<p>To start off,「木」is <strong>not supposed to</strong> have detached legs and end up looking like「朩」. In one of the most stringent glyph standards, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_Chinese_character#Orthodox_and_vulgar_variants" rel="noreferrer"><em>Kangxi Dictionary style Ming (Serif)</em></a>, if the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi" rel="noreferrer"><em>Shuowen</em></a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_seal_script" rel="noreferrer">small seal</a> shape contains「木」, then it does not have detached legs.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/wEuaV.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/wEuaV.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>This is for glyph shape fidelity reasons, and conversely, if it has detached legs, you can be certain that, at the very least, the <em>Kangxi Dictionary</em> didn't think that it came from the component「木」.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/KuUwB.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/KuUwB.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Of course, this sometimes doesn't turn out correctly, as with ancient characters which were no longer used, such as「亲」and characters which use it as a component.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/lolEs.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/lolEs.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>For reference,「亲」(<em>hazel tree</em>) is a variation of「」, and is constructed from semantic「木」and phonetic「辛」. This word is now written as「榛」.</p>
<p><kbd><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Zhou" rel="noreferrer">西周</a><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_bronze_inscriptions" rel="noreferrer">金</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/vw7Lo.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/vw7Lo.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br>中伯壺<br><a href="http://www.guoxuedashi.com/yzjwjc/?bh=9668&amp;jgwfl=" rel="noreferrer">集成9668</a></kbd><kbd><br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_seal_script" rel="noreferrer">篆</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/veu3l.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/veu3l.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br><a href="https://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&amp;file=77390&amp;page=59" rel="noreferrer">木部</a><br>說文解字</kbd><kbd>臺標<br><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_script" rel="noreferrer">楷</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/BAi2g.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/BAi2g.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br><br>　</kbd><kbd>臺標<br><a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/%E9%9A%B6%E5%AE%9A" rel="noreferrer">隸定</a><br><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Pztt6.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Pztt6.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a><br><br>　</kbd></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Detached legs on「木」are strictly an invention from calligraphy, and overwhelmingly occur on the bottom of characters:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/v49Gl.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/v49Gl.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Thus, all character shapes directly affected by calligraphy, including those set by government standards, will have a chance of containing「木」appearing with detached legs. This is purely a shape phenomenon - it has nothing to do with the language.</p>
<hr />
<p>Characters which are affected by calligraphy are:</p>
<p>(1) <strong>The Taiwanese MoE standard</strong>, which actively prescribes writing「木」on the bottom as「朩」, and this effect has bled into their print fonts.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/F7t7P.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/F7t7P.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>(2) <strong>PRC's regularised cursive shapes</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/tVMnF.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/tVMnF.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><em>But I guess it is arguable whether regularised cursive is appropriate for any kind of character shape analysis.</em></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T01:21:41.730Z
I noticed some characters like 宋 or 采, while having 木 on the bottom, will have the two strokes attached, unlike the Taiwanese shape for 桌. I read (I can't find the source on this anymore) that there can only be one instance of the following three strokes in a character: 鉤, 捺, 長橫. This supposedly explains why 木 is written like that sometimes when on the bottom, and also some other differences like why 七 is written without the hook in the Taiwanese shape. However, it seems somewhat inconsistent, like how 榮 has them detached, but none of those three strokes are present. Any ideas on why this is?
wang_xiao_ming
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T22:31:36.730Z
Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Form_of_National_Characters
`This standard tends to follow a rule of writing regular script where there should be no more than one of ㇏ (called 捺), long horizontal stroke, or hook to the right (e.g. ㇂ ㇃) in a character.`
wang_xiao_ming
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-09T07:29:47.183Z
@wang_xiao_ming I'm still hoping that a calligrapher can clarify. Calligraphy (regular script or otherwise) is not my area of reading.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-05T12:15:22.533Z
2019-11-05T12:30:14.847Z
2020-06-17T09:50:11.587Z
dROOOze
<p>Is there any discernible rule concerning whether 木 as a component of a character has attached legs (as in 李) or has detached legs (as in 新)? Worse, this seems to <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0#Alternative_forms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">vary</a> from country to country.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T11:16:09.847Z
Anecdotal: **on the bottom**. I never see it detached on the left, top, or right. No evidence for this assertion, hope a calligrapher can clarify. By the way, in Traditional Print forms, 木 never gets detached - if you see something that's detached, it is not 木 (or what Traditionally is considered 木; e.g. 余 should be detached). The rise of detached 木 legs is from brush calligraphy.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T14:28:15.607Z
There’s many common hanzi with 木 on the bottom e.g. 桌集, looking up the radical in Pleco gives only very rare characters e.g. 鎥 without the detached radical at the bottom.
Becky 李蓓
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T21:35:43.347Z
So I'd venture to formulate this rule: If at all, the 木 with detached legs appears in a bottom position. A hanzi thus formed may, however, appear anywhere as a component of a complex hanzi.

But is there any pattern concerning the use of attached/detached legs in the bottom position?
user22495
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-03T22:13:15.650Z
Legs? Trees have legs? I read the old meaning of 朩 is 'bush'. Not too much difference between tree and bush. Maybe the 2 were mixed in history. Certainly, looking at old forms of 木 and 朩, they look the same.
Pedroski
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-06T09:54:33.783Z
Maybe you should clarify which stander you are talking about. Appearance of characters may different in mainland / hongkong / taiwan. The same characters may looks different in that case.
tsh
<characters><calligraphy><strokes>
When does 木 as a character component get detached legs?
# When does 木 as a character component get detached legs?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-03)

Is there any discernible rule concerning whether 木 as a component of a character has attached legs (as in 李) or has detached legs (as in 新)? Worse, this seems to [vary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0#Alternative_forms) from country to country.

**Tags:** characters, calligraphy, strokes
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Anecdotal: **on the bottom**. I never see it detached on the left, top, or right. No evidence for this assertion, hope a calligrapher can clarify. By the way, in Traditional Print forms, 木 never gets detached - if you see something that's detached, it is not 木 (or what Traditionally is considered 木; e.g. 余 should be detached). The rise of detached 木 legs is from brush calligraphy.  
> **username_2**: There’s many common hanzi with 木 on the bottom e.g. 桌集, looking up the radical in Pleco gives only very rare characters e.g. 鎥 without the detached radical at the bottom.  
> **username_0**: So I'd venture to formulate this rule: If at all, the 木 with detached legs appears in a bottom position. A hanzi thus formed may, however, appear anywhere as a component of a complex hanzi.  But is there any pattern concerning the use of attached/detached legs in the bottom position?  
> **username_3**: Legs? Trees have legs? I read the old meaning of 朩 is 'bush'. Not too much difference between tree and bush. Maybe the 2 were mixed in history. Certainly, looking at old forms of 木 and 朩, they look the same.  
> **username_4**: Maybe you should clarify which stander you are talking about. Appearance of characters may different in mainland / hongkong / taiwan. The same characters may looks different in that case.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-11-05. Score: 5

To start off,「木」is **not supposed to** have detached legs and end up looking like「朩」. In one of the most stringent glyph standards, [*Kangxi Dictionary style Ming (Serif)*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_Chinese_character#Orthodox_and_vulgar_variants), if the [*Shuowen*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi) [small seal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_seal_script) shape contains「木」, then it does not have detached legs.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/wEuaV.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/wEuaV.png)

This is for glyph shape fidelity reasons, and conversely, if it has detached legs, you can be certain that, at the very least, the *Kangxi Dictionary* didn't think that it came from the component「木」.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/KuUwB.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/KuUwB.png)

Of course, this sometimes doesn't turn out correctly, as with ancient characters which were no longer used, such as「亲」and characters which use it as a component.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/lolEs.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/lolEs.png)

> For reference,「亲」(*hazel tree*) is a variation of「」, and is constructed from semantic「木」and phonetic「辛」. This word is now written as「榛」.
>
> `西周  
> 金  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/vw7Lo.png)  
> 中伯壺  
> 集成9668` `篆  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/veu3l.png)  
> 木部  
> 說文解字``臺標  
> 楷  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/BAi2g.png)``臺標  
> 隸定  
> ![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/Pztt6.png)`

Detached legs on「木」are strictly an invention from calligraphy, and overwhelmingly occur on the bottom of characters:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/v49Gl.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/v49Gl.png)

Thus, all character shapes directly affected by calligraphy, including those set by government standards, will have a chance of containing「木」appearing with detached legs. This is purely a shape phenomenon - it has nothing to do with the language.

---

Characters which are affected by calligraphy are:

(1) **The Taiwanese MoE standard**, which actively prescribes writing「木」on the bottom as「朩」, and this effect has bled into their print fonts.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/F7t7P.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/F7t7P.png)

(2) **PRC's regularised cursive shapes**

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/tVMnF.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/tVMnF.png)

*But I guess it is arguable whether regularised cursive is appropriate for any kind of character shape analysis.*

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: I noticed some characters like 宋 or 采, while having 木 on the bottom, will have the two strokes attached, unlike the Taiwanese shape for 桌. I read (I can't find the source on this anymore) that there can only be one instance of the following three strokes in a character: 鉤, 捺, 長橫. This supposedly explains why 木 is written like that sometimes when on the bottom, and also some other differences like why 七 is written without the hook in the Taiwanese shape. However, it seems somewhat inconsistent, like how 榮 has them detached, but none of those three strokes are present. Any ideas on why this is?  
> **username_5**: Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Form_of_National_Characters `This standard tends to follow a rule of writing regular script where there should be no more than one of ㇏ (called 捺), long horizontal stroke, or hook to the right (e.g. ㇂ ㇃) in a character.`  
> **username_1**: @wang_xiao_ming I'm still hoping that a calligrapher can clarify. Calligraphy (regular script or otherwise) is not my area of reading.  

---

