龜 Stroke Order

[Glenn]

I was just going through my deck and came across 龜, and I went to write it and realized that no matter how I tried it it just didn't feel right. That got me to wondering how it's written, and how other people write it. So I looked it up. It turns out, there are at least 3 different ways to write it, depending on which website you're on.

http://kakijun.main..../kame16200.html (Japan)

http://www.edu.tw/fi...shuen/p215b.htm (Taiwan)

http://www.cchar.com...ong-student.php (Hong Kong (apparently direct linking does not work, so you'll have to plug it in yourself))

http://www.mdbg.net/...ct.php?cdqchi=龜 (MDBG)

The Japanese and Taiwanese versions match, which leads me to think they're they more "correct" ones. They both have 16 strokes. The MDBG and Hong Kong versions are similar, but there's a difference in which stroke comes seventh. They both have 18 strokes. Also, the two lines that form the handles of the pitchforks (I'm calling them that because they look that way to me) extend to make the top and bottom of the box on the right in the Japanese and Taiwanese versions, but they're separate lines in the MDBG and Hong Kong versions.

This brings up two questions for me (as of right now):

1) Are the first two the "correct" stroke orders?

2) Where did the MDBG dictionary get its version?

[skylee]

Check here for the Hong Kong version (this is also how I write it) -> http://www.edbchines...stroke&jpC=lshk

Here you can find an animated version of the Taiwan version -> http://stroke-order....esult.do?word=龜

Can't answer your questions, sorry. But usually you need a standard when you want to comment on the "correctness" of something.

[Hofmann]

1. The Hong Kong stroke order is definitely wrong. The shorter vertical stroke could only be after the big long stroke if it extended past it. I can't write down why I know this at the moment. That Hong Kong has a reputation of questionable stroke orders also leads me to give little weight to it. The first three forms (not counting stroke order) are more proper. The variant shown on MDBG, and its stroke order, is legal. My conclusion about MDBG is based on how 田蘊章 describes 龜 here and my observations of different variants of 龜 in 楷書, 行書, and 草書. As for the Taiwanese and Japanese variants, I don't know, but I can't think of any more likely correct way of writing them. Based on the other variants, it's possible that it's just like the MDBG variant, only that the 14th and 17th strokes are extended past the middle to appear to be connected with the 9th and 12th strokes respectively.

2. If I'm not mistaken, MDBG gets its data from the PRC stroke order standards, which appear to also include Traditional Chinese characters. This is shown in cases where the PRC has unique stroke orders for Traditional characters, such as 門. Where does the PRC standard come from? Nowhere. Someone or a few people made it up with very little research.

[skylee]

This page is relevant. Take a look -> http://sidekick.mybl...ckJustaSidekick......

[Glenn]

Hofmann,

The first two forms, you mean? So the 16-stroke versions are more proper? I'm kind of confused. It kind of looks like you're saying that, then saying it's not quite the case.

Skylee,

That's pretty nice! I wonder if it works for any character whose meaning is a concrete noun. I may have to try that out...

[Hofmann]

Yes, I mean the first two forms. The 16-stroke versions are more proper.

[Glenn]

OK. I'll go with those, then, even though it looks like writing them well will be more difficult due to the extended horizontal strokes. But I've been told I don't write that well in the first place, so...

Thanks!