<p>我要看电视。<br />
I wanna watch TV.<br />
明天我要上学。<br />
I gotta go to school tomorrow.</p>
<p>要：“腰”的古字<br />
覀 ：two-hands  jú and (rem+ 交 jiāo waist)</p>
<p>Basic meaning of 要：necessary, essential; necessity</p>
<p>索取 ask, demand：要账、要价<br />
希望  wish for，想 want：要强、 要好<br />
请求request：她要我给她读报<br />
重大 important，值得重视的 attach importance to：重要、要人 (VIP) 要领  纲要、 要言不烦<br />
应该should，必须 must：须要 (must)<br />
将（jiāng）：将要 （shall, will）、快要 (soon)<br />
如果，倘若：要是 （if）<br />
表选择：要么 (either ... or) 要不、 （otherwise) 要不然</p>
<p>The old character shows two hands (not belonging to the woman I think) around a woman's waist, basic meaning &quot;necessary&quot;.<br />
What were those old Chinese thinking of?</p>
<p>My theory about this character: (note, all old characters show hands having only 3 fingers and everyone knows aliens only have 3 fingers on each hand)</p>
<p>Aliens came to ancient China to kidnap women, because their own females had become infertile! Those green devils!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-29T05:17:05.410Z
Quote:- "Aliens came to ancient China to kidnap women, because their own females had become infertile" Right and wrong. Right because China is the most populous nation on Earth, so Chinese females were and are extraordinarily fertile, or that the Chinese males were and are very potent. Wrong because according to Genesis 6.2 of the Bible -- New International Version -- "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" So, it was the beauty of Chinese women, though called "daughters of humans" because "China" did not exist then.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T23:46:55.330Z
2022-04-28T23:46:55.330Z
Pedroski
<p><strong>(明天）我要上学“ would probably mean &quot;I am going to go to school&quot;</strong>, I consider this interpretation is incorrect.</p>
<p>Note that 要 has the following meanings - want, must, demand, request, ask.</p>
<p>明天我要上学 - here, 要 implies &quot;a duty to, or, an obligation to, thus it should be interpreted as &quot;Tomorrow I <strong>must/need to</strong> go to school.</p>
<p>However, 要 can be interpreted as &quot;going to&quot;, such as in &quot;我要寫功課了&quot;, for some task to be completed in the future. This interpretation seems an extension of the original usages/meanings, that only see modern time uses.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-29T19:31:37.067Z
I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that you have a habit of answering questions by just copying and pasting dictionary definitions of words that are relevant to the question.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-29T20:23:00.877Z
@BuddyL Yes, I consider the dictionary to be the most recognized source, if not the most accurate, of the interpretation/explanation of a word and choose not to deviate from it unless I can provide the sources that hold convincing yet offer different meanings/uses of the word, and are worthy to mention. I found it is a troblesome trend that many people are not willing to open up the readily available learning source/tool - dictionary, but relying on the answers from the internet through a few key strokes.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T03:55:07.483Z
Every thing has its time & place, be it dictionary, Wikipedia, trendy social media usage, even one's long or short life experiences has a bearing. In any case on a public peer review platform such as this, informal checks and balances are at work, not mention our august group of Moderators who wield life & death powers. So, Live and let Live, meaning "one should tolerate the opinions and behavior of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own", (copied from an Internet dictionary :) )
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T10:52:30.693Z
@WayneCheah I don't get your point. Do you mean I should express my own opinion rather than simply citing the meanings from the dictionary? If it is the case, what's wrong with the "habit of answering questions by just copying and pasting dictionary definitions of words that are **relevant to the question.** "?
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T12:43:38.040Z
"Every thing has its time & place". I am actually commenting on @BuddyL comment about "...habit of answering questions by just copying and pasting dictionary definitions of words" There is a time to cite sources, there is a time to express an individual opinion, and of course both.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-30T12:47:54.363Z
@WayneCheah Got you. Thanks.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-01T10:50:47.993Z
I think people can use whatever sources they have available, just as long as it's clear what those sources are. Dictionaries are good enough to answer a very large number of questions that get asked on this site. However, the question at hand isn't about what the words mean or how they are used, but which usage came first, which isn't mentioned in your answer. Compare with the accepted answer, which does address the question.
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-01T14:38:17.910Z
@OlleLinge It is a polite way to point out that the OP's question contains misinformation, or assumption contrary to the meanings provided dictionary.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-02T15:45:55.343Z
I think it would be better to be clear than polite, although both would be preferable! I did not understand what your intentions were and I would assume (due to the downvotes) that other people didn't either. It just looks like you ignored the question. I think the question is rather clear, to be honest, and Michaelyus already provided a good answer. The various ways the example sentence can or cannot be interpreted don't really affect the question itself, I think.
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-02T16:03:42.297Z
@OlleLinge Keep the record straight, I was the first to answer this question, which I don't think deserves further explanation/discussion, and it should be enough to show the OP, and potentially the others, how the word is defined/interpreted in the dictionary.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-02T19:55:28.897Z
I didn't mean to imply that his answer was there when you answered, I simply meant that his answer makes it clear that there is in fact a correct answer to the question. I don't understand why sowing dictionary definitions is useful for answering a question about which usage/meaning came about first in history, unless it's a dictionary with etymology and historical usages.
Olle Linge
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-02T20:17:07.020Z
@OlleLinge Because the interpretations from the dictionary do not contain/assign the meaning for "will", or "going to", so there is no confirmable historical connection.
r13
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-28T23:06:32.557Z
2022-05-01T17:34:03.730Z
2022-05-01T17:34:03.730Z
r13
<blockquote>
<p>My question is: did 要 originally mean &quot;to want to&quot; and then get extended to mean &quot;going to&quot;? This would be similar to the history of &quot;will&quot; in English.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Yes</strong>. In the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1075/la.227.13lab" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>The grammaticalization of 要 and the future cycle from Archaic Chinese to Modern Mandarin</em></a>, LaBarge (2016) states in the abstract that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Similar to English <em>will</em>, 要 <em>yāo/yào</em> has developed new functional meanings apart from its earlier semantic meanings of Compulsion and Volition, including deontic and future time uses.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These all have more disambiguated disyllabic versions: 将要 (future), 须要 (the deontic meaning), 想要 (the full verb &quot;want&quot;).</p>
<p>The character 要 itself is the original character for 腰, a woman pointing to her midriff = &quot;waist&quot;. It was also used in the meaning &quot;to arrange a meeting, to invite&quot;, which is now taken over by 邀. These meanings are attested in the earliest works of Classical Chinese literature, such as the 詩經 Shijing / Book of Odes.</p>
<p>Several centuries later, when we come down to the Analects, we see the meaning of &quot;compulsion&quot; take over (Analects 論語 Xian Wen 憲問, 14):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>雖曰不<strong>要</strong>君，吾不信也。</p>
<p>Although it is said that (he) did not <strong>force</strong> his lord, I do not believe this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This moves to the deontic meaning and the future meaning in the mid-Han dynasty. From the 漢書 Book of Han:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>人生<strong>要</strong>死，何為苦心</p>
<p>Man, being born, <strong>must/will</strong> die. Why should this pain [my] heart?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, this process happened a good few centuries before English's shift, but also before the shift in Romance languages too (present tense of reflex of HABERE + verb infinitive -&gt; new synthetic future tense).</p>
<p>Interestingly in Modern Mandarin, 想 contrasts with 要, in a sort of indirectness as a way of showing politeness, when making requests. The author suspects that 要's directness is a result of its grammaticalisation.</p>
<p>Note that the non-cognate 欲 in many Min varieties, derived from 發 (<a href="https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=10132422-201712-201804180005-201804180005-255-304" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tu 2017</a>), is similar in its semantic field of &quot;want&quot; through to &quot;deontic need&quot; to its grammaticalised use as a future, although the futurity remains at the inchoative or imminent level (&quot;about to&quot;).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-29T19:35:55.610Z
Fantastic! Many thanks. Would you say that the Min use of 欲 for imminent future is similar to putonghua's 准备？
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-04T11:28:06.570Z
@BuddyL That's a useful comparison for a learner, although 準備 vs 要 does contain several differences too.
Michaelyus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-29T11:46:30.190Z
2022-04-29T12:00:53.143Z
2022-04-29T12:00:53.143Z
Michaelyus
<p>要 can mean both &quot;to be going to&quot; and &quot;to want&quot;. So the sentence: 我要看电视 would probably mean &quot;I want to watch TV&quot;, but &quot;（明天）我要上学“ would probably mean &quot;I am going to go to school&quot;. However, both sentences are potentially ambiguous.</p>
<p>My question is: did 要 originally mean &quot;to want to&quot; and then get extended to mean &quot;going to&quot;? This would be similar to the history of &quot;will&quot; in English. Or is it the other way around?</p>

<etymology><semantics><semantic-extensions>
What is the history of 要？Did it first mean "to want" and then get extended to mean "to be gong to"? Or was it the other way around?
# What is the history of 要？Did it first mean "to want" and then get extended to mean "to be gong to"? Or was it the other way around?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-28)

要 can mean both "to be going to" and "to want". So the sentence: 我要看电视 would probably mean "I want to watch TV", but "（明天）我要上学“ would probably mean "I am going to go to school". However, both sentences are potentially ambiguous.

My question is: did 要 originally mean "to want to" and then get extended to mean "going to"? This would be similar to the history of "will" in English. Or is it the other way around?

**Tags:** etymology, semantics, semantic-extensions


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-04-29. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

> My question is: did 要 originally mean "to want to" and then get extended to mean "going to"? This would be similar to the history of "will" in English.

**Yes**. In the [*The grammaticalization of 要 and the future cycle from Archaic Chinese to Modern Mandarin*](https://doi.org/10.1075/la.227.13lab), LaBarge (2016) states in the abstract that:

> Similar to English *will*, 要 *yāo/yào* has developed new functional meanings apart from its earlier semantic meanings of Compulsion and Volition, including deontic and future time uses.

These all have more disambiguated disyllabic versions: 将要 (future), 须要 (the deontic meaning), 想要 (the full verb "want").

The character 要 itself is the original character for 腰, a woman pointing to her midriff = "waist". It was also used in the meaning "to arrange a meeting, to invite", which is now taken over by 邀. These meanings are attested in the earliest works of Classical Chinese literature, such as the 詩經 Shijing / Book of Odes.

Several centuries later, when we come down to the Analects, we see the meaning of "compulsion" take over (Analects 論語 Xian Wen 憲問, 14):

> 雖曰不**要**君，吾不信也。
>
> Although it is said that (he) did not **force** his lord, I do not believe this.

This moves to the deontic meaning and the future meaning in the mid-Han dynasty. From the 漢書 Book of Han:

> 人生**要**死，何為苦心
>
> Man, being born, **must/will** die. Why should this pain [my] heart?

Of course, this process happened a good few centuries before English's shift, but also before the shift in Romance languages too (present tense of reflex of HABERE + verb infinitive -> new synthetic future tense).

Interestingly in Modern Mandarin, 想 contrasts with 要, in a sort of indirectness as a way of showing politeness, when making requests. The author suspects that 要's directness is a result of its grammaticalisation.

Note that the non-cognate 欲 in many Min varieties, derived from 發 ([Tu 2017](https://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?docid=10132422-201712-201804180005-201804180005-255-304)), is similar in its semantic field of "want" through to "deontic need" to its grammaticalised use as a future, although the futurity remains at the inchoative or imminent level ("about to").

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Fantastic! Many thanks. Would you say that the Min use of 欲 for imminent future is similar to putonghua's 准备？  
> **username_5**: @username_0 That's a useful comparison for a learner, although 準備 vs 要 does contain several differences too.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-04-28. Score: -1

我要看电视。  
I wanna watch TV.  
明天我要上学。  
I gotta go to school tomorrow.

要：“腰”的古字  
覀 ：two-hands jú and (rem+ 交 jiāo waist)

Basic meaning of 要：necessary, essential; necessity

索取 ask, demand：要账、要价  
希望 wish for，想 want：要强、 要好  
请求request：她要我给她读报  
重大 important，值得重视的 attach importance to：重要、要人 (VIP) 要领 纲要、 要言不烦  
应该should，必须 must：须要 (must)  
将（jiāng）：将要 （shall, will）、快要 (soon)  
如果，倘若：要是 （if）  
表选择：要么 (either ... or) 要不、 （otherwise) 要不然

The old character shows two hands (not belonging to the woman I think) around a woman's waist, basic meaning "necessary".  
What were those old Chinese thinking of?

My theory about this character: (note, all old characters show hands having only 3 fingers and everyone knows aliens only have 3 fingers on each hand)

Aliens came to ancient China to kidnap women, because their own females had become infertile! Those green devils!

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Quote:- "Aliens came to ancient China to kidnap women, because their own females had become infertile" Right and wrong. Right because China is the most populous nation on Earth, so Chinese females were and are extraordinarily fertile, or that the Chinese males were and are very potent. Wrong because according to Genesis 6.2 of the Bible -- New International Version -- "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" So, it was the beauty of Chinese women, though called "daughters of humans" because "China" did not exist then.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-04-28. Score: -3

**(明天）我要上学“ would probably mean "I am going to go to school"**, I consider this interpretation is incorrect.

Note that 要 has the following meanings - want, must, demand, request, ask.

明天我要上学 - here, 要 implies "a duty to, or, an obligation to, thus it should be interpreted as "Tomorrow I **must/need to** go to school.

However, 要 can be interpreted as "going to", such as in "我要寫功課了", for some task to be completed in the future. This interpretation seems an extension of the original usages/meanings, that only see modern time uses.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that you have a habit of answering questions by just copying and pasting dictionary definitions of words that are relevant to the question.  
> **username_3**: @username_0 Yes, I consider the dictionary to be the most recognized source, if not the most accurate, of the interpretation/explanation of a word and choose not to deviate from it unless I can provide the sources that hold convincing yet offer different meanings/uses of the word, and are worthy to mention. I found it is a troblesome trend that many people are not willing to open up the readily available learning source/tool - dictionary, but relying on the answers from the internet through a few key strokes.  
> **username_2**: Every thing has its time & place, be it dictionary, Wikipedia, trendy social media usage, even one's long or short life experiences has a bearing. In any case on a public peer review platform such as this, informal checks and balances are at work, not mention our august group of Moderators who wield life & death powers. So, Live and let Live, meaning "one should tolerate the opinions and behavior of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own", (copied from an Internet dictionary :) )  
> **username_3**: @username_2 I don't get your point. Do you mean I should express my own opinion rather than simply citing the meanings from the dictionary? If it is the case, what's wrong with the "habit of answering questions by just copying and pasting dictionary definitions of words that are **relevant to the question.** "?  
> **username_2**: "Every thing has its time & place". I am actually commenting on @username_0 comment about "...habit of answering questions by just copying and pasting dictionary definitions of words" There is a time to cite sources, there is a time to express an individual opinion, and of course both.  
> **username_3**: @username_2 Got you. Thanks.  
> **username_4**: I think people can use whatever sources they have available, just as long as it's clear what those sources are. Dictionaries are good enough to answer a very large number of questions that get asked on this site. However, the question at hand isn't about what the words mean or how they are used, but which usage came first, which isn't mentioned in your answer. Compare with the accepted answer, which does address the question.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 It is a polite way to point out that the OP's question contains misinformation, or assumption contrary to the meanings provided dictionary.  
> **username_4**: I think it would be better to be clear than polite, although both would be preferable! I did not understand what your intentions were and I would assume (due to the downvotes) that other people didn't either. It just looks like you ignored the question. I think the question is rather clear, to be honest, and username_5 already provided a good answer. The various ways the example sentence can or cannot be interpreted don't really affect the question itself, I think.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Keep the record straight, I was the first to answer this question, which I don't think deserves further explanation/discussion, and it should be enough to show the OP, and potentially the others, how the word is defined/interpreted in the dictionary.  
> **username_4**: I didn't mean to imply that his answer was there when you answered, I simply meant that his answer makes it clear that there is in fact a correct answer to the question. I don't understand why sowing dictionary definitions is useful for answering a question about which usage/meaning came about first in history, unless it's a dictionary with etymology and historical usages.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Because the interpretations from the dictionary do not contain/assign the meaning for "will", or "going to", so there is no confirmable historical connection.  

---

