I was reading the Wikipedia page on hypercorrection, and I noticed this particle section on Cantonese:
In Cantonese, some speakers omit the initial [ŋ]. For instance, the character 牙 (Jyutping: ngaa4, meaning "tooth"), ends up being pronounced "aa4". Prescriptivists tend to consider these changes as substandard and denounce them for being "lazy sounds" (Chinese: 懶音; Jyutping: laan5 jam1). However, in a case of hypercorrection, some speakers have started pronouncing words that should have a null initial using an initial [ŋ], even though according to historical Chinese phonology, only words with light tones (which correspond to tones 4, 5, and 6 in Jyutping) had voiced initials (which includes [ŋ]). Because of this hypercorrection, words such as 愛 (Jyutping: oi3, meaning "love"), which has a dark tone, are pronounced by speakers with an [ŋ] initial, "ngoi3".
This lead to me to think about the pronounciation of 啱. Looking at the entry on Wiktionary, it only has one pronounciation (ngaam1). It is in the first tone, but still has an ng- initial, and is the only counter-example I could find to the above paragraph. How accurate is the above paragraph from Wikipedia? If it is accurate, why is it that only tones 4, 5, and 6 that have ng- initials, and why does 啱 not follow that rule? I am also hoping that the etymology of 啱 will help explain this. I am assuming that 啱 is not the "original character", and is a newly invented character due to uncertain origins. The Wiktionary entry does have some speculations, but I also am wondering if other (possibly definitive) theories exist.