语言科学
語言科學
어언과학
Linguistic Sciences
2014年
2期
217~224
,共null页
蛆婚 嫉妒 合斗 角眼 王梵志
蛆婚 嫉妒 閤鬥 角眼 王梵誌
저혼 질투 합두 각안 왕범지
qu huo ;ji du; he dou; jiao yah ;Wang Fanzhi
“角眼相蛆婚”之“蛆姑”现存辞书中不见收录，文献中亦乏用例，仅于王梵志诗中3见。学界对其形义存有三种考释，以“嫉妒说”为盛，似已盖棺定论。然此说存考证辗转迂回，缺乏旁证，释义缺乏普遍性之弊，值得怀疑。王梵志诗中可确定为“妒”的用例3见，作“婚”者二，另一作“娠”。“姑”、“骺”、“女看”形近，稍加变异即同，遂“姑”为“妒”之俗写，“蛆婚”即“蛆妒”；“蛆”、“嫉”音不相近，无由通假，王梵志诗中“蛆”、“嫉”两字分用不混，佛经音义“胆（蛆）妒”与“嫉妒”不是一词，文献中又有“蛆嫉”用例，足见“蛆”、“嫉”不同，“蛆妒”并非“嫉妒”。《坛经》惠昕本、《长短经》等“疽妒”至后来为“嫉妒”，乃不明词义误改误刻所致；“蛆妒”实为“蛆恶妒忌”或“蛆恶嫉妒”等，盖为佛经翻译中适应节拍要求简译而成词。其义为因妒生恨而仇视毒害他人，在意义和功能上与“嫉妒”存在差异，又有共通之处；“蛆妒”在宋以后的文献中消亡的原因，主要是因为后人的误解。
“角眼相蛆婚”之“蛆姑”現存辭書中不見收錄，文獻中亦乏用例，僅于王梵誌詩中3見。學界對其形義存有三種攷釋，以“嫉妒說”為盛，似已蓋棺定論。然此說存攷證輾轉迂迴，缺乏徬證，釋義缺乏普遍性之弊，值得懷疑。王梵誌詩中可確定為“妒”的用例3見，作“婚”者二，另一作“娠”。“姑”、“骺”、“女看”形近，稍加變異即同，遂“姑”為“妒”之俗寫，“蛆婚”即“蛆妒”；“蛆”、“嫉”音不相近，無由通假，王梵誌詩中“蛆”、“嫉”兩字分用不混，彿經音義“膽（蛆）妒”與“嫉妒”不是一詞，文獻中又有“蛆嫉”用例，足見“蛆”、“嫉”不同，“蛆妒”併非“嫉妒”。《罈經》惠昕本、《長短經》等“疽妒”至後來為“嫉妒”，迺不明詞義誤改誤刻所緻；“蛆妒”實為“蛆噁妒忌”或“蛆噁嫉妒”等，蓋為彿經翻譯中適應節拍要求簡譯而成詞。其義為因妒生恨而仇視毒害他人，在意義和功能上與“嫉妒”存在差異，又有共通之處；“蛆妒”在宋以後的文獻中消亡的原因，主要是因為後人的誤解。
“각안상저혼”지“저고”현존사서중불견수록，문헌중역핍용례，부우왕범지시중3견。학계대기형의존유삼충고석，이“질투설”위성，사이개관정론。연차설존고증전전우회，결핍방증，석의결핍보편성지폐，치득부의。왕범지시중가학정위“투”적용례3견，작“혼”자이，령일작“신”。“고”、“후”、“녀간”형근，초가변이즉동，수“고”위“투”지속사，“저혼”즉“저투”；“저”、“질”음불상근，무유통가，왕범지시중“저”、“질”량자분용불혼，불경음의“담（저）투”여“질투”불시일사，문헌중우유“저질”용례，족견“저”、“질”불동，“저투”병비“질투”。《단경》혜흔본、《장단경》등“저투”지후래위“질투”，내불명사의오개오각소치；“저투”실위“저악투기”혹“저악질투”등，개위불경번역중괄응절박요구간역이성사。기의위인투생한이구시독해타인，재의의화공능상여“질투”존재차이，우유공통지처；“저투”재송이후적문헌중소망적원인，주요시인위후인적오해。
In the sentence j iao yah xiang qu huo （ 角眼相蛆姡）, the term qu huo （蛆姡） is not in cluded in the existing dictionaries, but it only appears in Wang Fanzhi’s poetry 3. There are three in terpretations about its form and meaning in the academic circles. The viewpoint of ＂jealousy＂ is most prevalent and seemingly deemed to be conclusivE. However, it is suspicious because the existing re search lacks sufficient evidence, and the definition also fails to cover other similar expressions. The example three of du（妒） in Wang Fanzhi’s poem can be identified as huo（姡） two. Besides, On the other hand, the shapes of du（姡）, du（姤） and du （姡） are similar. If we change them slightly, they will become the same. Then huo is the popular writing of du,Qu huo is equal to qu du （蛆姡） . The pronunciation of qu（蛆） is different from ji （嫉）, so they cannot be used interchangeably. In Wang Fanzhi’s poetry qu and ji are used differently and qu du and ji du（嫉妒） are not the same word,and qu ji （蛆嫉） is also found in literature. Therefore qu and ji are distinct words and qu du is not equal to j i du. Why j u du （疽妒） in H ui xin’s book of Tan and the book of Chang duan was written as j i du is due to erroneous transcription by people ignorant of its meaning. The term qu du is actually qu e du ji （蛆恶妒忌） or qu e ji du（蛆恶嫉妒）,and is abridged in the course of translation of the Buddhist Scrip tures in order to adapt to the music metre. The meaning of qu du is that a person look upon other peo ple with hatred and harm them because of envy. So, its meaning and function are different from ji du but sharing something in common. The term qu du died out after Song Dynasty because of people＇s wrong interpretation.
