Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Analyzing crazy eights for seebs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 310074" data-attributes="member: 2070"><p>What's up, s0uljah, is what's been up the last ten times you've asked:</p><p></p><p>1. The character is drawn several different ways. In the one that appears to be the most-canonical, the character is drawn very differently. In particular, the thing in the upper-right-hand corner is drawn three different ways; one an unambiguous ji, one an unambiguous ba, and one a weird hybrid.</p><p></p><p>2. My *main* point is that it is not reasonable to derive the meaning "8" as a component of the meaning for the word "boat". The fact that the disputed bit of writing is, in fact, part of a *phonetic* part of the word means that I win this point no matter how we draw it.</p><p></p><p>3. As has also been pointed out, the word in question can thus be shown to go back far enough that it would have meant "divide", and been part of another character, rather than being an 8 selected to be part of this character.</p><p></p><p>So... the point I lose is "this character is never drawn in a way such that this component looks like an 8".</p><p></p><p>The points I still have are:</p><p>1. The meaning of a character often depends on knowing which parts of it are phonetic. (Supported by everyone who has expressed an opinion.)</p><p>2. The character for boat is often written with something in the upper-right which is clearly *NOT* the same character as an 8.</p><p>3. A correct understanding of the etymology of that word will not use the number 8.</p><p></p><p>So, if you want me to admit that, in some of the three different ways the word 'boat' is drawn, that component looks like an 8, sure, I admit that.</p><p></p><p>If this is supposed to then lead to the assertion that the etymology of 'boat' in Chinese really means '8 people vessel', you're going to have to do something about the fact that it's not drawn the same way other times, and that it's part of a phonetic component, so neither '8' nor 'people' is present in the etymology.</p><p></p><p>My concern here is that, out of five or six reasons given not to accept the original claims by the guy who wrote that book in 1979, you'll notice that only *ONE* has been discussed, at all. Why's that, I wonder? Maybe it's because there's room for legitimate debate about how that component of the character should be drawn, so there's a way to argue that maybe that *is* an 8. There isn't, apparently, any way for people to debate that it's part of a phonetic, and thus contributes no *meaning* to the word. Because, if there were, they'd have made that argument by now.</p><p></p><p>So, in the end, the claim that "this etymology is totally wrong" is still well-supported, even though I've granted that some people draw that character with a 'ba' in the upper right.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="seebs, post: 310074, member: 2070"] What's up, s0uljah, is what's been up the last ten times you've asked: 1. The character is drawn several different ways. In the one that appears to be the most-canonical, the character is drawn very differently. In particular, the thing in the upper-right-hand corner is drawn three different ways; one an unambiguous ji, one an unambiguous ba, and one a weird hybrid. 2. My *main* point is that it is not reasonable to derive the meaning "8" as a component of the meaning for the word "boat". The fact that the disputed bit of writing is, in fact, part of a *phonetic* part of the word means that I win this point no matter how we draw it. 3. As has also been pointed out, the word in question can thus be shown to go back far enough that it would have meant "divide", and been part of another character, rather than being an 8 selected to be part of this character. So... the point I lose is "this character is never drawn in a way such that this component looks like an 8". The points I still have are: 1. The meaning of a character often depends on knowing which parts of it are phonetic. (Supported by everyone who has expressed an opinion.) 2. The character for boat is often written with something in the upper-right which is clearly *NOT* the same character as an 8. 3. A correct understanding of the etymology of that word will not use the number 8. So, if you want me to admit that, in some of the three different ways the word 'boat' is drawn, that component looks like an 8, sure, I admit that. If this is supposed to then lead to the assertion that the etymology of 'boat' in Chinese really means '8 people vessel', you're going to have to do something about the fact that it's not drawn the same way other times, and that it's part of a phonetic component, so neither '8' nor 'people' is present in the etymology. My concern here is that, out of five or six reasons given not to accept the original claims by the guy who wrote that book in 1979, you'll notice that only *ONE* has been discussed, at all. Why's that, I wonder? Maybe it's because there's room for legitimate debate about how that component of the character should be drawn, so there's a way to argue that maybe that *is* an 8. There isn't, apparently, any way for people to debate that it's part of a phonetic, and thus contributes no *meaning* to the word. Because, if there were, they'd have made that argument by now. So, in the end, the claim that "this etymology is totally wrong" is still well-supported, even though I've granted that some people draw that character with a 'ba' in the upper right. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Analyzing crazy eights for seebs
Top
Bottom