A Reconsideration of the Character Hong “弘”
|Keywords:||甲骨文;金文;異代同形;毛公鼎;Oracle bone inscription;Epigraphy;Ancient writing;Unrelated isomorphs;Mao Gong Ding||Issue Date:||Jun-2008||Journal:||臺大中文學報||Journal Pages:||001-046||Abstract:||本文認為甲金文□字應釋為「弘」，□、□、□則都是「強」字。西周時「強」作「□」、弘作□；進入東周後，□的斜撇可能已經脫離弓體作「□」並延續到漢代，晉、楚系文字中的「強」因而加上區別符號作「□」。但漢代「強」字使用來自秦系文字的「強」，遂造成漢代的「弘」字(□）、「引」(□）字分別和西周以前的「強」字(□）、「弘」字(□）同形，學者如果沒有考慮古文字在長期演變中「異代同形」的現象，僅以字形的相似做為考釋的主要線索，即可能造成誤釋。 除了上述字形上的辨析，本文也分別解釋了□、□所在的金甲文辭例，指出在各辭例中，將上述二形分別釋為「弘」、「強」都比釋為「引」、「弘」更為合理適切，宜可做為□、□二形考釋的重要憑證。
This article proposes that the oracle bone and bronze script character □ be interpreted as 弘, and that □, □, and □ all be interpreted as 強. In the Western Zhou Dynasty, 強 was written as □ and 弘 as □. As it developed in the Eastern Zhou, the upward slanting element on the right of □ might have been separated off from the 弓 element; as a result, 弘 was written as □--a convention which was passed on to the Han Dynasty. On the other hand, since 強 was also written as □ in the Eastern Zhou, to make a distinction, in the writing systems of Jin and Chu dynasties an extra element was added to the original form to make the new character form □. In the Han dynasty, the 強 character was taken from the writing system of Qin. This led to the confusion between 弘 (written as □) of the Han and 強 (written as □) of the Western Zhou, as well as between 引 (written as □) of the Han and 弘 (written as □) of the Western Zhou. The confusion was due to the fact that different words might take the same character form. The character evolution can be seen clearly in the following table: Misinterpretation may occur if scholars overlook the long-term evolution of character forms, especially when they ignore the phenomenon that two or more etymologically distinct character lineages might pass through the evolutionary stages in identical form. Aside from discussing the evolution of character forms, this article also examines the extant oracle bone and bronze inscription characters □ and □. It argues that in every instance of their occurrence, □ and □ are better interpreted as 弘 and ? than as 引 and 弘. The interpretation may serve as important guidance for making sense the meanings of □ and □ in other texts and contexts.
|Appears in Collections:||中國文學系|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.