65669
As a novice learner, I'm finding understanding the relationship between
radicals, components, kanji and words difficult.

For example, [this post on tofugu.com](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/kanji-
radicals-mnemonic-method/) says that:

> The kanji is 町, which means "town." As you can see in the image above, 町 is
> made up of two radicals:
>
>   1. 田 (rice paddy)
>   2. 丁 (street)
>

>
> To learn this kanji using the radicals mnemonic method, you need to know the
> names of these two radicals first.

However, this seems to clash with the notion that every single kanji only has
one radical and one radical only. For example, if I search for [the kanji 町 on
jisho.org](https://jisho.org/search/%E7%94%BA%20%23kanji) it says that the
radical is 田 while the parts are 一, 亅 and 田.

The confusing thing to me is that I found as many sources to corroborate one
version as I found sources to corroborate the other.

I came up with a series of statements to clarify to myself the relationship
between radicals, components, kanji and words:

  1. Every radical is a kanji but not every kanji is a radical.
  2. A radical is simply a kanji that is used to create other kanji.
  3. Every kanji only has one radical.
  4. Kanji can have multiple components/parts that are kanji by themselves.
  5. People use the terms 'radical' and 'parts' interchangeably, though this is not 100% correct.
  6. Every kanji in itself is also a word but not every word is just a kanji (most are not).

Is my interpretation correct?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T19:38:54.613
65665
2019-11-06T13:45:29.523
2019-11-06T09:34:45.490
10723
33069
question
grammar kanji radicals
Relationship between radicals, components, kanji and words
1. Every radical is a kanji but not every kanji is a radical.  
Wrong. 丶｛てん｝(like in [丸](https://jisho.org/search/%E4%B8%B8%23kanji)) is a
radical. Is it a kanji?

  2. A radical is simply a kanji that is used to create other kanji.  
Wrong. See answer to 1.

  3. Every kanji only has one radical.  
Maybe. If you mean radical in the sense of the 'main referential element'.

  4. Kanji can have multiple components/parts that are kanji by themselves.  
Correct. 'Can' being the operative word.

  5. People use the terms 'radical' and 'parts' interchangeably.  
Yes. People do lots of crazy things.

  6. Using the terms 'radical' and 'parts' interchangeably is not 100% correct.  
Agree.

  7. Every kanji in itself is also a word.  
Wrong. 持 is a kanji, but not used as a 'word' by itself. Like 'non' and 'pre'
are parts of English words, but not words unto themselves.

  8. Not every word is just a kanji (most are not).  
Correct.

The 'radical' should be considered the organizing or primary
part/element/component or a 'fully-formed' kanji. Your confusion likely arises
due to the disparate ways that some people might describe these
'parts/elements/components' and also conflate 'radical' with the
aforementioned.

While some kanji references might list the non-radical 'parts', there often is
not a term used to substitute for the word 'parts'.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-23T21:37:36.867
65669
2019-02-24T08:53:57.037
2019-02-24T08:53:57.037
33069
27280
65665
answer
Here's my suggestion to try to make it clearer for you. I don't know how
familiar you are with linguistic terminology so this is a little simplified.
But I hope it helps.

Radicals can be confusing but a simple way to think of them is as a reference
method. You can use the term 'component' to generally mean an individual part
within a kanji character. And you can think of radicals as just one of those
components in a kanji. The difference between radicals and other components is
simply that radicals are the components which are used as a reference for that
particular character.

> **An easy analogy is to think of radicals as being like the first letter in
> an English word.**  
>  Dictionaries compile words in alphabetical order, using the first letter(s)
> as a means to systematize the process. The first letter of an English word
> is a little like a radical, in that it is used by lexicographers to compile
> reference lists. Radicals are not a special category as such - they are
> simply components which are used to systematize kanji references.

As for your concept of 'words', it is actually not so easy to define a word.
But needless to say, not all kanji are words. It would be more correct to say
that kanji are akin to morphemes, in that each kanji contains at least one
irreducible element of meaning, even if it is not a full word itself.

**Simplified Summary**

  * 'Words' can be single kanji or combinations of kanji (and/or kana)
  * 'Kanji' are individual whole characters which contain one or more components 
  * 'Components' are individual parts within a kanji 
  * 'Radicals' are the components which are used as a reference
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T13:45:29.523
72937
2019-11-06T13:45:29.523
25875
65665
answer