<p><strong>In short, 虐 and 戲 are related to the character 虍/虎 in different ways, the former ideographically, the latter phonologically.</strong> According to <em>Shuowen</em>, 虐 in 謔 is but a phonogram.<sup>1</sup> <strong><em>Shijing</em> equating 善戲 with 謔 despite their derivational differences may thus well be a literary deliberation, which leads to <em>Shuowen</em> defining 謔 as 戲.</strong><sup>1</sup></p>
<p>虐 is a compound ideograph comprising 虎 (tiger) and 人 (man). <em>Shuowen</em> duly explains its origin as a tiger injuring a man with its claws. <sup>2</sup> 虎 itself is a simple pictogram of a tiger.</p>
<p>戲, however, is a phono-semantogram. It comprises the phonogram 䖒 and the semantogram 戈, originally meaning 'secondary forces of an army'.<sup>3</sup> 䖒 is a type of ancient pottery that comprises the phonogram 虍 and the semantogram 豆.<sup>4</sup> 虍 is an abbreviated form of 虎.<sup>5</sup></p>
<p>(Regarding how 戲 evolves to mean 'play; jest', there is <a href="https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E6%88%B2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">debate</a>. Perhaps it also means 'wrestle; fistfight' which then esoterically evolves to its current meaning. Perhaps there is loaning between 戲 and 嬉, but Jao Tsung-I <a href="https://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E5%AC%89" rel="nofollow noreferrer">argues</a> 嬉 in the oracle bone script is a separate entity from 'play'. By Confucian times 戲 already possesses its current meaning.)</p>
<p>Consider a third character, 獻. Originally meaning 'a sacrifice dog', it comprises the phonogram 鬳 and semantogram 犬. <sup>6</sup> 鬳 is a type of vessel that comprises the phonogram 虍 and the semantogram 鬲. <sup>7</sup></p>
<p>Oracle bone script of 虍: <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ST8Jd.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ST8Jd.png" alt="虍" /></a></p>
<p>Oracle bone script of 虎: <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ohRea.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ohRea.png" alt="虎" /></a></p>
<p>In fact, 虍 is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_141" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kangxi radical</a>. A cursory read at the characters sorted under 虍 convinces me that many of them are phono-semantograms that share the same phonogram 虍/虎. A notable exception is 虞, originally indicating a hypothetical tiger-esque beast, now meaning danger (a derived meaning). Obviously  虍/虎 now becomes the semantogram, and 吳 the phonogram. <sup>8</sup></p>
<p><em>Shuowen</em> entries cited:</p>
<pre><code>1. 謔：戲也。从言，虐聲。《詩》曰：善戲謔兮。
2. 虐：殘也。从虍，虎足反爪人也。
3. 戲：三軍之偏也。一曰：兵也。从戈，䖒聲。
4. 䖒：古陶器也。从豆，虍聲。
5. 虍：虎文也。象形。凡虍之屬皆从虍。
6. 獻：宗廟犬，名羹獻，犬肥者以獻之。从犬，鬳聲。
7. 鬳：鬲屬。从鬲，虍聲。
8. 虞：騶虞也。白虎，黑文，尾長於身，仁獸，食自死之肉。从虍，吳聲。
</code></pre>
<hr />
<p><strong>Edit</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><p>The etymological 'connection' between 戲, 謔, and 虐 does not matter much to the modern reader.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Above, I posited that the apparent connection between these three characters, if any, is at most coincidental, given 虍 acts as an ideogram in 虐 (tiger), but a phonogram in 謔 and 戲. The sole purpose for 虍 to exist in the latter case is to provide pronunciation, not meaning.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Many modern readers use the convenient (but often erroneous) strategy 有邊讀邊 (lit. to read one side of the character) when encountering a difficult character. 謔 I believe is no different; in fact the pronunciations of 謔 and 虐 are indistinguishable in Cantonese. However, that does not hinder the average reader from realising there exists a difference in meaning between them. Let us assume one does not know the character 銅 for 'bronze'; should they know how to read 同, they still will not jump to the conclusion that 銅 must share a semantic similarity with 同 for 'same'.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Hence my emphatic refutation of your statement; 謔 and 虐 should be seen as characters different in meaning. Of course there are a limited subset of characters where their phonogram is also their second semantogram (e.g. 坪), but I do not think 謔 is the case, nor does <em>Shuowen</em>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Despite the marked difference in etymology between 謔 and 虐, I do concur with you that their immediate juxtaposition in the verse <em>is</em> intended to be appreciated, out of character similarity or pronunciational similarity. It just so happens that semantically the verse makes sense as well - a joke (戲謔) is good if it is not too far or 'cruel' (虐). This to me is, in a sense, a word play, or a literary tactic to attract the attention of the reader.</p>
</li>
<li><p>As a hypothesis, I do think 戲 and 謔 have evolved to be 連綿詞 despite their very different origins, so in that sense one may consider them 'connected'. No native speaker will, however, appreciate their graphical similarity (especially so if in simplified characters, sadly) - they each have their own meanings with which the phonogram 虍 does not associate; even if one does not realise 虍 serves such a function, it will still be conveniently ignored because it does not help in understanding the characters, let alone an ancient verse. That is to say, it has an almost fossil-like existence.</p>
</li>
<li><p>If by salient you mean overt, then yes, a reasonably educated reader will notice they share 虍, but that is a useless finding to most; if you mean noteworthy, then no, it is not, for reasons stated in points 3 and 6, and for the fact that this is a false proposition itself - there is no noteworthy etymological similarity between the three characters. Even if there were, the connection is very, very abstruse.</p>
</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T13:50:33.050Z
Thanks.  But the average Chinese reader today will not know most of this.  I am asking: will that reader still make the connection?   I think surely yes.  But I want to ask people who actually know.
Colin McLarty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T13:59:15.220Z
I am a native Cantonese and Mandarin speaker myself despite my alias. No, I don’t make the connection between 謔 and 戲. I too had to look up what you saw in my answer. At most I consider them alliteration (in Mandarin) with fairly similar meanings, but after understanding their respective origins, I’m convinced the *Shijing* verse is a literary creation.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T14:15:13.753Z
You may be interested in the phenomenon 聯錦詞. Wiktionary defines it as 'disyllabic morpheme[s], usually ideophonic and reduplicative in origin'. The characters within these words e.g. 琵琶 and 朦朧 share very similar structures. It is often said their individual sounds matter less than their combined meaning (many share the same semantogram). *Perhaps* 戲謔 can be considered as one.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T14:22:06.347Z
@L Parker  Thanks.  With y our suggestion, I googled this and found the Baidu article first.  It was very helpful on how features like this can help even native speakers understand a text, but some native speaker students do not see it at first.
Colin McLarty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T16:31:35.847Z
I have edited my answer.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-08T22:38:55.867Z
There is no direct connection between 戲 and 謔.  戲 is a play, 謔. is a cynical comment. Put together, 戲謔 represents a playful action or a combination of a playful action and wordings used to trick someone who has a close relationship with you and usually trusts you. 虐 is a brutal act put on someone that is meant to generate/cause both physical and emotional harm.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T07:26:31.633Z
2021-03-12T00:07:09.633Z
2021-03-12T00:07:09.633Z
L Parker
<p>虐 and 謔 are obviously connected, because of the shared 虐 component and their similar pronunciations.</p>
<p>戲 does not seem to be connected with the other two.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T14:16:14.000Z
@L Parker's cites to Shouwen show 戲 is related only indirectly to the others.  But I am asking whether an average Chinese reader today would notice that all three have 虍。  You are not an average reader, of course, but what do you think about that?
Colin McLarty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-11T03:39:31.960Z
@ColinMcLarty What I wrote was what I thought at first glance, so I guess an average reader wouldn't notice anything more. Also, since Mainland China uses simplified characters, which changes 戲 into 戏, it's even less likely people will notice anything. (On the other hand, the simplified 谑 is still very obviously connected to 虐.)
Betty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-10T06:09:56.570Z
2021-03-10T06:09:56.570Z
Betty
<p>well, don’t fixated with regular script (階書) </p>
<p>a brief search is, only “虐” appears in oracle bone script, and both “虐” &amp; “戲” appear in bronze script.</p>
<p><a href="http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E6%88%B2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=戲</a></p>
<p><a href="http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E8%AC%94" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=謔</a></p>
<p><a href="http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E8%99%90" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=虐</a></p>
<p>for the book of odes, imo, thinking the verse in bronze script, or seal script is better.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-09T16:01:23.053Z
The 3,000 year history is complicated indeed. I would be interested to know which script would Confucius have seen for the Shijing? Which script would the book 孟子 have been written in, pre-Qin?  But my posted question is about modern readers of modern fonts.
Colin McLarty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-09T15:41:48.073Z
2021-03-09T15:41:48.073Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>The last two lines of 淇奧 - Qi Yu, in the <em>Shijing</em> as it is printed today are:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>善戲謔兮, 不為虐兮.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Will an ordinary Chinese reader today notice the etymological connection between 戲, 謔, and 虐?  It seems to me very likely, especially since 虐 is expressly contrasted to 戲, 謔 in the song.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-11T11:20:21.933Z
Generally, graphical similarity does not have a relation to etymological connection. 吾 and 我 are cognate to each other, while 僯, 隣, 撛, 噒, 獜, 潾, 憐, 璘 are not, even if they are pronounced very similarly/identically.
dROOOze
<characters><reading>
How salient is the graphic similarity of 戲, 謔, 虐 to readers?
# How salient is the graphic similarity of 戲, 謔, 虐 to readers?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-09)

The last two lines of 淇奧 - Qi Yu, in the *Shijing* as it is printed today are:

> 善戲謔兮, 不為虐兮.

Will an ordinary Chinese reader today notice the etymological connection between 戲, 謔, and 虐?  It seems to me very likely, especially since 虐 is expressly contrasted to 戲, 謔 in the song.

**Tags:** characters, reading
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Generally, graphical similarity does not have a relation to etymological connection. 吾 and 我 are cognate to each other, while 僯, 隣, 撛, 噒, 獜, 潾, 憐, 璘 are not, even if they are pronounced very similarly/identically.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-03-10. Score: 2

In short, 虐 and 戲 are related to the character 虍/虎 in different ways, the former ideographically, the latter phonologically. According to Shuowen, 虐 in 謔 is but a phonogram.1 Shijing equating 善戲 with 謔 despite their derivational differences may thus well be a literary deliberation, which leads to Shuowen defining 謔 as 戲.1
虐 is a compound ideograph comprising 虎 (tiger) and 人 (man). Shuowen duly explains its origin as a tiger injuring a man with its claws. 2 虎 itself is a simple pictogram of a tiger.
戲, however, is a phono-semantogram. It comprises the phonogram 䖒 and the semantogram 戈, originally meaning 'secondary forces of an army'.3 䖒 is a type of ancient pottery that comprises the phonogram 虍 and the semantogram 豆.4 虍 is an abbreviated form of 虎.5
(Regarding how 戲 evolves to mean 'play; jest', there is debate. Perhaps it also means 'wrestle; fistfight' which then esoterically evolves to its current meaning. Perhaps there is loaning between 戲 and 嬉, but Jao Tsung-I argues 嬉 in the oracle bone script is a separate entity from 'play'. By Confucian times 戲 already possesses its current meaning.)
Consider a third character, 獻. Originally meaning 'a sacrifice dog', it comprises the phonogram 鬳 and semantogram 犬. 6 鬳 is a type of vessel that comprises the phonogram 虍 and the semantogram 鬲. 7
Oracle bone script of 虍: 
Oracle bone script of 虎: 
In fact, 虍 is a Kangxi radical. A cursory read at the characters sorted under 虍 convinces me that many of them are phono-semantograms that share the same phonogram 虍/虎. A notable exception is 虞, originally indicating a hypothetical tiger-esque beast, now meaning danger (a derived meaning). Obviously  虍/虎 now becomes the semantogram, and 吳 the phonogram. 8
Shuowen entries cited:
1. 謔：戲也。从言，虐聲。《詩》曰：善戲謔兮。
2. 虐：殘也。从虍，虎足反爪人也。
3. 戲：三軍之偏也。一曰：兵也。从戈，䖒聲。
4. 䖒：古陶器也。从豆，虍聲。
5. 虍：虎文也。象形。凡虍之屬皆从虍。
6. 獻：宗廟犬，名羹獻，犬肥者以獻之。从犬，鬳聲。
7. 鬳：鬲屬。从鬲，虍聲。
8. 虞：騶虞也。白虎，黑文，尾長於身，仁獸，食自死之肉。从虍，吳聲。


Edit

The etymological 'connection' between 戲, 謔, and 虐 does not matter much to the modern reader.

Above, I posited that the apparent connection between these three characters, if any, is at most coincidental, given 虍 acts as an ideogram in 虐 (tiger), but a phonogram in 謔 and 戲. The sole purpose for 虍 to exist in the latter case is to provide pronunciation, not meaning.

Many modern readers use the convenient (but often erroneous) strategy 有邊讀邊 (lit. to read one side of the character) when encountering a difficult character. 謔 I believe is no different; in fact the pronunciations of 謔 and 虐 are indistinguishable in Cantonese. However, that does not hinder the average reader from realising there exists a difference in meaning between them. Let us assume one does not know the character 銅 for 'bronze'; should they know how to read 同, they still will not jump to the conclusion that 銅 must share a semantic similarity with 同 for 'same'.

Hence my emphatic refutation of your statement; 謔 and 虐 should be seen as characters different in meaning. Of course there are a limited subset of characters where their phonogram is also their second semantogram (e.g. 坪), but I do not think 謔 is the case, nor does Shuowen.

Despite the marked difference in etymology between 謔 and 虐, I do concur with you that their immediate juxtaposition in the verse is intended to be appreciated, out of character similarity or pronunciational similarity. It just so happens that semantically the verse makes sense as well - a joke (戲謔) is good if it is not too far or 'cruel' (虐). This to me is, in a sense, a word play, or a literary tactic to attract the attention of the reader.

As a hypothesis, I do think 戲 and 謔 have evolved to be 連綿詞 despite their very different origins, so in that sense one may consider them 'connected'. No native speaker will, however, appreciate their graphical similarity (especially so if in simplified characters, sadly) - they each have their own meanings with which the phonogram 虍 does not associate; even if one does not realise 虍 serves such a function, it will still be conveniently ignored because it does not help in understanding the characters, let alone an ancient verse. That is to say, it has an almost fossil-like existence.

If by salient you mean overt, then yes, a reasonably educated reader will notice they share 虍, but that is a useless finding to most; if you mean noteworthy, then no, it is not, for reasons stated in points 3 and 6, and for the fact that this is a false proposition itself - there is no noteworthy etymological similarity between the three characters. Even if there were, the connection is very, very abstruse.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks.  But the average Chinese reader today will not know most of this.  I am asking: will that reader still make the connection?   I think surely yes.  But I want to ask people who actually know.  
> **username_2**: I am a native Cantonese and Mandarin speaker myself despite my alias. No, I don’t make the connection between 謔 and 戲. I too had to look up what you saw in my answer. At most I consider them alliteration (in Mandarin) with fairly similar meanings, but after understanding their respective origins, I’m convinced the *Shijing* verse is a literary creation.  
> **username_2**: You may be interested in the phenomenon 聯錦詞. Wiktionary defines it as 'disyllabic morpheme[s], usually ideophonic and reduplicative in origin'. The characters within these words e.g. 琵琶 and 朦朧 share very similar structures. It is often said their individual sounds matter less than their combined meaning (many share the same semantogram). *Perhaps* 戲謔 can be considered as one.  
> **username_0**: @L Parker  Thanks.  With y our suggestion, I googled this and found the Baidu article first.  It was very helpful on how features like this can help even native speakers understand a text, but some native speaker students do not see it at first.  
> **username_2**: I have edited my answer.  
> **username_3**: There is no direct connection between 戲 and 謔.  戲 is a play, 謔. is a cynical comment. Put together, 戲謔 represents a playful action or a combination of a playful action and wordings used to trick someone who has a close relationship with you and usually trusts you. 虐 is a brutal act put on someone that is meant to generate/cause both physical and emotional harm.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-03-10. Score: 0

虐 and 謔 are obviously connected, because of the shared 虐 component and their similar pronunciations.

戲 does not seem to be connected with the other two.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @L Parker's cites to Shouwen show 戲 is related only indirectly to the others.  But I am asking whether an average Chinese reader today would notice that all three have 虍。  You are not an average reader, of course, but what do you think about that?  
> **username_4**: @ColinMcLarty What I wrote was what I thought at first glance, so I guess an average reader wouldn't notice anything more. Also, since Mainland China uses simplified characters, which changes 戲 into 戏, it's even less likely people will notice anything. (On the other hand, the simplified 谑 is still very obviously connected to 虐.)  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-03-09. Score: 0

well, don’t fixated with regular script (階書)

a brief search is, only “虐” appears in oracle bone script, and both “虐” & “戲” appear in bronze script.

[http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=戲](http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E6%88%B2)

[http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=謔](http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E8%AC%94)

[http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=虐](http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/search.php?word=%E8%99%90)

for the book of odes, imo, thinking the verse in bronze script, or seal script is better.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: The 3,000 year history is complicated indeed. I would be interested to know which script would Confucius have seen for the Shijing? Which script would the book 孟子 have been written in, pre-Qin?  But my posted question is about modern readers of modern fonts.  

---

