Jisho

×
53ccc3bc97aeccbb2341c2f2ce92ce1f
8 Replies ・ Started by tyreds at 2018-09-15 18:28:52 UTC ・ Last reply by shuben at 2018-10-25 12:19:25 UTC

why does 導 not have 首 listed as a radical?

i mean, it's right there so i don't get if that's a bug or if there's some deeper reason :P

53ccc3bc97aeccbb2341c2f2ce92ce1f
tyreds at 2018-09-15 18:29:42 UTC

by "radical" i meant part, not as in the actual radical.

6ee23c5fa55b37168c3f360dded0acaa
Leebo at 2018-09-17 09:18:27 UTC

I doubt there's a reason. There's no "official" way to break down kanji into their "base" parts.

83653a964d1ebf1dff492aa188412614
jakobd2 at 2018-09-17 19:49:23 UTC

Well there‘s already 自 and 并 listed so also listing 首 would be kind of redundant. Then 道 itself should also be listed. It seems like they‘re going for smallest possible parts.

53ccc3bc97aeccbb2341c2f2ce92ce1f
tyreds at 2018-09-18 03:29:27 UTC

if that were the case, i would have no problem with it, but it's inconsistent, seeing as 道 has 首 listed as a part.

83653a964d1ebf1dff492aa188412614
jakobd2 at 2018-09-18 10:35:18 UTC

The information is probably from the Kradfile. The only thing I could find on their explanation page is: „The decomposition is based on what can be seen in typical kanji glyphs. Elements themselves can be further subdivided. For example, 舌 is an element and so is 口, so the elements in 話 are <口 舌 言>.“

From this it would seem like all possible components should be included and not including 首 is indeed an oversight. Maybe contact the authors directly?

2986330e38386f92fee4774b0c54ed66
Kimtaro Admin at 2018-09-26 13:16:34 UTC

Yeah, I would say that this is an oversight in the data file, thanks for pointing it out.

I have contacted Jim Breen, who maintains the radical data, and asked him to correct it.

D58115c75cd794995de216e2831d7ee6
wareya at 2018-10-08 22:20:07 UTC

You could always use the ideographic description sequence database instead.

F18b3ee454796c70e62a0116f5685d66
shuben at 2018-10-25 12:19:25 UTC

導 从寸,道声。“寸”与“手”意思相近。本义:以手牵引,引导
導 radical is 寸 is right by its original explanation.
Like 人手, 〖manpower〗∶...人力...〖hand〗∶专门做某种工作的人
手 is controlled by brain, but here brain is not in.

to reply.