頁籤選單縮合
題名 | Vowel Length in Middle Chinese Based on Buddhist Sanskrit Transliterations=依據梵文佛教術語的音譯論中古漢語母音的長短問題 |
---|---|
作者 | 陳淑芬; Chen, Shu-fen; |
期刊 | 語言暨語言學 |
出版日期 | 20030100 |
卷期 | 4:1 2003.01[民92.01] |
頁次 | 頁29-45 |
分類號 | 802.41 |
語文 | eng |
關鍵詞 | 佛教術語; 中古漢語; 梵文; 母音長短; Buddhist terms; Middle Chinese; Sanskrit; Vowel length; |
中文摘要 | 本文的主要目的在推翻Pulleyblank (1984)、Kalgren (1922)、及Chao (1940) 認為中古漢語有長母音之論點。主要的反證有下列三點:首先,在Chen (2000) 對漢語中梵文外來語之研究,以及羅常培(1963) 所列出四十九根本字諸經譯文異同表中,譯經者在音譯梵文字母及外來語時,並沒有使用不同之母音,來對譯梵文長母音和短母音。其二,筆者從Soothill 和Hodou's (1968) 所寫的《漢英佛學大辭典》(A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms) 收集了約三千個梵文佛教術語,來研究其對譯的漢語語料。因每一個梵文術語都曾被多次翻譯,故共有七、八千筆漢語對音資料,其中共有1426 個漢字,用來對譯梵文長母音音節。研究結果顯示,所有常用來對譯梵文長母音的漢字,也都用來對譯梵文短母音。其三,從資料中也發現即使在同一梵文術語中,有相同性質的長母音和短母音,翻譯者也使用相同的漢字來對譯。基於以上三點,筆者認為中古漢語應該是沒有長短母音之對立,不然佛經的翻譯者在對音時,應會使用長母音來對譯梵文長母音,短母音來對譯梵文短母音,不至於毫無分別地使用相同的漢字。 |
英文摘要 | The goal of this paper is to disprove Pulleyblank (1984), Kalgren (1922) and Chao (1940)'s assumption that there were long vowels in Middle Chinese. The main arguments are: first, in Chen's (2000) study of Chinese loanwords from Sanskrit, and in Lo's (1963) list of the forty-nine Sanskrit sounds transliterated from sixteen Buddhist works, it was found that there was no distinction between short vs. long vowels. Moreover, in data collected from Soothill and Hodous' A Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms (1968), it was found that all the characters frequently used to transcribe long vowels were also used to transcribe short vowels. Had there been a short-vs.-long-vowel distinction in Middle Chinese, different characters should have been used. Finally, I have found that even within the same words there were short and long vowels which were transliterated with the same Chinese characters. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。