"The Theory of Neither Oral Language" by Meng Zhaolian
II. The False Borrowing and "Virtualization" of "Words"
Linguists both ancient and modern have noticed a phenomenon, that is, the so-called "virtual words" called "words" are mostly borrowed from "real words", that is, they do not have a corresponding "word" themselves.
For example, "while", "Saying": "And, suya, pictograms." "Borrowed as a word. Duan Yu's remark: "By extension, it is a word, or at the beginning, or in the middle of a sentence, or at the end of a sentence, or it can be interpreted as true, or it can be interpreted as such, or it can be interpreted as ru; Or interpret as the able, the ancient sound can be the same, the chant is the ability, and the endurance is the ability. ”[[17]]
Another example is "Yan", "Shuowen": "Yan bird, yellow, from Jianghuai." Pictographic. Paragraph note: "Self-borrowing is used as a word to help and the original meaning is abolished." Gu Duo used Yan as a voice. Discipline is for. And so it is. ”[[18]]
After pretending to be a "word", its original meaning completely disappears, and only the grammatical role remains. Therefore, ancient commentators always repeatedly emphasized the essential characteristics of imaginary words, especially the mood word "not righteous".
For example, Kong Yingda: "Thought, words, not righteousness." Wang quoted: "'Chaos' and 'rate' are the same, both words and meaningless." "Unjustified" means that the original meaning no longer exists. The issue of pretence has been constantly debated, and there are serious misunderstandings about the pretense of so-called "false words".
(i) Two different types of pretence
Linguists have noticed that although the same is called "word", the same is made of real words, and there is a very obvious difference between the tone at the end of the sentence and the "word" that indicates the relationship between the sentence in the sentence, that is, the former is "meaningless", while the latter is "righteous", and some of the actual meaning is quite obvious.
So how does this distinction come about? This still has to be understood from the essence of "words". There is a problem that linguists have overlooked, that is, there is a fairly clear boundary between the understanding of "ci" before and after the Tang Dynasty.
Xu Shen explained that "words" mean "inside and outside", and "words" are his distinguishing criteria, that is, "inside words" is "words" and "outside words" is "words".
In other words, "word" is colloquial, and "word" is not colloquial. This is not only Xu Shen's personal opinion, but also the common understanding of the literati of the two Han dynasties, Wei and Jin dynasties up to the Southern and Northern Dynasties, and no exceptions have been found.
When Tang Kongying came out, he put forward the "meaningless" theory of the interpretation of "words". It is not entirely bad to understand "words" from a new perspective, after all, it does make sense to explain some "words" with "meaningless" in modern concepts of fiction and reality.
However, it should be noted that "meaningless" cannot summarize all "words", because a considerable number of sentences have real meanings in "words". Kong Yingda not only said that "the son, the hu, the child, and so on, is originally taken as a word, although in the sentence, it is not considered righteous"[[[19]], but also explained that "the son of the son is gui": "However, he who is the son of the word, the son of the word, Yuyun is this son." ”[[20]]
"Of" is both "language assistance" and interpretation like "this", how can "this" be meaningless? He also explained "As for the decline of the king's road": "As for those who rise and fall, they inherit the words of the beginning and the end." ”[[21]]
There is also a clear meaning of "as for" here. This shows that Kong himself is clear about the actual meaning of certain "words", and the commentators of the Tang Dynasty have noticed this, so from Lu Yiwei's "Yuzhu" to modern times, there are explanations of the real meaning of virtual words.
So what is the relationship between the distinction between "words", "righteousness" and "unrighteousness" and pretense? In other words, the mood word is a pure pretext, not borrowing its meaning, and the "word" at the end of the sentence is a simple symbolic nature after the pretense, and its original meaning has been completely lost. The original meaning of "also" is "female yin", and the original meaning of "yan" is yellow bird, but after pretending to be "word", it is only a pure "symbol" at the end of the sentence, which only prompts the pronunciation of the tone of the sentence, so its "virtual" is completely virtual.
However, the "word" in the sentence is not exactly like this, they are not only a symbol, but also have obvious original meanings, especially as adverbs, conjunctions, and prepositions, and their grammatical role is also achieved through the original meaning.
"Notes on Speaking and Interpreting Words"
Let's start with adverbs here. There is much controversy about the nature and classification of adverbs in modern Chinese, and various textbooks are extremely inconsistent.
The reason is that linguists have found that some adverbs such as "will", "soon", "forever", etc., are used before verbs and adjectives to indicate degree, range, time, frequency, modality, manner, etc., and have real meaning, which is obviously different from mood words and some conjunctions that only have a grammatical effect.
But other adverbs such as "on", "only", "also", etc., do not say any real meaning, and seem to only have the function of tone. Therefore, on the issue of the classification of adverbs, linguists have left and right, and there is a confusion in which some are attributed to real words and some are attributed to imaginary words.
Mr. Wang Li proposed a moderate statement, describing adverbs as special parts of speech between fiction and reality. He pointed out in Modern Chinese Grammar:
"An adverb can be said to be a word that lies between the virtual and the real. They are not pure fiction, because they can also represent degree, scope, time, etc.; However, they are not pure either, because they cannot represent a physical object, a reality, or a fact alone. ”
Examples he gives are "very, most, more, even, too, ta, quite, slightly, slightly, all, total, another, already, was, were, talent, square, fang, suddenly, gradually, again, must, fruit, could, could, could, maybe, no, don't" [[22]].
Mr. Lu Shuxiang also said:
"Adverbs, from the point of view of syntactic function, should also be classified as real words, but their meanings are more real and more virtual, and a few are imaginary and imaginary, such as "just", "also", "also".
Therefore, some books call the referent 'half-virtual word' and the adverb 'half-real word', which also shows that the virtual word and the real word are difficult to distinguish completely. ”[[23]]
Everyone just discovered this phenomenon, but could not explain the reason, so they had to come up with another "half-fiction and half-reality" statement.
So, what's the problem? In the author's view, this is precisely the consequence of confusing colloquial words with non-colloquial words. Where is the difference between adverbs and reality? Just as the adverb in the spoken language is still a written adverb.
"Just", "cai", "also", etc., so "pure void", because they are all real colloquial words. Similarly, there are "again", "again", "always", "all", "no", etc., and they can't say what the real meaning is.
But all the adverbs that can say the truth, such as "will", "soon", "forever", as well as "imminent", "immediate", "extreme", "ever", "very", etc., these "seeming" "modern Chinese adverbs" are actually the remnants of the classical language, and they are only used in the written language, and have not been integrated into the spoken language of the whole people.
Although these words often appear in the spoken language of some groups of people, and the scope of use is becoming more and more extensive, this does not mean that their "origin" will change, we need to know their "origin", and we must not confuse them with the real national colloquialism.
Regarding this issue, Mr. Wang Li touched on it in "The Usage of Virtual Words":
"There is an easy-to-use imaginary word. Such as "of", "what", "what", "what", etc., these are some words that do not leave the mouth every day, and they are unlikely to be used incorrectly. ...... However, there is also a kind of imaginary word that is not easy to use, such as "actually", "as for", "so", "even", "whatever", "yet", "since", "for", "about", etc. These false words, which comrades do not say much in their daily conversations, are only seen when they are studying, so they are not sure of writing articles themselves. ”
"Tone words and interjection don't need to be spoken here, because everyone keeps talking every day, they can speak and use it, and you can save some space here." It is said "because, so, therefore, not only, and, since, both, then, but, but, but,
Modern Chinese Grammar
Although Mr. Wang Li did not continue to summarize theoretically, the regularity here has been shown very clearly: that is, all imaginary words that "never leave the mouth every day" will not be used incorrectly; On the contrary, the imaginary words that are often used incorrectly are "only seen when I am studying", which is obviously not colloquial.
In fact, as an important law of language, as long as you observe the phenomenon of language in reality, you will find this, and there will be no exceptions.
This rule applies not only to modern Chinese, but also to ancient Chinese.
Some people may say that this is "the law of the present", but I don't believe that the language of the ancestors is the opposite of that of the descendants, and the skillful colloquial language of "never leaving the mouth every day" will actually be used incorrectly when writing articles! For example, the original meaning of "pole" is the roof beam, and by extension it is supreme and farth, as an adjective and adverb, the meaning is the most, very. "Pole" and the combination of "extreme", "extreme" and "extreme" were not colloquial words in ancient times, but only written words. Although modern spoken language is increasingly influenced by written language, the frequency of use of "pole" in spoken language is equivalent to 1/10 of that of written language, and "extreme" is 4 times more frequent in written language than that of spoken language; As for "extreme", "extreme" is not used at all in colloquial [[25]].
For example, although the use of "extremely" and "comparison" in colloquial language has a certain frequency, it is limited to cultural people or urban people, and ordinary people do not understand the difference between the two adverbs in terms of degree of expression.
As for adverbs with "for" as an affix , such as "more", "particularly", "slightly", "most", "quite", "very", etc., they are all written words and are not used at all in spoken language, both ancient and modern.
The same is true for prepositions and conjunctions.
Ma's Wentong generally interpreted "virtual characters" as "unreasonable and solvable", and then it was opposed by Yang Shuda, Chen Chengze and others, such as Yang Ji pointed out that "the word 'to' should be 'take' and 'cause' is interpreted by the character "for", the word "for" should be interpreted as the word "help", and the word "from", "from", "from" and "from" and "of" have their own interpretation." The ligatures 'and' and 'and' ' are also solved. Among the four kinds of imaginary characters in Jima, there is absolutely no solution, only auxiliary words and sighing ears. ”[[26]]
Yang's single use of prepositions and conjunctions to refute the mood words at the end of the sentence shows that he is aware of the difference between "word" and "word" at the end of the sentence.
Ma divided the false and the real, and the criteria were set wrong at the beginning, which made it impossible for his classification not to be confused. He misunderstood the true meaning of ancient virtual and real words, and directly applied Western concepts, so mistakes are inevitable.
Because most of the "words" that are equivalent to imaginary words by today's people are originally borrowed from colloquial words, although the "words" at the end of the sentence are only borrowed as "residual sounds", but the vast majority of the sentences at the beginning and the "word" in the sentence involve adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and other parts of speech, how can they all be "unreasonable and understandable"?
Conjunctions, especially those used in compound sentences, actually have a fairly clear meaning, and are not just a "symbol" like the "word" at the end of the sentence.
Kong Yingda's "Mao Poem Justice" has explained some conjunctions, which shows that he has a relatively clear understanding of this issue. For example, "Ranze", he explained as follows: "However, if it is above, then it is not a matter of the future, because the trend of the previous rises and the future." ”[[27]]
Kong breaks down "however" into "ran" and "rule", making it easier to see the actual meaning. "However" has the meaning of "affirmation", whether it is the meaning of "agree" as a verb, the sound of response as an adjective, or the sound of "so, this" as a pronoun.
Kong's so-called "Ran Shang" is to affirm the previous sentence and use it as a prerequisite. The original meaning of "rule" is a law, and by extension it is regularity and logic, and the so-called "Tube" "The sky does not change its normal, the earth is not easy to rule, spring, autumn, winter and summer do not change its rules, ancient and modern." ”
"However" is used between two clauses to indicate the logical result represented by the second clause on the basis of the first clause. "However" is generally broken between two clauses, in the sense, "However" belongs to the previous sentence, that is, the previous sentence is affirmed as a premise; "Then" belongs to the following sentence, which indicates the result.
All conjunctions composed of "however", such as "however", "nevertheless", "then", etc., where "however" affirms the previous sentence, and then turns to the latter sentence, all use the real meaning.
The adverb "of course" is also the meaning of "as it should be" and "should be so", and it is also the actual meaning of the expression. Lu Yiwei's "Yusuke" has a similar explanation:
"However, however, otherwise: from now on it is the continuation of the above. However, this is the case, and this is exactly what is true of the following. However, this is the case, and the sentence is different. Otherwise, contrary to the previous meaning, if it is not. ”[[28]]
"Otherwise" means "not so", and "if" means "if so", both of which are assumptions and propose a possibility. Therefore, the "ran" here, according to the current concept of virtual reality, has a real meaning, but it is classified as a false word, and contradictions are naturally inevitable.
Compared with "natural rule", the actual meaning of "therefore" is clearer.
《Language Assistant School Note》
"Saying": "Therefore, for the sake of it." "Mozi": "Therefore, what you get is also done." ”
The original meaning of "therefore" is sake, cause. As a causal conjunction, the meaning of "therefore" means "for this reason", so Kong interprets it as "those who say 'therefore' mostly because of the above to give birth to things", that is, because of the reasons of the previous sentence, and the result of the next sentence.
The clause of the two causal relationships, the general cause comes first, and the result comes last. "Therefore" is mostly used before the last sentence to mean "for this reason"; It can also be used at the end of the preceding sentence to indicate "... of the original reason".
Yu Yueyun: "Where the scriptures use many words at the beginning of the sentence, there are also those at the end of the sentence." The example he gave is the "Book of Rites and Fortunes": "It is without reason, the first king can cultivate rites to achieve righteousness, and the body of faith to achieve obedience, and the word for this reason is also at the end of the sentence." ”[[29]]
In fact, the latter means "because", but it cannot be used at the beginning of the first sentence. That is, "therefore" can mean either "because" or "so".
"The Great Dai Li Ji Zeng Zi Zhi Zhi Ji If there is a way under heaven, there is what the Lord wants. Wang Yinzhi said: "The word 'therefore' should be read above, and the word 'if' should be read below." Those who speak of those who are in danger are spared, and there is no reason under the world. If there is a way under heaven, then there is a ruler. ”[[30]]
But Northern Wei Lu argued that "... There is no way in the world. Therefore, if there is a way under heaven..." There is also a form, i.e. two clauses, and the "therefore" can also be placed at the end of the following sentence. The preceding sentence lists the results, and the latter sentence is the cause.
For example, "Mozi": "These six kings must not value their country and love their bodies, so that they do not know the reason." "I don't know what I want" is the reason, and "I don't care about my country" is the result.
Parallel to "therefore" is the phrase "because... So", the real meaning is also obvious. "Cause" is "cause", "for" is "is", so "because" is "cause ...", or "with ... for the cause"; "So" means the place, the result, and "so" means "to... for the result".
This pair of conjunctions is used to indicate causation, and it is obviously used in a real sense. "Because", "by" and "therefore" are synonymous, and the phrases composed of three words are mostly synonymous. For example, "cause", "cause", "cause", "reason", "reason", "therefore", "therefore", "by is", "by is", "by is", "is", "is", etc., these words are all literati using the transformation of words, are pure written words, so it is difficult to find their figure in the spoken language.
So, since the real meaning is used, why does it produce the feeling of "virtuality"?
Mainly because this kind of "virtual word" is not inherent in the spoken language, but also often appears in the written language, repeated use, so that its grammatical function is gradually stylized, although the original actual meaning has not disappeared, but in the literati's impression has been relatively vague.
However, the ultimate reason is caused by today's misunderstanding of "words". Xu Shen annotated both "xi" and "曰" as "words", which is beyond reproach by his standards, because both words are non-colloquial; However, according to today's standards of fiction and reality, "Xi" and "Yu" are obviously not the same category.
According to today's standards, "in" and "in" are both prepositions, which should be in the same category; However, Xu Shen believes that "in" is a colloquial word, but "yu" is not, so he notes "yu" as "the relief of qi", and "in" as "character" as "cunye".
"Mozi"
(2) On the so-called "blurring" issue
From the above question to the "blur" problem, here may be the author's simple opinion. In recent years, linguists have moved to the theory of "blur" in Western linguistics to explain certain linguistic phenomena in Chinese.
"Blurring", also known as "grammaticalization", refers to "the process or phenomenon of transforming words with real meaning into components without real meaning and grammatical functions in language" [[31]].
For example, how virtual words in ancient Chinese were produced, many scholars have explained it with the theory of "virtual transformation".
Some even say that the theory of "virtual characters" has long existed in ancient China, and Western linguists also admit that the theory of "virtual characters" was proposed by Zhou Boqi in the Yuan Dynasty: "The concept of grammaticalization was first recognized outside Western academia, and at the latest in the 10th century, Chinese scholars distinguished between 'real characters' and 'virtual characters', and Zhou Boqi of the Yuan Dynasty had clearly pointed out that 'all virtual characters are derived from previous real characters'." ”(Heine et a1．1991；5)[[32]]
In the 10th century, a distinction was made between "real characters" and "imaginary characters", which probably refers to the fact that linguists often refer to the fact that "the Dongpo Sect Zhuzi composed more words and few meanings, or many imaginary words and few real words, all of which were criticized".
Song Yuan's concept of virtual reality about language is not the same as today's so-called "real words" and "virtual words", so let's not talk about it here, only talk about whether the so-called "virtualization" theory is related to Zhou Boqi.
The reason why modern linguists attribute the theory of "virtualization" to Zhou Boqi is to quote such a sentence in Zhou's "Six Books of Zhengzheng": "Most of the ancients made words, all from things." Today's imaginary words are ancient real words. ”
So what does Zhou Boqi mean here? "Ancient real characters" have become "virtual characters of today", is "virtual fiction" at work? We might as well trace the roots of Zhou Boqi's statement to set the record straight.
A similar statement appears several times in the Six Books of Truth, but the details are slightly different. The first appears in the first example below:
Quack, big bell too. Pictographic. Ancient work "use". Most of the ancient people made words, all from things, and today's virtual words are ancient real words. Don't be "yang" or "servant", no. "Zhou Shi Songgao" "Because he is thankful for people, he is a Yong" note: "Yong, the city is also." The ancient character "Chengyong" is also borrowed. [[33]]
Use, Yu Songche, Gu Yongzi, Zhong Ye. Pictographic. Borrowed as the word "administer". See the Quack's Note for details. The old saying "Bu Zhong is useful", falsehood. [[34]]
The fact that these two notes are listed together is that they are closely related and can complement each other. The phrase "all imaginary characters are from the real characters of the past" quoted by foreign scholars should be "the imaginary characters of today, all the real characters of the past" in the first example.
Zhou Boqi interpreted the original meaning of the word "mediocrity" as a big bell, which is different from Xu Shen's interpretation of "mediocrity, use also". Zhou Shi comes from the "Poem Shang Song" "Quack Drums Have Chops" Mao Chuan: "The big bell is mediocre. The "real character" in this note refers to the "mediocrity" of the Great Bell meaning, but the meaning of "imaginary character" is less clear.
Combined with the second example of the word "use", Zhou Boqi's "virtual character" should mean the word "use". That is to say, Zhou believed that the original meaning of "quack" was the big bell, and the "use" (the ancient character for "quack" as the meaning of "applying"), and the "yong" spoken of as "city", were all borrowed from the "quack" of the great bell.
Zhou Boqi used "borrowing" and "borrowing" respectively in these two notes, that is, false borrowing. Many literati in the Song and Yuan dynasties regarded nouns as real words and verbs as virtual words, so Zhou Boqi's "virtual word" here should refer to the "use" of the verb, not to "墉".
Obviously, whether the "quack" of Da Zhongyi is borrowed as the "use" of the verb or the "yong" of the noun, it belongs to homophone borrowing, and has no meaning connection, that is, Zheng Qiao's so-called "borrowing homonym does not borrow meaning".
We have noticed that the "virtualization" speaker adopted the method of taking the phrase out of context for my own use in Zhou Boqi's note, only quoting the phrase "today's virtual characters, all ancient real characters", leaving aside the specific virtual and real references in the note, especially deliberately omitting the two keywords of "borrowing" and "borrowing" in the original note, and taking the opportunity to insert the Western concept of "virtualization" between "ancient real characters" and "modern virtual characters" to replace them, so as to create the illusion that "virtual characters of today" are "virtual characters" made of "ancient real characters".
Not to mention that this kind of stealing and changing columns is really debatable, the question is, can ancient pretense be equivalent to the "blur" of Western linguistics?
According to the modern language concept, verbs are not imaginary words, so what is the reason for borrowing the "quack" of the noun (the ancient word for "use") as the "use" of the verb, called "virtualization"? The modern so-called "virtual word" refers to words with no real meaning, and "virtualization" should refer to the process of changing the meaning of words from existence to nothing, and the actual meaning of "use" is very clear, is this "virtualization" the same thing as the "virtualization" of Western languages?
As for the "yong" pretended to be a noun, it is from noun to noun, and the part of speech has not changed, where does "virtualization" begin?
"Six Books True and False"
Second, and more importantly, pseudonying is one of the "Six Books".
"Shuwen": "Books, books." "Speaking of the Preface" Yun: "Written in the Book of Bamboo Palaces." ”
The so-called "book" is the word written on the written word, and the "six books" is the law of making or using words, which only occurs when the literati write.
The essence of words is form, the essence of spoken language is sound, tangible things can be "borrowed", how can invisible sounds be "borrowed"? Illiterate people do not know what "pretend" is, and certainly do not use "pretend" to express anything.
That is to say, there is no "six books" in the colloquial language, neither "pretend", nor "pictographic", "referring to things", etc. The Western theory of "blur" is a law of language change, which is not only manifested in the written language, but also exists in the spoken language.
If it is not typical to pretend that the noun in the above example is pretended to be a verb and the noun is said to be "virtual", then let's look at the next example, this example is from the note "also":
Also, the ancient word for it, the wo utensil, there is a flow to inject water. Pictographic. There is Zhang Zhongjiao. Made, that is, the word big seal. Carved by Li Siqin. Small seal less text, use it today. The descendants did it again, and they were subordinate to it. Borrowed as a particle, the sheep cut. Words are used so much that justice is taken.
It is also added to the word, in fact, it is also a word. Most of the ancients made words because of things, and today's language helps, all of which are the words of ancient people's artifacts. Such as ㄓ本ㄓgrass, Huben breath, Yanben bird name and so on. "Shuowen" thinks that "female vagina", pictography, even Miu. [[35]]
In the annotation of the character "also", Zhou Boqi does not call "also" a virtual word, but "particles" and "language assistance".
Xu Shen interpreted "also" as "female yin", and did not explicitly note it as "word", but the annotations after the Han Dynasty recognized "also" as "word" (or "language assistance"), and it was the most used "word".
So where does this "also" come from? Zhou Boqi made it clear that "also" is "borrowed as a particle" from "wo uji", or is it a false borrowing. Moreover, he also deduced from the false borrowing of the word "also" to all the verbal particles, and cited "zhi", "hu" and "yan", believing that all the linguistic particles were borrowed from the "word of the ancient human artifacts".
If according to the "blurring", the "also" of the literary tone word is blurred by "female vulva" or "wo uji", why don't anyone study the blurring process? If the mechanism of change in the middle can be revealed, wouldn't it be more convincing to replace "pretend" with "blurred"?
Zhou Boqi mentioned for the third time in the "Six Books of Zhengzheng", "every borrowed real word is a virtual word", in the "must" character note:
Must, Bijiche, Bow Tan. Pictographic. Bow Chi is righteous, and the poem "Bamboo Closed Silk" notes the clouds: closed, bow also. ...... Later generations not only borrowed it as an inherent "must", but also added something else, which is not the ancient meaning. Most of the ancients made words, mostly from the beginning of things, and later rhetoric borrowed real words as imaginary words to achieve their meaning, and this is also one. See note "also" for details. [[36]]
Zhou Boqi interpreted the original meaning of "must" as "bow", which is a tool for correcting the bow, and later "borrowed as a solid necessity", that is, "must" in the modern sense as an adverb.
In this note, Zhou Boqi said: "Most of the ancients made words, mostly from the beginning of things, and later rhetoric borrowed real words as virtual words to achieve their meaning." ”
The addition of the phrase "later rhetoricist" to the previous two expressions is particularly important. The so-called "rhetoricist" refers to the literati, and "rhetoric" refers to writing articles as soon as it appears in "Zhou Yi".
Zhu Xi also said: "It is rhetoric, what a composition!" Zhou Boqi made it clear here that the pretense of real words as imaginary words is only a method of writing articles by "rhetoricists", that is, literati, which confirms the conclusion that the "false borrowing" mentioned above is only a written language act and does not exist in the spoken language.
《Zhou Yi》
Moreover, Zhou Boqi's view is just a repetition of the statements of Zheng Qiao, Dai Dong and others in the Song Dynasty, and there is no new meaning.
He only occasionally replaced the "language assistance" and "language words" spoken by his predecessors with "imaginary words", which actually referred to the same thing. In this regard, Mingren Fang Yizhi pointed out long ago: "Zhou Boqi's "Zheng Lie", most of the Dong Shu also. ”[[37]]
For example, Zhou Boqi explained "also" as "wo u" above, and Yun "Shuowen" thought that the female yin was pictogram, even Miu", which is also completely Dai Dong's "Six Books of Death", he just reversed the order of the annotations, and changed Dai's "even bad" to "even miu" [[38]].
The note on the word "must" is also a basic copy of the Six Books and Legends, and the addition of the sentence "rhetorians borrow real words as imaginary words" is an important contribution of Zhou Boqi. Although pretense is the law of writing, for the ancient literati, it is only an extremely simple common sense, but he makes it clear here that pretending to be only the behavior of "rhetorical" and not the act of spoken language unexpectedly gives a counter-proof to the "fictional theorist".
Ancient written pretenses, whether it is Xu Shen's "relying on sound to support things", or Zheng Qiao's "righteous pretend" or "unrighteous pretence", although "borrowing" and "borrowing" may have a connection in terms of sound and meaning, but this connection is "seen" by literati through words, rather than found by ordinary people in the process of oral language formation.
In other words, no matter what kind of pretense is borrowed, it is a direct borrowing, which is a kind of "take-it-ism".
In the author's opinion, the so-called "virtualization" theory in the West to "recognize the ancestors and return to the ancestors" from Zhou Boqi is obviously a mistake in "bloodline". It is strange to say that Western sinologists are so indiscriminately connected, and Chinese Chinese scholars do not look at the roots, do not read the original text, and follow the tongue in confusion.
If the pretense can be replaced by "virtual transformation", then the virtual theory is not only invented by Chinese, but also discovered far from as late as the tenth century, at least more than a thousand years earlier, until the first century BC where Liu Xiang and Liu Xin lived; If we consider that there are already a large number of false borrowing phenomena in oracle bones [[39]], then it seems that the Chinese people's understanding and application of the phenomenon of virtual fiction will be more than 2,000 years earlier, I wonder if Western scholars agree with it?
Under the guise of being a method of making and using words, which has existed for more than 3,000 years, how can we rashly replace it with a Western theory that has only been around for a few decades?
Some basic theories of Western linguistics have caused great harm to Chinese studies, and if researchers continue on this path, they will be further and further away from the truth of ancient Chinese.
(To be continued)
The author of this article is Professor Meng Zhaolian
Notes:
[[17]] Duan Yuzhi: Commentary on Shuowen Jijie, Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 1981, p. 454.
[[18]] Duan Yuzhi: Notes on Shuowen Jijie, p. 157ff.
[[19]] Li Xueqin, ed., Thirteen Classics Annotated Mao Shi Justice (Part I), Beijing: Peking University Press, 1999, p. 28.
[[20]] Li Xueqin, ed., Thirteen Classics Annotated Mao Shi Justice (Part I), p. 55.
[[21]] Li Xueqin, ed., Thirteen Classics Annotated Mao Poems (middle), p. 14.
[[22]] Wang Li, Modern Chinese Grammar, p. 13.
[[23]] Lü Shuxiang: Lü Shuxiang Collection, Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 2001, p. 349.
[[24]] Wang Li: "The Usage of Virtual Words," Wang Li, Collected Works of Wang Li, vol. 3, p. 358.
[[25]] See Ji Wei, Chapter 2 of A Study of Adverbs of Modern Chinese Level, Guangming Daily Publishing House, 2011.
[[26]] Yang Shuda, "Ma's Wentong Publication Error", vol. 1 "Correct Name", Beijing: Science Press, 1958, p. 1. [[27]] Li Xueqin, ed., Thirteen Classics Annotated Mao Poems (Part I), p. 20. [[28]] Wang Kezhong's note: Notes on the Collection of Auxiliary Words, Beijing: Zhonghua Bookstore, 1988, p. 40.
[[29]] Yu Yue: Examples of Doubtful Meanings of Ancient Books, vol. 4, Shanghai: Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House, 2007, p. 65.
[[30]] Wang Yinzhi: Commentary on Jingyi, vol. 11, Nanjing: Jiangsu Ancient Books Publishing House, 1985, p. 282.
[[31]] Shen Jiaxuan: "A Review of the Study of "Grammarization"", Foreign Language Teaching and Research, No. 4, 1994.
[[32]] Quoted from Wu Fuxiang, Grammar Series, Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press, 2009, p. 13.
[[33]] Zhou Boqi: "Six Books of Zhengzheng" Pingsheng "Dong Chong" part, Siku Quanshu. [[34]] Zhou Boqi: "Six Books of Zhengzheng" goes to the "Song Dynasty" part.
[[35]] Zhou Boqi: The Six Books of Zhengzheng Zheng Zheng Zheng Zhi Zhi T
[[36]] Zhou Boqi: "Six Books of Zhengzheng" into the "Qualitative Technique" section.
[[37]] Fang Yizhi: Frontispiece II of Tongya, Beijing: China Bookstore Photocopy, 1990 edition, p. 44.
[[38]] Regarding the suspicion caused by Xu Shen's interpretation of "also" as "female yin", Duan Yuzhi once said: "And shallow people are vainly suspicious. Xu must have received something at that time. It is not allowed to be measured with a rare and strange heart. ”
[[39]] Researchers have calculated that more than 80% of commonly used words in oracle bone script are borrowed words.
Author's affiliation: Nankai University
This article was published with the author's permission, originally published in Nankai Journal (Social Science Edition), No. 1, 2016 · Feature. Please indicate the source of forwarding.