The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[rikforto]

As you can see, the SBJ is not consistently using 主 治 = "main use(s)" as the keyword to start a list of uses.  In two sub-recipes it says just 主 = "mainly [for?]".  Presumably because what follows the key is a "verb-like" character ("kills", "drains") rather than a "noun-like" one like in the other cases. Thus counting just 主 治 is not right.  And in the sub-recipe J the SBJ uses neither; perhaps because that entry starts with "can ..."

They are all verbs. The nominal translation of "治" as "use" is somewhat misleading. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. gives only the verbal glosses of "govern, regulate, administer". This is usually a pretty good guide to usage---治 mostly has a verbal sense---but Literary Chinese is quite flexible about parts of speech even before adding in translation flexibility, so "governance, regulation, and administration" are all possible readings depending on context, to say nothing of how artless an English translation of "Principally governs" might be. The other two are also verbs in context.

The compound with 主 is common enough to get its own entry You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., but the fact 主下 doesn't get one doesn't mean the usage isn't constructed exactly in parallel; it is, and the apparently missing "治" is because those phrases have a different verb.