<p>It is just a coincidence. I haven't notice it until I see your question :)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-08T12:46:16.197Z
2020-04-08T12:46:16.197Z
Li Jinyao
<p>Yes it's a coincidence. The characters are completely unrelated.</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>办 ban4</strong> means &quot;to do, to handle&quot;, and it's a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Phono-semantic_compound_characters" rel="nofollow noreferrer">phono-semantic compound</a> where the 力 part (strength) conveys the meaning, and the two dots at the sides are a simplification of 辛 (xin1). <em>But</em> the phonetic part when doubled is pronounced bian4. Compare the simplified characters 辩 （as in 辩论）and 辨 （as in 辨别）</p>
<hr>
<p><strong>班 ban1</strong> means &quot;class, team&quot;, and it's a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Compound_ideographs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">compound ideograph</a> composed of two 玉 （jade）and 刀 （knife）.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>To 刀 cut up 玉 pieces of jade and bestow the halfs as rank insignia upon feudatory chiefs</em> (Karlgren)</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><strong>公 gong1</strong> alone means &quot;official duties&quot; or &quot;public affairs&quot;, and is （if I'm not mistaken) also a compound ideograph, from 八 and 厶.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>The right 八 division of 厶 private things</em> (Karlgren)</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><strong>工 gong1</strong> means &quot;work&quot; and is instead a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Pictograms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">pictogram</a> of an axe (a carpenter square, according to Karlgren). (See picture)</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ySimn.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ySimn.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-02T03:00:15.330Z
That description of 公 is not correct unfortunately (it’s actually a picture of a clay jar, and is the original form of 瓮). In general it’s better to trust paleographers over linguists for tracing glyph origins - paleographers have a higher focus on primary evidence.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-02T08:26:37.930Z
@dROOOze so is it the consensus now in academia that paleographers are more *correct* sources than linguists? Do you have any links? I’m not in front of my computer atm
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-02T08:34:32.827Z
Put it this way - paleographers will not only look at the primary sources of text (oracle bone, bronze inscriptions, bamboo strips), but they will also use linguistics as a tool to determine glyphs and the words they represent, and will engage in readings of classical literature. The most famous works on Chinese linguistics are now *outdated* - apart from Baxter and Sagart's work (2014) which reverses the process by including paleography in their linguistic models, the rest are a few decades out of date in terms of the latest research.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-02T08:36:18.317Z
This particular description of 公 comes straight from 說文, and is what people normally resort to if they don't have any better research to fall back on. Since linguists are normally more out-of-date than paleographers in models of writing and the words they represent, their description of glyph origins are much more likely to be out of date too.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-07-02T08:56:17.783Z
@dROOOze I see, that’s interesting. I would like to do some more research. Can you give me any titles that you deem particularly representative of this modern paleographic approach?
blackgreen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-27T17:19:01.787Z
2020-06-27T17:19:01.787Z
blackgreen
<p>Just a coincidence.
What you found is similar pronunciation of 上班, 办公 and 工作 in <strong>Mandarin</strong>, not similar pronunciation of 上班, 办公 and 工作 in <strong>Chinese</strong>.</p>
<p>If you get this point, you will realize that these three words appeared before Mandarin was created.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-29T20:18:23.493Z
Hi and welcome to Chinese Language Stack Exchange. I find your explanation a bit confusing, especially since you don't transcribe the pronunciation. "Mandarin" (官话) refers to a dialect group spoken predominantly in North-East China; "Chinese" is a broader group that includes Mandarin. Perhaps one of the two terms you used needs to be replaced with "Standard Chinese" (普通话)?
Tsundoku
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-06-27T16:33:05.733Z
2020-06-27T22:00:37.807Z
2020-06-27T22:00:37.807Z
SBBST
<p>Three important words when talking about work are</p>
<ul>
<li>上班 (shàng bān, to go to work)</li>
<li>办公 (bàn gōng, to work [esp. in an office])</li>
<li>工作 (gōng zuò, job / work)</li>
</ul>
<p>This can be confusing for beginners - I often get them mixed up because the pronunciations are similar, even though the symbols are completely different.</p>
<p>Is there are reason for the similar pronunciation of 班 and 办, respectively 公 and 工? Or is it basically just a coincidence?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-08T07:51:59.243Z
It is just coincidence.
fefe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-08T08:58:48.410Z
An interesting observation though.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-04-08T14:52:04.207Z
I think you need to ask yourself how similar they really are. It's essentially one syllable out of two and the tone is different (except for 公/工, which clearly don't mean the same thing). I agree that it's coincidence, I just want to point out that with very lax standards for "similar", anything can look related.
Olle Linge
<pronunciation><etymology>
Is the similar pronunciation of 上班, 办公 and 工作 just a coincidence?
# Is the similar pronunciation of 上班, 办公 and 工作 just a coincidence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-04-08)

Three important words when talking about work are

* 上班 (shàng bān, to go to work)
* 办公 (bàn gōng, to work [esp. in an office])
* 工作 (gōng zuò, job / work)

This can be confusing for beginners - I often get them mixed up because the pronunciations are similar, even though the symbols are completely different.

Is there are reason for the similar pronunciation of 班 and 办, respectively 公 and 工? Or is it basically just a coincidence?

**Tags:** pronunciation, etymology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It is just coincidence.  
> **username_2**: An interesting observation though.  
> **username_3**: I think you need to ask yourself how similar they really are. It's essentially one syllable out of two and the tone is different (except for 公/工, which clearly don't mean the same thing). I agree that it's coincidence, I just want to point out that with very lax standards for "similar", anything can look related.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-04-08. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

It is just a coincidence. I haven't notice it until I see your question :)


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-06-27. Score: 2

Yes it's a coincidence. The characters are completely unrelated.

---

**办 ban4** means "to do, to handle", and it's a [phono-semantic compound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Phono-semantic_compound_characters) where the 力 part (strength) conveys the meaning, and the two dots at the sides are a simplification of 辛 (xin1). *But* the phonetic part when doubled is pronounced bian4. Compare the simplified characters 辩 （as in 辩论）and 辨 （as in 辨别）

---

**班 ban1** means "class, team", and it's a [compound ideograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Compound_ideographs) composed of two 玉 （jade）and 刀 （knife）.

> *To 刀 cut up 玉 pieces of jade and bestow the halfs as rank insignia upon feudatory chiefs* (Karlgren)

---

**公 gong1** alone means "official duties" or "public affairs", and is （if I'm not mistaken) also a compound ideograph, from 八 and 厶.

> *The right 八 division of 厶 private things* (Karlgren)

---

**工 gong1** means "work" and is instead a [pictogram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification#Pictograms) of an axe (a carpenter square, according to Karlgren). (See picture)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ySimn.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ySimn.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_6**: That description of 公 is not correct unfortunately (it’s actually a picture of a clay jar, and is the original form of 瓮). In general it’s better to trust paleographers over linguists for tracing glyph origins - paleographers have a higher focus on primary evidence.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 so is it the consensus now in academia that paleographers are more *correct* sources than linguists? Do you have any links? I’m not in front of my computer atm  
> **username_6**: Put it this way - paleographers will not only look at the primary sources of text (oracle bone, bronze inscriptions, bamboo strips), but they will also use linguistics as a tool to determine glyphs and the words they represent, and will engage in readings of classical literature. The most famous works on Chinese linguistics are now *outdated* - apart from Baxter and Sagart's work (2014) which reverses the process by including paleography in their linguistic models, the rest are a few decades out of date in terms of the latest research.  
> **username_6**: This particular description of 公 comes straight from 說文, and is what people normally resort to if they don't have any better research to fall back on. Since linguists are normally more out-of-date than paleographers in models of writing and the words they represent, their description of glyph origins are much more likely to be out of date too.  
> **username_5**: @username_6 I see, that’s interesting. I would like to do some more research. Can you give me any titles that you deem particularly representative of this modern paleographic approach?  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2020-06-27. Score: 0

Just a coincidence.
What you found is similar pronunciation of 上班, 办公 and 工作 in **Mandarin**, not similar pronunciation of 上班, 办公 and 工作 in **Chinese**.

If you get this point, you will realize that these three words appeared before Mandarin was created.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: Hi and welcome to Chinese Language Stack Exchange. I find your explanation a bit confusing, especially since you don't transcribe the pronunciation. "Mandarin" (官话) refers to a dialect group spoken predominantly in North-East China; "Chinese" is a broader group that includes Mandarin. Perhaps one of the two terms you used needs to be replaced with "Standard Chinese" (普通话)?  

---

