论文部分内容阅读
林伯欣同志对我在《昆虫知识》1981年3期写的“不正确的昆虫学术语应予纠正”一文的一部分提出异议(见本刊1981(6):封三),在此我表示诚挚的欢迎,希望通过讨论,能把问题弄清楚。林同志认为将“普通昆虫学”、“农业昆虫学”(按:我的原文并无“学”字)简称为“普昆”、“农昆”是对的,“不必纠正”。论点之一是:“古书‘昆’字写作‘(虫虫)’,也就是‘昆’字中包含有‘虫’字”了:论点之二是:“《夏小正》解释有‘昆’,小虫也’”。 我认为这两个论点是欠妥的。 因为一、古文“(虫虫)”,是包含两个“虫”字,但这“虫”
Comrade Lin Boxin challenged part of my article “Incorrect entomological terms should be corrected” in The Insect Knowledge, 1981, No. 3 (see 1981 (6): Feng 3), in which I express my sincerity Welcome, hope that through discussion, we can clarify the problem. Lin commented that “ordinary entomology” and “entomology of agriculture” should be referred to simply as “Pu Kun” or “Kunqun” for short, and “no need to correct”. One of the arguments is: “The ancient book Kun ’word writing’ (bug) ’, that is,’ Kun ’word contains the word’ bug ’: the second argument is:’ Xia Xiaosheng ’interpretation of’ Kun ’ Insects also ’. I think these two arguments are flawed. Because one, the ancient Chinese (”bug“), contains two ”worms“, but this ”bug"