Subject: Re: Radical numbering

From: Thomas Bartlett <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 17:55:07 -0400

The system of radicals used in Nelson's dictionary is basically a revision
of the so-called K'ang-hsi system of 214 radicals established in the early
18th century in China.  It has been the standard in the Sinographic world
until the mid 20th century.  The system you have seen on software may be
the unrevised 214 radicals of the K'ang-hsi system or it may be one of the
numerous revisions of that system which have been produced in China since
the 1950's.  The unrevised K'ang-hsi system is used in the well-known
"A Chinese-English Dictionary" originally compiled by Mathews.  It is also
used in Liang Shih-ch'iu's "Practical Chinese-English Dictionary",
published in Taiwan.  If you can find a copy of Walter Simon's out of
print "Beginner's Chinese-English Dictionary", you will see an
introductory chapter in which he sets forth a very useful system of
mnemonic words which can be used to memorize the 214 radicals in sequence.
No Chinese (or almost no Chinese) ever does that, but for the foreign
learner it can be a very useful skill.  As you know from your experience
with Nelson's, being able to move quickly and confidently around a
Sinographic dictionary is a great aid to effective learning.  One revision
of the radical system that has gained currency is the one used in Xin Hua
Zi Dian, the small blue, plastic-covered pocket size dictionary of
simplified single characters, which essentially is a standard for the
reformed Chinese script used in China since about 1960.  This revised system
contains about 180 radicals.  The "Chinese-English Dictionary" published in
Beijing in about 1980 also has a revised system of simplified radicals,
perhaps the same as, or only slightly different from, the one in Xin Hua Zi
Dian.  Good luck in your lexicographic wanderings.  Let us know what you
find.

Tom Bartlett

On Thu, 3 Jun 1993, Peter V Henstock wrote:

> Just a question about radical numbering.
> Several software packages seem to be using a particular radical
> numbering system.  I am familiar with the Japanese numbering system
> found in the Nelson dictionary.  Where can I find the radical
> numbering system for Chinese?
>
> --Peter
>
> [email-masked]