<blockquote>
  <p>that only tones 4, 5, and 6 that have ng- initials</p>
</blockquote>

<p>well, it's incorrect.</p>

<p>for the initial "ng-", there're several syllables have the tone from 1 to 6, such as:</p>

<p>nga1　丫
nga2　啞
nga3　亞
nga4　牙
nga5　瓦
nga6　訝</p>

<p>or,</p>

<p>ngaau1　咬
ngaau2　拗
ngaau3　坳
ngaau4　肴
ngaau5　咬
ngaau6　樂</p>

<p>or,</p>

<p>ngai1　繄
ngai2　矮
ngai3　翳
ngai4　危
ngai5　蟻
ngai6　藝</p>

<p>and, </p>

<p>ngau1　勾
ngau2　嘔
ngau3　漚
ngau4　牛
ngau5　偶
ngau6　吽</p>

<p><a href="http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/pho-rel.php?initial=ng" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/pho-rel.php?initial=ng</a></p>

<p>about the quoted wiki page, it's doubtful.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-30T03:36:30.270Z
I noticed that for the characters you listed, ones with tones 1, 2, or 3 don't have a ng- initial (according to Wiktionary). For example, 繄 is listed as ai1 (or ji1), 矮 is listed as ai2, and 翳 is listed as ai3.
However, as you suggested, what is stated in the Wikipedia page may not be the truth, but I am confused as to how to accurately define whether a character should have an ng- initial or not based off of how the pronounciation has evolved from Middle Chinese. Many sources will list both readings (for instance, the link you provided listing the ng- initial readings as "X 的異讀字").
wang_xiao_ming
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-30T03:39:22.307Z
Another thing to note is that Wiktionary does not list any of the charactes with tones 4, 5, or 6 as having a zero initial reading, but again, I'm not sure how accurate Wiktionary is, which is partial why I would like some clarity on how these readings are determined.
This note is also provided for characters with tones 1, 2, or 3:

`The zero initial /∅-/ is commonly pronounced with a ng-initial /ŋ-/ in some varieties of Cantonese, including Hong Kong Cantonese.`
wang_xiao_ming
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-01T12:07:38.167Z
If you're talking about the English Wiktionary, there are several very smart contributors there who know a lot about Chinese. You can ask a question about individual words or characters in the "Tea Room" and about etymologies in the "Scriptorium".

If you're talking about the Chinese Wiktionary, I'm not familiar with it but they may have equivalent mechanisms for discussing characters, words, and etymologies.
hippietrail
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T12:12:44.190Z
Also, the CUHK website itself states for _every_ single example up there, that the ng- with tones 1/2/3 are **異讀字**, and that there is a more common/standard variant without ng- at the front.
Michaelyus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-30T02:43:58.933Z
2019-03-30T02:43:58.933Z
水巷孑蠻
<p>So it is a general rule of thumb that any Cantonese syllable with the voiced initial consonants <code>ng-</code>, <code>n-</code>, <code>l-</code>, <code>m-</code> plus tones <code>1/2/3</code> is not "Classical", as it violates the defining voicing-based tone split of the four tones that happened in the transition from Middle Chinese to Modern Chinese. </p>

<p>This means that 啱 is either not derived from Middle Chinese (so from a Tai-Kadai or an Austroasiatic or other non-Sinitic source), or it has gone through a more complex history that means it's only indirectly traceable to a Old or Middle Chinese lexeme (it thus <em>might</em> have a regular Old/Middle Chinese complement, which is often considered its 本字).</p>

<p>In the world of Chinese word etymology, things have very seldom been certain. A lack of good corpus data and earliest attestations for these dialectal characters is a major reason for the current state of affairs. Not much can be said "definitively" at all, though we do know it is <em>not</em> in the <a href="https://ctext.org/kangxi-zidian" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kangxi Dictionary</a>.</p>

<p>The theories on <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%95%B1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">English Wiktionary</a> seem <em>possible</em>, perhaps even <em>reasonable</em> (though unsourced at this point; I have found a source that points to the connection with 諳 deriving from a certain Mr 楊子靜, perhaps through his 廣州話分韻詞林), but that is all that can be said about them really. </p>

<p>The other colloquial word that comes to mind with <code>ng-</code> with tones <code>1/2/3</code> is <a href="http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/characters/1691/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">奀</a>, although that has a variant with the null initial too.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-11T17:17:01.683Z
Another example is 鉤 `ngau1`, but the explanation for this is that it originally had a `g-` (IPA: /k-/) initial that shifted to `ng-` for some reason.
Claw
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-12T08:08:56.020Z
@Claw Yeah, the 鉤 shift is usually attributed to avoidance of homophony with a vulgarity in Cantonese.
Michaelyus
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-04-02T13:35:16.123Z
2019-04-03T08:39:17.967Z
2019-04-03T08:39:17.967Z
Michaelyus
<p>I was reading the Wikipedia page on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection" rel="nofollow noreferrer">hypercorrection</a>, and I noticed this particle section on Cantonese:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In Cantonese, some speakers omit the initial [ŋ]. For instance, the character 牙 (Jyutping: ngaa4, meaning "tooth"), ends up being pronounced "aa4". Prescriptivists tend to consider these changes as substandard and denounce them for being "lazy sounds" (Chinese: 懶音; Jyutping: laan5 jam1). However, in a case of hypercorrection, some speakers have started pronouncing words that should have a null initial using an initial [ŋ], even though according to historical Chinese phonology, only words with light tones (which correspond to tones 4, 5, and 6 in Jyutping) had voiced initials (which includes [ŋ]). Because of this hypercorrection, words such as 愛 (Jyutping: oi3, meaning "love"), which has a dark tone, are pronounced by speakers with an [ŋ] initial, "ngoi3". </p>
</blockquote>

<p>This lead to me to think about the pronunciation of 啱. Looking at the <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%95%B1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">entry</a> on Wiktionary, it only has one pronunciation (ngaam1). It is in the first tone, but still has an ng- initial, and is the only counter-example I could find to the above paragraph. How accurate is the above paragraph from Wikipedia? If it is accurate, why is it that only tones 4, 5, and 6 that have ng- initials, and why does 啱 not follow that rule? I am also hoping that the etymology of 啱 will help explain this. I am assuming that 啱 is not the "original character", and is a newly invented character due to uncertain origins. The Wiktionary entry does have some speculations, but I also am wondering if other (possibly definitive) theories exist.</p>

<characters><etymology>
Pronunciation and etymology of 啱
# Pronunciation and etymology of 啱

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-30)

I was reading the Wikipedia page on [hypercorrection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection), and I noticed this particle section on Cantonese:

> In Cantonese, some speakers omit the initial [ŋ]. For instance, the character 牙 (Jyutping: ngaa4, meaning "tooth"), ends up being pronounced "aa4". Prescriptivists tend to consider these changes as substandard and denounce them for being "lazy sounds" (Chinese: 懶音; Jyutping: laan5 jam1). However, in a case of hypercorrection, some speakers have started pronouncing words that should have a null initial using an initial [ŋ], even though according to historical Chinese phonology, only words with light tones (which correspond to tones 4, 5, and 6 in Jyutping) had voiced initials (which includes [ŋ]). Because of this hypercorrection, words such as 愛 (Jyutping: oi3, meaning "love"), which has a dark tone, are pronounced by speakers with an [ŋ] initial, "ngoi3".

This lead to me to think about the pronunciation of 啱. Looking at the [entry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%95%B1) on Wiktionary, it only has one pronunciation (ngaam1). It is in the first tone, but still has an ng- initial, and is the only counter-example I could find to the above paragraph. How accurate is the above paragraph from Wikipedia? If it is accurate, why is it that only tones 4, 5, and 6 that have ng- initials, and why does 啱 not follow that rule? I am also hoping that the etymology of 啱 will help explain this. I am assuming that 啱 is not the "original character", and is a newly invented character due to uncertain origins. The Wiktionary entry does have some speculations, but I also am wondering if other (possibly definitive) theories exist.

**Tags:** characters, etymology


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2019-04-02. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

So it is a general rule of thumb that any Cantonese syllable with the voiced initial consonants `ng-`, `n-`, `l-`, `m-` plus tones `1/2/3` is not "Classical", as it violates the defining voicing-based tone split of the four tones that happened in the transition from Middle Chinese to Modern Chinese.

This means that 啱 is either not derived from Middle Chinese (so from a Tai-Kadai or an Austroasiatic or other non-Sinitic source), or it has gone through a more complex history that means it's only indirectly traceable to a Old or Middle Chinese lexeme (it thus *might* have a regular Old/Middle Chinese complement, which is often considered its 本字).

In the world of Chinese word etymology, things have very seldom been certain. A lack of good corpus data and earliest attestations for these dialectal characters is a major reason for the current state of affairs. Not much can be said "definitively" at all, though we do know it is *not* in the [Kangxi Dictionary](https://ctext.org/kangxi-zidian).

The theories on [English Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%95%B1) seem *possible*, perhaps even *reasonable* (though unsourced at this point; I have found a source that points to the connection with 諳 deriving from a certain Mr 楊子靜, perhaps through his 廣州話分韻詞林), but that is all that can be said about them really.

The other colloquial word that comes to mind with `ng-` with tones `1/2/3` is [奀](http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/characters/1691/), although that has a variant with the null initial too.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Another example is 鉤 `ngau1`, but the explanation for this is that it originally had a `g-` (IPA: /k-/) initial that shifted to `ng-` for some reason.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Yeah, the 鉤 shift is usually attributed to avoidance of homophony with a vulgarity in Cantonese.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2019-03-30. Score: 0

> that only tones 4, 5, and 6 that have ng- initials

well, it's incorrect.

for the initial "ng-", there're several syllables have the tone from 1 to 6, such as:

nga1　丫
nga2　啞
nga3　亞
nga4　牙
nga5　瓦
nga6　訝

or,

ngaau1　咬
ngaau2　拗
ngaau3　坳
ngaau4　肴
ngaau5　咬
ngaau6　樂

or,

ngai1　繄
ngai2　矮
ngai3　翳
ngai4　危
ngai5　蟻
ngai6　藝

and,

ngau1　勾
ngau2　嘔
ngau3　漚
ngau4　牛
ngau5　偶
ngau6　吽

<http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/pho-rel.php?initial=ng>

about the quoted wiki page, it's doubtful.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I noticed that for the characters you listed, ones with tones 1, 2, or 3 don't have a ng- initial (according to Wiktionary). For example, 繄 is listed as ai1 (or ji1), 矮 is listed as ai2, and 翳 is listed as ai3. However, as you suggested, what is stated in the Wikipedia page may not be the truth, but I am confused as to how to accurately define whether a character should have an ng- initial or not based off of how the pronounciation has evolved from Middle Chinese. Many sources will list both readings (for instance, the link you provided listing the ng- initial readings as "X 的異讀字").  
> **username_0**: Another thing to note is that Wiktionary does not list any of the charactes with tones 4, 5, or 6 as having a zero initial reading, but again, I'm not sure how accurate Wiktionary is, which is partial why I would like some clarity on how these readings are determined. This note is also provided for characters with tones 1, 2, or 3:  `The zero initial /∅-/ is commonly pronounced with a ng-initial /ŋ-/ in some varieties of Cantonese, including Hong Kong Cantonese.`  
> **username_2**: If you're talking about the English Wiktionary, there are several very smart contributors there who know a lot about Chinese. You can ask a question about individual words or characters in the "Tea Room" and about etymologies in the "Scriptorium".  If you're talking about the Chinese Wiktionary, I'm not familiar with it but they may have equivalent mechanisms for discussing characters, words, and etymologies.  
> **username_3**: Also, the CUHK website itself states for _every_ single example up there, that the ng- with tones 1/2/3 are **異讀字**, and that there is a more common/standard variant without ng- at the front.  

---

