<p><a href="https://cantoneseplus.com/character/5799" rel="nofollow noreferrer">当</a></p>
<p>(1) [adj] <strong>appropriate</strong>; proper; right; (2) [v] regard/treat as; take for</p>
<ul>
<li><p>相 = 相对 (relatively)</p>
</li>
<li><p>当 = <strong>appropriate</strong></p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>相当</strong> = relatively appropriate = <strong>quite</strong> (<em>an appropriate amount is quite an amount</em>)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>It is easier to see this meaning of 当 in 适当</p>
<ul>
<li><p>适 = appropriate</p>
</li>
<li><p>当 = appropriate</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>适当</strong> = <strong>appropriate</strong></p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-08T15:21:36.037Z
Thanks! So the common usage of "to work as" is an extension of meaning 2) take for?
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-02-03T18:01:53.337Z
@BuddyL honestly your examples aren't all using the same definition of 當, it has many different meanings. (相)當 = appropriate. (應)當 = should. 當(天) = preposition like at etc.   This is perfect example of why it is combined with other terms to form modern vocabulary in the first place.  It helps make it clear which of the dozen of definitions a character has to use in that moment.
zagrycha
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-17T20:37:01.667Z
@zagrycha I understand where you are coming from but in general a deeper analysis tends to find that monosyllabic morphemes, even those that almost always occur in polysyllabic words, have a sort of core meaning from which those polysyllabic words were derived. I've always found the insistence of some Chinese teachers to ignore the meaning of individual syllables to be very disheartening, as it requires the student to memorize vocabulary rather than understanding how it is formed.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T01:18:46.507Z
@BuddyL I personally get disheartened focusing on the meanings of individual characters and trting to juggle the dozens of possibilities-- I get much better results personally by focusing on vocab, and in general specific uses of vocab/grammar combos as I go.  I suppose its just a difference of thought process, and its good to have both versions out there for people to try and see what suits them.
zagrycha
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T14:24:27.040Z
I get you! Totally makes sense. As a teacher I try to cultivate a kind of flexibility of mind in my students so that they can sometimes focus in on individual meanings of morphemes without having to carry them around all the time. Take 电视 for example: for a new learner it is a million times easier to remember if they know that it means "electricity-vision", but they must also accept that it doesn't sound so clunky in Chinese, it just *means* "TV". Same with more abstract concepts: it's useful to play around with the individual  meanings but at a certain point one must accept a word as vocab.
Buddy L
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-08T02:06:09.200Z
2022-03-08T02:06:09.200Z
Tang Ho
<p>I automatically associate 当 with its usage as a verb &quot;to work as, to be&quot;. This helps me understand 当天 (the day that is)，当然 (to be so), 应当 (ought to be). However this does not help me understand the deeper meaning of 相当 （quite). Am I missing a more fundamental meaning of 当？</p>

<etymology>
What is the origin of 相当？ How does it relate to other uses of 当？
# What is the origin of 相当？ How does it relate to other uses of 当？

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-03-07)

I automatically associate 当 with its usage as a verb "to work as, to be". This helps me understand 当天 (the day that is)，当然 (to be so), 应当 (ought to be). However this does not help me understand the deeper meaning of 相当 （quite). Am I missing a more fundamental meaning of 当？

**Tags:** etymology


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2022-03-08. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

[当](https://cantoneseplus.com/character/5799)

(1) [adj] **appropriate**; proper; right; (2) [v] regard/treat as; take for

* 相 = 相对 (relatively)
* 当 = **appropriate**
* **相当** = relatively appropriate = **quite** (*an appropriate amount is quite an amount*)

It is easier to see this meaning of 当 in 适当

* 适 = appropriate
* 当 = appropriate
* **适当** = **appropriate**

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks! So the common usage of "to work as" is an extension of meaning 2) take for?  
> **username_2**: @username_0 honestly your examples aren't all using the same definition of 當, it has many different meanings. (相)當 = appropriate. (應)當 = should. 當(天) = preposition like at etc.   This is perfect example of why it is combined with other terms to form modern vocabulary in the first place.  It helps make it clear which of the dozen of definitions a character has to use in that moment.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I understand where you are coming from but in general a deeper analysis tends to find that monosyllabic morphemes, even those that almost always occur in polysyllabic words, have a sort of core meaning from which those polysyllabic words were derived. I've always found the insistence of some Chinese teachers to ignore the meaning of individual syllables to be very disheartening, as it requires the student to memorize vocabulary rather than understanding how it is formed.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I personally get disheartened focusing on the meanings of individual characters and trting to juggle the dozens of possibilities-- I get much better results personally by focusing on vocab, and in general specific uses of vocab/grammar combos as I go.  I suppose its just a difference of thought process, and its good to have both versions out there for people to try and see what suits them.  
> **username_0**: I get you! Totally makes sense. As a teacher I try to cultivate a kind of flexibility of mind in my students so that they can sometimes focus in on individual meanings of morphemes without having to carry them around all the time. Take 电视 for example: for a new learner it is a million times easier to remember if they know that it means "electricity-vision", but they must also accept that it doesn't sound so clunky in Chinese, it just *means* "TV". Same with more abstract concepts: it's useful to play around with the individual  meanings but at a certain point one must accept a word as vocab.  

---

