It is often said that it is enough to study China's classics and make use of China's inherent phonology to sort out the edition catalogue. Why use grammar (that is, philology) and linguistic theory imported from the West? Isn't this worship of foreign things and flattery? In this regard, Mr. Yang Shuda commented:
So, what I don't have, the whole grammar system is not grammatically. ..... if it is not inherent in our country, there is no need to do it. Excuse me, commentator, can I go out by train or by bus? Is it okay to use lights and telephones at home? With the progress of husband's era, our research should be better than before, and we should not rest on our laurels. As the commentator said, do you want to eat birds and eat grass today? Generally speaking, science emphasizes understanding and analysis, but the serious illness of China people is embarrassing and ambiguous, so it is incompatible with science.
I have noticed that people who oppose the use of modern linguistic methods such as grammar in the collation of ancient books are generally people who don't know much about such methods; No one who understands this will object. This is a paradox, you don't understand, you can't say it well. What is the basis?
Before writing, I think that since the Analects of Confucius by Yang Bojun has been published for nearly half a century, it will be of little significance if its level cannot be greatly improved compared with the latter. Textual research on difficult words in ancient and modern litigation should be more accurate and credible than previous annotations. Can you do it?
New Notes on the Analects of Confucius (Peking University Publishing House, March 20 16)
The ancient Greek philosopher said that there are no two identical leaves in the world! How wonderful it would be if every word in the language had its own unique symbol, or gene, which was different from other words! Using this feature, we can distinguish it from other characters and solve the problem of difficult words and sentences in ancient books. Isn't the ancient books annotated according to this feature more accurate and credible than before?
Fortunately, this symbol (gene) exists, and this is the "distribution" of words. First, it refers to the grammatical position of words in sentences, such as subject, predicate, object, attribute, adverbial, etc. The second refers to the combination ability of words, that is, what words are modified by words, what words are modified by words, and so on. Generally speaking, it is the contextual conditions of words in specific sentences.
Many scholars have discussed that almost no word has the same distribution as other words. The distribution of different meanings (sememes) in a word is also different. Then the problem came again. Although the total distribution of a word will not be the same as other words, the disputed word or sememe is only located in one sentence, which is not enough to present the total distribution of the word or sememe. Can it be distinguished from other words or sememes? The answer is still yes. Distribution can be divided into several categories. There are not many distribution categories of a word or sememe, and a word or sememe can often present more than one category in a sentence. Moreover, since both need to be identified, the meanings of these two words or sememes are definitely very different; Accordingly, the distributed classes are often very different.
For example, in the Analects of Confucius, Wei Linggong said, "A little tolerance leads to great mischief", and there have always been two interpretations of "forbearance" in the sentence: patience and patience. These two meanings are quite different. There are two kinds of it in this sentence, one is modified by negative adverb (bu), and the other is without object. Two meanings of "forbearance" in the classics of The Analects of Confucius. When modified by negative adverbs, both meanings are common. However, when it was modified by negative adverbs and had no object, interesting things happened, and when it fell to the ground, it showed a kind of "intentional" meaning, which lasted until the end of Han Dynasty. Therefore, a small tolerance means a small tolerance, that is, a small kindness. Not far from the pre-Qin era, that's how the Han people understood it. Historical Records of Liang Xiaowang Family records that Emperor Jing of Han and his younger brother Liang Wang said when they were half drunk, "I will pass on the throne to you after I die." Dou Taihou loves King Liang very much and is very happy to hear the news. So,
Yuan Ang and others went to see the Queen Mother: "The Queen Mother said that Liang Wang would be established, and Liang Wang would soon end. Who does she want to establish? " The Queen Mother said, "I want to restore Di Zi." Yuan Ang and others did not pay attention to Song Dynasty, which caused disasters and disasters to the next five generations. He could not bear to hurt the Queen Mother. The Queen Mother is an interpreter, even if Liang Wang returns to his country.
Obviously, the "little tolerance" here is "little kindness", which is how I annotate it.
Another example is "Gongye Chang": "Lutz has a smell, but if you can't do it, you are afraid of it." The last sentence, Mr. Yang Bojun's comment, should be read as "smell again". However, except for a few special cases, "Wen" must take an object without exception. Special case refers to the combination of "Wen" and other phrases, such as "Duowen" and "Wu Wen". "You Wen" is very common in pre-Qin classics, and it is also a fixed structure without objects. On Mencius Teng Wengong: "Swallow it three times, then listen with your ears and see with your eyes." And "re-smelling" is not common, it is not a fixed structure, and it should bring an object. "The Analects of Confucius Ji Shi": "Ask one and get three, smell poetry, smell courtesy, and smell the son of a gentleman." Obviously, the word "you" you are afraid of hearing cannot be pronounced "you".
Another example is Politics: "Confucius said,' I always talk back and don't disobey it, just like a fool. If you retire, it is enough to keep your privacy, and it is not stupid to retire. ""Who retired to keep his privacy "? Confucius or Yan Hui? In ancient times, there were two views. We have made clear the semantic features of "tui" (in the final analysis, it is also a distribution feature): the word "tui" is modest and respectful, and the word "tui" is the guest subject. Of course, it is Yan Hui who pushes.
Recently, Alpha Dog vs. Li Shishi was a sensation. It is conceivable that if the distribution characteristics of common Chinese words in different time periods are clearly described in the near future, computers can also judge who is right or wrong when encountering difficult words with different opinions in ancient and modern times; If none of them are correct, the computer can make a new explanation. The ancient books annotated by it are often more accurate and credible than those annotated by human beings. Is this prospect just a mirage?
There is also a common way to interpret ancient books, which I call "pulling radish"-pulling the meaning of a word in its own preset direction. The first step is to say that the current reading method is unreasonable and does not conform to someone's consistent thinking, so it must be reinterpreted. The second step is usually to find a very biased word meaning; If you really can't find the meaning that the researcher expects to find, say that a word is similar to another word and should be pronounced as another word; Or because the glyphs are similar, it is a mistake of another word, and so on. All these only provide the possibility that A is B, but there is little key evidence about "distribution" to prove the inevitability. The third step is to say that only in this way can it be reasonable and conform to someone's consistent thinking. As Mr. Wang Li said: "Scholars often pay attention to pursuing novel and gratifying opinions, making bold assumptions, and then using' evidence' such as' double phonology',' single phonology' and' sound similarity' to help them make statements." There are many papers that interpret ancient books in this way, but we just talk about the matter and don't need examples.
This is really inappropriate. Language is a system, and the verification of problems in the system should mainly rely on the evidence in the system. Meaning, truth and principle belong to outside the language system. Mr. Wang Li said: "The ancients are dead, and we can only understand his thoughts through his language;" On the other hand, we can't subjectively think that he must have this kind of thought, and then come to the conclusion that since he has this kind of thought, this sentence can only be explained in this way. The latter method is in danger of falling into subjective speculation. " Professor Sun Yuwen said to me, "What you think Confucius should say is one thing, but what Confucius actually said is another. The textual research of words is to verify the latter, which is not necessarily related to the former. "Besides, Confucius can only say this according to Confucius' thoughts, and then prove Confucius' thoughts according to Confucius' words. Isn't this a circular argument?
"The most important thing is that literati are not free." In fact, the words that can appear in every grammatical position are not free and restricted. For example, if you think the word "learning while learning" is wrong, you must change it to another word, which must be able to appear in this grammatical position; The number of words to be changed by researchers is very limited (for example, they must be similar to the changed words in shape and sound), and these words must conform to the researchers' preset (Confucius admirers choose words that are beneficial to Confucius, and Confucius detractors choose words that are unfavorable to Confucius); Multiplied by three low probabilities, the number is almost zero. Therefore, if a sentence is fully demonstrated in the language at that time, it is unlikely to succeed in another word. Tabar said that "people can make it impossible to know" has eight pronunciations, which actually change the distribution by changing the sentence structure. I have proved that the language at that time only followed "people can make it without knowing it", while "people can make it; Can't, make it known ""people can make it, let it be; The pronunciation of "if you don't do it, you will know it" was meaningless in the language at that time. It can be seen that the classic is not the mud in the hands of clay figurines. You can pinch it if you want.
In short, there is generally only one correct conclusion, and "two books can pass" and "several books can pass" generally do not exist.
One more thing, this statement is contradictory to the investigation of "distribution" in most cases; Even if several scholars use this method to verify, the results will generally be different. As Mr. Wang Li said, "Ten scholars who study the same difficult classic article in isolation may get ten different results." But ten scholars use the method of investigating distribution to demonstrate words, and they will get a result. This is in line with the principles of repeatability and verifiability of scientific research.
Known as "the most knowledgeable and refined", Gaoyou Wang's father and son in Qing Dynasty sometimes argued (such as "Yong can also make Nan", saying that "Nan" was a doctor in Qing Dynasty), but the ancients had a steelyard in their hearts. For example, it has always been considered as a masterpiece or masterpiece of Gaoyou Wang, which is in line with the principle of distribution. For example, the interpretation of the Book of Songs, "The final storm is fierce":
The final wind: "The final wind is fierce." Shi Mao said: "The wind is the last wind all day." "Han Shi" says: "The final wind, the west wind also." This is all because of words, not the original intention of scripture. The word "Duan" or "Du" is both windy and violent. ...... "Yan Yan" said: "It is better to be warm at the end, and be cautious." "North Gate" said: "I am ultimately poor, and I don't know if I am difficult." "Xiaoya Logging" said: "When God listens, it will be peaceful in the end." (Shangsongna says, "Harmony without difference") Fukuda says, "Ivo grows an acre, and it is good in the end." "The First Month" said: "Forever and ever, it is rainy and embarrassing." The word "final" should be trained as "all"
People praised Wang for his excellent textual research, and nine times out of ten he quoted this article. Textual research of this case, through many similar sentences, summed up the "final ~ and ~" format; In this format, the meaning of "final" similar to "already" is highlighted. The author summarizes it as "documentary evidence induction format, highlighting significance" This is a typical investigation of "the contextual conditions of words in specific sentences", that is, the investigation of distribution, but Wang's knowledge is not enough.
Zhao's A New Exploration of the Analects of Confucius read "no class in education" as "no class in education", which means restricting education. We found more than a dozen "yes ~ no ~" sentences in Zuo Zhuan and other books (including the idiom "Be prepared for danger in times of peace" which is still commonly used today), which proves that Zhao's statement is unfounded, while Mr. Yang Bojun's translation of "Everyone is educated, and there is no difference (rich or poor, region, etc.). ) "is generally correct.
Since the steelyard in the eyes of the ancients conforms to the principle of distribution, it should take its essence and discard its dross; But not the other way around!
Mr. Wang opposed the practice of "pulling radish". He called Wang's explanation of "the last wind and violence" "the trial of punishment" and strongly advocated:
If the predecessors were seriously ill in exegetics, they would not judge sentences. To put it bluntly, a country's words must have a country's sentence; In short, every word in a book must have a sentence from the book. But the ancients never paid attention to this, but with the exegesis of this article, they don't care whether it conforms to the general rules. Therefore, it is often said that it is a pity to violate its truth! Wang Jinglun began to notice this, so he often explained the meaning of a sentence according to the general outline of the book, so he often stayed on Mount Tai.
Pulling radish and other practices ignore the "general rules", that is, they ignore the grammatical rules, that is, they only play by this sentence (this article) without citing similar documentary evidence, so "Yan Shu is untrue", that is, the so-called "China people's serious illness is embarrassing and ambiguous"; Wang, on the other hand, pays attention to general rules and cites similar documentary evidence, so he can "stay in Mount Tai".
If readers pay attention, most of the more than 60 textual research cases I have listed/kloc-0 have adopted the method of "stopping the storm" explained by Wang Shi.
As mentioned above, each word has its own unique symbol to distinguish it from other words. However, "cherries are delicious, but it is difficult to plant trees." With Wang Niansun's "best knowledge and best management", his reading magazines will not be published until he is over eighty years old, so it is almost impossible for the ancients and neighbors to imitate Wang's "careful sentence" and become such an imperial masterpiece. When Mr. Yang Bojun wrote The Analects of Confucius, he did not have this condition. But today is the e-era. With the use of computers and their software, you can see a lot of examples in the blink of an eye-things that were impossible before have become possible today. Even so, the workload is still so huge!
Yes, the workload of searching for example sentences has been greatly reduced, but the example sentences still need to be analyzed one by one. The author started the research in the spring of 2004 and published it in the spring of 20 16. Twelve years have passed! If you don't use computers and their software, I don't know how many years it will take!
Someone once read my manuscript and said that, except for a few, your more than 100 textual researches only demonstrated whether the previous annotations of The Analects were right or wrong, but did not invent new solutions. This is a serious lack of innovation!
I don't agree with this. We interpret ancient words, not for innovation, but for a correct understanding of the original meaning of words in the book. If it can be proved that the previous explanation conforms to the reality of the language at that time, it means that the other explanations must be wrong; It also means that if you try to find a new way to work out a new solution, you will surely fail. There is generally only one correct conclusion mentioned above, which means this. In fact, a conclusion of ancient note writers (especially those in the early Han and Jin dynasties) always conforms to the actual language at that time, and there is no need to overthrow the public solution and create a unique machine.
The principles of repeatability and verifiability of scientific research mentioned above are based on the exclusiveness and uniqueness of correct conclusions. This is not a problem, so it should be! But for people who take ten conclusions of ten scholars as the norm, you lack a groundbreaking conclusion. Just demonstrating the right and wrong of the past is a lack of innovation. In this regard, "I am at the end of it!"