In all 4 cases, both components would seem to carry meaning related to that of the character. In the outlier dictionary none of the 4 characters have more than one "semantic" component.
I passed this on to Ash, and after looking at it, here's his response:
Super short summary: It is very likely that the sound components in these characters do not have a meaning: 篇, 忽, and 符
This one is inconclusive: 漫
This is a very interesting question as it brings up a lot of issues. One of the main things is that the modern meaning of a character or component isn't what's important in deciding whether a given component has meaning or not. Rather, you have to look at the original meaning of the character and the meanings that a given component may or may not have had when that character was invented. Please note that I'm not saying we don't make mistakes. We do, and when we find them, we correct them.
Another issue is that many characters get re-interpreted as being meaning-meaning (會意字) by later generations. This is due to confusing form components as meaning components. Most meaning-meaning characters are very pictorial in nature like 祭 jì “sacrifice” which depicts a hand (又) placing a piece of meat (top left) on an altar (示). This is very diferent in nature to very late characters like 尖 jiān “sharp” (literally “small over large”), which rely on the meaning of the components (rather than what they are a “picture” of). To make sure we don't fall into this trap, we need to see sufficient evidence before saying that the sound component also gives a meaning.
I'm going to go over your examples in a very brief way (at least, I'm trying to be brief). If you're interested in seeing the evidence I've used, just ask. I'm not including it now as it would make the post really long.
Ex1: 篇 essay, paper
* bamboo
* flat, tablet
篇 originally meant “ancient writings on bamboo strips tied together with a piece of thin rope or leather strap.”
扁 originally meant “large characters written on a sign or placard and posted somewhere.” 冊 depicted bamboo strips tied together and 戶 is a door (half of 門).
Analysis:
The original meanings of 冊 cè and 篇 are very close. Both are writings on bamboo strips that are tied together. The original meaning of 扁, though it's related to writing, is still a bit different. It did not have the meaning “flat,” though it could mean “essay,” but not the kind that is written on paper. None of the sources I looked at showed it as having a meaning.
Ex2: 符 fú tally, conform to
* bamboo
* deliver, entrust
Analysis:
“tally, conform to” is not the original meaning of 符, but rather an extended meaning. 付 originally meant “to give something to someone.” The original meaning of 符 was to match together a broken off piece of bamboo to the other original half of that piece of bamboo. This was done in order to verify that orders delivered to someone where indeed from the proper authority (and not from anyone else). The meaning “to conform to” is an extension (by way of generalization) of this meaning. The meaning “to give something to someone” doesn't really match, since the point of 符 is the verification process, not the giving of the bamboo piece. None of the sources I looked at (and I looked at quite a few – I can show a list if you're interested) showed 付 as having a meaning, including the《說文》.
Ex. 3: 忽 neglect, unawares
* must not, without
* heart, mind
Analysis:
勿's meaning “must not” or “not” is by sound loan, though this meaning appears quite early and was very likely around at the time 忽 was invented. If you can find examples of 勿心 in an ancient text (prior to the Han dynasty) that means something similar to “over look, not pay attention,” then you'd have a stronger case. I did do a simple search on
www.ctext.org and didn't find any. None of the sources I looked at showed 勿 as having a meaning.
Ex. 4: 漫 flood, all over
* water
* long, extended
Analysis:
Though not its original meaning, the meaning “long” for 曼 was probably in existence when the character 漫 was invented. I'm not sure that “long” is related to the notion of “flood.” “Width” and “depth” are at least as related and I would think “depth” is much more closely related than “long.” There seems to be a better case for “extended” as in “extended waters” = “flood.” You might be right in this case, but I'm not sure. None of the sources I looked at (and I looked at quite a few) showed 曼 as having a meaning.
