论文部分内容阅读
本文从历史文献出发,探讨了藏民族历史发展及“羌藏同源”问题,从语言接触与历史形态特征上论述了汉藏两种语言是否存在着历史同源关系。“汉藏同源”与“汉藏语同源”是两个不同的概念,前者是民族问题,后者是语言问题。民族同源是历史文化的认同,语言同源则是语言系统同一母语下的历史原生性,两者并不是一回事,我们应当把语源问题与族源问题区别开来,在亲属语言的比较研究中必须考虑汉藏语的时空差异,以及语言的历史变异过程。根据历史考察,现代藏语直接来自唐时吐蕃语,而吐蕃语又来自秦汉时期的西羌语,而古羌语至少在尧舜时代就已独立形成,因此,汉藏语之间很难找到发生学上的同源关系,汉语上古音系的历史比较构拟应当谨慎进行。
Based on the historical documents, this paper explores the historical development of the Tibetan nationality and the issue of “the same origin of Qiang and Tibetan”, discusses the historical homology between the two languages of Han and Tibetan from the aspects of language contact and history. “Han and Tibetan homology ” and “Han and Tibetan homology ” are two different concepts, the former is a national problem, the latter is a language problem. The cognate of national origin is the history and culture, and the linguistic homology is the historical originality under the same native language of the linguistic system. The two are not the same thing. We should distinguish the source problem from the ethnic source problem, The study must consider the space-time differences between Chinese and Tibetan, as well as the historical process of language variation. According to historical investigation, the modern Tibetan comes directly from the Tang language when the Tubo language, while the Tibetan language from the Qin and Han Dynasties Western Qiang language, while the ancient Qiang language at least in the era of Yao and Shun have been formed independently, therefore, Sino-Tibetan language is difficult to find The homology of learning, the history of ancient Chinese phonology more elaborated should be cautious.