從《說文》聲訓看來母一三等的上古分野

On the Distinction between 1st and 3rd Division of Initial Lai in Old Chinese: From the Perspective of Phonetic Glosses

丘彥遂(Yuen-Suey Hew)

《聲韻論叢》 18期 (2014/10) Pp. 145-161

摘要

來母的上古音值，自高本漢（1889-1978）以降均擬作*l-，直到蒲立本（1962）從早期的對音材料中發現來母總是對應r-而不是l-，例如「Alexandria」，《漢書》譯作「烏弋山離」，來母對譯的是r-，從此才開啟了上古來母是*l-還是*r-的討論。二十世紀末，金理新（1999）指出，上古來母不僅對應於藏語的r-，同時也對應於藏語的l-；與藏語r-對應的多是三等字，而與l-對應的多是一等字。更重要的是，來一和來三在諧聲系列中有分組的趨勢。於是主張上古來母二分：三等來母字是*r-，一等來母字是*l-。有鑑於此，本文展開了這一議題的討論，主要針對《說文》的聲訓進行全面的觀察與分析，同時檢討新說的立論依據，看看是否如金理新所言，來母一等和來母三等在上古還可以劃分為兩類。

關鍵字

來母 ； 聲訓 ； 上古音 ； 說文 ； 諧聲系列

並列摘要

Bernhard Karlgren (1889~1978) first proposes *l- as the pronunciation of the initial Lai. Pulleyblank (1962) provides evidence from early translations where the initial Lai always corresponds to r- (e.g. 'Alexandria' is translated into '烏弋山離' in Han Shu) and argues for *r- as the pronunciation of the initial Lai. Jin (1999) points out that both l- and r- in Written Tibetan corresponds to Lai, and they correspond to the 1st and 3rd division of Lai respectively. Moreover, the 1st and 3rd division of Lai are different groupings in phonetic series. Therefore, Jin claims that the initial Lai in Old Chinese includes two pronunciations: *l- for the 1st division and *r- for the 3rd division. This study investigates the 1st and 3rd division of the initial Lai in Old Chinese, based on a comprehensive analysis of the phonetic glosses in Shuo Wen. The results suggest no clear distinction between the 1st and 3rd division of the initial Lai in Old Chinese, which is against Jin (1999)'s proposal.

並列關鍵字

Initial Lai ； phonetic glosses ； Old Chinese phonology ； Shuo Wen ； phonetic series