I don't believe in the one-to-one correspondences of written characters and spoken words as a matter of unyielding principle. The sheer number of unrelated meanings given to each character in a dictionary is testimony to the fact that word-character and word-meaning associations develop and change.Mark Yong wrote:So, between 予 and 與, both having the correct meaning and pronunciation notwithstanding, which of the two 漢字 Hanzi does hoo7 refer to exactly? What I mean is, logically it has to be only one of them.
The choice of the use of characters and their meanings is often a matter of convention over etymology or ancestry. For example, you could plausibly argue that the character for bu2, dance, is 無 rather than 舞; equally you could argue that the character for bo2 is 毛 rather than 無. I recall my Chinese teacher telling me that 的 and 之 were the same word, and that the words used by the various Mandarin dialects showed there was a continuum of pronunciation between the two - at some stage the difference grew so big that the character 的 was borrowed to represent the new sound.
Similarly, you will be aware of the similarity between the groups of pronouns such as 爾 汝 而 若 乃 戎, not to mention the modern 你. Were the old characters all different words, or were they inflections of a single word? Either way, which is the origin of the modern Hokkien li2/lu2?
I wasn't aware of that; if it were so it would be a good argument. I think it interesting that two words with the same pronunciation have the same meaning.Also, I had the impression that in 古文 Old Chinese, 予 had a specific meaning for "I/me", and that the meaning "to give" is a later development that occurred along a different etymological line from Hokkien (bearing in mind that the 閩 Min dialects developed around the 1st century CE, before the development of Mandarin).