Unexpected readings of phonetic components

[trien27]

番 = fān

宀 , mián + 番, fān = 審, shěn / pán ?

禺 = yú

亻, rén + 禺, yú = 偶, ǒu?

番禺 as a place name in Guangdong province = pān yú?

[renzhe]

Here's one we haven't had: 埋

Though I assume that both parts are semantic here.

[imron]

And another: 拙

[Hofmann]

番 = fān

宀 , mián + 番, fān = 審, shěn / pán ?

禺 = yú

亻, rén + 禺, yú = 偶, ǒu?

審 is 宷 and 田. Not phono-semantic.

禺 虞俱切; 偶 五口切. Pullyblank says [ŋuə̆] and [ŋəw] respectively.

[trien27]

岔 = chà: 分 = fēn / fèn, 山 = shān. means fork(s), like "Fork(s) in the road", etc...

叉, chā: 丶= zhǔ, 又 = yòu. Fork(s) [as eating utensils.]

岔 & 叉: They're both translated as "forks" in English and they're both "cha" but with different tones in Chinese pronunciation?!

What's the possibility that two Chinese words with similar pronunciations in Mandarin [but they are the same pronunciation in Cantonese] would end up being translated into English using the same word, with the same number of letters even though their function is a bit different?

Will the real "fork" / "cha" please stand up?

How come 叉燒 / 叉烧 is a type of food rather than "The roasting or burning of forks"?

See Wikipedia here for entry of 叉燒 / 叉烧: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cha_siu

Edited April 3, 2010 at 10:43 PM by trien27

[trien27]

激 [jī] = derived from 敫 [jiǎo]? = 白 [bái / bó?] + 放[fàng]? but 邀 = [yāo]?

[Hofmann]

岔...叉

敫

These are not 形聲字. A quick way to check is to use this or this to search 說文解字. I'm not implying that Xu Shen is always right.

[jbradfor]

[Hope this is not a repeat, too lazy to check...]

勺 (sháo) vs 約 (yuē) vs 的 (de)

How come 叉燒 / 叉烧 is a type of food rather than "The roasting or burning of forks"?

Refers to food cooked on a fork.

[imron]

And a couple more:

拙

and

诣

[jbradfor]

腔 (qiang1) vs 空, 控, 倥 (all kong).

[Hofmann]

腔 (qiang1) vs 空, 控, 倥 (all kong).

FYI, all of these are homophones of 腔 in Middle Chinese.

[valikor]

Random question about this thread:

At what point would considering these exceptions become useful? Some time ago, Chrix (I think) commented on a thread of mine that I should consider studying these exceptions. Of course, a beginner at Chinese would probably find little benefit in this, but it presumably is helpful for advanced students. Right now I have some knowledge of around 1500 characters and am always looking for new tricks (you know, the magic solution) for remembering the Hanzi.

What do you think? Thanks.

David

[jbradfor]

樂 (yue4 or le4) vs 爍 (shuo4) vs 藥 (yao4).

[bTW, what's up with the simplification for this one? 乐 and 烁 vs 药?]

[Kobo-Daishi]

Dear Jbradfor,

樂 (yue4 or le4) vs 爍 (shuo4) vs 藥 (yao4).

[bTW, what's up with the simplification for this one? 乐 and 烁 vs 药?]

乐 is from the cursive handwriting for 樂.

葯 is a common variant for 藥 so they just used 药 with a cursive handwriting simplification for the "silk" part.

Kobo-Daishi, PLLA.

[Hofmann]

At what point would considering these exceptions become useful?

David

Knowing that they exist and what they're like is sufficient IMO. Besides that I don't find any value in seeking them out.

[jbradfor]

步 (bu4) + 页 （ye4) = 频 (pin2). How does that work?

[anonymoose]

岔 = chà: 分 = fēn / fèn, 山 = shān. means fork(s), like "Fork(s) in the road", etc...

叉, chā: 丶= zhǔ, 又 = yòu. Fork(s) [as eating utensils.]

岔 & 叉: They're both translated as "forks" in English and they're both "cha" but with different tones in Chinese pronunciation?!

What's the possibility that two Chinese words with similar pronunciations in Mandarin [but they are the same pronunciation in Cantonese] would end up being translated into English using the same word, with the same number of letters even though their function is a bit different?

You mean like

燕 yàn = swallow

咽 yàn = swallow

?

[anonymoose]

嵩

[imron]

虔 - qián

[imron]

Another one I just came across, 撮 vs 最