Good dictionary for Literary Chinese?

[Mark Yong]

I would like to enquire on what is a good and resonably-priced dictionary for studying Literary Chinese.

The two dictionaries recommended in Michael A. Fuller's An Introduction to Literary Chinese are 漢語大辭典 and 大漢和辭典 - both of which, while admittedly the best, are voluminous and way too expensive for an amateur doing private study.

The other one I read about in one of the Amazon.com reviews is the 辭源. Now, the review states that the dictionary is published in China (商務出版社), so I am guessing that it is printed using Simplifed Characters. I would prefer a dictionary that uses Traditional Characters, especially since the Simplified Characters have merged many characters that were once distinct in Literary Chinese (e.g. 豐 and 丰). Please correct me if I am mistaken. I was told that it is the best Literary Chinese dictionary available in the affordable range.

For the purpose of study, I am assuming that both 康熙字典 and 說文解字, while being classics in their own right, are not suitable for study (I own a copy of 康熙字典, it does not aid me in my study!).

Currently, my only available dictionary is Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary, last edited in 1931. While it has been derided by many critics for being outdated and inaccurate in the Romanisation of many words, it has served me well. On the basis of the sheer number of characters alone (more than 7,500) and the rich repository of Literary Chinese applications (though, a critic did point out that some entries are wrong), it is the best I have at the moment.

Can anyone help me out on this?

[zhwj]

First you'll want this link, under "Dictionaries and reference works." It pretty much tells you what you want to know.

I'll add that 古代汉语常用字字典 is also available in a traditional-character version, is cheap, and is a good single-character reference.

The biggest problem with the Mathews is not the pronunciation or the incorrect entries, but rather the lack of citations and indications that tie words to a particular period (the link says it, I've heard profs say it, and I quickly realized it myself).

The 辞源 will be printed in traditional characters, so long as you buy the Commercial Press edition. Since the names are not trademarked, there are lots of other versions as well, ranging from alphabetic editions of the original work to indices of modern Chinese usage.

Also, the publisher of 汉语大词典 puts out a condensed edition in three volumes (罗竹风.汉语大词典(缩印三卷本).北京:汉语大词典出版社,1997) But that's hard to find.

This link is also a good, comprehensive list of reference materials.

[amego]

漢語大辭典

WOW this dict contains over 56000 characters Anyway its available at most public libraries in Singapore, and I saw it in my school. As I'm interested in Chinese characters, I went up to the librarian (she was quite surprised:mrgreen: ) and asked her where did she purchase it. She said that it was from a bookstore, and they added it to their collection one by one as the publisher published one book at a time. So I went there and to my disappointment, they don't have it anymore

Anyway can anyone tell me how much does it cost? Thanx alot!

[zhwj]

Here you go: 12 volumes, list 1440 yuan, online price 1296. It can be bought by the volume, however. Note that this is the domestic China price - overseas is going to be several times this amount.

There's a two-volume edit that retails for 380 yuan. It only has slightly more than 20,000 individual character listings.

Note that this is not the three-volume photo-condensed version (600 yuan) that reproduces the entire 12-volume set, with four original pages on a single page, I believe (there's also a 1-volume 辞海 that apparently does a 9 to 1 reduced printing).

[amego]

12 volumes, list 1440 yuan, online price 1296. It can be bought by the volume, however. Note that this is the domestic China price - overseas is going to be several times this amount.

I see thanks alot! Hmmm I think right now I just 算了吧。。。以后再说。。。

[Mark Yong]

Hi, ZHWJ,

Thanks for your recommendations! Yes, the link you provided is the one I visited. Actually, after reading your reply, I visited two bookstores to locate a copy of 辭源. True to your observation, I found two versions of it - one 2-volume version (green covers) and one 1-volume version (yellow cover). The yellow one is published by 商務印書館. I have not had a chance to inspect the contents yet, but the title is printed in Traditional Chinese, so I presume the contents are, too. I also hope that the characters are listed according the the traditional Kangxi radicals. Time to visit the bookstore again and get the staff to open up the wrapping for me!

Cheers,

Mark

[Sophia_Shang]

I strongly recommend these books following:

1 古汉语常用字字典 商务印书馆

It can provide you basic definitions for most common-used words. In mainland China, it is used among high school students.

2 古代汉语词典 商务印书馆

It contains quite a lot of information, and is used among Chinese major college students.

I do not recommend 辞源，辞海，说文解字，康熙字典, if you are not a specialist on ancient Chinese or an archaeologist. Few Chinese can really use them because they cannot understand them! Of course, I have bought them all and found them really useful, but they are just too difficult to read.

[Mark Yong]

Hello, Sophia,

Thanks for the advice! I have not seen 古漢語常用字字典 before, but I have seen 古代漢語辭典 at my local bookstore. I do believe there is also a complement (and almost-identical looking) volume called 現代漢語辭典.

Are the contents of 辭源 similar to 辭海? A few years ago, I took a brief look into 辭海 (that was long before I started to be interested in 文言文). But your comment on it being very difficult to read, and therefore best left till much later, is definitely noted!

Another question - As you know, 簡體字 has merged together many words that were once distinct words in 文言文. I note that 古代漢語辭典 uses 簡體字. How does it resolve this complication, as and when it occurs? Does it put the 簡體字 and 繁體字 equivalents side-by-side to mark these distinctions?

[Mark Yong]

Recently, I saw a set of 漢語大字典 available at the 學林書局 bookstore in Kuala Lumpur. I took a look inside the first volume, but was disappointed to find that the characters are in 簡體字 form. And according to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanyu_Da_Zidian), it uses only 200 radicals to classify the characters (as opposed to the standard 康熙 214 radicals).

Also, it appears from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daikanwa_Jiten) that the 大漢和字典 might be a superior dictionary for 文言文 Literary Chinese... ironic that the best dictionary available for studying Literary Chinese is a Japanese-originated dictionary (kudos to the late 諸橋辙次 Morohashi Tetsuji for this fine piece of work).

Now, this is quite strange, because in Michael A. Fuller's "An Introduction to Literary Chinese" (ISBN 0-674-46174-6), he cites one of the entries in 漢語大字典, and there are, in fact, references to classical texts. I did not notice this in the edition of the 漢語大字典 that I saw - could I have been looking at the wrong dictionary?

Anyway, in Fuller's above-mentioned citation of the 漢語大字典 (Page 48 ), the quotations use 簡體字, which is a minus point for me if researching 文言文 Literary Chinese is the objective.

[zhwj]

Please recheck your reference - Fuller cites from the 汉语大词典. Text is simplified; pre-modern citations are in traditional characters. The radical index is just that - an index - so it's not all that important which particular system is used. I'd imagine that the 200-radical index is used because it's what most other contemporary mainland dictionaries use, so readers would be accustomed to using it.

[Mark Yong]

Hi, ZHWJ,

You are right, I cited the wrong reference! My apologies for that. And you are right, the modern definitions are in 簡體字, and the pre-modern citations are in 繁體字 (How did I miss that...). I take it you also have a copy of Fuller, too, and are also referring to the cited definition of the word "雨"

Also, my apologies for being a stickler for 簡體字 and the 200/214-radical thing. Being a 文言文 fan, I tend to avoid using dictionaries and reference material that uses 簡體字 - as you know, the character-merging in the simplification process led to a few ambiguities (e.g. 余 and 餘 became 余, 裡 and 里 became 里), and as you know, the compactness of 文言文 makes the unambiguity of individual characters quite important. Just a pet gripe of mine.

Having said that, is there a significant difference between the 漢語大字典 and 漢語大辭典? I've not had a chance to see the latter yet.

[Mark Yong]

I made another mistake. The correct name of 諸橋辙次 Morohashi Tetsuji's dictionary should be 大漢和辭典, not 大漢和字典.