查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 異讀理論中的致使效應=The Causatives in the Theory of Variant Readings of Verbs |
---|---|
作 者 | 黃坤堯; 黃坤堯; | 書刊名 | 漢學研究 |
卷期 | 9:2=18 1991.12[民80.12] |
頁次 | 頁365-383 |
分類號 | 802.6 |
關鍵詞 | 使動; 致使; 異讀; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
英文摘要 | Some verbs in ancient Chinese may be used as causatives, e.g., 食之=使之食,飲馬=使馬飲. The Chinese equivalent generally used for “causative” is shih tung 使動, which is, however, not altogether satisfactory. In this article the term chih shih 致使 will be used instead. Since words in the ancient Chinese language were mainly monosyllabic, variation in pronunciation was used to mark differences in meaning and usage. This is what is known as ssu sheng pieh yi 四聲別義. It happens that sometimes the meanings distinguished are verbal. In this article this will be called tung tz’u yi tu 動詞異讀. There are thirteen different categories of verbal meanings distinguished by different pronunciations, among which is the one concerning causatives. Contemporary scholars Wang Li 王力, G..B. Downer, Chou Fa-kao 周法高, etc. are inclined to resort to explaining all these cases in terms of shih tung, but as shih tung is not a well defined concept and is used in excess a means of explanation, it seems worthwhile to have another look at the problem. This article tries to clarify the concept of the causative. To qua1ify as a causative, a verb must satisfy the following three conditions: (l)sentence pattern: X 動 Y must the equivalent of X 使 Y 動. (e.g.,飲 Y= 使 Y 飲), but this requires that Y must be a living creature e.g. 馬 as in 飲馬 but not 酒 as in 飲酒. In other words the sentence can be replaced by the construction using the word shih使. (2) meaning. there should be no change in meaning of the word when X 動 Y is translated X 使 Y 動, e.g., the meaning of 飲 in 飲馬 and 使馬飲 means the same. (3) translation: when an ancient Chinese monosyllabic verb is translated into a modern Chinese bisyllabic verb, it should be ensured that the correct translation is chosen, e.g., 河出圖 should be rendered as 河獻出圖 rather than 河使圖出. This is because 獻出 differs in meaning with 出, and 圖 is not a living creature. The correct translations shows this sentence as not involving a causative. Using these three conditions as a test on the various examples it can be seen that only 食, 飲, 啖/蝠, 趣 are truly used as causatives, whereas 出1, 出2/黜, 去, 沈, 見, 觀, 視/示, 學, 勞, 來 are not. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。