Why is there two different ways of writing the 衣 component?


I notice that 衣 as a kanji component is sometimes written without the third
stroke. For example, in 壌, 衣 is written with strokes 13 through to 16: below
the horizontal line there are 4 strokes. But in kanji like 展, below the line
there are three strokes, starting with a straight レ and missing the first
stroke after the horizontal line.

Why is this? Is it the same component written slightly differently for
historical reasons? Are they different components? Are they interchangeable in
handwriting or is using the 'wrong' version considered wrong?

_(Note: My initial questions incorrectly referred to the kanji components as
radicals, which was corrected by various answerers below.)_




So, the general spirit of the question has been answered - the key ideas being
that _radicals_ (dictionary headers) are not the same as generic _components_
that are found in characters, and thus in different characters what appears to
be somewhat similar components should be clearly differentiated and written
differently. The general advice given by the other answers are correct, so as
long as the advice is taken, the rest of this answer is extra information and
can be safely ignored.

However, I gather that the OP (and maybe some other readers) is still
interested in a more coherent set of information, and there is much
conflicting and incorrect information given by the other answers about the
origins of the characters mentioned in the questions and answers on this page.
In general, characters that are not
[_kokuji_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#Kokuji) were first created for
Chinese words, and thus require explanations which include data from Chinese
phonological information (e.g. reconstructions from [Baxter-
Sagart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructions_of_Old_Chinese#Baxter%E2%80%93Sagart_\(2014\))),
which unfortunately many Japanese dictionary explanations, even famously
orthodox ones, do not do a very good job of taking into account of.

Since there is a large discussion on this page about character classification
and origins, in light of the potential confusion that this may cause in the
future, the following is a list of statements on this page that the rest of
this answer will hopefully address, for the problematic ones:

  1. `The bottom parts of 展 and 喪 derived from something other than 衣.`
    * True for 喪
    * Not true for 展
  2. For 長: `It originally depicted a person with long hair and transformed into the character it is today. No relation at all to 衣.`
    * Largely correct. Not going to address this character.
  3. For 喪: `As the image depicts in old writing there was a dog with upright ears (象形文字 class 1), two mouths (象形文字 class 1) and a corpse at the bottom (象形文字 class 1)`. 
    * This [ojikten](https://okjiten.jp/index.html) explanation, while very good for a mnemonic, is ultimately incorrect, and appears to be parroted from _Dai Kan-wa Jiten_ , whose explanation is taken straight from [_Shuowen Jiezi_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi) (`喪，亾也。从哭从亾。會意。亾亦聲。`).
    * The most obvious reason why both _Dai Kan-wa Jiten_ and _Shuowen Jiezi_ are incorrect is that 喪, which was first attested in oracle bone script, appeared much earlier than 哭, which was first attested during the Warring States period, so 喪 cannot have come from 哭.
  4. For 襄, the original right hand side component of 壌: `...the image is still explaining that originally this character is made up of symbols depicting the stashing away of some dirt amulet in your clothes to protect you from evil...`
    * This ojikten explanation is incorrect. The right hand side is purely phonetic.
  5. For 展: `the interpretation is that there is a corpse (尸) with its arms and legs outstretched (象形文字 class 1). The 㠭 below it is imagery for heavy weight (象形文字 class 1) and finally the bottom part is an old form of clothes or at least some parts of them (the collar to translate exactly) on which all this weight is placed. The character is figuratively depicting the placing of weight onto clothes to stretch them wide (伸ばし広げる). This meaning of stretching is still retained in the character today albeit not in connection with clothes.`
    * Explanation of 尸 is incorrect. As a component forming a part of another character, 尸 depicts a squatting person, not a corpse.
    * Explanation of 㠭 is incorrect.
    * The character did in fact contain 衣, but it was inseparable from 㠭.
  6. Also for 展: `尸（からだ）と、音符●テン（×・△はその省略形。ころがる意→転）とから成り、人がからだをころがして寝返りをうつ意……などという説明があります。 この「音符●」の「●」は、何やら漢字になっていない記号のようなもの（象形文字？）で、「△」は「展」の「尸」を除いた部分、「×」は「展」の「尸」を除いた部分と少し形の異なる字（？）です。`
    * Overall, largely correct.
    * 尸 as **からだ** is a much better interpretation than _corpse_.
    * 「△」is [this](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=44766) character, which only takes a phonetic role in 展.
    * In reality, neither 㠭,「×」, nor「△」have been conclusively shown to exist independently from 展. They all seem to have been cut off from the original form of 展, and in the case of 㠭, it is identical in meaning and sound to 展.
    * All other conflicting information should be seen as incorrect.
  7. `In those Kanji with 衣 as their radical, the lower part (see bottom of 褎 褏) of the radical seems to be fully included (albeit sometimes modified like in 裹) in all Kanji.`
    * 裹 does not have a modified version of 衣. It is simply 果 inside of 衣.

With this list out of the way, let's begin.

* * *

**イ. Glyph origin of 喪.**

All three of the following

  * **喪** ( _mourning_ )
  * **咢** (various meanings)
  * **噩** ( _startling/shocking_ )

were originally the same character:

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xNx4s.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xNx4s.png)

In fact, this character was originally a phonetic loan from **桑** ( _mulberry
tree_ ), and was graphically differentiated from 桑 via the addition of a bunch
of mouths ( **口** ). For reference, the original form of 桑 was [![enter image
description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/erVoN.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/erVoN.png)
and the original form of 口 was [![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIfJh.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIfJh.png).

Further evidence for the relation between 喪 and 桑 comes from their phonetic
reconstructions. Their Old Chinese reconstructions, as given by Baxter-Sagart,
are:

  * 喪: /*s-mˤaŋ/
  * 桑: /*[s]ˤaŋ/

In both Mandarin Chinese and Japanese, they have actually become homophones (
**sāng** , **そう** ).

Note that the number of 口 in later forms was quite variable, and various parts
of the character morphed into different shapes (see
[this](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=2482)), but it
eventually settled on two 口. The bottom portion of the character
differentiated from its pictographic tree origins to become **亾** , which is a
variant of **亡**. An important note: the original meaning of 亡 was to do with
_losing (something)_ ; _die_ is an extended meaning that only arose later.

As for etymology, 喪 is thought to be cognate with **忘** ( _to forget_ ), 亡,
**無** ( _without_ ), among others [all originating from Proto-Sino-Tibetan
*ma](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/ma)
(meaning _not_ ). This is a very important point, as all these characters are
related in meaning.

Finally, **哭** does not appear anywhere in the historical forms of 喪. For
reference, the original glyph of 哭 looked like [![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k27DM.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k27DM.png),
with the central portion being **犬** ([![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PPfTq.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PPfTq.png)).

* * *

**ロ. Glyph origin of 襄.**

Despite being graphically well documented, the evolution's a bit of a mess:

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhE1M.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhE1M.png)

Although it started off simple, with something like **U** on top of **人**
([![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vCtMU.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vCtMU.png)),
seemingly random components (土，攴) were added on, 人 became **卩** , the top
U-shape morphed into two 口, 卩 became **己** , 攴 became two **又** , and finally
you end up with something like the shape in box 14.

This is one of those (quite rare!) situations where the character is a
mystery; there is no written evidence of any concrete meaning for this
character, and modern characters [e.g. **讓** ( _allow/permit/yield/concede_ ),
**壤** ( _soil/ground/land_ ) **囊** ( _bag_ )] which use it do not appear to be
connected in meaning at all. The ojikten explanation is probably related to 囊
(maybe interpreting it as an assortment of random objects in a bag).

Note that the appearance of **衣** ([![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iYvKs.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iYvKs.png))
is either a directed or coincidental change or from the original components,
and 衣 did not appear anywhere in the original form.

At this point in time, scholarship asks for patience while more evidence can
be gathered.

* * *

**ハ. Glyph origin of 尸.**

**尸** is simply a depiction of a squatting person:

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yb8DT.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yb8DT.png)

As mentioned before in Point 6, viewing 尸 as からだ may be helpful, in many
situations, in remembering characters. For example:

  * **居** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aVTFM.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aVTFM.png)), phono-semantic compound with phonetic **古** and 尸 (a person), indicating the meaning _place of residence_ ;
  * **尾** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/I4SbS.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/I4SbS.png)), a person with an appendage on the backside, indicating the meaning _tail_ ;
  * **尿** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHVtX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHVtX.png)), a picture of someone urinating;
  * **屍** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n2E6.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n2E6.png)), compound ideogram of a body (尸) that's dead ( **死** ), indicating the meaning _corpse_.

* * *

**Conclusion**

I hope that, from these examples, it has become very clear that character
forms are actually very well documented, and their original meanings and
sounds are quite well preserved. There has been a quite pervasive myth that's
been going around for a long time about the obscurity and chaos of where the
characters came from, which is not helped by many standard reference
dictionaries providing conflicting explanations with little consistent
research. However, the reality is that opaque characters like 襄 are quite
uncommon, and consensus is strong among scholars in the field about the
origins of a majority of commonly used characters.

* * *

**References**

  * 季旭昇《說文新證》. Although in Chinese, I'm giving an extremely high recommendation for this reference for character origins. Very accessible, with plain language, and requires no specialist knowledge.
  * 李學勤《字源》
  * [小學堂](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/), excellent website to check for archaic variants, and where the majority of the character forms in this answer have been taken from.

**Further Reading and Useful Resources**

  * [Multi-function Chinese Character Database](http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/), good website for character explanations, but in Chinese.
  * Qiu Xigui, [_Chinese Writing (Early China Special Monograph Series, No. 4)_](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1557290717)




So, the general spirit of the question has been answered - the key ideas being
that _radicals_ (dictionary headers) are not the same as generic _components_
that are found in characters, and thus in different characters what appears to
be somewhat similar components should be clearly differentiated and written
differently. The general advice given by the other answers are correct, so as
long as the advice is taken, the rest of this answer is extra information and
can be safely ignored.

However, I gather that the OP (and maybe some other readers) is still
interested in a more coherent set of information, and there is much
conflicting and incorrect information given by the other answers about the
origins of the characters mentioned in the questions and answers on this page.
In general, characters that are not
[_kokuji_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#Kokuji) were first created for
Chinese words, and thus require explanations which include data from Chinese
phonological information (e.g. reconstructions from [Baxter-
Sagart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructions_of_Old_Chinese#Baxter%E2%80%93Sagart_\(2014\))),
which unfortunately many Japanese dictionary explanations, even famously
orthodox ones, do not do a very good job of taking into account of.

Since there is a large discussion on this page about character classification
and origins, in light of the potential confusion that this may cause in the
future, the following is a list of statements on this page that the rest of
this answer will hopefully address, for the problematic ones:

  1. `The bottom parts of 展 and 喪 derived from something other than 衣.`
    * True for 喪
    * Not true for 展
  2. For 長: `It originally depicted a person with long hair and transformed into the character it is today. No relation at all to 衣.`
    * Largely correct. Not going to address this character.
  3. For 喪: `As the image depicts in old writing there was a dog with upright ears (象形文字 class 1), two mouths (象形文字 class 1) and a corpse at the bottom (象形文字 class 1)`. 
    * This [ojikten](https://okjiten.jp/index.html) explanation, while very good for a mnemonic, is ultimately incorrect, and appears to be parroted from _Dai Kan-wa Jiten_ , whose explanation is taken straight from [_Shuowen Jiezi_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi) (`喪，亾也。从哭从亾。會意。亾亦聲。`).
    * The most obvious reason why both _Dai Kan-wa Jiten_ and _Shuowen Jiezi_ are incorrect is that 喪, which was first attested in oracle bone script, appeared much earlier than 哭, which was first attested during the Warring States period, so 喪 cannot have come from 哭.
  4. For 襄, the original right hand side component of 壌: `...the image is still explaining that originally this character is made up of symbols depicting the stashing away of some dirt amulet in your clothes to protect you from evil...`
    * This ojikten explanation is incorrect. The right hand side is purely phonetic.
  5. For 展: `the interpretation is that there is a corpse (尸) with its arms and legs outstretched (象形文字 class 1). The 㠭 below it is imagery for heavy weight (象形文字 class 1) and finally the bottom part is an old form of clothes or at least some parts of them (the collar to translate exactly) on which all this weight is placed. The character is figuratively depicting the placing of weight onto clothes to stretch them wide (伸ばし広げる). This meaning of stretching is still retained in the character today albeit not in connection with clothes.`
    * Explanation of 尸 is incorrect. As a component forming a part of another character, 尸 depicts a squatting person, not a corpse.
    * Explanation of 㠭 is incorrect.
    * The character did in fact contain 衣, but it was inseparable from 㠭.
  6. Also for 展: `尸（からだ）と、音符●テン（×・△はその省略形。ころがる意→転）とから成り、人がからだをころがして寝返りをうつ意……などという説明があります。 この「音符●」の「●」は、何やら漢字になっていない記号のようなもの（象形文字？）で、「△」は「展」の「尸」を除いた部分、「×」は「展」の「尸」を除いた部分と少し形の異なる字（？）です。`
    * Overall, largely correct.
    * 尸 as **からだ** is a much better interpretation than _corpse_.
    * 「△」is [this](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=44766) character, which only takes a phonetic role in 展.
    * In reality, neither 㠭,「×」, nor「△」have been conclusively shown to exist independently from 展. They all seem to have been cut off from the original form of 展, and in the case of 㠭, it is identical in meaning and sound to 展.
    * All other conflicting information should be seen as incorrect.
  7. `In those Kanji with 衣 as their radical, the lower part (see bottom of 褎 褏) of the radical seems to be fully included (albeit sometimes modified like in 裹) in all Kanji.`
    * 裹 does not have a modified version of 衣. It is simply 果 inside of 衣.

With this list out of the way, let's begin.

* * *

**イ. Glyph origin of 喪.**

All three of the following

  * **喪** ( _mourning_ )
  * **咢** (various meanings)
  * **噩** ( _startling/shocking_ )

were originally the same character:

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xNx4s.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xNx4s.png)

In fact, this character was originally a phonetic loan from **桑** ( _mulberry
tree_ ), and was graphically differentiated from 桑 via the addition of a bunch
of mouths ( **口** ). For reference, the original form of 桑 was [![enter image
description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/erVoN.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/erVoN.png)
and the original form of 口 was [![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIfJh.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIfJh.png).

Further evidence for the relation between 喪 and 桑 comes from their phonetic
reconstructions. Their Old Chinese reconstructions, as given by Baxter-Sagart,
are:

  * 喪: /*s-mˤaŋ/
  * 桑: /*[s]ˤaŋ/

In both Mandarin Chinese and Japanese, they have actually become homophones (
**sāng** , **そう** ).

Note that the number of 口 in later forms was quite variable, and various parts
of the character morphed into different shapes (see
[this](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=2482)), but it
eventually settled on two 口. The bottom portion of the character
differentiated from its pictographic tree origins to become **亾** , which is a
variant of **亡**. An important note: the original meaning of 亡 was to do with
_losing (something)_ ; _die_ is an extended meaning that only arose later.

As for etymology, 喪 is thought to be cognate with **忘** ( _to forget_ ), 亡,
**無** ( _without_ ), among others [all originating from Proto-Sino-Tibetan
*ma](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Sino-Tibetan/ma)
(meaning _not_ ). This is a very important point, as all these characters are
related in meaning.

Finally, **哭** does not appear anywhere in the historical forms of 喪. For
reference, the original glyph of 哭 looked like [![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k27DM.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k27DM.png),
with the central portion being **犬** ([![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PPfTq.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PPfTq.png)).

* * *

**ロ. Glyph origin of 襄.**

Despite being graphically well documented, the evolution's a bit of a mess:

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhE1M.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QhE1M.png)

Although it started off simple, with something like **U** on top of **人**
([![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vCtMU.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vCtMU.png)),
seemingly random components (土，攴) were added on, 人 became **卩** , the top
U-shape morphed into two 口, 卩 became **己** , 攴 became two **又** , and finally
you end up with something like the shape in box 14.

This is one of those (quite rare!) situations where the character is a
mystery; there is no written evidence of any concrete meaning for this
character, and modern characters [e.g. **讓** ( _allow/permit/yield/concede_ ),
**壤** ( _soil/ground/land_ ) **囊** ( _bag_ )] which use it do not appear to be
connected in meaning at all. The ojikten explanation is probably related to 囊
(maybe interpreting it as an assortment of random objects in a bag).

Note that the appearance of **衣** ([![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iYvKs.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iYvKs.png))
is either a directed or coincidental change or from the original components,
and 衣 did not appear anywhere in the original form.

At this point in time, scholarship asks for patience while more evidence can
be gathered.

* * *

**ハ. Glyph origin of 尸.**

**尸** is simply a depiction of a squatting person:

[![enter image description
here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yb8DT.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yb8DT.png)

As mentioned before in Point 6, viewing 尸 as からだ may be helpful, in many
situations, in remembering characters. For example:

  * **居** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aVTFM.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aVTFM.png)), phono-semantic compound with phonetic **古** and 尸 (a person), indicating the meaning _place of residence_ ;
  * **尾** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/I4SbS.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/I4SbS.png)), a person with an appendage on the backside, indicating the meaning _tail_ ;
  * **尿** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHVtX.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHVtX.png)), a picture of someone urinating;
  * **屍** ([![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n2E6.png)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2n2E6.png)), compound ideogram of a body (尸) that's dead ( **死** ), indicating the meaning _corpse_.

* * *

**Conclusion**

I hope that, from these examples, it has become very clear that character
forms are actually very well documented, and their original meanings and
sounds are quite well preserved. There has been a quite pervasive myth that's
been going around for a long time about the obscurity and chaos of where the
characters came from, which is not helped by many standard reference
dictionaries providing conflicting explanations with little consistent
research. However, the reality is that opaque characters like 襄 are quite
uncommon, and consensus is strong among scholars in the field about the
origins of a majority of commonly used characters.

* * *

**References**

  * 季旭昇《說文新證》. Although in Chinese, I'm giving an extremely high recommendation for this reference for character origins. Very accessible, with plain language, and requires no specialist knowledge.
  * 李學勤《字源》
  * [小學堂](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/), excellent website to check for archaic variants, and where the majority of the character forms in this answer have been taken from.

**Further Reading and Useful Resources**

  * [Multi-function Chinese Character Database](http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/), good website for character explanations, but in Chinese.
  * Qiu Xigui, [_Chinese Writing (Early China Special Monograph Series, No. 4)_](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1557290717)

