再論譯經句首的“汝＋稱謂詞”和“此＋稱謂詞”組合

這是繼《論漢譯佛經句法獨立之稱謂詞前的代詞“此”和“汝”》(2017)和《中古譯經中的A型“人稱代詞+NP”組合》(2019/2020) 之後，筆者對中古譯經中的“代詞+稱謂詞”組合研究的後續成果。三篇文章可以構成一個系列，反映了筆者對譯經“代詞+稱謂詞”組合來源和內部結構變化所做觀察和思考的完整過程。文章討論的對象有兩個，一是B類“人稱代詞+NP”，亦即B類“汝+人稱代詞”組合，算是對筆者(朱慶之 2019/2020)只討論了A類組合的補充；一是“指示代詞+NP”，亦即“此+稱謂詞”，這是對筆者(朱慶之2017)的補正和重新討論。相對筆者(朱慶之2017)，這篇文章在語料的准備上做了新的努力︰一是增加了梵漢對勘的力度，二是補充了更多的用例。在此基礎上，重點討論了一個仿譯自源頭語的跨層組合A何以變成做同一句子成分的同層組合B，以及B組合的出現有什麼語言學意義。譯經中的A組合並不是有意義的真實的句法單位，它經過重新分析成為同層結構，由此脫胎出B。B組合才是譯經中可以與現代漢語“人稱代詞+NP”同位同指結構和“指示代詞+NP”對接的有意義的句法結構。B組合的產生過程發生在譯經內部，從中可以觀察到一個帶有源頭語特征、不合漢語規則的漢譯形式是如何經過自我消化，變為一種漢語可接受的形式的。在譯經中，這一過程絕非個案。文章還嘗試將漢語歷史語言學的佛教漢語研究與梵語的研究聯繫起來，初步探討了用漢譯的材料從漢語語言學的角度總結歸納梵語常用不變詞evam 實際用法、進而編寫真正意義上的梵漢詞典的必要性和可能性。
This paper is a follow-up study to the two “pronoun +appellation” combinations in Chinese Buddhist translations of the previous works “On the pronoun ci 此 and ru 汝 appearing ahead of the grammatically independent appellation term in the Chinese translation of Indian Buddhist Sutra” (2017) and “Type A ‘per-sonal pronoun +NP’ combinations in Chinese translations of Indian Buddhist literature in Medieval period: The new evidence of hyb-ridity of Buddhist Chinese” (2019/2020). Containing two sections, the paper first discusses the type B “ru + appellation” combination, supplementing the paper 2019/2020 which only examines the type A combination, and then it discusses the “ci +appellation” com-bination, including both type A and B, amending the incorrect argument of the paper 2017 that “ru” and “ci” in the type B com-bination was added in front of the appellation by translators in order to mark the vocative. In the earliest Buddhist translations, the “pronoun + appell-ation” was calqued from two adjacent words of the source texts, namely a second person pronoun or an indeclinable word evam and a vocative noun. Since the pronoun and vocative in the source texts are not grammatically related, the “pronoun +appellation” in Chinese translation was supposed to be a cross-layer word string instead of a syntactic construction. However, this literal translation, violating Chinese grammatical rules, was misinterpreted by those who did not know the source language, and thus the word string was reanalyzed as a same-layer combination serving as one part of the sentence or a grammatically independent vocative. This combination is called type A. Later, type A resulted from reanalysis, was mistakenly regarded as a conventionalized pattern by readers and translators, and was used in translating the single vocative nouns in source texts. This derived combination is called type B. The formation of the two types shows the process of how an exotic literal translation that does not conform to Chinese grammar finally gets integrated into Chinese. This paper also preliminarily discusses the possibility of using Chinese Buddhist translations to study the Buddhist Sanskrit through a com-parative analysis between the Chinese word ci and the Sanskrit indeclinable word evam. Copyright © 2020 中西書局.