The lexicography of shuo 說
From the fruit of his mouth a man is satisfied; he is satisfied by the yield of his lips. (Proverbs 18:20)
The most commonly-heard modern Chinese word for ‘to speak’ or ‘speech’, shuo 說, is a word with ancient roots but of relatively recent widespread usage. One sees this lexeme not only by itself in modern Mandarin, with the meaning not only ‘to speak’ or ‘to say’ but also ‘to mention’ or even ‘to scold’ or ‘to criticise’—but also in compounds like shuofa 说法 ‘saying, idiom’, shuoming 说明 ‘to explain’, shuoqing 说情 ‘to plead for mercy (for)’, tingshuo 听说 ‘to hear that’ (literally, ‘hear-say’), xiaoshuo 小说 ‘novel’ and xueshuo 学说 ‘theory’.
Yet this lexeme shuo 說 is used differently in Classical Chinese texts. Very differently.
Classical Chinese has its own words commonly glossed as ‘to speak’ and ‘speech’. The one most commonly seen in Classical texts is yue 曰, as in Zi yue 子曰 ‘The Master [Confucius] says…’ This ideogram is clearly derived from the appearance of an open mouth (kou 口) with one (yi 一) word or breath emerging. In its present appearance it is often confused with ri 日, the ideogram for sun. But in the oldest, oracle bone-script variants there can be little mistaking the two: ri 日 appears as a circle with a dot inside; while yue 曰 appears in the elongated shape of a mouth with a one above it. This character can also mean ‘to refer to (something) as’, ‘to call’, or ‘to name’; it can also be used as a particle modifying the foregoing noun.
Another word in Classical Chinese that bears the same glosses is dao 道. In my previous essay on the etymology of the word ting 聼, I explained that the term dao 道 originally referred to a woman’s birth canal. The original ideogram showed a crossroads (xing 行) with a head and a hand, possibly with blood or water following. Some variants are much more explicit about the head and the hand emerging from between a pair of splayed legs. Yet even by Classical times, there had already been some significant conceptual drift, and the use of the character had been abstracted away from its former narrow use into a philosophical term of art. The related term dao 導, which placed a semantic ‘hand’ radical underneath the birth canal, probably thus also originally referred to a midwife, yet in a more general sense came to mean ‘to lead’, ‘to guide’, or ‘to advise’. It is possibly from a corruption of the last of these glosses that the term dao 道 also came to mean ‘to speak’.
And lastly, and most importantly for our present purpose, there is the Classical Chinese yan 言. Yan 言 carries the glosses of ‘to speak’, ‘speech’, ‘to discuss’, ‘to comment’, ‘to ask’, ‘word’, ‘character’, ‘record’, ‘explanation’, ‘order’ or ‘decree’. This ideogram clearly shows a mouth (kou 口) with four (si 亖) words, or perhaps a tongue (she 舌), protruding from it. Yan 言 is used, for the most part, interchangeably with yue 曰 in Classical texts, though its function is broader: it can be used as a noun or as a verb, whereas yue 曰 is primarily used as a verb (or occasionally as a modifying particle). For example:
子曰：「巧言令色，鮮矣仁！」
The Master said, “Fine words and an insinuating appearance are seldom associated with true virtue.”
Analects 1.3
Note how yue 曰 is translated by our Scottish missionary friend James Legge as ‘said’, whereas yan 言 in this same passage is translated as ‘words’… though he bafflingly mistranslates ren 仁 as ‘true virtue’. We might get to a lexicographical treatment of ren 仁 at a later date; we shall see. Interestingly, though, this analect also shows how little use Confucius had for smooth talk and sophistry. It is the author’s humble opinion that Confucius would have utterly detested and disowned the sort of flattering, fawning scholar-officials and lixue 理学-type philosophers who came to revere his memory with their tongues and identify themselves with his name… all while sucking up to the people in power.
At any rate, the word shuo 說 can be clearly seen as related to yan 言, because yan 言 forms the semantic radical of the former word. But its range of glosses in Classical source texts is far, far narrower than its modern usage as the general word for ‘to say’! Indeed, one of its two lexical ranges is restricted to the glosses ‘to explain’, ‘to tell’, ‘to advocate (for)’, ‘promise’ or ‘oath’.
「死生契闊、與子成說。」
For life or for death, however separated, to our wives we pledged our word.
Book of Odes 《詩經》, Odes of Bei 邶風, ‘Ji Gu’ 擊鼓 line 7
The other lexical range synonymises shuo 說 with the word yue 悅 ‘happy’, ‘satisfied’, ‘to like’ or ‘to please’. (My wife’s name includes the character yue 悅; for this reason, I recall having suggested that she take Holy Martyr Felicitas of Rome as her patron saint when she was baptised.) So the very beginning of the Analects goes thus:
子曰：「學而時習之，不亦說乎？」
The Master said, “Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?”
Analects 1.1
Something intriguing is going on here.
This is even more intriguing, because the Semitic languages seem to do the same thing.
Proverbs 18:20, quoted above, makes a wordplay between the words śāfâh שפה and śāba‘ שבע that is not evident in the English translation:
מפרי פי-איש תשבע בטנו תבואת שפתיו ישבע:
Mifǝrî fî-’îš ṭiśǝba‘ bitǝnō ṭǝbū’aṭ śǝfāṭayu yiśǝbā‘.
Both words are linked in terms of their associated imagery with the ‘fullness’ of something, like the ‘brim’ of a vessel or a cup. The word śāfâh שפה implies the ‘hem’ or ‘border’ of a garment, also the ‘bank’ of a river or lake. So too it also refers to the ‘lip’ of the mouth, and from there it also comes to mean ‘speech’, as in Genesis 11. This dual functionality is also shown in Arabic: the word šafah شفة can mean either a ‘rim’ or an ‘edge’ of something, or else the ‘lip’ of a mouth. You can also see its mutations like mušāfaha مشافهة ‘symposium, colloquy’ and šifāhiyy شفاهيّ ‘oral, verbal’—relating to spoken language or something pertaining to the mouth… and also šāfih شافه ‘thirst’.
The wordplay in Proverbs and the linkage with śāba‘ שבע works in Arabic, too. It doesn’t just mean ‘oath’ or ‘promise’; it can also mean, as šabi‘a شبع ‘to be full’, ‘to be replete’, ‘to be satisfied’—or alternatively, ‘to be fed up with (something)’. The abstract noun ‘fullness’ (pertaining to having enough food) in Arabic, also, is šiba‘ شبع.
We’ve established the link between these two similar-sounding Semitic roots; we’ve ascertained their point of connexion; we’ve also established how the Wisdom literature of Proverbs links the two together. But have we done our job yet? What exactly is going on here?
The first time the root s-b-‘ appears in Scripture is actually in the first book, in reference to the seven (šeba‘ שבע) years of ‘plenty’ in Egypt (Gen 41:29). This usage recurs in the following book, where the people, remembering exactly this ‘plenty’, wish that they had stayed in Egypt to enjoy it (Ex 16:3). But it is the Lord Who, to stop their murmurings against Him, gives bread to His people in the desert, so that they are full (Ex 16:8-12). But if the people do not walk according to the Lord’s paths, then even if they eat all the bread that ten women can bake in an oven and deliver it ‘by measure’ (which is a way of saying ‘by the truckload’ before there were trucks), the people will not be full (Lev 26:26). It is not the bread that fills the bellies of God’s people, but walking by His paths and living by His laws! The fullness (šiba‘ شبع) of the people, is assured only by the promise (šǝbū‘āh שבועה) of God!
Zai lai shuo yi ci. 再来说一次。 Explain that one more time, please.
Understand that the woman whose name means ‘God is my promise’—’Elīšǝba‘ אלישבע—gave birth to the sound (qôl קול—a voice) of one crying (qôr’a קורא—same root as the Arabic Qur’ān قراَن which is something read aloud) in the wilderness (midbār מדבר—also in reference to a spoken word) to clear the way for the Lord (Isa 40:3) so that we might walk with Him in it. This is how Saint John the Baptiser is described in the Gospel of Saint Mark.
(By the way, the saint that my wife ultimately chose for her patroness was in fact Saint Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist. Etymologically speaking—I have no objections!)
It is God who ‘creates the fruit of the lips’ bora’ nub śǝfāṭāyîm בורא נוב שפתים (Isa 57:19) and who ‘satisfies your life in scorched places’ wǝhiśbî‘a bǝṣaḥṣāḥoṭ nafšekā והשביע בצחצחות נפשך (Isa 58:11), but that is only if you satisfy the life of the weak and troubled; and only if your lip overflows and pours out (fûq פוק) the life of the hungry (Isa 58:10). That is the promise. It isn’t land. It isn’t wealth. It isn’t security. It is reciprocity: if you uphold the life of the hungry and the troubled and the afflicted, then God will uphold your life.