This article conducts a textual research on the character of ‘畑’ in Grand Chinese Dictionary. Through reviewing Buddhist scriptures and secular literature, the article points out that ‘畑’ is a Japanese character signifying the ‘upland field’. The word of ‘田畑’ found in the scriptures is a Japanese one with two meanings: one, the ‘paddy field and upland field’, and the other, the ‘field’. In Japanese, the former is expressed by ‘田’ and ‘畑’, yet, in Chinese, by adding modifiers before ‘田’. Therefore, when entering into Chinese, ‘畑’ comes to have the same meaning and usage as ‘田’. For this reason, the article considers it possible for ‘畑’ to be a variant of ‘田’ in the Chinese literature. Moreover, ‘畑’ can be thought of not only as a formal variant of the folk character of ‘烟’ but also as a mistaken character of ‘油’ in the scriptures.

This article makes a textual research on the characters of “机”, “据”, “據”, “𤧫”, “脺”, “熇”, “㸌”, “薳”, “𨗨”, analyzing the reasons for the Homograph. Through consulting various kinds of literature, this paper makes a supplementary explanation for the missed sounds and meanings of Grand Chinese Dictionary in order to put forward personal opinions on the editing and editing of contemporary large-scale dictionaries, and also contributes to the analysis, examination, and compilation of identical words in large-scale dictionaries.

Fanqie (反切) is a traditional method of indicating the pronunciation of a Chinese character by using two other Chinese characters, one having the same consonant as the given character and the other having the same vowel (with or without final nasal) and tone. There are seven problematic aspects regarding Fanqie (反切) phonetic notation of polyphonic characters in The Grand Chinese Dictionary, 漢語大詞典. The first, the cited Chinese characters used as phonetic notations are wrong; the second, the attributions of phonological status about some polyphonic characters are not correct; the third, one or two phonetic notations are missing among several pronunciations of the polyphones; the fourth, the materials for phonetic evidences are neglected; the fifth, the evidences of some ancient sounds are lagging because of not finding the earliest evidence in citing ancient sound; the sixth, the main sounds and the secondary ones are reversed; and the last, the selected Chinese characters are not appropriate in some Fanqie phonetics.