<p>Since the question has already quoted the common sources, I will not repeat them again. I will point out here three recent papers discussing 規. Of course, everyone is welcome to point out more papers, or flaws in these papers :)</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.fdgwz.org.cn/Web/Show/7845" rel="nofollow noreferrer">陳劍《說“規”等字并論一些特别的形聲字意符》</a>. This paper believes 規 is 从矩省、見聲.</li>
<li>李守奎《释楚简中的“规”——兼说“支”亦“规”之表意初文》(I'm afraid this paper is not publicly available on the Internet. Ask me for full text PDF.) This paper partly agrees with 陳劍, but also points out difficulties with his theory. The paper believes that 規 was originally 支. It also contains some lengthy discussion on the <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png" alt="規 looking like curved 十" /></a> character.</li>
</ul>
<p>The interesting points of 李守奎's paper are:</p>
<ul>
<li>In Han dynasty stone art, 規 tool was depicted as an object looking like 十, while 支 was also written as a hand holding a &quot;十&quot;.</li>
<li>The <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png" alt="規 looking like curved 十" /></a> character occasionally appeared with an additional component: <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/1GAW1.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/1GAW1.png" alt="規 with hand" /></a>. This character has been interpreted as 畫.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>黄德宽先生在读过本文的草稿后来函指出：关于甲骨文“规”字，也即“画”所从部分，现在看来，正像手持规以画。该字以一个交叉曲文表示画出的痕迹（纹饰），因此这个字，我以为是表示动词“规”的；“画”则是画出的结果，是名词。由于规是画圆的工具，“规划”这个动词义一定是与名词“规”同时出现的，故造一个持“规”画纹饰的动词符号，进而派生出从“规”的“画”字。</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The paper partly agrees 陳 while pointing out that his idea has certain difficulties.</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>但也有一些环节还缺少证据……还找不到“矩”不省形的规字。希望所说的这种特殊造字法能有更多的例证。但不管怎样，比笔者的那段假设绕的弯路更少，论证也更加充分。</p>
</blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The author's conclusion is summarized in the abstract:</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p>楚文字&quot;规&quot;源自&quot;枝指&quot;之&quot;枝&quot;,秦文字&quot;支&quot;是&quot;规&quot;之表意初文。由于&quot;支&quot;与&quot;丈&quot;混讹,小篆&quot;支&quot;变形为手持半竹;由于&quot;支&quot;广泛用作分支义,别造&quot;规&quot;字相区别。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The third paper:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.ctwx.tsinghua.edu.cn/__local/B/99/86/231734FEB167243EE2805861EE4_4403534B_5704E.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">程浩《谈谈楚文字中用为“规”的“夬”字异体——兼说篆隶“规”字的来源》</a>. This paper believes that there was once a character ⿰夬見, and 規 is corrupted from this character.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-19T19:56:26.177Z
Well, that 陳劍 article was interesting. I think 李守奎's critique ("还找不到“矩”不省形的规字") misses the point - if 陳劍 is claiming that 「見」 is a phonetic component of 「規」 and that characters get additional components based on the characters they're often found together with, like that example of "型罰 -> ⿱罒型罰", then the critique should be "出土文獻中找不到「見矩」一例的雙音詞".
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-20T00:43:35.107Z
@user2249675 Thank you so much for more of this detailed information on the character!! Interesting to see many debates about the composition of 規 and it's association with 支, which I haven't thought of. Do you have the link to the PDF of the paper by 李守奎? I would like to read the full thing and see for myself :)
prismcool
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-19T17:20:35.620Z
2024-01-19T17:28:14.403Z
2024-01-19T17:28:14.403Z
user2249675
<p>Rules were made to be broken!</p>
<p>正如人们说的，条条框框就是用来被打破的，而且我们也热衷于此。</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Shuowen 说文解字: 有法度也從夫從見</p>
<p>Character decomposition 字形分解 [?]: Compound 規 mutant 䂓 older  from
person-eye-see (见)見 jiàn and (rem- 矢 shǐ)(rem- 夫 fu) from (hand
holding compass) C208 規&lt;槼&gt; simp 規.</p>
<p>Decomposition notes 字形分解说明 [?]: (- the master 夫overseeing 見 and making &gt; the rules)</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-09T18:36:23.483Z
For someone who wants to learn how the character system works, do you think a random statement with no relevance to the character, followed by a quote from Richard Sears' website with no attribution, really helps? If you were the one asking, would you find this answer useful?
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-09T18:58:09.537Z
I have to agree with dROOOze honestly. When you respond to my questions like this sometimes, you always seem to pull or cite from Richard Sears's Chinese Etymology website, in which case I'm afraid to say all of his explanations are really inaccurate. I tend to avoid his explanations because of the etymology he states that just come from thin air with really no evidence to prove it.
prismcool
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-09T18:59:55.543Z
For example, Sears erroneously states that 心 depicts a human chest when its an actual pictograph of a heart. He also stated that 音 is an upside down picture of a man with a mouth "speaking to you" when it is really just derived from 言 with an extra stroke inside 口.
prismcool
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-10T07:48:43.500Z
I often consult Julius Pokorny's Etymological Dictionary of PIE. I would say, 80% is guesswork.  Etymologists do not all agree.  I would say,  if Sears ideas do not fit  with your opinion, the wise thing to do is accept his opinion as a possibility. In the absence of a time machine, hard facts are hard to come by in etymology. An open mind will help avoid tunnel vision, however erudite you believe your sources to be!
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-10T08:10:19.983Z
To be "open minded" does not mean to give up and accept the possibility of any random claim which requires more than 5 minutes of Googling to understand. Likewise, most educated people would not be "open minded" to [perpetual motion machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Impossibility). If you were actually open-minded, you would have dedicated time to understand how writing systems developed around the world, how the writing system works in relation to the language, built up an intuition of how characters work, then realise that Sears' claims are simply *lazy*.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-11T05:44:53.727Z
Well that's me, bigoted and opinionated! No tolerance for gainsayers or different opinions. You are better, of course. "intuition"? Then the question arises: How do I know what I think I know?
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-09T13:55:21.113Z
2023-10-09T13:55:21.113Z
Pedroski
<p>Currently at the moment, I'm doing my research on the glyph origin of 規/规 (guī; rules, regulations, customs, law) and I can't really come to a determination of what this character's origin is.</p>
<p>I've already checked the Old Chinese pronunciations for this character and it's components, but it seems like this character isn't a phonosemantic compound one but rather it looks to be a character probably composed of two related components that contributes to this character.</p>
<p>As for the evolution on its glyph origin according to 小學堂, I've noticed the strange bronze inscription form (the first one) that's supposedly looks kind of unrelated to 規. I'm not sure how they analyzed it with that exact shape but now I'm wondering more about the origin. For reference:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/PCKYG.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/PCKYG.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Also so far from the sources I've browsed through about this character, here's what some suggest about the origin of 規:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>zi.tools, 李学勤 《字源》p.920</strong>: Suggests it's a compound ideograph composed of 夫 and 見 (or as both of these sources describe it, the law is what man (夫) see (見)).</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Outlier Linguistics Dictionary of Chinese Characters</strong>: Composed of an arrow (originally 矢, now written as 夫) with the 見 component being later added to indicate someone watching the arrow, originally meaning &quot;compass (for drawing arcs)&quot;.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>漢語多功能字庫</strong>: Composed of 夫 and 見 and originally meant &quot;law&quot; and &quot;standard&quot;. This source also mentions that it was said to be a tool for drawing a circle, which could likely explain why 小學堂 chose that bronze inscription glyph for 規.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Wenlin Dictionaries</strong>: Composed of a character shaped like a drawing tool (or 夫) and 見 (to see) which both suggests the action of one using a compass to draw a shape.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>From what I can gather, the most common explanation is that 規 originated from a pictograph of a drawing tool, or compass, with 見 (to see) being later added to the character to indicate someone watching the drawing tool.</p>
<p>I'm not quite sure about this explanation so if anyone could verify if this is the correct glyph origin or at least try to explain it, I would greatly appreciate the assistance here!! :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-10T02:40:38.583Z
規 is some kind of measuring tool, which is exactly what the first pictogram is.
fat penguin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-10T03:27:43.113Z
@fatpenguin Ahh I see, well that explains the measuring tool theory. So then, did the pictogram of the measuring tool corrupted into 矢 and then eventually into 夫? Just want to make sure so that I know for sure 夫 is an empty component.
prismcool
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-11T01:20:31.840Z
矢 also means arrow or bolt (as in crossbow bolt). I have no idea which meaning came first, and how did it evolve.
fat penguin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-01-17T18:16:11.933Z
Might be related: http://www.fdgwz.org.cn/Web/Show/7845
user2249675
<glyph-origin>
What is the glyph origin of 規?
# What is the glyph origin of 規?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-10-09)

Currently at the moment, I'm doing my research on the glyph origin of 規/规 (guī; rules, regulations, customs, law) and I can't really come to a determination of what this character's origin is.

I've already checked the Old Chinese pronunciations for this character and it's components, but it seems like this character isn't a phonosemantic compound one but rather it looks to be a character probably composed of two related components that contributes to this character.

As for the evolution on its glyph origin according to 小學堂, I've noticed the strange bronze inscription form (the first one) that's supposedly looks kind of unrelated to 規. I'm not sure how they analyzed it with that exact shape but now I'm wondering more about the origin. For reference:
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/PCKYG.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/PCKYG.jpg)

Also so far from the sources I've browsed through about this character, here's what some suggest about the origin of 規:

* **zi.tools, 李学勤 《字源》p.920**: Suggests it's a compound ideograph composed of 夫 and 見 (or as both of these sources describe it, the law is what man (夫) see (見)).
* **Outlier Linguistics Dictionary of Chinese Characters**: Composed of an arrow (originally 矢, now written as 夫) with the 見 component being later added to indicate someone watching the arrow, originally meaning "compass (for drawing arcs)".
* **漢語多功能字庫**: Composed of 夫 and 見 and originally meant "law" and "standard". This source also mentions that it was said to be a tool for drawing a circle, which could likely explain why 小學堂 chose that bronze inscription glyph for 規.
* **Wenlin Dictionaries**: Composed of a character shaped like a drawing tool (or 夫) and 見 (to see) which both suggests the action of one using a compass to draw a shape.

From what I can gather, the most common explanation is that 規 originated from a pictograph of a drawing tool, or compass, with 見 (to see) being later added to the character to indicate someone watching the drawing tool.

I'm not quite sure about this explanation so if anyone could verify if this is the correct glyph origin or at least try to explain it, I would greatly appreciate the assistance here!! :)

**Tags:** glyph-origin

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 規 is some kind of measuring tool, which is exactly what the first pictogram is.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Ahh I see, well that explains the measuring tool theory. So then, did the pictogram of the measuring tool corrupted into 矢 and then eventually into 夫? Just want to make sure so that I know for sure 夫 is an empty component.  
> **username_1**: 矢 also means arrow or bolt (as in crossbow bolt). I have no idea which meaning came first, and how did it evolve.  
> **username_2**: Might be related: http://www.fdgwz.org.cn/Web/Show/7845  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-01-19. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

Since the question has already quoted the common sources, I will not repeat them again. I will point out here three recent papers discussing 規. Of course, everyone is welcome to point out more papers, or flaws in these papers :)

* [陳劍《說“規”等字并論一些特别的形聲字意符》](http://www.fdgwz.org.cn/Web/Show/7845). This paper believes 規 is 从矩省、見聲.
* 李守奎《释楚简中的“规”——兼说“支”亦“规”之表意初文》(I'm afraid this paper is not publicly available on the Internet. Ask me for full text PDF.) This paper partly agrees with 陳劍, but also points out difficulties with his theory. The paper believes that 規 was originally 支. It also contains some lengthy discussion on the [![規 looking like curved 十](https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png) character.

The interesting points of 李守奎's paper are:

* In Han dynasty stone art, 規 tool was depicted as an object looking like 十, while 支 was also written as a hand holding a "十".
* The [![規 looking like curved 十](https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/U8lXO.png) character occasionally appeared with an additional component: [![規 with hand](https://i.sstatic.net/1GAW1.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/1GAW1.png). This character has been interpreted as 畫.

> 黄德宽先生在读过本文的草稿后来函指出：关于甲骨文“规”字，也即“画”所从部分，现在看来，正像手持规以画。该字以一个交叉曲文表示画出的痕迹（纹饰），因此这个字，我以为是表示动词“规”的；“画”则是画出的结果，是名词。由于规是画圆的工具，“规划”这个动词义一定是与名词“规”同时出现的，故造一个持“规”画纹饰的动词符号，进而派生出从“规”的“画”字。

* The paper partly agrees 陳 while pointing out that his idea has certain difficulties.

> 但也有一些环节还缺少证据……还找不到“矩”不省形的规字。希望所说的这种特殊造字法能有更多的例证。但不管怎样，比笔者的那段假设绕的弯路更少，论证也更加充分。

* The author's conclusion is summarized in the abstract:

> 楚文字"规"源自"枝指"之"枝",秦文字"支"是"规"之表意初文。由于"支"与"丈"混讹,小篆"支"变形为手持半竹;由于"支"广泛用作分支义,别造"规"字相区别。

The third paper:

* [程浩《谈谈楚文字中用为“规”的“夬”字异体——兼说篆隶“规”字的来源》](https://www.ctwx.tsinghua.edu.cn/__local/B/99/86/231734FEB167243EE2805861EE4_4403534B_5704E.pdf). This paper believes that there was once a character ⿰夬見, and 規 is corrupted from this character.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Well, that 陳劍 article was interesting. I think 李守奎's critique ("还找不到“矩”不省形的规字") misses the point - if 陳劍 is claiming that 「見」 is a phonetic component of 「規」 and that characters get additional components based on the characters they're often found together with, like that example of "型罰 -> ⿱罒型罰", then the critique should be "出土文獻中找不到「見矩」一例的雙音詞".  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Thank you so much for more of this detailed information on the character!! Interesting to see many debates about the composition of 規 and it's association with 支, which I haven't thought of. Do you have the link to the PDF of the paper by 李守奎? I would like to read the full thing and see for myself :)  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2023-10-09. Score: 0

Rules were made to be broken!

正如人们说的，条条框框就是用来被打破的，而且我们也热衷于此。

> Shuowen 说文解字: 有法度也從夫從見
>
> Character decomposition 字形分解 [?]: Compound 規 mutant 䂓 older from
> person-eye-see (见)見 jiàn and (rem- 矢 shǐ)(rem- 夫 fu) from (hand
> holding compass) C208 規<槼> simp 規.
>
> Decomposition notes 字形分解说明 [?]: (- the master 夫overseeing 見 and making > the rules)

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: For someone who wants to learn how the character system works, do you think a random statement with no relevance to the character, followed by a quote from Richard Sears' website with no attribution, really helps? If you were the one asking, would you find this answer useful?  
> **username_0**: I have to agree with username_3 honestly. When you respond to my questions like this sometimes, you always seem to pull or cite from Richard Sears's Chinese Etymology website, in which case I'm afraid to say all of his explanations are really inaccurate. I tend to avoid his explanations because of the etymology he states that just come from thin air with really no evidence to prove it.  
> **username_0**: For example, Sears erroneously states that 心 depicts a human chest when its an actual pictograph of a heart. He also stated that 音 is an upside down picture of a man with a mouth "speaking to you" when it is really just derived from 言 with an extra stroke inside 口.  
> **username_4**: I often consult Julius Pokorny's Etymological Dictionary of PIE. I would say, 80% is guesswork.  Etymologists do not all agree.  I would say,  if Sears ideas do not fit  with your opinion, the wise thing to do is accept his opinion as a possibility. In the absence of a time machine, hard facts are hard to come by in etymology. An open mind will help avoid tunnel vision, however erudite you believe your sources to be!  
> **username_3**: To be "open minded" does not mean to give up and accept the possibility of any random claim which requires more than 5 minutes of Googling to understand. Likewise, most educated people would not be "open minded" to [perpetual motion machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion#Impossibility). If you were actually open-minded, you would have dedicated time to understand how writing systems developed around the world, how the writing system works in relation to the language, built up an intuition of how characters work, then realise that Sears' claims are simply *lazy*.  
> **username_4**: Well that's me, bigoted and opinionated! No tolerance for gainsayers or different opinions. You are better, of course. "intuition"? Then the question arises: How do I know what I think I know?  

---

