記する｛きする｝、 記す｛きす｝、記す｛しるす｝ - how do I use and/or differentiate between them?


For instance,
[here](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/16090/m0u/%E8%A8%98%E3%81%99/):

> 碑文に記されているところによれば

according to the inscription on the tombstone

It's listed under 記する｛きする｝. Why?




> 碑文に記されているところによれば

Without furigana, I would read this as 碑文に **しる** されているところによれば without
hesitation. 記【しる】す is already a stiff word, which is suitable for the
inscription on the tombstone.

記【き】する is very uncommon and sounds even stiffer to me. Probably [there is no
meaningful semantic
difference](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1041979795)
from 記【しる】す. (Of course, there are many common compounds using 記, like 明記する,
特記する, which are not stiff nor archaic at all.)

記【き】す should be a archaic form of 記【き】する, but I think this won't be treated as
a distinct verb according to the modern standard grammar.

In conclusion, I don't know why that example sentence is listed under 記【き】する.
I would say it's there simply by accident.




> 碑文に記されているところによれば

Without furigana, I would read this as 碑文に **しる** されているところによれば without
hesitation. 記【しる】す is already a stiff word, which is suitable for the
inscription on the tombstone.

記【き】する is very uncommon and sounds even stiffer to me. Probably [there is no
meaningful semantic
difference](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1041979795)
from 記【しる】す. (Of course, there are many common compounds using 記, like 明記する,
特記する, which are not stiff nor archaic at all.)

記【き】す should be a archaic form of 記【き】する, but I think this won't be treated as
a distinct verb according to the modern standard grammar.

In conclusion, I don't know why that example sentence is listed under 記【き】する.
I would say it's there simply by accident.

