Character indexes of modern Chinese By N. H. Leon (review)

488 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 58, NUMBER 2 (1982) manifestations ofparticular semantic categories and the use ofspecific lexical items are discussed. A's use of Chafean grammar is handled competently , although I wonder if so much formal apparatus is really essential to the task at hand. The strength of the study is clearly its ability to impart to the reader a sense of the semantic complexity of Hindi reduplication, and of the ways that this complexity is related to the overt syntax ofthe language. Abbi has, I believe, shed light on an aspect of Hindi grammar which, at first examination, seems of no great significance , but which after further study turns out to offer glimpses of the underlying conceptual structure of the language. [Michael C. Shapiro , University of Washington.] Character indexes of modern Chinese. By N. H. Leon. (Scandinavian Institute ofAsian Studies, Monograph series, 42.) London: Curzon Press, 1981. Pp. 508. To the student of Chinese who has spent many hours fumbling through character dictionaries , vainly searching for obscure entries, this manual offers welcome relief. In one volume, it provides four indexes: an alphabetic (pinyin) index, an index by radical, a revised four-corner index, and a so-called 'rapid-stroke order' index—an experimental system introduced in China in 1978. The radical index is richer than those found in most dictionaries, in that characters with ambiguous radicals are listed under all possibilities. This practice is based on that in the semi-official dictionary Xinhua zidian (Beijing); but other recent dictionaries do not always provide multiple index listings. The practice of multiple indexing saves many false starts when the reader is forced to guess the 'standard' radical of an unfamiliar character. The traditional four-corner index system was revised in 1965. This volume follows the new system, noting differences from the old. Both the radical and four-corner indexes include traditional forms (fántízi) of characters as well as simplified forms. The experimental rapid-stroke order indexing system, not previously presented outside China, deserves attention. Each stroke in a character is classifiable into one of six directional types (vertical, horizontal, turning etc.) and assigned a number. If the reader has written enough Chinese to have a feel for stroke order, he can then determine the rapid-stroke order number of the character from the type-numbers of the first six strokes—or, for characters with over nine strokes, from the type-numbers ofthe sixth through eleventh strokes. It is sroprisingly easy to use. The number scheme is simple (clearly simpler than the four-corner system), and no esoteric knowledge of radicals or etymologies is required—only the ability to write Chinese. Leon's contribution lies in gathering these systems into one volume, cross-indexing them, and providing English explanations. His purpose is to provide a replacement for C-Y. Dougherty's Character indexes (1963), now out of date because of language reform. L does not include a total-stroke count index, deeming that system quite inefficient, or a telegraphic code index—since that code will soon be revised. As a replacement for Dougherty, L's work is a modest success. He puts into one volume what Dougherty did in five, making his a far more convenient handbook. However, there are some omissions and editorial confusions. Only simplified forms of characters are indexed according to rapid-stroke order; traditional forms are not. The alphabetic index is not cross-indexed to the rapid-stroke order index. L says that such a cross-index is unnecessary, because it is so easy to find characters in the new system. This may almost be true, but still seems a feeble excuse to anyone trying to learn the new system. Also, it is not clear why some explanations are presented in English and Chinese, but others in English only. Again, it is unclear why L has included, as an appendix, lists of characters used as kanji in Japanese. This may be useful to a few readers; but it appears that L has not tried to identify his audience, but simply thrown in whatever he could lay his hands on. A reediting of this volume, with a closer eye toward conciseness, could make this a valuable resource indeed...