Understanding the Qieyun rhymes

ABSTRACT:This article shows that the Qieyun rhymes are not necessarily different VC units (VC = vowel and ending), as initially defined by Karlgren in his work Études sur la phonologie chinoise (1915–1926). Karlgren's mistake creates a serious problem in the reconstruction of the vowel system of Middle Chinese. In the proposed reconstructions so far, excessive vocalic distinctions are required. This problem is well acknowledged but no explanations and solutions have been convincingly provided. Based on the information from the poetry rhyming before and at the same time of the Qieyun, our analyses of the Qieyun rhymes with the -ŋ ending indicate that 1) not all the Qieyun rhymes are different VCs, and 2) some Qieyun rhymes are the preservation of historical categories. With the new understanding of the nature of the Qieyun rhymes, the required main vowels of Middle Chinese can be significantly reduced. The twelve Qieyun rhymes with -ŋ require only six main vowels. The observation that not all the Qieyun rhymes are different VCs can be supported by the recent distribution analyses of the Qieyun rhymes. A fundamental viewpoint of this article is that in the study of the phonological history of Chinese, what should be reconstructed is the phonological system of Middle Chinese instead of the so-called "Qieyun system". Because the phonological categories contained in the Qieyun are neither synchronically systematic nor phonologically consistent, the Qieyun does not represent a single phonological system of any historical period in the phonological history of Chinese.摘要:本文指出高本汉把《切韵》中的"韵"定义为诗歌押韵中的"韵"是 个错误。汉字"韵"可以是韵书中称作为"韵"的分类单位，也可以 是诗歌押韵单位的"韵"。但是这两个概念从语言学上来说，并不等 同。由于高本汉的定义为学界广泛接受，韵类的语音构拟出现难以克 服的麻烦。主要问题是构拟的主要元音过多，形成了不合理的元音系 统。以带舌根鼻音韵尾-ŋ 的韵类为例，本文说明《切韵》中的不同韵 类并不都是韵基不同。通过对齐梁陈隋诗歌的押韵进行分析，结果显 示：《切韵》的韵类，1)有存古韵类，2)有韵基相同但是介音有别的 韵母。对比近年来对《切韵》韵类的分布分析，诗歌押韵和韵类分布 这两个互相独立的分析有倾向一致的结果，都显示了韵基大大少于 《切韵》中的韵类。因此，《切韵》中的韵类区别不应该是高本汉所 定义的区别，即韵基的不同。本文的基本观点是汉语音韵史研究中需 要构拟的是中古音系，而不是所谓的"切韵音系"。作为韵书，《切 韵》所包含的音类信息并不具有共时系统性，也不具有语音一致性， 因此不代表汉语语音史上任何时期的一个单一语音系统。