exactly, so not sure whether the original assertion (i.e., most characters lack semantic meaning) is correct, but it's an interesting thought to consider.
someone could prove/disprove this by analyzing the 3000 most common chars and indicating what percentage contain a semantic component (even if obfuscated).
do you know if wikipedia or the parent is correct about 正 as the radical for foot?
someone could prove/disprove this by analyzing the 3000 most common chars and indicating what percentage contain a semantic component (even if obfuscated).
do you know if wikipedia or the parent is correct about 正 as the radical for foot?