Hey, apologies for this arguably obtuse question.
As most of you probably know, kanjis are made of radicals, that is other kanjis used as components in larger characters. Many if not most of those combinations appear semantically nonsensical, and the Heisig method (from *Remember the Kanji*) was designed as a remedy, using mnemonics. Many of which, quite frankly, I find as abstruse as the actual kanji.
That’s why I’m trying my hand at the Adler method (from *World of Kanji*), a newer book from 2018. The idea is to investigate the actual etymological root of the kanjis (or really hànzìs) all the way back to the days of the oracle bone and bronzeware scripts of ancient China, in order to make the underlying iconographic foundation explicit.
The thing is, it so happens that a great deal of Chinese characters used radicals not for their semantic value but for their phonetic qualities, in a way not dissimilar from ateji in modern Japanese. The author acknowledges this in his book’s introduction and occasionally throughout the book’s entries.
But he insists research says that most of those phonetic borrowings do have a semantic basis, just a bit thinner than purely semantic borrowings, and that it is therefore still possible to construe intelligible meaning even from phonosemantic compounds.
His approach is not uninteresting, I like the idea of learning characters from where they actually come from, but I find many of the same flaws of the Heisig method make a comeback: many radical combinations simply do not make any sense, even if you try your best at thinking like a Shāng dynasty shaman.
So, what’s the consensus among linguists? is it really possible to make sense of Chinese characters on a purely semantic basis? Or are methods based on that assumption fundamentally flawed?
4 comments
It’s definitely at least partly phonetic, in fact way more than partly. I’ve never seen anyone claim that there’s zero phonetic basis, that seems ridiculous to me. You can post on r/kanji and r/etymology as well if you like but I’m surprised at this claim honestly.
I’ve heard this before for kanji and Mayan script.
While a bit different, Mayan script had a phonetic aspect and logographic elements not unlike kana and kanji.
A word could be built phonetically with elements derived from character in a manner similar to Korean Hangul. The same word could be represented with a logogram, or logographically with a semantic reminder to reenforce the meaning/reading.
So “balam” (jaguar) could be written phonetically as“BA LA MA,” phonetically as“BA LA MA” with a jaguar element/radical, as a self-standing logogram of a jaguar read “balam,” or as a logograph of a jaguar with “BA” to guide/prompt the reading.
Where kanji differ is that we don’t live in the world in which kanji were first invented with the same thoughts and culture guiding us. The culture has drifted from what it was, so the formerly intuitive patterns may have become obscured.
(1) As much as Japanese learners like to say it, Kanji are NOT made up of radicals (部首), they are made up of components (符)
– Specifically Phonetic Components (聲符) & Semantic Components (意符)
– The distinction is important because radicals (部首) serve a distinct categorization function, and don’t always line up 1-to-1 with Phonetic or Semantic Components.
– https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_radical
(2) The combinations of Phonetic and Semantic Components is far from nonsensical, but may appear lost in Japanese due to how it evolved as a language and adapted Chinese Characters for use.
(3) Phono-Semantic Decomposition has existed since the beginning, Heisig’s Method is a much lower quality imitation at best, many of his “ideas” are nonsensical in and of themselves.
(4) That being said, learning Chinese Characters ≠ learning a language, so I would caution against obsessing too much over finding the etymological roots of every individual Character at the cost of studying things like grammar and vocabulary.
(5) Yes, it is true that although phonetic components are chosen for their phonetic values, the choice to use a particularl phonetic character is not arbitrary. Many phonetic characters can contribute semantic value as well.
(6) Can’t subscribe to any one particular method, there is a lot of research out there, you just have to see what works best for you.
[Here’s a good article](https://blog333610347.wordpress.com/2022/11/13/how-to-expose-false-etymologies-of-chinese-characters-an-introduction-to-the-study-of-early-chinese-writing/) you might enjoy!