<p><p>The character 草 was written as 艸 (combined with two 屮-s) at first, the component 早 below was added later, while the component 艹 in modern simplified Chinese is absolutely a wrong form.</p><p>The character 黄 is a simplified Chinese character, the traditional form is 黃, which is combined with 廿, 一, 田 (or 由 sometimes) and 八, there is no relationship with 艹.</p><p>The handwriting in your picture may be incorrect, I searched in Google and I didn't find any version like yours. You could changed it to 廿 (traditional form) or 龷 (simplified form).</p></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T17:33:18.803Z
I had to downvote this for the rather ludicrous statement that “the component 艹 in modern simplified Chinese is absolutely a wrong form”. There is absolutely nothing wrong about the three-stroke radical variant of 艸 in simplified characters (nor indeed in traditional characters when it is used there).
Janus Bahs Jacquet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T18:17:08.790Z
@JanusBahsJacquet I am surprised that a foreigner would disagree the point. Actually I want to explain that I thinks this form is incorrent in the view of the Chinese word-formation, there is not any relevant to the fonts or writtings. The simplified characters used mainly in mainland China, even the fonts support traditional characters, the component 艹 is still three strokes for all characters. I mean, that theglyph specifications of mainland China is irrational.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T18:17:22.747Z
@JanusBahsJacquet The traditional characters used in Hong Kong and Taiwan, some fonts also support simplified characters, but their glyph specification does not recommend to write the component as one horizontal line and two vertical lines, they use two 十-s instead, even if writting simplified characters.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T18:21:30.630Z
My point is that you have no objective basis for calling either form “absolutely wrong”. Both forms are simplifications of a more complex form (just like so many other radicals are), and both have been in extremely common use for centuries, since long before ‘traditional’ and ‘simplified’ characters were codified into fonts and glyphs; they are just simplified in different ways. It would be just as correct for me to say that the four-stroke variant is “absolutely wrong”.
Janus Bahs Jacquet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T18:31:37.560Z
The modern 艹 comes from three different radicals, 艹, 卝 and 艸/⺿ (written as two 十-s now), it is absolutely wrong to confuse them, for that it has become national standard, so it turns **right**? even you think it is right but I don’t think so, just unable to change it.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T19:18:19.730Z
No, those ‘three radicals’ are just one radical in three different forms. Apart from a few edge cases (like 茍, which does not contain this radical at all, even though some dictionaries list it under it), they are just different ways of simplifying the character that means ‘grass’. There has been variation in the use of the three simplifications for millennia; what you call ‘confusion’. The national standard picked one and stuck to it; the Hong Kong and Taiwan standards picked a less uniform approach, sometimes vacillating. Neither approach is ‘wrong’.
Janus Bahs Jacquet
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-03T00:51:38.833Z
@JanusBahsJacquet I must disagree here, 卝 itself comes from several different origins, and emphatically has nothing to do with 艸.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-03T14:44:20.517Z
@JanusBahsJacquet Please notice, as you said, **there has been variation in the use of the three simplifications for millennia**, that's true, I do not deny anymore. The only point I said was that the mainland China use a single radical 艹 (一丨丨) instead of the two different radicals 卝 (丱) and 艸 (屮屮) or ⺿ (一丨丨一) caused confusion, it is aboslute a wrong decision, they are two different radicals since ancient times.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-03T14:45:26.947Z
@JanusBahsJacquet 舊, 雚, 雈, 蔑, 羊, 美等字, 上边部分古代从 ****, 即 ****, **⻀**, 不从草字头 **艹**. 发展到今天, 有的变成了草字头, 有的变成了 **** 字头, 有的没变 (雈和萑是不同的两个字).
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-03T14:56:07.273Z
I notied that the unicode standard call ⺾ as **CJK RADICAL GRASS ONE**, ⺿ as **CJK RADICAL GRASS TWO** and ⻀ as **CJK RADICAL GRASS THREE**, ugh... what can I fucking say then? The truth is that the origin of ⺿ and ⻀ are indeed different.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T12:50:09.717Z
2019-04-02T12:50:09.717Z
xenophōn
<p>Neither the PRC form「黄」nor the ROC/HK form「黃」contains「艸・艹」. The top of the PRC form「黄」is written as「龷」.</p>

<hr>

<p><kbd>商<br>甲<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/HiE9r.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/HiE9r.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>甲806<br>合集32509</kbd><kbd>商<br>甲<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WO7NW.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/WO7NW.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>京津636<br>　</kbd><kbd>西周<br>金<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/0p3Zu.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/0p3Zu.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>耳尊<br>集成6007</kbd></p>

<p>「黃」originally depicted a <em>person</em>「大」with a swollen chest/abdomen as a kind of <em>deformity/sickness</em>, indicating the meaning <em>weak, feeble</em>; a <em>mouth</em>「口」was added to the top later, emphasising the person <em>sighing in distress</em>. The word that「黃」originally represented is now written as「尪」.</p>

<p>The modern descendant shapes from the above are:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>ROC/HK form:</p>

<p><kbd><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Zhou" rel="noreferrer">東周</a>・<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_(state)" rel="noreferrer">秦</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Drums_of_Qin" rel="noreferrer">石鼓</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/DTmGo.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/DTmGo.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>汧殹<br>　</kbd><kbd>今<br>楷・臺標<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/CW9Rx.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/CW9Rx.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br><br>　</kbd><kbd>今<br>楷・港標<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/2EQ7A.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/2EQ7A.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br><br>　</kbd></p></li>
<li><p>PRC form:</p>

<p><kbd>秦<br>簡<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/viX1h.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/viX1h.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>睡・秦34<br>　</kbd><kbd>東漢<br>隸<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/oqH2q.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/oqH2q.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br>張遷碑<br>　</kbd><kbd>今<br>楷・陸標<br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XWHCs.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XWHCs.png" alt="enter image description here"></a><br><br>　</kbd></p></li>
</ul>

<p>As can be seen, there was never a「艸・艹」component in the character.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T14:17:46.910Z
2019-04-02T14:36:13.200Z
2019-04-02T14:36:13.200Z
dROOOze
<p><strong>Question</strong>: When handwriting 黄 (huáng; yellow) is it incorrect to have a disconnected 草 (cǎo; grass) radical on top?</p>

<p>Specifically, this is what I have in mind:</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/cmf1v.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/cmf1v.jpg" alt="writing 黄 with or without a disconnected 草 radical"></a></p>

<p>Is the one on the left in the above image incorrect?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T20:58:43.247Z
It doesn't have that radical, no matter in which form. 艹 is simply wrong . Actually, all the font that different from the target orthography is incorrect
炸鱼薯条德里克
<handwriting>
When handwriting 黄 (huáng; yellow) is it incorrect to have a disconnected 草 (cǎo; grass) radical on top?
# When handwriting 黄 (huáng; yellow) is it incorrect to have a disconnected 草 (cǎo; grass) radical on top?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-02)

**Question**: When handwriting 黄 (huáng; yellow) is it incorrect to have a disconnected 草 (cǎo; grass) radical on top?

Specifically, this is what I have in mind:

[![writing 黄 with or without a disconnected 草 radical](https://i.sstatic.net/cmf1v.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/cmf1v.jpg)

Is the one on the left in the above image incorrect?

**Tags:** handwriting

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It doesn't have that radical, no matter in which form. 艹 is simply wrong . Actually, all the font that different from the target orthography is incorrect  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-04-02. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

Neither the PRC form「黄」nor the ROC/HK form「黃」contains「艸・艹」. The top of the PRC form「黄」is written as「龷」.

---

`商  
甲  
![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/HiE9r.png)  
甲806  
合集32509``商  
甲  
![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/WO7NW.png)  
京津636``西周  
金  
![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/0p3Zu.png)  
耳尊  
集成6007`

「黃」originally depicted a *person*「大」with a swollen chest/abdomen as a kind of *deformity/sickness*, indicating the meaning *weak, feeble*; a *mouth*「口」was added to the top later, emphasising the person *sighing in distress*. The word that「黃」originally represented is now written as「尪」.

The modern descendant shapes from the above are:

* ROC/HK form:

  `東周・秦  
  石鼓  
  ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/DTmGo.png)  
  汧殹``今  
  楷・臺標  
  ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/CW9Rx.png)``今  
  楷・港標  
  ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/2EQ7A.png)`
* PRC form:

  `秦  
  簡  
  ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/viX1h.png)  
  睡・秦34``東漢  
  隸  
  ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/oqH2q.png)  
  張遷碑``今  
  楷・陸標  
  ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/XWHCs.png)`

As can be seen, there was never a「艸・艹」component in the character.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2019-04-02. Score: 1

The character 草 was written as 艸 (combined with two 屮-s) at first, the component 早 below was added later, while the component 艹 in modern simplified Chinese is absolutely a wrong form.

The character 黄 is a simplified Chinese character, the traditional form is 黃, which is combined with 廿, 一, 田 (or 由 sometimes) and 八, there is no relationship with 艹.

The handwriting in your picture may be incorrect, I searched in Google and I didn't find any version like yours. You could changed it to 廿 (traditional form) or 龷 (simplified form).

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I had to downvote this for the rather ludicrous statement that “the component 艹 in modern simplified Chinese is absolutely a wrong form”. There is absolutely nothing wrong about the three-stroke radical variant of 艸 in simplified characters (nor indeed in traditional characters when it is used there).  
> **username_2**: @username_3 I am surprised that a foreigner would disagree the point. Actually I want to explain that I thinks this form is incorrent in the view of the Chinese word-formation, there is not any relevant to the fonts or writtings. The simplified characters used mainly in mainland China, even the fonts support traditional characters, the component 艹 is still three strokes for all characters. I mean, that theglyph specifications of mainland China is irrational.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 The traditional characters used in Hong Kong and Taiwan, some fonts also support simplified characters, but their glyph specification does not recommend to write the component as one horizontal line and two vertical lines, they use two 十-s instead, even if writting simplified characters.  
> **username_3**: My point is that you have no objective basis for calling either form “absolutely wrong”. Both forms are simplifications of a more complex form (just like so many other radicals are), and both have been in extremely common use for centuries, since long before ‘traditional’ and ‘simplified’ characters were codified into fonts and glyphs; they are just simplified in different ways. It would be just as correct for me to say that the four-stroke variant is “absolutely wrong”.  
> **username_2**: The modern 艹 comes from three different radicals, 艹, 卝 and 艸/⺿ (written as two 十-s now), it is absolutely wrong to confuse them, for that it has become national standard, so it turns **right**? even you think it is right but I don’t think so, just unable to change it.  
> **username_3**: No, those ‘three radicals’ are just one radical in three different forms. Apart from a few edge cases (like 茍, which does not contain this radical at all, even though some dictionaries list it under it), they are just different ways of simplifying the character that means ‘grass’. There has been variation in the use of the three simplifications for millennia; what you call ‘confusion’. The national standard picked one and stuck to it; the Hong Kong and Taiwan standards picked a less uniform approach, sometimes vacillating. Neither approach is ‘wrong’.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 I must disagree here, 卝 itself comes from several different origins, and emphatically has nothing to do with 艸.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 Please notice, as you said, **there has been variation in the use of the three simplifications for millennia**, that's true, I do not deny anymore. The only point I said was that the mainland China use a single radical 艹 (一丨丨) instead of the two different radicals 卝 (丱) and 艸 (屮屮) or ⺿ (一丨丨一) caused confusion, it is aboslute a wrong decision, they are two different radicals since ancient times.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 舊, 雚, 雈, 蔑, 羊, 美等字, 上边部分古代从 ****, 即 ****, **⻀**, 不从草字头 **艹**. 发展到今天, 有的变成了草字头, 有的变成了 **** 字头, 有的没变 (雈和萑是不同的两个字).  
> **username_2**: I notied that the unicode standard call ⺾ as **CJK RADICAL GRASS ONE**, ⺿ as **CJK RADICAL GRASS TWO** and ⻀ as **CJK RADICAL GRASS THREE**, ugh... what can I fucking say then? The truth is that the origin of ⺿ and ⻀ are indeed different.  

---

