Frequently asked questions

No. Chinese philology generally holds an evolutionary account. This site rests on the design thesis of Exploring the Design Mysteries of Chinese Characters and marks it clearly as an axiom (a premise) of the system, not a proven result; explications keep the common reading (the scholarly consensus) and the design reading apart, so readers can tell them apart.

Their structure has been stable for over two thousand years, and their rules agree with traditional culture and ways of thinking. Explications start from the traditional form and note the simplified one; the site is in traditional Chinese, simplified Chinese and English.

It answers strictly from reviewed explications and marks points as reviewed, pending or candidate — but it can be wrong and does not replace the book. When in doubt, the book and the reviewed pages on this site take precedence.

No. Here the five phases are a dimension of classification: the five radicals metal, wood, water, fire and earth mark classes, are to be read from cultivation rather than the popular scheme, and hold only for certain radicals.

No — they are outer and inner. The common reading gives the accepted understanding; the design reading tries to recover the rationale built into a designed sign. Where they diverge, borrowing, transfer or loans have usually pulled the everyday meaning away from the designed one.

Yes. A native speaker's feel is an implicit grasp of yin-yang and four-image pairings; made explicit, it gives non-native learners rules to follow. Courses start at L0.

Please do. Write it in the six-section template of the submission guide; new readings are published as candidate or pending and become reviewed only after the author's review.