{"title":"史金波:《方言与手稿导论》。(亚洲语言丛书)xx, 547页。莱顿:布里尔出版社,2020。€25。Isbn 978 004 41453","authors":"Nikita Kuzmin","doi":"10.1017/S0041977X2200043X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"sions with respect to the representation of tones and other structural features of Old Chinese phonology. Consider the different ways in which the author writes the Chinese medial *-r-. After fricatives and affricates, such as *sr-, *tsr-, *tshrand *dzr-, in William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart (Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) and Schuessler (2007 and 2009), the medial is dropped, resulting in initials such as sh-, ch-, j-, and dj-, while in other cases it is retained. The consequences of this unfortunate decision are best shown in the reading for 瑟 *srit in Schuessler’s system, which must be spelt “shit” in Sampson’s system: the author tries to avoid this by turning to Baxter’s system in this single case and writing the character reading as “sprit”. Another example of inconsistency is aspiration, which is shown by the fact that the author uses tzand tsto write *tsand *tsh-, while retaining the letter h for other aspirated consonants. A further surprising decision is the spelling of what would be a glottal stop in all recent reconstruction systems. Here, the author uses, -mp, -nt, and -nk for what would be traditionally transcribed as *-mʔ, *-nʔ and *-ŋʔ and -c elsewhere. This collection of largely inconsistent and ad hoc decisions results in a transcription system full of ambiguities, with a symbol like h indicating both aspiration and retroflexion, s indicating aspiration, z occurring in both voiced and voiceless onsets, and p/t/k representing a glottal stop in addition to their values in traditional phonetic transcription systems. While this system is a nuisance for experts on Old Chinese phonology, given that it makes it extremely difficult and impractical to use the book as a reference or to look up words in the glossary, it is at best misleading for lay people who might easily take what looks like sounds in this transcription system at face value. Since at least Bernhard Karlgren (1950) and Wáng Lì (1980), editions of the Book of Odes with commentary, translations, and reconstructions have been considered the “royal discipline” of Sinology giving scholars the possibility of illustrating their individual treatment of Old Chinese with respect to both grammar and phonetics. Its future reception by experts in the field will show if this edition of the Odes can compete with its predecessors.","PeriodicalId":46190,"journal":{"name":"BULLETIN OF THE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES-UNIVERSITY OF LONDON","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shi Jinbo: Tangut Language and Manuscripts: An Introduction. (Languages of Asia Series.) xx, 547 pp. Leiden: Brill, 2020. €25. ISBN 978 0 04 41453 2.\",\"authors\":\"Nikita Kuzmin\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0041977X2200043X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"sions with respect to the representation of tones and other structural features of Old Chinese phonology. Consider the different ways in which the author writes the Chinese medial *-r-. After fricatives and affricates, such as *sr-, *tsr-, *tshrand *dzr-, in William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart (Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) and Schuessler (2007 and 2009), the medial is dropped, resulting in initials such as sh-, ch-, j-, and dj-, while in other cases it is retained. The consequences of this unfortunate decision are best shown in the reading for 瑟 *srit in Schuessler’s system, which must be spelt “shit” in Sampson’s system: the author tries to avoid this by turning to Baxter’s system in this single case and writing the character reading as “sprit”. Another example of inconsistency is aspiration, which is shown by the fact that the author uses tzand tsto write *tsand *tsh-, while retaining the letter h for other aspirated consonants. A further surprising decision is the spelling of what would be a glottal stop in all recent reconstruction systems. Here, the author uses, -mp, -nt, and -nk for what would be traditionally transcribed as *-mʔ, *-nʔ and *-ŋʔ and -c elsewhere. This collection of largely inconsistent and ad hoc decisions results in a transcription system full of ambiguities, with a symbol like h indicating both aspiration and retroflexion, s indicating aspiration, z occurring in both voiced and voiceless onsets, and p/t/k representing a glottal stop in addition to their values in traditional phonetic transcription systems. While this system is a nuisance for experts on Old Chinese phonology, given that it makes it extremely difficult and impractical to use the book as a reference or to look up words in the glossary, it is at best misleading for lay people who might easily take what looks like sounds in this transcription system at face value. Since at least Bernhard Karlgren (1950) and Wáng Lì (1980), editions of the Book of Odes with commentary, translations, and reconstructions have been considered the “royal discipline” of Sinology giving scholars the possibility of illustrating their individual treatment of Old Chinese with respect to both grammar and phonetics. Its future reception by experts in the field will show if this edition of the Odes can compete with its predecessors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BULLETIN OF THE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES-UNIVERSITY OF LONDON\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BULLETIN OF THE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES-UNIVERSITY OF LONDON\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X2200043X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BULLETIN OF THE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES-UNIVERSITY OF LONDON","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X2200043X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
古汉语音韵学中声调的表现和其他结构特征。考虑一下作者写中文“*-r-”的不同方式。在William H. Baxter和Laurent Sagart (Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)和Schuessler(2007和2009)的著作中,在*sr-、*tsr-、* tshrt和*dzr-等摩擦音和闪音之后,中间音被省略,形成了sh-、ch-、j-和dj-等首字母,而在其他情况下则保留了中间音。这一不幸决定的后果在Schuessler的系统中对“*srit”的解读中得到了最好的体现,在Sampson的系统中,“*srit”必须拼写为“shit”:作者试图避免这种情况,在这个单一案例中转向Baxter的系统,将“*srit”这个字符写成“sprit”。另一个不一致的例子是送气,作者用tzand tts写成*tsand *tsh-,而其他送气辅音保留字母h。另一个令人惊讶的决定是,在所有最近的重建系统中,将会是声门塞音的拼写。在这里,作者使用了-mp, -nt和-nk来代替传统上被转录为*-m, *-n, *- k和-c的单词。这些很大程度上不一致和临时决定的集合导致了一个充满歧义的转录系统,像h这样的符号表示吸气和反旋,s表示吸气,z出现在浊音和不浊音中,p/t/k代表声门顿音,除了它们在传统语音转录系统中的值之外。这个系统对古汉语音韵学专家来说是一个麻烦,因为它使得使用这本书作为参考或在词汇表中查找单词变得极其困难和不切实际,它充其量是对外行人的误导,他们可能很容易把这个转录系统中看起来像声音的表面价值。至少从Bernhard Karlgren(1950)和Wáng Lì(1980)开始,带有注释、翻译和重建的《诗经》版本被认为是汉学的“皇家学科”,使学者们有可能从语法和语音两方面说明他们对古汉语的个人处理。这一版本的《诗经》是否能与前几版相媲美,将由该领域专家对其未来的评价来证明。
Shi Jinbo: Tangut Language and Manuscripts: An Introduction. (Languages of Asia Series.) xx, 547 pp. Leiden: Brill, 2020. €25. ISBN 978 0 04 41453 2.
sions with respect to the representation of tones and other structural features of Old Chinese phonology. Consider the different ways in which the author writes the Chinese medial *-r-. After fricatives and affricates, such as *sr-, *tsr-, *tshrand *dzr-, in William H. Baxter and Laurent Sagart (Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) and Schuessler (2007 and 2009), the medial is dropped, resulting in initials such as sh-, ch-, j-, and dj-, while in other cases it is retained. The consequences of this unfortunate decision are best shown in the reading for 瑟 *srit in Schuessler’s system, which must be spelt “shit” in Sampson’s system: the author tries to avoid this by turning to Baxter’s system in this single case and writing the character reading as “sprit”. Another example of inconsistency is aspiration, which is shown by the fact that the author uses tzand tsto write *tsand *tsh-, while retaining the letter h for other aspirated consonants. A further surprising decision is the spelling of what would be a glottal stop in all recent reconstruction systems. Here, the author uses, -mp, -nt, and -nk for what would be traditionally transcribed as *-mʔ, *-nʔ and *-ŋʔ and -c elsewhere. This collection of largely inconsistent and ad hoc decisions results in a transcription system full of ambiguities, with a symbol like h indicating both aspiration and retroflexion, s indicating aspiration, z occurring in both voiced and voiceless onsets, and p/t/k representing a glottal stop in addition to their values in traditional phonetic transcription systems. While this system is a nuisance for experts on Old Chinese phonology, given that it makes it extremely difficult and impractical to use the book as a reference or to look up words in the glossary, it is at best misleading for lay people who might easily take what looks like sounds in this transcription system at face value. Since at least Bernhard Karlgren (1950) and Wáng Lì (1980), editions of the Book of Odes with commentary, translations, and reconstructions have been considered the “royal discipline” of Sinology giving scholars the possibility of illustrating their individual treatment of Old Chinese with respect to both grammar and phonetics. Its future reception by experts in the field will show if this edition of the Odes can compete with its predecessors.
期刊介绍:
The Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies is the leading interdisciplinary journal on Asia, Africa and the Near and Middle East. It carries unparalleled coverage of the languages, cultures and civilisations of these regions from ancient times to the present. Publishing articles, review articles, notes and communications of the highest academic standard, it also features an extensive and influential reviews section and an annual index. Published for the School of Oriental and African Studies.