I seriously think more research needs to be done before we can, in good faith, declare it "borrowed," or "modern," or "Cantonese-only." I have not seen any rigorous evidence for any of the three claims; but I have seen contradictory evidence to suggest otherwise.
So far, only 廣州話普通話詞典 (p.93) has “borrowed” 𢪎 as a “Cantonese-only” character for “modern” usage with the new meaning of “to beat”. Not any other dictionary or online source has suggested an alternative character for this syllable.
When a better one is found, preferably from modern dictionaries, 𢪎 would likely be downgraded to 'variant' status or simply deleted.
It is a lot more plausible to be the original character for /faak3/ than /heuh1/ or /fai1/. Not only the sound is right, It even means the sound of breaking through the air.
There is no doubt that 騞 is closer in sound and meaning than 𢪎. The question is that no one knows and uses archaic characters for Canto language before they are popularised by dictionaries and online sources.
Lots of academics and scholars of the benzikao (本字考) school are publishing their research results on “original” etymological characters being used in modern Cantonese. Some of their findings are eventually accepted; most of them are simply ignored. I notice that many authors of such etymological books even admit in the Preface that their findings are intended purely for academic interest, not for public consumption.
So far, only 廣州話普通話詞典 (p.93) has “borrowed” 𢪎 as a “Cantonese-only” character for “modern” usage with the new meaning of “to beat”. Not any other dictionary or online source has suggested an alternative character for this syllable.
When a better one is found, preferably from modern dictionaries, 𢪎 would likely be downgraded to 'variant' status or simply deleted.
It is a lot more plausible to be the original character for /faak3/ than /heuh1/ or /fai1/. Not only the sound is right, It even means the sound of breaking through the air.
There is no doubt that 騞 is closer in sound and meaning than 𢪎. The question is that no one knows and uses archaic characters for Canto language before they are popularised by dictionaries and online sources.
Lots of academics and scholars of the benzikao (本字考) school are publishing their research results on “original” etymological characters being used in modern Cantonese. Some of their findings are eventually accepted; most of them are simply ignored. I notice that many authors of such etymological books even admit in the Preface that their findings are intended purely for academic interest, not for public consumption.