Formation of Characters
| Category | Percentage of characters (approximation) |
|---|---|
| Phono-semantic compounds | 82% |
| Ideogrammic compounds | 13% |
| Pictograms | 4% |
| Ideograms | Few (less than 1%) |
| Transformed cognates | Few |
| Rebus | Few |
The earliest known Chinese texts, in the Oracle bone script, display a fully developed writing system, with little difference in functionality from modern characters. It is assumed that the early stages of the development of characters were dominated by pictograms, which were the objects depicted, and ideograms, in which meaning was expressed iconically. The demands of writing full language, including words which had no easy pictographic or iconic representation, forced an expansion of this system, presumably through use of rebus.
The presumed methods of forming characters were first classified c. 100 AD by the Chinese linguist Xu Shen (許慎), whose etymological dictionary Shuowen Jiezi (说文解字 / 說文解字) divides the script into six categories, the liùshū (六书 / 六書). While the categories and classification are occasionally problematic and arguably fail to reflect the complete nature of the Chinese writing system, this account has been perpetuated by its long history and pervasive use.
Four percent of Chinese characters are derived directly from individual pictograms, though in most cases the resemblance to an object is no longer clear. Others were derived as ideograms; as compound ideograms, where two ideograms are combined to give a third reading; and as rebuses. But most characters were devised as phono-semantic compounds, with one element to indicate the general category of meaning and the other to suggest the pronunciation. Again, in many cases the suggested sound is no longer accurate. All today are logograms, and are not actually used pictographically or ideographically.
Read more about this topic: Chinese Characters
Famous quotes containing the words formation of, formation and/or characters:
“I want you to consider this distinction as you go forward in life. Being male is not enough; being a man is a right to be earned and an honor to be cherished. I cannot tell you how to earn that right or deserve that honor. . . but I can tell you that the formation of your manhood must be a conscious act governed by the highest vision of the man you want to be.”
—Kent Nerburn (20th century)
“The moral virtues, then, are produced in us neither by nature nor against nature. Nature, indeed, prepares in us the ground for their reception, but their complete formation is the product of habit.”
—Aristotle (384–322 B.C.)
“To marry a man out of pity is folly; and, if you think you are going to influence the kind of fellow who has “never had a chance, poor devil,” you are profoundly mistaken. One can only influence the strong characters in life, not the weak; and it is the height of vanity to suppose that you can make an honest man of anyone.”
—Margot Asquith (1864–1945)