<p><em>Radicals</em> (部首) were indeed originally conceived as meaning (semantic) indicators in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shuōwén Jiězì</a> by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shen" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Xǔ Shèn</a>; the entries in Shuōwén which say &quot;X, 从Y&quot; are commonly translated as &quot;X, from semantic Y&quot;.</p>
<p>However, the sensibility of this (i.e. whether a character <em>actually</em> contains semantic X) depends on how well you can actually explain the character and trace its glyph origins. We know that Xǔ Shèn did not have access to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Shāng</a>-era texts, and there is no evidence of awareness of things like <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bglyph-origin%5D+corrupt*">graphical corruption</a>. This immediately puts into question the role of radicals in numerous characters, such as 「若」, where</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>《說文・艸部》</strong></p>
<p><kbd><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/WXIQJFwX.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/WXIQJFwX.png" alt="若" /></a><br>　</kbd></p>
<p>擇菜也。从艸、右。右，手也。</p>
<p>「若」, to pick and choose vegetables. From semantic 「艸」 (<em>grass, vegetation</em>) and semantic 「右」 (<em>hand</em>).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>makes no sense when the character was <a href="https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=4538" rel="nofollow noreferrer">originally a picture of a kneeling person</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>Dictionaries which come after Shuōwén have used radicals as purely dictionary index indicators; they should no longer be seen as having semantic function. Most have also significantly reduced the number of radicals; while Shuōwén has 540 radicals, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_dictionary" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kāngxī dictionary</a> has dropped to 214. Since <em>all characters must be listed in a dictionary</em>, the answers to questions to (1) and (3) are</p>
<ul>
<li>Q: <em>How many percentages of the Chinese characters have a radical used as a dictionary index?</em>
<ul>
<li>A: <strong>100%</strong>, otherwise the character can't be listed in a dictionary.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Q: <em>What are the reasons for those characters that use meaningless radicals or misleading radicals?</em>
<ul>
<li>A:
<ul>
<li>As demonstrated above with 「若」, some characters are just too heavily corrupted, and in the modern form may have component(s) that didn't originally exist; a radical was then chosen from the component.</li>
<li>Some modern character radicals act as sound components rather than meaning components; e.g. 「信」、「錦」. For 「錦」, Shuōwén places it under radical 「帛」 (从帛，金聲), but 「帛」 is not a radical in more modern dictionaries; Kāngxī places it under radical 「金」.</li>
<li>As for the other meaningless radicals, dictionary publishers can only make a restricted number of radicals to place characters under, and they have to index 50,000+ characters into this restricted number of radicals. What would you do if you need to place the character 「年」 under a radical? It is made from a <a href="https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=377" rel="nofollow noreferrer">heavily corrupted combination of 「禾」 and 「千」</a>, but you can't see either of these components in 「年」. Traditionally 「年」 has been placed under radical 「干」.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<p>We could discuss the issues using a typical Chinese dictionary such as XINHUA or HSK books.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm afraid that any analysis involving Simplified Chinese is simply meaningless; there's a real (not political) reason why anything serious about the Chinese language doesn't use Simplified Chinese.</p>
<p>We already know that graphical corruption obscures glyph origins so that components of characters become very hard to use to explain the meanings and sounds of characters. Simplified Chinese takes a deliberate step into more obscurity - by using historical corruptions with less strokes, or by using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive_script_(East_Asia)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cursive abbreviations</a>. There is absolutely nothing insightful that you can reveal about the language (the meanings and sounds of words) by writing faster to cut the meanings and sounds out.</p>
<p>Xinhua dictionaries or the text used in HSK are a distraction from such analysis because they use Simplified Chinese. Forget trying to extract anything meaningful from them.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T14:46:41.430Z
Given that more than a few simplified character forms arose organically in the process of Chinese script evolution (but were never given the government's seal of approval) and some simplified characters such as 网 are going back to ancient forms I feel your appreciation of the merits and demerits of simplified characters is rather too harsh and lacking nuance. It has also been argued that the evolution away from concrete depictions towards abstract symbols is natural to writing systems, and the Chinese one is no exception here.
John Frazer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T18:04:49.987Z
@JohnFrazer I'm not convinced about the benefits of the former ("arose organically"); these seem like choosing any old variant regardless of corruption, and has the same effect as cursive regularisation (obscuring the language). As for the latter, yes, reverting to oracle bone forms (网、气、丰, etc.) objectively win in both simplification and re-usability, as such characters/components have been long dispersed throughout the orthodox character system. However, I don't think these number more than 2 dozen, and are vastly overshadowed by deliberate corruption / cursive regularisation in SC.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T18:07:44.877Z
Given the small number of SC forms which actually revert to oracle bone shapes, I don't think what I've said "lacked nuance" at all. As for evolution away from concrete descriptions, this already happened by the time of the Warring States period. The 1956 Simplified Chinese reform is unlike anything compared to the other spelling reforms in the modern era - most have brought the written language *closer* to the spoken language, while SC has made them further apart from being more disconnected from the meanings and sounds of words.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T08:55:25.237Z
2024-12-31T18:40:40.733Z
2024-12-31T18:40:40.733Z
dROOOze
<blockquote>
<p>We could discuss the issues using a typical Chinese dictionary such as XINHUA or HSK books</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>impossible</strong> lah, using simplified chinese</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What are the reasons for those characters that use meaningless radicals or misleading radicals?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>oracle bone script —&gt; bronze script —&gt; seal script —-&gt; clerical script 隸書 -&gt; regular script</p>
<p>characters evolved some extend in the first three, then “corrupted” significantly into clerical script (aka 隸變), then changed little to the regular script; and, “<strong>collapsed</strong>” if, using simplified chinese</p>
<p>for example the character <a href="https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E9%84%89" rel="nofollow noreferrer">“鄉” u+9109</a>, in oracle bone script:</p>
<p>which is composed by two persons kneel sitting, facing each others on both side of a food vessel (兩人相對跪坐・從皀)</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ou2s2UA4.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ou2s2UA4.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>in bronze script (南宮柳鼎 西周晚期 集成2805):</p>
<p>the left &amp; right component changed slightly</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/lkL2ux9F.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lkL2ux9F.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>in seal script:</p>
<p>there’re changes, but still recognised from the previous</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/nzMxW9PN.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/nzMxW9PN.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>in clerical script:</p>
<p>the left &amp; right component changed separately, and significantly</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/58UNI1HO.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/58UNI1HO.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>in regular script, traditional chinese:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/AjJmac8J.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/AjJmac8J.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>in regular script, simplified chinese:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Jf9TLmx2.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Jf9TLmx2.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>How many percentages of the radicals used as a dictionary index have a meaningful indication of the character?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>according to simplified chinese dictionary (as mentioned in question, eg xinhua, hsk), “鄉” belongs to the radical “乙”; which is, . . . </p>
<p>such classification lost all info, that why i’m totally agreed with @droooze that “<strong>any analysis involving Simplified Chinese is simply meaningless</strong>”</p>
<p>have fun :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T17:58:28.773Z
I would say that, for 「鄉」, once seal script corrupted the left & right to 「邑」, the change to regular script was inevitable. There's also the problem that 「鄉」 was originally the same character as 「卿」, so something needed to have happened to make sure that 「鄉」 and 「卿」 are distinguishable.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T23:58:45.973Z
@dROOOze, in oracle bone script & bronze script, “鄉” is axial symmetry (中軸對稱),  i can grasp the meaning of food-sharing immediately  which is the origin of “饗”. in simplified chinese, omg, no two kneel sitting persons, nor food vessel 
水巷孑蠻
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T15:59:30.683Z
2024-12-31T15:59:30.683Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>Let's not put the cart before the horse. It is easy to look at this phenomenon backwards. Radicals are simply just an indexing tool, invented after the fact, as a way to organize the characters in reference works, or more specifically dictionaries. Thusly:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>All characters have radicals. (Or they themselves are considered radicals).</p>
</li>
<li><p>Most characters are phono-semantic compounds, as a rule of thumb the radical is generally the semantic component.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Radicals are nothing more than a system for classification. Forced interpretations are not surprising.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Radicals have basically become obsolete since the invention of Romanization. Thinking about radicals can be fascinating for a lot of Chinese language learners, but it is not much more than a mere distraction which usually tends to lead down many a misleading rabbit hole of &quot;folk interpretations.&quot;</p>
<p>Learning to read Chinese can even be a larger diversion for most students whose goals are simply just listening and speaking based.</p>
<p>For more advanced learners, studying character components or compounds can be beneficial, but certainly not the terms of &quot;radicals.&quot;</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T18:15:09.297Z
I have a feeling that radicals won't be obsolete for a long time, as (IMO) they're still the only sensible system when compiling characters in cross-language contexts (CJKV); romanisation definitely wouldn't make sense there. I agree that for single-language usages (e.g. solely for Modern Standard Chinese), they're obsolete.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T08:41:29.870Z
2024-12-31T08:46:36.950Z
2024-12-31T08:46:36.950Z
Mou某
<p>I see the following comment to this <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/56010/list-of-components-with-their-meanings-published-by-a-reliable-source">question</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think you are having a naive, oversimplistic idea of our characters, like they are indexed by radicals and each radical forms a semantic field. No, the truth is far more complicated. That said, for a small number of radicals, the characters under that radical do have somewhat related meanings.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My questions are:</p>
<p>(1) How many percentages of the Chinese characters have a radical used as a dictionary index?</p>
<p>(2) How many percentages of the radicals used as a dictionary index have a meaningful indication of the character?</p>
<p>(3) What are the reasons for those characters that use meaningless radicals or misleading radicals?</p>
<p>The answers to those questions are important and helpful to the CSL teachers and students.</p>
<p>We could discuss the issues using a typical Chinese dictionary such as XINHUA or HSK books.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T08:52:00.587Z
You might need to understand the `六書` six-book(?) system. - 象形、指事、會意、形聲、轉注、假借 , but not  focus on indication! This will be more fun for you.
James
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-12-31T08:56:36.310Z
Lots of Chinese characters are related to it's indication, because it's in 象形、指事、會意 system. The others might just because it was 形聲、轉注、假借 characters, but NOT trying to cheating on you.  It's *NOT* meaningless !!
James
<characters><dictionary><radicals><hsk>
How many percentages of radicals of the Chinese characters have a meaningful indication?
# How many percentages of radicals of the Chinese characters have a meaningful indication?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-12-31)

I see the following comment to this [question](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/56010/list-of-components-with-their-meanings-published-by-a-reliable-source)

> I think you are having a naive, oversimplistic idea of our characters, like they are indexed by radicals and each radical forms a semantic field. No, the truth is far more complicated. That said, for a small number of radicals, the characters under that radical do have somewhat related meanings.

My questions are:

(1) How many percentages of the Chinese characters have a radical used as a dictionary index?

(2) How many percentages of the radicals used as a dictionary index have a meaningful indication of the character?

(3) What are the reasons for those characters that use meaningless radicals or misleading radicals?

The answers to those questions are important and helpful to the CSL teachers and students.

We could discuss the issues using a typical Chinese dictionary such as XINHUA or HSK books.

**Tags:** characters, dictionary, radicals, hsk

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You might need to understand the `六書` six-book(?) system. - 象形、指事、會意、形聲、轉注、假借 , but not  focus on indication! This will be more fun for you.  
> **username_1**: Lots of Chinese characters are related to it's indication, because it's in 象形、指事、會意 system. The others might just because it was 形聲、轉注、假借 characters, but NOT trying to cheating on you.  It's *NOT* meaningless !!  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-12-31. Score: 4

*Radicals* (部首) were indeed originally conceived as meaning (semantic) indicators in [Shuōwén Jiězì](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi) by [Xǔ Shèn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shen); the entries in Shuōwén which say "X, 从Y" are commonly translated as "X, from semantic Y".

However, the sensibility of this (i.e. whether a character *actually* contains semantic X) depends on how well you can actually explain the character and trace its glyph origins. We know that Xǔ Shèn did not have access to [Shāng](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty)-era texts, and there is no evidence of awareness of things like [graphical corruption](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/search?q=%5Bglyph-origin%5D+corrupt*). This immediately puts into question the role of radicals in numerous characters, such as 「若」, where

> **《說文・艸部》**
>
> `![若](https://i.sstatic.net/WXIQJFwX.png)`
>
> 擇菜也。从艸、右。右，手也。
>
> 「若」, to pick and choose vegetables. From semantic 「艸」 (*grass, vegetation*) and semantic 「右」 (*hand*).

makes no sense when the character was [originally a picture of a kneeling person](https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=4538).

---

Dictionaries which come after Shuōwén have used radicals as purely dictionary index indicators; they should no longer be seen as having semantic function. Most have also significantly reduced the number of radicals; while Shuōwén has 540 radicals, the [Kāngxī dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_dictionary) has dropped to 214. Since *all characters must be listed in a dictionary*, the answers to questions to (1) and (3) are

* Q: *How many percentages of the Chinese characters have a radical used as a dictionary index?*
  + A: **100%**, otherwise the character can't be listed in a dictionary.
* Q: *What are the reasons for those characters that use meaningless radicals or misleading radicals?*
  + A:
    - As demonstrated above with 「若」, some characters are just too heavily corrupted, and in the modern form may have component(s) that didn't originally exist; a radical was then chosen from the component.
    - Some modern character radicals act as sound components rather than meaning components; e.g. 「信」、「錦」. For 「錦」, Shuōwén places it under radical 「帛」 (从帛，金聲), but 「帛」 is not a radical in more modern dictionaries; Kāngxī places it under radical 「金」.
    - As for the other meaningless radicals, dictionary publishers can only make a restricted number of radicals to place characters under, and they have to index 50,000+ characters into this restricted number of radicals. What would you do if you need to place the character 「年」 under a radical? It is made from a [heavily corrupted combination of 「禾」 and 「千」](https://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=377), but you can't see either of these components in 「年」. Traditionally 「年」 has been placed under radical 「干」.

---

> We could discuss the issues using a typical Chinese dictionary such as XINHUA or HSK books.

I'm afraid that any analysis involving Simplified Chinese is simply meaningless; there's a real (not political) reason why anything serious about the Chinese language doesn't use Simplified Chinese.

We already know that graphical corruption obscures glyph origins so that components of characters become very hard to use to explain the meanings and sounds of characters. Simplified Chinese takes a deliberate step into more obscurity - by using historical corruptions with less strokes, or by using [cursive abbreviations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursive_script_(East_Asia)). There is absolutely nothing insightful that you can reveal about the language (the meanings and sounds of words) by writing faster to cut the meanings and sounds out.

Xinhua dictionaries or the text used in HSK are a distraction from such analysis because they use Simplified Chinese. Forget trying to extract anything meaningful from them.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Given that more than a few simplified character forms arose organically in the process of Chinese script evolution (but were never given the government's seal of approval) and some simplified characters such as 网 are going back to ancient forms I feel your appreciation of the merits and demerits of simplified characters is rather too harsh and lacking nuance. It has also been argued that the evolution away from concrete depictions towards abstract symbols is natural to writing systems, and the Chinese one is no exception here.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 I'm not convinced about the benefits of the former ("arose organically"); these seem like choosing any old variant regardless of corruption, and has the same effect as cursive regularisation (obscuring the language). As for the latter, yes, reverting to oracle bone forms (网、气、丰, etc.) objectively win in both simplification and re-usability, as such characters/components have been long dispersed throughout the orthodox character system. However, I don't think these number more than 2 dozen, and are vastly overshadowed by deliberate corruption / cursive regularisation in SC.  
> **username_2**: Given the small number of SC forms which actually revert to oracle bone shapes, I don't think what I've said "lacked nuance" at all. As for evolution away from concrete descriptions, this already happened by the time of the Warring States period. The 1956 Simplified Chinese reform is unlike anything compared to the other spelling reforms in the modern era - most have brought the written language *closer* to the spoken language, while SC has made them further apart from being more disconnected from the meanings and sounds of words.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-12-31. Score: 2

> We could discuss the issues using a typical Chinese dictionary such as XINHUA or HSK books

**impossible** lah, using simplified chinese

> What are the reasons for those characters that use meaningless radicals or misleading radicals?

oracle bone script —> bronze script —> seal script —-> clerical script 隸書 -> regular script

characters evolved some extend in the first three, then “corrupted” significantly into clerical script (aka 隸變), then changed little to the regular script; and, “**collapsed**” if, using simplified chinese

for example the character [“鄉” u+9109](https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E9%84%89), in oracle bone script:

which is composed by two persons kneel sitting, facing each others on both side of a food vessel (兩人相對跪坐・從皀)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ou2s2UA4.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ou2s2UA4.png)

in bronze script (南宮柳鼎 西周晚期 集成2805):

the left & right component changed slightly

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/lkL2ux9F.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/lkL2ux9F.png)

in seal script:

there’re changes, but still recognised from the previous

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/nzMxW9PN.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/nzMxW9PN.png)

in clerical script:

the left & right component changed separately, and significantly

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/58UNI1HO.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/58UNI1HO.png)

in regular script, traditional chinese:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/AjJmac8J.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/AjJmac8J.jpg)

in regular script, simplified chinese:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Jf9TLmx2.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Jf9TLmx2.jpg)

> How many percentages of the radicals used as a dictionary index have a meaningful indication of the character?

according to simplified chinese dictionary (as mentioned in question, eg xinhua, hsk), “鄉” belongs to the radical “乙”; which is, . . .

such classification lost all info, that why i’m totally agreed with @username_2 that “**any analysis involving Simplified Chinese is simply meaningless**”

have fun :)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I would say that, for 「鄉」, once seal script corrupted the left & right to 「邑」, the change to regular script was inevitable. There's also the problem that 「鄉」 was originally the same character as 「卿」, so something needed to have happened to make sure that 「鄉」 and 「卿」 are distinguishable.  
> **username_4**: @username_2, in oracle bone script & bronze script, “鄉” is axial symmetry (中軸對稱),  i can grasp the meaning of food-sharing immediately  which is the origin of “饗”. in simplified chinese, omg, no two kneel sitting persons, nor food vessel   

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2024-12-31. Score: 1

Let's not put the cart before the horse. It is easy to look at this phenomenon backwards. Radicals are simply just an indexing tool, invented after the fact, as a way to organize the characters in reference works, or more specifically dictionaries. Thusly:

1. All characters have radicals. (Or they themselves are considered radicals).
2. Most characters are phono-semantic compounds, as a rule of thumb the radical is generally the semantic component.
3. Radicals are nothing more than a system for classification. Forced interpretations are not surprising.

Radicals have basically become obsolete since the invention of Romanization. Thinking about radicals can be fascinating for a lot of Chinese language learners, but it is not much more than a mere distraction which usually tends to lead down many a misleading rabbit hole of "folk interpretations."

Learning to read Chinese can even be a larger diversion for most students whose goals are simply just listening and speaking based.

For more advanced learners, studying character components or compounds can be beneficial, but certainly not the terms of "radicals."

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I have a feeling that radicals won't be obsolete for a long time, as (IMO) they're still the only sensible system when compiling characters in cross-language contexts (CJKV); romanisation definitely wouldn't make sense there. I agree that for single-language usages (e.g. solely for Modern Standard Chinese), they're obsolete.  

---

