丁页渠先在驳斥王氏学派提前宾语复指说时曾经这样断言:“至于‘之为’就更说明问题了。如果硬要把‘之’说成‘复指提前宾语’的代词,那么‘为’又该作何解释呢?翻遍古书,恐怕也难找到‘为’作代词的例证。”古书中的‘为’到底有无代词的例证?笔者不敢先断是否,还是让史实来回答吧。 Ding Qun first dismissed Wang’s school of sophomore sophomore rhetoric as he once asserted: "As for ’being’, the problem is even more telling. If we insist on describing ’the’ as a pronoun that refers to the advanced object, then ’For’ what should be explained? Turn over ancient books, I am afraid it is hard to find ’for’ pronouns as an example. ’Ancient books’ for’ in the end there is no pronouns? I dare not break the first, or let the historical facts Answer it.