飠vs.How interchangeable are these?


Going by the information from [kanji.jitenon](https://kanji.jitenon.jp), I
have a question regarding the radicals 飠 and . I've noticed that some Kanji
seem to be used with either of these while others are displayed exclusively
with the latter of the two.

Let's take for example 飴. In digital texts 飴 seems to default to the radical ,
but if you check out the Kanji written in 教科書体 on the website (on the left
hand side below the Kanji displayed in big, you can switch the font with the
buttons), 飠 is used. The same goes for 蝕 and 餡. On the other hand, there are
Kanji that seem to be written only with , e.g. in 餌 or 饗 (in both 明朝体 and
教科書体).

I'm not sure what the system here is. Are all instances of interchangeable
with 飠 or are there certain Kanji that use exclusively the former? What is the
history behind these two?




According to the official
[常用漢字表](https://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/pdf/joyokanjihyo_20101130.pdf),
the difference between components 飠 and is that of handwriting and printing
standard. It is reiterated in the document that such two shapes are
equivalent, along with the list of many other ignorable stroke-level and
component-level variants.

[![常用漢字表 p.
9](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k0ilm.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k0ilm.png)

The printing standard glyphs in Japanese are basically following the style of
the [Kangxi Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangxi_Dictionary), the
most complete character dictionary until the modern age. As the imperial
dictionary of high prestige, it renders head-characters in pedantic and
(pseudo-)archaic forms which had not necessarily been practiced in the actual
world. However, it was commonly referenced by early moveable type designers,
and thus still remain prescriptive in Japan.

[![康煕字典 p.
3398](https://i.stack.imgur.com/74iit.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/74iit.png)

But typefaces like 楷書体 and 教科書体 (and/or 学参書体) usually replicate the
handwriting style, because the former is by definition, and the latter
designed for classroom i.e. teaching children how to write kanji.

響 vs 饗 is actually unrelated to the 飠 vs matter either etymologically or
historically. In the original Japanese kanji simplification scheme (新字体), the
shape seen in 郷/既/即 was introduced to replace the traditional counterpart in
鄕/既/卽. However, the simplified list only defined a limited number of kanji,
those roughly in today's 常用漢字表 have the 響-like shape as the norm even in
printing, while others the 饗-like shape. For details, see [this
post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/19804/7810).

Note that:

  * The scope of what is stated above is limited to Japan and not a general fact throughout the Chinese character world. Different countries have norms subtly and unsystematically different from each other. Also see [this post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/64590/7810).
  * There could be particular requirements for proper names (person, place...) that should be respected; for example, [**{{ja:葛}}** 飾区](https://www.city.katsushika.lg.jp/information/1000074/1005533.html) in Tokyo and [**{{ja:葛}}** 城市](https://www.city.katsuragi.nara.jp/shisei/shinoshokai/4916.html) in Nara.
  * As periodically becomes the target of criticism, some teachers only recognize either variant in exams. This is unfounded as for any official educational guideline in Japan, but might be good to know that some people are very particular about jots and tittles.

