Is 了 a pictogram (象形字)?

Question

當我看 Hinen 的答案時，看到近代書將「了」分為象形字。 大概是因為《說文解字》曾提及「象形」二字如下：

了，尦也。从子，無臂。象形。

作者許慎的意思應該是將「了」判為象形字。

《說文解字》的序文有象形字的定義：

象形者，畫成其物，隨體詰詘，日月是也。

象形字是依物體的彎曲樣子將它的形狀畫出來，譬如，日和月。
也就是說，象形字是直接描繪該物體。

但是，段玉裁的《說文解字注》將許慎的「象形」二字解釋為：象「其足了戾」之形，而不是解為：象「子無臂」之形。 也就是說，段玉裁認為「了」是畫「兩腳糾結」之形，而不是直接畫「子無臂」之形。 段玉裁會如此解釋，大概是因為「了」的本義是「尦」。 （依 Hinen 的答案，「尦」的意思是，行走時，小腿相互交叉。）

但這就暗示「了」不是象形字，因為不是直接描繪該物體。

是段玉裁解錯了嗎？還是許慎判錯了？

「了」是象形字嗎？如果不是，那是哪一種字？

---

When I look at Hinen's answer, I see that 了 is a pictograph in the modern books. It is probably due to that there are two characters, 象形, in the 《說文解字》 as follows.

了，尦也。从子，無臂。象形。

The author, 許慎, should mean that 了 is a pictograph.

There is a definition of pictographs in the preface of 《說文解字》.

象形者，畫成其物，隨體詰詘，日月是也。
A pictograph is drawn by following the curved shape of an object, such as 日 (sun) and 月 (moon).

That is, a pictographic word is made by drawing the object DIRECTLY.

However, in the 《說文解字注》, 段玉裁 interpreted 許慎's 象形 as 象「其足了戾」之形 rather than 象「子無臂」之形。 In other words, 段玉裁 thought that 了 was made by depicting the twined and bound shape of two feet, rather than by DIRECTLY depicting the shape of "a baby without arms". This is probably because the original meaning of 了 is 尦. (According to Hinen's answer, 尦 means that the shanks cross each other while walking.）

However, this implies that 了 is not a pictograph because it is not made by DIRECTLY drawing the object.

Was the interpretation made by 段玉裁 wrong?

Or

Did 許慎 make a wrong judgment?

Is 了 a pictograph? If not, what category does it belong to?

Answer 1

「了」是象形字嗎？ Is 了 a pictograph?

丁福保所編的《說文解字詁林》收集了（清）王筠《說文句讀》中關於「了」的解釋。
丁福保's 《說文解字詁林》 collected (Qing Dynasty) 王筠's 《說文句讀》, which has explained 了.

筠 [ ㄩㄣˊ | yún ]
句讀 [ ㄐㄩˋ ㄉㄡˋ | jù dòu ]

圖一

《集韻》引，無「象」字。然，「象形」二字竝當删。
（完整文見圖三藍線）

竝 ＝ 並 [ ㄅ〡ㄥˋ | bìng ]

意思是：《集韻》在引用《說文解字》的「从子無臂象形」時，沒有包括「象」這個字。 也就是：「从子，無臂形」。 而王筠認為應該連「形」字都不取。 亦即：「从子，無臂」。
It means that when 《集韻》 quoted 从子無臂象形 from 《說文解字》, 象 was excluded. That is 从子，無臂形. 王筠 thought that 形 should be removed too. That is 从子，無臂.

註：《集韻》是北宋時，仁宗命丁度等人編寫的官方韻書。
Note: 《集韻》 was an official rhyme book compiled by 丁度 and others under the 仁宗's order during the Northern Song Dynasty.

朱駿聲的《說文通訓定聲》也沒有包括「象」字。
朱駿聲 also excluded 象 in his 《說文通訓定聲》.

圖二

為什麼有這麼多的學者專家都删掉「象（形）」字？
Why did such many experts and scholars delete 象（形）?

大概只有一個解釋，就是他們不認為「了」是象形字。
The only explanation might be that they did not consider 了 as a pictograph.

那是哪一種字？ What category does it belong to?

再看《說文句讀》後文。
Let's look at the subsequent contents in the 《說文句讀》.

圖三

《後漢書˙孔融傳》曰：「小而了了」，則「了」字屬事，不屬物，安得有形可象？許說「了，尦」，亦是事也。

尦 [ ㄌㄧㄠˋ | liào ]

意思是：「了了」是指很聰明這件事，不屬於物體，根本沒有形體可以描繪。 許慎所說的「了，尦也」，也是指小腿交叉這件事。
It means that 了了 refers to "very clever", which is not an object, so there is not a physical shape to depict at all. 了，尦也 mentioned by 許慎 also refers to the thing or affair of crossing the shanks.

再看《說文通訓定聲》後文。
Let's look at the 《說文通訓定聲》 again.

圖四

手之攣，曰「了」，脛之縶，曰「尦」。从子無臂，指事。 （轉注）凡物結糾紾縳不伸者，曰「了戾」。 （叚借）為憭。

攣 [ ㄌㄨㄢˊ | luán ]
縶 [ ㄓˊ | zhí ]
紾 [ ㄓㄣˇ | zhěn ]
縳 [ ㄓㄨㄢˋ | zhuàn ]
叚 [ ㄐ〡ㄚˇ ｜ jiă ] ＝ 假
憭 [ ㄌ〡ㄠˇ | liăo ] ＝ 瞭
縛 [ ㄈㄨˊ | fú ] 大陸可能讀四聲

束縛手臂稱為「了」，束縛小腿稱為「尦」。 「了」是從「子無臂」而來，屬指事字。 又被轉用來解釋物體糾結不直的樣子，稱為「了戾」。 也被「瞭」借用為「明白」的意思。
To bind arms is called 了. To bind shanks is called 尦. 了 is derived from 子 by removing the left-right stroke, and is one of the simple indicatives (ideograms). 了 is also transfered to explain the twined and bound appearance of an object, said 了戾. In addition, 了 is borrowed by 瞭 that means "to understand" or "clear".

《說文解字詁林》也收集了饒炯的《說文解字部首訂》。
《說文解字詁林》 also collected 饒炯's 《說文解字部首訂》。

圖五

指事......
以尦說了，蓋因類爲釋。......是以，朱駿聲說：「手之攣，曰『了』，足之縶，曰『尦』；从子無臂，指事」，是也。
若从段玉裁說「象其足了戾之形」，其事屬足，而篆省反在手，何能見其爲足之了戾乎？

此文就說得很明顯了，一開始就直接定義是指事字。
The statement is very clear, which directly defines 了 as one of the indicatives at the beginning.

用「尦」來解釋「了」，是用類似的形狀來解釋。 所以，朱駿聲會有如此說法，是這個緣故。
To explain 了 with 尦 is based on the similar shape. Therefore, this is the reason 朱駿聲 explained it as above.

如果是依段玉裁的說法「象其足了戾之形」，這是在說足。 然而篆文省去的卻是手。 段玉裁怎能知道它是足之糾結呢？
If it is in accordance with 段玉裁's statement, 象其足了戾之形, this talks about the LEGS. However, the ARMS are omitted in the seal character. How could 段玉裁 know that it was the twined and bound appearance of the LEGS?

意思是說，如果是象形字而不是指事字，段玉裁不能用足之糾結來解釋臂之省略。
It means that if it is a pictograph rather than an indicative, 段玉裁 could not explain the omission of the ARMS with the bound appearance of the LEGS.

所以，這些學者認為「了」應該是指事字。
Therefore, these scholars believed that 了 should be one of the indicatives.

Answer 2

However, this implies that 了 is not a pictograph because it is not made by DIRECTLY drawing the object.

Pictograph depict the form of an object and the form of an object can imply an action. For example, 入 was originally a form of a 'lid facing down' and that implies 'storage; enter' which became the primary meaning today.

Various characters started out as a simple pictograph to depict an object or form. Acquired radical(部首) status when enough characters were formed around on these pictograph, for example: 土, 日 and 子.

了 : 象形。从子,无臂

从子 means the radical (部首) of '了' is '子'(omitted arms). The original meaning of 了 was not 'baby without arms', just the word itself belongs to the modified form of '子' 字部

了 originally depicted the form of 'bouned shape of two feet'. It qualifies 了 as pictograph even the primary meaning of 了(form of bounded shape of two feet) is 'finish; complete' -- just like the primary meaning of 入(form of a lid) is 'enter'

Answer 3

Some people proposed this hypothesis:

A unborn baby is 厶, whose oracle writing is similar to an inverted 了 and is depicting the fetus with the head down. This is because in a normal delivery the head of a baby comes out first.

As the baby is born, it becomes 了, which is an inverted 厶 because it's born.

子 is the baby with arms wielding. 孑 and 孓 are baby with only left or right arm wielding. 子, 了, 孑 and 孓 are four different depiction of a baby.