orthographic change - The Ohio State University

ORTHOGRAPHIC CHANGE:
YUE (CANTONESE) CHINESE DIALECT CHARACTERS
IN THE
NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Master of Arts in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Thomas Chan, B.A.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
2001
Master’s Examination Committee: Approved by
Professor Marjorie K.M. Chan, Adviser _____________________
Professor Jianqi Wang Adviser
Department of East Asian
Languages and Literatures

ABSTRACT
Yue (Cantonese) Chinese dialect characters, which have never been subject to
prescriptive reforms, present a fertile ground for studying orthographic change. In the
past two hundred years, they have changed greatly and still continue to change,
providing an opportunity to track many orthographic changes within a relatively short
timeframe. We find that the changes are part of an ongoing optimization process of
refining the written form by changing and replacing characters using more preferred
character construction and usage principles, as well as principle-internal changes.
Eight dictionaries and lexicons, ranging from 1856 to 1996, were used to track
a hundred and fifteen words. A modified model of character construction and usage
principles based on the traditional liushu model was used as a framework for
understanding the characters used. This model categorized each character as one of
four types: co-signific, semantic loan, phonetic loan, and signific-phonetic. Although
contemporary written Cantonese is known for its phonetic loan characters marked with
a mouth radical, signific-phonetic characters were found to be the most preferred
character construction and usage principle, representing a stage of development that
virtually all characters are progressing towards. It was followed by a tie between the
co-signific and semantic loan principles, while phonetic loans were the least preferred.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank my adviser, Professor Marjorie K.M. Chan, for her enthusiastic
interest and support in working with early Cantonese materials, and for continual
guidance and encouragement during the writing of this work.
I thank the Ohio State University library and the libraries in the CIC network
and their staff for making available to me old books which have made this work
possible. I also thank Professor Li Guoqing, Chinese Studies Librarian at the Ohio
State University library, for his vigilance in preserving the irreplaceable materials in
the library collection.
I thank my thesis committee members, Professor Marjorie K.M. Chan and
Professor Jianqi Wang for their insights and patience during the writing of this work.
I also thank Debbie Knicely, our Department Graduate Secretary, for her vital
assistance with the associated paperwork.
I thank my parents for teaching me the Cantonese language and for their
understanding and support of my academic studies. I also thank my fiancée, Chandra
Reyer, and the Reyer family for providing support and encouragement during the
writing of this work.
iii

Finally, I thank Professor Robert S. Bauer and Professor Kwan-hin Cheung for
making a pre-publication copy of their forthcoming monograph available to me. I also
thank everyone that I have ever had a discussion with about Cantonese dialect
characters for sharing and encouraging my interest.
iv

VITA
August 4, 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Born
New York, NY
1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.A. Linguistics,
Cornell University
1999-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graduate Research Associate,
The Ohio State University
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: East Asian Languages and Literatures
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
vi
Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Chapters:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Varieties of Spoken Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Varieties of Written Chinese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Types of Chinese Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Rationale for Studying Cantonese Dialect Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1 Phonology of Cantonese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Romanization Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Phonological Mergers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.1 Substitution of the Velar Nasal Initial ng- [ŋ-]
for the Zero Initial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3.2 Substitution of the Zero Initial
for the Velar Nasal Initial ng- [ŋ-] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3.3 Substitution of the Liquid Initial l- [l-]
for the Nasal Initial n- [n-] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.4 Phonological Distinctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.1 Distinction Between the Vowels -o- [-ɔ-] and -a- [-ɐ-]
Before Labial Finals -m [-m] and -p [-p] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.2 Distinction Between the Dental and Palatal Sibilant Initials
[ts-]/[ts h -]/[s-] and [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -]/[ʃ-] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5 Description of Rare Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6 Unicode Codepoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3. Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.1 Requirements for Sources of Cantonese Dialect Characters . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 Overview of Sources Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Characters Selected for Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.4 Traditional Model of Character Construction and Usage Principles . 39
3.5 Modified Model of Character Construction and Usage Principles . . . 41
4. Co-Signific Characters, Semantic Loans, and Indeterminate Cases . . . . . . . 45
4.1 Co-Signific Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.2 Semantic Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.3 Indeterminate Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5. Phonetic Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.1 Unmarked Phonetic Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.2 Marked Phonetic Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans . . 67
5.4 Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6. Signific-Phonetic Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.1 Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7. Hierarchy of Character Construction and Usage Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.1 Hegemony of Signific-Phonetic Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.1.1 Signific-Phonetic Characters and Co-Signific Characters . . . 113
7.1.2 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans . . 114
7.1.3 Signific-Phonetic Characters and Semantic Loans . . . . . . . . 123
7.2 Co-Signific Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.3 Semantic Loans Superseding Phonetic Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
vii

7.4 Indeterminate Cases Being Superseded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.4.1 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding
Indeterminate Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.4.2 Semantic Loans Superseding Indeterminate Cases . . . . . . . . 131
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
8. Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Appendices:
A Characters by Unicode Codepoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
B Characters by Syllable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Syllable Structure of Cantonese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2 Cantonese Initials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Cantonese Finals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Cantonese Tones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5 Romanization of Initials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.6 Romanization of Finals, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.7 Romanization of Finals, Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.8 Romanization of Tones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.9 Vowels -o- [-ɔ-] and -a- [-ɐ-] Before Labial Finals -m [-m] and -p [-p] . . 24
2.10 Dental and Palatal Sibilant Initials [ts-]/[ts h -]/[s-] and [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -]/[ʃ-] . . . . . 26
2.11 Ideographic Description Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.12 Unicode Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.13 Unicode Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.1 Comparison of Principles in the Traditional and Modified Models . . . . . 42
4.1 Co-Signific Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.2 Optimization of a Co-Signific Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.3 Semantic Loans (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.4 Semantic Loans (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.5 Indeterminate Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.1 Completely Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (History) . . . . . . . 59
5.2 Completely Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (Basis) . . . . . . . . 60
5.3 Semi-Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.4 Semi-Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.5 Marked Phonetic Loans Differing in the Initial or Final (History) . . . . . . 64
5.6 Marked Phonetic Loans Differing in the Initial or Final (Basis) . . . . . . . . 65
5.7 Marked Phonetic Loans Differing in the Tone (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.8 Marked Phonetic Loans Differing in the Tone (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.9 Indeterminate Case Reanalyzed as a Phonetic Loan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.10 Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans,
Part I (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
ix

5.11 Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans,
Part I (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.12 Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans,
Part II (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.13 Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans,
Part II (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.14 Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.15 Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.16 Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
Facilitated by Phonological Mergers (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.17 Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
Facilitated by Phonological Mergers (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.18 Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
for Other Reasons (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.19 Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
for Other Reasons (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.20 Erroneous Optimization of the Phonetic in a Phonetic Loan (History) . . . 81
5.21 Erroneous Optimization of the Phonetic in a Phonetic Loan (Basis) . . . . 82
5.22 Optimization of Phonetics in Polysyllabic Phonetic Loans (History) . . . . 84
5.23 Optimization of Phonetics in Polysyllabic Phonetic Loans (Basis) . . . . . . 85
6.1 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Completely Homophonous Phonetics (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.2 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Completely Homophonous Phonetics (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.3 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Tone (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.4 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Tone (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.5 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.6 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.7 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial and Tone (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.8 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial and Tone (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6.9 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Final and Tone (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.10 Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Final and Tone (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.11 Optimization of the Phonetic in Signific-Phonetic Characters (History) . 104
6.12 Optimization of the Phonetic in Signific-Phonetic Characters (Basis) . . . 105
x

6.13 Optimization of a Phonetic in a Signific-Phonetic Character
Due to a Change in Pronunciation (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.14 Optimization of a Phonetic in a Signific-Phonetic Character
Due to a Change in Pronunciation (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.15 Optimization of Signific-Phonetic Characters
for Other Reasons (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.16 Optimization of Signific-Phonetic Characters
for Other Reasons (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
7.1 Distribution of Character Construction and Usage Principles . . . . . . . . . . 113
7.2 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part I (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.3 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part I (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.4 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part II (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.5 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part II (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.6 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining an Abbreviated Form of the Phonetic (History) . . . . . . . . . 119
7.7 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining an Abbreviated Form of the Phonetic (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.8 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
as a Result of Semantic Specialization (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.9 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
as a Result of Semantic Specialization (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.10 Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan
and Optimization of the Phonetic (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.11 Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan
and Optimization of the Phonetic (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.12 Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Semantic Loan (History) . . . . 124
7.13 Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Semantic Loan (Basis) . . . . . 124
7.14 Semantic Loans Superseding Signific-Phonetic Characters (History) . . . 126
7.15 Semantic Loans Superseding Signific-Phonetic Characters (Basis) . . . . . 126
7.16 Co-Signific Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan (History) . . . . . . . . . 127
7.17 Co-Signific Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.18 Semantic Loans Superseding Phonetic Loans (History) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
7.19 Semantic Loans Superseding Phonetic Loans (Basis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.20 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Indeterminate Cases (History) 130
7.21 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Indeterminate Cases (Basis) . . 131
7.22 Semantic Loan Superseding an Indeterminate Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
7.1 Hierarchy of Character Construction and Usage Principles . . . . . . . . . . . 135
xii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This work seeks to understand the orthographic changes in Cantonese dialect
characters by introducing a methodology of tracing the written forms used to write a
word in sources where the pronunciation and meaning are reliably indicated. These
sources are eight bilingual dictionaries and lexicons, mostly authored by and for a
foreign audience, spanning a century and a half from 1856 to 1996. Using a modified
model based on the traditional liushu 六書 model of character construction and usage
principles, the changes in the written forms of a data set of a hundred and fifteen
words have been analyzed as a transition from one principle to another, or as
principle-internal optimizations. In this way, the various principles may be ranked by
how preferred they are, as well arriving at an understanding of why and when various
smaller changes have taken place.
This chapter provides definitions and explanations to aid in understanding the
title of this work, “Orthographic Change: Yue (Cantonese) Chinese Dialect Characters
in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries”.
1.1 Varieties of Spoken Chinese
Chinese is conventionally divided into at least seven groups, following Li
Fang-kuei’s 李方桂 classification in the 1937 edition of The Chinese Yearbook, which
1

was later reprinted with revisions in the first issue of the Journal of Chinese
Linguistics in 1973, and Yuan Jiahua’s (1960) classification in his Hanyu fangyan
gaiyao 漢語方言概要 in 1960 1 . These groups are, in approximate geographic order
from north to south: 1) Mandarin, 2) Wu 吳, 3) Gan 贛, 4) Xiang 湘, 4), Min 閩, 5)
Kejia (Hakka) 客家, and 6) Yue 粵.
The Yue group, according to the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ (SIL)
Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 14th ed. (2001), is currently spoken by fifty-two
million in China, comprising 4.5% of the population, and seventy-one million
worldwide. Yue is spoken in the provinces of Guangdong 廣東 and Guangxi 廣西,
and the speech of the provincial capital of Guangdong, Guangzhou 廣州 (Canton), is
regarded as the standard variety. For purposes of discussion, the term “Cantonese”
will be used narrowly to refer to the speech of Guangzhou and nearby related areas,
such as Hong Kong, rather than broadly as a synonym of “Yue”.
The Mandarin group, in contrast, is currently spoken by 867 million in China,
comprising 70% of the population, and 874 million worldwide. Mandarin is spoken
north of the Yangtze river in the northern half of China as well as in southwestern
China, and is considered the standard variety of Chinese, upon which modern standard
written Chinese is based. For purposes of discussion, the term “Mandarin” will be
used narrowly to refer to the Putonghua 普通話 ‘common language’ and Guoyu 國語
‘national language’ koines, as well as the speech of Beijing 北京 that they are based
on, rather than broadly as a term for the entire Mandarin group.
2

1.2 Varieties of Written Chinese
Written Chinese is typically divided into two groups, wenyan 文言 and baihua
白話. Wenyan, or classical Chinese, was a written language that had no spoken
analogue, and was the undisputed literary standard for prestige writing until the 1920s.
In contrast, baihua is a cover term for non-wenyan writing, which were written forms
of the vernacular, used for less prestigious writing such as popular literature. Modern
forms of baihua developed in the first half of the twentieth century into a written
language based primarily on Mandarin, although not without influences from non-
Mandarin varieties of Chinese 2 . By the mid-twentieth century, baihua had effectively
taken over wenyan’s literary functions. However, there were also written forms of the
vernacular that were not based on Mandarin, including those for Cantonese 3 .
However, there were often hybrid forms of writing that also incorporated some
features of wenyan and Mandarin.
An illustration of the differences between written Mandarin and Cantonese is
given by Williams (1909 [1874]: xxxv-xlvii) in the mid-late nineteenth century
vernacular renderings of an excerpt from a section on filial piety in the Shengyu
Guangxun 聖諭廣訓, which was written in classical Chinese. The passage is rendered
in the written vernacular of seven localities: Beijing 北京 and Hankou 漢口,
representing Mandarin dialects; Shanghai 上海 and Ningbo 寧波, representing Wu
dialects; Fuzhou 福州 and Shantou 汕頭, representing Min dialects, and Guangzhou
廣州, a Yue dialect. The classical Chinese original (W) is shown below, along with
the Beijing (B) and Guangzhou (G) vernacular renderings to represent written
3

Mandarin and Cantonese, respectively, as well as Williams’ English translation (E) of
the original. The sentences have been rearranged to juxtapose equivalent sentences for
comparison, and supplemented with modern punctuation. As with all translations,
there is variation in how the original is rendered, but nevertheless, vocabulary and
characters peculiar to Cantonese can still be discerned from the Guangzhou vernacular
version.
W: 夫孝者,天之經,地之義,民之行也。
B: 那孝是什麼?就是天上的常道,地上的定理,人間所應當
奉行的呵。
G: 個的孝道,乃係天嘅常經,地嘅定理,人嘅總行呀。
E: Now filial piety is a statute of heaven, a principle of earth, and
an obligation of mankind.
The Cantonese passage opens with go 2 di 1 個的 ‘those’, similar in function to
Mandarin nàxiē 那些 ‘those’. go 2 di 1 個的 ‘those’ is written with the characters for
go 3 個 ‘one’ and dik 1 的 ‘genitive particle’ from which they developed, but nowadays,
it is written as 嗰啲. go 2 di 1 個的 itself can be broken down into go 2 個 ‘that’ and di 1
的 ‘ones’, which are similar in function to Mandarin nà 那 and xiē 些. The first
sentence also contains the copula hai 6 係 ‘to be’, which is now bookish in Mandarin.
It also contains the genitive particle ge 3 嘅, similar in function to Mandarin de 的, and
ends with a sentence-final particle, a 3 呀.
W: 人不知孝父母 ,獨不思父母愛子之心乎?
B: 人若不曉得孝順父母 ,先不用講別的獨不想一想父母疼愛
兒子的心腸麼?
G: 世人唔知孝敬父母 ,獨唔想吓父母愛仔個點心咩?
E: Do you, who are void of filial piety, ever reflect on the natural
affection of parents for their children?
4

The second sentence contains the negative m 4 唔 ‘not’, similar in function to
Mandarin bù 不, as well as ha 2 吓 ‘a moment’, used in the construct seung 2 ha 2 想吓
‘to think over’, parallel to xiǎngyīxiǎng 想一想 in the Beijing vernacular version. The
sentence also includes jai 2 仔 ‘child’, and ends with a sentence-final particle, me 1 咩,
which expresses doubt.
W: 方其未離懷抱,饑不能自哺,寒不能自衣。
B: 當他沒有離開父母懷抱的時候,餓了自己不能吃,冷了自
己不能穿。
G: 當佢未曾離開襟懷保抱個時,肚餓唔噲自己揾食,身冷唔
噲自己揾著。
E: Even before you left the maternal bosom, if hungry, you could
not have fed yourselves; or if cold, you could not have put on
your own clothes.
The third sentence contains the third person personal pronoun keui 5 佢 ‘he,
she, it’, which developed from the ancient pronoun keui 4 渠 both in pronunciation and
graphic form, and is similar to Mandarin tā 他 when the latter is used without
distinguishing animacy nor gender. The sentence also contains mei 6 chang 4 未曾 ‘not
yet’, similar to one usage of Mandarin mei 2 沒, as well as wui 5 噲 ‘to be able’, which
is distinguished from wui 6 會 ‘to meet’. Nowadays both wui 5 ‘to be able’ and wui 6 ‘to
meet’ are written as 會, just as in Mandarin where the two are homophonous. The
sentence also includes wan 2 揾 ‘to find’ and jeuk 3 著 ‘to wear’, as well as sik 6 食 ‘to
eat’, which is no longer a verb in Mandarin.
W: 為父母者,審音聲,察形色,笑則為之喜,啼則為之憂。
B: 作父母的,揣度他的聲音,察看他的氣色,他若嬉笑就為
他歡喜,他若啼哭就為他愁煩。
G: 做父母嘅,聽佢聲音,睇佢形像,而色笑就替佢歡喜,喊
就替佢贔屭。
5

E: A father or a mother judge by the voice, or look at the features
of their children, whose smiles make them joyful, or whose
weeping excites their grief.
W: 行動則跬步不離,疾痛則寢食俱廢,以養以教。
B: 他一行走就連半步也不肯離開他,有病痛就連睡覺吃飯也
都廢掉,從他小時候就拿衣食養活他,拿詩書教訓他。
G: 初學行就寸步唔敢離開,有病痛就唔瞓得唔食得,一自養
一自教。
E: When trying to walk, they leave not their steps; and when sick
or in pain, they can neither sleep nor eat in comfort, in order
that they may nurture and teach them.
W: 至於成人,復為授家室,謀生理百計,經營心力俱瘁。
M: 直到他長大成人的時候,又給他娶媳婦,謀事業千方百
計,替他打算把機氣力都用得勞困。
C: 至到長大成人個時,又替佢娶妻子,謀生意百樣計較,打
算心共力都疚倦咯。
E: When [their children] reach man’s estate, they see to their
marriage, and scheme for their livelihood by a hundred plans, in
which they can weary their minds and spend their strength.
The fourth sentence contains tai 2 睇 ‘to see’ and haam 3 喊 ‘to cry’, and ends
with bai 3 ai 3 贔屭 ‘grief’. The following sentence contains fan 3 瞓 ‘to sleep’, which
has been identified with kwan 3 睏 ‘sleepy’ and kwan 3 困 ‘weary’, as well as dak 1 得
‘able’, used in the constructs m 4 fan 3 dak 1 唔瞓得 ‘not able to sleep’ and m 4 sik 6 dak 1
唔食得 ‘not able to eat’, while the sixth sentence ends with a sentence-final particle,
lok 3 咯.
W: 父母之德,寶同昊天罔極!
B: 這樣看來父母的恩典,寶在如同那廣大的天無窮無盡了!
G: 父母嘅思德,眞係同埋至大嘅天咁!
E: Parental virtue is truly as limitless as high heaven!
W: 人子欲報親恩于萬一,自當內盡其心,外竭其力。
B: 為人子的若思想父母的恩典要在萬分裏頭報答一分自然應
當,裏面盡心志,外面端盡力量。
G: 無窮盡�口駕做人仔嘅想報答父母恩典萬份之一,就應該
裏頭盡自己嘅心,外便盡自己嘅力。
6

E: A man who desires to recompense one in a myriad of the loving
acts of his parents, must really devote to them his whole heart at
home, and exert all his strength abroad.
W: 謹身節用,以勤服勞。
B: 又要保守身體省儉用度,為得勢可以勤勤謹謹的服事。
G: 謹眞個身减省使用,嚟服事佢。
E: He must care well for his body and be frugal in his expenses, in
order that he may diligently labor for them.
The seventh sentence contains tung 4 maai 4 同埋 ‘with’ and gam 3 咁 ‘so
(quantity)’, which are similar in function to Mandarin gēn 跟 and zhème 這麼/nàme
那麼, respectively. The sentence after it contains the sentence-final ga 3 �口駕,
which is a contraction of ge 3 a 3 嘅呀, as well as ngoi 6 bin 6 外便 ‘outside’, where 便
perhaps is really bin 1 邊 ‘side’, while the ninth sentence contains laai 4 嚟 ‘to come; in
order to’, the colloquial reading of the same word as loi 4 來, which has been given its
own character.
W: 以隆孝養,毋博奕飲酒,毋好勇鬪很,毋好貨財私妻子。
B: 他可以豐豐盛盛的奉養,他不可以賭錢下棋喝酒鬧事,
不可好勇逞强忿怒鬥,不可貪愛錢財偏疼妻子。
G: 佢買的好飲食孝敬佢,唔好賭博飲酒,唔好恃勇力打鬭,
唔好食財物厚待妻子。
E: To enable him to fully and filially nurture them, he must neither
gamble nor get drunk, he must neither love to quarrel, nor desire
to hoard wealth for the use of his wife and children.
W: 縱使儀文未備而誠愨。
B: 果能這樣即或外面對的禮節稍有不足,却是內裏的眞誠。
G: 即使外便禮文唔得齊備,但係眞寶嘅心。
E: Though his manners and accomplishments may be defective,
yet his heart must, at any rate, be thoroughly sincere.
W: 有餘推而廣之。
B: 已經有餘孝的根本算是立住了,從此在推開了。
G: 有餘剩噉樣推潤開嚟。
E: Let us enlarge a little on this principle.
7

The tenth sentence contains m 4 hou 2 唔好 ‘do not’, similar to function
Mandarin bié 別, while the following sentence contains m 4 dak 1 唔得 ‘not sufficient’
and daan 6 hai 4 但係 ‘but’; the latter similar in function to Mandarin dànshì 但是. The
twelth sentence contains gam 2 yeung 6 噉樣 ‘like so’, similar in function to Mandarin
zhèyàng 這樣 and nàyàng 那樣.
W: 曾子所謂:「 居處不莊非孝,事君不忠非孝,蒞官不敬非
孝,朋友不信非孝,戰陣無勇非孝。」
B: 往寬廣裏講這孝道就如曾子所說的:「平日在家裏住着若
不端方穩重的就算不得孝,事奉君王若不誠寔盡心得也算
不得孝,臨民作官若不小心愼重的也算不得孝,交朋友若
沒有信實的也算不得孝,出兵打仗若不能奮勇爭先的也算
不得孝。」
G: 好似曾子所講:「坐立唔端正唔係孝,服事人君唔盡心唔
係孝,做官唔謹愼唔係孝,交朋友唔信實唔係孝,打仗唔
出力唔係孝。」
E: Tsăngtsz’ speaks thus respecting it:—“It is unfilial to move and
act without dignity; it is unfilial to serve one’s prince disloyally;
it is unfilial to fill an office without reverential care; it is unfilial
to act insincerely towards a friend; [and finally], to turn a
coward in battle is unfilial.”
W: 皆孝子分內之事也。
B: 這所說的都是孝子本分以內的事呵。
G: 一的都係孝子本分嘅事呀。
E: All these things are involved in the duty of a filial son.
Finally, the next to last sentence contains hou 2 chi 5 好似 ‘like’, which is rarer
than hǎoxiàng 好像 in Mandarin, and m 4 hai 6 唔係 ‘is not’, similar in function to
Mandarin bùshì 不是.
1.3 Types of Chinese Characters
As demonstrated in the previous section, written Cantonese employs characters
and their usages which may be divided into six categories: 1) ones which are identical
with Mandarin and require no further explanation; 2) ones which existed in an
8

common ancestor to Cantonese and Mandarin and are preserved in Cantonese, but are
extinct or exist in a restricted or further developed form in Mandarin, such as hai 6 係
‘to be’ and sik 6 食 ‘to eat’; 3) ones which existed in a common ancestor and are extinct
or restricted in Mandarin, but are preserved in Cantonese with further development,
such as fan 3 瞓 ‘to sleep’ (< 睏 and 困) and keui 5 佢 ‘he, she, it’ (< 渠); 5) ones which
exist in both Cantonese and Mandarin, but with further development in Cantonese,
such as go 2 di 1 個的 ‘those’ (< 個 + 的) and wui 5 噲 ‘to be able’ (< 會); and 6) ones
which are peculiar to Cantonese, such as the genitive particle ge 3 嘅.
However, it is not a simple matter to identify Cantonese dialect characters, nor
do all scholars agree on what constitutes one (Yue 1972; Lau 1977; Bauer 1988; Rao
1996; Cheung and Bauer forthcoming 4 ), provided they even bother to explain their
criteria, while most avoid the issue altogether.
A further complication is that the same character is occasionally independently
created in different regions and time periods, sometimes using different construction
principles. For example, xìn 伩 ‘letter’, an unofficial graphic simplification of 信 (c.f.,
zhè 這 � 这 ‘this’), which briefly enjoyed official endorsement in Singapore in 1974
until Singapore’s script reform was revised to fully align with mainland China’s 1964
scheme in 1976 (Chou 1986: 56). It also briefly enjoyed official endorsement in
mainland China in 1977 (ZWGW 1977: 4) until that additional script reform scheme
was abolished in 1986 with the republishing of the 1964 scheme. However, the same
character was also created in Cantonese-speaking regions as one way to write the
syllable man 1 in sai 3 man 1 jai 2 細伩仔 ‘little kid’ (Meyer 1947: #1774; O’Melia 1959:
9

4: 138; Yue 1972: 213), constructed as a phonetic loan of man 4 文 ‘literature’, which
is indicated by the yan 4 亻(人) ‘person’ radical on the left.
In this work, the definition of a Cantonese dialect character given by Rao, et al.
(1996: 377-380) in the appendix to their Guangzhouhua fangyan cidian
廣州話方言詞典 dictionary and the list of characters provided there has been adopted
as a working definition:
一、廣州話常用的方言字;
二、借來表示廣州話特殊音義的字,其中在群眾中比較通行或字
形比較生疏的;
三、《新華字典》沒有收進去的古字。
That is, 1) dialect characters frequently used in Cantonese, 2) characters borrowed to
represent Cantonese-specific words, and 3) ancient characters that are not included in
the Xinhua zidian 新華字典 dictionary used in mainland China.
1.4 Rationale for Studying Cantonese Dialect Characters
There are many possible reasons for studying Cantonese dialect characters, but
the most important is that Cantonese dialect characters have never been subject to the
kind of prescriptivism that have afflicted other characters, such as the reforms of the
xiaozhuan 小篆 ‘lesser seal’ script over two thousand years ago which is traditionally
ascribed to Li Si 李斯 (Karlgren 1923: 2), the influence of Xu Shen’s 許慎 Shuowen
jiezi 說文解字 (AD 100) and the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 (1716) dictionaries, or
mainland China’s 1964 simplification scheme. For example, Cantonese dialect
characters often fail to be included in comprehensive dictionaries. The eight-volume
Hanyu da zidian 漢語大字典 dictionary (HYDZD 1986), with its coverage of 54,678
characters, is among modern dictionaries second only to the Zhonghua zihai 中華字海
10

(Leng and Wei 1994), which covers more characters (85,568), albeit at the expense of
extensive definitions and usage quotes. As such, the Hanyu da zidian remains a
standard reference work that would be among the first consulted. However, its
coverage of Cantonese dialect characters is either incomplete or non-existent. The
situation is not improved by using dictionaries and reference works specializing in
Cantonese, as different works may give different written forms. Thus, this presents an
opportunity to study the development of characters in a laissez-faire environment.
Another important reason for studying Cantonese dialect characters is that they
have changed greatly within at least the two hundred years and still continue to
change, unlike other characters which have basically remained unchanged since the
time of Li Si and Xu Shen. This allows for the tracking of orthographic changes
within a relatively narrow and controllable timeframe, and with primary sources that
can be reliably dated, rather than undated or pre-modern re-copied editions of non-
extant originals. Furthermore, there is simply little or no research on the development
of relatively modern characters, popular or scholarly, especially for Cantonese dialect
characters, in contrast to the studies of characters that date far back in antiquity
(Karlgren 1923; Wieger 1927).
11

Endnotes
1 Yuan Jiahua. 1960. Hanyu fangyan gaiyao 漢語方言概要. Beijing: Wenzi gaige.
2 See section 2.2 “Indigenous Innovations Since 1918” (190-217) of the appendix in
Gunn (1991: 185-294), especially section 2.13 “Distinctive Features of Regional
Grammars” (203-216), for specific examples.
3 See Snow (1991) for a full treatment and history.
4
I thank Professor Cheung and Professor Bauer with providing me with a July 26,
2001 pre-publication draft.
12

CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This chapter provides background information on the phonology of Cantonese
and phonological features relevant to the discussion, as well as notations employed in
this work.
2.1 Phonology of Cantonese
The syllable structure in Cantonese, sans tone, can be described by Yue’s
(1972: 87-88) formula (C1, G1)V(C2, G2), where C is a consonant, G a glide, and V a
vowel. This yields nine possible combinations, not including syllabic nasals such as
m 4 /m 21 / 唔 ‘not’ and ng 4 /ŋ 24 / 五 ‘five’ (table 2.1).
Syllable
Structure
Examples
V a 3 /a 33 / 呀 ‘sentence-final particle’
C1V ga 3 /ka 33 / 假 ‘vacation’, na 2 /na 35 / 乸 ‘female’
G1V ya 6 /ja 22 / 廿 ‘twenty’, wa 6 /wa 22 / 華 ‘Chinese’
VC2 aat 3 /at 33 / 壓 ‘to crush’, aan 3 /an 33 / 晏 ‘late’
VG2 aai 3 /aj 33 / 嗌 ‘to yell’, aau 3 /aw 33 / 拗 ‘to argue’
C1VC2 gaak 3 /kak 3 / 革 ‘to reform’, gaam 3 /kam 33 / 監 ‘to force’
C1VG2 gaai 3 /kaj 33 / 介 ‘to lie between’, gaau 3 /kaw 33 / 教 ‘to teach’
G1VC2 yaak 3 /jak 3 / 喫 ‘to eat’, waan 1 /wan 55 / 灣 ‘bay’
G1VG2 yaai 2 /jaj 35 / 踹 ‘to step on’, waai 1 /waj 55 / 歪 ‘crooked’
Table 2.1: Syllable Structure of Cantonese
13

However, Chinese syllables are divided into three parts by the traditional
phonological model and romanization systems: the initial, the final, and the tone. The
“initial” refers to the initial consonant, as well as zero initials and glides serving as the
initial, while the “final” refers to the rest of the syllable except for the tone, which is
treated separately. Syllabic nasals, such as [m] and [ŋ], are treated as finals. Since it
is unnecessary to subdivide the “final” into smaller units when discussing Chinese
characters, the initial-final-tone model will be used in this work.
Cantonese consists of nineteen initials plus a zero initial, and fifty-three finals
plus three additional finals em [ɛm], ep [ɛp], and et [ɛt] which are only used in a few
colloquial syllables. The initials are listed below (table 2.2) preceded by the
equivalent Yale romanization, while the finals are listed (table 2.3) as a combination
of the nuclear vowel listed on the x-axis and the following glide, nasal, or stop on the
y-axis, with the equivalent Yale romanization at their intersection.
Unaspirated Aspirated Nasals Fricatives Liquids Glides
Labials b [p] p [p h ] m [m] f [f]
Dentals d [t] t [t h ] n [n] l [l]
Alveolars j [tʃ] ch [tʃ h ] s [s]
Velars g [k] k [k h ] ng [ŋ] h [h]
Labiovelars gw [kw] kw [kw h ]
Glides w [w]
y [j]
Table 2.2: Cantonese Initials
14

[a] [ɐ] [ɛ] [e] [œ] [ø] [i] [ɪ] [ɔ] [o] [u] [ʊ] [y] ∅
∅ a e eu i o u yu
[w] aau au iu ou
[j] aai ai ei oi ui
[ɥ] eui
[m] aam am (em) im m
[n] aan an eun in on un yun
[ŋ] aang ang eng eung ing ong ung ng
[p] aap ap (ep) ip
[t] aat at (ed) eut it ot ut yut
[k] aak ak ek euk ik ok uk
Table 2.3: Cantonese Finals
In the traditional phonological model, tones are divided into four categories,
ping 平 ‘level’, shang 上 ‘rising’, qu 去 ‘going’, and ru 入 ‘entering’. Cantonese has
a tone in each category in both the upper yin 陰 register and the lower yang 陽
register, except for the ru 入 tone category where the yinru 陰入 tone has split,
engendering a zhongru 中入 tone, for a total of nine tones. The tones are listed below
(table 2.4) with their Chinese names, tone contours in numerical and Chao tone letter
notation, and tone number in Yale romanization. Since the tone contours of the three
ru 入 category tones, yinru 陰入 (5 ˥), zhongru 中入 (3 ˧) , and yangru 陽入 (2 �) can
be identified with those of the yinping 陰平 (55 ˥), yinqu 陰去 (33 ˧), and yangqu
陽去 (22 �) tones, respectively, except that they are shorter in duration, they are not
assigned separate tone numbers in Yale romanization. However, they can be still be
distinguished because they occur only in syllables ending in a stop, -p [-p], -t [-t], and
-k [-k], and vice versa.
15

Yin 陰 yinping 陰平
55 ˥
#1
Yang 陽 yangping 陽平
21 �
#4
2.2 Romanization Systems
Ping 平 Shang 上 Qu 去 Ru 入
yinshang 陰上
35 �
#2
yangshang 陽上
24 �
#5
Table 2.4: Cantonese Tones
16
yinqu 陰去
33 ˧
#3
yangqu 陽去
22 �
#6
yinru 陰入
5 ˥
#1
zhongru 中入
3 ˧
#3
yangru 陽入
2 �
�#6
Unlike Mandarin, for which there is Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles, there is no
standard romanization system for Cantonese. Yue (1972: 77) remarks, “There are
almost as many systems of romanization as there are writers on Cantonese. No two
authors use the same system without modification.” Dictionaries, textbooks, and other
works often include conversion tables from several influential systems used by earlier
authors, e.g, Lau’s (1977: xv-xvii) A Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary includes
conversions from the Barnett-Chao, Meyer-Wempe, and Yale systems; Chao’s (1947:
31-33) textbook, Cantonese Primer (1947: 31-33) includes conversions from the Ball,
Eitel, Jones-Woo, and Meyer-Wempe systems; and Yue’s (1972: 79-83) Phonology of
Cantonese includes conversions from the Official, Chao, and Meyer-Wempe systems.
The system adopted here for discussion purposes, with a minor modification, is
the Yale system, which was first introduced in the mid-twentieth century. Instead of
marking tones with a combination of diacritics and an infixed -h- for yang 陽 register

tones, superscripted numbers are used. Since it is often necessary to refer to the
original romanization used in various sources, unidirectional conversion tables from
those systems to the Yale system have been provided for reference. Besides the trivial
orthographic differences arising from various schemes for depicting aspiration, vowel
quality, and tones, there are also differences arising from a different phonology
depicted in sources roughly prior to the mid-twentieth century, e.g., Williams’ (1856)
A Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect distinguishes
between two sets of sibilants, ts-ts’-s versus ch-ch’-sh, whereas Lau’s (1977) A
Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary does not. The conversion tables are arranged
in terms of the Yale system, and phonemically-motivated differences reflected in older
romanization systems which have now become merged are listed together, delimited
by commas. Differences arising from idiosyncratic spelling practices not motivated
by phonemic differences are also listed together, but delimited by slashes, e.g., the
system used in Rao Bingcai 饒秉才, et al.’s (1996) Guangzhouhua fangyan cidian
廣州話方言詞典 uses j-q-x after the high front vowels i and ü in imitation of Pinyin,
but z-c-s elsewhere.
17

Yale Williams Aubazac Meyer
1856 1909 1947 1
Yue Lau Rao
1972 1977 1996
b p p p p b b
p p’ p’ p’ p’ p p
m m m m m m m
f f f f f f f
d t t t t d d
t t’ t’ t’ t’ t t
n n n n n n n
l l l l l l l
j ts, ch ts, tch ts, ch ts j z/j
ch ts’, ch’ ts’, tch’ ts’, ch’ ts’ ch c/q
s s, sh s, sh s, sh s s s/x
g k k k k g g
k k’ k’ k’ k’ k k
ng ng ng ng ŋ ng ng
h h h h h h h
gw kw kou kw kw gw gu
kw kw’ k’ou kw’ kw’ kw ku
w ∅/w ∅/w ∅/w ŭ w w
y ∅/y ∅/y ∅/y ĭ y y
∅ ∅ ∅ ∅ (ʔ) ∅ ∅
Table 2.5: Romanization of Initials
18

Yale Williams Aubazac Meyer Yue Lau Rao
1856 1909 1947 1972 1977 1996
a á a a A: a a
aau áu áo aau A:ŭ aau ao
aai ái ái aai A:ĭ aai ai
aam ám ám aam A:m aam am
aan án án aan A:n aan an
aang áng áng aang A:ŋ aang ang
aap áp áp aap A:p aap ab
aat át át aat A:t aat ad
aak ák ák aak A:k aak ag
au au ao au ɐŭ au eo
ai ai ai ai ɐĭ ai ei
am am, òm am, om am, om ɐm am em
an an an an ɐn an en
ang ang ang ang ɐŋ ang eng
ap ap, òp ap, op ap, op ɐp ap eb
at at at at ɐt at ed
ak ak ak ak ɐk ak eg
e é é e ɛ: e é
ei í i ei eĭ ei éi
eng eng n/a eng ɛ:ŋ eng éng
ek ek èk ek ɛ:k ek ég
eu ù eu oeh œ: euh ê
eui ui, ü eui, u ui øy̆ ui êu
eun un eun un øn un ên
eung éung eung eung œ:ŋ eung êng
eut ut eut ut øt ut êd
euk éuk euk euk œ:k euk êg
Table 2.6: Romanization of Finals, Part I
19

̩
Yale Williams Aubazac Meyer Yue Lau Rao
1856 1909 1947 1972 1977 1996
i í, z’ i, z i, z i: i i
iu iú iou iu i:ŭ iu iu
im ím im im i:m im im
in ín in in i:n in in
ing íng ing ing ɪŋ ing ing
ip íp ip ip i:p ip ib
it ít it it i:t it id
ik ik ek ik ɪk ik ig
o o o oh ɔ: oh o
ou ò ó o oŭ o ou
oi oi oi oi ɔ:ĭ oi oi
on on on on ɔ:n on on
ong ong ong ong ɔ:ŋ ong ong
ot ot ot ot ɔ:k ot od
ok ok ok ok ɔ:k ok og
u ú ou oo u: oo u
ui úi oui ooi u:ĭ ooi ui
un ún oun oon u:n oon un
ung ung oung ung ʊŋ ung ung
ut út out oot u:t oot ud
uk uk ouk uk ʊk uk ug
yu ü u ue y: ue ü
yun ün un uen y:n uen ün
yut üt ut uet y:t uet üd
m ‘m m m m̩ m m
ng ‘ng ng ng ŋ̩ ng ng
Table 2.7: Romanization of Finals, Part II
20

Chinese
Name
yinping
陰平
yinshang
陰上
yinqu
陰去
yangping
陽平
yangshang
陽上
yangqu
陽去
yinru
陰入
zhongru
中入
yangru
陽入
Yale 2 Williams
1856 3
Aubazac
1909
cá a 1
a 1
a 2 c á a 2
a 3
a 4
á ɔ a 3
21
Meyer Yue
1947 1972
a A: 53
á A: 35
à A: 44
cá a1 ā A: 21
a 5 c á a2 ă A: 24
a 6
at 1
at 3
at 6
2.3 Phonological Mergers
á ɔ a3 â A: 33
at ɔ
at 4
at A:t 5
ato àt A:t 4
atɔ at4 ât A:t 3
Table 2.8: Romanization of Tones
Lau
1977
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 4
a 5
a 6
at 1o
Rao
1996
Numerous authors have observed that there are a number of variations in
Cantonese pronunciation resulting in mergers. The ones relevant to the discussion are
described below.
2.3.1 Substitution of the Velar Nasal Initial ng- [ŋ-] for the Zero Initial
According to Yue (1972: 89, 121fn12), the substitution of the velar nasal initial
ng- [ŋ] for the zero initial in the speech of some speakers of Cantonese is perhaps due
to the influence of the pronunciation of unspecified neighboring dialects, citing the
example of Cantonese a [A:] versus dialectal [ŋA:] for 亞 ‘second’. Chao (1947: 21)
at 3
at 6
a 1
a 2
a 3
a 4
a 5
a 6
at 1o
at 3
at 6

does not indicate a particular origin for this merger either, but quantifies it as
happening to three-fourths of Cantonese speakers except in “interjections, particles,
and the proper noun prefix Ah [阿], which begin with an open vowel for all types of
speakers”, and in fact recommends this pronunciation, although use of the zero initial
is not discouraged. This substitution was noted as early as the mid-nineteenth century
by Williams (1856: 1), who comments that “words in a or á, are often heard beginning
with ng, as in ngá, ngai, ngat”. He considered it part of a greater set of variations in
pronunciation, which he characterizes as typical of several neighboring Yue dialects:
All words having no initial consonant, are very liable to have a nasal ng
or h prefixed to them, or to have the vowel altered. The people in
Hiángshán [Xiangshan 香山, now Zhongshan 中山], Macao, and Sinngán,
change many words in this way, so that if one does not see the
character, he will look for it under h or ng. (xx)
2.3.2 Substitution of the Zero Initial for the Velar Nasal Initial ng- [ŋ-]
According to Yue (1972: 89, 121fn12), the substitution of the zero initial for
the velar nasal initial ng- [ŋ] initial in the speech of some Cantonese speakers is
perhaps due to the influence of the pronunciation of neighboring Panyu 番禺, another
Yue dialect, citing the example of Cantonese nga [ŋA:] versus Panyu [A:] for 牙
‘tooth’. Chao (1947: 18) does not posit a particular origin for this merger, but notes
that there is a “minority” who does not have the velar nasal initial, and thus uses the
majority zero initial pronunciation in his teaching. However, unlike the substitution of
the velar nasal initial ng- [ŋ] for the zero initial, this variation is not attested in
Williams (1856).
22

2.3.3 Substitution of the Liquid Initial l- [l-] for the Nasal Initial n- [n-]
According to Yue (1972: 89, 120fn11), the substitution of the liquid initial l-
[l-] for the nasal initial n- [n-] is perhaps due to the influence of the pronunciation of
neighboring Nanhai 南海, another Yue dialect. However, Yue notes that Whitaker
(1952: 31) 4 considered it to be due to the influence of the pronunciation of either
Swatow [Shantou 汕頭] or Hainan 海南, both Min dialects. Chao (1947: 18) does not
posit a particular origin for this merger, but notes that one fourth of Cantonese
speakers do not have the nasal initial. Williams (1856: xxi) does not comment on this
merger, considering it part of a greater set of variations in pronunciation, but considers
it secondary to the non-homorganic substitution with the labial nasal initial m- [m-]:
The two initials l and m are frequently so interchanged in the mouths of
some people, that one is much puzzled to distinguish them, and even n
is altered too; as lám 南 for nám; mán 欄 for lán; lò 奴 for nò; &c. The
number of such words is not very great, and while the few who speak
thus cannot discriminate the inital consonant before some vowels, they
never interchange them before others.
2.4 Phonological Distinctions
Chao (1947: 18) observed that earlier sources on Cantonese made a number of
distinctions that were only present in neighboring dialects or in older forms of the
language. Yue (1972: 71-72) identifies them as being under the direct or indirect
influence of Zhou Guanshan’s 周冠山 Fenyun cuoyao 分韻撮要 dictionary 5 , such as
Samuel Wells Williams’ Tonic Dictionary of the Canton Dialect (1856), which bears
the name of Zhou’s book in its Chinese title, Ying-Wa fenyun cuoyao 英華分韻撮要.
However, Yue is unsure if these distinctions reflect Zhou’s own Shunde 順德
23

pronunciation, a neighboring Yue dialect, and/or earlier pronunciation. The
distinctions relevant to the discussion are described below.
2.4.1 Distinction Between the Vowels -o- [-ɔ-] and -a- [-ɐ-]
Before Labial Finals -m [-m] and -p [-p]
A number of earlier sources on Cantonese, including some of the sources used
in this discussion (Williams 1856, Aubazac 1909, Meyer 1947, etc.), make a
distinction between the vowels -o- [-ɔ-] and -a- [-ɐ-] before the labial finals -m [-m]
and -p [-p]. Even the third edition of Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe’s
The Student’s Cantonese-English Dictionary (1947), which was the “most popular in
current use” (Yue 1972: 687) almost three decades later, still included the -om [-ɔm]
and -op [-ɔp] rimes despite not being present in contemporary Cantonese. This
distinction is illustrated by 金 ‘gold’ and 甘 ‘sweet’, which are homophonously gam 1
[kɐm 55 ] in contemporary Cantonese (table 2.9).
Source 金 甘
‘gold’ ‘sweet’
Williams 1856
Aubazac 1909
ckam
kam
ckòm
1
kom 1
Meyer 1947 kam kom
Chao 1947 kam kam
Yue 1972 kɐm 53
kɐm 53
Lau 1977 gam 1o
gam 1
Rao 1996 gem1 gem1 Yale gam 1
gam 1
Table 2.9: Vowels -o- [-ɔ-] and -a- [-ɐ-] Before Labial Finals -m [-m] and -p [-p]
24

2.4.2 Distinction Between the Dental and Palatal Sibilant Initials
[ts-]/[ts h -]/[s-] and [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -]/[ʃ-]
Cantonese has a series of sibilant initials that vary between dental and palatal
articulation depending on the speaker, from the dental articulation [ts-]/[ts h -]/[s-] of
Yue (1972: 88) to the alveopalatal [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -]/[ʃ-] of Rao (1996: 267) to the palato-
alveolar [tɕ-]/[tɕ h -]/[ɕ-] of Chao (1947: 28). According to Yue (1972: 88, 120fn8),
these sibilants are often palatalized before high front vowels, which she herself does
more often with the affricates than the fricative, and she cites D.C. Lau’s observation
that male speakers have a greater tendency to palatalize. A semi-palatalized set, [tʃ-
]/[tʃ h -]/[s-] (as in English “jaw”/“church”/“sand”), is described by Sidney Lau (1977:
ix) without any particular constraints on what vowels they must precede, and this is
also reflected in the Yale romanization system, which uses j-/ch-/s- for the sibilant
initials.
However, a number of earlier sources on Cantonese, including some of the
sources used in this discussion (Williams 1856, Aubazac 1909, Meyer 1947, etc.),
make a distinction between a dental and a palatal series of sibilants, e.g., Williams
(1856: xxii) distinguishes [ts-]/[ts h -] and [s-] (as in English “ratsbane”/“wits” and
“sea”/“yes”) from [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -] and [ʃ-] (as in English “church” and “shut”/“chaise”). This
distinction is still made in Mandarin, where the palatal series roughly correspond to
the retroflex initials in Mandarin, zh- [tʂ-], ch- [tʂ h -], and sh- [ʂ-], and are illustrated by
the below three minimal or near-minimal pairs (table 2.10).
25

Source 宗 中 村 春 笑
‘ancestor’ ‘middle’ ‘village’ ‘spring’ ‘to laugh’
Mandarin zōng zhōng cūn chūn xiào
< *siào
26
少
‘young’
shào
Williams 1856 cts’ung cch’ung cts’ün cch’un siúɔ shiúɔ Aubazac 1909 tsoung 1
tchoung 1
ts’un 1
tch’eun 1
siou 3
shiou 3
Meyer 1947 tsung chung ts’uen ch’un siù shiù
Chao 1947 tzong cong tsön chön siw shiw
Yue 1972 tsʊŋ 53
tsʊŋ 53
ts’øn 53
ts’y:n 53
siŭ 44
siŭ 44
Lau 1977 jung 1
jung 1
chuen 1o
chun 1
siu 3
siu 3
Rao 1996 zung 1
zung 1
qun 1
cên 1
xiu 3
xiu 3
Yale jung 1
jung 1
chyun 1
cheun 1
siu 3
siu 3
Table 2.10: Dental and Palatal Sibilant Initials [ts-]/[ts h -]/[s-] and [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -]/[ʃ-]
On the other hand, Williams (1856) observed that the dental and palatal series
of sibilant initials were not always distinguished, such as dental affricates [ts-]/[ts h -]
often becoming palatalized to [tʃ-]/[tʃ h -], while in neighboring Yue dialects the palatal
fricative [ʃ-] was often depalatalized to [s-]:
The initials ch and ts are constantly confounded, and some persons are
absolutely unable to detect the difference, more frequently calling the
words under ts as ch, than contrariwise. All characters with the sounds
tsz’ and ts’z’ are liable to be heard chí and ch’í, with a stronger
breathing than those properly read chí and ch’í. (xx-xxi)
The initial sh is called s along the coast; in the districts of Hiángshán
[Xiangshan 香山], Sinning [Xinning 新寧] and Sinngán, this obtains to
a very great extent; shui 水, shü 書, shuk 熟, sháng shing 省城, &c.
&c., being heard sui, sü, suk, and sáng sing, as in the Tiéchiú
[Chaozhou 潮州] and Amoy [Xiamen 夏門] dialects. The initial sh is a
complete shibboleth to the people of those districts. West of Canton,
many are found who change sz’ into sü, and a large part of the words
beginning with s are changed into sh, just the opposite of the usage at
Macao. (xxi)

2.5 Description of Rare Characters
Unlike the characters in general use in modern standard written Chinese, which
enjoy widespread typographic support, there has been less than sufficient support for
rare characters used in specialized contexts. Yin and Rohsenow (1994: 80-82)
identified ten categories of usages of specialized characters: 1) keji 科技, science and
technology; 2) renming 人名, person names; 3) diming 地名, place names; 4) minzu
民族 and zongjiao 宗教, ethnic minorities and religion; 5) hangye 行業, industry; 6)
yiyin 譯音, transliteration; 7) fangyan 方言, dialects; 8) wenyan 文言 and gu hanyu
古漢語, classical Chinese and ancient Chinese; 9) kouyu 口語, colloquial language;
and 10) fei hanyu 非漢語, non-Chinese languages. The characters used in written
Cantonese are the same as those used in modern standard written Chinese, but also
include those that fall into Yin and Rohsenow’s fangyan (dialect) category. As written
Cantonese often reflects the spoken language, characters from the kouyu (colloquial
language) category are also used. Characters from the wenyan and gu hanyu (classical
Chinese and ancient Chinese) category are also used, since Cantonese preserves some
words and their characters that have become extinct in Mandarin and modern standard
written Chinese. Occasionally, characters from the yiyin (transliteration) category are
also used, for transliterating English and other foreign words.
Like other groups who use specialized supersets of rare characters, there is
always the issue that a necessary character is not available typographically, and the
open-ended nature of characters precludes there ever being a complete remedy to this
problem, especially for newly-coined characters. To allow for discussion, rare
27

characters are described here using Ideographic Description Characters (IDC), which
were originally introduced in the early 1990s (Unicode Consortium 2000: 268-271,
565-566). IDCs are operators that take two or three following characters as operands,
and describe a character as a combination of two or three component characters in
various arrangements. This combination is called an Ideographic Description
Sequence (IDS), and relies on the component characters being available
typographically. The ten IDCs, including examples demonstrating their usage, are
given below (table 2.11).
IDC IDC Name Word Definition Character IDS
� left to right míng bright 明 �日月
� above to below jí lucky 吉 �士口
� left to middle and right jiē street 街 �彳圭亍
� above to middle and below jiù old 舊 �艹隹臼
� full surround guó country 國 �囗或
� surround from above wèn to ask 問 �門口
� surround from below xiōng unlucky 凶 �凵乂
� surround from left jiàng carpenter 匠 �匚斤
� surround from upper left guǎng wide 廣 �广黃
� surround from upper right qì air 氣 �气米
� surround from lower left zhè this 這 �辶言
� overlaid wū witch 巫 �从工
Table 2.11: Ideographic Description Characters
An IDS can also include other IDSs in lieu of component characters, to
describe more complex characters. Each IDS is read from right to left, applying each
operator to the two or three component characters to its right, and this process is
repeated until a final mental image of the entire character is formed, e.g., the long IDS
28

�火��木缶木冖�鬯彡 would assemble into the complex character wat 1 爩 ‘to
smoke’. Examples of complex IDSs showing intermediate stages are given below.
1) chú ‘cupboard’
a) 木�广�壴寸
b) 木�广尌 壴 and 寸 are arranged left to right to create 尌.
c) �木廚 广 surrounds 尌 from the upper left to create 廚.
d) 櫥 木 and 廚 are arranged left to right to create 櫥.
2) fān ‘border’
3) shān ‘fan’
a) �艹�氵�釆田
b) �艹�氵番 釆 and 田 are arranged above to below to create 番.
c) �艹潘 氵 and 番 are arranged left to right to create 潘.
e) 藩 艹 and 潘 are arranged above to below to create 藩.
a) �火�戶�习习
b) �火�戶羽 习 and 习 are arranged left to right to create 羽.
c) �火扇 戶 surrounds 羽 from the upper left corner to create 扇.
d) 煽 火 and 扇 are arranged left to right to create 煽.
4) zhào ‘to shine’
a) ��日月�穴工
b) ��日月空 穴 and 工 are arranged from above to below to create
空.
c) �明空 日 and 月 are arranged from left to right to create 明.
d) 曌 明 and 空 are arranged from above to below to create
曌.
2.6 Unicode Codepoint
Where known, the Unicode codepoint for each character, which is expressed as
“U+” followed by a four or five digit hexadecimal number, has been provided for
reference. It is envisioned that this information can serve as a unique identifier for
cross-referencing other dictionaries or to provide a means for inputting rare Cantonese
29

dialect characters. Since newer versions of Unicode (table 2.12) support more
Chinese characters (table 2.13), one may also assess based on which block a
character’s codepoint falls in whether it is supported on one’s equipment. The
Unicode codepoint will also facilitate future replacement of characters temporarily
described here by IDSs with a proper representation.
Year Unicode ISO 10646 URO ExtA ExtB Han
Version Version
Characters
1993 Unicode 1.1 ISO 10646-1: 1993 ✓ 20,902
1996 Unicode 2.0 ISO 10646-1: 1993
plus amendments
✓
20,902
1998 Unicode 2.1 ISO 10646-1: 1993
plus amendments
✓
20,902
2000 Unicode 3.0 ISO 10646-1: 2000 ✓ ✓ 27,484
2001 Unicode 3.1 ISO 10646-2: 2001 ✓ ✓ ✓ 70,195
Table 2.12: Unicode Versions
Block Codepoint Range Han
Characters
CJK Unified Ideographs (URO) U+4E00 to U+9FA5 20,902
CJK Unified Ideographs Extension A (ExtA) U+3400 to U+4DB5 6,582
CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B (ExtB) U+20000 to U+2A6D6 42,711
Table 2.13: Unicode Blocks
30

Endnotes
1 O’Melia (1959) also uses the Meyer-Wempe system.
2
This is a modified version of Yale. In actual Yale romanization, these would be: à,
á, a, àh, áh, ah, āt, at, and aht.
3 Williams (1856) does not distinguish between the yinru 陰入 and zhongru 中入
tones.
4 Whitaker, Katherine P.K. 1952. “Characterization of the Cantonese Dialect with
Special Reference to its Modified Tones”. Ph.D. dissertation. London: University of
London.
5
See Yue (1972: 84fn5) for a description of the differences between the Fenyun
cuoyao 分韻撮要 and contemporary Cantonese.
31

CHAPTER 3
PROJECT
When using earlier Cantonese sources such as the third edition of Bernard F.
Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe’s The Student’s Cantonese-English Dictionary
(1947), one is struck by the drastically different and sometimes unrecognizable
characters used for some words, such as 倃 for gau 6 ‘lump’, 唨 for jo 2 , the perfective
aspect particle, and 蹘 for mau 1 ‘to squat’. Less than three decades later, while that
dictionary was still the “most popular in current use” (Yue 1972: 687), the same three
words were written with 嚿, 咗, and 踎, respectively. Further investigation reveals
that the different forms given in different sources is not necessarily the idiosyncrasy of
each author, but part of an ongoing optimization process of refining the written form
by changing and replacing characters. Unlike characters which have undergone
prescriptive script reform, these optimizations are driven by a populace who finds the
characters currently used to be insufficient and hence creates superior ones to
supersede them. Even today, among contemporary sources such as newspapers,
advertisements, popular fiction, comics, and personal letters, there is considerable
variation in the written forms used, suggesting that their usage is primarily driven by a
populace without reference to “authoritative” sources such as contemporary
dictionaries, or the research of scholars of the benzikao 本字考 school who seek to
32

discover the now-forgotten etymologically “correct” character attested in writings
from antiquity. This study seeks to understand the motivations behind the changes
that eventually weeds out the less preferable written forms.
3.1 Requirements for Sources of Cantonese Dialect Characters
Although older sources such as Robert Morrison’s three-part dictionary and
primer, A Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect (1828), were available, they were
disqualified because they did not meet certain criteria. Since it is impossible to
exhaustively sift through every extant work with Cantonese dialect characters,
dictionaries were taken to be representative of the usage of their era. As Williams
(1856: xiii) testifies,
The best course to adopt respecting the colloquial words found in this
dialect, has been a matter of considerable perplexity in the preparation
of this Dictionary. There being so many modes to express them, it was
concluded to follow that plan for each character, which seemed to be
the best understood among the people.
However, he also warns,
The student must not however place much dependence on many of the
characters employed to denote these unwritten sounds, for they are not
uniformly represented, and other persons would perhaps choose
different characters. (xiii)
Furthermore, as multiple dialect characters may be used for a particular word
even within a single work, there needs to be a way to expediently identify dialect
characters. For this reason, besides disqualifying non-dictionary works, only
dictionaries that are arranged or indexed by the characters used were considered,
where the number of places where the characters used to write a particular word can
be found is kept to a minimum. Most dictionaries of this type are called zidian 字典,
33

and unless they are arranged inappropriately with no regard for the orthography, most
cidian 詞典, dictionaries of compounds, can also be used. Dictionaries that are
arranged by unhelpful orders were excluded, such as bilingual English-Chinese
dictionaries, which are arranged according to an English translation, the exact wording
differing from dictionary to dictionary.
Additionally, it is also important to have both the pronunciation and definition
available, so that a character can be reliably identified as being used to write a
particular word. Without the pronunciation, homonyms cannot be distinguished, e.g.,
車 can be used to write che 1 ‘car’ as well as geui 1 , a surname, whereas without a
definition, homophones cannot be distinguished, e.g., 卡 can be used to write both ka 1
‘card’ and ka 1 ‘calorie’.
Given the sources that were available and the above criteria, the earliest source
that was not disqualified was Samuel Wells Williams’ A Tonic Dictionary of the
Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect of 1856. Earlier sources such as Robert
Morrison’s A Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect of 1828 includes a Chinese-English
dictionary that makes use of characters, but the pronunciation is ambiguously
indicated by a romanization system that does not mark tones nor aspiration.
3.2 Overview of Sources Used
The sources used may be divided into five chronological periods: 1) the mid-
nineteenth century, represented by Williams (1856); 2) the late nineteenth century,
represented by Williams (1909 [1874]); 3) the early twentieth century, represented by
Aubazac (1909); 4) the mid-twentieth century represented by: 3) Meyer (1947) and
34

O’Melia (1959); and 5) the late twentieth century, represented by: Yue (1972); Lau
(1977), and Rao (1996).
Samuel Wells Williams published A Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese
Language in the Canton Dialect in Canton (Guangzhou) in 1856, which contains over
7850 characters, and A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language Arranged
According to the Wu-Fang Yüan Yin [五方元音] in Beijing in 1874, which contains
12,527 characters. Unlike the earlier dictionary, the latter dictionary was not restricted
to Cantonese, and also covered Mandarin, Fuzhou, and Shanghai usages. Williams
later turned it over to the North China Union College, who rearranged the entries and
published it in 1909 with the title extended to include the phrase “and Alphabetically
Rearranged According to the Romanization of Sir Thomas F. Wade”. However, the
contents are essentially identical to those in the 1874 edition, and this source has been
treated as such.
Williams’ earlier dictionary uses the prose tag “colloquial word”, which refers
to a word or sense of a word that is used only in colloquial language. In many cases,
when the tag “colloquial word” is used and there are no non-colloquial senses of the
word, the character used to write it is a Cantonese dialect character. However, it is
unclear what criteria is used to make this determination, and the results do not always
correspond to what one would consider Cantonese dialect characters, such as mā 媽
under the (Cantonese) “má” section:
c媽 A colloquial word; a nurse; c nái cmá [奶媽], a wet nurse; ckon cmá
[乾媽], a nurse; csho ct’au cma, a tiring woman; chapɔ cmá [執媽], a
midwife; cmá cmá [媽媽], mother, mamma; ckú cmá [姑媽], aunt, aunty.
(1856: 269)
35

On the other hand, Williams’ later dictionary uses the prose tag “in
Cantonese”, which refers to words or senses of words that are used only in Cantonese,
which often correlates with Cantonese dialect characters. Williams’ two dictionaries
also use the prose tag “unauthorized”, which is defined in the later dictionary as
characters which do not appear in the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 dictionary (1716).
However, this term also applies to characters that have been created in the century and
a half since it was written, which are not necessarily Cantonese dialect characters,
such as shuāi 甩 under the (Mandarin) “shuai” section:
c甩 An unauthorized character, used for 丟 to discard. To throw away,
as worthless; to discard, to reject. 丨脫 throw it away. 丨拉外頭 throw
it outside. 事丨不開 I cannot leave this work. 丨磚打人 to throw a
brick at a man. 丨瓦 to toss tiles up. (1909 [1874]: 718)
Louis Aubazac, described as a “missionnaire au Kouangtong” (missionary in
Guangdong), published Liste des Caractères les Plus Usuels de la Langue
Cantonnaise (List of the most ordinary characters in the Cantonese tongue) in Hong
Kong in 1909, a pronunciation-sorted glossary of over 1800 characters. However, no
additional information is provided in the pamphlet.
Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe of Maryknoll first published The
Student’s Cantonese-English Dictionary in 1935 in Hong Kong, which contains about
10,000 characters. The edition used here is the third edition, published in New York
in 1947. Although promising tags are defined in the “Explanatory Notes” section such
as “Coll.” (colloquial) and “Ca.” (Cantonese), they do not appear to be used
36

productively, despite the large number of Cantonese dialect characters included in
their dictionary.
Thomas A. O’Melia of Maryknoll first published the four-part First-Year
Cantonese, a textbook, in 1938 in Hong Kong. The edition used here is the fourth
edition, published in Hong Kong in 1959. Despite being a textbook, part four,
“Random Idioms and Notes Arranged Alphabetically” contains a small dictionary by
F.C. Dietz, described as the “first Director of the Language School”. However, dialect
characters are not marked.
Oi-Kan Yue Hashimoto published Phonology of Cantonese in 1972, the first
volume of the proposed “Studies in the Yue Dialects” series. Chapter 4, “Syllabary
Arranged According to Cantonese Sounds” (202-398) does not intend to be an
exhaustive listing, but purports to include characters wherever possible, although in
reality some words are not given written forms, even though there are characters for
them in Meyer (1947), which is one of the sources that Yue consulted (203). Yue
explains that “characters particular to Cantonese and colloquial forms for which no
characters are designed” (202) are identified with an English gloss within parentheses,
but onomatopaeic syllables are only given an English gloss and transcription within
brackets. Loanwords are glossed in their source language, and where it exists, a
character within parentheses.
Sidney Lau 劉錫祥, the author of a series of Cantonese textbooks (Elementary
Cantonese, Intermediate Cantonese, and Advanced Cantonese) for the Hong Kong
government, published A Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary in 1977, in lieu of
producing the companion glossary volume for Advanced Cantonese to parallel the
37

ones previously written for the elementary and intermediate levels. It contains over
3,600 characters, and marks some with the tag “CC” (Cantonese Character), although
there is no explanation of what that is intended to mean, as there are also some dialect
characters marked with only the tag “Coll.” (Colloquial), or with both tags, as well as
non-dialect characters marked with the tag “Coll”.
Rao Bingcai 饒秉才, Ouyang Jueya 歐陽覺亞, and Zhou Wuji 周無忌, three
mainland Chinese authors, published their dictionary, Guangzhouhua fangyan cidian
廣州話方言詞典, in Hong Kong in 1996. Although dialect characters are not marked
in the body of the dictionary, there is an appendix (377-380) called “Guangzhouhua
teshu zibiao” 廣州話特殊字表 (Table of Characters Specific to Cantonese) which
lists characters in the dictionary that fall into one of three categories: 1) dialect
characters frequently used in Cantonese, 2) characters borrowed to represent
Cantonese-specific words, and 3) ancient characters that are not included in the
Xinhua zidian 新華字典 dictionary used in mainland China.
3.3 Characters Selected for Study
Since most sources do not adequately mark Cantonese dialect characters as
such, it was decided to adopt the definition and list of characters given by Rao (1996:
377-380) as a data set of Cantonese dialect characters. However, that list was soon
found to include obscure words that were not familiar to contemporary Cantonese
speakers and were not attested in other sources. In the interest of working with
familiar words in contemporary use whose written form could be compared to those
used in other sources, only words in that list that were also found in Lau (1977), Yue
38

(1972), and Meyer (1947) were retained. That left words that were certainly in use in
the past half century, representing one-third of the time period covered by the study,
and used commonly enough to be included in four out of the seven sources used.
However, four words (and their characters) which did not meet that requirement
(cheun 1 ‘animal egg’, gau 6 ‘lump’, hong 6 ‘young hen’, and lau 1 ‘coat’) were also
included as exceptions because they demonstrated an important point.
There were 116 words total, of which 113 were monosyllabic, two disyllabic
(gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’ and ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’), and one trisyllabic
(ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’). There were 266 unique characters, of which seven (冚, 冧,
嘥, 奀, 徙, 揼, and �貝子) were used to write two different words, while one
character (泵) was used to write three different words.
3.4 Traditional Model of Character Construction and Usage Principles
Nearly every work that has a discussion of Chinese writing includes an
obligatory explanation of the liushu 六書, the traditional model of the six principles of
constructing and using Chinese characters. The standard version of the liushu is given
in juan 卷 15A of Xu Shen’s 許慎 Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (AD 100), which gives a
terse definition and two examples for each principle. Due to the numerous and
sometimes disputed interpretations of each of the liushu principles, this model will be
presented merely for reference.
Xiangxing 象形 1 , typically translated as ‘pictographs’, is the second of the
liushu principles explained in the Shuowen jiezi 說文解字. Characters constructed
according to the xiangxing principle were originally depictions of concrete objects,
39

such as rì 日 ‘sun’ and yuè 月 ‘moon’, which are no longer as transparent in the
streamlined contemporary orthography.
Zhishi 指事 2 , typically translated as ‘symbols’ or ‘ideographs’, is actually the
first of the liushu principles. Characters constructed according to the zhishi principle
were originally indications of abstract concepts, such as shàng 上 ‘above’ and xià 下
‘below’, where additional marks have been placed above or below a horizontal line.
Huiyi 會意 3 , typically translated as ‘compound ideographs’, is the fourth of the
liushu principles. Characters constructed according to the huiyi principle combine two
or more other characters together to suggest a new meaning, such as wǔ 武 ‘military’
composed of zhǐ ‘to stop’ and gē 戈 ‘dagger-axe’, suggesting the stopping of weapons;
and xìn 信 ‘trust’ composed of rén 亻(人) ‘person’ and yán 言 ‘speech’, suggesting a
person’s words.
Xingsheng 形聲 4 , typically translated as ‘phonetic compounds’, is the third of
the liushu principles. Characters constructed according to the xingsheng principle
combine two characters together, where one signifies its general meaning while the
other is used in rebus fashion for its phonetic value, e.g., jiāng 江 and hé 河, which
both mean ‘river’, are composed of shuǐ 氵(水) ‘water’ for the signific and gōng 工
‘work’ or kě 可 ‘able’ for the phonetic, respectively.
Zhuanzhu 轉注 5 , the fifth of the liushu principles, is an ill-defined principle,
but apparently involves some semantic and graphic connection between two
characters. The standard example is kǎo 考 ‘old’ 6 (now, ‘to test’) and lǎo 老 ‘old’ 7 .
40

Jiajie 假借 8 , typically translated as ‘loan characters’, is the last liushu
principle. Characters used according to the jiajie principle involve the rebus use of
another character for its phonetic value, such as the character 令, which is usually used
to write lìng ‘command’, borrowed to write liáng ‘good’, which is now written as 良
(Boltz 1996: 197).
3.5 Modified Model of Character Construction and Usage Principles
Since the traditional liushu model of character construction and usage
principles is often insufficiently defined, instead of imposing an interpretation on it, a
modified model is used in this discussion, consisting of four principles: co-signific
characters, semantic loans, phonetic loans, and signific-phonetic characters. Co-
signific characters may be equated with the huiyi 會意 ‘compound ideographs’
principle in the traditional liushu 六書 model, while phonetic loans and signific-
phonetic characters may be roughly equated with the jiajie 假借 ‘loan characters’ and
xingsheng 形聲 ‘phonetic compounds’ principles, although the actual distinction
between the two principles may not necessarily be the same in both models. Semantic
loans have no discernable analogue in the traditional model, although they may be
aligned with the zhuanzhu 轉注 principle given certain interpretations of the latter, but
this will not be attempted here. In other words, no claims are made about the
interchangeability of the two models, and the names of the principles used in the
modified model are not intended and should not be regarded as translations of those in
the traditional model, and vice versa.
41

Traditional Typical Translation Traditional Modified Model
Model
Examples
象形 xiangxing pictographs 日月 no equivalent
指事 zhishi symbols/ideographs 上下 no equivalent
會意 huiyi compound ideographs 武信 co-signific
形聲 xingsheng phonetic compounds 江河 signific-phonetic
轉注 zhuanzhu varies 考老 no equivalent
假借 jiajie loan characters 令長 phonetic loans
no equivalent semantic loans
Table 3.1: Comparison of Principles in the Traditional and Modified Models
In the modified model, there are no equivalents to the xiangxing 象形
‘pictographs’ and zhishi 指事 ‘symbols’/’ideographs’ principles in the traditional
model, since the latter have long ceased to be productive principles 9 , and were not
used to construct any of the Cantonese dialect characters in the data set. Furthermore,
characters which could not be clearly classified into one of the four principles in the
modified model have been placed into a category for indeterminate cases.
In the following three chapters, each of the character construction and usage
principles will be discussed along with examples from the data set, beginning with co-
signific characters and semantic loans in chapter 4, phonetic loans in chapter 5, and
signific-phonetic characters in chapter 6. Characters constructed according to
indeterminate principles, which are relatively few in number, will be discussed at the
end of chapter 4.
It should be noted that in the following chapters, the word “create” will be used
as a cover term to refer to the “creation” of a character in the sense that is first being
constructed or used according to a particular principle to write a word in the data set
42

within the sources used in this study. It does not intend to claim that the character did
not exist earlier, since a phonologically, semantically, and/or graphically similar form
may in some cases be attested in older works 10 .
43

Endnotes
1 象形者,畫成其物,隨體詰詘,日月是也。
2 指事者,視而可識,察而見意,上下是也。
3 會意者,比類合誼,以見指撝,武信是也。
4 形聲者,以事為名,取譬相成,江河是也。
5 轉注者,建類一首,同意相受,考老是也。
6 老也,从老省,丂聲。(juan 8A)
7 考也,七十曰老,从人毛匕,言須髮變白也,凡老之屬皆从老。(juan 8A)
8 假借者,本無其字,依聲託事,令長是也。
9 According to data summarized by DeFrancis (1984: 84), the xiangxing 象形
‘pictographic’ principle had dwindled from the 23% of the Shang 商 dynasty to 4% in
the Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (AD 100), and later to 3% by the twelfth century; while
the zhishi 指事 ‘simple indicative’ principle, which had never been a large category,
had dwindled from the 2% in the Shang dynasty to 1% in the Shuowen jiezi.
10 I thank Professor Jianqi Wang for this observation. In particular, the character 褸,
which was used as early as the 1940s (Meyer 1947) for the word lau 1 ‘coat’, is attested
in the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 dictionary (1716: 1123). The pronunciation *lau
落侯切, 良侯切丛音樓 is given with the meaning 衣襟 ‘front of a garment’, while the
pronunciation *lyu 力主切 is given with the meaning 衣壞也 ‘threadbare clothes’. It
is also possible that the character 褸 may have been adopted for lau 1 ‘coat’ by
someone who had seen it before, with no claims to cognacy.
44

4.1 Co-Signific Characters
CHAPTER 4
CO-SIGNIFIC CHARACTERS, SEMANTIC LOANS,
AND INDETERMINATE CASES
Co-signific characters, which are the analogue of the huiyi 會意 ‘compound
ideographs’ principle in the traditional liushu 六書 model, are characters which
combine two or more other characters together to suggest a new meaning, such as
laai 1 ‘last (child)’ 1 , which is written with 孻. According to Williams (1909 [1874]:
493), 孻 is composed of significs ji 2 子 ‘child’ and jeun 6 盡 ‘to finish’, a reference to
the last child of an old man, and generalized to mean ‘last child’ and ‘last’.
A co-signific character may explicitly spell out a synonym or a description of
their meaning, rather than vaguely alluding to or suggesting their meaning. The
relationship between each of the significs is clear, as they can be joined together
linguistically. For example, sū 甦 ‘to revive’ is composed of two co-significs, gèng 更
‘even more’ and shēng 生 ‘life’, which spell out the synonym gēngshēng 更生 ‘to
revive’, while béng 甭 ‘no need’ is composed of two co-significs, bú 不 ‘no’ and yòng
用 ‘need’, which spell out the phrase búyòng 不用 ‘no need’ of which it is a
contraction. Others merely describe their meaning, such as wāi 歪 ‘crooked’, which is
composed of two co-significs bú 不 ‘no’ and zhèng 正 ‘straight’, which spell out the
45

phrase búzhèng 不正 ‘not straight’, while rì 氜 ‘helium’ is composed of two co-
significs, rì 日 ‘sun’ and qì 气(氣) ‘gas’, which spell out the phrase rìqì 日氣 ‘sun
gas’, a reference to where helium was first discovered.
cheun 1 ‘animal egg’ 2 is written with �末�成肉 or 膥, composed of significs
mei 6 未 ‘not yet’, sing 4 成 ‘to become’, and yuk 6 肉 ‘flesh’, which spells out the
descriptive phrase mei 6 sing 4 yuk 6 未成肉 ‘not yet become flesh’, a reference to the
undeveloped state of an egg. �末�成肉 or 膥 differ only in that the former has the
positions of the components rearranged so that the yuk 6 肉 ‘flesh’ signific is less
prominent, occupying only the lower right quarter of the character, rather than the
lower half. Similarly, ngan 1 ‘tiny’ 3 is written with 奀, which is composed of significs
bat 1 不 ‘not’ and daai 6 大 ‘large’, which spells out the descriptive phrase bat 1 daai 6
不大 ‘not large’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
cheun1 animal
egg
laai1 last
(child)
�末�
成肉
✓ ✓
U+81A5 膥 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6625 春 ✓
U+5B7B 孻 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ngan1 tiny U+5940 奀 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 4.1: Co-Signific Characters
A co-signific character can be optimized, such as me 1 ‘to carry on the back’ 4 ,
which was first written with �貝子, with the bui 3 貝 ‘cowrie’ signific positioned on
46

the left and the ji 2 子 ‘child’ signific on the right. According to Williams (1909
[1874]: 571), 貝 may actually be bui 3 背 ‘back’, a reference to the carrying of a child
on the back, and me 1 ‘to carry on the back’ was written with it up to at least the 1950s
(O’Melia 1959). However, by the 1940s (Meyer 1947), the positions of the significs
had already been rearranged to create 孭, so that the ji 2 子 ‘child’ signific would
occupy the left half of the character, suggesting that it is the preferred positioning for
the signific that indicates the general meaning of the character. Even if bui 3 貝
‘cowrie’ were actually an abbreviated form of bui 3 背 ‘back’, the general meaning of
the character has more to do with matters related to children than money (cowries).
Although Rao (1996) also lists the older �貝子 form, it is otherwise not attested in
sources later than the 1950s, suggesting that it was included just for completeness.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
me1 to carry
on the
back
U+27D2F �貝子 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4.2 Semantic Loans
U+5B6D 孭 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 4.2: Optimization of a Co-Signific Character
Semantic loans, which have no discernable analogue in the traditional liushu
六書 model, are characters which have been borrowed for their identical or similar
meaning. The concept of semantic loans was recognized by Williams (1856) as a
device for writing Cantonese, who says:
47

… characters having nearly the same meaning as the colloquial word,
but of an entirely different sound, are adopted, so that even if the reader
does not know the vulgar sound he will make no mistake as to the
sense. Thus, the words chung 烘 to roast, used for cnung, to scorch, to
scowl; chung 孔 a hole, used for clung; are instances of this mode of
adaption. (xiii).
That is, nung 1 ‘to scorch’ is a semantic loan of hung 4 烘 ‘to toast’, which is near-
synonymous, while lung 1 ‘hole’ is a semantic loan of hung 2 孔 ‘hole’, which is
completely synonymous.
The device of semantic loans was frequently employed, such that it is difficult
to discern the actual identity of words written in this manner without the aid of a
parallel transcription. For unexplained reasons, Chalmers, in a note originally
introduced in the fourth edition of his An English and Cantonese Dictionary, quoted
here from the fifth edition (1878), explains:
The common characters 唔 ‘m, 嘅 ke`, and 冇 mo’, which are
unauthorized and local, have been in most cases replaced by their
classic equivalents, 不, 之, and 無 while the colloquial sounds have
been retained. (viii)
Apparently, the replacement of the characters for the negative m 4 唔, the genitive
particle ge 3 嘅, and mou 5 冇 ‘to not have’ was not motivated by practical concerns
such as typography, as they do appear in the note itself, as well as throughout the
dictionary, such as:
Neither … nor, 不是——又不是 pat-shi`—yau`-pat-shi`; 唔係——
又唔係 ‘m-hai`—yau`-‘m-hai`, ——都唔係 too-‘m-hai`. (146)
Disagree, 不對 ‘m-tui`, 唔啱 ‘m-ngaam, 相爭 seung-chaang. (61)
In the definition of “neither … nor”, the distinction between the characters for the
negative m 4 唔 and its “classic” synonym, bat 1 不, have been retained. However, this
48

is not the case in the definition of “disagree”, where the negative m 4 is written with
both characters. Fortunately, the transcription in romanization of the first Chinese
definition, ‘m-tui`, shows that it uses m 4 rather than bat 1 , as the characters 不對 alone
would otherwise indicate.
ma 1 孖 ‘twin’ 5 , me 2 歪 ‘crooked’ 6 , and pok 1 泡 ‘blister’ 7 are semantic loans 8 of
the completely synonymous words ji 1 孖 ‘twin’, wai 1 歪 ‘crooked’, and pou 5 泡
‘blister’, respectively. On the other hand, dau 3 竇 ‘den; nest’ 9 , also pronounced dau 6 ,
and lit 3 纈 ‘knot’ 10 are semantic loans of the semi-synonymous words dau 3 竇 ‘hole’
and kit 3 纈 ‘to tie up silk for dyeing’, respectively. Meanwhile, mou 5 冇 ‘to not
have’ 11 is a semantic loan of sorts of its antonym, yau 5 有 ‘to have’, less the two center
strokes.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
dau3 den; nest U+7AC7 竇 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�口兜 ✓
lit3 knot U+7E88 纈 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ma1 twin U+5B56 孖 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
me2 crooked U+6B6A 歪 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
mou5 to not U+5187 冇 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
have
pok1 blister U+6CE1 泡 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+2688A �月暴 ✓
Table 4.3: Semantic Loans (History)
49

Word Gloss Unicode Char Semantic Loan of Char Gloss
dau3 den; nest U+7AC7 竇 dau3 竇 hole
lit3 knot U+7E88 纈 kit3 纈
ma1 twin U+5B56 孖 ji1 孖 twin
me2 crooked U+6B6A 歪 waai1 歪 crooked
mou5 to not have U+5187 冇 yau5 ㈲
50
to tie up silk for dyeing
to have
pok1 blister U+6CE1 泡 pou5 泡 blister
4.3 Indeterminate Cases
Table 4.4: Semantic Loans (Basis)
A number of cases which could not be clearly classified as a co-signific
character, semantic loan, phonetic loan, or signific-phonetic character given the
available information are covered here.
laam 2 ‘olive’ 12 is written with 欖, which is the standard character for the word.
Rao (1996) also lists 杬, but 杬 does not appear to have ever been used to mean ‘olive’
(HYDZD 2: 1164), and there is no similarity with its phonetic, yun 4 元 ‘first’.
lung 5 ‘trunk’ 13 is written with 槓, which Williams (1909 [1874]: 432) suggests
is altered from lung 4 籠 ‘cage’, without further explanation. Apparently, the gung 3 貢
‘to contribute’ phonetic is being treated as a lung 5 phonetic. Meyer (1947) also lists
篢, as well as Yue (1972), who only lists 篢, but it is also unclear how 篢 is
constructed, although it also uses 貢 as a lung 5 phonetic.
nap 6 ‘sticky’ 14 is written with 湆, which the Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (AD 100;
HYDZD 3: 1684) suggests is a signific-phonetic character with yam 1 音 ‘sound’ as a

phonetic, but the only similarity is the labial place of articulation of the final
consonant. Other sources such as the Guangyun 廣韻 (AD 1011; HYDZD 3: 1684)
and the Jiyun 集韻 (AD 1067; Kangxi zidian 1716: 636) give a pronunciation that
does ends with a labial stop, but with a velar place of articulation for the initial
consonant rather than a dental one. However, they were all used to write a
semantically different word meaning ‘damp’. Rao (1996) instead lists �氵�囗又,
which is attested in the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 (1716: 615) as a phonologically
similar but semantically different word, ‘watery’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
laam2 olive U+6B16 欖 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+676C 杬 ✓
lung5 trunk U+69D3 槓 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7BE2 篢 ✓ ✓
nap6 sticky U+6E46 湆 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
po1 classifier
for
plants
tam5 pit;
cesspool
U+23CB
7
�氵�
囗又
✓
U+6A16 樖 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+68F5 棵 ✓
U+6C39 氹 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�宀甾 ✓
U+7A9E 窞 ✓
yaak3 to eat U+55AB 喫 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5403 吃 ✓ ✓
Table 4.5: Indeterminate Cases
51

po 1 , a classifier for plants 15 , is written with 樖, and the Zheng zitong 正字通
(1671; HYDZD 2: 1282) suggests that o 1 柯 ‘stalk’ is the phonetic, where the only
dissimilarity is the initial. However, it was used to write a semantically different word
meaning ‘bamboo twigs rubbing and tapping against each other’ or ‘tree branches
crossed and connected’ (HYDZD 2: 1282). Yue (1972) also lists 棵, the character for
its literary counterpart fo 2 , a classifier for plants.
tam 5 氹 ‘pit; cesspool’ 16 is written with 氹, which according to Williams (1909
[1874]: 860) is composed of a seui 2 水 ‘water’ signific and a ‘one’ signific to indicate
a “hole”, although the latter component appears to be yut 6 乙 ‘second’. Rao (1996)
also lists 窞, a semantic loan of daam 6 窞 ‘pit’. Apparently, there is some confusion
between the man-made ‘pit; cesspool’ and the naturally occurring ‘bog’. According to
Williams (1856: 544), �宀甾, with the pronunciation c tòm (*dom 5 ), which differs in
the aspiration of the initial, d- /t-/ rather than t- /t h -/ and the final, -om /-ɔm/ rather than
-am /-ɐm/, is erroneously listed in the Fenyun 分韻 for tam 5 氹 ‘a tank; a pit’, while
he makes a distinction between tam 5 氹 ‘a cesspool; a pit, a tank’ and dam 6 �宀甾 ‘a
low place, a bog’ (498). Aubazac (1909: 30) is similarly confused, as he lists 氹 with
the tam 5 pronunciation but defines it as “marais” (marsh). Besides tam 5 氹 ‘a pool’,
Meyer (1947) also lists �宀甾 ‘a pit’ with the same tam 5 pronunciation, as well as
t’ŏm (*tom 5 ) and dam 6 . t’ŏm (*tom 5 ) may be analyzed as a variation of tam 5 with the
phonological merger of -om /-ɔm/ with -am /ɐm/, while dam 6 is the pronunciation that
Williams (1856) gave for ‘bog’. The confusion may perhaps also involve the visually
52

similar 窞 ‘pit’, for which Huang (1941: 4) gives the pronunciation daam 6 , which
differs in the final from dam 6 , /tam/ rather than /tɐm/, while He (1999: 96) gives tam 5 .
yaak 3 ‘to eat’ 17 is written with 喫, but according to Karlgren (1923: 120), the
function of the gat 1 契 ‘tally’ component is unclear. As early as the mid-nineteenth
century (Williams 1856), it could be substituted with 吃 as a semantic loan of hat 1 吃
‘to eat’ (75), which in turn is either an unmarked phonetic loan of gat 1 吃 ‘to stutter’
(136) which differs in the manner of articulation of the initial, g- /k-/ rather than h- /h-
/, or a signific-phonetic character composed of a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ signific and a
completely homophonous hat 1 乞 ‘to beg’ phonetic. By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), 吃
had also become borrowed as a semantic loan for hek 3 ‘to eat’.
53

Endnotes
1 laai 1 ‘last (child)’. 孻. U+5B7B. Williams (1856: 219) clái; Williams (1909
[1874]: 493) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 13) lái 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1429) laai; Yue
(1972: 235) lA:ĭ 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #1758) laai 1o ; Rao (1996: 118)
lai 1 .
2 cheun 1 ‘animal egg’. ① �末�成肉. Williams (1856: 37*) cch’un; Rao (1996: 19)
cên 1 . ② 膥. U+81A5. Aubazac (1909: 33) tch’eun 1 ; Meyer (1947: #413) ch’un; Yue
(1972: 311) ts’øn 53 “colloquial character”. ③ 春. U+6625. Rao (1996: 19) cên 1 .
3 ngan 1 ‘tiny’. 奀. U+5940. Williams (1856: 319) cngan “colloquial word”; Aubazac
(1909: 19) ngan 1 ; Meyer (1947: #2038) ngan; Yue (1972: 334) ngɐn 53 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #2333) ngan 1 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 168) ngen 1 .
4 me 1 ‘to carry on the back’. ① �貝子. U+27D2F. Williams (1856: 283) cmé
“colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 571) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”;
Aubazac (1909: 17) mé 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1801) me; O'Melia (1959: 4: 100) me; Rao
(1996: 146) mé 1 . ② 孭. U+5B6D. Meyer (1947: #1801) me; Yue (1972: 216) mɛ: 53
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2121) me 1 “CC”; Rao (1996: 146) mé 1 .
5 ma 1 ‘twin’. 孖. U+5B56. Williams (1856: 269) cmá; Williams (1909 [1874]: 866)
“in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 16) ma 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1725) ma; O'Melia (1959: 4:
94) ma; Yue (1972: 205) mA: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2034) ma 1 “CC”;
Rao (1996: 142) ma 1 .
6 me 2 ‘crooked’. 歪. U+6B6A. Williams (1856: 283) c mé “colloquial word”;
Aubazac (1909: 17) mé 2 ; Meyer (1947: #1802) mé; Yue (1972: 216) mɛ: 35 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #2122) me 2 “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 146) mé 2 , wai 1 (waai 1 ).
7 pok 1 ‘blister’. ① 泡. U+6CE1. Meyer (1947: #2454) p’òk (pok 3 ); Yue (1972: 226)
p’ɔk 5 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2547) pok 1o “CC”. ② �月暴. U+2688A.
Rao (1996: 181) pog 1 .
8 Alternatively, it is possible that 孖 was independently “re-invented” for ma 1 ‘twin’ as
a co-signific character rather than as a semantic loan of ji 1 孖 ‘twin’. Thanks to
Professor Marjorie Chan for this observation.
9 dau 3 ‘den, nest’. ① 竇. U+7AC7. Williams (1856: 512) tau ɔ (dau 6 ); Williams
(1909 [1874]: 805); Aubazac (1909: 31) tao3 (dau 6 ); Meyer (1947: #3029) taù;
O'Melia (1959: 4: 173) tàu, tâu (tau 6 ); Yue (1972: 244) tɐŭ 44 “colloquial character”;
54

Lau (1977: #507) dau 3 “Coll.”; Lau (1977: #508) dau 6 (dau 6 ); Rao (1996: 39) deo 3 ,
deo 6 (dau 6 ). ② �口兜. Meyer (1947: #3029) taù.
10 lit 3 ‘knot’. 纈. U+7E88. Williams (1856: 244) lítɔ “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 107); Meyer (1947: #1594) lìt; Yue (1972: 262) li:t 4 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #1907) lit 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 129) lid 3 , kid 3 (kit 3 ).
11 mou 5 ‘to not have’. 冇. U+5187. Williams (1856: 294) c mò “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 894) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 17)
mó2; Meyer (1947: #1848) mŏ; O'Melia (1959: 4: 103) mŏ; Yue (1972: 227) moŭ 24
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2169) mo 5 “CC”; Rao (1996: 153) mou 5 .
12 laam 2 ‘olive’. ① 欖. U+6B16. Williams (1856: 222) c lám; Williams (1909
[1874]: 497); Aubazac (1909: 13) lám2 (laam 5 ); Meyer (1947: #1435) laám; Yue
(1972: 237) lA:m 24 (laam 5 ), lA:m 35 ; Lau (1977: #1765) laam 2 ; Rao (1996: 119) lam 5-2 .
② 杬. U+676C. Rao (1996: 119) lam 5-2 .
13 lung 5 ‘trunk’. ① 槓. U+69D3. Williams (1856: 266) c lung “unauthorized”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 432) “unauthorized”; Aubazac (1909: 16) loung2; Meyer
(1947: #1717) lŭng; O'Melia (1959: 4: 93) lŭng; Lau (1977: #2027) lung 5 ; Rao (1996:
137) lung 5 , gong 3 (gong 3 ). ② 篢. U+7BE2. Meyer (1947: #1717) lŭng; Yue (1972:
274) lʊŋ 24 .
14 nap 6 ‘sticky’. ① 湆. U+6E46. Williams (1856: 310) napɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 78) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #1969) nâp; Yue (1972:
248) nɐp 3 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2273) nap 6 “CC”, “Coll.”. ②
�氵�囗又. U+23CB7. Rao (1996: 159) neb 6 .
15 po 1 ‘classifier for plants’. ① 樖. U+6A16. Williams (1856: 382) cp’o “colloquial
word”; Meyer (1947: #2439) p’oh; O'Melia (1959: 4: 134) p’oh; Yue (1972: 224)
p’ɔ: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2541) poh 1 “CC”; Rao (1996: 181) po 1 . ②
棵. U+68F5. Yue (1972: 224) p’ɔ: 53 .
16 tam 5 ‘pit; cesspool’. ① 氹. U+6C39. Williams (1856: 498) c t’am “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 860) “unauthorized”; Meyer (1947: #3005) t’ăm;
O'Melia (1959: 4: 172) t’ăm; Yue (1972: 245) t’ɐm 24 “colloquial character”; Lau
(1977: #3036) tam 5 “CC”; Rao (1996: 213) tem 5 . ② �宀甾. Meyer (1947: 3203)
t’ŏm (*tom 5 ), tâm (dam 6 ), t’ăm (tam 5 ). ② 窞. U+7A9E. Rao (1996: 213) tem 5 .
55

17 yaak 3 ‘to eat’. ① 喫. U+55AB. Williams (1856: 674) yákɔ; Aubazac (1909: 44)
yák0; Meyer (1947: #3798) yaàk, hèk (hek 3 ); Yue (1972: 287) ĭA:k 4 “colloquial
character”, “vulgar form”; Lau (1977: #3305) yaak 3 “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 236) yag 3 . ②
吃. U+5403. Williams (1856: 674) yákɔ; Lau (1977: #3305) yaak 3 “Coll.”.
56

CHAPTER 5
PHONETIC LOANS
Phonetic loans, which are the analogue of the jiajie 假借 ‘loan characters’
principle in the traditional liushu 六書 model, are characters which have been
borrowed as rebuses for their phonetic value. However, the traditional model is
insufficiently defined with regards to the concept of marking phonetic loans as such,
and rather than impose an interpretation, we establish a new principle modeled after it.
The concept of phonetic loans was recognized by Williams (1856) as a device
for writing Cantonese, to wit:
Sometimes a well-known character of the same tone is selected to
express the sound; and its evidently utter inaptitude in the connection to
express any sense is depended upon to intimate that it is used for a
colloquial word. (xii)
Sometimes, again, a character which comes nearest in tone is taken to
represent the needed sound, and the knowledge of the reader is
expected to inform him that it is employed in a vulgar sense. The
words cnín 年 milk; clán 欄 a bazaar; and cnái 奶 a lady, are examples
of this practice. (xiii)
That is, nin 1 ‘milk’ is a phonetic loan of nin 4 年 ‘year’, laan 1 ‘marketplace’ is a
phonetic loan of laan 4 欄 ‘fence’, and naai 1 ‘lady’ is a phonetic loan of naai 5 奶
‘milk’. In other words, the character borrowed for a phonetic loan can be completely
or semi-homophonous with respect to tone. However, in actuality, the character
57

orrowed for a phonetic loan can also be less homophonous with respect to its
segments.
The productive nature of phonetic loans as a device for writing Cantonese is
also recognized by Williams (1856), who says:
This expedient is frequently employed by partly educated persons in
letters, when they do not know, or cannot remember the proper
characters. (xii)
However, the situation with writing Cantonese is not that the “proper characters” are
unknown or forgotten by undereducated people at the individual level, but that a
“proper character” was never created due to the underdeveloped state of written
Cantonese, or that the “proper character” is known only to scholars of the benzikao
本字考 school who are engaged in researching the “original” etymological character.
For example, 嚟 was apparently created for lai 4 ‘to come’ by people who were
unaware or choose to ignore that lai 4 is the colloquial counterpart to loi 4 來 ‘to come’,
and it is theoretically unnecessary to have a separate character for the colloquial
pronunciation. Therefore, Williams’ “partly educated” really refers to society as a
whole in regards to writing in Cantonese, in contrast to writing in the then-current
literary standard of classical Chinese.
5.1 Unmarked Phonetic Loans
The most basic phonetic loans are unmarked phonetic loans, where a character
is borrowed without modification, such as daat 3 笪 ‘spot’ 1 , gat 1 �吉刂 ‘to stab’ 2 , lo 2
‘to take’ 3 , naat 3 鈉 ‘to burn’ 4 , nam 4 腍 ‘tender’ 5 , nau 1 嬲 ‘angry’ 6 , ngat 1 扤 ‘to cram’ 7 ,
ngok 6 咢 ‘to raise the head’ 8 , ning 1 擰/�扌寕/�扌寍 ‘to carry; to bring’ 9 , and wan 2
58

搵/揾 ‘to find’ 10 , which are phonetic loans of the completely homophonous words
daat 3 笪 ‘bamboo mat’, gat 1 �吉刂 ‘to flay the face’, lo 2 攞 ‘to choose’, naat 3 鈉 ‘to
light’, nam 4 腍 ‘well cooked’, nau 1 嬲 ‘to flirt’, ngat 1 扤 ‘to sway’, ngok 6 咢 ‘to beat a
drum’, ning 1 擰/�扌寕/�扌寍 ‘to pull’, and wan 2 搵/揾 ‘to dip’, respectively.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
daat3 spot U+7B2A 笪 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
gat1 to stab U+34E4 �吉刂 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
lo2 to take U+651E 攞 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
naat3 to burn U+9209 鈉 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+712B 焫 ✓
nam4 tender U+814D 腍 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
nau1 angry U+5B32 嬲 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+60F1 惱 ✓
ngat1 to cram n/a ∅ ✓
U+6264 扤 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ngok6 to raise U+54A2 咢
the head
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+294E �岳頁 ✓
ning1 to carry;
to bring
5
U+64F0 擰 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�扌寕 ✓ ✓
�扌寍 ✓
U+62CE 拎 ✓
wan2 to find U+6435 搵 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+63FE 揾 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
wan3 to
confine
U+97DE 韞 ✓ ✓
�韋昷 ✓ ✓
U+7E15 縕 ✓
U+7DFC 緼 ✓
Table 5.1: Completely Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (History)
59

wan 3 ‘to confine’ 11 has two forms, 韞/韋昷 and 縕/緼, which are phonetic
loans of the completely homophonous words wan 3 韞/韋昷 ‘to conceal’ and wan 3
縕/緼 ‘hemp flax’, respectively.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
daat3 spot U+7B2A 笪 daat3 笪 bamboo mat
gat1 to stab U+34E4 �吉刂 gat1 �吉刂
60
to flay the face
lo2 to take U+651E 攞 lo2 攞 to choose
nam4 tender U+814D 腍 nam4 腍 well cooked
naat3 to burn U+9209 鈉 naat3 鈉 to light
U+712B 焫
nau1 angry U+5B32 嬲 nau1 嬲 to flirt
U+60F1 惱
ngat1 to cram U+6264 扤 ngat1 扤 to sway
ngok6 to raise
the head
ning1 to carry;
to bring
U+54A2 咢 ngok6 咢 to beat a drum
U+294E5 �岳頁
U+64F0 擰 ning1 擰 to pull
�扌寕 ning1 �扌寕
�扌寍 ning1 �扌寍
U+62CE 拎
to pull
to pull
wan2 to find U+6435 搵 wan2 搵 to dip
U+63FE 揾 wan2 揾 to dip
wan3 to confine U+97DE 韞 wan3 韞 to conceal
�韋昷 wan3 �韋昷
to conceal
U+7E15 縕 wan3 縕 hemp flax
U+7DFC 緼 wan3 緼 hemp flax
Table 5.2: Completely Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (Basis)

However, dim 6 掂/敁 ‘straight’ 12 , ngan 3 奀 ‘to jiggle the feet’ 13 , and ung 2 擁
‘to push’ 14 are unmarked phonetic loans of less than homophonous words. dim 6 掂/敁
‘straight’ is a phonetic loan of dim 1 掂/敁 ‘to weigh in the hand’, which differs in the
tone, yinping 陰平 (tone #1) rather than yangqu 陽去 (tone #6), while ngan 3 奀 ‘to
jiggle the feet’ is a phonetic loan of ngan 1 奀 ‘tiny’, which differs in the tone, yinping
陰平 (tone #1) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). On the other hand, ung 2 擁 ‘to push’
is a phonetic loan of yung 2 擁 ‘to push’, which differs in the initial,y- /j-/ rather than a
zero initial.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
dim6 straight U+6382 掂 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6541 敁 ✓
U+20DA �口店 ✓
7
m4 not U+5514 唔 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
mat1 what U+4E5C 乜 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ngan3 to jiggle
the feet
U+5940 奀 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+47F4 �足辰 ✓
ung2 to push U+64C1 擁 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+39EC �巩手 ✓
U+22B2
E
�扌戎 ✓
Table 5.3: Semi-Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (History)
m 4 ‘not’ and mat 1 ‘what’ are also phonetic loans of less than homophonous
words, but they are extenuating cases. m 4 ‘not’ 15 , similar in function to Mandarin bù
不, is a phonetic loan of ng 4 唔, a sound in singing, which differs in the place of
61

articulation of the syllabic nasal, ng /ŋ̩/ rather than m /m̩/. However, there are no
characters with exactly the same syllable as m 4 . Similarly, mat 1 ‘what’ 16 , also
pronounced me 1 as a contraction, is actually a phonetic loan of me 2 乜 ‘to squint’
based on the latter pronunciation, which differs in the tone, yinshang 陰上 (tone #2)
rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1).
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
dim6 straight U+6382 掂 dim1 掂
U+6541 敁 dim1 敁
U+20DA7 �口店 dim3 店 store
m4 not U+5514 唔 ng4 唔
mat1 what U+4E5C 乜 me2 乜
ngan3 to jiggle
the feet
U+5940 奀 ngan1 奀 tiny
U+47F4 �足辰
ung2 to push U+64C1 擁 yung2 擁
U+39EC �巩手
U+22B2E �扌戎
62
to weigh in the hand
to weigh in the hand
a sound in singing
to squint
to hold in the arms
Table 5.4: Semi-Homophonous Unmarked Phonetic Loans (Basis)
5.2 Marked Phonetic Loans
Phonetic loans are sometimes marked to distinguish them from other usages of
the character, which usually takes the form of a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ or a yan 4 亻(人)
‘person’ radical added to the left. Williams (1856) recognized this, saying:
Another device to indicate colloquial words is to prefix the character
hau 口 mouth, or yan 人 a man, at the side of some well known
character of the same sound, but not always of the same tone. The

words tsoi ɔ 儎 cargo; cká c fo 傢伙, furniture; c mai 咪 do not; ctsoi 啋
pshaw! and c té 嗲 remiss, &c., are examples of this sort. (xii-xiii)
That is, joi 6 儎 ‘cargo’ is a phonetic loan of joi 6 載 ‘to transport’; ga 1 fo 2 傢伙
‘furniture’ is a phonetic loan of ga 1 家 ‘family’ and fo 2 火 ‘fire’, respectively; mai 5 咪
‘do not’ is a phonetic loan of mai 5 米 ‘rice’; choi 1 啋 ‘fie; pshaw’ is a phonetic loan of
choi 2 采 ‘to gather’; and de 2 嗲 ‘lazy’ is a phonetic loan of de 1 爹 ‘father’. Only the
last two examples are not completely homophonous with the character borrowed, but
they have all been marked. However, the use of the ren 亻(人) ‘person’ radical as a
marker is very rare compared to the use of kou 口 ‘mouth’.
There are also less common ways to mark a phonetic loan character, such as
enclosing it in double quotes, e.g., tam 3 ‘to deceive’ can be written as “氹”, a phonetic
loan of tam 5 氹 ‘pit; cesspool’, and ha 1 ‘to bully’ can be written as “蝦”, a phonetic
loan of ha 1 蝦 ‘shrimp’. Another way to mark a phonetic loan character is to alter its
graphic form, but this is very rare, e.g., pīngpāng 乒乓 ‘ping-pong’, where both
characters are phonetic loans of bīng 兵 ‘soldier’, but with a stroke deleted.
The character borrowed for a marked phonetic loan can differ in the initial,
such as kat 1 咭 ‘card’ 17 , a loanword of English “card”. kat 1 咭 ‘card’ is a phonetic
loan of gat 1 吉 ‘lucky’, which differs in the aspiration of the initial, g- /k-/ rather than
k- /k h -/. Similarly, yai 5 �口兮 ‘bad’ 18 , also pronounced yai 4 and yai 5 , is a phonetic
loan of hai 4 兮, a classical particle, which differs in the initial, y- /j-/ rather than h- /h-
/. Likewise, lok 3 , a sentence-final particle 19 , is a phonetic loan of gok 3 各 ‘each’.
Although gok 3 各 ‘each’ appears to be a less than optimal phonetic, it can serve as a
63

lok 3 phonetic, such as in the lok 3 洛 of lok 3 yeung 4 洛陽 ‘Luoyang’, lok 3 絡 ‘to join’,
and the lok 3 駱 of lok 3 tuo 4 駱駝 ‘camel’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
ge3 genitive
particle
U+5605 嘅 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
gip1 bag U+55BC 喼 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
kat1 card U+54AD 咭 ✓ ✓ ✓
n/a ✓
lok3 SFP U+54AF 咯 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
yai5 bad U+20BCB �口兮 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
n/a ✓
U+66F3 曳 ✓
Table 5.5: Marked Phonetic Loans
Differing in the Initial or Final (History)
The character borrowed for a marked phonetic loan can also differ in the final,
such as ge 3 嘅, a genitive particle 20 , similar in function to Mandarin de 的. ge 3 嘅 is a
phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word gei 3 既 ‘already’, which differs in the
final, -ei /-ei/ rather than -e /-ɛ/. However, there are no characters with exactly the
same syllable and tone as ge 3 , and this was recognized by Morrison (1828: 2: “kay”),
who gives the unmarked form, saying, “The Chinese have no character for this
sound”. Although ke 4 茄 ‘eggplant’ and ke 4 騎 ‘to ride’ do match the final, they differ
in the aspiration of the initial, k- /k h -/ rather than g- /k-/, and the tone, yangping 陽平
(tone #4) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). This suggests that it is more important for
the phonetic to match the initial and the tone than the final. Similarly, gip 1 喼 ‘bag’ 21 ,
64

considered by some to be a loanword of English “grip”, is a phonetic loan of the semi-
homophonous word gap 1 急 ‘urgent’, which differs in the final, -ap /-ɐp/ rather than -
ip /-ip/.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
ge3 genitive particle U+5605 嘅 gei3 既 already
gip1 bag U+55BC 喼 gap1 急 urgent
kat1 card U+54AD 咭 gat1 吉 lucky
lok3 SFP U+54AF 咯
yai5 bad U+20BCB �口兮 hai4 兮 particle
U+66F3 曳 yai6 曳
Table 5.6: Marked Phonetic Loans
Differing in the Initial or Final (Basis)
65
to drag
The character borrowed for a marked phonetic loan can also differ in the tone,
such as mak 1 ‘mark’ 22 , a loanword of English “mark”, which is written with 嚜 and
less commonly 嘜, both of which are phonetic loans of the semi-homophonous words
mak 6 墨 ‘ink’ and mak 6 麥 ‘wheat’, respectively, and differ in the tone, yangru 陽入
(tone #6) rather than yinru 陰入 (tone #1).
Likewise, miu 2 �口妙 ‘to purse the lips’ 23 is a phonetic loan of the semi-
homophonous word miu 6 妙 ‘wonderful’, which differs in the tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone
#6) rather than yinshang 陰上 (tone #2).

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
mak1 mark U+569C 嚜 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+561C 嘜 ✓ ✓
miu2 to purse
the lips
U+20D15 �口妙 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 5.7: Marked Phonetic Loans
Differing in the Tone (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
mak1 mark U+569C 嚜 mak6 墨 ink
U+561C 嘜 mak6 麥 wheat
miu2 to purse the lips U+20D15 �口妙 miu6 妙 wonderful
Table 5.8: Marked Phonetic Loans
Differing in the Tone (Basis)
Although it was not originally a marked phonetic loan, gaat 6 jaat 6
‘cockroach’ 24 has been reanalyzed as one. gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’ was first written
with a pair of characters 甴曱, one of which is apparently a copy of the other rotated
180 degrees. O’Melia (1959: 4: 60) lists 甴曱 as a compound under gaap 3 甲 ‘shell’,
suggesting that 甴, the first of the pair, is a semi-homophonous phonetic loan with a
shortened stroke, which was then rotated. However, Williams (1856) gives the
pronunciation of the word as ga 1 jaat 6 , with neither syllable close to gaap 3 甲 ‘shell’
/kap/, unless the first syllable is analyzed as the result of consonant deletion, /*kat tsat/
� /ka tsat/. By the 1970s (Yue 1972), the order of the characters had been reversed to
66

曱甴 25 , the contemporary arrangement, perhaps to better fit a conceptual model similar
to O’Melia’s analysis but without the need for rotation.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
gaat6
jaat6
cockroach U+7534
U+66F1
U+66F1
U+7534
甴曱 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
曱甴 ✓ ✓
Table 5.9: Indeterminate Case Reanalyzed as a Phonetic Loan
5.3 Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans
The usefulness of markers in distinguishing phonetic loans from other usages
of the character has caused numerous unmarked phonetic loans to be superseded by
marked phonetic loans as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Williams 1856), such
as: 1) a 1 吖, a sentence-final particle 26 ; 2) dei 6 哋, a plural marker 27 , similar in
function to Mandarin men 們; 3) gam 2 噉 ‘so (manner)’ 28 , similar in function to
Mandarin zhèyàng 這樣 and nàyàng 那樣; 4) gam 3 咁 ‘so (quantity) 29 ’, similar in
function to Mandarin zhème 這麼 and nàme 那麼; 5) gwa 3 啩, a sentence-final particle
expressing uncertainty 30 , considered by O’Melia (1959: 4: 78) to be a contraction of
gu 2 a 3 估呀; 6) haai 4 嚡 ‘coarse’ 31 ; 7) hai 2 喺 ‘to be at’ 32 , similar in function to
Mandarin zài 在; 8) kwaak 1 �口緙 ‘loop; to loop’ 33 , 9) lai 4 嚟 ‘to come’ 34 , the
colloquial counterpart of loi 4 來 ‘to come’; 10) mai 5 咪 ‘do not’ 35 , similar in function
to Mandarin bié 別; 11) mo 1 嚤 ‘slow’ 36 ; and 12) ngaam 1 啱 ‘correct’ 37 .
67

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
a1 SFP U+4E2B 丫 ✓
U+5416 吖 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
dei6 plural
marker
U+5440 呀 ✓
U+5730 地 ✓
U+54CB 哋 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
gam2 so U+6562 敢 ✓
U+5649 噉 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
gam3 so U+7518 甘 ✓
U+5481 咁 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
gwa3 SFP U+5366 卦 ✓
U+5569 啩 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
haai4 coarse U+978B 鞋 ✓
U+56A1 嚡 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
hai2 to be at U+4FC2 係 ✓
U+55BA 喺 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
kwaak1 loop;
to loop
U+7DD
9
U+210C
8
緙 ✓ ✓
�口
緙
✓ ✓ ✓
�口
隙
✓
lai4 to come U+9ECE 黎 ✓
U+569F 嚟 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
mai5 don’t U+7C73 米 ✓
U+54AA 咪 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
mo1 slow U+6469 摩 ✓
U+56A4 嚤 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
ngaam1 correct U+5CA9 岩 ✓
U+5571 啱 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 5.10: Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans, Part I
(History)
68

Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
a1 SFP U+4E2B 丫 a1 丫 fork
dei6 plural
marker
U+5416 吖 a1 丫 fork
U+5440 呀 a3 呀 SFP
U+5730 地 dei6 地 earth
U+54CB 哋 dei6 地 earth
gam2 so (manner) U+6562 敢 gam2 敢 to dare
U+5649 噉 gam2 敢 to dare
gam3 so (quantity) U+7518 甘 gam1 甘 sweet
U+5481 咁 gam1 甘 sweet
gwa3 SFP U+5366 卦 gwa3 卦 to divine
U+5569 啩 gwa3 卦 to divine
haai4 coarse U+978B 鞋 haai4 鞋 shoe
U+56A1 嚡 haai4 鞋 shoe
hai2 to be at U+4FC2 係 hai6 係
U+55BA 喺 hai6 係
kwaak1 loop; to loop U+7DD9 緙 kaak1 緙
U+210C8 �口緙 kaak1 緙
69
to be
to be
�口隙 gwik 隙 crack
woven threads
woven threads
lai4 to come U+9ECE 黎 lai4 黎 multitude
U+569F 嚟 lai4 黎 multitude
mai5 don’t U+7C73 米 mai5 米 rice
U+54AA 咪 mai5 米 rice
mo1 slow U+6469 摩 mo4 摩 to rub
U+56A4 嚤 mo4 摩 to rub
ngaam1 correct U+5CA9 岩 ngaam4 岩 cliff
U+5571 啱 ngaam4 岩 cliff
Table 5.11: Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans, Part I
(Basis)

In a number of cases, the unmarked form appears to post-date the marked
form, but the fact that this happens in two sources by the same author (Williams 1856,
1909 [1874]) suggests that it is merely an omission of the unmarked form from the
earlier source.
However, there are some cases where the unmarked form was not superseded
until later, such as di 1 ‘some’ 38 , considered by Williams (1856: 514) to be a
“colloquial corruption” of 的”, which existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century
(Williams 1856), but is only given a written form in later sources. As early as the late
nineteenth century (Williams 1909 [1874]), it was written with 的, and has been
written with it up to at least the 1940s (Meyer 1947), but by the beginning of the
twentieth century (Aubazac 1909), a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical had already been added
to create 啲. Similarly, ye 5 ‘thing’ 39 , was first written with 野, but by the 1970s (Yue
1972), a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical had been added to create 嘢.
On the other hand, tau 2 ‘to rest’ 40 and yuk 1 ‘to move’ 41 are still unresolved.
tau 2 was first written with 抖, and by the beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac
1909), a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical had been added to create 唞, but both forms have co-
existed up to the present. Similarly, yuk 1 ‘to move’ was first written with 郁, and by
the 1940s (Meyer 1947), a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical had been added to create 喐, but
both forms have co-existed up to the present.
70

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
bai6 bad U+5F0A 弊 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+21681 �敝大 ✓
U+210C �口弊 ✓
7
di1 some n/a ∅ ✓
U+7684 的 ✓ ✓
U+5572 啲 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ga3 SFP U+67B6 架 ✓
U+35CE �口架 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+210C �口駕 ✓
9
go2 that U+500B 個 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+55F0 嗰 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7B87 箇 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+4E2A 个 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
tau2 to rest U+6296 抖 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+551E 唞 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+3A97 �咅攴 ✓
ye5 thing U+91CE 野 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5622 嘢 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+57DC 埜 ✓
yuk1 to move U+90C1 郁 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5590 喐 ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 5.12: Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans, Part II
(History)
Although it is it not attested in sources earlier than the 1940s (Meyer 1947),
ga 3 , a sentence-final particle 42 which is a contraction of ge 3 a 3 嘅呀, also fits the
pattern of unmarked phonetic loans being superseded by marked phonetic loans. ga 3
was written with �口架 as early as the 1940s (Meyer 1947), but the fact that an
71

unmarked form, 架, was used up to at least the 1950s (O’Melia) suggests that it
existed earlier.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
bai6 bad U+5F0A 弊 bai6 弊 bad
U+21681 �敝大 bai6 敝大 bad
U+210C7 �口弊 bai6 弊 bad
di1 some U+7684 的 dik1 的 genitive particle
U+5572 啲 dik1 的 genitive particle
ga3 SFP U+67B6 架 ga3 架 frame
U+35CE �口架 ga3 架 frame
U+210C9 �口駕 ga3 駕 to drive
go2 that U+500B 個 go3 個 one
U+55F0 嗰 go2 個 that
U+7B87 箇 go3 箇 one
U+4E2A 个 go3 个 one
tau2 to rest U+6296 抖 dau3 抖 to rouse
U+551E 唞 dau3 抖 to rouse
U+3A97 �咅攴 tau2 �咅攴 to unwrap
ye5 thing U+91CE 野 ye5 野 wild
U+5622 嘢 ye5 野 wild
U+57DC 埜 ye5 埜 wild
yuk1 to move U+90C1 郁 yuk1 郁 elegant
U+5590 喐 yuk1 郁 elegant
Table 5.13: Unmarked Phonetic Loans Superseded by Marked Phonetic Loans, Part II
(Basis)
Sometimes, the transition from an unmarked phonetic loan to a marked
phonetic loan is the result of semantic specialization, such as go 2 ‘that’ 43 , which
developed from go 3 個 ‘one’ to distinguish cases such as go 2 go 3 嗰個 ‘that one’ from
go 3 go 3 個個 ‘every one’ (Williams 1856: 167), and was written with 箇, 個, and 个 as
interchangeable variant forms. According to Williams (1909 [1874]: 444), 箇 was
72

“not common”, 个 was “much used”, while no comment is made about 個, the
standard form. This distribution is reflected in the number of sources that list each of
them, as well as the disappearance of 箇 and 个 from sources later than the mid-
twentieth century. By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical had been
added to 個, the standard and remaining form, to create 嗰.
The usefulness of marking phonetic loans even extends to bai 6 弊 ‘bad’ 44 and
its variant form �敝大, to which Rao (1996) adds an extraneous hau 2 口 ‘mouth’
radical to create �口弊, without any apparent motivation for doing so.
5.4 Optimization
The character borrowed for a phonetic loan is sometimes replaced by one that
is more homophonous in tone, such as ngai 1 ‘to beg’ 45 , which was first written with
unmarked and marked phonetic loans of the semi-homophonous word ngai 6 偽 ‘false’,
which differs in the tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone #6) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1).
By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), it was written with �口危, a marked phonetic loan of the
semi-homophonous word ngai 4 危 ‘dangerous’, which differs in the tone register,
yangping 陽平 (tone #4) instead of yinping 陰平 (tone #1). Whereas there was no
direct relationship between the tone of ngai 1 ‘to beg’ and the tone of ngai 6 偽 ‘false’,
the tone of the former and the tone of ngai 4 危 ‘dangerous’ are both ping 平 tones, but
belonging to different registers.
Similarly, gau 6 ‘lump’ 46 was first written with 倃, a marked phonetic loan of
the semi-homophonous word gau 3 咎 ‘fault’, which differs in the tone register, yinqu
陰去 (tone #3) rather than yangqu 陽去 (tone #6). By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), it was
73

written with 嚿, a marked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word gau 6 舊
‘old’. Furthermore, the marker of phonetic loans had been changed from the rarely-
used yan 4 亻(人) ‘person’ radical to the commonly-used hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
gau6 lump U+5003 倃 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+56BF 嚿 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ngai1 to beg U+507D 偽 ✓
U+20F2E �口偽 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
tam3 to
deceive
U+20C53 �口危 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5664 噤 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+20C41 �口氹 ✓ ✓
U+27A3E �言�
�冖八
木
Table 5.14: Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
gau6 lump U+5003 倃 gau3 咎 fault
U+56BF 嚿 gau6 舊 old
ngai1 to beg U+507D 偽 ngai6 偽 false
U+20F2E �口偽 ngai6 偽 false
U+20C53 �口危 ngai4 危 dangerous
tam3 to deceive U+5664 噤 gam3 噤 mute
U+20C41 �口氹 tam5 氹
U+27A3E �言��冖八木
74
pit; cesspool
Table 5.15: Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans (Basis)
✓

The character borrowed for a phonetic loan can also be replaced by one that is
more homophonous with respect to its segments, such as tam 3 ‘to deceive’ 47 , which
was first written with 噤, and has been written with it up to at least the early 1970s
(Yue 1972). 噤 is a unmarked phonetic loan of the word gam 3 噤 ‘mute’, which
differs in the place of articulation of the initial, g- /k-/ rather than t- /t h -/. Although
Meyer (1947: #1018) also lists kam 1 and tam 1 as pronunciations for ‘mute’, of which
the latter which may be analyzed as the basis of a phonetic loan, other sources,
including Williams (1856), do not give such a pronunciation. However, by the 1940s
(Meyer 1947), tam 3 ‘to deceive’ was already written with �口氹, a marked phonetic
loan of the semi-homophonous word tam 5 氹 ‘pit; cesspool’, which differs in the tone,
yangshang 陽上 (tone #5) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). Although the tone of tam 5
氹 ‘cesspool; pit’ differs from that of tam 3 ‘to deceive’ whereas the tone of gam 3 噤
‘mute’ did not, tam 5 氹 ‘cesspool; pit’ does not differ in the initial, suggesting that it is
more important for the phonetic to match the initial than the tone.
The replacement of the character borrowed for a phonetic loan is sometimes
facilitated by a phonological merger which causes a more homophonous character to
become available, such as saai 3 , a quantifying particle indicating completeness 48 ,
similar in function to Mandarin guāng 光. saai 3 was first written with unmarked and
marked phonetic loans of the semi-homophonous word saai 2 徙 ‘to move’, which
differs in the tone, yinshang 陰上 (tone #2) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). By the
late 1970s (Lau 1977), it was written with unmarked and marked phonetic loans of the
completely homophonous word saai 3 晒 ‘to shine on’, whose initial was formerly /ʃ-/
75

(Williams 1856: 417; O’Melia 1959: 4: 141) but now /s-/ (Yue 1972: 280). This made
it completely homophonous with saai 3 , the completeness quantifying particle, whose
initial had always been /s-/ (Williams 1856: 405).
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
jo2 perfective
aspect
marker
U+963B 阻 ✓ ✓
U+5528 唨 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5497 咗 ✓ ✓
saai3 particle U+5F99 徙 ✓
U+5625 嘥 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6652 晒 ✓
U+55EE 嗮 ✓
Table 5.16: Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
Facilitated by Phonological Mergers (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
jo2 perfective aspect marker U+963B 阻 jo2 阻 to obstruct
U+5528 唨 jo2 阻 to obstruct
U+5497 咗 jo2 左 left
saai3 particle U+5F99 徙 saai2 徙
U+5625 嘥 saai2 徙
U+6652 晒 saai3 晒
U+55EE 嗮 saai3 晒
Table 5.17: Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
Facilitated by Phonological Mergers (Basis)
76
to move
to move
to shine on
to shine on

Similarly, jo 2 , the perfective aspect marker 49 , similar in function to Mandarin
le 了, was first written with unmarked and marked phonetic loans of the completely
homophonous word jo 2 阻 ‘to obstruct’, and was written with the marked form up to at
least the late 1970s (Lau 1977). However, by the early 1970s (Yue 1972), it was
already written with 咗, a marked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word
jo 2 左 ‘left’, whose initial was formerly /ts-/ (Williams 1856: 582; O’Melia 1959: 205)
but now /tʃ-/ (Yue 1972: 313). This made it completely homophonous with jo 2 , the
perfective aspect marker, whose initial had always been had always been /tʃ-/
(Williams 1856: 25*). Although jo 2 阻 ‘to obstruct’ was already completely
homophonous with jo 2 , the perfective aspect marker, it was orthographically more
complex than jo 2 左 ‘left’, which had since become completely homophonous.
The character borrowed for a phonetic loan can also be replaced for reasons
unrelated to its degree of homophony, such as jo 2 , the perfective aspect marker, and
ngak 1 ‘to trick’ 50 . ngak 1 ‘to trick’ was first written with 阨, an unmarked phonetic
loan of the semi-homophonous word ak 1 阨 ‘obstruction’, which differs in the initial, a
zero initial rather than ng- /ŋ-/. However, the zero initial and ng- /ŋ-/ are commonly
substituted for each other as a phonological merger. ngak 1 ‘to trick’ was written with
阨 up to at least the 1950s (O’Melia 1959), but by the 1940s (Meyer 1947), a hau 2 口
‘mouth’ radical had already been added and the phonetic changed to ak 1 厄
‘misfortune’ to create the orthographically less complex 呃.
Similarly, la 3 , a sentence-final particle 51 , was first written with an unmarked
phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word la 3 罅 ‘crack’, which is also
77

written as �阝虖, 鏬, �土虖, and later marked phonetic loans �口鏬 and 嚹. By
the 1940s, only the marked phonetic loan of the standard form of la 3 罅 ‘crack’
remained. By the late 1970s, it was written with 喇, an unmarked phonetic loan of the
la 3 of la 3 ba 1 喇叭 ‘trumpet’. Although 喇 is an unmarked phonetic loan unlike
�口鏬 and 嚹, it is orthographically less complex, while resembling the marked
phonetic loans for other sentence-final particles, such as a 1 吖, gwa 3 啩, and ga 3
�口架.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
la3 SFP U+7F45 罅 ✓
U+28EF2 �阝虖 ✓
U+93EC 鏬 ✓
U+3664 �土虖 ✓
�口鏬 ✓ ✓
U+56B9 嚹 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+561E 嘞 ✓
U+5587 喇 ✓ ✓
me1 SFP U+27D2F �貝子 ✓ ✓
U+54A9 咩 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ngak1 to trick U+9628 阨 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5443 呃 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7732 眲 ✓
Table 5.18: Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
for Other Reasons (History)
Likewise, me 1 , a sentence-final particle expressing doubt 52 , considered by
O’Melia (1959: 4: 101) to be a contraction of mei 6 e 1 未睎, was first written with
78

�貝子, an unmarked phonetic loan of the completely homophonus word me 1 �貝子
‘to carry on the back’. By the beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac 1909), it
was written with me 1 咩, an unmarked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous
word me 1 咩, the sound of a sheep. Although me 1 �貝子 ‘to carry on the back’ was
already completely homophonous with the sentence-final particle me 1 , unlike me 1 咩,
the sound of a sheep, it does not resemble the marked phonetic loans for other
sentence-final particles, such as a 1 吖, gwa 3 啩, and ga 3 �口架.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
la3 SFP U+7F45 罅 la3 罅 crack
U+28EF2 �阝虖 la3 �阝虖 crack
U+93EC 鏬 la3 鏬 crack
U+3664 �土虖 la3 �土虖 crack
�口鏬 la3 鏬 crack
U+56B9 嚹 la3 罅 crack
U+561E 嘞 lak3 嘞 SFP
U+5587 喇 la3 喇 trumpet
me1 SFP U+27D2F �貝子 me1 �貝子
79
to carry on the back
U+54A9 咩 me1 咩 sound of a sheep
ngak1 to trick U+9628 阨 ak1 阨 obstruction
U+5443 呃 ak1 厄 misfortune
U+7732 眲
Table 5.19: Optimization of the Phonetic in Phonetic Loans
for Other Reasons (Basis)
However, in a few cases, “optimizations” to the phonetic have actually made it
less homophonous. dap 1 ‘to pound’ 53 was written with 搭 and 撘, unmarked phonetic

loans of the semi-homophonous word daap 3 搭/撘 ‘to join together’, which differs in
the final, -aap /-ap/ rather than -ap /-ɐp/, as well as the tone, yinqu 陰去 (tone #3)
rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1). Lau (1977) instead lists �口扱, a marked
phonetic loan of kap 1 �口扱 ‘to receive’, which differs in the initial, k- /k h -/ rather
than d- /t-/. Although �口扱 does not differ in the tone, there is no direct relationship
between the initials of dap 1 ‘to pound’ and kap 1 ‘to receive’. This suggests that a less
homophonous phonetic may be countered by marking it as a phonetic loan.
Similarly, long 2 ‘to rinse’ 54 , existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century
(Williams 1856), but is only given a written form in later sources. As early as the late
nineteenth century (Williams 1909 [1874]), it was written with 朗, an unmarked
phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word long 5 朗 ‘clear’, which differs in the
tone register, yangshang 陽上 (tone #5) rather than yinshang 陰上 (tone #2). By the
beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac), it was written with �口浪, a marked
phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word long 6 浪 ‘wave’, which differs in the
tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone #6) rather than yinshang 陰上 (tone #2). Whereas there was
a direct relationship between the tone of long 2 ‘to rinse’ and long 5 朗 ‘clear’, there is
none between the former and long 6 浪 ‘wave’. However, like dap 1 ‘to pound’, a less
homophonous phonetic is offset by marking it as a phonetic loan.
ngap 1 ‘to jabber’ 55 , which is written with 吸 and less commonly 噏, both of
which are unmarked phonetic loans of the semi-homophonous word kap 1 吸/噏 ‘to
inhale’, which differs in the manner of articulation of the homorganic initial
consonant, k- /k h -/ rather than ng- /ŋ-/. Lau (1977) instead lists �口揖, an unmarked
80

phonetic loan of ngap 6 �口揖 ‘to bow’, which differs in the tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone
#6) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1). However, Rao (1996) instead lists
�口�日絲, a marked phonetic loan of hin 2 �日絲 ‘to display’, but which can serve
as a -ap 1 final, such as in sap 1 濕 ‘wet’. Whereas ngap 6 �口揖 ‘to bow’ was more
homophonous than kap 1 吸/噏 ‘to inhale’, hin 2 �日絲 ‘to display’ is a less optimal
phonetic.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
dap6 to pound U+642D 搭 ✓ ✓
U+6498 撘 ✓
�口扱 ✓
U+22C55 �扌耷 ✓
long2 to rinse n/a ∅ ✓ ✓
U+6717 朗 ✓
U+20E98 �口浪 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ngap1 to jabber U+5438 吸 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+564F 噏 ✓ ✓
�口揖 ✓
U+2103E �口�
日絲
wo5 SFP U+555D 啝 ✓ ✓
U+558E 喎 ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 5.20: Erroneous Optimization of the Phonetic in a Phonetic Loan
(History)
Similarly, wo 5 , a sentence-final particle indicating hearsay 56 , was first written
with 啝, a marked phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word wo 4 和 ‘peace’,
which differs in the tone, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than yangshang 陽上 (tone
81
✓

#5). However, Meyer (1947) also lists wo 4 as another pronunciation of the sentence-
final particle, which would make it completely homophonous. By the 1970s (Yue
1972), it was written with 喎, a marked phonetic loan of wa 1 咼 ‘crooked mouth’,
which can serve as a wo phonetic, such as in wo 6 禍 ‘calamity’, wo 1 窩 ‘nest’, and wo 1
鍋 ‘pan’. While the pronunciation of the sentence-final particle differed from wo 4 和
‘peace’ at most in the tone, there is no direct relationship with wa 1 咼 ‘crooked
mouth’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
dap6 to pound U+642D 搭 daap3 搭 to join together
U+6498 撘 daap3 撘 to join together
�口扱 kap1 扱 to receive
U+22C55 �扌耷
long2 to rinse U+6717 朗 long5 朗 clear
U+20E98 �口浪 long6 浪 wave
ngap1 to jabber U+5438 吸 kap1 to inhale
U+564F 噏 kap1 to inhale
�口揖 ngap6 �口揖 to nod
U+2103E �口�日絲 hin2 �口�日絲 to display
wo5 SFP U+555D 啝 wo4 和 peace
U+558E 喎 wa1 咼 crooked mouth
Table 5.21: Erroneous Optimization of the Phonetic in a Phonetic Loan
(Basis)
The variety of optimizations is further illustrated by the polysyllabic words
ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’ 57 and ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’ 58 . ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’
existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Williams 1856), but it is unclear what
82

the written form of the second syllable was intended to be, as Williams (1856) does
not provide characters for compounds. By the late nineteenth century (Williams 1909
[1874]), it was written with �馬馬逗. �馬馬 is presumably an unmarked phonetic
loan of �馬馬 ‘to gallop wildly’, although the pronunciation of the latter is unknown,
while 逗 is an unmarked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word dau 6 逗
‘to stop’. By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’ was written with
吽哣, marked phonetic loans of the completely homophonous words ngau 4 牛 ‘cow’
and dau 6 豆 ‘bean’, respectively. ngau 4 牛 ‘cow’ is a clearer basis for a phonetic loan
than �馬馬, while dau 6 豆 ‘bean’ is orthographically simpler than dau 6 逗 ‘to stop’.
Similarly, ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’, which is contracted to ham 6 ba 6 laang 6 or
ham 6 blaang 6 , existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Williams 1856), where it
was transcribed as hòm ɔ pa ɔ láng ɔ (ham 6 ba 6 laang 6 ), but it is unclear what the written
form of the second and third syllables was intended to be, as Williams (1856) does not
provide characters for compounds. The first syllable, ham 6 , is written with 喊, an
unmarked phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word haam 3 喊 ‘to call’, which
differs in the final, -aam /-am/ rather than -am /-ɐm/, as well as the tone register, yinqu
陰去 (tone #3) rather than yangqu 楊去 (tone #6). Lau (1977) instead lists �口感, a
marked phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word gam 2 感 ‘to feel’, which differs
in the place of articulation of the homorganic final, g- /k-/ rather than h- /h-/, as well as
the tone, yinshang 陰上 (tone #2) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). Although gam 2 感
‘to feel’ does not differ in the final like haam 3 喊 ‘to call’ except for the tone, it has a
different albeit related initial, which can be offset by being marked as a phonetic loan.
83

Alternatively, �口感 may be analyzed as 喊 with an extraneous sam 1 心 ‘heart’
radical added to it. However, Rao (1996) instead lists 冚, an unmarked phonetic loan
of the semi-homophonous word ham 6 ‘to cover’, which differs in the final, -aam /-am/
rather than -am /-ɐm/, but not the tone, unlike haam 3 喊 ‘to call’, as well as being
orthographically simpler.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
ham6 U+558A 喊 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+20FD1 �口感 ✓
U+519A 冚 ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
baang6 U+20FB4 口棒 ✓ ✓
�口捧 ✓
U+552A 唪 ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
laang6 U+5464 呤 ✓
U+5525 唥 ✓ ✓ ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
ngau6 U+2994B �馬馬 ✓ ✓
U+543D 吽 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
dau6 U+9017 逗 ✓
U+54E3 哣 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 5.22: Optimization of Phonetics in Polysyllabic Phonetic Loans
(History)
The second syllable, baang 6 , is written with 口棒, a marked phonetic loan of
the semi-homophonous word paang 5 棒 ‘staff’, which differs in the aspiration of the
initial, p- /p h -/ rather than b- /p-/, as well as the tone, yangshang 陽上 (tone #5) rather
84

than yangqu 陽去 (tone #6). O’Melia (1959) and Rao (1996) instead list �口捧 and
唪, respectively, unmarked phonetic loans of the semi-homophonous words pung 2 捧
‘to hold in both hands’ and fung 6 奉 ‘to serve’, which are less optimal than paang 5 棒
‘staff’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Loan of Char Gloss
ham6 U+558A 喊 haam3 喊 to call
U+20FD1 �口感 gam2 感 to feel
U+519A 冚 ham6 冚 to cover
baang6 U+20FB4 口棒 paang5 棒 staff
�口捧 pung2 捧 to hold in both hands
U+552A 唪 fung6 奉 to serve
laang6 U+5464 呤 ling6 令 to command
U+5525 唥 laang5 冷 cold
ngau6 U+2994B �馬馬
U+543D 吽 ngau4 牛 cow
dau6 U+9017 逗 dau6 逗 to stop
U+54E3 哣 dau6 豆 bean
Table 5.23: Optimization of Phonetics in Polysyllabic Phonetic Loans
(Basis)
The third syllable, laang 6 , was first written with 呤, a marked phonetic loan of
the semi-homophonous word ling 6 令 ‘to command’, which differs in the final, -ing /-
iŋ/ rather than -aang /-aŋ/. By the 1950s (O’Melia 1959), it was written with 唥 59 , a
marked phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word laang 5 冷 ‘cold’, which differs
in the tone, yangshang 陽上 (tone #5) rather than yangqu 陽去 (tone #6).
85

5.5 Summary
Marked phonetic loans are greatly preferred over unmarked phonetic loans,
and in many cases, the former has already superseded the latter, although there are
some characters that are still in the progress of transitioning to marked phonetic loans.
In all cases, the preferred device for marking them as such is a hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical
rather than a yan 4 亻(㆟) ‘person’ radical.
However, unmarked phonetic loans still do exist, and unlike marked phonetic
loans, the borrowed character tends to be completely homophonous or differs only in
the tone. On the other hand, in marked phonetic loans, the borrowed character may
differ in the initial, final, and/or tone, which is offset by the marking. When the
borrowed character is not completely homophonous, it is usually preferred for the
initial and tone to match if not the final, and for the initial to match if not the tone.
Sometimes, the borrowed character may be replaced by one which is more
homophonous or orthographically less complex, which is in some cases facilitated by
a phonological merger which allows a more homophonous character to become
available.
86

Endnotes
1 daat 3 ‘spot’. 笪. U+7B2A. Williams (1856: 510) t’átɔ (taat 3 ) “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 742) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #2967) taàt; O'Melia
(1959: 4: 168) tàat; Yue (1972: 241) tA:t 4 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #471)
daat 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 27) dad 3 .
2 gat 1 ‘to stab’. �吉刂. U+34E4. Williams (1856: 135) katɔ “colloquial word”;
Aubazac (1909: 47) kat 4 ; Meyer (1947: #1056) kat; Yue (1972: 337) kɐt 5 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #860) gat 1o ; Rao (1996: 66) ged 1 .
3 lo 2 ‘to take’. 攞. U+651E. Williams (1856: 248) c lo “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 536) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 15) lo 2 ; Meyer (1947: #1636)
lóh; O'Melia (1959: 4: 90) lóh; Yue (1972: 269) lɔ: 35 “colloquial character”; Lau
(1977: #1948) loh 2 “CC”; Rao (1996: 131) lo 2 .
4 naat 3 ‘to burn’. ① 鈉. U+9209. Williams (1856: 311) nátɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 587) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 19) náto; Meyer (1947:
#1949) naàt; Yue (1972: 241) nA:t 4 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2256) naat 3
“Coll.”. ② 焫. U+712B. Rao (1996: 157) nad 3 .
5 nam 4 ‘tender’. 腍. U+814D. Williams (1856: 307) cnam “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 409) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #1957) nām; Yue (1972:
245) nɐm 21 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2265) nam 4 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996:
160 ) nem 4 .
6 nau 1 ‘angry’. ① 嬲. U+5B32. Williams (1856: 311) cnau “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 595) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 18) nao 1 ; Meyer (1947:
#1971) nau; O'Melia (1959: 4: 108) nau; Yue (1972: 244) nɐŭ 53 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #2275) nau 1 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 160) neo 1 . ② 惱.
U+60F1. Meyer (1947: #1971) nau.
7 ngat 1 ‘to cram’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 5, 724) atɔ (at 1 ) ngatɔ “colloquial word”.
② 扤. U+6264. Williams (1909 [1874]: 896); Aubazac (1909: 19) ngat 4 ; Meyer
(1947: #2045) ngat; Yue (1972: 337) ŋɐt 5 ; Lau (1977: #2341) ngat1 o “CC”; Rao
(1996: 167) nged 1 .
8 ngok 6 ‘to raise the head’. ① 咢. U+54A2. Williams (1856: 328) ngokɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 605) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 20) ngok4;
Meyer (1947: #2069) ngôk; Yue (1972: 360) ngɔ:k 3 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#2362) ngok 6 “CC”, “Coll.” ② �岳頁. U+294E5. Rao (1996: 171) ngog 6 .
87

9 ning 1 ‘to carry; to bring’. ① 擰. U+64F0. Williams (1856: 332) cning “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 599) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 20) ning 1 ;
Meyer (1947: #2087) ning; O'Melia (1959: 4: 109) ning; Yue (1972: 255) nɪŋ 53
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2383) ning 1 . ② �扌寍. Meyer (1947: #2087)
ning. ③ 拎. U+62CE. Rao (1996: 174) ning 1 , ling 1 (ling 1 ).
10 wan 2 ‘to find’. ① 搵. U+6435. Williams (1909 [1874]: 889) “in Cantonese”;
Meyer (1947: #3750) wán; O'Melia (1959: 4: 222) wán; Lau (1977: #3219) wan 2
“CC”, “Coll.”. ② 揾. U+63FE. Williams (1856: 662) c wan “colloquial word”;
Aubazac (1909: 43) wan 2 ; O'Melia (1959: 4: 222) wán; Yue (1972: 379) ŭɐn 35
“colloquial character”; Rao (1996: 223) wen 2 .
11 wan 3 ‘to confine’. ① 韞. U+97DE. Meyer (1947: #3753) wàn, wán (wan 2 ); Lau
(1977: #3220) wan 3 “Coll.”. ② �韋昷. Williams (1856: 662) wan ɔ “colloquial
word”; Rao (1996: 223) wen 3 . ③ 縕. U+7E15. Meyer (1947: #3753) wàn, wán
(wan 2 ). ④ 緼. U+7DFC. Yue (1972: 379) ŭɐn 44 “colloquial character”.
12 dim 6 ‘straight’. ① 掂. U+6382. Williams (1856: 518) tím ɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 787) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 36) tim3; Meyer (1947:
#3075) tîm; O'Melia (1959: 4: 177) tîm; Yue (1972: 259) ti:m 33 “colloquial word”;
Lau (1977: #539) dim 6 “CC”, “Coll.”. ② 敁. U+6541. Williams (1909 [1874]: 787)
“in Cantonese”. ③ �口店. U+20DA7. Rao (1996: 42) dim 6 .
13 ngan 3 ‘to jiggle the feet’. ① 奀. U+5940. Meyer (1947: #2039) ngàn; Yue (1972:
334) ŋɐn 44 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2334) ngan 3 “CC”, “Coll.”. ②
�足辰. U+47F4. Rao (1996: 169) ngen 3 .
14 ung 2 ‘to push’. ① 擁. U+64C1. Williams (1856: 649) c ung “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 941); Aubazac (1909: 21) oung 1 (ung 1 ); Meyer (1947: #3687)
úng; O'Melia (1959: 4: 217) úng; Yue (1972: 392) ʔʊŋ 35 “colloquial character”; Lau
(1977: #3144) ung 2 “Coll.”. ② �巩手. U+39EC. Rao (1996: 173) ngung 2 (ngung 2 ),
ung 2 . ③ �扌戎. U+22B2E. Rao (1996: 173) ngung 2 (ngung 2 ), ung 2 .
15 m 4 ‘not’. 唔. U+5514. Williams (1856: 268) c‘m “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 893) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 16) m1; Meyer (1947: #1724) m̄;
O’Melia (1959: 4: 93) m̄; Yue (1972: 398) m̩ 21 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#2032) m 4 “CC”; Rao (1996: 138) m 4 .
16 mat 1 ‘what’. 乜. U+4E5C. Williams (1856: 279) matɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 571)“in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 17) mat 4 ; Meyer (1947:
88

#1790) mat, mi (mi 1 ); O'Melia (1959: 4: 99) mat, mi (mi 1 ); Yue (1972: 215) mɐt 5
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2105) mat 1 ° “CC”; Lau (1977: #2135) mi 1 ° (mi 1 )
“CC”; Rao (1996: 146) med 1 , mé 1 (me 1 ).
17 kat 1 ‘card’. ① n/a. Yue (1972: 329) k’A:t 5 . ② 咭. U+54AD. Meyer (1947:
#1062) k’at; Lau (1977: #1644) kaat 1o “CC”; Rao (1996: 110) ked 1 .
18 yai 5 ‘bad’. ① �口兮. U+20BCB. Williams (1856: 674) cyai (yai 4 ); Williams
(1909 [1874]: 395) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 44) yai1 (yai 4 ); Meyer (1947:
#3800) yaī (yai 4 ); Lau (1977: #3306) yai 4 (yai 4 ) “CC”, Lau (1977: #3307) yai 5 “CC”.
② n/a. Yue (1972: 288) ĭɐĭ 24 “colloquial character”. ③ 曳. U+66F3. Rao (1996:
240) yei 5 , yei 4 (yai 4 ), yei 6 (yai 6 ).
19 lok 3 ‘sentence-final particle’. 咯. U+54AF. Williams (1856: 253) lokɔ “colloquial
final particle”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 536); Aubazac (1909: 15) loko; Meyer (1947:
#1647) lòk; O'Melia (1959: 4: 91) lòk; Yue (1972: 272) lɔk 4 “colloquial character”;
Lau (1977: #1964) lok 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 132) log 3 .
20 ge 3 ‘genitive particle’. 嘅. U+5605. Williams (1856: 145) ké ɔ ; Williams (1909
[1874]: 425) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 9) ké 3 ; Meyer (1947: #1090) kè; O'Melia
(1959: 4: 65) kè; Yue (1972: 339) kɛ: 44 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #875) ge 3 ;
Rao (1996: 65) gé 3 .
21 gip 1 ‘bag’. 喼. U+55BC. Meyer (1947: #1174) kìp (gip 3 ); Yue (1972: 349) ki:p 5
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #924) gip 1o “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 73) gib 1 .
22 mak 1 ‘mark’. ① 嚜. U+569C. Williams (1909 [1874]: 582) “in Cantonese”;
Meyer (1947: #1766) mak; O'Melia (1959: 4: 98) mak; Yue (1972: 215) mɐk 5
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2081) mak 1o ; “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 147)
meg 1 . ② 嘜. U+561C. O'Melia (1959: 4: 98) mak; Rao (1996: 147) meg 1 .
23 miu 2 ‘to purse the lips’. �口妙. U+20D15. Meyer (1947: #1834) miú; Yue
(1972: 222) mi:ŭ 35 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2153) miu 2 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao
(1996: 152) miu 2 .
24 gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’. ① 甴曱. U+7534 U+66F1. Williams (1856: 117, 560) cká
tsátɔ (ga 1 jaat 6 ) “colloquial word”; Meyer (1947: #987, 690) kaât tsâat; O'Melia (1959:
4: 60) kâat tsâat; Yue (1972: 329, 286) kA:t 3 tsA:t 3 “colloquial character”. ② 曱甴.
U+66F1 U+7534. Lau (1977: #817) gaat 6 jaat 6 * (gaat 6 jaat 6-2 ) “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao
(1996: 62) gad 6 zad 6 , ged 6 zed 6 (gat 6 jat 6 ).
89

25 In fact, the contemporary arrangement, 曱甴, appears as early as the late nineteenth
century (Chalmers 1878: 40), but this is probably an isolated case, as it does not
appear in later sources in this study until Yue (1972). Thanks to Professor Marjorie
Chan for this observation.
26 a 1 ‘sentence-final particle’. ① 丫. U+4E2B. Williams (1909 [1874]: 899) “in
Cantonese”. ② 吖. U+5416. Williams (1856: 1) cá “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 899) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #2) a; O'Melia (1959: 4: 1) a, nga
(nga 1 ); Yue (1972: 370) ʔA: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2) a 1o “CC”; Rao
(1996: 1) a 1 . ③ 呀. U+5440. Aubazac (1909: 1) a 1 .
27 dei 6 ‘plural marker’. ① 地. U+5730. Williams (1909 [1874]: 774) “in
Cantonese”. ② 哋. U+54CB. Williams (1856: 515) tí ɔ “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 774) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #3044) teî; O’Melia (1959: 4: #174)
teî; Yue (1972: 254) teĭ 33 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #517) dei 1 “CC”; Rao
(1996: 241) déi 6 .
28 gam 2 ‘so (manner)’. ① 敢. U+6562. Williams (1909 [1874]: 427) “in
Cantonese”. ② 噉. U+5649. Williams (1856: 173) c kòm; Aubazac (1909: 10) kom 2 ;
Meyer (1947: #1224) kóm; O'Melia (1959: 4: 72) kóm; Yue (1972: 333) kɐm 35
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #839) gam 2 “CC”; Rao (1996: 69) gem 2 .
29 gam 3 ‘so (quantity)’. ① 甘. U+7518. Williams (1909 [1874]: 426) “in
Cantonese”. ② 咁. U+5481. Williams (1856: 173) kòm ɔ ; Williams (1909 [1874]:
426) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 10) kom 3 ; Meyer (1947: #1228) kòm; O'Melia
(1959: 4: 73) kòm; Yue (1972: 333) kɐm 44 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #840)
gam 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 70) gem 3 .
30 gwa 3 ‘a sentence-final particle’. ① 卦. U+5366. Williams (1909 [1874]: 461) “in
Cantonese”. ② 啩. U+5569. Williams (1856: 201) kw’á ɔ ; Williams (1909 [1874]:
461) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #1350) kwà; O'Melia (1959: 4: 78) kwà; Yue
(1972: 370) kwA: 44 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #1014) gwa 3 “CC”; Rao (1996:
78) gua 3 .
31 haai 4 ‘coarse’. ① 鞋. U+978B. Williams (1909 [1874]: 318) “in Cantonese”. ②
嚡. U+56A1. Williams (1856: 69) chái; Aubazac (1909: 3) hái1; Meyer (1947: #619)
haaī; Lau (1977: #1088) haai 4 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 87) hai 4 . ③ n/a. Yue (1972:
324) hA:ĭ 21 “colloquial character”.
32 hai 2 ‘to be at’. ① 係. U+4FC2. Williams (1909 [1874]: 301) “in Cantonese”. ②
喺. U+55BA. Williams (1856: 68) c hai; Aubazac (1909: 3) hai 2 ; Meyer (1947: #654)
90

haí; O'Melia (1959: 4: 42) hái; Yue (1972: 331) hɐĭ 35 “colloquial character”; Lau
(1977: #1114) hai 2 “CC”; Rao (1996: 91) hei 2 .
33 kwaak 1 ‘loop; to loop’. ① 緙. U+7DD9. Williams (1856: 207) kw’ákɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 446) “in Cantonese”. ② �口緙. U+210C8. Meyer
(1947: #1358) kwaàk (gwaak 3 ), kw’aàk (kwaak 3 ); Yue (1972: 375) kw’A:k 5
“colloquial character”; Rao (1996: 114) kuag 3-1 (kwaak 3-1 ), kuag 3 (kwaak 3 ). ③
�口隙. Lau (1977: #1728) kwaat 1o (kwaat 1 ) “CC”, “Coll.”.
34 lai 4 ‘to come’. ① 黎. U+9ECE. Williams (1909 [1874]: 505) “in Cantonese”. ②
嚟. U+569F. Williams (1856: 217) clai “colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]:
505) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 13) lai1; Meyer (1947: #1461) laī; O'Melia
(1959: 4: 84) lāi, lēi (lei 4 ); Yue (1972: 243) lɐĭ 21 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#1792) lai 4 “CC”; Rao (1996: 124) lei 4 , léi 4 (lei 4 ).
35 mai 5 ‘do not’. ① 米. U+7C73. Williams (1909 [1874]: 568) “in Cantonese”. ②
咪. U+54AA. Williams (1856: 271) c mai “colloquial word”; Aubazac (1909: 16)
mai2; Meyer (1947: #1764) maĭ; O'Melia (1959: 4: 98) măi; Yue (1972: 211) mɐĭ 24
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2078) mai 5 “CC”; Rao (1996: 148) mei 5 .
36 mo 1 ‘slow’. ① 摩. U+6469. Williams (1909 [1874]: 578) “in Cantonese”. ② 嚤.
U+56A4. Williams (1856: 292) cmo “colloquial word”; Aubazac (1909: 17) mo 1 ;
Meyer (1947: #1864) mo; Lau (1977: #2182) moh 1o “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 152)
mo 1 . ③ n/a. Yue (1972: 224) mɔ: 53 .
37 ngaam 1 ‘correct’. ① 岩. U+5CA9. Williams (1909 [1874]: 916) “in Cantonese”.
② 啱. U+5571. Williams (1856: 319) cngám “colloquial word”; Aubazac (1909: 19)
ngám 1 ; Meyer (1947: #2011) ngaam; Yue (1972: 326) ŋA:m 53 “colloquial character”;
Lau (1977: #2310) ngaam 1o “CC”; Rao (1996: 163) ngam 1 .
38 di 1 ‘some’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 514) ctí “colloquial corruption”. ② 的.
U+7684. Williams (1909 [1874]: 771) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #3058) ti. ③
啲. U+5572. Aubazac (1909: 36) ti 1 ; Meyer (1947: #3058) ti; O'Melia (1959: 4: 176)
ti, tit (dit 1 ); Yue (1972: 257) ti: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #529) di 1o “CC”;
Rao (1996: 40) di 1 , did 1 (dit 1 ).
39 ye 5 ‘thing’. ① 野. U+91CE. Williams (1856: 691) c yé “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 911) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #3867) yĕ; O'Melia (1959:
4: 231) yĕ. ② 嘢. U+5622. Yue (1972: 296) yɛ: 24 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#3376) ye 5 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 236) yé 5 . ③. 埜. U+57DC. Williams (1909
[1874]: 911) “in Cantonese”.
91

40 tau 2 ‘to rest’. ① 抖. U+6296. Williams (1856: 513) c t’au “colloquial word”;
Meyer (1947: #3037) t’aú; Lau (1977: #3044) tau 2 “CC”, “Coll.”. ② 唞. U+551E.
Aubazac (1909: 31) t’ao 2 ; Meyer (1947: #3037) t’aú; O'Melia (1959: 4: 173) t’áo; Lau
(1977: #3044) tau 2 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 213) teo 2 . ③ �咅攴. U+3A97. Yue
(1972: 244) t’ɐŭ 35 “colloquial word”.
41 yuk 1 ‘to move’. ① 郁. U+90C1. Williams (1856: 705) yukɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 949) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 45) youk 4 ; Meyer (1947:
#3930) yuk; O'Melia (1959: 4: 235) yuk; Lau (1977: #3575) yuk 1o “Coll.”. ② 喐.
U+5590. Meyer (1947: #3930) yuk; Yue (1972: 319) yʊk 5 “colloquial character”; Rao
(1996: 250) yug 1 .
42 ga 3 ‘sentence-final particle’. ① 架. U+67B6. O'Melia (1959: 4: 56) kà. ②
�口架. U+35CE. Meyer (1947: #939) kà; Yue (1972: 323) kA: 44 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #785) ga 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 61) ga 3 . ③ �口駕. U+210C9.
Meyer (1947: #939) kà.
43 go 2 ‘that’. ① 個. U+500B. Williams (1856: 167) ko ɔ (go 3 ); Williams (1909
[1874]: 444); Aubazac (1909: 10) ko 3 (go 3 ); Meyer (1947: #1206) kóh; Meyer (1947:
#1207) kòh (go 3 ); O'Melia (1959: 4: 70) kòh (go 3 ). ② 嗰. U+55F0. Meyer (1947:
#1206) kóh; O'Melia (1959: 4: 70) kóh; Yue (1972: 355) kɔ: 35 “colloquial character”;
Lau (1977: #944) goh 2 “CC”; Rao (1996: 75) go 2 . ③ 箇. U+7B87. Williams (1856:
167) ko ɔ (go 3 ), c ko; Williams (1909 [1874]: 444); Meyer (1947: #1207) kòh (go 3 ). ④
个. U+4E2A. Williams (1856: 167) ko ɔ (go 3 ); Williams (1909 [1874]: 444); Aubazac
(1909: 10) ko 3 (go 3 ); Meyer (1947: #1207) kòh (go 3 ).
44 bai 6 ‘bad’. ① 弊. U+5F0A. Williams (1856: 347) pai ɔ ; Meyer (1947: #2265) paî;
O'Melia (1959: 4: 123) pâi; Yue (1972: 211) pɐĭ 33 ; Lau (1977: #61) bai 6 . ② �敝大.
U+21681. Williams (1856: 347) pai ɔ . ③ �口弊. U+210C7. Rao (1996: 7) bei 6 .
45 ngai 1 ‘to beg’. ① 偽. U+507D. Williams (1909 [1874]: 886) “in Cantonese”. ②
�口偽. U+20F2E. Williams (1856: 316) cngai “colloquial word”; Aubazac (1909:
19) ngai 1 ; Meyer (1947: #2029) ngai; Rao (1996: 168) ngei 1 . ③ �口危. U+20C53.
Meyer (1947: #2029) ngai; Yue (1972: 331) ŋɐĭ 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#2325) ngai 1 “CC”, “Coll.”.
46 gau 6 ‘lump’. ① 倃. U+5003. Williams (1856: 140) kau ɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 167) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 8) kao3; Meyer (1947:
92

#1077) kaû. ② 嚿. U+56BF. Meyer (1947: #1077) kaû; O'Melia (1959: 4: 65) kâu;
Yue (1972: 332) kɐŭ 33 “colloquial character”; Rao (1996: 73) geo 6 .
47 tam 3 ‘to deceive’. ① 噤. U+5664. Williams (1856: 498) t’am ɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 149) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 30) t’am 3 ; Meyer (1947:
#3003) t’àm; O'Melia (1959: 4: 171) t’àm; Yue (1972: 245) t’ɐm 44 “colloquial
character”. ② �口氹. U+20C41. Meyer (1947: #3004) t’àm; Lau (1977: #3035)
tam 3 “CC”, “Coll.”. ③ �言��冖八木. U+27A3E. Rao (1996: 213) tem 3 .
48 saai 3 ‘quantifying particle’. ① 徙. U+5F99. Williams (1909 [1874]: 300) “in
Cantonese”. ② 嘥. U+5625. Williams (1856: 405) sái ɔ “colloquial word”; Aubazac
(1909: 25) sái 3 ; Meyer (1947: #2527) saaì; O'Melia (1959: 4: 137) saài; Yue (1972:
280) sA:ĭ 44 “colloquial character”. ③ 晒. U+6652. Rao (1996: 188) sai 3 . ④ 嗮.
U+55EE. Lau (1977: #2595) saai 3 “CC”.
49 jo 2 ‘ perfective aspect marker’. ① 阻. U+963B. Williams (1856: 25*) c cho
“colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 833) “in Cantonese”. ② 唨. U+5528.
Aubazac (1909: 35) tcho 2 ; Meyer (1947: #323) chóh; O'Melia (1959: 4: 21) chóh; Lau
(1977: #1539) jo 2 “CC”. ③ 咗. U+5497. Yue (1972: 313) tsɔ: 35 “colloquial
character”; Rao (1996: 262) zo 2 .
50 ngak 1 ‘to trick’. ① 阨. U+9628. Williams (1856: 3, 318) ákɔ (aak 1 ), akɔ (ak 1 ),
ngakɔ “colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 605) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac
(1909: 19) ngak 4 ; Meyer (1947: #2036) ngak; O'Melia (1959: 4: 113) ngak. ② 呃.
U+5443. Meyer (1947: #2036) ngak; Yue (1972: 330) ŋA:k 5 (ngaak 1 ) “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #22) ak 1o (ak 1 ) “CC”; Rao (1996: 163) ngag 1 (ngaak 1 ). ③ 眲.
U+7732. Rao (1996: 163) ngag 1 (ngaak 1 ).
51 la 3 ‘sentence-final particle’. ① 罅. U+7F45. Williams (1909 [1874]: 306) “in
Cantonese”. ② �阝虖. U+28EF2. Williams (1909 [1874]: 306) “in Cantonese”. ③
鏬. U+93EC. Williams (1909 [1874]: 306) “in Cantonese”. ④ �土虖. U+3664.
Williams (1909 [1874]: 306) “in Cantonese”. ⑤ �口鏬. Williams (1856: 217) lá ɔ ;
Meyer (1947: #1427) là. ⑥ 嚹. U+56B9. Meyer (1947: #1427) là; Yue (1972: 234)
lA: 44 “colloquial character”; Rao (1996: 116) la 3 . ⑦ 嘞. U+561E. O'Melia (1959: 4:
83) là. ⑧ 喇. U+5587. Lau (1977: #1755) la 3 ; Rao (1996: 116) la 3 .
52 me 1 ‘sentence-final particle’. ① �貝子. U+27D2F. Williams (1856: 283) cmé;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 571) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”. ② 咩. U+54A9.
Aubazac (1909: 17) mé 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1800) me; O'Melia (1959: 4: 101) meh; Yue
93

(1972: 216) mɛ: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2120) me 1o “CC”; Rao (1996:
146) mé 1 .
53 dap 6 ‘to pound’. ① 搭. U+642D. Meyer (1947: #3020) tâp; Yue (1972: 248) tɐp 3
“colloquial character”. ② 撘. U+6498. Meyer (1947: #3020) tâp. ③ �口扱. Lau
(1977: #498) dap 6 “CC”, “Coll.”. ④ �扌耷. U+22C55. Rao (1996: 33) deb 6 .
54 long 2 ‘to rinse’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 722) c long; Yue (1972: 271) nɔ:ŋ 35
(nong 2 ), lɔ:ŋ 35 “colloquial word”. ② 朗. U+6717. Williams (1909 [1874]: 499) “in
Cantonese”. ③ �口浪. U+20E98. Aubazac (1909: 15) long 2 ; Meyer (1947: #1653)
lóng; Lau (1977: #1972) long 2 “CC”; Rao (1996: 132) long 2 .
55 ngap 1 ‘to jabber’. ① 吸. U+5438. Williams (1856: 321) ngapɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 294) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 19) ngap 4 ;
Meyer (1947: #2043) ngap; Yue (1972: 336) ŋɐp 5 “colloquial character”. ② 噏.
U+564F. Williams (1909 [1874]: 294) “in Cantonese”; Rao (1996: 167) ngeb 1 . ③
�口揖. Lau (1977: #2339) ngap 1o “CC”, “Coll.”. ④ �口�日絲. U+2103E. Rao
(1996: 167) ngeb 1 .
56 wo 5 ‘sentence-final particle’. ① 啝. U+555D. Meyer (1947: #3780) wôh (wo 6 ),
wòh (wo 3 ), wōh (wo 4 ); O'Melia (1959: 4: 224) wŏh. ② 喎. U+558E. Yue (1972:
386) ŭɔ: 24 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #3247) woh 5 ; Rao (1996: 225) wo 5 , wo 3
(wo 3 ).
57 ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’. ① �馬馬〇. U+2994B ?. Williams (1856: 323)
ngau ɔ tau ɔ . ② �馬馬逗. U+2994B U+9017. Williams (1909 [1874]: 8) “in
Cantonese”. ③ 吽哣. U+543D U+54E3. Meyer (1947: #2050 ngaû taû; Yue (1972:
332, 244) ŋɐŭ 33 tɐŭ 33 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2348) ngau 6 dau 6 “CC”,
“Coll.”; Rao (1996: 170) ngeo 6 deo 6 .
58 ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’. ① 喊〇〇. U+558A ? ?. Williams (1856: 92)
hòm ɔ pa ɔ láng ɔ (ham 6 ba 6 laang 6 ). ② 喊�口棒呤. U+558A U+20FB4 U+5464. Meyer
(1947: #662) hâmpanglâng (ham 6 bang 1 lang 6 ), hâmpalâng (ham 6 ba 1 lang 6 ). ③
喊�口捧唥. U+558A ? U+5525. O'Melia (1959: 4: 43) hâmpânglâng
(ham 6 bang 6 lang 6 ), hâmpâlâng (ham 6 ba 6 lang 6 ). ④ n/a. Yue (1972: 333)
hɐm 33 pA 33 lA:ŋ 33 “colloquial word”. ⑤ �口感�口棒唥. U+20FD1 U+20FB4
U+5525. Lau (1977: #1124) ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 , ham 6 blaang 6 (ham 6 blaang 6 ) “CC”,
“Coll.”. ⑥ 冚唪唥. U+519A U+552A U+5525. Rao (1996: 92) hem 6 baang 6 laang 6 .
94

59 唥 actually appears consistently for laang 6 in sources as early as the mid-nineteenth
century, suggesting that the 呤 form listed by Meyer (1947) is an isolated exception.
Thanks to Professor Marjorie Chan for this observation.
95

CHAPTER 6
SIGNIFIC-PHONETIC CHARACTERS
Signific-Phonetic characters, which are the analogue of the xingsheng 形聲
‘phonetic compounds’ principle in the traditional liushu 六書 model, are characters
which combine two characters together, one as a signific to indicate its general
meaning, while the other is used in rebus fashion as a phonetic. However, the
traditional model is insufficiently defined with regards to whether it includes what are
marked phonetic loans in the model used here, and rather than impose an
interpretation, we establish a new principle modeled after it.
The most basic signific-phonetic characters are those where the phonetic is
completely homophonous, such as yeun 6 ‘animal liver’ 1 , which is written with 膶,
composed of a yuk 6 月(肉) ‘flesh’ signific and a yeun 6 閏 ‘intercalary’ phonetic.
Similarly, chi 1 ‘to stick’ 2 is written with 黐, composed of a syu 2 黍 ‘millet’ signific
and a chi 1 离 ‘mountain spirit’ phonetic which is also written as 魑 (HYDZD 1: 287).
Less commonly, it is written with �米离 or its vulgar form �米禽 (HYDZD 5:
3161), both of which have a mai 5 米 ‘rice’ radical instead of syu 2 黍 ‘millet’ for the
signific.
96

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
chi1 to stick U+9ED0 黐 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+25EF �米离 ✓
yeun6 animal
liver
F
U+25F1
D
�米禽 ✓
�口笞 ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
U+81B6 膶 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 6.1: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Completely Homophonous Phonetics (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
chi1 to stick U+9ED0 黐 syu2 黍 millet chi1 离 mountain
spirit
U+25EFF �米离 mai5 米 rice chi1 离 mountain
spirit
U+25F1D �米禽 mai5 米 rice chi1 禽(离) mountain
spirit
�口笞 chi1 笞 to flog
yeun6 animal liver U+81B6 膶 yuk6 月(肉) flesh yeun6 閏 intercalary
Table 6.2: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Completely Homophonous Phonetics (Basis)
The phonetic in a signific-phonetic character can be less than homophonous by
differing in the tone register, such as deng 3 掟 ‘to throw’ 3 , laan 1 躝 ‘to crawl’ 4 , mit 1 搣
‘to pinch; to tear’ 5 , and na 1 �疒拏 ‘scar’ 6 , where the word’s tone belongs to the yin
陰 register, but its phonetic belongs to the yang 陽 register. Meanwhile, the tone
category remains the same: laan 1 躝 ‘to crawl’ and its phonetic laan 4 闌 ‘fence’ and
na 1 �疒拏 ‘scar’ and its phonetic na 4 拏 ‘to take’ are all ping 平 tones, deng 3 掟 ‘to
97

throw’ and its phonetic ding 6 /deng 6 定 ‘certain’ are both qu 去 tones, and mit 1 搣 ‘to
pinch; to tear’ and its phonetic mit 6 烕/灭 ‘to extinguish’ are both ru 入 tones.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
deng3 to throw U+639F 掟 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
laam3 to step
over
U+77F4 矴 ✓
U+2814F �足嵐 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+280BE �足南 ✓
laan1 to crawl U+8E9D 躝 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
lam6 to pile
up
leu1 to spit
out
mit1 to pinch;
to tear
U+3A06 �扌林 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7F67 罧 ✓
U+51A7 冧 ✓
n/a ∅ ✓
U+269F2 �舌累 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6423 搣 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�扌灭 ✓
na1 scar U+24E3B �疒拏 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+24DB8 �疒那 ✓
Table 6.3: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Tone (History)
The phonetic in a signific-phonetic character can also differ more greatly in
tone such that there is no direct relationship with the tone of the word, such as the
other form of na 1 ‘scar’ given by Rao (1996), �疒那, which has a na 2 那 ‘that’
phonetic that differs in the tone, yinshang 陰上 (tone #2) rather than yinping 陰平
(tone #1). Similarly, lam 6 �扌林 ‘to pile up’ 7 has a lam 4 林 ‘forest’ phonetic which
differs in the tone, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than yangqu 陽去 (tone #6).
98

Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
deng3 to throw U+639F 掟 sau2 扌(手) hand ding6/
deng6
定 certain
U+77F4 矴 ding3 矴 anchor
laam3 to step over U+2814F �足嵐 juk1 足 foot laam4 嵐 mist
U+280BE �足南 juk1 足 foot naam4 南 south
laan1 to crawl U+8E9D 躝 juk1 足 foot laan4 闌 fence
lam6 to pile up U+3A06 �扌林 sau2 扌(手) hand lam4 林 forest
U+7F67 罧 mong5 罒(网) net lam4 林 forest
U+51A7 冧 lam1 冧 bud
leu1 to spit out U+269F2 �舌累 sit6 舌 tongue leui6 累 to
accumulate
mit1 to pinch;
to tear
U+6423 搣 sau2 扌(手) hand mit6 烕 to extinguish
�扌灭 sau2 扌(手) hand mit6 灭 to extinguish
na1 scar U+24E3B �疒拏 bing6 疒(病) sick na4 拏 to take
U+24DB8 �疒那 bing6 疒(病) sick na2 那 that
Table 6.4: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Tone (Basis)
Likewise, leu 1 �舌累 ‘to spit out’ 8 has a leui 6 累 ‘to accumulate’ phonetic
which differs in the tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone #6) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1).
Furthermore, the phonetic also differs in the final, -eui /-øy/ rather than -eu /-œ/.
However, Yue (1972) also lists leui 1 as an alternative pronunciation for ‘to spit out’,
which would make the phonetic completely homophonous except for tone.
Similarly, laam 3 �足嵐 ‘to step over’ 9 has a laam 4 嵐 ‘mist’ phonetic which
differs in the tone, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). On the
other hand, Rao (1996) also lists laam 3 �足南 ‘to step over’, which has a naam 4 南
‘south’ phonetic, which besides tone also differs in the manner of articulation of the
initial consonant, n- /n-/ instead of l- /l-/. However, he also gives naam 3 as an
99

alternative pronunciation for ‘to step over’, which suggests that the naam 4 南 ‘south’
phonetic was chosen on basis of the naam 3 pronunciation, or by a speaker who
substitutes the liquid l- /l-/ initial for the nasal n- /n-/ initial and pronounces 南 ‘south’
as *laam 3 .
The phonetic in a signific-phonetic character can also be less than optimal by
differing in the initial, such as gwui 6 癐 ‘tired’ 10 , which has a wui 6 會 ‘to meet’
phonetic which differs in the manner of articulation of the homorganic initial, w- /w-/
rather than gw- /kw-/.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
gwui6 tired U+7650 癐 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
laap3 to gather
together
U+39DC �扌匝 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+64F8 擸 ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 6.5: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
gwui6 tired U+7650 癐 bing6 疒(病) sick wui6 會 to meet
laap3 to gather
together
U+39DC �扌匝 sau2 扌(手) hand jaap3 匝
100
to revolve
U+64F8 擸 sau2 扌(手) hand laap6 巤 bristles
Table 6.6: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial (Basis)
Similarly, laap 3 ‘to gather together’ 11 , also pronounced laap 6 , is written with
�扌匝 which has a jaap 3 匝 ‘to revolve’ phonetic, formerly saap 6 (Williams 1856:

408), which differs in the initial, j- /tʃ-/ or s- /s-/ rather than l- /l-/, which has no direct
relationship. Besides �扌匝, Williams (1856, 1909 [1874]) also lists an
orthographically more complex 擸, which he considers to be the character that the
former is “contracted” from (Williams 1909 [1874]: 492), although he distinguishes
the two pronunciations of the word in writing (Williams 1856: 225-226). According
to Williams (1909 [1874]: 492), 擸 is also a signific-phonetic character, composed of a
sau 2 扌(手) ‘hand’ signific and a laap 6 巤 ‘bristles’ phonetic, which is also written as
鬣 (Williams 1909 [1874]: 522), which differs in the tone register, yangru 陽入 (tone
#6) rather than zhongru 中入 (tone #3).
Unlike leu 1 ‘to spit out’ and laam 3 ‘to step over’, there are cases such as kang 3
掯 ‘capable’ 12 and na 2 乸 ‘female’ 13 where the phonetic clearly differs in more than
aspect. The phonetic in kang 3 掯 ‘capable’, hang 2 肯 ‘willing’, differs in the tone, as
well as the manner of articulation of the homorganic initial, h- /h-/ rather than k- /k h -/,
while the phonetic in na 2 乸 ‘female’, ya 5 也 ‘also’, differs in the tone register, as well
as the initial, y- /j-/ rather than n- /n-/, which has no direct relationship.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
kang3 capable U+63AF 掯 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
na2 female U+4E78 乸 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
nan2 to play with n/a ∅ ✓
U+649A 撚 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 6.7: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial and Tone (History)
101

Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
kang3 capable U+63AF 掯 sau2 扌(手) hand hang2 肯 willing
na2 female U+4E78 乸 mou5 母 mother ya5 也 also
nan2 to play
with
U+649A 撚 sau2 扌(手) hand yin4 然
Table 6.8: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Initial and Tone (Basis)
102
like so
Similarly, nan 2 ‘to play with’ 14 existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century
(Williams 1856), but is only given a written form in later sources. However, the nin 2
pronunciation was already written with 撚 (332), which has a yin 4 然 ‘like so’
phonetic, which differs in the initial, y- /j-/ rather than n- /n-/, as well as the tone,
yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than yinshang 陰上 (tone #2).
The phonetic in a signific-phonetic character can also be less than
homophonous by differing in the final, such as nam 2 諗 ‘to think’ 15 , which has a nim 6
念 ‘to think of’ phonetic, which differs in the final, -im /-im/ rather than -am /-ɐm/, as
well as the tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone #6) rather than yinshang 陰上 (tone #2). The
same phonetic is also used in another form given by Rao (1996), 惗.
aai 3 嗌 ‘to yell’ 16 is different in that its yik 1 益 ‘benefit’ phonetic appears to be
a less than optimal phonetic, but it can serve as an aai 3 phonetic, such as in aai 3 隘
‘mountain pass’, which is used in the other form given by Meyer (1947), �口隘.

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
aai3 to yell U+55CC 嗌 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�口隘 ✓
nam2 to think U+8AD7 諗 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7A14 稔 ✓
U+60D7 惗 ✓
Table 6.9: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Final and Tone (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
aai3 to yell U+55CC 嗌 hau2 口 mouth yik1 益 benefit
�口隘 hau2 口 mouth aai3 隘 mountain pass
nam2 to think U+8AD7 諗 yin4 言 speech nim6 念 to think of
U+7A14 稔 nam5 稔 ripe
6.1 Optimization
U+60D7 惗 sam1 忄(心) heart nim6 念
Table 6.10: Signific-Phonetic Characters
with Phonetics Differing in the Final and Tone (Basis)
103
to think of
The phonetic in a signific-phonetic character is sometimes replaced by one that
is more homophonous, such as mau 1 ‘to squat’ 17 . mau 1 ‘to squat’ was first written
with 卯, a phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word maau 5 卯, an earthly branch,
which differs in the final, -aau /-au/ rather than -au /-ɐu/, as well as the tone,
yangshang 陽上 (tone #5) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1). Later it was written
with 蹘, a signific-phonetic character composed of a juk 1 足 ‘foot’ signific and a lau 6
翏 ‘to soar’ phonetic, which differs in the initial consonant, l- /l-/ instead of m- /m-/,

ut which can serve as a m- /m-/ initial phonetic, such as in mau 6 謬 ‘error’.
Incidently, the earthly branch maau 5 卯 is often confused with an l- /l-/ initial
phonetic, such that maau 5 昴 ‘Pleiades’ and lau 4 留 ‘to remain’ are written with the
proper phonetics, but mau 6 貿 ‘to trade’ and lau 5 柳 ‘willow’ are written with each
other’s (Karlgren 1923: 99, 193). By the early 1970s (Yue), it was written with 踎,
with a fau 2 否 ‘not’ phonetic, which differs in the tone, yinshang 陰上 (tone #2) rather
than yinping 陰平 (tone #1), as well as the manner of articulation of the initial
consonant, f- /f-/ instead of m- /m-/, although both are labial.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
mau1 to squat U+536F 卯 ✓
U+8E58 蹘 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+8E0E 踎 ✓ ✓ ✓
wing1 to throw
away
n/a ∅ ✓
U+22AD
5
�扌永 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6254 扔 ✓
Table 6.11: Optimization of the Phonetic in Signific-Phonetic Characters (History)
Similarly, wing 1 ‘to throw away’ 18 existed as early as the mid-nineteenth
century (Williams 1856), but it is only given a written form in later sources. By the
beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac 1909) it was written with �扌永, a
signific-phonetic character, composed of a sau 2 扌(手) ‘hand’ signific and a semi-
homophonous wing 5 永 ‘eternal’ phonetic, which differs in the tone, yangshang 陽上
(tone #5) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1). However, Yue (1972) instead lists 扔,
104

the standard character for the word. The fact that the phonetic is not actually naai 5 乃
‘then’, but an abbreviation of an unknown phonetic (Karlgren 1923: 203), suggests
that �扌永 was created in reaction to counter this anomaly.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
mau1 to squat U+536F 卯 maau5 卯
U+8E58 蹘 juk1 足 foot lau6 翏
wing1 to throw
away
U+8E0E 踎 juk1 足 foot fau2 否 not
105
an earthly branch
to soar
U+22AD5 �扌永 sau2 扌(手) hand wing5 永 eternal
U+6254 扔 sau2 扌(手) hand 乃
Table 6.12: Optimization of the Phonetic in Signific-Phonetic Characters (Basis)
The phonetic in a signific-phonetic character is sometimes replaced because of
a change in the pronunciation of the word that causes the phonetic to no longer be as
homophonous, such as mang 1 ‘to pull’ 19 , originally only pronounced mang 3 , which
was first written with 掹, a signific-phonetic character composed of a sau 2 扌(手)
‘hand’ signific and a semi-homophonous maang 6 孟 ‘first’ phonetic, which differs in
the final, -aang /-aŋ/ rather than -ang /-ɐŋ/, as well as the tone register, yangqu 陽去
(tone #6) rather than yinqu 陰去 (tone #3). However, Williams (1856: 278) gives the
pronunciation of 孟 as mang 6 , making the phonetic differ only in the tone register. He
also notes that some mang /mɐŋ/ syllables, including 孟 ‘first’ and 掹 ‘to pull’, are
often pronounced as maang /maŋ/.

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
mang3 to pull U+63B9 掹 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+64DD 擝 ✓ ✓ ✓
�口掹
mang1 U+63B9 掹 ✓
U+64DD 擝 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�口掹 ✓
Table 6.13: Optimization of a Phonetic in a Signific-Phonetic Character
Due to a Change in Pronunciation (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
mang3/
mang1
to pull U+63B9 掹 sau2 扌(手) hand maang6 孟 first
U+64DD 擝 sau2 扌(手) hand mang4 盟 alliance
�口掹 mang3 掹
106
to pull
Table 6.14: Optimization of a Phonetic in a Signific-Phonetic Character
Due to a Change in Pronunciation (Basis)
By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), the mang 1 pronunciation had developed, and ‘to
pull’ was written with 擝, a signific-phonetic character with a mang 4 盟 ‘alliance’
phonetic, which also differs in the tone register, but with respect to the mang 1
pronunciation, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1). Although
the mang 3 pronunciation has been used up to the present, the fact that it is listed in less
sources than the mang 1 pronunciation after the 1940s suggests that there is a
correlation between the use of the latter pronunciation and the use of 擝. Although
Rao (1996) lists both 掹 and 擝, as well as both the mang 3 and the mang 1

pronunciations, he does not associate either written form with a particular
pronunciation.
Meyer (1947) also lists �口掹 with a mang 1 pronunciation, a marked phonetic
loan of the character for the mang 3 pronunciation, suggesting that this form was
created after the development of the mang 1 pronunciation, but before the creation of
the 擝 form.
A signific-phonetic character can also be optimized for reasons unrelated to the
degree of homophony of its phonetic, such as ngou 4 ‘to shake’ 20 , which is written with
�敖手, in a vertical arrangement with the ngou 6 敖 ‘to stroll’ phonetic positioned
above the sau 2 手 ‘hand’ signific, as well as �扌敖, in a horizontal arrangement with
the sau 2 手 ‘hand’ signific in its radical form 扌. However, only the horizontal
arrangement is attested in sources later than the mid-1970s (Lau 1977; Rao 1996),
suggesting that it is preferred over a vertical arrangement.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
bou1 to boil;
kettle
U+7172 煲 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+3DDB �保灬 ✓ ✓ ✓
�火�
保衣
✓
ngou4 to shake �敖手 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�扌敖 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+22CC
6
Table 6.15: Optimization of Signific-Phonetic Characters
for Other Reasons (History)
107

Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
bou1 to boil;
kettle
U+7172 煲 fo2 火 fire bou2 保 to protect
U+3DDB �保灬 fo2 灬(火) fire bou2 保 to protect
�火�保
衣
fo2 灬(火) fire bou1 (?) �保衣 to praise (?)
ngou4 to shake �敖手 sau2 手 hand ngou6 敖 to stroll
U+22CC6 �扌敖 sau2 扌(手) hand ngou6 敖 to stroll
Table 6.16: Optimization of Signific-Phonetic Characters
for Other Reasons (Basis)
On the other hand, bou 1 ‘to boil; kettle’ 21 is written with 煲 and �保灬, both
in a vertical arrangement with the bou 2 保 ‘to protect’ phonetic positioned above the
fo 2 火/灬 ‘fire’ signific. However, although the fo 2 火 ‘fire’ signific usually appears in
its radical form 灬 when appearing in the bottom half of a character, such as rán 燃 ‘to
burn’, rè 熱 ‘hot’, and zhǔ 煮 ‘to cook’, the form with the full form fo 2 火 ‘fire’
signific is the only form attested in the sources later than the beginning of the
twentieth century.
6.2 Summary
Like marked phonetic loans, the phonetic in a signific-phonetic character may
be completely homophonous or differ in the initial, final, and/or tone. Sometimes, the
phonetic may be replaced by one which is more homophonous or recognizable, which
is in some cases motivated by a change in pronunciation that causes the phonetic to no
longer be as homophonous.
108

Endnotes
1 yeun 6 ‘animal liver’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 708) c yun (yeun 2 ) “colloquial word”.
② 膶. U+81B6. Aubazac (1909: 45) yeun3; Meyer (1947: #3940) yûn; Yue (1972:
311) ĭøn 33 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #3587) yun 6 * (yeun 6-2 ) “CC”; Rao
(1996: 242) yên 6-2 (yeun 6-2 ).
2 chi 1 ‘to stick’. ① 黐. U+9ED0. Williams (1856: 10*) cch’í; Williams (1909
[1874]: 140); Aubazac (1909: 34) tch’i 1 ; Meyer (1947: #253) ch’i; Yue (1972: 302)
ts’i: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: 274) chi 1 ; Rao (1996: 183) qi 1 . ② �米离.
U+25EFF. Williams (1909 [1874]: 140). ③ �米禽. U+25F1D. Williams (1856:
10*) cch’í. ④ �口笞. Meyer (1947: #253) ch’i.
3 deng 3 ‘to throw’. ① 掟. U+639F. Williams (1856: 523) ting ɔ (ding 6 ), teng ɔ (ting 6 );
Williams (1909 [1874]: 794); Meyer (1947: #3050) tèng; O'Melia (1959: 4: 175) tèng;
Yue (1972: 252) tɛ:ŋ 44 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #524) deng 3 “CC”; Rao
(1996: 38) déng 3 . ② 矴. U+77F4. Meyer (1947: #3050) tèng.
4 laan 1 ‘to crawl’. 躝. U+8E9D. Williams (1856: 224) clán; Aubazac (1909: 13) lán1
(laan 4 ); Meyer (1947: #1444) laan; O'Melia (1959: 4: 84) laan; Yue (1972: 238)
lA:n 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #1774) lan 1 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 119 )
lan 1 .
5 mit 1 ‘to pinch; to tear’. ① 搣. U+6423. Williams (1856: 290) mítɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 572); Aubazac (1909: 17) mit 4 ; Meyer (1947: #1831)
mit, mik (mik 1 ); Yue (1972: 223) mi:t 5 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2148) mit 1o
“CC”, Coll.”; Rao (1996: 151) mid 1 . ② �扌灭. Rao (1996: 151) mid 1 .
6 na 1 ‘scar’. ① �疒拏. U+24E3B. Williams (1856: 306) cná “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 587) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 18) na 1 ; Meyer (1947:
#1925) na; Yue (1972: 234) nA: 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2234) na 1o
“CC”; Rao (1996: 157) na 1 . ② �疒那. U+24DB8. Rao (1996: 157) na 1 .
7 lam 6 ‘to pile up’. ① �扌林. U+3A06. Williams (1856: 222) lam ɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 527) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 13) lam3; Meyer
(1947: #1485) lâm; Yue (1972: 245) lɐm 33 “colloquial character”; Rao (1996: 126)
lem 6 . ② 罧. U+7F67. Meyer (1947: #1485) lâm. ③ 冧. U+51A7. Lau (1977:
#1802) lam 6 “CC”.
109

8 leu 1 ‘to spit out’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 257) clù “colloquial word”. ② �舌累.
U+269F2. Meyer (1947: #1536) leu; Yue (1972: 263) lœ: 53 , løy̆ 53 (leui 1 ) “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #1862) leuh 1 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 122) lê 1 .
9 laam 3 ‘to step over’. ① �足嵐. U+2814F. Williams (1856: 309, 721) nám ɔ
(naam 3 ), lám ɔ “colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 495); Aubazac (1909: 13)
lám 3 ; Meyer (1947: #1436) laàm; Yue (1972: 237) lA:m 44 “colloquial character”; Lau
(1977: #1766) laam 3 “CC”, “Coll.”. ② �足南. U+280BE. Rao (1996: 157) nam 3
(naam 3 ), lam 3 .
10 gwui 6 ‘tired’. 癐. U+7650. Williams (1856: 187) kúi ɔ “colloquial word”;
Williams (1909 [1874]: 476) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 12) koui3; Meyer (1947:
#1421) kwooî; O'Melia (1959: 4: 83) kwoôi; Yue (1972: 365) ku:ĭ 33 (gui 6 ) “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #1069) gwooi 6 “CC”; Rao (1996: 82) gui 6 .
11 laap 3 ‘to gather together’. ① �扌匝. U+39DC. Williams (1856: 225) lápɔ
“colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 492) “unauthorized contraction”; Aubazac
(1909: 13) láp4 (laap 6 ); Meyer (1947: #1452) laàp; Yue (1972: 240) lA:p 4 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #1785 ) laap 6 (laap 6 ) “CC”, “Coll.”. ② 擸. U+64F8.
Williams (1856: 226) lápɔ (laap 6 ); Williams (1909 [1874]: 492); Rao (1996: 117) lab 3 .
12 kang 3 ‘capable’. 掯. U+63AF. Meyer (1947: #1050) k’àng; Yue (1972: 335)
k’ɐŋ 44 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #16609 kang 3 “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 112)
keng 3 .
13 na 2 ‘female’. 乸. U+4E78. Williams (1856: 306) c ná “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 586) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 18) na 2 ; Meyer (1947: #1926) ná;
O'Melia (1959: 4: 107) ná; Yue (1972: 234) nA: 35 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#2235) na 2 “CC”; Rao (1996: 157) na 2 .
14 nan 2 ‘to play with’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 309) c nan “colloquial word”. ② 撚.
U+649A. Aubazac (1909: 18) nan 2 ; Meyer (1947: #1962) nán; O'Melia (1959: 4:
108) nán; Yue (1972: 246) nɐn 35 , ni:n 35 ; Lau (1977: #2268) nan 2 “Coll.”; Rao (1996:
160) nen 2 , nin 2 (nin 2 ).
15 nam 2 ‘to think’. ① 諗. U+8AD7. Meyer (1947: #1960) năm (nam 5 ), nám; Yue
(1972: 245) nɐm 35 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2264) nam 2 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao
(1996: 159) nem 2 . ② 稔. U+7A14. O'Melia (1959: 4: 108) nám. ③ 惗. U+60D7.
Rao (1996: 159) nem 2 .
110

16 aai 3 ‘to yell’. ① 嗌. U+55CC. Williams (1856: 3) ái ɔ “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 921) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 1) ái 3 ; Meyer (1947: #11) aaì;
O'Melia (1959: 4: 1) aài; Yue (1972: 324) ŋA:ĭ 44 (ngaai 3 ), ʔA:ĭ 44 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #13) aai 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 163) ngai 3 (ngai 3 ), ai 3 . ② �口隘.
Meyer (1947: #11) aaì.
17 mau 1 ‘to squat’. ① 卯. U+536F. Williams (1909 [1874]: 519) “in Cantonese”.
② 蹘. U+8E58. Williams (1856: 281) cmau “colloquial word”; Williams (1909
[1874]: 519) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 16) mao 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1794) mau;
O'Melia (1959: 4: 100) mau. ③ 踎. U+8E0E. Yue (1972: 212) mɐŭ 53 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #2111) mau 1 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 151) meo 1 .
18 wing 1 ‘to throw away’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 668) cwing “colloquial word”. ②
�扌永. U+22AD5. Aubazac (1909: 43) wing 1 ; Meyer (1947: #3766) wing; O'Melia
(1959: 4: 223) wing; Lau (1977: #3236) wing 1 ; Rao (1996: 225) wing 6 (wing 6 ). ③ 扔.
U+6254. Yue (1972: 383) ŭɪŋ 53 .
19 mang 1 ‘to pull’. ① 掹. U+63B9. Williams (1856: 279) mang ɔ (mang 3 ) “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 565) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909:
16) mang 3 (mang 3 ); Rao (1996: 150) meng 1 , meng 3 (mang 3 ). ② 擝. U+64DD. Meyer
(1947: #1787) màng; O'Melia (1959: 4: 99) mang, màng (mang 3 ), maang (maang 1 );
Yue (1972: 214) mɐŋ 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2100) mang 1 “CC”; Lau
(1977: #2101) mang 3 (mang 3 ) “CC”; Rao (1996: 150) meng 1 , meng 3 (mang 3 ). ③
�口掹. Meyer (1947: #1787) màng.
20 ngou 4 ‘to shake’. ① �敖手. Williams (1856: 326) cngò; Aubazac (1909: 19)
ngó1; Meyer (1947: #2053) ngō; Yue (1972: 361) ngoŭ 21 “colloquial character”. ②
�扌敖. U+22CC6. Williams (1909 [1874]: 7); Meyer (1947: #2053) ngō; Lau
(1977: #2351) ngo 4 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 172) ngou 4 .
21 bou 1 ‘to boil; kettle’. ① 煲. U+7172. Williams (1856: 383) cpò “vulgar
character”; Aubazac (1909: 24) pó 1 ; Meyer (1947: #2403) po; O'Melia (1959: 4: 131)
po; Yue (1972: 227) poŭ 53 ; Lau (1977: #115) bo 1 “CC”; Lau (1977: #116) bo 1o “CC”;
Rao (1996: 12) bou 1 . ② �保灬. U+3DDB. Williams (1909 [1874]: 620)
“unauthorized”; Aubazac (1909: 24) pó 1 ; O’Melia (1959: 4: 131) po. ③ �火�保衣.
Meyer (1947: #2403) po.
111

CHAPTER 7
HIERARCHY OF CHARACTER CONSTRUCTION
AND USAGE PRINCIPLES
In order to determine which character construction and usage principles are
preferred over others, we examine the principle behind the earlier characters used for a
word and the latter ones that supersede it. Although phonetic loans are numerically
the most commonly used character construction and usage principle in this study, they
are not necessarily the most preferred principle, as they often represent the initial
attempts to transcribe a word. The four character construction and usage principles in
the model used here, signific-phonetic characters, co-signific characters, semantic
loans, and phonetic loans, yield six possible combinations to be compared. However,
only four of them are attested in this study: 1) signific-phonetic characters and
phonetic loans, 2) signific-phonetic characters and semantic loans, 3) co-signific
characters and phonetic loans, and 4) semantic loans and phonetic loans. Additionally,
the behavior of a fifth combination, signific-phonetic characters and co-signific
characters, may also be surmised.
7.1 Hegemony of Signific-Phonetic Characters
Signific-Phonetic characters, which are the analogue of the xingsheng 形聲
‘phonetic compounds’ principle in the traditional liushu ㈥書 model, is the dominant
112

character construction and usage principle outside of this study. It is commonly
known that the vast majority of characters belong to this category, which makes up
about 70% to 90% of all characters. Although the actual percentage varies depending
on the criteria used for classification and each particular corpus, it is still larger than
all the other categories combined.
Source 1
Williams
(1909: xlix)
Wieger
(1927: 10)
Li
(1977: 41) 2
Xiangxing
象形
象形
Zhishi
指事 指事
指事
Huiyi
會意
會意
113
Xingsheng
形聲
形聲
Zhuanzhu
轉注
轉注
Jiajie
假借
假借
Total
608 107 740 21810 372 598 24235
2.51% 0.44% 3.05% 89.99% 1.53% 2.47%
364 125 1167 7697 ? ? 10516
3.46% 1.19% 11.10% 73.19% ? ?
3.9% 1.3% 12.3% 81.2% 0.07% 1.2% ?
Table 7.1: Distribution of Character Construction and Usage Principles
7.1.1 Signific-Phonetic Characters and Co-Signific Characters
Although there are no attested cases of signific-phonetic characters
superseding co-signific characters in this study, there are also no cases of vice versa
happening. It is only under unusual circumstances that a signific-phonetic character is
superseded by a co-signific character, such as wāi 竵 ‘askew’, superseded by 歪,
which is composed of significs bù 不 ‘not’ and zhèng 正 ‘straight’; or cuān 爨 ‘to
parboil’, superseded by 汆, composed of significs rù 入 ‘to put in’ and shuǐ 水 ‘water’
(Norman 1988: 76-77). In both cases, the phonetic was obscure and orthographically
complex. However, given the numerical superiority of signific-phonetic characters

over co-signific characters, there is probably a strong preference for signific-phonetic
characters over co-signific characters.
7.1.2 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
Signific-Phonetic characters commonly supersede phonetic loans, and in many
cases retain the same phonetic, such as guk 6 ‘to bake’ 3 , which was first written with
局, an unmarked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word guk 6 局
‘bureau’. By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), a fo 2 火 ‘fire’ radical was added to it as a
signific, creating 焗.
Similarly, fan 3 ‘to sleep’ 4 was first written with 訓, an unmarked phonetic loan
of the completely homophonous word fan 3 訓 ‘to teach’. Later, a muk 6 目 ‘eye’
radical was added to it as a signific, creating 瞓. fan 3 ‘to sleep’ has been identified
with kwan 3 睏 ‘sleepy’ (Williams 1909: 255), which in turn is identified with kwan 3
困 ‘weary’. However, kwan 3 困 ‘weary’ is a less optimal phonetic than fan 3 訓 ‘to
teach’, as there is no direct relationship between the initials kw- /kw-/ and f- /f-/,
although it can be glimpsed in the h- /h-/ initial of that rare han 3 pronunciation that
Rao (1996) also gives, which suggests that f- /f-/ can be related to kw- /kw-/ through
*hu- /*hu-/ and *ku- /*ku-/.
An unmarked phonetic loan may transition to a marked phonetic loan first,
such as saang 2 ‘to scour’ 5 , which was first written with 省 and later �口省, phonetic
loans of the completely homophonous word saang 2 省 ‘to reduce’, but by the
beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac 1909), a sau 2 扌(手) ‘hand’ radical was
added to the phonetic as a signific, creating �扌省. Similarly, lam 1 ‘bud’ 6 was first
114

written with 林 and later 啉, phonetic loans of the semi-homophonous word lam 4 林
‘forest’, which differs in the tone register, yangping 陽平 (tone #1) rather than yinping
陰平 (tone #1). By the beginning of the twentieth century, a mik 6 冖 ‘cover’ radical
was added to the phonetic as a signific, creating 冧. Lau (1977) instead adds a chou 2
艹(草) ‘grass’ radical to the phonetic as a signific to create 菻.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
dap1 to hang
down
n/a ∅ ✓
U+55D2 嗒 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+35F3 �口答 ✓
U+265BF �耳荅 ✓
U+8037 耷 ✓
fan3 to sleep U+8A13 訓 ✓
U+7793 瞓 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
guk6 to bake U+5C40 局 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7117 焗 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
lam1 bud U+6797 林 ✓
U+5549 啉 ✓
U+51A7 冧 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+83FB 菻 ✓
lei6 tongue U+550E 唎 ✓
U+8137 脷 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
saang2 to scour U+7701 省 ✓
U+35C2 �口省 ✓ ✓
U+3A18 �扌省 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 7.2: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part I (History)
115

The transition from a phonetic loan to a signific-phonetic character does not
require the unmarked form of the former to ever have existed, such as dap 1 ‘to hang
down’ 7 , which existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Williams 1856), but is
only given a written form in later sources. As early as the late nineteenth century
(Williams 1909 [1874]), it was written with 嗒 or �口答, marked phonetic loans of
the semi-homophonous words daap 3 荅 ‘bean seeds’ or daap 3 答 ‘to reply’ (or just the
latter, as the 答 form is commonly substituted with 荅), which differ in the final, -aap
/-ap/ rather than -ap /-ɐp/, as well as the tone, yinqu 陰去 (tone #3) rather than yinping
陰平 (tone #1). Rao (1996) adds an yi 5 耳 ‘ear’ radical to the phonetic as a signific,
creating �耳荅, a reference to large ears hanging down. Similarly, lei 6 ‘tongue’ 8 was
first written with 唎, an marked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word
lei 6 利 ‘benefit’. Later, a yuk 6 月(肉) ‘flesh’ radical was added to the phonetic as a
signific, creating 脷.
The transition from phonetic loans to signific-phonetic characters is further
illustrated by the interaction between dam 1 ‘to prolong’ 9 , dam 2 ‘to dump; to pound’ 10 ,
and dam 3 ‘to drop down’ 11 . dam 2 ‘to dump; to pound’ and dam 3 ‘to drop down’ were
first written with 泵, a character constructed according to indeterminate principles. It
is unknown if 泵 began to be used for both words simultaneously, or if it was first
used for one and the other is a phonetic loan. By the beginning of the twentieth
century (Aubazac 1909), dam 2 ‘to dump; to pound’ was distinguished from dam 3 ‘to
drop down’ by adding a sau 2 扌(手) ‘hand’ radical as a signific, creating 揼. dam 1 ‘to
prolong’, which existed as early as the 1940s (Meyer 1947), was written with 泵, a
116

phonetic loan of dam 3 泵 ‘to drop down’, which differs in the tone, yinqu 陰去 (tone
#3) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1). By the late 1970s (Lau 1977), dam 3 ‘to drop
down’ was distinguished from dam 1 ‘to prolong’ by adding a si 1 糹(糸) ‘silk’ radical
as a signific, creating �糹泵, although Meyer (1947) gives a form with an extraneous
hau 2 口 ‘mouth’ radical, �口�糹泵, suggesting that this happened as early as the
1940s.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
dap1 to hang
down
U+55D2 嗒 daap3 荅 bean seeds
to reply
U+35F3 �口答 daap3 答
U+265BF �耳荅 yi5 耳 ear daap3 荅
U+8037 耷
fan3 to sleep U+8A13 訓 fan3 訓
U+7793 瞓 muk6 目 eye fan3 訓
117
bean seeds
to teach
to teach
guk6 to bake U+5C40 局 guk6 局 bureau
U+7117 焗 fo2 火 fire guk6 局 bureau
lam1 bud U+6797 林 lam4 林 forest
U+5549 啉 lam4 林 forest
U+51A7 冧 mik6 冖 cover lam4 林 forest
U+83FB 菻 chou2 艹(草) grass lam4 林 forest
lei6 tongue U+550E 唎 lei6 利 benefit
U+8137 脷 yuk6 月(肉) flesh lei6 利 benefit
saang2 to scour U+7701 省 saang2 省
U+35C2 �口省 saang2 省
U+3A18 �扌省 sau2 扌(手) hand saang2 省
to reduce
to reduce
to reduce
Table 7.3: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part I (Basis)

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
dam1 to
prolong
dam2 to dump;
to pound
dam3 to drop
down
U+6CF5 泵 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+63FC 揼 ✓
U+6CF5 泵 ✓ ✓
U+63FC 揼 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
�扌冘 ✓
U+6CF5 泵 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+260A5 �糹泵 ✓
�口�
糹泵
✓
U+9AE7 髧 ✓
Table 7.4: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part II (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
dam1 to prolong U+6CF5 泵 dam3 泵 to drop
down
U+63FC 揼 sau2 扌(手) hand dam3 泵 to drop
dam2 to dump;
to pound
dam3 to drop
down
118
down
U+6CF5 泵 dam2 泵 to dump;
to pound
U+63FC 揼 sau2 扌(手) hand dam2 泵 to dump;
to pound
U+628C 抌 sau2 扌(手) hand
U+6CF5 泵 dam3 泵 to drop
down
U+260A5 �糹泵 si1 糹(糸) silk dam3 泵 to drop
down
�口�糹泵 si1 糹(糸) silk dam3 �糹泵 to drop
down
U+9AE7 髧 daam6 髧 tresses
Table 7.5: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining the Same Phonetic, Part II (Basis)

In some cases, part of the phonetic is retained graphically in an abbreviated
form, such as lau 1 ‘coat’ 12 , which was first written with 蔞 or its variant form 蒟, an
unmarked phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word lau 1 蔞/蒟 ‘betel
pepper’. By the 1940s (Meyer 1947), the chou 2 艹(草) ‘grass’ radical had been
removed from 蔞 and a yi 1 衤(衣) ‘clothing’ radical added to it as a signific, creating
褸. Alternatively, 褸 could be analyzed as a signific-phonetic character with no
connection to 蔞, but that would make its phonetic the semi-homophonous lau 4 婁 ‘a
constellation’, which differs in the tone register, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than
yinping 陰平 (tone #1).
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
gwaan3 to fall
down
keui5 he, she,
it
U+6163 慣 ✓ ✓
U+8E80 躀 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6E20 渠 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+20372 �亻渠 ✓ ✓
U+4F62 佢 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
lau1 coat U+851E 蔞 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+8938 褸 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+849F 蒟 ✓
Table 7.6: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining an Abbreviated Form of the Phonetic (History)
Similarly, gwaan 3 ‘to fall down’ 13 was first written with 慣, an unmarked
phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word gwaan 3 慣 ‘accustomed’. By the
1940s (Meyer 1947), the sam 1 忄(心) ‘heart’ radical had been removed from 慣 and a
119

juk 1 足 ‘foot’ radical added to it as a signific, creating 躀. Alternatively, 躀 could be
analyzed as a signific-phonetic character with no connection to 慣, but that would
make its phonetic the less than optimal gun 3 貫 ‘string of coins’. Like lau 1 ‘coat’, it is
more probable that a completely homophonous phonetic was retained in an
abbreviated form than for a less than optimal phonetic to be selected that
coincidentally resembles the earlier phonetic graphically.
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
gwaan3 to fall down U+6163 慣 gwaan3 慣 accustomed
U+8E80 躀 juk1 足 foot gun3 貫
keui5 he, she, it U+6E20 渠 keui4 渠 drain
U+20372 �亻渠 yan4 亻(人) person keui4 渠 drain
U+4F62 佢 yan4 亻(人) person geui6 巨 giant
lau1 coat U+851E 蔞 lau1 蔞
U+8938 褸 yi1 衤(衣) clothing lau4 婁
U+849F 蒟 lau1 蒟
Table 7.7: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
and Retaining an Abbreviated Form of the Phonetic (Basis)
120
string of coins
betel pepper
a constellation
betel pepper
Likewise, keui 5 ‘he, she, it’ 14 was first written with 渠 and �亻渠, both of
which are attested in the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 (1716: 116, 633) as Wu 吳 region
words. 渠 is an unmarked phonetic loan of the semi-homophonous word keui 4 渠
‘drain’, which differs in the tone, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) rather than yangshang 陽上
(tone #5), while �亻渠 is a signific-phonetic character composed of a yan 4 亻(人)
‘person’signific and the same phonetic. However, by the mid-nineteenth century

(Williams 1856), 佢 was already the form that was “chiefly used” (Williams 1856:
186) rather than 渠, and by the late nineteenth century (Williams 1909 [1874]: 222),
渠 had been “superseded” by 佢 and �亻渠. By then 佢 was also the form that was
“alone used” (Williams 1909 [1874]: 222) rather than both 佢 and �亻渠, and said to
be a “contracted form” (Williams 1909 [1874]: 222) of the latter. Alternatively, 佢
could be analyzed as a signific-phonetic character with no connection to 佢 and
�亻渠, but that would make its phonetic an even less homophonous geui 6 巨 ‘giant’.
Sometimes, the transition from a phonetic loan to a signific-phonetic character
is the result of semantic specialization, such as sung 3 ‘side dishes’ 15 , which developed
from the verb sung 3 送 ‘to accompany’. By the 1950s (O’Melia), a sik 6 飠(食) radical
had been added to it as a signific, creating 餸. Similarly, dou 6 ‘ferry’ 16 , which is in
mainstream usage written with 渡, as in dou 6 syun 4 渡船 ‘ferryboat’, undistinguished
from the verb dou 6 渡 ‘to ford’ from which it developed. By the 1990s (Rao 1996),
the seui 2 氵( 水) ‘water’ radical had been removed from 渡 and a jau 1 舟 ‘boat’
radical added to it as a signific, creating 艔.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
dou6 ferry U+6E21 渡 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+8254 艔 ✓
sung3 side
dishes
U+9001 送 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+9938 餸 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 7.8: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
as a Result of Semantic Specialization (History)
121

Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
dou6 ferry U+6E21 渡 dou6 渡
sung3 side
dishes
122
to ford
U+8254 艔 jau2 舟 boat dou6 度 degree
U+9001 送 sung3 送
U+9938 餸 sik6 飠(食) to eat sung3 送
to accompany
to accompany
Table 7.9: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
as a Result of Semantic Specialization (Basis)
The transition from a phonetic loan to a signific-phonetic character can also
involve replacement of the phonetic unrelated to its degree of homophony, such as
saai 1 ‘to waste’ 17 , which existed as early as the mid-nineteenth century (Williams
1856), but is only given a written form in later sources. As early as the mid-nineteenth
century (Williams 1909 [1874]), it was written with unmarked and marked phonetic
loans of the semi-homophonous word saai 2 徙 ‘to move’, which differs in the tone,
yinshang 陰上 (tone #2) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1), and was written with the
marked form up to the present (Rao 1996). But by the 1940s (Meyer 1947), sau 2
扌(手) ‘hand’ and seui 2 氵(水) radicals were already added to the phonetic as
significs, creating �扌徙 and 漇. By the late 1970s (Lau 1977), it was written with
�扌晒, a signific-phonetic character composed of a sau 2 扌(手) ‘hand’ radical and a
semi-homophonous saai 3 晒 ‘to shine on’ phonetic, whose initial was formerly /ʃ-/
(Williams 1856: 417; O’Melia 1959: 4: 141) but now /s-/ (Yue 1972: 280). Although
it still differs in the tone, yinqu 陰去 (tone #3) rather than yinping 陰平 (tone #1), and
is not a more homophonous phonetic than saai 2 徙 ‘to move’, it is orthographically

less complex. The change of the phonetic from saai 2 徙 ‘to move’ to saai 3 晒 ‘to
shine on’ is perhaps motivated on analogy with the change for saai 3 , a quantifying
particle indicating completeness (see section 5.4).
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Yx1972 L1977 R1996
saai1 to waste n/a ∅ ✓
U+5F99 徙 ✓
U+5625 嘥 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+22CDC �扌徙 ✓
U+6F07 漇 ✓
�扌晒 ✓
Table 7.10: Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan
and Optimization of the Phonetic (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
saai1 to waste U+5F99 徙 saai2 徙 to move
U+5625 嘥 saai2 徙
U+22CDC �扌徙 sau2 扌(手) hand saai2 徙
U+6F07 漇 seui2 氵(水) water saai2 徙
�扌晒 sau2 扌(手) hand saai3 晒
123
to move
to move
to move
to shine on
Table 7.11: Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan
and Optimization of the Phonetic (Basis)
7.1.3 Signific-Phonetic Characters and Semantic Loans
Although there is only one case of a signific-phonetic character superseding a
co-signific character in this study, it indicates a preference for the former over the
latter. nung 1 ‘to scorch’ 18 was first written with 烘 or its variant form 灴, a semantic

loan of hung 4 烘/灴 ‘to toast’. By the beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac
1909), it was written with 燶, a signific-phonetic character composed of a fo 2 火 ‘fire’
signific and a semi-homophonous nung 4 農 ‘to farm’ phonetic, which differs in the
tone register, yangping 陽平 (tone #4) instead of yinping 陰平 (tone #1).
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
nung1 to scorch U+70D8 烘 ✓ ✓
U+7074 灴 ✓
U+71F6 燶 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 7.12: Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Semantic Loan (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
nung1 to scorch U+70D8 烘
U+7074 灴
U+71F6 燶 fo2 火 fire nung4 農
124
to farm
Table 7.13: Signific-Phonetic Character Superseding a Semantic Loan (Basis)
However, there is one case where a signific-phonetic character is superseded
by a semantic loan, but under unusual circumstances. kam 2 ‘to cover’, which
developed from the noun kam 1 衾 ‘blanket’, was first written with �口衾, a marked
phonetic loan, and was written with it up to at least the 1940s (Meyer 1947), but by the
late nineteenth century (Williams 1909 [1874]), a sau 2 扌(手) ‘hand’ radical had
already been added to the phonetic as a signific, creating 搇. But by the late 1970s

(Lau 1977), it was written with 冚, a semantic loan of ham 6 ‘to cover’, which was
formerly hom 6 in sources earlier than the mid-twentieth century (Williams 1856: 92;
Meyer 1947: #776). Besides the semantic similarity, ham 6 冚 ‘to cover’ is also
orthographically less complex and may perhaps also include elements of a phonetic
loan which differs in the manner of articulation of the homorganic initial consonant, h-
/h-/ rather than k- /k h -/, as well as the tone, yangqu 陽去 (tone #6) rather than yinshang
陰上 (tone #2).
There is also one case where a signific-phonetic character co-exists with, or
may be superseded by a semantic loan, but also under unusual circumstances. sit 6 ‘to
lose money’ 19 , as in sit 6 bun 2 ~本 ‘to lose money’, was written with 舌, �貝舌, or
餂, but by the beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac 1909), �貝舌 was the
only form that remained. However, Rao (1996) also lists 蝕, a semantic loan of sik 6
蝕 ‘to erode’, a word referring generically to any kind of loss over time, which is used
in the Mandarin synonym, shíběn 蝕本 ‘to lose money’. Although the compound
sit 6 bun 2 �貝舌本 ‘to lose money’ is attested in Williams (1856: 448), neither
*sik 6 bun 2 蝕本 nor *sit 6 bun 2 蝕本 are, suggesting that use of 蝕 for sit 6 ‘to lose
money’ is influenced by Mandarin usage. However, Rao (1996), who is the only
source to give the pronunciation as sit 3 , considers sik 6 to be the literary pronunciation,
which suggests that sit 6 ‘to lose money’ may have developed from sik 6 蝕 ‘to erode’ as
a variant pronunciation.
125

Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
kam2 to cover U+20E78 �口衾 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+6407 搇 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+519A 冚 ✓ ✓
sit6 to lose
money
U+820C 舌 ✓
U+27D73 �貝舌 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+9902 餂 ✓ ✓
U+8755 蝕 ✓
Table 7.14: Semantic Loans Superseding Signific-Phonetic Characters (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
kam2 to cover U+20E78 �口衾 kam1 衾 blanket
sit6 to lose
money
U+6407 搇 sau2 扌(手) hand kam1 衾 blanket
U+519A 冚
U+820C 舌 sit6 舌 tongue
U+27D73 �貝舌 bui6 貝 cowrie sit6 舌 tongue
U+9902 餂 sik6 食 to eat sit6 舌 tongue
U+8755 蝕
Table 7.15: Semantic Loans Superseding Signific-Phonetic Characters (Basis)
7.2 Co-Signific Characters Superseding Phonetic Loans
Although signific-phonetic characters usually supersede phonetic loans, there
is one case of a co-signific character superseding a phonetic loan, which indicates a
preference for co-signific characters over phonetic loans. hong 2 ‘young hen’ 20 , as in
gai 1 hong 2 鷄~, existed as early as the mid-eighteenth century (Williams 1856: 119),
where it was transcribed as ckaihong ɔ (gai 1 hong 6 ), but it is unclear what its written
126

form was intended to be, as Williams (1856) does not provide characters for
compounds. However, by the 1940s (Meyer 1947), when it was still pronounced
hong 6 , it was written with 項, a phonetic loan of the completely homophonous 21 word
hong 6 ‘nape’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
hong2 young
hen
U+9805 項 ✓ ✓
U+236BA �末�
n/a
成母
∅ ✓
Table 7.16: Co-Signific Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan (History)
Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Char Gloss
hong2 young hen U+9805 項 hong6 項 nape
U+236BA �末�成母
Table 7.17: Co-Signific Character Superseding a Phonetic Loan (Basis)
Yue (1972) does not give a written form, but Rao (1996), besides 項, also lists
�末�成母, a co-signific character composed of significs mei 6 未 ‘not yet’, sing 4 成
‘to become’, and mou 5 母 ‘mother’, which spells out the descriptive phrase
mei 6 sing 4 mou 5 未成母 ‘not yet become a mother’, a reference to a young hen which
has not yet laid eggs. �末�成母 is perhaps created on analogy with a similar co-
signific character, cheun 1 ‘animal egg’, which is written as �末�成肉 or 膥 (see
section 4.1), spelling out a similar phrase, mei 6 sing 4 yuk 6 肉 ‘not yet become flesh’.
127
✓

The fact that a co-signific character is created despite the existence of a phonetic loan
suggests that the former could potentially supersede the latter, especially since hong 6
項 ‘nape’ has not been the basis of a phonetic loan of a completely homophonous
word since at least the 1970s (Yue 1972), in light of the contemporary hong 2
pronunciation.
7.3 Semantic Loans Superseding Phonetic Loans
Although signific-phonetic characters usually supersede phonetic loans, there
is also a case of a semantic loan superseding a phonetic loan, which indicates a
preference for semantic loans over phonetic loans. laat 6 ‘row’ 22 was first written with
剌, a phonetic loan of the completely homophonous word laat 6 剌 ‘to cut’. By the late
1970s (Lau 1977), it was written with 列 or its variant form 迾 (HYDZD 6: 3828), a
semantic loan of lit 6 列/迾 ‘row’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
laat6 row U+524C 剌 ✓ ✓ ✓
U+5217 列 ✓
U+8FFE 迾 ✓
Table 7.18: Semantic Loans Superseding Phonetic Loans (History)
128

Word Gloss Unicode Char Phonetic Char Gloss
laat6 row U+524C 剌 laat6 剌
U+5217 列
U+8FFE 迾
129
to cut
Table 7.19: Semantic Loans Superseding Phonetic Loans (Basis)
7.4 Indeterminate Cases Being Superseded
Characters constructed or used according to indeterminate principles are often
superseded by signific-phonetic characters and semantic loans, which are described
below.
7.4.1 Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Indeterminate Cases
Characters constructed or used according to indeterminate principles can be
superseded by signific-phonetic characters, such as gat 6 ‘to raise up; to limp’ 23 , which
was first written with 跀. 跀 is composed of a juk 1 足 ‘foot’ signific and a yut 6 月
‘moon’ component, but the latter does not seem to be a phonetic nor a co-signific.
Although 跀 is attested in the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 (1716), it was used to write a
phonologically and semantically different word, ‘to cut off the feet as a punishment’
(1716: 1222).
Besides 跀 for both the ‘to raise up’ and ‘to limp’ senses, Williams (1909
[1874]: 230) also lists 觖, which for unexplained reasons he comments, “this form is
bettter”. 觖 is composed of a gok 3 角 ‘horn’ component and a kyut 3 夬 ‘to break off’
component, but neither component appears to be a signific nor a phonetic.

By the beginning of the twentieth century (Aubazac 1909), the ‘limp’ sense
was differentiated from the ‘to raise up’ sense by writing it with 趷 instead of 跀, a
signific-phonetic character composed of a juk 1 足 ‘foot’ signific and a semi-
homophonous hat 1 乞 ‘to beg’ phonetic, which differs in the manner of articulation of
the homorganic initial consonant, h- /h-/ rather than g- /k-/, as well as the tone register,
yinru 陰入 (tone #1) rather than yangru 陽入 (tone #6).
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
gat6 to raise up U+8DC0 跀 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+89D6 觖 ✓
U+8DB7 趷 ✓
U+4798 �走乞 ✓
U+8D8C 趌 ✓
gat6 to limp U+8DC0 跀 ✓ ✓
U+89D6 觖 ✓
U+8DB7 趷 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+4798 �走乞 ✓
U+8D8C 趌 ✓
Table 7.20: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Indeterminate Cases (History)
However, Rao (1996) lists 趷 for both senses, as well as �走乞 and 趌, which
are also signific-phonetic characters. �走乞 is composed of a jau 2 走 ‘to run’ signific
and the same semi-homophonous hat 1 乞 ‘to beg’ phonetic as 趷, while 趌 is
composed of a jau 2 走 ‘to run’ signific and a semi-homophonous gat 1 吉 ‘lucky’
130

phonetic, which differs in the tone register, yinru 陰入 (tone #1) rather than yangru
陽入 (tone #6).
Word Gloss Unicode Char Signific Char Gloss Phonetic Char Gloss
gat6 to raise up; to limp U+8DC0 跀
U+89D6 觖
U+8DB7 趷 juk1 足 foot hat1 乞
U+4798 �走乞 jau2 走 to run hat1 乞
131
to beg
to beg
U+8D8C 趌 jau2 走 to run gat1 吉 lucky
Table 7.21: Signific-Phonetic Characters Superseding Indeterminate Cases (Basis)
7.4.2 Semantic Loans Superseding Indeterminate Cases
Characters constructed or used according to indeterminate principles can be
superseded by semantic loans, such as lat 1 ‘to lose; to get rid of’ 24 , which was first
written with 甪. 甪 had a variety of prior uses, from a variant form of gok 3 角 ‘horn’
in the Kangxi zidian 康熙字典 (1716: 756) to the name of a beast pronounced as
*luk 1 盧谷切 in the Pianhai leibian 篇海類編 (HYDZD 1: 38), neither of which can
be reconciled phonetically nor semantically. However, the sources that it appears in
are apparently unaware of any prior usages, including Williams (1856), who even uses
it as an example of a newly created character:
Lastly, entirely new characters are made for some of them; as lat 甪 to
detach; páng 碰 a knock, which of course have no currency in other
parts of China, as neither their sound or meaning will be known
elsewhere. (xiii)

However, in a latter source he (1909 [1874]: 542) explains its form as being contracted
from gok 3 角 ‘horn’, “as if an antler had fallen”. In any case, by the 1940s (Huang
1941: 18), lat 1 ‘to lose; to get rid of’ was written with 甩, whose origins are equally
mysterious. 甩 is used in Mandarin for a word meaning ‘to throw away’, pronounced
as shuāi according to Williams, but shuǎi according to Giles (Williams 1909 [1874]:
718) and contemporary pronunciation. Meanwhile, Fenn (1942: 466) considered it to
be interchangeable with 摔, which is pronounced as seut 1 in Cantonese. The use of 甩
for lat 1 ‘to lose; to get rid of’ is apparently a semantic loan of the Mandarin synonym
shuǎi ‘to throw away’.
Word Gloss Unicode Char W1856 W1874 A1909 M1947 O1959 Y1972 L1977 R1996
lat1 to lose;
to get
rid of
7.5 Summary
U+752A 甪 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
U+7529 甩 ✓ ✓ ✓
Table 7.22: Semantic Loan Superseding an Indeterminate Case
Signific-Phonetic characters, which can indicate both the general meaning and
the pronunciation, is the most preferred character construction and usage principle. In
almost all cases, phonetic loans have been superseded by signific-phonetic characters,
rather than co-signific characters or semantic loans. A signific-phonetic character may
supersede an unmarked phonetic loan directly, a marked phonetic loan directly, or a
marked phonetic loan that was previously an unmarked phonetic loan. In almost all
132

cases, the character borrowed for a phonetic loan is retained as the phonetic of a
signific-phonetic character, although its form may be abbreviated graphically. In
some cases, the superseding of a phonetic loan by a signific-phonetic character is due
to the development of a new word or sense of a word, which is distinguished by the
addition of a radical as a signific, which transforms a phonetic loan into a signific-
phonetic character. On the other hand, signific-phonetic characters are never
superseded by phonetic loans.
The ranking of signific-phonetic characters with respect to co-signific
characters and semantic loans is not as undisputed as its hegemony over phonetic
loans, but the data suggests that they are also preferred over co-signific characters and
semantic loans. Although there are no attested cases of signific-phonetic characters
superseding co-signific characters in this study or vice versa, the numerical superiority
of signific-phonetic characters over co-signific characters suggests that signific-
phonetic characters are preferred over co-signific characters, and that such cases could
be expected to be found in the future. On the other hand, there is a case of a signific-
phonetic character superseding a semantic loan, as well as vice versa happening,
although the latter occurs only under extentuating circumstances. Similarly, the
numerical superiority of signific-phonetic characters also suggests that they are
preferred over semantic loans.
Since most phonetic loans are superseded by signific-phonetic characters if
they are superseded at all, there are few opportunities for a phonetic loan to be
superseded by a co-signific character or a semantic loan. However, there is a case
each of a co-signific character and a semantic loan superseding a phonetic loan, which
133

suggests that they are both preferred over phonetic loans. Furthermore, there are no
attested cases of co-signific characters and semantic loans being superseded by
phonetic loans in this study, and such cases are not expected to be found in the future.
While it is clear that signific-phonetic characters are at the top of the hierarchy
of preferred character construction and usage principles, phonetic loans at the bottom,
and co-signific characters and semantic loans higher than phonetic loans but below
signific-phonetic characters, the actual ranking of co-signific characters and semantic
loans is unknown, as there are no attested cases in this study of either superseding the
other. Tentatively, they are accorded equal status.
In actuality, the hierarchy is complicated by characters constructed or used
according to indeterminate principles. However, there are cases of signific-phonetic
characters and a semantic loan superseding such characters, although there are no
attested cases in this study of them being superseded by semantic loans or phonetic
loans. Hence, it is unclear what their place in the hierarchy is in relation to semantic
loans and phonetic loans, although the very undesirability of being unable to analyze
how a character is constructed or used suggests that should rank at the very bottom,
below phonetic loans. Therefore, the hierarchy of character construction and usage
principles from most to least preferred is: signific-phonetic characters, co-signific
characters and semantic loans (equal status), phonetic loans, and indeterminate cases.
134

ou 1 煲 ‘to boil; kettle’, gwui 6 癐 ‘tired’
Signific-Phonetic Characters
kam 2 ‘to cover’ 搇 � 冚
(c.f., ham 6 冚 ‘to cover’)
Co-Signific Characters
cheun 1 膥 ‘animal egg’,
ngan 1 奀 ‘tiny’
guk 6 ‘to bake’ 局 � 焗
lei 6 ‘tongue’ 唎 � 脷
saang 2 ‘to scour’
省 � �口省 � �扌省
Phonetic Loans
Marked Phonetic Loans
ge 3 嘅 ‘genitive particle’, yai 5 �口兮 ‘bad’
dei 6 ‘plural marker’ 地 � 哋
Indeterminate Cases
135
nung 1 ‘to scorch’ 烘 � 燶
Semantic Loans
dau 3 竇 ‘den; nest’
(c.f., dau 6 竇‘hole’),
pok 1 泡 ‘blister’
(c.f., pou 5 泡 ‘blister’)
hong 6 ‘young hen’
項 � �未�成母
Unmarked Phonetic Loans
mat 1 /me 1 乜 ‘what’ (c.f., me 2 乜 ‘to squint’),
ngok 6 咢 ‘to raise the head’ (c.f., ngok 6 咢 ‘to beat a drum’)
lung 5 槓 ‘trunk’, nap 6 湆 ‘sticky’
laat 6 ‘row’
剌� 列/迾
lat 1 ‘to lose; to get rid of’ 甪 � 甩
gat 6 ‘to raise up; to limp’
跀, 觖 � 趷, �走乞, 趌
Figure 7.1: Hierarchy of Character Construction and Usage Principles

Endnotes
1 Wieger (1927) and Li’s (1977) figures are based on the Shuowen jiezi 說文解字 (AD
100), which contains 9353 or 10,516 characters, depending on whether the 1163
character appendix is included in the count. Williams (1909) does not specify his
corpus, but it is clearly a later and larger work.
2
The figures from Li Xiaoding’s Hanzi shihua (Taipei: Lianjing, 1977) are cited in
Norman (1988: 267).
3 guk 6 ‘to bake’. ① 局. U+5C40. Williams (1856: 188) kukɔ; Williams (1909
[1874]: 215) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 12) kouk4. ② 焗. U+7117. Meyer
(1947: #1329) kûk; O'Melia (1959: 4: 76) kûk; Yue (1972: 363) kʊk 3 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #995) guk 6 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 82) gug 6 .
4 fan 3 ‘to sleep’. ① 訓. U+8A13. Williams (1909 [1874]: 255) “unauthorized”, “in
Cantonese”. ② 瞓. U+7793. Williams (1856: 47) fan ɔ “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 255) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 1) fan 3 ; Meyer
(1947: #484) fàn; O'Melia (1959: 4: 33) fàn; Yue (1972: 213) fɐn 44 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #681) fan 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 56) fen 3 , hen 3 (han 3 ).
5 saang 2 ‘to scour’. ① 省. U+7701. Williams (1909 [1874]: 695) “in Cantonese”.
② �口省. U+35C2. Williams (1856: 425) c sháng “colloquial word”; Williams
(1909 [1874]: 695) “in Cantonese”. ③ �扌省. U+3A18. Aubazac (1909: 26)
sháng 2 ; Meyer (1947: #2604) shaáng; O'Melia (1959: 4: 142) sháang; Yue (1972:
284) sA:ŋ 35 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2620) saang 2 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao
(1996: 191) sang 2 .
6 lam 1 ‘bud’. ① 啉. U+5549. Williams (1856: 221) clam. ② 林. U+6797.
Williams (1909 [1874]: 526) “in Cantonese”. ③ 冧. U+51A7. Aubazac (1909: 13)
lam 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1478) lam; Yue (1972: 245) lɐm 53 “colloquial character”; Rao
(1996: 125) lem 3 . ④ 菻. U+83FB. Lau (1977: #1800) lam 1o “CC”.
7 dap 1 ‘to hang down’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 507) tapɔ “colloquial word”. ② 嗒.
U+55D2. Meyer (1947: #3019) tap, t’aàp (taap 3 ); Yue (1972: 248) tɐp 5 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #497) dap 1o “CC”, “Coll.”. ③ �口答. U+35F3. Lau (1977:
#497) dap 1o “CC”, “Coll.”. ④ �耳荅. U+265BF. Rao (1996: 33) deb 1 . ⑤ 耷.
U+8037. Rao (1996: 33) deb 1 .
8 lei 6 ‘tongue’. ① 唎. U+550E. Williams (1909 [1874]: 512) “in Cantonese”. ② 脷.
U+8137. Williams (1856: 235) lí ɔ “colloquial word”; Aubazac (1909: 14) li3; Meyer
136

(1947: #1525) leî; Yue (1972: 254) leĭ 33 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #1852) lei 6
“CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 125) léi 6 .
9 dam 1 ‘to prolong’. ① 泵. U+6CF5. Meyer (1947: #2999) tam; Yue (1972: 245)
tɐm 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #486) dam 1 “CC”, “Coll.”. ② 揼. U+63FC.
Rao (1996: 37) dem 1 .
10 dam 2 ‘to dump; to pound’. ① 泵. U+6CF5. Williams (1856: 498) c tam
“colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 858) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”. ②
揼. U+63FC. Aubazac (1909: 30) tam 2 ; Meyer (1947: #3000) tám; O'Melia (1959: 4:
171) tám; Yue (1972: 245) tɐm 35 “colloquial word”; Lau (1977: #487) dam 2 “Coll.”.
③ 抌. U+628C. Rao (1996: 37) dem 2 .
11 dam 3 ‘to drop down’. ① 泵. U+6CF5. Williams (1856: 498) tam ɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 858) “unauthorized”, “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909:
30) tam 3 , tam 1 (dam 1 ); Meyer (1947: #3001) tàm; O'Melia (1959: 4: 171) tàm; Yue
(1972: 245) t’ɐm 44 “colloquial character”. ② �糹泵. U+260A5. Lau (1977: #488)
dam 3 “CC”, “Coll.”. ③ �口�糹泵. Meyer (1947: #3000) tàm. ④ 髧. U+9AE7.
Rao (1996: 37) dem 3 , dem 6 (dam 6 ).
12 lau 1 ‘coat’. ① 蔞. U+851E. Williams (1856: 226) clau “colloquial word”;
Aubazac (1909: 13) lao 1 ; Meyer (1947: #1491) lau. ② 褸. U+8938. Meyer (1947:
#1491) lau; Lau (1977: #1814) lau 1o “CC”; Rao (1996: 128) leo 1 , leo 5 (lau 5 ). ③ 蒟.
U+849F. Williams (1856: 226) clau “colloquial word”.
13 gwaan 3 ‘to fall down’. ① 慣. U+6163. Williams (1856: 211) kwán ɔ ; Meyer
(1947: #1360) kwaàn. ② 躀. U+8E80. Meyer (1947: #1363) kwaàng (gwaang 3 );
O'Melia (1959: 4: 79) kwàang (gwaang 3 ); Yue (1972: 372) kwA:n 44 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #1023) gwaan 3 “CC”; Rao (1996: 79) guan 3 .
14 keui 5 ‘he, she, it’. ① 渠. U+6E20. Williams (1856: 186) ck’ü (keui 4 ); Williams
(1909 [1874]: 222); Rao (1996: 112) kêu 5 . ② �亻渠. U+20372. Williams (1909
[1874]: 222) “in Cantonese”; Rao (1996: 112) kêu 5 . ③ 佢. U+4F62. Williams (1856:
186) c k’ü; Williams (1909 [1874]: 222) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 12) k’u2;
Meyer (1947: #1318) k’uĭ; O'Melia (1959: 4: 76) k’ŭi; Yue (1972: 354) k’œy̆ 24 ; Lau
(1977: #1723) kui 5 “CC”; Rao (1996: 112) kêu 5 .
15 sung 3 ‘side dishes’. ① 送. U+9001. Williams (1856: 483) sung ɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 741) “in Cantonese”; Meyer (1947: #2891) sùng. ②
餸. U+9938. O'Melia (1959: 4: 162) sùng; Yue (1972: 318) sʊŋ 44 “colloquial
character”; Lau (1977: #2976) sung 3 “CC”, “Coll.”; Rao (1996: 209) sung 3 .
137

16 dou 6 ‘ferry’. ① 渡. U+6E21. Williams (1856: 536) tò ɔ ; Williams (1909 [1874]:
849); Meyer (1947: #3149) tô; O'Melia (1959: 4: 184) tô; Yue (1972: 273) toŭ 33 ; Lau
(1977: #580) do 6 . ② 艔. U+8254. Rao (1996: 47) dou 6-2 (dou 6-2 ).
17 saai 1 ‘to waste’. ① n/a. Williams (1856: 404) csái “colloquial word”. ② 徙.
U+5F99. Williams (1909 [1874]: 300) “in Cantonese”. ③ 嘥. U+5625. Williams
(1909 [1874]: 300) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 25) sái 1 ; Meyer (1947: #2525)
saai; Yue (1972: 280) sA:ĭ 53 “colloquial character”; Rao (1996: 187) sai 1 . ④ �扌徙.
U+22CDC. Meyer (1947: #2525) saai. ⑤ 漇. U+6F07. Meyer (1947: #2525) saai.
⑥ �扌晒. Lau (1977: #2592) saai 1 “CC”, “Coll.”.
18 nung 1 ‘to scorch’. ① 烘. U+70D8. Williams (1856: 337) cnung “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 381) “in Cantonese”. ② 灴. U+7074. Williams
(1909 [1874]: 381) “in Cantonese”. ③ 燶. U+71F6. Aubazac (1909: 21) noung 1 ;
Meyer (1947: #2124) nung; Yue (1972: 274) nʊŋ 53 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977:
#2410) nung 1 ; Rao (1996: 175) nung 1 .
19 sit 6 ‘to lose money’. ① 舌. U+820C. Williams (1909 [1874]: 689). ② �貝舌.
U+27D73. Williams (1856: 448) shítɔ “colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]:
6899 “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 28) shit4; Meyer (1947: #2742) shît; O'Melia
(1959: 4: 152) shît; Yue (1972: 307) si:t 3 “colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #2847)
sit 6 ; Rao (1996: 230) xid 3 (sit 3 ), xig 6 . ③ 餂. U+9902. Williams (1856: 448) shítɔ
“colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 689) “in Cantonese”. ④ 蝕. U+8755.
Rao (1996: 230) xid 3 (sit 3 ), xig 6 (sik 6 ).
20 hong 2 ‘young hen’. ① 項. U+9805. Meyer (1947: #1004) kaihông* (gai 1 hong 6 );
Rao (1996: 67) gei 1 hong 6-2 . ② �末�成母. U+236BA. Rao (1996: 67) gei 1 hong 6-2 .
③ n/a. Yue (1972: 358) kaĭ 53 hɔ:ŋ 35 .
21 This may only be an unmarked phonetic loan of a semi-homophonous word, since
Meyer (1947) transcribes it as hông*, where the asterisk denotes an “variant tone”
(“explanatory notes”, 2). Presumably, Meyer meant hong 6-2 , a pronunciation which is
given in later sources (Yue 1972; Rao 1996), but this is not clearly indicated.
However, the choice of hong 6 項 ‘nape’ as the basis of a phonetic loan suggests that
this decision was made while ‘young hen’ was still pronounced gai 1 hong 6 , as given by
earlier sources such as Williams (1856).
138

22 laat 6 ‘row’. ① 剌. U+524C. Williams (1909 [1874]: 492) “in Cantonese”; Meyer
(1947: #1458) laât; Yue (1972: 241) lA:t 3 “colloquial character”. ② 列. U+5217.
Lau (1977: #1789) laat 6 . ③ 迾. U+8FFE. Rao (1996: 117) lad 6 .
23 gat 6 ‘to raise up; to limp’. ① 跀. U+8DC0. Williams (1856: 136) katɔ
“colloquial word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 959) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 47)
kat 4 ; Meyer (1947: #1059) kât; Yue (1972: 337) kɐt 3 “colloquial character”. ② 觖.
U+89D6. Williams (1909 [1874]: 230) “in Cantonese”. ③ 趷. U+8DB7. Aubazac
(1909: 47) kat 4 ; Meyer (1947: #1060) kât; Yue (1972: 337) kɐt 3 “colloquial character”;
Rao (1996: 66) ged 6 . ④ �走乞. U+4798. Rao (1996: 66) ged 6 . ⑤ 趌. U+8D8C.
Rao (1996: 66) ged 6 .
24 lat 1 ‘to lose; to get rid of’. ① 甪. U+752A. Williams (1856: 226) latɔ “colloquial
word”; Williams (1909 [1874]: 542) “in Cantonese”; Aubazac (1909: 13) lat 4 ; Meyer
(1947: #1490) lat; O'Melia (1959: 4: 85) lat. ② 甩. U+7529. Yue (1972: 249) lɐt 5
“colloquial character”; Lau (1977: #1810) lat 1 ° “CC”; Rao (1996: 123) led 1 .
139

CHAPTER 8
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this work, a methodology has been introduced for analyzing the
orthographic change in Cantonese dialect characters (which may be extended to
Chinese characters in general) by tracing the written forms used to write a word using
sources where the pronunciation and meaning are reliably indicated. These sources
have been post-mid-nineteenth century bilingual dictionaries, mostly authored by and
for a foreign readership with the aid of native informants. Using a modified model
based on the traditional liushu 六書 model of character construction and usage
principles, the changes in the written forms have been analyzed as a transition from
one principle to another, or as principle-internal optimizations. In this way, the
various principles may be ranked by how preferred they are, which in the data set used
yielded (in descending order of preference): signific-phonetic characters, co-signific
and semantic loans (tie), and phonetic loans.
A diachronic study of the various written forms used and what kinds of
orthographic changes may occur has a number of practical applications, including: 1)
the dating of undated documents by the particular written forms used for certain
words, 2) the identification of living words in earlier documents that are written with
forms that are no longer familiar, 3) additional insights into the etymology of words
140

from their earlier written forms when the etymological links were still recognized, 4)
assessing the most appropriate written form to use given great synchronic variation,
and 5) predicting earlier and future written forms that may be expected to be found.
Certain issues and questions still remain at the end of this work, such as the
possibility of characters whose origins predate the earliest sources used in this study.
Similarly, there may also be chronological issues with having to use later editions of
Meyer (1947) and O’Melia (1959), as they may only reflect the usage that was current
at the time of the first edition 1 . Furthermore, some characters, especially in Meyer
(1947), were not analyzed because they appeared to be idiosyncratic to that work and
rarely appeared in other sources used in the study. A number of the characters in Rao
(1996) also presented a problem, as they were often very different from those in near-
contemporary sources such as Lau (1977) and Yue (1972). It is suspected that there
may be some prescriptivism on the parts of the compilers of Rao (1996) in providing
what is believed to be the ‘etymological character’, or a regional difference in written
forms. It is believed that both cases may be resolved with the addition of more
sources, providing more chronological and regional detail.
Given the constraints and time and resources, certain design decisions had to
be made concerning the kinds of materials used in this study. However, during the
search for sources, a number of non-dictionary sources were discovered and/or
acquired. Some were textbooks and phrasebooks, such as T. Lathrop Stedman and
K.P. Lee’s A Chinese and English Phrase Book in the Canton Dialect (1888), while
others were partial Bible translations of the New Testament. While they did not meet
the requirements for sources outlined in chapter 3 (see section 3.1), they may be used
141

in the future to provide corroborating evidence. Some dictionary sources that did not
meet the requirements, such as Chalmers (1878), may likewise be used to provide
supplementary data.
In some cases, it may be worth relaxing or waiving the requirements altogether
for older sources, such as for Elijah Coleman Bridgman’s A Chinese Chrestomathy in
the Canton Dialect (1841), Robert Morrison’s Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect
(1828), or the eighteenth century Sino-Portuguese glossary in the Aomen Ji Lue
澳門記略 analyzed by Chan (1982, 1994), simply to extend the time period covered to
before the mid-nineteenth century. A number of words, such as m 4 唔 ‘not’, mou 5 冇
‘to not have’, ma 1 孖 ‘twin’, mat 1 乜 ‘what’, and na 2 乸 ‘female’, have always been
written with the same form within the sources used in this study 2 , suggesting that they
have existed much earlier, or that other written forms may be found in earlier sources.
It was fortunate that Samuel Wells Williams’ A Tonic Dictionary of the
Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect (1856) and his A Syllabic Dictionary of the
Chinese Language Arranged According to the Wu-Fang Yüan Yin (1874) 3 were
available, as they essentially represent two editions of a work by the same author,
allowing one to eliminate individual authors’ idiosyncrasies in the choice of written
forms from the equation. However, it was not possible to acquire editions of Bernard
F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe’s The Student’s Cantonese-English Dictionary
earlier than the third edition (1947), or Thomas O’Melia’s First-Year Cantonese
earlier than the fourth edition (1959), which were originally published in 1935 and
142

1938, respectively. If these become available, it will be worth comparing how the
written forms in the earlier editions differ from that of latter editions, if at all.
A number of dictionary-like sources that did fit the criteria outlined in chapter
3 (see section 3.1) were discovered or acquired after the eight sources used in this
study had been decided upon, such as William Lobscheid’s A Chinese and English
Dictionary (1871), which would have presented another source of data for Cantonese
dialect characters as used in the late nineteenth century. Near the end of completion of
this work, it was discovered that there finally was interest in reprinting old Cantonese
materials 4 , which will be a welcome remedy to the inevitable dwindling number of
fragile originals that were used in this study. Hopefully, other sources will become
available that will allow filling in some of the underrepresented time periods in this
study. Furthermore, the publication of Kwan-hin Cheung and Robert S. Bauer’s
forthcoming monograph enumerating several hundred Cantonese dialect characters
will provide an appreciated aid in planning an expansion of the data set analyzed in
this work.
143

Endnotes
1 I thank Professor Marjorie Chan for this observation. Hopefully this issue may be
addressable in the future if the earlier editions become available.
2 I thank Professor Marjorie Chan for this observation. The character 孖 with a “ma”
reading was used for transliteration in the Sino-Portuguese glossary of Yin Guangren
印廣任 and Zhang Rulin’s 張汝霖 mid-eighteenth century Aomen ji lue 澳門記略,
such as 孖古度 or 孖古路 for Portuguese magro ‘thin’.
3 A 1909 edition by the North China Union College with the entries rearranged was
actually used for this study, but the content is essentially the same as the 1874 original,
and has been treated as such.
4 Ganesha Publishing’s reprints of four nineteenth century Cantonese dictionaries,
including Morrison (1828), Williams (1856), and Williams (1874), scheduled to be
distributed by the University of Chicago Press in November 2001.
144

URO:
APPENDIX A
CHARACTERS BY UNICODE CODEPOINT
U+4E2A 个 go 2
U+4E2B 丫 a 1
U+4E5C 乜 mat 1
U+4E78 乸 na 2
U+4F62 佢 keui 5
U+4FC2 係 hai 2
U+5003 倃 gau 6
U+500B 個 go 2
U+507D 偽 ngai 1
U+5187 冇 mou 5
U+519A 冚 ham 6
U+519A 冚 kam 2
U+51A7 冧 lam 1
U+51A7 冧 lam 6
U+5217 列 laat 6
U+524C 剌 laat 6
U+5366 卦 gwa 3
U+536F 卯 mau 1
U+5403 吃 yaak 3
U+5416 吖 a 1
U+5438 吸 ngap 1
U+543D 吽 ngau 6
U+5440 呀 a 1
U+5443 呃 ngak 1
U+5464 呤 laang 6
U+5481 咁 gam 3
U+5497 咗 jo 2
U+54A2 咢 ngok 6
U+54A9 咩 me 1
U+54AA 咪 mai 5
145
that
sentence-final particle
what
female
he, she, it
to be at
lump
that
to beg
to not have
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’
to cover
bud
to pile up
row
row
sentence-final particle
to squat
to eat
sentence-final particle
to jabber
see ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’
sentence-final particle
to trick
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’
so (quantity)
perfective aspect marker
to raise the head
sentence-final particle
don’t

U+54AD 咭 kat 1
U+54AF 咯 lok 3
U+54CB 哋 dei 6
U+54E3 哣 dau 6
U+550E 唎 lei 6
U+5514 唔 m 4
U+551E 唞 tau 2
U+5525 唥 laang 6
U+5528 唨 jo 2
U+552A 唪 baang 6
U+5549 啉 lam 1
U+555D 啝 wo 5
U+5569 啩 gwa 3
U+5571 啱 ngaam 1
U+5572 啲 di 1
U+5587 喇 la 3
U+558A 喊 ham 6
U+558E 喎 wo 5
U+5590 喐 yuk 1
U+55AB 喫 yaak 3
U+55BA 喺 hai 2
U+55BC 喼 gip 1
U+55CC 嗌 aai 3
U+55D2 嗒 dap 1
U+55EE 嗮 saai 3
U+55F0 嗰 go 2
U+5605 嘅 ge 3
U+561C 嘜 mak 1
U+561E 嘞 la 3
U+5622 嘢 ye 5
U+5625 嘥 saai 1
U+5625 嘥 saai 3
U+5649 噉 gam 2
U+564F 噏 ngap 1
U+5664 噤 tam 3
U+569C 嚜 mak 1
U+569F 嚟 lai 4
U+56A1 嚡 haai 4
U+56A4 嚤 mo 1
U+56B9 嚹 la 3
U+56BF 嚿 gau 6
U+5730 地 dei 6
146
card
sentence-final particle
plural marker
see ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’
tongue
not
to rest
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’
perfective aspect marker
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’
bud
sentence-final particle
sentence-final particle
correct
some
sentence-final particle
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’
sentence-final particle
to move
to eat
to be at
bag
to yell
to hang down
quantifying particle
that
genitive particle
mark
sentence-final particle
thing
to waste
quantifying particle
so (manner)
to jabber
to deceive
mark
to come
coarse
slow
sentence-final particle
lump
plural marker

U+57DC 埜 ye 5
U+5940 奀 ngan 1
U+5940 奀 ngan 3
U+5B32 嬲 nau 1
U+5B56 孖 ma 1
U+5B6D 孭 me 1
U+5B7B 孻 laai 1
U+5C40 局 guk 6
U+5CA9 岩 ngaam 1
U+5F0A 弊 bai 6
U+5F99 徙 saai 1
U+5F99 徙 saai 3
U+60D7 惗 nam 2
U+60F1 惱 nau 1
U+6163 慣 gwaan 3
U+6254 扔 wing 1
U+6264 扤 ngat 1
U+6296 抖 tau 2
U+62CE 拎 ning 1
U+6382 掂 dim 6
U+639F 掟 deng 3
U+63AF 掯 kang 3
U+63B9 掹 mang 1
U+63FC 揼 dam 1
U+63FC 揼 dam 2
U+63FE 揾 wan 2
U+6407 搇 kam 2
U+6423 搣 mit 1
U+642D 搭 dap 6
U+6435 搵 wan 2
U+6469 摩 mo 1
U+6498 撘 dap 6
U+649A 撚 nan 2
U+64C1 擁 ung 2
U+64DD 擝 mang 1
U+64F0 擰 ning 1
U+64F8 擸 laap 3
U+651E 攞 lo 2
U+6541 敁 dim 6
U+6562 敢 gam 2
U+6625 春 cheun 1
U+6652 晒 saai 3
147
thing
tiny
to jiggle the feet
angry
twin
to carry on the back
last (child)
to bake
correct
bad
to waste
quantifying particle
to think
angry
to fall down
to throw away
to cram
to rest
to carry; to bring
straight
to throw
capable
to pull
to prolong
to dump; to pound
to find
to cover
to pinch; to tear
to pound
to find
slow
to pound
to play with
to push
to pull
to carry; to bring
to gather together
to take
straight
so (manner)
animal egg
quantifying particle

U+66F1 曱 gaat 6
U+66F3 曳 yai 5
U+6717 朗 long 2
U+676C 杬 laam 2
U+6797 林 lam 1
U+67B6 架 ga 3
U+68F5 棵 po 1
U+69D3 槓 lung 5
U+6A16 樖 po 1
U+6B16 欖 laam 2
U+6B6A 歪 me 2
U+6C39 氹 tam 5
U+6CE1 泡 pok 1
U+6CF5 泵 dam 1
U+6CF5 泵 dam 2
U+6CF5 泵 dam 3
U+6E20 渠 keui 5
U+6E21 渡 dou 6
U+6E46 湆 nap 6
U+6F07 漇 saai 1
U+7074 灴 nung 1
U+70D8 烘 nung 1
U+7117 焗 guk 6
U+712B 焫 naat 3
U+7172 煲 bou 1
U+71F6 燶 nung 1
U+7518 甘 gam 3
U+7529 甩 lat 1
U+752A 甪 lat 1
U+7534 甴 jaat 6
U+7650 癐 gwui 6
U+7684 的 di 1
U+7701 省 saang 2
U+7732 眲 ngak 1
U+7793 瞓 fan 3
U+77F4 矴 deng 3
U+7A14 稔 nam 2
U+7A9E 窞 tam 5
U+7AC7 竇 dau 3
U+7B2A 笪 daat 3
U+7B87 箇 go 2
U+7BE2 篢 lung 5
148
see gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’
bad
to rinse
olive
bud
sentence-final particle
classifier for plants
trunk
classifier for plants
olive
crooked
pit; cesspool
blister
to prolong
to dump; to pound
to drop down
he, she, it
ferry
sticky
to waste
to scorch
to scorch
to bake
to burn
to boil; kettle
to scorch
so (quantity)
to lose; to get rid of
to lose; to get rid of
see gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’
tired
some
to scour
to trick
to sleep
to throw
to think
pit; cesspool
den; nest
spot
that
trunk

U+7C73 米 mai 5
U+7DD9 緙 kwaak 1
U+7DFC 緼 wan 3
U+7E15 縕 wan 3
U+7E88 纈 lit 3
U+7F45 罅 la 3
U+7F67 罧 lam 6
U+8037 耷 dap 1
U+8137 脷 lei 6
U+814D 腍 nam 4
U+81A5 膥 cheun 1
U+81B6 膶 yeun 6
U+820C 舌 sit 6
U+8254 艔 dou 6
U+83FB 菻 lam 1
U+849F 蒟 lau 1
U+851E 蔞 lau 1
U+8755 蝕 sit 6
U+8938 褸 lau 1
U+89D6 觖 gat 6
U+8A13 訓 fan 3
U+8AD7 諗 nam 2
U+8D8C 趌 gat 6
U+8DB7 趷 gat 6
U+8DC0 跀 gat 6
U+8E0E 踎 mau 1
U+8E58 蹘 mau 1
U+8E80 躀 gwaan 3
U+8E9D 躝 laan 1
U+8FFE 迾 laat 6
U+9001 送 sung 3
U+9017 逗 dau 6
U+90C1 郁 yuk 1
U+91CE 野 ye 5
U+9209 鈉 naat 3
U+93EC 鏬 la 3
U+9628 阨 ngak 1
U+963B 阻 jo 2
U+978B 鞋 haai 4
U+97DE 韞 wan 3
U+9805 項 hong 2
U+9902 餂 sit 6
149
don’t
loop; to loop
to confine
to confine
knot
sentence-final particle
to pile up
to hang down
tongue
tender
animal egg
animal liver
to lose money
ferry
bud
coat
coat
to lose money
coat
to raise up; to limp
to sleep
to think
to raise up; to limp
to raise up; to limp
to raise up; to limp
to squat
to squat
to fall down
to crawl
row
side dishes
see ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’
to move
thing
to burn
sentence-final particle
to trick
perfective aspect marker
coarse
to confine
young hen
to lose money

U+9938 餸 sung 3
U+9AE7 髧 dam 3
U+9ECE 黎 lai 4
U+9ED0 黐 chi 1
CJK Extension A:
U+34E4 �吉刂 gat 1
U+35C2 �口省 saang 2
U+35CE �口架 ga 3
U+35F3 �口答 dap 1
U+3664 �土虖 la 3
U+39DC �扌匝 laap 3
U+39EC �巩手 ung 2
U+3A06 �扌林 lam 6
U+3A18 �扌省 saang 2
U+3A97 �咅攴 tau 2
U+3DDB �保灬 bou 1
U+4798 �走乞 gat 6
U+47F4 �足辰 ngan 3
CJK Extension B:
150
side dishes
to drop down
to come
to stick
U+20372 �亻渠 keui 5
U+20BCB �口兮 yai 5
U+20C41 �口氹 tam 3
U+20C53 �口危 ngai 1
U+20D15 �口妙 miu 2
U+20DA7 �口店 dim 6
U+20E78 �口衾 kam 2
U+20E98 �口浪 long 2
U+20F2E �口偽 ngai 1
U+20FB4 �口棒 baang 6
U+20FD1 �口感 ham 6
U+2103E �口�日絲 ngap 1
U+210C7 �口弊 bai 6
U+210C8 �口緙 kwaak 1
U+210C9 �口駕 ga 3
U+21681 �敝大 bai 6
U+22AD5 �扌永 wing 1
U+22B2E �扌戎 ung 2
U+22C55 �扌耷 dap 6
to stab
to scour
sentence-final particle
to hang down
sentence-final particle
to gather together
to push
to pile up
to scour
to rest
to boil; kettle
to raise up; to limp
to jiggle the feet
he, she, it
bad
to deceive
to beg
to purse the lips
straight
to cover
to rinse
to beg
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6
to jabber
bad
loop; to loop
sentence-final particle
bad
to throw away
to push
to pound

U+22CC6 �扌敖 ngou 4
U+22CDC �扌徙 saai 1
U+236BA �未�成母 hong 2
U+23CB7 �氵�囗又 nap 6
U+24DB8 �疒那 na 1
U+24E3B �疒拏 na 1
U+25EFF �米离 chi 1
U+25F1D �米禽 chi 1
U+260A5 �糹泵 dam 3
U+265BF �耳荅 dap 1
U+2688A �月暴 pok 1
U+269F2 �舌累 leu 1
U+27A3E �言��冖八木 tam 3
U+27D2F �貝子 me 1
U+27D2F �貝子 me 1
U+27D73 �貝舌 sit 6
U+280BE �足南 laam 3
U+2814F �足嵐 laam 3
U+28EF2 �阝虖 la 3
U+294E5 �岳頁 ngok 6
U+2994B �馬馬 ngau 6
Not in Unicode as of Version 3.1:
�口兜 dau 3
�口扱 dap 6
�口捧 baang 6
�口掹 mang 1
�口揖 ngap 1
�口笞 chi 1
�口鏬 la 3
�口隘 aai 3
�口隙 kwaak 1
�口�糹泵 dam 3
�扌冘 dam 2
�扌寍 ning 1
�扌寕 ning 1
�扌晒 saai 1
�扌灭 mit 1
�未�成肉 cheun 1
�火�保衣 bou 1
�韋昷 wan 3
den; nest
to pound
see ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’
to pull
to jabber
to stick
sentence-final particle
to yell
loop; to loop
to drop down
to dump; to pound
to carry; to bring
to carry; to bring
to waste
to pinch; to tear
animal egg
to boil; kettle
to confine
151
to shake
to waste
young hen
sticky
scar
scar
to stick
to stick
to drop down
to hang down
blister
to spit out
to deceive
sentence-final particle
to carry on the back
to lose money
to step over
to step over
sentence-final particle
to raise the head

�宀甾 tam 5
�敖手 ngou 4
pit; cesspool
to shake
152

APPENDIX B
CHARACTERS BY SYLLABLE
a 1 ‘ sentence-final particle’ 丫 U+4E2B
吖 U+5416
呀 U+5440
aai 3 ‘ to yell’ 嗌 U+55CC
�口隘
baang 6 (of ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’) 唪 U+552A
�口棒 U+20FB4
�口捧
bai 6 ‘ bad’ 弊 U+5F0A
�口弊 U+210C7
�敝大 U+21681
bou 1 ‘ to boil; kettle’ �保灬 U+3DDB
煲 U+7172
�火�保衣
cheun 1 ‘ animal egg’ 春 U+6625
膥 U+81A5
�未�成肉
chi 1 ‘ to stick’ 黐 U+9ED0
�米离 U+25EFF
�米禽 U+25F1D
�口笞
daat 3 ‘ spot’ 笪 U+7B2A
dam 1 ‘ to prolong’ 揼 U+63FC
泵 U+6CF5
153

dam 2 ‘ to dump; to pound’ 揼 U+63FC
泵 U+6CF5
�扌冘
dam 3 ‘ to drop down’ 泵 U+6CF5
髧 U+9AE7
�糹泵 U+260A5
�口�糹泵
dap 1 ‘ to hang down’ �口答 U+35F3
嗒 U+55D2
耷 U+8037
�耳荅 U+265BF
dap 6 ‘ to pound’ 搭 U+642D
撘 U+6498
�扌耷 U+22C55
�口扱
dau 3 ‘ den; nest’ 竇 U+7AC7
�口兜
dau 6 (of ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’) 哣 U+54E3
逗 U+9017
dei 6 ‘ plural marker’ 哋 U+54CB
地 U+5730
deng 3 ‘ to throw’ 掟 U+639F
矴 U+77F4
di 1 ‘ some’ 啲 U+5572
的 U+7684
dim 6 ‘ straight’ 掂 U+6382
敁 U+6541
�口店 U+20DA7
dou 6 ‘ ferry’ 渡 U+6E21
艔 U+8254
fan 3 ‘ to sleep’ 瞓 U+7793
訓 U+8A13
154

ga 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’ �口架 U+35CE
架 U+67B6
�口駕 U+210C9
gaat 6 of (gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’) 曱 U+66F1
gam 2 ‘ so (manner)’ 噉 U+5649
敢 U+6562
gam 3 ‘ so (quantity)’ 咁 U+5481
甘 U+7518
gat 1 ‘ to stab’ �吉刂 U+34E4
gat 6 ‘ to raise up; to limp’ �走乞 U+4798
觖 U+89D6
趌 U+8D8C
趷 U+8DB7
跀 U+8DC0
gau 6 ‘ lump’ 倃 U+5003
嚿 U+56BF
ge 3 ‘ genitive particle’ 嘅 U+5605
gip 1 ‘ bag’ 喼 U+55BC
go 2 ‘ that’ 个 U+4E2A
個 U+500B
嗰 U+55F0
箇 U+7B87
guk 6 ‘ to bake’ 局 U+5C40
焗 U+7117
gwa 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’ 卦 U+5366
啩 U+5569
gwaan 3 ‘ to fall down’ 慣 U+6163
躀 U+8E80
gwui 6 ‘ tired’ 癐 U+7650
155

haai 4 ‘ coarse’ 嚡 U+56A1
鞋 U+978B
hai 2 ‘ to be at’ 係 U+4FC2
喺 U+55BA
ham 6 (of ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’) 冚 U+519A
喊 U+558A
�口感 U+20FD1
hong 2 ‘ young hen’ 項 U+9805
�未�成母 U+236BA
jaat 6 (of gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’) 甴 U+7534
jo 2 ‘ perfective aspect marker’ 咗 U+5497
唨 U+5528
阻 U+963B
kam 2 ‘ to cover’ 冚 U+519A
搇 U+6407
�口衾 U+20E78
kang 3 ‘ capable’ 掯 U+63AF
kat 1 ‘ card’ 咭 U+54AD
keui 5 ‘ he, she, it’ 佢 U+4F62
渠 U+6E20
�亻渠 U+20372
kwaak 1 ‘ loop; to loop’ 緙 U+7DD9
�口緙 U+210C8
�口隙
la 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’ �土虖 U+3664
喇 U+5587
嘞 U+561E
嚹 U+56B9
罅 U+7F45
鏬 U+93EC
�阝虖 U+28EF2
�口鏬
156

laai 1 ‘ last (child)’ 孻 U+5B7B
laam 2 ‘ olive’ 杬 U+676C
欖 U+6B16
laam 3 ‘ to step over’ �足南 U+280BE
�足嵐 U+2814F
laan 1 ‘ to crawl’ 躝 U+8E9D
laang 6 (of ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’) 呤 U+5464
唥 U+5525
laap 3 ‘ to gather together’ �扌匝 U+39DC
擸 U+64F8
laat 6 ‘ row’ 列 U+5217
剌 U+524C
迾 U+8FFE
lai 4 ‘ to come’ 嚟 U+569F
黎 U+9ECE
lam 1 ‘ bud’ 冧 U+51A7
啉 U+5549
林 U+6797
菻 U+83FB
lam 6 ‘ to pile up’ �扌林 U+3A06
冧 U+51A7
罧 U+7F67
lat 1 ‘ to lose; to get rid of’ 甩 U+7529
甪 U+752A
lau 1 ‘ coat’ 蒟 U+849F
蔞 U+851E
褸 U+8938
lei 6 ‘ tongue’ 唎 U+550E
脷 U+8137
leu 1 ‘ to spit out’ �舌累 U+269F2
157

lit 3 ‘ knot’ 纈 U+7E88
lo 2 ‘ to take’ 攞 U+651E
lok 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’ 咯 U+54AF
long 2 ‘ to rinse’ 朗 U+6717
�口浪 U+20E98
lung 5 ‘ trunk’ 槓 U+69D3
篢 U+7BE2
m 4 ‘ not’ 唔 U+5514
ma 1 ‘ twin’ 孖 U+5B56
mai 5 ‘ don’t’ 咪 U+54AA
米 U+7C73
mak 1 ‘ mark’ 嘜 U+561C
嚜 U+569C
mang 1 ‘ to pull’ 掹 U+63B9
擝 U+64DD
�口掹
mat 1 ‘ what’ 乜 U+4E5C
mau 1 ‘ to squat’ 卯 U+536F
踎 U+8E0E
蹘 U+8E58
me 1 ‘ sentence-final particle’ 咩 U+54A9
�貝子 U+27D2F
me 1 ‘ to carry on the back’ 孭 U+5B6D
�貝子 U+27D2F
me 2 ‘ crooked’ 歪 U+6B6A
mit 1 ‘to pinch; to tear’ 搣 U+6423
�扌灭
158

miu 2 ‘ to purse the lips’ �口妙 U+20D15
mo 1 ‘ slow’ 嚤 U+56A4
摩 U+6469
mou 5 ‘ to not have’ 冇 U+5187
na 1 ‘ scar’ �疒那 U+24DB8
�疒拏 U+24E3B
na 2 ‘ female’ 乸 U+4E78
naat 3 ‘ to burn’ 焫 U+712B
鈉 U+9209
nam 2 ‘ to think’ 惗 U+60D7
稔 U+7A14
諗 U+8AD7
nam 4 ‘ tender’ 腍 U+814D
nan 2 ‘ to play with’ 撚 U+649A
nap 6 ‘ sticky’ 湆 U+6E46
�氵�囗又 U+23CB7
nau 1 ‘ angry’ 嬲 U+5B32
惱 U+60F1
ngaam 1 ‘ correct’ 啱 U+5571
岩 U+5CA9
ngai 1 ‘ to beg’ 偽 U+507D
�口危 U+20C53
�口偽 U+20F2E
ngak 1 ‘ to trick’ 呃 U+5443
眲 U+7732
阨 U+9628
ngan 1 ‘ tiny’ 奀 U+5940
159

ngan 3 ‘ to jiggle the feet’ �足辰 U+47F4
奀 U+5940
ngap 1 ‘ to jabber’ 吸 U+5438
噏 U+564F
�口�日絲 U+2103E
�口揖
ngat 1 ‘ to cram’ 扤 U+6264
ngau 6 (of ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’)吽 U+543D
�馬馬 U+2994B
ngok 6 ‘ to raise the head’ 咢 U+54A2
�岳頁 U+294E5
ngou 4 ‘ to shake’ �扌敖 U+22CC6
�敖手
ning 1 ‘ to carry; to bring’ 拎 U+62CE
擰 U+64F0
�扌寍
�扌寕
nung 1 ‘ to scorch’ 灴 U+7074
烘 U+70D8
燶 U+71F6
po 1 ‘ classifier for plants’ 棵 U+68F5
樖 U+6A16
pok 1 ‘ blister’ 泡 U+6CE1
�月暴 U+2688A
saai 1 ‘ to waste’ 嘥 U+5625
徙 U+5F99
漇 U+6F07
�扌徙 U+22CDC
�扌晒
160

saai 3 ‘ quantifying particle’ 嗮 U+55EE
嘥 U+5625
徙 U+5F99
晒 U+6652
saang 2 ‘ to scour’ �口省 U+35C2
�扌省 U+3A18
省 U+7701
sit 6 ‘ to lose money’ 舌 U+820C
蝕 U+8755
餂 U+9902
�貝舌 U+27D73
sung 3 ‘ side dishes’ 送 U+9001
餸 U+9938
tam 3 ‘ to deceive’ 噤 U+5664
�口氹 U+20C41
�言��冖八木 U+27A3E
tam 5 ‘ pit; cesspool’ 氹 U+6C39
窞 U+7A9E
�宀甾
tau 2 ‘ to rest’ �咅攴 U+3A97
唞 U+551E
抖 U+6296
ung 2 ‘ to push’ �巩手 U+39EC
擁 U+64C1
�扌戎 U+22B2E
`
wan 2 ‘ to find’ 揾 U+63FE
搵 U+6435
wan 3 ‘ to confine’ 緼 U+7DFC
縕 U+7E15
韞 U+97DE
�韋昷
wing 1 ‘ to throw away’ 扔 U+6254
�扌永 U+22AD5
161

wo 5 ‘ sentence-final particle’ 啝 U+555D
喎 U+558E
yaak 3 ‘ to eat’ 吃 U+5403
喫 U+55AB
yai 5 ‘ bad’ 曳 U+66F3
�口兮 U+20BCB
ye 5 ‘ thing’ 嘢 U+5622
埜 U+57DC
野 U+91CE
yeun 6 ‘ animal liver’ 膶 U+81B6
yuk 1 ‘ to move’ 喐 U+5590
郁 U+90C1
162

BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Bible Society. 1899. The Gospel According to St. Matthew in English and
Cantonese. Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press.
———. 1900. The Acts of the Apostles in English and Cantonese. Shanghai:
American Presbyterian Press.
———. 1910. The Gospel According to St. Luke in English and Cantonese.
Shanghai: No publisher.
American Tract Society. 1893. Chinese and English Dictionary Compiled from
Reliable Authors. New York: American Tract Society.
Aubazac, Louis. 1909. Liste des Caractères les Plus Usuels de la Langue
Cantonnaise. Hong Kong: Société des Missions-Étrangères.
Ball, James Dyer. 1894. Readings in Cantonese Colloquial. Hong Kong: Kelly &
Walsh.
———. 1908. The Cantonese Made Easy Vocabulary. 3rd edition. Hong Kong:
Kelly & Walsh.
——— and A. Dyer Ball. 1924. Cantonese Made Easy. 4th edition. Hong Kong:
Kelly & Walsh.
Bauer, Robert S. 1988. “Written Cantonese of Hong Kong”. Cahiers de Linguistique
Asie Orientale 17, no. 2: 245-293.
Bishop, Tom, et al. 2000. Wenlin 文林 version 2.5 computer program. Portland, OR:
Wenlin Institute, Inc.
Boltz, William G. 1996. “Early Chinese Writing”. In Peter T. Daniels and William
Bright, eds., The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University
Press, 191-199.
163

Bridgman, Elijah Coleman. 1841. A Chinese Chrestomathy in the Canton Dialect.
Macao: S.W. Williams.
British and Foreign Bible Society. 1901. The Gospel of John in Cantonese
Colloquial. Canton: The British and Foreign Bible Society.
Cai Jiannan 蔡劍南. 1998. Quantu chuanyi cangjiema zidian 全圖傳意倉頡碼字典.
Hong Kong: Wanli jiegou 萬里機構.
Chalmers, John. 1878. An English and Cantonese Dictionary. 5th edition. Hong
Kong: De Souza & Co.
Chan, Marjorie K.M. 陳潔雯. 1982. “A Response to Boltz’ Notes on Cantonese
Dentilabialization”. Journal of the American Oriental Society (JAOS) l02, no.
1: 107-109.
———. 1984. “Initial Consonant Clusters in Old Chinese: Evidence from
Sesquisyllabic Words in the Yue Dialects”. Fangyan 方言 4, 300-313.
———. 1994. “Post-stopped Nasals and Lateral Flaps in the Zhongshan (Yue)
Dialect: A Study of a Mid-Eighteenth Century Sino-Portuguese Glossary”. In
Paul Jen-kuei Li, Chu-Ren Huang, and Chih-chen Tang, eds., Chinese
Languages and Linguistics, vol. 2. Historical Linguistics (Symposium Series of
the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, no. 2.). Taipei:
Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 203-250.
Chen Bohui 陳伯煇. 1998. Lun Yue fangyan ci benzi kao shi 論粵方言詞本子考釋.
Hong Kong: Zhonghua 中華.
——— and Wu Weixiong 吳偉雄. 1998. Shenghuo Yueyu benzi qutan
生活粵語本子趣談. Hong Kong: Zhonghua 中華.
Chao, Yuen Ren 趙元任. 1947. Cantonese Primer. New York: Greenwood Press,
Publishers.
——— and Lien Sheng Yang 楊聯陞. 1947. Concise Dictionary of Spoken Chinese.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cheung, Kwan-hin 張群顯 and Robert S. Bauer. forthcoming. The Representation of
Cantonese with Chinese Characters 以漢字寫粵語. Journal of Chinese
Linguistics monograph. A July 26, 2001 pre-publication draft was used.
164

Chou, Fa-kao 周法高. 1986. “A Comparative Study of the Simplified Characters as
Used in Mainland China, Singapore, and Japan”. In his Papers in Chinese
Linguistics and Epigraphy. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 55-69.
Condit, I.M. 1888. English and Chinese Reader with a Dictionary. Shanghai:
Huamei 華美.
Cowles, Roy T. 1965. The Cantonese Speaker’s Dictionary. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
DeFrancis, John. 1984. The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Eitel, Ernest John and Immanuel Gottlieb Genähr. 1910. A Chinese-English
Dictionary in the Cantonese Dialect. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Hong Kong: Kelly
& Walsh, Limited.
Fenn, Courtenay H., Chin Hsien Tseng 金憲曾, and George D. Wilder. 1942. Fenn’s
Chinese-English Pocket-Dictionary. 5th edition (revised American edition).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gunn, Edward. 1991. Rewriting Chinese: Style and Innovation in Twentieth-Century
Chinese Prose. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
He Wenhui 何文匯 and Zhu Guofan 朱國藩, eds. 1999. Yueyin zhengdu zihui
粵音正讀字彙. Hong Kong: Xianggang jiaoyu 香港教育.
Huang Xiling 黃錫凌 (S.L. Wong). 1941. Yueyu yunhui 粵語韻彙 (A Chinese
Syllabary Pronounced According to the Dialect of Canton). Hong Kong:
Zhonghua 中華.
HYDZD Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒, et al. 1986. Hanyu da zidian 漢語大字典. 8 vols.
Chengdu: Sichuan cishu 四川辭書. Reprinted as a fantizi 繁體字 (traditional
character) edition. New York: U.S. International Publishing Inc.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2001. ISO/IEC FDIS 10646-2:
Information Technology—Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set
(UCS)—Part 2: Supplementary Planes. Switzerland: ISO.
Jones, Daniel and Kwing-tong Woo. 1912. A Cantonese Phonetic Reader. London:
University of London Press.
Kangxi zidian 康熙字典. 1716. Reprinted by Beijing: Zhonghua 中華.
165

Karlgren, Bernhard. 1923. Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino-Japanese. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Reprinted by Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Lau, Sidney 劉錫祥. 1977. A Practical Cantonese-English Dictionary. Hong Kong:
The Government Printer.
Leng Yulong 冷玉龍, Wei Yixin 韋一心, et al. 1994. Zhonghua zi hai 中華字海.
Beijing: Zhonghua 中華.
Li, Fang-kuei 李方桂. 1937. “Languages and Dialects”. The Chinese Yearbook.
Reprinted in 1973 with revisions, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1, no. 1: 1-13.
Lobscheid, William. 1871. A Chinese and English Dictionary. Hong Kong: Noronha
& Sons.
Lunde, Ken. 1999. CJKV Information Processing. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly &
Associates.
Mathews, R.H., et al. 1943. Mathews’ Chinese-English Dictionary. Revised
American edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Matthews, Stephen and Virginia Yip. 1994. Cantonese: A Comprehensive Grammar.
New York: Routledge.
Meyer, Bernard F. and Theodore F. Wempe. 1947. The Student’s Cantonese-English
Dictionary. 3rd edition. New York: Field Afar Press. First edition 1935.
Meyer, Dirk. 1998. “Dealing with Hong Kong Specific Characters.” Multilingual
Computing & Technology 9, no. 3 (April), 35-38.
———. 2000. “New Hong Kong Character Standard”. Multilingual Computing &
Technology 11, no. 2 (March), 30-32.
Morrison, Robert. 1828. A Vocabulary of the Canton Dialect. 3 parts. Macao: G.J.
Steyn, and Brother.
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Melia, Thomas A. 1959. First Year Cantonese. 4th edition. Hong Kong: Catholic
Truth Society. First edition 1938.
Pulleyblank, Edwin G. 1998. “Jiajie and Xiesheng”. In Alain Peyraube and Sun
Chaofen, eds., Studies on Chinese Historical Syntax and Morphology:
166

Linguistic Essays in Honor of Mei Tsu-lin. Paris: École des Hautes Études en
Sciences Sociales, 145-164.
Ramsey, S. Robert. 1987. The Languages of China. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Rao Bingcai 饒秉才, Ouyang Jueya 歐陽覺亞, and Zhou Wuji 周無忌, eds. 1996.
Guangzhouhua fangyan cidian 廣州話方言詞典. Hong Kong: Shangwu 商務.
Originally published in 1981.
Snow, Donald Bruce. 1991. Written Cantonese and the Culture of Hong Kong: The
Growth of a Dialect Literature. Ph.D. dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University.
Stedman, T. Lathrop. and K.P. Lee. 1888. A Chinese and English Phrase Book in the
Canton Dialect. New York: William R. Jenkins.
Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) International. 2001. Ethnologue: Languages of
the World. 14th ed. Online edition at . “CHN”
(Chinese, Mandarin) and “YUH” (Chinese, Yue) entries.
Unicode Consortium. 2000. The Unicode Standard Version 3.0. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wieger, L. 1927. Chinese Characters. 2nd edition. Translated by L. Davrout. No
place: Catholic Mission Press. Reprinted by New York: Paragon Book Reprint
Corp. and Dover Publications, Inc.
Wisner, O.F. 1906. Beginning Cantonese. Canton: China Baptist Publication
Society.
Williams, Samuel Wells. 1856. A Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the
Canton Dialect. Canton: Office of the Chinese Repository.
———, et al. 1909. A Syllabic Dictionary of the Chinese Language Arranged
According to the Wu-Fang Yüan Yin [五方元音] and Alphabetically
Rearranged According to the Romanization of Sir Thomas F. Wade.
Tongzhou 通州: North China Union College. Originally published in 1874.
Xu Shen 許慎. 100. Shuowen jiezi (fu jianzi) 說文解字〔附檢字〕. Reprinted by
Hong Kong: Zhonghua 中華.
Yin Binyong 尹斌庸 and John S. Rohsenow. 1994. Modern Chinese Characters.
Beijing: Sinolingua.
167

Yue-Hashimoto, Oi-kan 余靄芹. 1972. Studies in Yue Dialects 1: Phonology of
Cantonese. London: Cambridge University Press.
ZWGW Zhongguo wenzi gaige weiyuanhui 中國文字改革委員會. 1977. “Di er ci
hanzi jianhua fang’an (cao’an) 第二次漢字簡化方案(草案)”. Renmin ribao
人民日報 (Dec 20): 4.
168

a 1 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 67
aai 3 ‘ to yell’, 102
baang 6 (of ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’), 82
bai 6 ‘ bad’, 73
bou 1 ‘ to boil; kettle’, 108
cheun 1 ‘ animal egg ‘46
chi 1 ‘ to stick’, 96
daat 3 ‘ spot’, 58
dam 1 ‘ to prolong’, 116
dam 2 ‘ to dump; to pound’, 116
dam 3 ‘ to drop down’, 116
dap 1 ‘ to hang down’, 116
dap 6 ‘ to pound’, 79
dau 3 ‘ den; nest ‘49
dau 6 (of ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’), 82
dei 6 ‘ plural marker’, 67
deng 3 ‘ to throw’, 97
di 1 ‘ some’, 70
dim 6 ‘ straight’, 61
dou 6 ‘ ferry’, 121
fan 3 ‘ to sleep’, 114
ga 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 71
gaat 6 (of gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’), 66
gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’, 66
gam 2 ‘ so (manner)’, 67
gam 3 ‘ so (quantity)’, 67
gat 1 ‘ to stab’, 58
gat 6 ‘ to raise up; to limp’, 129
gau 6 ‘ lump’, 73
ge 3 ‘ genitive particle’, 64
gip 1 ‘ bag’, 64
go 2 ‘ that’, 72
guk 6 ‘ to bake’, 114
gwa 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 67
gwaan 3 ‘ to fall down’, 119
INDEX
169

gwui 6 ‘ tired’, 100
haai 4 ‘ coarse’, 67
ham 6 (of ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’), 82
ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’, 82
hai 2 ‘ to be at’, 67
hong 2 ‘ young hen’, 126
jaat 6 (of gaat 6 jaat 6 ‘cockroach’), 66
jo 2 ‘ perfective aspect marker’, 77
kam 2 ‘ to cover’, 124
kang 3 ‘ capable’, 101
kat 1 ‘ card’, 63
keui 5 ‘ he, she, it’, 120
kwaak 1 ‘ loop; to loop’, 67
la 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 77
laai 1 ‘ last (child) ‘45
laam 2 ‘ olive’, 50
laam 3 ‘ to step over’, 99
laan 1 ‘ to crawl’, 97
laang 6 (of ham 6 baang 6 laang 6 ‘all’), 82
laap 3 ‘ to gather together’, 100
laat 6 ‘ row’, 128
lai 4 ‘ to come’, 67
lam 1 ‘ bud’, 114
lam 6 ‘ to pile up’, 98
lat 1 ‘ to lose; to get rid of’, 131
lau 1 ‘ coat’, 119
lei 6 ‘ tongue’, 116
leu 1 ‘ to spit out’, 99
lit 3 ‘ knot ‘49
lo 2 ‘ to take’, 58
lok 3 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 63
long 2 ‘ to rinse’, 80
lung 5 ‘ trunk’, 50
m 4 ‘ not’, 61
ma 1 ‘ twin ‘49
mai 5 ‘ don’t’, 67
mak 1 ‘ mark’, 65
mang 1 ‘ to pull’, 105
mat 1 ‘ what’, 61
mau 1 ‘ to squat’, 103
me 1 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 78
me 1 ‘ to carry on the back ‘46
me 2 ‘ crooked ‘49
mit 1 ‘ to pinch; to tear’, 97
miu 2 ‘ to purse the lips’, 65
170

mo 1 ‘ slow’, 67
mou 5 ‘ to not have ‘49
na 1 ‘ scar’, 97
na 2 ‘ female’, 101
naat 3 ‘ to burn’, 58
nam 2 ‘ to think’, 102
nam 4 ‘ tender’, 58
nan 2 ‘ to play with’, 102
nap 6 ‘ sticky’, 50
nau 1 ‘ angry’, 58
ngaam 1 ‘ correct’, 67
ngai 1 ‘ to beg’, 73
ngak 1 ‘ to trick’, 77
ngan 1 ‘ tiny ‘46
ngan 3 ‘ to jiggle the feet’, 61
ngap 1 ‘ to jabber’, 80
nga5t 1 ‘ to cram’, 58
ngau 6 (of ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’), 82
ngau 6 dau 6 ‘unwell; stupid’, 82
ngok 6 ‘ to raise the head’, 58
ngou 4 ‘ to shake’, 107
ning 1 ‘ to carry; to bring’, 58
nung 1 ‘ to scorch’, 123
po 1 ‘ classifier for plants’, 52
pok 1 ‘ blister ‘49
saai 1 ‘ to waste’, 122
saai 3 ‘ quantifying particle’, 75
saang 2 ‘ to scour’, 114
sit 6 ‘ to lose money’, 125
sung 3 ‘ side dishes’, 121
tam 3 ‘ to deceive’, 75
tam 5 ‘ pit; cesspool’, 52
tau 2 ‘ to rest’, 70
ung 2 ‘ to push’, 61
wan 2 ‘ to find’, 58
wan 3 ‘ to confine’, 60
wing 1 ‘ to throw away’, 104
wo 5 ‘ sentence-final particle’, 81
yaak 3 ‘ to eat’, 53
yai 5 ‘ bad’, 63
ye 5 ‘ thing’, 70
yeun 6 ‘ animal liver’, 96
yuk 1 ‘ to move’, 70
171