abandon ↔ 放 fàng

Historical meanings and attested forms remain separated. The arrows summarize semantic development, not five strictly successive first-attestation dates. No Chinese same-group path is inferred.

历史词形与义项保留边界；箭头概括语义发展，不是五个严格递进的首见年代，不推导汉语同组路径。

Bandon means POWER/AUTHORITY; disposal belongs to the relational phrase à bandon. Modern 办/辦 means handle/manage, prepare or deal with. 说文新附 glosses 辦 as exert effort (致力), not authority. Thus bandon ↔ 办 is a limited control/handling association: Low semantic fit for POWER/AUTHORITY, Medium only for a contextual handling/disposal comparison. It is not an exact root translation. 权柄 is the stronger meaning-first support for authority regardless of its sound.

bandon 的核心是 POWER/AUTHORITY；任其处置关系属于 à bandon。现代办／辦为处理、办理、筹备等；《说文新附》释辦为致力，不是权力。因此 bandon ↔ 办仅保留为支配／办理的有限联系：对权力本义语义适配 Low，只有在处理／处置语境比较时为 Medium，不是词根的精确译词。权柄是更合适的权力义支持，其声音不决定选择。

b ↔ b → same consonant / within b-p-m-f group is the author’s comparison label. It compares the initial b of bandon with Pinyin b in bàn. Pinyin b represents unaspirated /p/; the label is not proof of identical phonetic realization, homophony, or a historical sound law. A source-specific historical French pronunciation and the remaining consonants, vowels and tone still need independent assessment. Group fit cannot upgrade weak semantics.

b ↔ b → same consonant / within b-p-m-f group 是作者的对应标签：比较 bandon 的词首 b 与 bàn 的拼音 b。拼音 b 表示不送气 /p/；此标签不证明实际音值完全相同、同音或历史音变规律。古法语具体时期的读音及其余辅音、元音、汉语声调仍须独立评估。落入预测组不能提升较弱的语义证据。

Semantic Path studies how one word’s historical meanings develop. Consonant Group Mapping compares an English/French historical word or root with the pronunciation of a semantically selected Chinese candidate. These are independent analyses. The b-p-m-f, d-t-n-l, g-k-h and z-c-s groups predict cross-language sound correspondences, not membership of every Chinese word in one path.

Semantic Path 研究一个词的历史语义怎样发展。Consonant Group Mapping 比较英／法历史词或词根与按语义选出的汉语候选词读音。两者独立；b-p-m-f、d-t-n-l、g-k-h、z-c-s 等组预测跨语言声音对应，不要求汉语路径中的每个字属于同组。

The earlier Chinese same-group path design was an implementation error and has been withdrawn. Its path scores and planned path-constraint experiment are superseded, not evidence against the author’s cross-language hypothesis. This is retrospective editorial review, not a blinded study; no experiment has run.

此前要求汉语全链同组的设计属于实现误解，已撤下；相应路径评分与路径约束实验计划作废，不构成对作者跨语言假说的反证。本次为回顾性编辑核验，不是盲评，未运行实验。

abash ↔ 怕 pà (medial b ↔ p) and bash ↔ 拍 pāi (initial b ↔ p) are two other separately identified Candidate observations. Sharing b-p-m-f does not make them prove each other or bandon ↔ 办. Statistical independence requires etymological-family review; count related derivatives once.

abash ↔ 怕 pà（词中 b ↔ p）与 bash ↔ 拍 pāi（词首 b ↔ p）是另外两个分别记录的 Candidate 观察。共享 b-p-m-f 不使它们互相证明，也不证明 bandon ↔ 办；统计独立性仍需词源家族核验，同源派生须去重。

Dialect & Diachronic Chinese Evidence is a separate evidence track. Record dialect/location/date and transcription separately from Middle Chinese or Old Chinese reconstructions, with named sources and reconstruction systems. Modern dialects are not frozen copies of ancient Chinese. No dialect or reconstructed pronunciation is used to raise this candidate’s grade; these comparisons remain pending.

Dialect & Diachronic Chinese Evidence｜汉语方言与历时音韵证据独立记录。方言须注明地点、年代与转写；中古音／上古音须注明来源与重构体系，不能混用。现代方言不是古汉语的冻结复制品。本候选未以方言或重构音提高等级，相关比较待核验。

English ban (verb) continues Old English bannan, a Germanic proclamation/command verb; Middle English prohibitive senses reflect Norse influence, with later French/Latin influence. The English noun partly derives from the verb and partly from Anglo-French. French ban /bɑ̃/ is a masculine noun of Old Low Franconian origin: public proclamation, feudal summons/jurisdiction, banns, and exclusion in expressions such as mettre au ban. It is not the ordinary French verb “to prohibit” (interdire); the old note’s French ban v. 禁止 is corrected. This distinction does not cancel the independently proposed English ban ↔ 甭 candidate.

英语动词 ban 承自古英语 bannan，属于日耳曼语宣告／命令词族；中古英语禁止等义受古诺斯语影响，后又受法语／拉丁语影响。英语名词部分来自动词，部分借自盎格鲁法语。法语 ban /bɑ̃/ 为阳性名词，源于古低地法兰克语，涉及公告、封建征召／管辖、婚姻公告及 mettre au ban 等排斥用语；它不是通常表示“禁止”的法语动词（interdire）。旧笔记“法语 ban v. 禁止”已纠正，这不取消独立的英语 ban ↔ 甭 候选。

English banal is borrowed from French (Merriam-Webster: first known English use 1825). CNRTL traces French banal to feudal ban plus -al, with bannel attested in 1247 and the very common/unoriginal sense in 1798. Merriam-Webster describes a Medieval Latin bannalis route for Old French bannel. Both accounts connect seigneurial jurisdiction and shared-use facilities with the later commonplace sense. Neither derives it from Chinese. Ban and banal are separately evaluated observations, but their related European histories must be deduplicated in any family-based experiment.

英语 banal 借自法语（Merriam-Webster 记英语首见1825年）。CNRTL 将法语 banal 分析为封建法 ban 加 -al，记1247年 bannel 及1798年的极普通／无新意义；Merriam-Webster 则通过中古拉丁语 bannalis 解释古法语 bannel。两者均联系领主管辖、共同使用设施与后来的平常义，不从汉语倒推词史。ban 和 banal 的观察独立评价，但欧洲词史相关，实验按词源家族去重。

Active Association: abandon ↔ 放到一旁 → 旁 páng. CONTROL / DISPOSAL → RELEASE → PUT ASIDE → LEAVE/GIVE UP is an author-proposed cognitive and memory bridge, not an attested chain of sound change or translation of 旁 as abandon. Historical Relation: Not claimed; Active Association Status: Author-proposed / Cognitive association.

Active Association：abandon ↔ 放到一旁 → 旁 páng。CONTROL / DISPOSAL → RELEASE → PUT ASIDE → LEAVE/GIVE UP 是作者提出的认知与记忆桥梁，不是已证历史音变链，也不把单字“旁”当作 abandon 的标准译词。Historical Relation: Not claimed；Active Association Status: Author-proposed / Cognitive association。

donner ↔ 捅: Weak Active Association / Original Author Association, not a primary mapping. French donner means give and descends from Latin donare. The supplied “捅钱 = 给钱” and reading tōng remain Original Author Usage Observation; standard Mandarin dictionaries give 捅 tǒng (poke/pierce, reveal, provoke), not a verified stable give sense. The targeted dictionary/dialect search did not establish that sense; this is a bounded evidence gap, not proof that no speaker uses it. Historical Relation: Not claimed. Donner is not a historical component of abandon.

donner ↔ 捅：Weak Active Association / Original Author Association，不作主要映射。法语 donner 意为给，源自拉丁语 donare。用户的“捅钱＝给钱”及 tōng 读法保留为 Original Author Usage Observation；标准普通话词典记“捅”tǒng（戳刺、揭露、招惹），没有核验出稳定的给予义。此次词典／方言检索未能证实该义，不等于证明无人这样使用。Historical Relation: Not claimed。donner 不是 abandon 的历史构词部分。

Related lexical note only: English band “group” comes through Middle French bande and Old Occitan banda, associated with a Germanic sign/banner history; band “strip/binding” has a distinct history. French bande is a noun with strip and group senses, not simply the verb “bandage.” CNRTL notes uncertainty in the route of the group sense. Spelling alone does not merge band/bande with abandon. Possible deeper sign/command interactions mentioned by etymologists do not establish the author’s segmentation or independent experimental evidence.

仅作关联词汇笔记：英语 band“一群”经中古法语 bande、古奥克语 banda，与日耳曼语标志／旗帜背景有关；band“条带／束缚”有另一词史。法语 bande 是名词，含条带与群体等义，不能只写成动词“包扎”。CNRTL 保留群体义传播路线的不确定性。不能因拼写相似并入 abandon 词族；词源学者提到的更深层标志／命令关系，不证实作者拆词，也不自动形成独立实验数据。

Original Author Hypothesis: a.ban.don / a + ban + donner; ban = prohibit, donner = give, therefore prohibit giving = abandon. Independent evaluation: Rejected/Unsupported as historical segmentation. CNRTL regards a ban donner as improbable because that phrase is unattested; the cited doner a abandon examples are later (13th century). Preserve the observation without presenting it as etymology.

原始作者假说：a.ban.don / a + ban + donner；ban＝禁止，donner＝给，因此禁止给＝放弃。独立核验：Rejected/Unsupported as historical segmentation（作为历史拆分被否定／缺乏支持）。CNRTL 认为 a ban donner 分析不可信，因为该短语无见证；所引 doner a abandon 例子较晚（13世纪）。保留观察，不作为词源。

give up; leave or withdraw support, depending on context

放弃／抛弃／离弃；依语境亦译遗弃