翻閱東亞各地在十七、十八世紀留下的海洋史史料時，經常會遇到冠以 「官」、「舍」等詞綴的人名，它們與當時縱横東亞海域的閩南海商密切有關， 是非常有福建和閩南語特色的標誌。但是這些人名詞綴的意義、用法、詞源， 仍是尚未徹底解明的問題。本研究先從批判目前被普遍引用的理論下手，梳 理此說法從明代中葉至二十世紀初的學術脈絡，並指出既有理論的疑點以及 與常理不合之處。筆者認為，梁嘉彬提出的證據僅是缺乏歷史根據的傳說， 無法和史料互相檢證，更不可能解釋「官」和「舍」這兩個頭衡的使用，反 而是清代《廈門志》與《廈英大辭典》所記的用法較為正確，並且可以和閩 南語戲文、臺灣的古契字、廣東行商的名號、巴達維亞華人史料互相印證。 至於「官」與「舍」的詞源，則分別可上溯至宋代的身分制度和太學三舍法， 本研究將以歷代史料說明之。

Reading maritime materials from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we usually encounter names with -qua 官 and -sia 舍 suffixes. These distinctive honorific suffixes belonged to Hokkien merchants who played a significant part in East Asian maritime trade. However, the meanings, usages, and etymologies of these suffixes have not yet been comprehensively clarified. This study first critiques the existing theory proposed by Liang Chia-pin in the 1930s, tracing it from the mid-Ming to the early 20th century, while pointing out its existing flaws and logical inconsistencies. I am unable to find verification for the evidence offered by Liang in support of his theory in the historical materials. They are merely folk stories without historical basis and cannot explain the usages of -qua and -sia. I believe that the Xiamen zhi 廈門志 (Xiamen Gazetteer) and Chinese-English Dictionary of the Vernacular or Spoken Language of Amoy offer the correct meanings and usages of these honorific suffixes: -qua is applicable to all gentlemen, but -sia is exclusive to the relatives of mandarins. I have found much supporting evidence for this in Hokkien-language materials, such as scripts, land deeds, merchants’ trade names, and Chinese records from Batavia (Jakarta), etc. Based upon the usages of these suffixes, I also trace their etymologies to the Song dynasty, and try to explain their diachronic changes using historical evidence.