《语文教学与研究》一九八二年第三期上发表的董继业同志的《谈古汉语中的反训词》(以下简称《反训词》)一文,立论颇不俗,于读者不无启发作用,然而亦觉有不尽善之处,借此文与作者商榷。《反训词》一文中有这样一段话:“如果一个词的词义是表示动作行为的,它本身存在着既互相对立而又互相依存的矛盾,它可以表示施事,也可以表示受事。在动作行为过程中,施事者可以使用这个词,受事者也可以使用这个词;从施事者的角度来说,这个词是这种意义,从受事者的角度来说,这个词是另一种意义,两种意义正好相反。”这里“施事”“受事”的概念有商榷余地。作为语法术 “Teaching and Research in Chinese” The article “Anti-lexical Writings in Ancient Chinese” (hereinafter referred to as “anti-lexical words”) published by Comrade Dong Jye-yeh in the third issue of 1982 indicated that the argument is rather impressive and that there is no inspiration for readers , But I also feel that there are not good places to take this article to discuss with the author. There is a passage in the “Anti-lexical Ci”: “If a word's semantic meaning is an act of action, there is itself a contradiction that is both antagonistic and interdependent, and it can mean acting as well as acting. In the course of the act of action, the participant can use the word, and the participant can use the word. From the perspective of the person in charge, the term is meant to mean, in the client's opinion, In the other sense, the two meanings are the opposite. ”The concept of“ affair ”here is open to question. As a grammar