo or silk manuscripts having the full form of 舟 handwritten as a component.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-07-22T21:28:08.120Z
Good point, I was a bit unclear in my question. I was referring to 楷書. I've edited the question to clarify.
wang_xiao_ming
<glyph-origin><handwriting>
Handwritten shape of 「舟」 when it appears like 「月」 and the component form of 「肉」
# Handwritten shape of 「舟」 when it appears like 「月」 and the component form of 「肉」

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-22)

The shape of 「肉」 in its component form is differentiated from 「月」 in Taiwan and sometimes in Hong Kong's table of standard character forms, but appear the same in other regions' standards and in traditional print. Conversely, 「舟」 in its component form seems to be differentiated from 「月」 in traditional print. Take the entry for 「服」 from the Kangxi Dictionary for instance (notice the two "dots" in 「舟」 versus the two horizontal strokes in 「月」 in the characters above and below):

![](https://i.sstatic.net/lJXHb.png)

Interestingly enough, it seems that a large chunk of characters with 「舟」 in its component form is a result of being corrupted from 「凡」 (e.g. 「服」, 「前」, etc.), but traditional print shapes still differentiate it from 「月」.

In modern times, this distinction is not found in any regions' standard with the exception of South Korea I believe, which is largely similar to Kangxi dictionary's character forms (although I don't know if Koreans are taught to write that way as well, or if their handwritten forms are different). I'd like to understand:

1. Was the component form of 「舟」 ever differentianted from 「月」 in handwriting (from 楷書 onwards)? It seems that there were efforts to differentiate the various origins of 「月」 in a character, but were those efforts ever widespread?
2. Would it be seen as strange for someone make that distinction in their handwriting today (although the usefulness of actually doing this can be debated)?

Edit: Reworded the questions after reading a very informative answer here: [Is there any character with radical 月 that has a meaning of 月 (not 肉)?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/12402/is-there-any-character-with-radical-%e6%9c%88-that-has-a-meaning-of-%e6%9c%88-not-%e8%82%89/12455#12455)

**Tags:** glyph-origin, handwriting

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You might want to specify what you mean by *handwriting*; are you specifically referring to 楷書? Obviously, the further back you go, the less corrupted the components are, so at one stage you'd have bamboo or silk manuscripts having the full form of 舟 handwritten as a component.  
> **username_0**: Good point, I was a bit unclear in my question. I was referring to 楷書. I've edited the question to clarify.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-07-24. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

> 1. (Part 1) Was the component form of 「舟」 ever differentianted from 「月」 in handwriting (from 楷書 onwards)?

If you count handwritten dictionaries or volumes, then yes, they're usually recorded as variant characters. See a [國學大師 record](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/zidian/ytz_13379j.html):

[![http://www.guoxuedashi.com/zidian/ytz_13379j.html](https://i.sstatic.net/tJC67.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/tJC67.png)

> 1. (Part 2) It seems that there were efforts to differentiate the various origins of 「月」 in a character, but were those efforts ever widespread?

If you're talking about *handwriting*, I don't believe that this is true in a mass-scale sense:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ckJGf.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ckJGf.png)

*Excerpt from a Song Dynasty version of Shuowen*

If you're talking about the print styles in the Kangxi dictionary, I'll draw your attention to the layout first:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/PiEee.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/PiEee.png)

As you can probably infer, Kangxi print styles made a conscious effort to incorporate *Shuowen* small seal script features. General print shapes before or even after *Kangxi* did not really do this.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/P6G13.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/P6G13.png)

*Excerpt of* 《論語主疏》 *printed in the fourth year of Qianlong*, from [ctext](https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&res=77721&by_collection=8)

> Would it be seen as strange for someone make that distinction in their handwriting today (although the usefulness of actually doing this can be debated)?

We can take the ROC standard as an example, because we know that they differentiate between「月」and「⺼・肉」...

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/KZ7W9.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/KZ7W9.png)

...but not with「舟」!

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/1aHSp.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/1aHSp.png)

However, the effort in distinguishing them results in such a small change in the print shape that, if you carry this on in handwriting, I doubt that it'll be seen as weird. It'll be kind of weird if you fully wrote「舟」though, I'd imagine that someone not familiar with paleography might not even recognise the character.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Great answer. Follow-up question: Kangxi print styles made conscious decisions to incorporate features from 小篆, but doesn't seem to differentiate 「月」 from the component form of 「肉」. Is there any reason for this?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 I can only guess: (1)「月」is overwhelmingly found on the right hand side, and「肉」is overwhelmingly *not* found on the right hand side, so making a new printing cast for the shape is not economically viable. (2) If you look at 說文小篆 forms,「肉」isn't even that different from「月」.  

---

