>> All of those radicals are graphemes. But there are more
>> graphemes around, more than just 214. Juergen Stalph
>> gives a figure for the graphemes used in Japanese, As
>> far as I remember, it was more than 500. (cf. STALPH,
>> Juergen (1989): "Grundlagen einer Grammatik der
>> sinojapanischen Schrift". Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
>>
>> Describing it as features:
>> 耳 (ear) = grapheme + radical + kanji
>> 寺 (temple) = grapheme + kanji
>> [right half of] 構 denotes "structure" = only grapheme, *no*
>> radical, *not* used as an independent kanji.
>
> Here I am lost...
>
> First you say that a radical is a grapheme, then you seem to use the term
> "grapheme" as *opposed* to "radical".
>
> Is it possible that you are using "grapheme" with two distinct meanings
> (e.g., Stalph's definition and your own)?

No, no! I'm absolutely supporting Stalph's definition, no doubt.


ALL radicals are graphemes.
But there are graphemes which are not part of the 214 Kanxi-radicals,
because ... there are more of them. The radicals are a subset of the
graphemes (or "components", if you will).
(c.f. All professors are human beings. But not all human beings are
professors.)

Again, a "radical" is just an arbitrary selected grapheme with a fancy
number from 1 to 214.
There is no opposition between the two, "radical" is merely a hyponym.



And please have another look at my examples - 寺 (temple) is not a
Kanxi-radical; but it certainly IS both a grapheme (i.e. It occurs in other
characters as a unit) and an independent kanji/hanzi.

> I am with the impression that Peter's preferred definition for "grapheme"
> can only be said aloud when children are asleep. :-)

"Not suitable for children. This tome contains graphemic descriptions".



Regards,
Berthold ;-)