注意:このページには、一部の読者にとって不快または不適切な内容が含まれている可能性があります。
Note: This page may contain content that is offensive or inappropriate for some readers.

  • Glyph.00169
  • Strokes: 05 ~ 06
  • elements


MingLiU:
Mincho:
Gothic:
衤
衤

Login    Welcome! Introduction    
Glyphs missing from your font set may appear strange, or not at all. We recommend enabling East Asian language support.


Kun-yomi
ころも
ko ro mo

Glyph elements  [ Toggle Font ]

′
Meanings of elements
emphasis on the DISPLAY
…or: emphasis on NO-LONGER-INTEGRATED FOOT with VERTICAL PERSON WHO SITS MOST OF THE TIME
…or: NO-LONGER-INTEGRATED FOOT DRIPPING VERTICALLY with emphasis
…or: NO-LONGER-INTEGRATED FOOT with emphasis on FLACCID ROD
「Emphasis on the display」or「emphasis on religious experience, indicator of divinity」: element for CLOTH and later CLOTHING, the special difference that could be found in a shaman's den. Long strips of CLOTH were used to tightly bind the no-longer-integrated feet of young girls in China apprenticing to become concubines or divine service providers in the employ of a shaman, to hold the shape, keep the foot small, and prevent the bones from healing together. Perhaps elements also can be read as「emphasis on both a no-longer-integrated foot and a flaccid rod」that would indicate it was time to re-bind the no-longer-integrated feet with LONG CLOTHS after use by a client.
But as this glyph suggests, perhaps another reason for cloth was to absorb dripping from an infection by the use of a dressing, and halt the「display」of schmutz. Note that clothing was initially 'cloth-ing' something for wrapping long lengths of cloth around a body or body part, such as a no-longer-integrated foot or one's loins, clothing that is still popular in India and Hawai'i or the robes of monks and other religious types, and that 'clothes' is just another way to spell the plural form of 'cloths.' Clearly, clothing is a form of a showy display (礻), especially the clothing of religious figures, since that is the only difference to indicate who is whom, and how to distinguish clergy from laity (that is, we all appear fundamentally the same without clothing, since we all are fundamentally nearly the same…or so we are encouraged to believe).
「Now researchers say they have found some of the earliest evidence of humans using clothing in a cave in Morocco, with the discovery of bone tools and bones from skinned animals suggesting the practice dates back at least 120,000 years.」
[ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/16/scientists-find-evidence-of-humans-making-clothes-120000-years-ago 2012-09-17 ]

External source definitions …excluding politically incorrect concepts and other meanings deemed offensive today; may include extended definitions, euphemisms, and mnemonics)
Japanese EDRDG: clothes
Unihan extended: clothes

Always keep in mind that these glyphs most likely were originally designed by groups of clever old men as vulgar riddles for their own entertainment (see 籒 for that), representing Chinese society many thousands of years ago, but intended NOT as a written or spoken language when created. If these glyphs had been intended for language use, the sages could not have possibly designed a worse system! Is it truly possible that all these glyphs started out as off-color jokes and puzzles? Yes! It is, and often with multiple correct answers to each riddle, the same as is true today. Sex had no shame in ancient China. Why would it? But, have there been necessary rewrites and altered explanations of the original elemental meanings over the centuries?

No one is suggesting these glyphs depict contemporary life in China, Japan, or anywhere else. This site describes glyph meanings, not people. These glyphs however, describe many and various things, including people, long before there were any notions of becoming politically incorrect. The question to be answered is, should these glyphs continue being used, by anyone, anywhere, for expressing language? (More...) Despite how seemingly bad our human existence is today, do you actually believe that the so-called good old days were any better? Or could they have been worse?

By the way, with a limited number of the same elements used by the sages again and again to form these glyphs, you should expect to find the same explanations again and again, as tedious as that may become, and as an inherent trait of any lexicon. This site explains multiple meanings of glyphs ignored or censored by other sources, generally as being too embarrassing to admit today.


Related glyphs [ Toggle font ]


  • Glyph.00169
  • Strokes: 05 ~ 06
  • elements

   


Agree? Disagree? Express your opinion by posting a comment.

This publication has included material from the MDBG free online English to Chinese dictionary files in accordance with the license provisions of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.

This publication has included material from the JMdict (EDICT, etc.) dictionary files in accordance with the license provisions of the Electronic Dictionaries Research Group.

This publication has included material from the Unicode Character Database. Copyright © 1991-2016 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. Distributed under these Terms of Use.


Protected by Copyscape
Copyright © 2010-2026 debunKanji.com, all rights reserved.