🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DJ8p34.DLq@byron.net4.io.org>, acli@byron.net4.io.org (Ambrose Li) writes:
<
<The ordering
<of radicals seem to have minor variations among dictionaries,

Many dictionaries follow the arrangement of the _Kang1 Xi1 zi4dian3_, which
specifies 214 radicals.  Unfortunately, many editors combine some of the
similarly shaped and less-frequently used ones (for example, 22 and 23, or
34 and 35) for the convenience of the ignorant reader, thus throwing off
the numbering.

It seems that every dictionary editor in the mainland wants his own scheme;
consistency is rare, and in any case only dictionaries of the classical
language that are published in traditional (or semi-traditional) characters 
can be expected to use the Kang1 Xi1 radicals.

<not
<to mention that I have never seen radicals numbered;

This practice is common only in dictionaries produced in the West (or in China
by Westerners).  Time was when one of the first tasks of a missionary in China
was to memorise all the radicals and their serial numbers--a task that has
little value in dealing with Chinese people (no one would understand
"Radical 147") but does sometimes help in using dictionaries.  I used to be
able to write out the whole list from memory; alas, that skill has faded for
lack of practice.

<it is "lucky"
<that (say) R. 8 is actually / t@u += / in my dictionary.

It should be pointed out at this point that many of the radicals (this one
is a good example) are not characters in any real sense of the word.
Do not expect the "pronunciations" given in some dictionaries to be of
any value.  This is true even of those radicals that are proper characters.
Most people know that 

	 -----
	 |___|
	-------
	|  |  |
	-------
	|______/

(which is Radical 163) is _yi4_, but no one would understand you if you
referred to its combining form as _yi4 zi4 pangr2_.  The usual names,
illiterate and deplorable though they be, are _you4'er3pangr2_ and
_shuang1'er3pangr2_.

Many radicals (and components in general) simply do not have standard
names of any sort.  People needing to refer to them in speech often
make up nonce names for them.  For example:

<>>	105 outspread or climbing legs / climb = ?

I would probably refer to this in Putonghua as _fa1 zi4 tour2_ `the top of
(the well-known character) _fa1_'.

					--Scott