# 關西謂之刺



## Skatinginbc

《方言》凡草木刺人，北燕朝鮮之間謂之茦，或謂之壯。自關而東或謂之梗，或謂之劌。自關而西謂之刺。江湘之間謂之棘。
請問: 
(1) What does 刺 mean in 自關而西謂之刺?  A: "thorn" (noun), or B: "to pierce, stab, sting" (verb)?
(2) If 刺 is 關西方言, what is its equivalent in 雅言(上古通語)?
Thanks


----------



## dolmens

(1) 理解为动词does make sense，不过古汉语的事情如果没有认真学习过的话，是很难断定它就是现在白话文的那个意思的。
(2) have no idea


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thank you, dolmens.
It looks like a verb in 草木刺人(also 劌, a verb), but some of its counterparts (e.g., 棘) seem to indicate a noun.  Unfortunately, being a verb or being a noun entails a change in pronunciation (*tsʰek vs. *tsʰek-s), which would make a difference for me.


----------



## dolmens

凡草木刺人，我的理解是：凡刺人之草木。
但劌在字典中只是一个动词，如果是这样，那整个句子确实也说不通。


----------



## fyl

"棘手"中的"棘"算动词吗？

我觉得"凡草木刺人"更像是动词，若是名词则"凡草木刺人者"似乎更好些，不过这个我不确定。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thank you, fyl.  My interpretation is actually identical to yours, but "凡草木刺人,自关而东,或谓之梗" is listed as an example for the noun 梗 (有刺的草木 'spiny plant') in 漢典.  When used as a verb, 梗 does not have the definition of 刺 in the dictionaries I have consulted.  Also, 《爾雅·釋草》茦，刺。《郭璞爾雅注疏》草刺針也，關西謂之刺，燕北、朝鮮之閒曰茦。==> 草刺針 is certainly a noun.

What does 凡草木刺人 mean exactly??? 凡刺人之草木?  I surely agree that 若是名词则"凡草木刺人者"似乎更好些 (#5).

今淮南人亦呼壯。壯，傷也，山海經謂刺為傷也。==> 壯 seems to be a verb. 

Anyway, can I treat the 《方言》 passage as a reference to a list of synonymous verbs (茦, 壯, 梗, 劌, 刺, and 棘)?


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

都看成动词就是了。不要看字典里没有动词的义项，就认为不可能是动词。

呃，也不要觉得在当代是名词的在古代也必须仅是名词。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thank you, retrogradedwithwind, fyl, and dolmens.  With the help from you guys, I now have confidence to treat them all as verbs.  Thank you.


----------



## Miawriting

In my opinion, 除了「凡草木刺人」的「刺」當 verb以外，茦, 壯, 梗, 劌, 刺（「自關而西謂之刺」）, and 棘應該都是noun。
這段話可能的意思為：不同地方對「會刺人的植物（草木）」有不同的名稱：北燕朝鮮之間可能稱為「茦」或「壯」；自關而東可能稱為「梗」或「劌」。自關而西稱為「刺」。江湘之間稱為「棘」。
提供給你參考。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Now my confidence is shaken again.  I know for most people what I'm asking is 鑽牛角尖, but for academic purposes, I really need to know if they are verbs or nouns in that particular context.


----------



## dolmens

_刺_字本身很有可能，IMO, 就是一个动词，因为后面跟着一个object_人_。
但我依然不能确定这个句子的意思到底是说_那些刺人的草木_还是_拿草木刺人这件事情_被称为茦、壯、梗、劌、刺及棘。
或许 @Skatinginbc 也是纠结于此。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Yup, that's exactly my problem.  Normally I would have interpreted 「凡草木刺人」 as "Plants pricking people (is called X in Y dialects)", but that list of synonyms takes away my confidence.


----------



## dolmens

@Skatinginbc 你是否觉得这个_壯_，是_戕_的异体字？因为前者很难跟刺关联起来。

Edit: 应该是，我看到一本字典上关于_壯_，有说明它可以通_戕_。


----------



## Skatinginbc

dolmens said:


> Edit: 应该是，我看到一本字典上关于_壯_，有说明它可以通_戕_。


Can you tell us more about it or cite the reference?  It is an important piece of information and I would like to know more about it.  Thanks in advance.
Intuitively I think 壯 is what 扬雄 intended to mean.  Despite their superficial resemblance, 壯 and 戕 may involve different etymology.  壯 is obviously a transliteration. 戕 *dz- > 壯 *ts- implies a tendency of fortition in the 北燕朝鮮 dialect, which is yet to be explored.  戕 implies a Sino-Tibetan root with a semantic shift or expansion, while 壯 permits the possibility of borrowing from a foreign substratum (e.g., Prot-Tungustic).  Foreign cognates or lookalikes (e.g., Yenisseian Kottish ax-_čex_ 'stick into' 茦 vs. axtā-_čeaŋ_ 'sting' 壯; Proto-Austro-Asiatic *_cɔh_ 'pierce, insert', Proto-Turkic *_čok_ 'peck, stab', to name just a few. there are more) all start with a voiceless onset.  It is probably not a simple act of 假借 between characters.


----------



## dolmens

http://tool.httpcn.com/Html/Zi/23/PWPWMETBMEUYXVEF.shtml

at the "汉语字典" tab of this page:

[②]［qiāng］ ［《廣韻》在良切，平陽，從。］ 亦作“壵2”。“壮2”的繁体字。通“戕1”。 伤。

它可以是一个假借，但在这里，依然不确定。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thanks for the link.
I think we need to distinguish two semantic fields: (1) to hurt, to kill, to injure, and (2) to pierce, to prick.  The original meaning of 刺 is (1).  Its semantic expansion to cover (2) might have been motivated by a substratum in 關西, and it was thus categorized as "dialectal" by 扬雄.  The 假借 between 戕 and 壯 with regard to the meaning (1) however seems to result from variances within the Sino-Tibetan languages (e.g.,  Chinese: 戕 *ʒ́aŋ kill; injure vs. Burmese: ćhaŋh to destroy.  Note the difference in onset voicing).  Their equivalency in meaning (1) does NOT necessarily mean they can both refer to (2).  The meaning (2) has something to do with 'thorn, prickles' (noun) or 'to pierce, to prick' (verb).  
In brief, the substitution between 戕 and 壯 regarding Definition (1) is not the same as the semantic expansion from (1) to (2).


----------



## dolmens

... a lot of search works on the web, ancient Chinese is just another foreign language to me.

显然扬雄也是关西人，说关西方言，因为他也说草木刺人。
但在这里他说的刺人，我们假定这是一个动作，到底是(1) kill/injure 还是(2)pierce/prick，依然存疑。Skatinginbc 是否清楚他那个年代，刺是否已经有了(2)的意思？


----------



## Skatinginbc

I think it was already adopted into mainstream Old Chinese lexicon at the time when 《方言》 was complied, given that 《爾雅》 has this:  《釋草》茦，刺。 They are nouns meaning 'thorn, prickle', which entails a shift of 刺 from 'to hurt' > 'to prick' > 'prickle'.  The noun 刺 *tsʰek-s is a derivative of the verb 刺 *tsʰek.


----------



## dolmens

你看康熙字典关于_茦_的解释：
http://www.zdic.net/z/22/kx/8326.htm

《玉篇》楚革切，音冊。《說文》莿也。《爾雅·釋草》茦，刺。《註》草刺針也，關西謂之刺，燕北、朝鮮之閒曰茦。
又《集韻》七賜切。同莿，草芒。

这一篇干脆就讲_茦_是_草_(之)_刺针也。_这回到你第一个猜想，_刺_是thorn。那又遇到两点很难解释的问题：
1. _劌_我查到的就是动词
2. 在_草木刺人_中，人是什么？

这首先是一个刺在这里到底是名次还是动词的问题，其次，如果它是动词，到底是kill/injure还是pierce/prick也成问题。
呵呵，楼主的问题会吓坏很多外国朋友的。What I have to say is that contemporary Chinese is pretty simple.


----------



## Skatinginbc

dolmens said:


> 这首先是一个刺在这里到底是名次还是动词的问题，其次，如果它是动词，到底是kill/injure还是pierce/prick也成问题。


  That's why I need opinions from you guys.


----------



## Miawriting

Have you ever read 方言疏證 and 方言箋疏? (You could find these books as PDF on the website.)
Maybe you could find the answer in them. 

書中有其他中國經典的引文，或許可以幫助您更了解《方言》的文意。


----------



## Miawriting

抱歉，因看疏證中釋文引方言：「凡草木而刺人者...」，讓我太過自信解釋，經與朋友討論，認為原文既作「凡草木而刺人」，此處「刺」作動詞用，後面同義之方言，應皆為動詞。
在此修正之前之意見，非常抱歉。


----------



## dolmens

我觉得依然未明，很多解释依然指向名词。


----------

