In the beginning of the Analects, Confucius writes:
學而時習之, 不亦說乎
I would translate it as "to learn and take time practising, is it not said? (spoken)?"
Yet everywhere it is translated as pleasant. Why?
In the beginning of the Analects, Confucius writes:
學而時習之, 不亦說乎
I would translate it as "to learn and take time practising, is it not said? (spoken)?"
Yet everywhere it is translated as pleasant. Why?
說 is the original 悅, they mean the same thing. It's only because in different times, different character may be used to represent the same thing. This situation of different character used is called 古今字. Check this(Chinese Wikipedia).
To back this up, consult (清)段玉裁《說文解字注》
説釋也。説釋卽悦懌。説悦釋懌皆古今字。許書無悦懌二字也。説釋者,開解之意。故爲喜悦。釆部曰。釋,解也。从言。兑聲。儿部曰。兑,説也。本周易。此從言兑會意。兑亦聲。弋雪切。十五部。一曰談説。此本無二義二音。疑後增此四字。别音爲失䑔切。
So as to why it's 說, it's because when you explain something (說釋->說明解釋) to someone, he or she will be happy because the you resolve (開解) their question.
Master Sparkles, I don't think call it stand-in word is appropriate since it's just the correct usage at that time. (Sorry I can't comment so I have to reply here)
悦,犹说也,拭也,解脱也。若人心有郁结能解释之也。
also suggest that. However, I assume if you insist, yes, all of Chinese is made up.
it's used here as a stand-in for the character 悅, which probably did not exist yet. From the Han Dynasty 說文解字: 說者今之悅字.
Another example of this is 優 as in 學而優則仕: originally 優 was a stand-in for 餘.
說 indeed means 悅 here, but the more puzzling question is why you can use one to stand-in for the other. Almost all true "borrowed characters" (假借字, see list) we know of are "root versions" compared to the eventually created word, which this is not, even though a "兌" could have been possible here.
So the more likely explanation is that they are in fact the same character. But the two phonemes are very different in modern Mandarin, making it difficult to explain how the sound diverged. I've wondered about this problem myself for a while; I eventually found this page (in traditional Chinese) which provided a much more comprehensive argument, and it turns out there is in fact a plausible series of phonological shifts that can explain the divergence (see table in second section).
http://www.tglin.idv.tw/essay/essay_lang57.htm
This theory would corroborate the view that the two meanings actually originated from one character (in pre-Han Chinese), and are not distinct characters. The reason why these meanings overlapped in one character would be hard to discover conclusively, but the one provided by RexYuan certainly sounds plausible.