72888
According to some databases, (see
[戚](https://jisho.org/search/%E6%88%9A%20%23kanji) vs
[歴](https://jisho.org/search/%E6%AD%B4%20%23kanji)), the order of strokes of
the upper part (厂) of the kanji 戚 is different from the same part in 歴. They
may have been some historical reasons, but as they look identical now, one
should not expect from the writer to write them any different if they are in
fact the same. Is it acceptable to write them the same way, or is there any
reason why we should not do it?
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T13:26:17.003
72887
2019-11-03T19:40:32.290
2019-11-03T16:59:52.323
32952
35924
question
kanji stroke-order
Different stroke order in two similar kanji 戚 and 歴
TL;DR

Both Kanji are expected to be written with different stroke order because
there is no "厂" in the Kanji 戚.

* * *

This answer is based only on my own experience.

All Kanji similar to 戈 have the vertical stroke as the first stroke and after
that the horizontal one. For example, 戚 成 歳 蔵 城 減 感 to name a few.

On the other hand, all Kanji similar to 厂 have the horizontal stroke as the
first stroke and after that the vertical one. For example, 歴 厚 原.

What looks to you as a cliff radical 厂 in 戚, is in reality a vertical stroke
attached to the halberd radical 戈. Therefore, in order to write 戈 at once
inside the kanji 戚, it is first written the vertical stroke / and after that,
戈 which starts with the horizontal stroke. But it is not the radical 厂.

Also note that the look-alike "厂" from the kanji with 戈 are always shorter
than the actual 厂 in the kanji with 厂. They do look similar, but not
identical.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T14:01:36.107
72888
2019-11-03T19:40:32.290
2019-11-03T19:40:32.290
32952
32952
72887
answer