I have discussed two groups of words in my last post.
1. (鯉, 鯊, 鯨, 鯽, 鰭, 鰱, 鱷, 鱘, 鱒, 鱔 …)
2. (鴿 、 鴨 、 鸚 、 鵡 、 鵬 …),
Group B: (志 、 誌 、 痣 ),
There should be no question that group A words are 形 聲 (phonetic loan) words.
a. All A1 words have a radical 魚 (fish) which identifies the category, and the sound tag of each word is identifying the type of fish. It is the same case for all A2 words which has a radical 鳥 (bird).
b. Each sound tag has two attributes, its meaning, and its phonetic value. In these cases, the meaning of the sound tag does not play a major role in making that word. The phonetic value of that sound tag makes a major contribution to separate that word from other words in the same group.
On the contrary, the meaning of the group B words is mainly coming from the “meaning” of the sound tag while its phonetic value contributes almost nothing. In fact, the phonetic value of the sound tag cannot make any contribution for distinguishing these three words as they are having identical pronunciation. The only way to distinguish them is by their different word forms which infer out different meanings for each word.
i. 志 (will, marked willingness) is 士 (scholar) over 心 (heart). Scholar’s heart carries a will.
ii. 誌 (journal) is 言 (speech or words) + 志 (will, marked willingness). Marking the will with words becomes a journal.
iii. 痣 (a birthmark) is root 180 (illness or biologic) + 志 (will, marked willingness), a biologic mark.
Thus, the meaning of the group B words is mainly arising from a logic inferring process, not from the phonetic value of the sound tag. So, group B words are 會 意 words and cannot be phonetic loan words although they do have sound tags.
Thus, there is a law to distinguish the 會 意 and the 形 聲 words.
Law 1: If the meaning of a word arises from the phonetic value of its sound tag, it is a 形 聲 word. If the meaning of a word arises from the semantic value of its sound tag, it is a 會 意 word.
Then, what type of words does 傢, 俱 belong to?
Tienzen (Jeh-Tween) Gong