Where have all the prefixes gone? : Iambic prefixes and semanticization in old Chinese
Where have all the prefixes gone? : Iambic prefixes and semanticization in old Chinese
复制标题
所有的前缀都到哪里去了？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Boltz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Boltz
古汉语词中的声母串可以是由一个具有形态功能的前缀加上一个辅音词根组成的，也可以是由两个不能进行形态分析的辅音组成的。虽然这些词在任何一种情况下都可以被描述为C 1 C 2 v [C]，但它们似乎通常具有半音节（C1 Ic - C 2 v[C]）或完全双音节（C 1 a - C 2 v[C]）结构，通常具有抑扬格重音模式，这与第二个音节中的词根和第一个音节中的前缀相匹配。因此，这些形式的第一个音节通常被称为“抑扬格前缀”，无论它们是否可以被指定为具有形态作用。这种半音节或双音节词有多少是单音节词二分化的结果，即，是由具有“真簇”（C1 C2 v [C]）的单音节词通过某种感知过程在语音上发展而来的。很清楚的是，无论C1-前缀可能具有什么形态功能，到战国晚期都基本上已经过时了，因此，前缀的直接语音反射在语言的后期阶段通常都消失了。这里的论点是，在许多情况下，C 1 a -“前缀音节”是语义化的，即，后来被解释为独立的词，独立于第二个音节所代表的词根。半音节词和双音节词似乎经历了一个向扬抑重音模式的转变，其结果是，它们的第一个音节，因此成为语音强化，易于被重新分析作为独立的词汇，单音节词。这导致了第一个音节与第二个音节在词汇上完全分离。通常，语义化是基于特定的C1 a部分与语言中预先存在的单词的偶然语音相似性，使其基本上成为一种“民间词源学”。“或者，许多新发现的单词只是作为新词被采用到语言中。根据这一“语义化假设”分析，标准古典语言中大量常见的双字短语或二项式表达，有时是带韵的，可以被视为保留了古代汉语半音节和双音节形式中曾经是前缀音节的痕迹。
Initial consonant clusters in Old Chinese words could have been constituted either of a prefix with a morphological function plus a consonantal root initial or simply of two consonants not morphologically analyzable. While such words can in either case be characterized as C 1 C 2 v [C], they seem often to have had a sesquisyllabic (C1 Ic - C 2 v[C]) or fully bisyllabic (C 1 a - C 2 v[C]) structure, typically with an iambic stress pattern as would befit a word root in the second syllable and a prefix in the first. The first syllables of such forms are therefore regularly referred to as 'iambic prefixes' whether they can be specified as having a morphological role or not. How often such sesquisyllabic or bisyllabic words were the result of the dimidiation of a monosyllable, i.e., were devolved phonetically by some kind of epenthetic process from monosyllables with "true clusters" (C 1 C 2 v [C]) is not clear. What is clear is that whatever morphological functions the C 1 -prefixes may have had were largely obsolescent by the late Warring States period, and as a consequence direct phonetic reflexes of the prefixes are generally lost in later stages of the language. The thesis set out here is that in many cases the C 1 a - "prefix syllables" were semanticized, i.e., came to be interpreted as separate words, independent of the root word represented by the second syllable. The sesquisyllabic and bisyllabic words seem to have undergone a shift to a trochaic stress pattern as a result of which their first syllables, having thus become phonetically fortified, were prone to being re-analyzed lexically as independent, monosyllabic words. This resulted in a complete lexical separation of the first syllable from the second. Typically, the semanticization was based on a fortuitous phonetic similarity of the particular C 1 a- part in question to a pre-existing word in the language, making it essentially a kind of "folk-etymology." Alternatively, many of the newly perceived words were simply adopted into the language as neologisms. Numerous common two-word phrases or binomial expressions, sometimes riming, in the standard classical language when analyzed according to this "semanticization hypothesis" can be seen as preserving vestiges of what were once prefix syllables in Old Chinese sesquisyllabic and bisyllabic forms.