Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Well, in that case you should give all the explanations, instead of just focussing on one.But that's my point about interpreting the connection of gong 工 and shaman 巫, there can be more than one logical explanation.
Maybe. But do you want to look for another explanation until you find that one that fits your ideas? Why do you avoid those explanations that contradict what you are saying?I accept this. I am sure this is an awesome source. But is there no room for a another logical explanation?
? I don't have 'theories', I'm just trying to show what can be found when you research a topic thoroughly instead of just sticking to one opinion.But you are using what fits your theories, Harmen.
Lewis doesn't offer a 'logical explanation', he just quotes the Shuowen. But I will ask him how I feels about the explanation in the Shuowen.The Shuowen is not always considered reliable so it is not reliable in this instance. Lewis offers another logical and reasonable explanation just as you proposed that gui may have another logical explanation.
Ah, so she does (now you see how important it is to mention your sources).She most certainly does, on page 77:
Allan refers to Li Xiaoding's 甲骨文字集釋 published in 1965. Later authors aren't that sure (新編甲骨文字典, 甲骨文字典, 甲骨文間明詞典, 汉语字源字典). In other words, be careful not to blindly accept what some author writes, when she is merely quoting another author. Try to follow her trail. Have you researched the character wu by all means available to you, and weighted all the given explanations?"The character gong 工 is also a representation of this tool (the carpenter's square)......The character wu 巫 is also closely related."
Yes, but they both point to somebody else who really said it: "the Shuowen says...", "Li Xiaoding says...". In that case I personally would check the validity of the Shuowen and Li Xiaoding's work. Just quoting somebody without checking their sources is dangerous.Allan and Lewis both write about the connection of gong 工 and wu 巫
I wouldn't call the Shuowen a 'credible source'.They are respected scholars, cite credible sources
Well, in that case you should give all the explanations, instead of just focusing on one.
Have you researched the character wu by all means available to you, and weighted all the given explanations?
About 圭 and the sundial connection: The character is used in which gui refers to the sceptre-shaped form of the vertical part of the 'sundial' (I don't think that 'sundial' is the correct word, as the instrument wasn't used to measure time itself, but only moments in time).
Ehrm, yes, I was also surprised that he didn't answer that question directly. I guess he indirectly answered it, but I hate it when I have to interpret an e-mail. I won't bother him with it again, I'm sure he has more important things on his mind.Surprised he didn't add anything about the characters in question...
- 圭 is not a sundial, nor did it ever have that meaning. It's a ceremonial jade tablet, as you already know
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).