论文部分内容阅读
迄今为止,汉藏语系仍是有待证明的假说。汉语在语言发生学谱系中的位置,同样争论不休。本文基于对汉藏语系和汉语系属假说的分歧的梳理,从古汉语和蕃语(Bodish,汉语音bo,吐蕃的“蕃”)同源的形态证据、词汇证据、考古文化证据三方面,阐述德里姆(G.van Driem)的汉-蕃语族(Sino-Bodic)假说及其反响。可以肯定,某种或某支语言与古代汉语的同源词和形态对应最多,这种语言与汉语的亲缘度也就最高。至于此类同源词和形态对应的某些现象在其他语言也有存在,并不妨碍结论的成立。
So far, the Sino-Tibetan language family remains a hypothesis to be proved. The same is true of the position of Chinese in linguistic genealogies. Based on the disagreement on the hypotheses of the Sino-Tibetan language family and the Chinese language family, this essay is based on the morphological evidences, lexical evidences, archaeological and cultural evidences of the ancient Chinese and the homophones of Bodish (Chinese pronunciation bo, Tubo) In three aspects, we elaborate G.van Driem’s Sino-Bodic hypothesis and its response. It can be affirmed that the homology and morphology of one or a certain language corresponds with that of ancient Chinese most, and the kinship degree between this language and Chinese is the highest. Some phenomena corresponding to such homologous words and forms also exist in other languages and do not prevent the conclusion of the conclusion.