论文部分内容阅读
读了彭龙驹同志《中学语文文言文通假字分类》(《中学语文教学》1981年第9期)后,感到他虽然对通假字作了较详尽的划分,但却把古今字和通假字混在一起,混称古今通假,抹杀了古今字同通假字的界限,实际上取消了古今字。这是不合汉字发展的事实的,也不符合中学语文教材的实际。实际上,他自己也是很矛盾的,既说“古今通假,即甲乙两字一为古、一为今,从而造成通假”,又说“其实,这是字形的演变而造成的,严格说来,这不应算是通假。但在今天看来,毕竟成了两个不同的字。”由于“字形的演变”而“成了两个不同的字”,正好说明它是古今字,而不应该是通假字。所以,我赞成他的“严格说”,不赞成他的“矛盾说”。
After reading Comrade Peng Longju's Classification of False Words of Chinese in Classical Chinese and Writing (Grade 9 of Chinese Language Teaching in Middle Schools), he felt that although he made a more detailed division of the fake words, he confused the ancient and modern Chinese with the fake word, Fake ancient and modern pass false, obliterated the ancient and modern characters with the boundaries of false characters, in fact, canceled the ancient and modern characters. This is a fact that does not conform to the development of Chinese characters and does not conform to the actual teaching of Chinese textbooks in secondary schools. In fact, he himself is also very contradictory. He said that “both ancient and modern passions, that is, A and B have the same name as the ancient one and the present one, thus creating a general holiday,” said “Actually, this is caused by the evolution of glyphs. Strictly speaking , It should not be regarded as a general holiday, but today it turns out to be two different words. ”Due to the“ evolution of the glyphs ”,“ two different words ”is exactly what it means to be ancient and modern, and should not Is the pass word. Therefore, I agree with his “strict” and do not agree with his “contradictions.”