<p>Tl;dr: A possible rule of thumb is by gauging whether the query is of the nature of a word, or a character. But the correct use of tags indeed depends on the knowledge of the asker. The dependence of correct tagging on knowledge is sometimes unavoidable.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think it is very important to understand how the tags <a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a> and <a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a> interact with established concepts such as <strong>形音義</strong> (lit. form, sound, and meaning) and <strong>六書</strong> (<em>liushu</em>, lit. six scripts). To me, in summary:</p>
<div class="s-table-container">
<table class="s-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"></th>
<th style="text-align: center;"><a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a></th>
<th style="text-align: center;"><a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">Unit of query</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">A word, i.e. ≥1 character(s)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">A character</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">Emphasis of query</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Evolution of meaning</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Relation between form, (sound), and meaning</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;"><em>Liushu</em> involved</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">Rebus characters, derived cognates</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">All</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p>I will use the term 'sense' interchangeably with 'meaning' below.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Idioms (e.g. <code>老驥伏櫪</code>), loan words (e.g. <code>幽默</code>), and binomes (or <em>lianmian</em>, e.g. <code>逍遙</code>) go well with <a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a>. The asker is interested to know <em>why</em> the word means such, usually implying they tried to parse the word with the knowledge of individual characters, but failed. Now this may be due to classical Chinese, or the simple fact that the word is unparsable. That is to say, the threshold for successful understanding is high in these words. Conversely, even if the word is easily parsable to the average learner of Chinese, they may still be interested in understanding the history of the word, particularly polysemous words.</p>
<p>Of course, an elementary learner of Chinese may fail to grasp the meaning of <code>快樂</code> due to <em>incorrect</em> parsing, compared to say a more advanced learner who already knows <code>快</code> does not mean 'fast' here (perhaps after exposure to words e.g. <code>快意</code> and <code>快感</code>). I think it does not hurt to use <a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a>, where answerers will then expound on the various meanings of the classical <code>快</code> (perhaps their relationship too, and which sense came about first, if evidence exists). Of course, using <a href="/questions/tagged/meaning" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;meaning&#39;" rel="tag">meaning</a> concurrently is preferred.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Frequently, when using <a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a>, askers are motivated by wanting to understand how the form of a character they see relates to the meaning they presumably already looked up. How is the form of <code>果</code> related to its meaning 'fruit'? Answerers will then explain the character is a pictograph of a tree bearing plentiful fruits. For other characters, the <em>liushu</em> involved may be different.</p>
<p>Of course, if the asker incorrectly thinks there is a direct
relationship between the derived sense (引伸義) 'result' (as in <code>果然</code>,
<code>結果</code>) with the character form and applies only <a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a>,
then editors should add <a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a> to the question too, because
this is a complex question that asks</p>
<ul>
<li>What is the relationship between the senses 'result' and 'fruit' in <code>果</code>? (<a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a>); and</li>
<li>What is the relationship between the sense 'fruit' (not 'result') and the form <code>果</code>? (<a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p>To the first half of the question, Buddhist application of <code>果</code> can be cited (the translation of <em>phala</em> 'fruit' in Sanskrit into Chinese, itself meaning 'fruition' or 'effect'). The historicity therefore inclines to <a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>There are words that comprise only one character, which defeats the rule of thumb. They are usually polysemous too. Let us use the fairly classical <code>鬻 yù</code> meaning '(v.) to sell' or '(n.) gruel' as example. One may ask:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What is the relationship between the senses '(v.) to sell' and '(n.) gruel' in <code>鬻</code>?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>and tag it under <a href="/questions/tagged/etymology" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;etymology&#39;" rel="tag">etymology</a>, incorrectly thinking there is perhaps a somewhat obscure relationship between the two senses. Or</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For the form <code>鬻</code>, how did it develop its meaning?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They do meet superficially the criterion of the tag, but in actuality, glyphic knowledge, specifically rebus in <em>liushu</em> (假借), is required.</p>
<p>'(n.) gruel' is the only sense that is explainable from the glyph. Paleographers believe the form <code>鬻</code> is borrowed to mean '(v.) to sell' out of phonological similarity (<code>yù</code>) to a (perhaps characterless) entity that means '(v.) to sell'. Gradually the sense '(n.) gruel' faded and '(v.) to sell' became dominant.</p>
<p>In that case, editors should add <a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a> to the question.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Sound is often not the concern of askers, but when asked, questions like</p>
<ul>
<li>Why is the form <code>鬻</code> pronounced like <code>yù</code>?</li>
<li>Is <code>粥</code> the phonetic component of <code>鬻</code>?</li>
<li>How is the sound of <code>鬻</code> reconstructed in Old and Middle Chinese?</li>
</ul>
<p>should be tagged under <a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a>, perhaps alongside with other tags. That is because reconstructors educatedly compare characters related by sound, e.g. <code>粥</code> and <code>育</code>, and make reference to <em>liushu</em> as well, alongside other phonological references e.g. rhyme books.</p>
</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-09T23:12:20.290Z
2021-05-09T23:53:04.897Z
2021-05-09T23:53:04.897Z
L Parker
<p>Askers, including me, often seem to confuse the two terms, and understanding the distinction between the two is so critical to advanced study of Chinese characters and words.</p>
<p>The question can probably be answered to a satisfactory extent by just checking the relevant Wikipedia articles, and some other on-site resources. In particular I have read:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Etymology</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chinese Characters</a></li>
<li>The tag wiki of <a href="/questions/tagged/glyph-origin" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;glyph-origin&#39;" rel="tag">glyph-origin</a>, which was synthesized from some great answers throughout the site</li>
<li>On-site answers that point to relevant resources, as — <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/39338">What&#39;s a good place to look up the etymology of certain Chinese words that aren&#39;t immediately obvious?</a>, — <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/21296">Where to look for history and etymology of Chinese characters? For example 工</a>, — <a href="https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/511">What etymology dictionaries are available?</a></li>
</ul>
<p>From the above, one could conclude that, roughly:</p>
<ul>
<li>etymology is about words</li>
<li>glyph origin is about, well... glyphs, i.e. the graphical element(s) used to represent a particular word</li>
</ul>
<p>However, there are a few aspects that complicate the matter for Chinese:</p>
<ul>
<li>words and glyphs often overlap</li>
<li><em>knowing which one to ask for depends on already having knowledge about it</em>.</li>
</ul>
<p>For example, my understanding is that asking about etymology of loan characters is moot, since they are loans. In general, the distinction, and how to talk about one or the other, isn't completely clear to me, maybe because I lack formal education in this area.</p>
<p>So I would like to ask:</p>
<p><strong>what's the difference between etymology and glyph origin?</strong></p>
<p>Thank you.</p>

<difference><etymology><glyph-origin>
What's the difference between etymology and glyph origin?
# What's the difference between etymology and glyph origin?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-05-09)

Askers, including me, often seem to confuse the two terms, and understanding the distinction between the two is so critical to advanced study of Chinese characters and words.

The question can probably be answered to a satisfactory extent by just checking the relevant Wikipedia articles, and some other on-site resources. In particular I have read:

* [Etymology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology)
* [Chinese Characters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters)
* The tag wiki of [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'"), which was synthesized from some great answers throughout the site
* On-site answers that point to relevant resources, as — [What's a good place to look up the etymology of certain Chinese words that aren't immediately obvious?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/39338), — [Where to look for history and etymology of Chinese characters? For example 工](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/21296), — [What etymology dictionaries are available?](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/511)

From the above, one could conclude that, roughly:

* etymology is about words
* glyph origin is about, well... glyphs, i.e. the graphical element(s) used to represent a particular word

However, there are a few aspects that complicate the matter for Chinese:

* words and glyphs often overlap
* *knowing which one to ask for depends on already having knowledge about it*.

For example, my understanding is that asking about etymology of loan characters is moot, since they are loans. In general, the distinction, and how to talk about one or the other, isn't completely clear to me, maybe because I lack formal education in this area.

So I would like to ask:

**what's the difference between etymology and glyph origin?**

Thank you.

**Tags:** difference, etymology, glyph-origin

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-05-09. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

Tl;dr: A possible rule of thumb is by gauging whether the query is of the nature of a word, or a character. But the correct use of tags indeed depends on the knowledge of the asker. The dependence of correct tagging on knowledge is sometimes unavoidable.

1. I think it is very important to understand how the tags [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'") and [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'") interact with established concepts such as **形音義** (lit. form, sound, and meaning) and **六書** (*liushu*, lit. six scripts). To me, in summary:

   |  | [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'") | [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'") |
   | --- | --- | --- |
   | Unit of query | A word, i.e. ≥1 character(s) | A character |
   | Emphasis of query | Evolution of meaning | Relation between form, (sound), and meaning |
   | *Liushu* involved | Rebus characters, derived cognates | All |

   I will use the term 'sense' interchangeably with 'meaning' below.
2. Idioms (e.g. `老驥伏櫪`), loan words (e.g. `幽默`), and binomes (or *lianmian*, e.g. `逍遙`) go well with [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'"). The asker is interested to know *why* the word means such, usually implying they tried to parse the word with the knowledge of individual characters, but failed. Now this may be due to classical Chinese, or the simple fact that the word is unparsable. That is to say, the threshold for successful understanding is high in these words. Conversely, even if the word is easily parsable to the average learner of Chinese, they may still be interested in understanding the history of the word, particularly polysemous words.

   Of course, an elementary learner of Chinese may fail to grasp the meaning of `快樂` due to *incorrect* parsing, compared to say a more advanced learner who already knows `快` does not mean 'fast' here (perhaps after exposure to words e.g. `快意` and `快感`). I think it does not hurt to use [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'"), where answerers will then expound on the various meanings of the classical `快` (perhaps their relationship too, and which sense came about first, if evidence exists). Of course, using [meaning](/questions/tagged/meaning "show questions tagged 'meaning'") concurrently is preferred.
3. Frequently, when using [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'"), askers are motivated by wanting to understand how the form of a character they see relates to the meaning they presumably already looked up. How is the form of `果` related to its meaning 'fruit'? Answerers will then explain the character is a pictograph of a tree bearing plentiful fruits. For other characters, the *liushu* involved may be different.

   Of course, if the asker incorrectly thinks there is a direct
   relationship between the derived sense (引伸義) 'result' (as in `果然`,
   `結果`) with the character form and applies only [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'"),
   then editors should add [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'") to the question too, because
   this is a complex question that asks

   * What is the relationship between the senses 'result' and 'fruit' in `果`? ([etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'")); and
   * What is the relationship between the sense 'fruit' (not 'result') and the form `果`? ([glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'"))

   To the first half of the question, Buddhist application of `果` can be cited (the translation of *phala* 'fruit' in Sanskrit into Chinese, itself meaning 'fruition' or 'effect'). The historicity therefore inclines to [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'").
4. There are words that comprise only one character, which defeats the rule of thumb. They are usually polysemous too. Let us use the fairly classical `鬻 yù` meaning '(v.) to sell' or '(n.) gruel' as example. One may ask:

   > What is the relationship between the senses '(v.) to sell' and '(n.) gruel' in `鬻`?

   and tag it under [etymology](/questions/tagged/etymology "show questions tagged 'etymology'"), incorrectly thinking there is perhaps a somewhat obscure relationship between the two senses. Or

   > For the form `鬻`, how did it develop its meaning?

   They do meet superficially the criterion of the tag, but in actuality, glyphic knowledge, specifically rebus in *liushu* (假借), is required.

   '(n.) gruel' is the only sense that is explainable from the glyph. Paleographers believe the form `鬻` is borrowed to mean '(v.) to sell' out of phonological similarity (`yù`) to a (perhaps characterless) entity that means '(v.) to sell'. Gradually the sense '(n.) gruel' faded and '(v.) to sell' became dominant.

   In that case, editors should add [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'") to the question.
5. Sound is often not the concern of askers, but when asked, questions like

   * Why is the form `鬻` pronounced like `yù`?
   * Is `粥` the phonetic component of `鬻`?
   * How is the sound of `鬻` reconstructed in Old and Middle Chinese?

   should be tagged under [glyph-origin](/questions/tagged/glyph-origin "show questions tagged 'glyph-origin'"), perhaps alongside with other tags. That is because reconstructors educatedly compare characters related by sound, e.g. `粥` and `育`, and make reference to *liushu* as well, alongside other phonological references e.g. rhyme books.


---

