<p>This may be a failure of editing. 啰 is actually discussed in the 1986 <a href="https://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96%E5%AD%97%E6%80%BB%E8%A1%A8" rel="nofollow">Jianhuazi zong biao</a>. According to the 1986 zong biao, 罗 was included in the first list of simplified characters, but 囉 was not. The 1986 zong biao deletes 囉, and makes 啰 its official replacement "by analogy". Your dictionary seems to fall right in this period. Could be the entry you cite with 囉 was written before the 1986 list came out, and the entry with 啰 was done after. Or perhaps both were originally 囉 and in the editing they did after completing the dictionary, they missed the one entry.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-14T07:46:16.567Z
It isn't just one entry though. I'll edit later. They seem to intentionally differentiate the two.
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T05:45:14.590Z
updated my question
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T06:53:32.893Z
Hm, the last one is suggestive. 啰 *only* appears in the heading, and in the definition it is *always* 囉.  I still think the answer I gave above fits the case.  The book was prepared before the 1986 list came out, and used 囉 everywhere.  The list comes out, the editors go 'oy!', fix the headings, dust off their butts, and go home.
wpt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T06:55:17.950Z
lazyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy uhhhhgghghghg
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T07:00:09.683Z
Hey I don't blame them.  Imagine you finish the report for your federal grant and they send it back to you with a letter saying that all official documents must now use British spelling.  I can think of a good non-verbal response for that one.
wpt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-18T07:01:16.780Z
Find "o" -> Replace "ou" - I'm sure that would work out okay.... ;)
Mou某
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-14T05:03:06.513Z
2015-07-14T05:03:06.513Z
wpt
<p>啰 seems to be the simplified version of 囉 these days, but....these are two examples from 《四川方言词典》circa '87 that I found:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/cF1gZ.png" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>要飞啰</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/mr5zD.png" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>我是乌梢蛇打店——长客<strong>囉</strong>!</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Most the entries I've seen in these 八零后 books have all been written <em>囉</em> and I just assumed it was a later simplification but obviously <em>啰</em> as a character also existed at the same time!</p>

<ul>
<li>What's The Difference Between 啰 And 囉 In Old(er) Texts?</li>
</ul>

<p>...seems like there is no difference between the two nowadays...</p>

<p>edit:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/0ZWWr.png" alt="ok"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“～囉”</p>
</blockquote>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/EVZd8.png" alt="hi"></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>拐啰</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and the most crazy of them all:</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/7t3Td.png" alt="ha"></p>

<p>at the top:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>涮啰 </p>
</blockquote>

<p>in the def:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>涮囉</p>
</blockquote>

<simplified-characters><topolect><traditional-characters>
啰 vs. 囉 in Old Texts
# 啰 vs. 囉 in Old Texts

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-07-10)

啰 seems to be the simplified version of 囉 these days, but....these are two examples from 《四川方言词典》circa '87 that I found:

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/cF1gZ.png)

> **要飞啰**

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/mr5zD.png)

> 我是乌梢蛇打店——长客**囉**!

Most the entries I've seen in these 八零后 books have all been written *囉* and I just assumed it was a later simplification but obviously *啰* as a character also existed at the same time!

* What's The Difference Between 啰 And 囉 In Old(er) Texts?

...seems like there is no difference between the two nowadays...

edit:

![ok](https://i.sstatic.net/0ZWWr.png)

> “～囉”

![hi](https://i.sstatic.net/EVZd8.png)

> 拐啰

and the most crazy of them all:

![ha](https://i.sstatic.net/7t3Td.png)

at the top:

> 涮啰

in the def:

> 涮囉

**Tags:** simplified-characters, topolect, traditional-characters


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2015-07-14. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

This may be a failure of editing. 啰 is actually discussed in the 1986 [Jianhuazi zong biao](https://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E7%AE%80%E5%8C%96%E5%AD%97%E6%80%BB%E8%A1%A8). According to the 1986 zong biao, 罗 was included in the first list of simplified characters, but 囉 was not. The 1986 zong biao deletes 囉, and makes 啰 its official replacement "by analogy". Your dictionary seems to fall right in this period. Could be the entry you cite with 囉 was written before the 1986 list came out, and the entry with 啰 was done after. Or perhaps both were originally 囉 and in the editing they did after completing the dictionary, they missed the one entry.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It isn't just one entry though. I'll edit later. They seem to intentionally differentiate the two.  
> **username_0**: updated my question  
> **username_1**: Hm, the last one is suggestive. 啰 *only* appears in the heading, and in the definition it is *always* 囉.  I still think the answer I gave above fits the case.  The book was prepared before the 1986 list came out, and used 囉 everywhere.  The list comes out, the editors go 'oy!', fix the headings, dust off their butts, and go home.  
> **username_0**: lazyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy uhhhhgghghghg  
> **username_1**: Hey I don't blame them.  Imagine you finish the report for your federal grant and they send it back to you with a letter saying that all official documents must now use British spelling.  I can think of a good non-verbal response for that one.  
> **username_0**: Find "o" -> Replace "ou" - I'm sure that would work out okay.... ;)  

---

