Hi Niuc and Casey
Let us read this story first. [Mark 6:7-8] " ...and began to send them out TWO BY TWO, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a STAFF; ...
爰 [goan] (Mandarin: 我們) In the "oracle bone inscription 甲骨文", this character was similar to "a person gives a STICK to a next person". And the <<Explain Character 說文>> : "爰, 引也..." 爰 [goan] means "to guide..." It also can be explain "to rescue". In the later time, a next character 援 [wuan] was used to instead 爰 [goan], "to rescue", and then the 爰 [goan] was changed to express the other meanings.
I think that the ancestors of the Hokkien speaking people were the missionaries in ancient period before the rise of Judaism. When, they were sent out TWO BY TWO to every place of the world for the preaching. The two persons will give an oral report to the elders of their tribe at the end of every trip of missionary and they first will say: "Goan (爰) ...... " in their beginning of the conversation. So Hokkien speaking use 爰 [goan] to indicate "our".
+ 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok + Happy Easter +
-
Niuc
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
Hi SL De & Casey
Thanks. This discussion is indeed very interesting, almost like another dimension for me
.
SL De, I admire your expertise in etymology. Did the languages of Siong (Shang) & Ciu (Zhou) & Han evolve from a common ancestral language? Were the people of different tribes? Your explanation about 八 ('bat', or 'pat' in our accent) is easier for me to understand but not 爰. I failed to see why they should use 爰 (goan) as a pronoun. Could you please enlighten me? Thanks.
I am open to new ideas, especially interesting ones like these. But it's hard for me to believe that our ancestors were the Jews of 1st century. Personally I believe that all people are descendants of Noah but he lived at least 5000 years ago. Gospel of Mark was written in the 1st century and the passage you quoted describes about the first batch of "missionaries" sent by Jesus. They were only sent to spread the Gospel among Israelites since The Great Commission to bring the Gospel to the whole world was yet to be given. At the time Judaism was the religion of Israelites and Christianity was in the making.
I am really interested to know more. Thanks a lot.
[%sig%]
Thanks. This discussion is indeed very interesting, almost like another dimension for me
. SL De, I admire your expertise in etymology. Did the languages of Siong (Shang) & Ciu (Zhou) & Han evolve from a common ancestral language? Were the people of different tribes? Your explanation about 八 ('bat', or 'pat' in our accent) is easier for me to understand but not 爰. I failed to see why they should use 爰 (goan) as a pronoun. Could you please enlighten me? Thanks.
I am open to new ideas, especially interesting ones like these
. But it's hard for me to believe that our ancestors were the Jews of 1st century. Personally I believe that all people are descendants of Noah but he lived at least 5000 years ago. Gospel of Mark was written in the 1st century and the passage you quoted describes about the first batch of "missionaries" sent by Jesus. They were only sent to spread the Gospel among Israelites since The Great Commission to bring the Gospel to the whole world was yet to be given. At the time Judaism was the religion of Israelites and Christianity was in the making.I am really interested to know more. Thanks a lot.
[%sig%]
-
SL De
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
Hi Niuc
Let us see the speakings of other Chinese first:
(1)Hokkien: I, Goa 我 our, Goa-oan 我援 ("a simplified vowel form" Goan 爰)
(2)Mandarin: I, Wo 我 our, Wo-men 我們
(3)Canton: I, Ngo 我 our, Ngo-tei 我地
(4)Hakka: I, Ngai 我 our, Ngai-teu-nin 我兜人
The Mandarin "our" prounce "Wo-men 我們", it consists of "Wo 我" and "Men 們".
The Canton "our" prounce "Ngo-tei 我地", it consists of "Ngo 我" and "Tei 地".
The Hakka "our" prounce "Ngai-teu-nin 我兜人", it consists of "Ngai 我", "Teu 兜" and "Nin人".
These three speakings consist with "Goa 我" (I) and one or two next words, such as "Men 們" (comrade-in-arms), "Tei 地" (plain; residents of plain) or "Teu-nin 兜人" (residents of mountain valley) to express the
meaning of "our". Hence the Hokkien word "Goan 爰" (our), can be thought that was evolved from the "Goa 我" (I) and a next word "Oan 援" (rescuer) to express the meaning of "our".
I think that the Hokkien word of "goan 爰" is a simplified vowel word. Its original form is "goa-oan 我援", when we prounce it rapidly, (1) "goa-oan 我援", (2) "g..[oa-oa]..n", (3) the double vowel "[oa]-[oa]" be simplified into "[oa]", (4) then, we can get the pronounciation of "g[oa]n" = "goan 爰".
The Hokkien word "goan 爰" evolved from "goa-oan 我援" it means "our team, the fellows rescue to each other". This pronoun "goan 爰" (our), keeps the past collective memory, the meaning of working experience in the ancient "hunting and gatherer societies"
"Goan 爰", in the "oracle bone inscription 甲骨文", this character was similar to "a person gives a STICK to a next person". And the <<Explain Inscription and Interpret Character 說文解字>> : "爰, 引也..." . "爰 goan" means "to guide..." It also can be explain "to rescue". In the later time, a next character "援 oan" was used to instead "爰 goan", (to guide or to rescue), and then the "爰 goan" was changed to express the other meanings. But the Hokkien speaking people keeps the original meaning of the "爰 goan" in their everyday conversation.
We can imagine that living in the "hunting and gatherer societies",
the tribe must not allow the hunters or gatherers only one person to hunt animals or to gather fruits because it was very dangerous to him or her. A logical suggestion is that these hunters or gatherer would be divided into several small teams and went to different places for hunting or gathering. At least, the fellows of a small team was consisted by two persons. while a hunter or a gatherer unfortunely fell into a dangerous situation, the other one could help him or her and gave him or her a rescue. When they returned to their dwelling. These "small teams" would share their experience to their people and they usually called themselves "goa-oan 我援" (our), it means "I (我), and my rescuer (援)"
[Genesis11:9] "Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth."
After Babel, the men were scattered to every place of the earth, and the Almighty sent a tribe to mission everywhere. The missionaries of this tribe is the ancestors of the Hokkien speaking people, their travel of mission were before the rise of Judaism. When the tribe arrived at a region, they were sent out TWO BY TWO to every small place for the preaching. Usually they hunted animals or gathered fruits for their diets in their trip of mission. Hence they kept the customs and tradition of "hunting and gatherer societies". "Goan 爰" (our), this word is therefore, speak and speak from one generation to the next generation, to the modern. Nowadays, the Hokkien speaking still to keep some vocabularies and thinking about the past living of "hunting and gatherer societies".
Let us see the speakings of other Chinese first:
(1)Hokkien: I, Goa 我 our, Goa-oan 我援 ("a simplified vowel form" Goan 爰)
(2)Mandarin: I, Wo 我 our, Wo-men 我們
(3)Canton: I, Ngo 我 our, Ngo-tei 我地
(4)Hakka: I, Ngai 我 our, Ngai-teu-nin 我兜人
The Mandarin "our" prounce "Wo-men 我們", it consists of "Wo 我" and "Men 們".
The Canton "our" prounce "Ngo-tei 我地", it consists of "Ngo 我" and "Tei 地".
The Hakka "our" prounce "Ngai-teu-nin 我兜人", it consists of "Ngai 我", "Teu 兜" and "Nin人".
These three speakings consist with "Goa 我" (I) and one or two next words, such as "Men 們" (comrade-in-arms), "Tei 地" (plain; residents of plain) or "Teu-nin 兜人" (residents of mountain valley) to express the
meaning of "our". Hence the Hokkien word "Goan 爰" (our), can be thought that was evolved from the "Goa 我" (I) and a next word "Oan 援" (rescuer) to express the meaning of "our".
I think that the Hokkien word of "goan 爰" is a simplified vowel word. Its original form is "goa-oan 我援", when we prounce it rapidly, (1) "goa-oan 我援", (2) "g..[oa-oa]..n", (3) the double vowel "[oa]-[oa]" be simplified into "[oa]", (4) then, we can get the pronounciation of "g[oa]n" = "goan 爰".
The Hokkien word "goan 爰" evolved from "goa-oan 我援" it means "our team, the fellows rescue to each other". This pronoun "goan 爰" (our), keeps the past collective memory, the meaning of working experience in the ancient "hunting and gatherer societies"
"Goan 爰", in the "oracle bone inscription 甲骨文", this character was similar to "a person gives a STICK to a next person". And the <<Explain Inscription and Interpret Character 說文解字>> : "爰, 引也..." . "爰 goan" means "to guide..." It also can be explain "to rescue". In the later time, a next character "援 oan" was used to instead "爰 goan", (to guide or to rescue), and then the "爰 goan" was changed to express the other meanings. But the Hokkien speaking people keeps the original meaning of the "爰 goan" in their everyday conversation.
We can imagine that living in the "hunting and gatherer societies",
the tribe must not allow the hunters or gatherers only one person to hunt animals or to gather fruits because it was very dangerous to him or her. A logical suggestion is that these hunters or gatherer would be divided into several small teams and went to different places for hunting or gathering. At least, the fellows of a small team was consisted by two persons. while a hunter or a gatherer unfortunely fell into a dangerous situation, the other one could help him or her and gave him or her a rescue. When they returned to their dwelling. These "small teams" would share their experience to their people and they usually called themselves "goa-oan 我援" (our), it means "I (我), and my rescuer (援)"
[Genesis11:9] "Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth."
After Babel, the men were scattered to every place of the earth, and the Almighty sent a tribe to mission everywhere. The missionaries of this tribe is the ancestors of the Hokkien speaking people, their travel of mission were before the rise of Judaism. When the tribe arrived at a region, they were sent out TWO BY TWO to every small place for the preaching. Usually they hunted animals or gathered fruits for their diets in their trip of mission. Hence they kept the customs and tradition of "hunting and gatherer societies". "Goan 爰" (our), this word is therefore, speak and speak from one generation to the next generation, to the modern. Nowadays, the Hokkien speaking still to keep some vocabularies and thinking about the past living of "hunting and gatherer societies".
-
Dylan Sung
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
The origins of such pseudo etymologies can be found in the 1979 book by C.H. Kang and E.R. Nelson, "The Discovery of Genisis". The following link has a paper folks on this thread may be interested in.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... _v13n1.asp
called
The Lamb of God hidden in Chinese characters (PDF)
by Voo Kui Shin & Larry Hovee
I do not believe in such explanations however.
Dyl.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... _v13n1.asp
called
The Lamb of God hidden in Chinese characters (PDF)
by Voo Kui Shin & Larry Hovee
I do not believe in such explanations however.
Dyl.
-
SL De
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
Hi DYL:
Thanks for your information. I wish to tell to you, that I posted these two characters of "八 pat" and "爰 goan ", they are my own research. Could you tell me, in this book "The discovery of Genisis", by C.H.Kang and E.R.Nelson. Has there the two characters of "八 pat" and "爰 goan "? If there has these two characters, then what is its explanations?
You said:"the origins of such pseudo etymologies"
I hope to share my view with you. In here, we are not to preach any belief of religion. And we are not to persuade anyone to believe anything. Here is just a "language forum". Hence we just see, the "Genisis" is a source of written language materials or a world famous literature. Besides this "Genisis", there also existed an oldest "Genisis", text in Sumerian, the "Epic of Gilgamesh". And the western missionaries found many different language text of "Genisis" in everywhere.
The research of etymology of the languages is about the origins, sources and history, the change of its forms and meanings, and the borrowings of the words.
Because of the legends, myths, and belief of religions were the importment parts in the everyday living and conversation of the people in ancient societies. Hence, when we research the etymology of the words, we will apply the language materials of the legends, myths, and belief of religions to explain the language problems and try to answer the questions. And we do not pay attention to the "true" or "pseudo" in religious belief. These "true" or "pseudo" problems leave to the "religious forum" to discuss, leave to the theologians, researcher of legends, and experts of myths.
The written language of Hebrew text "Genisis" existed at 2000 years ago. And the"oracle bone inscription 甲骨文", existed at 3200 years ago. These two nation had the same Tribal God, "Siong-de 上帝" (Mandarin: Shang-di, Hebrew: Shaddai)
Their people all were the religious enthusiasts. Their people all were living in the theocratic states. Hence in the "oracle bone inscription 甲骨文" existed the ideas, stories, legends, myths, and the belief of religion similar to the Hebrew "Genisis", that is a common knowledge. Hence we take them for a comparison, that is a rational assume.
Dear DYL: Could you post your comment on the "pseudo etymologies"? And you can talk about, in which way we can obtain the "true etymologies".
Let us think, if every person like you, just post such as the LABELS of "pseudo", "can be found in the book x x x. by x.x.x." etc...etc, and this person can not give his own opinion and provide the commentary, then this language forum will be not discussion. There will be loss the readers, and we will be loss the chance to learn from each others.
Regards,
SL
Thanks for your information. I wish to tell to you, that I posted these two characters of "八 pat" and "爰 goan ", they are my own research. Could you tell me, in this book "The discovery of Genisis", by C.H.Kang and E.R.Nelson. Has there the two characters of "八 pat" and "爰 goan "? If there has these two characters, then what is its explanations?
You said:"the origins of such pseudo etymologies"
I hope to share my view with you. In here, we are not to preach any belief of religion. And we are not to persuade anyone to believe anything. Here is just a "language forum". Hence we just see, the "Genisis" is a source of written language materials or a world famous literature. Besides this "Genisis", there also existed an oldest "Genisis", text in Sumerian, the "Epic of Gilgamesh". And the western missionaries found many different language text of "Genisis" in everywhere.
The research of etymology of the languages is about the origins, sources and history, the change of its forms and meanings, and the borrowings of the words.
Because of the legends, myths, and belief of religions were the importment parts in the everyday living and conversation of the people in ancient societies. Hence, when we research the etymology of the words, we will apply the language materials of the legends, myths, and belief of religions to explain the language problems and try to answer the questions. And we do not pay attention to the "true" or "pseudo" in religious belief. These "true" or "pseudo" problems leave to the "religious forum" to discuss, leave to the theologians, researcher of legends, and experts of myths.
The written language of Hebrew text "Genisis" existed at 2000 years ago. And the"oracle bone inscription 甲骨文", existed at 3200 years ago. These two nation had the same Tribal God, "Siong-de 上帝" (Mandarin: Shang-di, Hebrew: Shaddai)
Their people all were the religious enthusiasts. Their people all were living in the theocratic states. Hence in the "oracle bone inscription 甲骨文" existed the ideas, stories, legends, myths, and the belief of religion similar to the Hebrew "Genisis", that is a common knowledge. Hence we take them for a comparison, that is a rational assume.
Dear DYL: Could you post your comment on the "pseudo etymologies"? And you can talk about, in which way we can obtain the "true etymologies".
Let us think, if every person like you, just post such as the LABELS of "pseudo", "can be found in the book x x x. by x.x.x." etc...etc, and this person can not give his own opinion and provide the commentary, then this language forum will be not discussion. There will be loss the readers, and we will be loss the chance to learn from each others.
Regards,
SL
-
Dylan Sung
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
S.L. :
No one today knows what was in the minds of the users of Shang inscriptions 3500 years ago, and the earliest Chinese character etymology dates back to Xu Shen between 100 AD and 121 AD which is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted 1600 years ago. Xu Shen's explanations are psuedo-etymological, because he was not privy to the minds of Shang creators of the characters. Thus any later commentary, even yours is equally psuedo-etymology. It does not mean that it may not be true, but that there is no direct proof that it is what the creator of the character intended.
My later comment about not believing in such things is from reading about items by the users of Kang and Nelson's book to augment their views about the origin of Chinese characters. I do not have their book, and would not pay good money for it either. Basically, they have tried to split Chinese characters into constituent parts and trying to explain the meaning of the character by trying to shoehorn in biblical details.
With respect to "Shangdi", this is really misinformation. Shangdi is mentioned in early Zhou texts like Shijing that much is true. When the Christian missionaries first arrived in China during the Ming dynasty, the link was made by them and it has stuck ever since. So that's only five hundred years of use such mixing of the two separate deities. Why else would there be no tradition of the old testement literature in China until after the Jesuit arrival?
As you mentioned, the Chinese Shangdi may go back as far as 3200 years. The Hebrew writings you say go back 2000 years. How can the two "nations" 1200 years and half a world apart have the same tribal god?
You think that Shaddi and Shangdi are the same? What sort of "etymology" do you propose for this?
Yes, you're right, this is a language forum. As such, religious commentary is inappropriate.
Dyl.
No one today knows what was in the minds of the users of Shang inscriptions 3500 years ago, and the earliest Chinese character etymology dates back to Xu Shen between 100 AD and 121 AD which is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted 1600 years ago. Xu Shen's explanations are psuedo-etymological, because he was not privy to the minds of Shang creators of the characters. Thus any later commentary, even yours is equally psuedo-etymology. It does not mean that it may not be true, but that there is no direct proof that it is what the creator of the character intended.
My later comment about not believing in such things is from reading about items by the users of Kang and Nelson's book to augment their views about the origin of Chinese characters. I do not have their book, and would not pay good money for it either. Basically, they have tried to split Chinese characters into constituent parts and trying to explain the meaning of the character by trying to shoehorn in biblical details.
With respect to "Shangdi", this is really misinformation. Shangdi is mentioned in early Zhou texts like Shijing that much is true. When the Christian missionaries first arrived in China during the Ming dynasty, the link was made by them and it has stuck ever since. So that's only five hundred years of use such mixing of the two separate deities. Why else would there be no tradition of the old testement literature in China until after the Jesuit arrival?
As you mentioned, the Chinese Shangdi may go back as far as 3200 years. The Hebrew writings you say go back 2000 years. How can the two "nations" 1200 years and half a world apart have the same tribal god?
You think that Shaddi and Shangdi are the same? What sort of "etymology" do you propose for this?
Yes, you're right, this is a language forum. As such, religious commentary is inappropriate.
Dyl.
-
Dylan Sung
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
S.L. :
No one today knows what was in the minds of the users of Shang inscriptions 3500 years ago, and the earliest Chinese character etymology dates back to Xu Shen between 100 AD and 121 AD which is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted 1600 years ago. Xu Shen's explanations are psuedo-etymological, because he was not privy to the minds of Shang creators of the characters. Thus any later commentary, even yours is equally psuedo-etymology. It does not mean that it may not be true, but that there is no direct proof that it is what the creator of the character intended.
My later comment about not believing in such things is from reading about items by the users of Kang and Nelson's book to augment their views about the origin of Chinese characters. I do not have their book, and would not pay good money for it either. Basically, they have tried to split Chinese characters into constituent parts and trying to explain the meaning of the character by trying to shoehorn in biblical details.
With respect to "Shangdi", this is really misinformation. Shangdi is mentioned in early Zhou texts like Shijing that much is true. When the Christian missionaries first arrived in China during the Ming dynasty, the link was made by them and it has stuck ever since. So that's only five hundred years of use such mixing of the two separate deities. Why else would there be no tradition of the old testement literature in China until after the Jesuit arrival?
As you mentioned, the Chinese Shangdi may go back as far as 3200 years. The Hebrew writings you say go back 2000 years. How can the two "nations" 1200 years and half a world apart have the same tribal god?
You think that Shaddi and Shangdi are the same? What sort of "etymology" do you propose for this?
Yes, you're right, this is a language forum. As such, religious commentary is inappropriate.
Dyl.
No one today knows what was in the minds of the users of Shang inscriptions 3500 years ago, and the earliest Chinese character etymology dates back to Xu Shen between 100 AD and 121 AD which is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted 1600 years ago. Xu Shen's explanations are psuedo-etymological, because he was not privy to the minds of Shang creators of the characters. Thus any later commentary, even yours is equally psuedo-etymology. It does not mean that it may not be true, but that there is no direct proof that it is what the creator of the character intended.
My later comment about not believing in such things is from reading about items by the users of Kang and Nelson's book to augment their views about the origin of Chinese characters. I do not have their book, and would not pay good money for it either. Basically, they have tried to split Chinese characters into constituent parts and trying to explain the meaning of the character by trying to shoehorn in biblical details.
With respect to "Shangdi", this is really misinformation. Shangdi is mentioned in early Zhou texts like Shijing that much is true. When the Christian missionaries first arrived in China during the Ming dynasty, the link was made by them and it has stuck ever since. So that's only five hundred years of use such mixing of the two separate deities. Why else would there be no tradition of the old testement literature in China until after the Jesuit arrival?
As you mentioned, the Chinese Shangdi may go back as far as 3200 years. The Hebrew writings you say go back 2000 years. How can the two "nations" 1200 years and half a world apart have the same tribal god?
You think that Shaddi and Shangdi are the same? What sort of "etymology" do you propose for this?
Yes, you're right, this is a language forum. As such, religious commentary is inappropriate.
Dyl.
-
Niuc
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
Hi S.L. & Dylan
Thanks for all these info. Very interesting, I learn a lot.
BTW, Hebrew "Genesis" is about 4000 years old (2000 B.C., not 2000 A.D.). Greek New Testament is about 2000 years old.
[%sig%]
Thanks for all these info. Very interesting, I learn a lot.
BTW, Hebrew "Genesis" is about 4000 years old (2000 B.C., not 2000 A.D.). Greek New Testament is about 2000 years old.
[%sig%]
-
Dylan Sung
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
Probably s/he was thinking of the Dead Sea Scrolls..
Dyl
Dyl
-
Aurelio
Re: + 復活節快樂 + Koh Oah Ciat Khoai Lok
Hi!
Well, leaving aside the "biblical connection" between Fujian and the Israelites which I won't comment on, the linguistic part alone seems very far-fetched. Is there really a single text that uses 我援 to express "we"? If not, the whole goa-oan contraction hypothesis is complete speculation and not any kind of 'research'.
Even if this way of expressing "we" was found somewhere in a historical text that wouldn't prove that any meaning like "to assist" was really implied - it could just be a way to spell out the sound. I have strong (!) doubts that the 地 in 我地 really has got anything to do with "plains" or "earth" or whatever. Most likely, it's just a way to spell of the sound of some functional element in the language that lost it's individual meaning long before Cantonese was spelled out in characters (what's the "meaning" of the '-al' in 'functional or of "-ing" in 'meaning')?
If it doesn't have any meaning at the time of the development of characters, how to do anything else but spell out the sound by using/ modifying some existing character? - All (!) languages have functional elements the original meaning of which is completely unclear (if I say manmande zou, why do I use a character for "de" that actually means virtuous?) and remember that Chinese characters were primarily intended to write down the classic Chinese language not a particular modern dialect, so the number of needed extra characters is likely to get higher.
The Chinese writing system is essentially phonetic, just like the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the cuneiform writing systems and the Maya glyphs. By 'essentially phonetic' I mean that most (but not all) characters actually depict the sound of a word (in the case of Hanzi, about 80% of all characters are put together from one half that indicates the meaning and one that indicates the sound). It took > 2000 years for Westerners to understand the Egyptian hieroglyphs, mainly because they were stuck with the idea that "water" has to be water (not the letter 'n') and a jar is jar and not the combination "n+w" etc. Only since the 70ies people have been willing to accept that the Maya glyphs are essentially phonetic and only since the 70ies have we made some progress in reading them. An even for Chinese, which is a - very - alive language both most Westerners and still a lot of Chinese believe in those farflung mythological etymologies of their characters. I find that kind of sad.
Best regards,
Aurelio
Well, leaving aside the "biblical connection" between Fujian and the Israelites which I won't comment on, the linguistic part alone seems very far-fetched. Is there really a single text that uses 我援 to express "we"? If not, the whole goa-oan contraction hypothesis is complete speculation and not any kind of 'research'.
Even if this way of expressing "we" was found somewhere in a historical text that wouldn't prove that any meaning like "to assist" was really implied - it could just be a way to spell out the sound. I have strong (!) doubts that the 地 in 我地 really has got anything to do with "plains" or "earth" or whatever. Most likely, it's just a way to spell of the sound of some functional element in the language that lost it's individual meaning long before Cantonese was spelled out in characters (what's the "meaning" of the '-al' in 'functional or of "-ing" in 'meaning')?
If it doesn't have any meaning at the time of the development of characters, how to do anything else but spell out the sound by using/ modifying some existing character? - All (!) languages have functional elements the original meaning of which is completely unclear (if I say manmande zou, why do I use a character for "de" that actually means virtuous?) and remember that Chinese characters were primarily intended to write down the classic Chinese language not a particular modern dialect, so the number of needed extra characters is likely to get higher.
The Chinese writing system is essentially phonetic, just like the Egyptian Hieroglyphs, the cuneiform writing systems and the Maya glyphs. By 'essentially phonetic' I mean that most (but not all) characters actually depict the sound of a word (in the case of Hanzi, about 80% of all characters are put together from one half that indicates the meaning and one that indicates the sound). It took > 2000 years for Westerners to understand the Egyptian hieroglyphs, mainly because they were stuck with the idea that "water" has to be water (not the letter 'n') and a jar is jar and not the combination "n+w" etc. Only since the 70ies people have been willing to accept that the Maya glyphs are essentially phonetic and only since the 70ies have we made some progress in reading them. An even for Chinese, which is a - very - alive language both most Westerners and still a lot of Chinese believe in those farflung mythological etymologies of their characters. I find that kind of sad.
Best regards,
Aurelio