pietymoon wrote:T.K.Ann's etymology in it's turn (trough as a trial process during which opinions "fermenting" like wine) has some etymological value proved by derivatives of 曹 cao2 for many of them have connotation of trough and fermentation. This is the only point concerning this character I tried to underline. Maybe I am wrong so please correct me. Thank you.
You have hit the key button, the genetic analysis. For any axiomatic system (especially a root system with a genealogy structure), it can be analyzed with a genetic-like analysis. In system engineering, this is called reverse-engineering. Thus, this genetic-like analysis is a global principle, applicable in many disciplines. However, there are some special details on this genetic analysis.
1. Law of inheritance --- the descendants of a gene will inherit that gene. Thus, by analyzing the traits of the descendants, we can identify their common parental genes.
2. Law of expression --- a gene can have many different expressions. While the toenail cell and the brain cell carry the identical genes, they are two different expressions.
3. Law of high level expression --- a toenail cell can express a function of digging the ground while the brain cell can express a function of intelligence.
4. Law of expressed cell --- an expressed cell cannot return to its unexpressed state, a stem-cell. So, a toenail cell can never become a brain cell although it has the identical gene to the brain cell.
With the above understanding, we can analyze your argument about the word 曹.
a. 曹 is a composite (a cell), not a gene. Its genes are 東 and 曰 in Ann’s etymology.
b. 曹 has the expressions as trough or fermenting.
With the law of expression, 曹 can have different expressions, as trough or as fermenting. With the law of expressed cell, the trough 曹 and the fermenting 曹 is not interchangeable. Yet, both expressions do not fit with the cell 遭, that is, a third expression is needed.
I do not know how the genes of 東 and 曰 express as trough. However, I accept they do for the sake of analysis. Yet, how can they express as fermenting? Wait, we might have made a mistake. Fermenting is a high level expression, the expression of trough, not directly from 東 and 曰. Well, I accept this too, again for the sake of analysis. But, what kind of expression from 東 and 曰 to get descendants as 遭 or 嘈.
In Gong’s etymology of 曹, there are two clearly identified genes.
1. the consensus (meaning a unison or coming together, identified by 一 , as 合 而 為 一, combined into one)
2. a group (jurors, meaning colleagues, identified by 曲 and 曰, opinions are placed in a basket)
So, 槽 , a wooden trough gathering (coming together) a group together, such as 馬 槽, 水 槽, etc.,
漕 , a group coming together via water, such as 漕 運,
嘈, a group runs mouths together, could be very noisy,
糟, in wine making, a pile (group) of rice becomes wine after sitting together under some certain nature conditions (note: fermentation is an automatic process in nature under some conditions),
遭, people (more than one) meet (coming together) during travel.
In comparison,
a. The genetic expression in Gong’s etymology is direct; Ann’s is not.
b. The genetic expression in Gong’s etymology is consistent; Ann’s demands different expressions.
c. In word form, Ann’s needs to invoke two processes (fusion and omission) while Gong’s is a direct read.
It is kind of stupid by using so many twists just to make one word if Ann's etymology is correct, and our ancestors were not stupid.
Thus far, I have analyzed this case with three principles.
i. system consistency
ii. genetic analysis
iii. Occam’s razor.
These three are global principles, applicable in many (in fact, all) disciplines. A global principle is much more powerful than any local principle which applicable only in one discipline. Yet, most importantly, the Occam’s razor is the final judge, the king, the emperor. For two spider-men, Mr. A got to the top of a building with using only one hand while Mr. B used all two hands and two feet. Although both of them completed the job, Mr. B is the loser, cutout by the razor right the way. For two designs which perform the identical job (function), DA costs $100 while DB costs only $10. DA is cutout by the razor right the way as a crap. Perhaps, these two examples can make a non-scientist to understand the power of the Occam’s razor, being the final judge.
With Occam’s razor, which one is a crap is very clear now. However, if you still cannot accept the idea of Occam’s razor, I will go one step further by using some local principles.
In Chinese culture, there is some very special meaning for the numbers (1, 2, 3 and 4). Laotze said, “ 1 begets 2, 2 beget 3, 3 begets all). That is,
a. “1” is an identifier, identifying an entity, such as, 木 (tree), 口 (mouth or a person), 火(fire), 水 (water) etc.
b. “2” is intensifier, intensifying the quality of an item, such as, 林 (many trees), 炎 (big fire), etc.
c. “3” represents “perfection”, such as, 森 (forest), 淼 (flood), 品 (normal or standard), etc.
d. “4” represents “corruption”, such as, 囂 (rude), 葬 (bury, with 4 grass), etc.
This 3 to 4 transformation is one key concept in Chinese philosophy, after perfection comes corruption (物 極 必 反). With this understanding, Ann’s 曹 has two 東 as its roots (genes). Thus, this 東 gene is intensified which must over power the other gene 曰 (intelligent speaking). With an intensified 東 gene + 曰 (intelligent speaking) , it is very difficult to reach the final expression of 曹 without making a long and tortuous story, and it was what Ann did. After all, the 東’s expression is clearly defined. Without a great twist, 東 東 曰 cannot become 曹 (colleague). Of course, if 曹 is only an ad hoc symbol without any internal logic, then all the analyses above are meaningless. Otherwise, Ann’s etymology on 曹 is simply a crap.
Furthermore, we are talking about a system, not just one word. In this system, are there genes for trough and fermenting? For fermenting, there is a gene for it, the 酉; everything fermenting will carry this gene. There is also a gene for making a trough, the root for the words 凶 , 函 or 皿, or the root for the words 匝 or 匱. They both are containers; one has the opening on top, the other on the side. A word for trough can be easily using the radical 皿 as its base. Why abandoning the existing genes in favoring of making up something new? After all this something new did not become a new base (gene) for any other words. If this is not wrong, it is clearly stupid.