漢藏語同源問題

Abstract

歷史比較語言學是研究語言之間是否具有發生學關係及其演變過程的一種歷史語言學，旨在建立語言間的親屬關係及系屬劃分，並重建原始母語，探索出語言自母語分化後的演變規律與方向。其所利用的研究方法是歷史比較法，是透過比較語言或方言間的差異，透過語音對應規律確定同源詞，重建原始語言音系，並找出從原始語言演變至後世親屬語言的演化規律。第一章敘述漢藏同源歷史比較所需的材料跟方法以及介紹漢藏比較近50年來的研究成果跟所遇到的困境。第二章則首先介紹漢藏語言系屬劃分的不同觀點以及介紹多家學者對於原始漢藏語性質的看法，其次嘗試以漢語書面文獻材料所考證的音類成果以及周秦兩漢時期的借詞對音規律去觀察、構擬上古漢語音系，探討上古漢語音系的聲母系統及韻母系統面貌，進而上溯至原始漢語音系。透過歷史比較法建構原始藏緬語音系。第三章則從原始漢藏語的歷史比較背景入手，本文主要運用借詞在貸入諸親屬語言內部無法形成整齊的語音對應規律原則來判別漢藏語間的同源詞跟借詞區別，透過實際舉例操作進行漢藏語同源詞跟借詞的鑑別，凡符合這條鑑別原則的皆為借詞。在從多個面向探討漢藏語言的語言現象後，提出6條關於鑑別漢藏語同源詞跟借詞的原則。第四章則透過漢藏比較尋覓漢藏同源詞，1074個比較詞項的歷史比較尋覓到22個漢藏同源詞。第五章則從藏緬語言的形態進行歷史比較，得出藏緬語言可溯源至原始藏緬語時期的僅使動態、肢體與動物名詞前綴、反義詞前綴三個形態，再與上古漢語的形態進行比較。本文針對漢藏語同源的相關議題進行討論，希望能夠解決長期圍繞漢藏語言是否同源的爭議，內容包括漢語古音的重建、古代漢語是否具有形態、同源詞表的選擇、語言分化時的共同創新、漢藏間是否具有嚴整的語音對應規律、類型是否轉換、多音節與單音節等問題重新探索，從具體的語言探索語言的發展，從歷史的比較重建語言的音系。本文在進行漢藏比較前，先利用漢語書面文獻材料(以諧聲及詩韻為主，佐以通假、又音、詩韻、聯綿詞等綜合運用)重建漢語的原始形式，排除後起詞項，繼以藏緬語言書面文獻及活語言材料進行跨級比較，重建藏緬語言的原始形式，最後進行比較詞項的漢藏比較。Historical comparative linguistics is a kind of historical linguistics that studies whether there is a genetic relationship between languages and their evolution process. Evolution and direction. The research method it uses is the historical comparison method. It compares the differences between languages or dialects, identifies cognate words through the law of phonetic correspondence, reconstructs the phonology of the original language, and finds out the evolution law from the original language to the languages of later generations.The first chapter describes the materials and methods needed for Sino-Tibetan homologous historical comparison, and introduces the research results and difficulties encountered in Sino-Tibetan comparison in the past 50 years. The second chapter first introduces different views on the division of Sino-Tibetan language families and introduces the views of many scholars on the nature of primitive Sino-Tibetan language, and then tries to use Chinese written documents to verify the results of phonetics and loanword pairs in the Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties. The third chapter starts from the historical background of primitive Sino-Tibetan. This paper mainly uses the principle that loan words cannot form a neat phonetic correspondence rule in the loaned languages to distinguish the difference between cognate words and loan words between Chinese and Tibetan languages. Example operations are used to identify Chinese-Tibetan cognates and loanwords. Those that conform to this identification principle are all loanwords. After discussing the linguistic phenomena of Sino-Tibetan languages from various aspects, six principles are put forward on identifying Sino-Tibetan cognates and loanwords. The fourth chapter searches for Sino-Tibetan cognates through Sino-Tibetan comparison, and finds 22 Sino-Tibetan cognates through historical comparison of 1074 comparative terms. The fifth chapter compares the forms of the Tibeto-Burman language historically, and concludes that the Tibetan-Burman language can be traced back to the primitive Tibeto-Burman period with only three forms: dynamic, noun prefixes of limbs and animals, and antonym prefixes, and then compared with the forms of ancient Chinese.