# 止戈为武



## NewAmerica

止戈为武， the true art of war is the art that stops war?

背景介绍：止戈为武是王重阳提出的武术思想，见于金庸著作。


----------



## Skatinginbc

國語辭典:
語出《左傳．宣公十二年》：「非爾所知也，夫文，止戈為武。」指合止戈二字為武字，因若止息干戈，停止戰爭，才是真正的武。


----------



## NewAmerica

看来王重阳是借用。而the true art of war is the art that stops war 恰好反映了《左传》的真实思想。

这是百度提供的“外文名"

Boldness lies in the suspension of hostilities. 

跟王重阳的武术思想很接近嘛。


----------



## Flaminius

Aside from art of war, I would think that 楚之莊王 was a master of the art of words.  A monarch may want to skew the etymology of a character a bit in order to achieve anything more trivial than mollifying a bellicose vassal.  For a more serious inquiry into the character itself, I'd consult 于省吾, who wrote in his 釋武:


> 武从戈、从止，本義為征伐示威。征伐者必有行。‘止’即示行也。征伐者必以武器，‘戈’即武器也。


----------



## SimonTsai

NewAmerica said:


> the suspension of hostilities


I have a problem with the word 'suspension': If you have something suspended, you simply have it delayed or stopped for a while, rather than permanently ceased.


----------



## brofeelgood

The disuse/cessation of violence/aggression is the best show of power. It reminds me of '*nonviolent resistance'* as advocated by *Gandhi*.

As for the use of 'suspension', it's something that can be indefinite in nature, e.g. 'suspended indefinitely'.


----------



## Skatinginbc

楚莊王's and 于省吾's component analyses of the character 武 are fundamentally the same, that is, 止戈 (从止从戈). Their difference in fact lies in the interpretation of 止戈.

What could 止戈 possibly mean?
(1) Orthodox interpretation (i.e., 止息干戈):
楚莊王's interpretation (止戈 = 止息干戈) was quoted by later authoritative dictionaries (e.g.,《說文》) and held as the conventional interpretation.

(2) 擊鼓操戈 (use of weapons after beating the drums):
止 may refer to a hammer (椎) used to beat (鼓) a type of wooden drum called "柷" (《爾雅·釋樂》所以鼓柷謂之止;《註》止者，其椎名也)。The ceremonial music in ancient times as prescribed by 《禮記》purportedly starts with drums (to signal commencement; e.g., a summons to war) and then proceeds to metal percussion instruments that can also be used as weapons (《禮·樂記》始奏以文，復亂以武。《鄭註》文謂鼓，武謂金。《疏》金屬西方，可以爲兵刃，故爲武。鼓主發動衆音，無兵器之用，故爲文)。

于省吾's interpretation (止戈 = 征伐示威; "止" 即示行也 ) is a long stretch.  First of all, 行 and 止 are usually used as antonyms (e.g., 《孟子.梁惠王》 行，或使之，止，或尼之;《易經.艮卦》 時止則止，時行則行), not as synonyms as implied in "止即示行也".
止 vs. 行
(1) 止為靜，行為動："止" 是象形，表草木出生的根幹，靜態的基底 (≪說文≫ 止，下基也, 象艸木出有址)。   "行" 是會意，彳(左腳) 亍 (右腳) 交步，動態的前進 (《廣韻》行，往也，去也)。
(2) 止為足，行為步：
《說文》以止爲足.  足 could mean "stop" (止) as in 《老子》常德乃足.
《說文》行, 人之步趨也。《說文》步, 行也。

Secondly, 于省吾's derivation from 示行 (showing the steps) to 示威 (demonstrating the force) is a big jump at best and counterintuitive in fact.


----------



## Flaminius

Skatinginbc said:


> 楚莊王's and 于省吾's component analyses of the character 武 are fundamentally the same, that is, 止戈 (从止从戈). Their difference in fact lies in the interpretation of 止戈.


It is also important to factor in the different materials available to them in forming their interpretations.  莊王 could not have known about bone oracle characters found in Anyang digs.  Granted that characters used in the Warring-States Period were much closer than ones used today to those originally used during the Shang Dynasty, characters of 莊王's time, as we know them from 金石文 and 簡牘 evidence, had undergone considerable simplification as well as developments. 



> What could 止戈 possibly mean?
> (1) Orthodox interpretation (i.e., 止息干戈):
> 楚莊王's interpretation (止戈 = 止息干戈) was quoted by later authoritative dictionaries (e.g.,《說文》) and held as the conventional interpretation.


説文 often refers to 古文 (old characters) but they don't look as old as 甲骨文字.  The erudition of 許慎, the author of 説文解字, did not reach characters that were not available to him.  I would say that it is reasonable to assume 許慎's 古文 primarily referred to those characters before the Unification by the Qing dynasty.  If you look up any 甲骨文 dictionary today, you will find that most orthodox scholars agree with Mr. Yu.  For instance, 徐中舒『甲骨文字典』 says in page 125, s.v. 止, that it has four meanings.  The first one is the foot or the leg, and the other three are proper names for a country/tribe, a person, or a ritual.  What I will say below will be no more than an elaboration of this, or a little digest of what modern scholastic studies have found out.



Skatinginbc said:


> (2) 擊鼓操戈 (use of weapons after beating the drums):
> 止 may refer to a hammer (椎) used to beat (鼓) a type of wooden drum called "柷" (《爾雅·釋樂》所以鼓柷謂之止;《註》止者，其椎名也)。The ceremonial music in ancient times as prescribed by 《禮記》purportedly starts with drums (to signal commencement; e.g., a summons to war) and then proceeds to metal percussion instruments that can also be used as weapons (《禮·樂記》始奏以文，復亂以武。《鄭註》文謂鼓，武謂金。《疏》金屬西方，可以爲兵刃，故爲武。鼓主發動衆音，無兵器之用，故爲文)。


I don't quite understand how the 止 drumstick is relevant to the etymology  of 武.  As for your quotes concerning 禮記, they seem to put 文 above 武, attributing to the latter 亂 and 兵刃.  There is little clue as to what the true art of war is.



> 于省吾's interpretation (止戈 = 征伐示威; "止" 即示行也 ) is a long stretch. First of all, 行 and 止 are usually used as antonyms (e.g., 《孟子.梁惠王》 行，或使之，止，或尼之;《易經.艮卦》 時止則止，時行則行), not as synonyms as implied in "止即示行也".
> 止 vs. 行
> (1) 止為靜，行為動："止" 是象形，表草木出生的根幹，靜態的基底 (≪說文≫ 止，下基也, 象艸木出有址)。 "行" 是會意，彳(左腳) 亍 (右腳) 交步，動態的前進 (《廣韻》行，往也，去也)。


于省吾's interpretation is not a long stretch because 止 often supplies the sense of movement to bone oracle characters.  『甲骨文字典』 says 甲骨文従止多表示行動之義 in page 1365, s.v. 武.  The following are five examples from 止部 in 落合淳思『甲骨文字辞典』:


> 先 consists of 止 above 人.  It means someone who walks in front of people, or a leader.
> The 初文 (the original shape) of 征 is 口 above 止.  It's is a military expedition.
> The original shape of 逐 is 豕 above 止.  It means to chase games.
> The original shape of 徒 combines 土, the phonetic symbol, on top of 止, the sense symbol.  The original meaning is to go, or probably to go by foot.
> The original shape of 咎 is 夊 above 人.  It originally meant bad things coming to a person (夊 is used here for a footstep upside down).


Particularly of interest is 逐.  Its modern form has 辶 in place of 止.  Dictionaries usually categorise characters with 辶 into 辵部, where the older shape is retained.  The relationship between 止 and 辵 is apparent.  The latter combines 彳 (< 行) with 止.

行 as a radical in bone oracle characters seems better understood as an intersection of two roads.  There are even characters that use 行 and 止 at the same time.  Not every character of this type has its meaning clearly elucidated but it is worth a while to know that 李孝定編述『甲骨文字集釈』(vol. 12, 3784) argues that a character consisting of 武 inside 行 is an allomorph of 武.



Skatinginbc said:


> (2) 止為足，行為步：
> 《說文》以止爲足. 足 could mean "stop" (止) as in 《老子》常德乃足.
> 《說文》行, 人之步趨也。《說文》步, 行也。


I don't think 止 can express all the meanings of 足.  Can you replace 足 with 止 in your quote from 《道徳経》?  I find 老子 too recondite to my understanding, and come up with an easier example: 夔能若此、一而足矣《孔叢子》
I doubt you can do the replacement here, either.

Turning back to 落合, he cites 『甲骨文合集』(中華書局) for a usage of 止 as "to go":


> 辛卯卜貞、令周従永止。八月。(5618)


Here, 周 and 永 are proper names.



Skatinginbc said:


> Secondly, 于省吾's derivation from 示行 (showing the steps) to 示威 (demonstrating the force) is a big jump at best and counterintuitive in fact.


Mr. Yu's understanding of the 武 character is to march on with weapons.  It certainly demonstrates the force.


----------



## Skatinginbc

說得有理 .  是我過於武斷，胡說八道.


----------



## NewAmerica

甲骨文研究界的经典看法是止是足趾的趾的本字，因此于省吾的考释也就顺理成章：







While 楚庄王's interpretation may be etymologically or archaeologically incorrect, his idea that the art of war is the art that stops war is culturally or politically acceptable and historically well understood.  A king needs not to be an archaeologist, after all.

  And times have changed. From today's point of view,  the true art of war is the art that prevents war. Glad that we human beings are more peaceful than ever before according to Harvard professor, linguist Stephen Pinker.


----------



## Flaminius

My objection is limited to taking the comment of 莊王 as the 字義.  I don't mean to stop anyone from appreciating it as a 字説.  After all, it has been around at least half the life of the 武 character itself.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Flaminius said:


> Can you replace 足 with 止 in your quote from 《道徳経》?


Yes.  They are interchangeable when they mean:
(1) stop:《道德經》 為天下谷, 常德乃足 (= 止; 河上公《道德經注》足，止也, 人能爲天下谷，德乃止於己).
(2) foot: 《山海經·大荒東經》：東海中有流波山，入海七千里，其上有獸，狀如牛，蒼身而無角，_一_足 (= 止 as in《山海經》韓流麟身，渠股豚止;《郭註》止，足也), 出入水則必風雨，其光如日月，其聲如雷，其名曰夔。

When 足 means "enough", 足 and 止 are near synonyms but not identical (e.g., 《道德經》知足不辱，知止不殆)。


Skatinginbc said:


> 楚莊王's and 于省吾's component analyses of the character 武 are fundamentally the same, that is, 止戈 (从止从戈).


By "component analyses", I meant "拆字"--breaking down a character into meaningful parts.


Skatinginbc said:


> Their difference in fact lies in the interpretation of 止戈.  What could 止戈 possibly mean?


When I said "what could 止戈 possibly mean", I meant "拆白道字"--breaking down a character into parts and using the parts to form a meaningful phrase.  For example, after seeing 「一合酥 」written by 曹操, 楊修 broke the character 合 down (i.e., 人 + _一 + _口) and interpreted it as 「一人_一_口酥 」.


Skatinginbc said:


> What could 止戈 possibly mean? (1) Orthodox interpretation (i.e., 止息干戈): 楚莊王's interpretation (止戈 = 止息干戈) was quoted by later authoritative dictionaries (e.g.,《說文》) and held as the conventional interpretation.





Flaminius said:


> If you look up any 甲骨文 dictionary today, you will find that most orthodox scholars agree with Mr. Yu.


I was discussing the meaning of the phrase 止戈, not the etymology of the character 武.  Apart from the context of etymology or "甲骨文", I don't think 止戈 can be interpreted as 征伐示威 because 止 has lost its sense of mobility 動 (the state of being mobile) and been used mainly for the notion of _staying put_ (e.g, 靜 'static', 息 'rest', 居 'stay, dwell', 駐 'be stationed', 營 'encamp', 暫待 'wait temporarily') or _stopping someone_/_something from moving or being active_ (e.g., 留 'keep (someone from leaving)', 停 'stop, halt', 遏 'stop, curb', 拘逮 'detain, arrest') since the Spring and Autumn period.

止息干戈 is held as the orthodox interpretation of the phrase 止戈 :
《漢書·武五子傳》是以倉頡作書, 止戈為武, 聖人以武禁暴整亂, 止息干戈, 非以為殘而興縱之也。
《北齊書·文苑傳·樊遜》然後除其苛令, 與其約法, 振旅而還, 止戈為武。

國語辭典.止戈: 停止干戈，平息戰爭。
《文選．左思．魏都賦》千乘為之軾廬，諸侯為之止戈，則干木之德自解紛也。
唐．白居易〈為宰相賀殺賊表〉況我乘破竹，彼繼覆車，止戈之期，翹足可待。


Skatinginbc said:


> What could 止戈 possibly mean?...(2) 擊鼓操戈 (use of weapons after beating the drums)





Flaminius said:


> I don't quite understand how the 止 drumstick is relevant to the etymology  of 武.


I was talking about "拆白道字" (interpretation with its parts), not "etymological analysis" (analysis of its etymology).  止戈爲武 could be interpreted as 止後操戈爲武 (After the drumsticks, the performers pick up the lances and thus enter the phase of 武, a weapon dance), in which 止 refers to the drums, 戈 to the weapons, and 武  to the weapon dance. 《禮記》has a long discussion on  武 ("a weapon dance"), which starts with a lengthy drum performance to mentally prepare the audience for the subsequent dance performance called 武 that involves the use of weapons.


Flaminius said:


> 楚之莊王 was a master of the art of words.  A monarch may want to skew the etymology of a character a bit in order to achieve anything more trivial than mollifying a bellicose vassal.





Flaminius said:


> My objection is limited to taking the comment of 莊王 as the 字義.


楚莊王's interpretation of 止戈 was probably a faithful reflection of its meaning--not an intentional twist for an ulterior motive.  It seems very unlikely that 止戈 could possibly mean 征伐示威 during the Spring and Autumn period based on how 止 was used at that time.  It was exactly during that period when 商語 was replaced by 周語:
陈桐生 2016, 商周文学语言因革论:
殷商时期文学语言的代表文献是殷商甲骨卜辞、铭文和《尚书·商书》...西周时期存在两套书面语言：一是沿袭前朝的“殷商古语”，另一是周人通过扬弃“殷商古语”并提炼周人口语而形成的“文言”。这两套语言...区分十分明显...随着历史文化条件的变迁，“殷商古语”逐渐走向衰落，“文言”因其接近时代、贴近生活、易懂易写、便于交流而广为接受，成为春秋战国以后的主流文学语言。


----------



## Skatinginbc

I would like to challenge anyone to find a single occurrence of 止 being used for notions of 行 (intransitive) "walking/proceeding/advancing/moving forward" or 動 (transitive) "mobilizing/activating" in any Chinese languages no earlier than the Zhou dynasty.  If nobody can find an example, I would be so bold as to claim that 止 meaning 行 is not "Chinese" after all.  Here, "Chinese" refers to the Zhou language to which the lingua franca language of the Qin dynasty 秦 (cf. Hindustani Cīn [ˈtʃiːn], Persian Chīn [tʃin], English "China") belongs.  And by "Chinese languages", I mean the Zhou language and its daughter languages (and grand-daughter languages, and grand-grand-grand daughter languages )--that is, all Middle Chinese dialects and all modern Chinese dialects that we know of.

商語 may be a Sinic language ("Sinic" is used here as a contrast to "Tibeto-Burman" and for its close kinship with the "Chinese languages"), but it may not be mutually intelligible with 周語.  In other words, 商語 and 周語 may be linguistically qualified as different languages.  Just as Japanese adopted characters from Chinese, so did 周 adopt the writing system from 商.  The adoption does not make Japanese a "Chinese language" or make 周語 a Shang language. In "Chinese" minds (i.e., in the minds of the people influenced by the language of Zhou), 止戈 meaning 止息干戈 is the most natural interpretation.  止戈 meaning 征伐示威 is counterintuitive and does not seem to be "Chinese" (belonging to the language of Zhou) at all.


----------



## fyl

止戈, as a phrase (verb + noun), is not the same as 从止从戈.

止本为“趾”的意思，“趾”是后造的字。止就是脚，武就是一个人扛着戈走路。就好像用现代语言也无法理解“其”是“簸箕”的意思（箕是后造的，其是最初的象形）。


----------



## Flaminius

Skatinginbc said:


> By "component analyses", I meant "拆字"--breaking down a character into meaningful parts.


I am a bit at a loss what we have been discussing.  It is me who brought Mr. Yu's opinion into the thread and I meant it to be an etymological argument.  You seemed to me to agree with the direction of the discussion when you argued that the 楚王's episode was quoted in 説文解字.  Whatever was the limits of the times of 許慎, 説文 was clearly intended to be a work of etymological (字源) study.



Skatinginbc said:


> I would like to challenge anyone to find a single occurrence of 止 being used for notions of 行 (intransitive) "walking/proceeding/advancing/moving forward" or 動 (transitive) "mobilizing/activating" in any Chinese languages no earlier than the Zhou dynasty.


Like I said, I don't concern myself with 字説, but with my curiosity piqued by your challenge, I found this in 《汉语大词典》 s.v. 止:


> Sense 5. 至；到。
> ●《诗·鲁颂·泮水》： 「鲁侯戾止， 言观其旗。」
> ●郑玄笺： 「戾， 来。 止， 至也。」
> ●汉严遵《道德指归论·万物之奥》： 「俊雄英豪， 辐至蜂止。」


----------



## Skatinginbc

出發啟動 vs. 到達終止
The 止 (= 至；到) means "_arrive_", not "_go_" or "_head for_" (是到了哪裡，不是去、到的過程； 如，走到了終點是「走」這個動作的了結停止，不是動作的持續進行).  To me, the notion of arrival (coming to a stop, coming for a short stay, from moving around to not moving around) is demobilization, not mobilization.  It is the opposite of "_activate_" 啟動.
《詩經．魯頌．泮水》魯侯戾止 ==> arriving for a short stay at the 泮宫.
《詩經.周頌.有瞽》我客戾止 ==> arriving for a short stay.
《三國志..孫權傳》民神痛怨，靡所戾止 ==> 沒有窮盡止境; 止 "stop, end".
唐劉禹錫《武陵北亭記》蒞止三月 ==> coming to stay for three months.
Likewise, we may say 蜂止 (arriving like a swarm of bees to stay; e.g., 漢嚴遵《道德指歸論·萬物之奧》 輻至蜂止).  It is related to 鳥止 (= 集 'to perch, to gather and stay at a place').


Flaminius said:


> Whatever was the limits of the times of 許慎, 説文 was clearly intended to be a work of etymological (字源) study.


說文 was intended to bridge the gap between 漢隸 and 篆書.  The fact that 許慎 quoted 楚莊王's comment suggests that he believed or assumed 武 was composed of 止 + 戈 meaning "止息干戈" in 篆書.

說文 usually provides (1) a definition and (2) a formation/component analysis (e.g., semantic radical, phonetic radical, 象形，會意，etc.) for each character (in 篆書).  說文 typically lists only one (occasionally two) definition for each character and is not designed to cover all the definitions.  For the character 武，許慎 apparently thought 楚莊王's quote alone was enough to fill the bill in explaining 字的組成 (止 + 戈) and 字義 (止息干戈為武) in 小篆.  He did not concern himself with the character's origin in 甲骨文 or 殷商古語.

Yes, 說文 is a work of etymological study, but its scope does not go beyond 周朝.  And yes, the character can be traced back to 甲骨文, in which 武 is composed of 止 (足, figuratively "示行") + 戈 (weapon).

My argument (if stated from an etymological standpoint) was:
The 武 in 隸書 is evolved from the 武 in 篆書，which is composed of 止 (足, figuratively "to stop") + 戈 (the use of weapon). 止 could not mean 行進 in the Zhou dynasty, and thus "持戈行進" might not be applicable to the interpretation of the character's components in the Zhou dynasty.

PS. Thank you, Flaminius, for taking up my challenge.  I always value your input and admire your knowledge in Chinese.  It is my great honor to share opinions with you.


----------



## Flaminius

Skatinginbc said:


> To me, the notion of arrival (coming to a stop, coming for a short stay, from moving around to not moving around) is demobilization, not mobilization. It is the opposite of "_activate_" 啟動.


I think you are right, *Skatinginbc*, for most of the usage of 止 in the dictionary I quoted.  Still, the connection of arrival and demobilisation is not self-evident.  It needs elucidating in every instance.  The quote of 嚴遵 is followed by:


> 聖人之下,朝多君子。


君子 (a parallelism for 海內之士 and 俊雄英豪) do not come to the sage for resting.  They will come to him in order to serve under him for the country.  In other words, they come to him for action.  This instance of 止 hardly denotes demobilisation, then.

I realise you were also up to action while I was pondering what to write to your remark immediately below.  Since you updated your post to include "說文 is a work of etymological study, but its scope does not go beyond 周朝," the following has largely been obviated.  Still, I thought it is a pity not to show I did my homework too.  Readers are advised to please note that the following is a reply to a previous version of post #16 by *Skatinginbc*. 



Skatinginbc said:


> 說文 was intended to bridge the gap between 漢隸 and 篆書.


Indeed 許慎 was aware that 大篆 (=籀文) was different from the seal characters of his time  As different as they were, they were similar enough to suppose a relationship and to justify naming the latter 小篆.  隸書 is one of the scripts created after 小篆.

An example of differences between 大篆 and 小篆; 説文 s.v. 笏 distinguishes 籀文 from 後人所加.  This alone, however, would be too petty an objective for a work whose preface refers back to the legendary 倉頡:


> 黃帝史官倉頡，見鳥獸蹄迒之跡，知分理之可相別異也，初造書契



The headwords (or head-letters because we are dealing with the etymology of letters) in 說文 are written with 篆書 but 許慎 frequently lists 籀文 and 古文 forms under a 篆書 headword.  Below are two specimens:
https://www.nigensha.co.jp/tensho/tensho01/image/setsumon.gif (< 綿引滔天先生の連載「篆書について」)
http://www.chikyukotobamura.org/muse/img/kanji1.pdf (< 世界の文字)

From a passage in the preface, 籀文 is assumed to be synonymous to 大篆:


> 及宣王太史籀，著大篆十五篇，與古文或異。


史籀 is attested as 史留 in [走馬]鼎 (cf. 陳佩芬『繁卣,[走馬]鼎及梁其鐘銘文詮釋』1982).  The structure of this 鼎 is classed as 西周V型3式, which belongs to the periods of 厲王 and 宣王.

We also have 古文 here.  It is not just "an old script" but has specific connotations.  That is, it refers to the script used in Confucianist documents found from the walls of the old residence of the Confucius family (古文，孔子壁中書也).  This is attested in an external source too (《漢書・藝文志》):


> 史籀篇者，周時史官教學童書也，與孔氏壁中古文異體。



Note that both sources say that 籀文 and 古文 are different.  I don't know know how deep I should go into this but scribes of West Zhou already developed different script styles by the time of 厲王 and 宣王.  A contemporary ding to  [走馬]鼎 is 頌鼎.  The scribe of this ding wrote 廷 as a character that consists of L, 二, and 人 (l.4, c.5).  The horizontal bar under 人 attests to the merger of 人 and 土 beneath it into one.  Compare it with 廷 in 四十二年逨鼎.  This one consists of L, 土, and 人 (l.4, c.3).  Interestingly, the difference would be found across regions in later times; with the 人 variant in 秦 (秦公簋器盖铭: l.2, c.1) and 人土 variant in 楚 (簡帛文字).

The relationship between 籀文 and 古文 is difficult, but as can be seen, they are both historical and regional variations.  It also seems probable that 許慎 was aware of both aspects.  My conclusion is that 説文解字 is a little more than a "隸書 users' guide to 篆書".


----------



## Skatinginbc

Flaminius said:


> The quote of 嚴遵 is followed by: 聖人之下，朝多君子.
> 
> 君子 (a parallelism for 海內之士 and 俊雄英豪) do not come to the sage for resting.  They will come to him in order to serve under him for the country.


I've stayed in the same company for twenty years.==> It is a notion of 靜 (不動)--not moving--despite the fact that I've been working like dogs all these years.

People from all over the world come to stay in Canada.  ==> Again, the notion of "stay" is 靜--stop moving.  Does that mean those immigrants do not work, do not eat, do not do anything in Canada？  No.

Many talents came from every corner of the country to work under him.  ==> They came (戾) and intended to stay (止) under him.


----------



## Flaminius

Just as talents coming (止) to a sage does not necessarily mean they stop using their talent, so armed forces arriving (止) at a place does not necessarily mean they stop using weapons.  武 as decomposed into 止 AND 戈 (or in 許慎's term, 从止从戈) is still ambiguous as to what happens after the forces arrive.  Whether it will be a ceasefire or a full-scale armed conflict is still open to question.  It is 楚王 that chose to use 止 as a verb and equated the character with the sentence "(we should) stop fighting."


----------



## Skatinginbc

When I see "marching on with weapons" as the meaning of the character 武, I envision GOing to war, setting OUT for the battlefield, moving towards the enemy--not an armed force coming to you or having arrived.  武 is used to describe  demonstration of force or the demonstrator of force (e.g., 孔武之人 is one who exhibits great force), not the  "demonstratee" (target of the demonstration) of force.  An armed force COMING to you or ARRIVING at your door step makes you a demonstratee, not a demonstrator. None of the notions of 止 (e.g., arrive) in the Zhou language could fit in the 殷商's idea of "marching on with weapons", so a new interpretation (e.g.,  楚莊王's) was needed to make sense of the character's components.


----------



## Flaminius

Then I bring to your attention《汉语大词典》 s.v. 正 (II):


> 7. 通「征」。征伐。
> 8. 通「征」。征役。


It takes examples from 詩経 and 礼記.

説文解字 says:


> 正，是也。从止，一以止。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ，古文正，从二，二，古上字。
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ，古文正，从一、足，足者，亦止也。


It does some complicated discussion with three forms of this character but it is safe to say that it recognises two components; 止/足 and 一/二.  You can see my second post for 落合's complication, but it is almost unnecessary for seeing the original meaning (本義) of this character was military expedition.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Flaminius said:


> it takes examples from 詩経 and 礼記.


詩經.商頌.玄鳥 ==> Yes, 征伐 pertains to military expedition, but it is a deliberate use of 商語 expression.  It is 商頌 after all.

禮記.燕義：司馬弗正 ==> No, 征役 (= 賦稅與徭役) has nothing to do with military expedition.


Flaminius said:


> it is almost unnecessary for seeing the original meaning (本義) of this character was military expedition.


Indeed, 說文's interpretation is 「一以止」(徐鎧曰：守一以止也)， in which 「止」does not mean 行 or military expedition.


----------



## Flaminius

Another instance of 正 for 征:
故诸侯服而无正 in 《管子・山至數》

正 in 司馬弗正 means to draught people into military.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Flaminius said:


> 司馬弗正 means to draught people into military.


to impose duty, to levy (征 OC *teŋ, MC *tsyeng, 賦也, 稅也) in form of tax 征稅, goods 征糧, unpaid labor 征役, or military service 征兵.

to collect duty, to summon (徵 OC *trəŋ, MC *tring, 召也, 斂也; e.g., 徵兵 'conscript')

I don't know how imposing duty can be relevant to the notion of "foot", 行進, or "expedition" that we have been discussing.


Flaminius said:


> 故诸侯服而无正 in 《管子・山至數》


征伐，on the other hand, is relevant to the notion of "foot", 行進, or "expedition".  Some versions of 管子 treat 正 here as a scribal error (正為止字之誤 ) and have「服而無止」(止 meaning "end, stop") instead.  Even so, I would give it the benefit of the doubt and take it as an example in that 正 (= 征伐) actually makes sense to me in this context.

正 is a 破音字.  The 正 that came from 商語 is usually pronounced as 征 (e.g., 正月 in 商朝甲骨文 = 征月 in 周朝金文; 王正土方 in 商語 = 王征土方 in 周語), whereas the one that came from 周語 is typically pronounced as 政 (e.g., 周.大盂鼎:玟王正德 = 文王政德).  The 正 defined by 說文 as "是也" ("right, correct") has its origin in 周語 and is pronounced as 政 (說文.正: 之盛切).  That is to say, the 止 (足, figuratively "to stay") in 說文's or 周語's 正 (pronounced 政) may be etymologically different from the 止 (足, figuratively "to 行進") in 商語's 正 (pronounced 征). 說文's 正 (一以止) means "staying in 一", in which "一" symbolizes "straightness, levelness, pureness, balance, principle 道 (cf. 道立於一)'.

If the original text is indeed 服而無正 rather than 服而無止, we may still argue that 正 (= 征) is a 商語 loanword and therefore does not reflect the nature (i.e., seeing 止/足 as demobilization) of the indigenous 周語.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Immobile: 止 OC *_təʔ_ 'foot; stop' vs. Mobile: 之 OC *_tə_ 'go to'

商語 「之」的本義為往 'go to'.  甲骨文「之」是「从止从一」(「止」象足，「一」象地，指腳離開原地向前走)。《爾雅．釋詁》之，往也。 因是古語, 所以《爾雅》把它列入《釋詁》(用當代語言解釋古語).  既然「止」在周人腦中是靜態, 「一」(地) 上的「止」(腳), 豈非「立足」(to stand on feet, to stay in a place)?   周人看那字形看不出 "行進離開" 的概念, 越看越不爽, 忍不住便想稍作修改, 到了小篆, 竟成了「一」(地) 上長出「屮」(草). 《說文》之，出也, 象艸過屮, 枝莖益大, 有所之, 一者, 地也。隷書的「一」+ 「屮」是 《六書略》說的「象芝出地」。

The change from "_go to_" (甲骨文: 之，往也) to "_go out_, _emerge_" (小篆: 之，出也) might be a reflection of a replacement by another language stratum, for example, the Qin language 秦語 (Old Chinese 之 OC *_tə_; cf. Chepang _tha_- 'appear (out of), sprout'; Ahi Loloish _tʻɤ_, Sani Loloish _tʻy_ 'emerge, come out', Lalo Loloish _thìq_ 'go out; outwards').  If it turns out to be the case, then the 之 "_go __out__, emerge_" in 小篆 is etymologically different from the 之 "_go __to_" in 甲骨文.  I mean: They have different origins.  And thus we cannot arbitrarily claim that 說文's etymological analysis is incorrect.


----------

