Textual issues : 无 instead of 無

Chinese Text Project

Discussion -> Textual issues -> 无 instead of 無

This thread relates to:

Zhuangzi - The Normal Course for Rulers and Kings

2012-05-19 13:22:00无 instead of 無
Posted by: justsojazz	I happened to notice in the phrase: 汝遊心於淡，合氣於漠，順物自然，而無容私焉 that the source text uses 无 instead of 無。 As far as I've seen – the 莊子 often uses 无 rather than 無, so it probably would have to be changed in a number of other places as well. However, since it sometimes uses 無 and not always 无，it wouldn't be possible to conveniently change all of the instances by using a computer "search & replace" command. Is there a reason why it's sometimes written 無 and sometimes 无, or are they both really the same and it was only written differently for the sake of variation (or because of different authors' / copyists' preferences)?

2012-05-19 13:22:00无 instead of 無

Posted by: justsojazz

I happened to notice in the phrase:
汝遊心於淡，合氣於漠，順物自然，而無容私焉

that the source text uses 无 instead of 無。

As far as I've seen – the 莊子 often uses 无 rather than 無, so it probably would have to be changed in a number of other places as well. However, since it sometimes uses 無 and not always 无，it wouldn't be possible to conveniently change all of the instances by using a computer "search & replace" command.

Is there a reason why it's sometimes written 無 and sometimes 无, or are they both really the same and it was only written differently for the sake of variation (or because of different authors' / copyists' preferences)?

2012-05-19 13:46:53无 instead of 無
Posted by: dsturgeon (Donald Sturgeon)	I don't know of any principled distinction in usage between the two - it looks like they are always interchangeable, and that is also what the 漢語大字典 suggests. In this particular case, certainly different editions do seem to use the two interchangeably, e.g. this one ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&... (which I think may be the 道藏 edition) has "無". If there really is no principled distinction in meaning between the two, it may make more sense for the site to handle all of the "无" characters as variants - i.e. to use "無" consistently in all cases, and use metadata to indicate those cases originally written as "无" in the base text, since this is not likely to be of significance in interpreting the text unless a transcription error is suspected.

2012-05-19 13:46:53无 instead of 無

Posted by: dsturgeon (Donald Sturgeon)

I don't know of any principled distinction in usage between the two - it looks like they are always interchangeable, and that is also what the 漢語大字典 suggests. In this particular case, certainly different editions do seem to use the two interchangeably, e.g. this one ctext.org/library.pl?if=en&... (which I think may be the 道藏 edition) has "無".

If there really is no principled distinction in meaning between the two, it may make more sense for the site to handle all of the "无" characters as variants - i.e. to use "無" consistently in all cases, and use metadata to indicate those cases originally written as "无" in the base text, since this is not likely to be of significance in interpreting the text unless a transcription error is suspected.

2012-05-19 23:48:23无 instead of 無
Posted by: justsojazz	I see. It's probably right that they are interchangeable in most cases, only I would suggest to keep 无 in the 易經 in any case – because of the following: 形音義綜合大字典：「無，古亦作无，今六經惟易經用此字。」康熙字典：「易內皆作此字。【。。。】詩、書、春秋、禮記、論語本用无字，變篆者變爲無，惟易、周禮盡用无。」 (I haven't been able to find 无 in the 周禮 yet, however) Additionally, the 形音義綜合大字典 gives two interesting entries on 无 pertaining to the 易經 (besides the entry 「沒有；有之反；同動詞。」– which would be identical to 無 in meaning）：「无妄：卦名，易六十四卦之一，震下乾上，無詐偽虛妄之意，亦謂實理自然者為无，見无妄卦疏及程傳。」「免。例：『君子終日乾乾，夕惕若厲无咎』注：『竭智力而後免於咎也。』（易.乾）」

2012-05-19 23:48:23无 instead of 無

Posted by: justsojazz

I see. It's probably right that they are interchangeable in most cases, only I would suggest to keep 无 in the 易經 in any case – because of the following:

形音義綜合大字典：「無，古亦作无，今六經惟易經用此字。」

康熙字典：「易內皆作此字。【。。。】詩、書、春秋、禮記、論語本用无字，變篆者變爲無，惟易、周禮盡用无。」
(I haven't been able to find 无 in the 周禮 yet, however)

Additionally, the 形音義綜合大字典 gives two interesting entries on 无 pertaining to the 易經 (besides the entry 「沒有；有之反；同動詞。」– which would be identical to 無 in meaning）：

「无妄：卦名，易六十四卦之一，震下乾上，無詐偽虛妄之意，亦謂實理自然者為无，見无妄卦疏及程傳。」

「免。例：『君子終日乾乾，夕惕若厲无咎』注：『竭智力而後免於咎也。』（易.乾）」

2012-05-20 19:52:12无 instead of 無
Posted by: justsojazz	What I meant to say is that I think you're probably right that there is principally no distinction between the two, only 无 seems to have some kind of significance in the 易經... ...even if it's perhaps only due to historical tradition and the fact that for some reason 无 wasn't changed to 無 in the course of the conversion from seal script characters, it might make sense to keep 无 in the 易經 for "historical" purposes.

2012-05-20 19:52:12无 instead of 無

Posted by: justsojazz

What I meant to say is that I think you're probably right that there is principally no distinction between the two, only 无 seems to have some kind of significance in the 易經...

...even if it's perhaps only due to historical tradition and the fact that for some reason 无 wasn't changed to 無 in the course of the conversion from seal script characters, it might make sense to keep 无 in the 易經 for "historical" purposes.

2012-08-23 09:23:02无 instead of 無
Posted by: deqingli (Paul)	古時有區別，「亡」通「无」。如郭店楚簡老子甲：我無事而民自富，我亡為而民自化。
Posted by: deqingli (Paul)

2012-09-06 00:36:34无 instead of 無
Posted by: mstong (mstong)	同樣的例子還有『于』和『於』。
Posted by: mstong (mstong)

2012-10-11 19:03:05无 instead of 無
Posted by: bao_pu (Scott Barnwell)	I don't think we should replace all the 无 in the Zhuangzi with 無. While semantically identical, it may be relevant to dating a text or may be significant in ways yet unknown. The Mawangdui Laozi texts use both, but mostly 无. Why sometimes 無? Same with the Guodian proto-Laozi, which almost always uses 亡, but we can also find 無. Someone might yet find some significance to this, so the texts should be displayed as they are found (in the edition CTP is using).

2012-10-11 19:03:05无 instead of 無

Posted by: bao_pu (Scott Barnwell)

I don't think we should replace all the 无 in the Zhuangzi with 無. While semantically identical, it may be relevant to dating a text or may be significant in ways yet unknown. The Mawangdui Laozi texts use both, but mostly 无. Why sometimes 無? Same with the Guodian proto-Laozi, which almost always uses 亡, but we can also find 無. Someone might yet find some significance to this, so the texts should be displayed as they are found (in the edition CTP is using).

2012-12-02 14:12:24无 instead of 無
Posted by: ymyzhifeng (ymyzhifeng)	同樣的情況出現在本站《列子》全篇中。
Posted by: ymyzhifeng (ymyzhifeng)

To participate in the discussion, please log in to your CTP account using the form below. If you don't yet have an account, click here to set one up.

Enjoy this site? Please help.

Site design and content copyright 2006-2024. When quoting or citing information from this site, please link to the corresponding page or to https://ctext.org. Please note that the use of automatic download software on this site is strictly prohibited, and that users of such software are automatically banned without warning to save bandwidth. 沪ICP备09015720号-3

Comments? Suggestions? Please raise them here.