# 桮也, 秦晉之郊謂之頷/㿿



## Skatinginbc

永樂大典本方言: 桮也, 秦晉之郊謂之頷
戴震《方言疏證》: 桮也, 秦晉之郊謂之㿿; 《康熙字典·皿部·五》㿿：《廣韻》五下切《集韻》語下切，音雅。酒器。《揚子·方言》杯也。秦晉之郊謂之㿿;《御定淵鑑類函》杯也秦晉之郊謂之㿿; 《禮說》：桮也秦晉之郊謂之㿿; 《陝西通志》：桮也秦晉之郊謂之㿿; 《格致鏡原》：桮也秦晉之郊謂之㿿; 《山西通志》： 桮謂之㿿; 《揚子雲集》：桮也秦晉之郊謂之㿿.

請問:
為什麼《方言疏證》把"頷"改成"㿿", 害得後人皆以此為據?  "頷"和"㿿"判如天壤,  戴震的依據是什麼?


----------



## bsbaby

*《說文解字》注
小桮也。*木部曰。桮，㔶也。二篆爲轉注。而桮下見渾言之義。此見析言之義。㒳處互相足而後義全。此許立文之例也。㔶下亦可云桮也。桮下亦可云大㔶也。是互相足之謂也。門部云。大桮爲閜。故小桮爲㔶矣。方言曰。㿿椷盞䀀閜桮也。自關而東趙魏之閒曰椷。或曰盞。或曰䀀。按椷葢卽許之㔶。音同字異。許則椷訓匧。各有本義也。*从匚。贛聲。*古送切。按廣韵又音感。正音也。八部。郭注方言椷讀如封緘。略有輕重耳。

To me, this is saying that: 㿿、椷、盞、䀀、閜、桮 all stand for the same item, but different dialect.
I cannot see how this is related to 頷 or 頤
Skating, can you please quote 《永樂大典本方言》, in which chapter did you find this？


----------



## Skatinginbc

bsbaby said:


> *《說文解字》注*


戴震（1724－1777）vs. 段玉裁（1735－1815）


bsbaby said:


> can you please quote 《永樂大典本方言》, in which chapter did you find this？


永樂大典本, 方言 卷五: 頷、椷、盞、頭、閜、啲、頹，桮也。秦晉之郊謂之頷。自關而東趙魏之間曰椷，或曰盞，或曰頭。其大者謂之閜。吳越之間曰啲，齊右平原以東或謂之頹。桮，其通語也。

"戴震以《永樂大典》本跟明本校勘，並進一步蒐集古籍中引用《方言》和《方言注》的文字來和《永樂大典》本互相參訂，共改正訛字 281個，補脱字27個，刪衍字17個"

"四库馆臣认为《方言》流传于世的旧本多断烂讹脱，几不可读，惟有《永乐大典》所收本，较为完善，并以钱曾《读书敏求记》中所举例证，校正《永乐大典》辑录 本《方言》，说明《永乐大典》本《方言》即从宋本录入，在很大程度上保存宋本原貌。也就是说，《永乐大典》辑佚本是当时四库馆臣所见到关于《方言》的最好 本子。"


bsbaby said:


> I cannot see how this is related to 頷


Don't forget the 戎羌氐 substrates in the 上古秦言 are not Sinitic after all.  There are even Scythian or Iranian loanwords in 上古秦言.


----------



## bsbaby

Skating, 抱歉已经超出我的知识范畴太多了。

一个学古汉语的朋友猜测“頷"有可能指古代的某种骨头杯子。
他不太确定， 我觉得骨头杯子很恐怖。 但这恰恰有可能是  戴震 放弃了这个字的原因。因为我想这种"骨杯"应该只是很久以前出现过。青铜器、陶器出现后肯定取代了这种杯子。

好消息是我们联系上了一位古文献学PhD. 是杜泽逊先生的弟子，希望他可以查证到具体的原因。
我已经将本页网址转给他们了。


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thank you, bsbaby, for your (and your friends') help.  I really appreciate it.
I think 頷 *_ɢˁəm_, if it is indeed the original word in 方言, is merely a transliteration of a Tibeto-Burman word for cup (e.g., Jingpho _kom _'cup', Sun H. 1991, and there are more examples in Tibeto-Burman).
I doubt 㿿 is the original word because I have difficulty tracing it to another Sino-Tibetan language or neighboring foreign language.  To accept 㿿 as a Qin word would entail the assumption of a Qin innovation, which is rare among all the Qin words in 方言.   Most of the Qin words in 方言 either come from its non-Sinitic substrates or are a phonetic variant of General Old Chinese through regular sound correspondence.  Nevertheless, I'm really curious about 戴震把"頷"改成"㿿"的依據是什麼.


----------



## Ghabi

There's no emendation. It's an OCR error. The text you copy-and-pasted are full of errors. You can always consult a printed text.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thank you, Ghabi, but that's from 《方言疏證》, isn't it?  I don't have access to the printed 永樂大典本.  Can anyone who has access to it confirm the electronic version that I copy-and-pasted was erroneous?


----------



## bsbaby

OK the PhD guy (Name:沈畅) replied:
the original 《方言疏證》 text is 㿿. And in fact 㿿 can be traced back to 宋朝.
Obviously 《永樂大典本方言》 you mentioned made a "typo".
He is strongly doubting the version of 《永樂大典》 you are accesing.
and 戴震 didn't change the word at all.

Evidence: Shen showed images of the original inscribed version of 《方言》
I cant insert them in this post, because they are not on the internet.
Ok Ghabi is saving me, it is similar image to he posted.
If you have email, I could send them to you.
--------------------------------------------
Never mind, I just figured out.


----------



## bsbaby

The inscribed version is done by people back in 宋朝, which is currently the oldest record of 《方言》 扬雄 found.

He is a bit upset for what you have said :


> 為什麼《方言疏證》把"頷"改成"㿿", 害得後人皆以此為據?


----------



## Skatinginbc

Thank you, bsbaby.  Again, those images are from 《方言疏證》, aren't they?  I see "戴氏遺書" and "方言疏證" on those images.

OK, we are assuming if 《方言疏證》 does not mention 訛, then there is no emendation (改正訛字), and we are assuming 《方言疏證》 and 南宋李孟传刻本 are identical with regard to the passage in question although the Song version is not presented to us as evidence.  Fair enough.  I'll take those assumptions as givens.  Thank you, Ghabi and bsbaby.

Let me ask the question in a different way: Can anyone cite a reference earlier than 《方言疏證》 that proves 㿿 'cup' (or 雅) was spoken in the Qin dialect?
《礼说》引曹丕《典论》刘表诸子好酒造三爵, 大曰伯雅, 中曰仲雅, 小曰季雅, 案雅一作㿿.
曹丕: 生於沛国譙县, 曹魏定都洛阳. 刘表: 山陽郡高平縣（今山東省濟寧市魚台縣東北）人; 荆州牧刘表好酒，后世因称人善饮为“雅量”。==> I don't see a Qin connection.
《東觀漢記.吳良傳》:太守門下掾王望前言曰：「齊郡敗亂，遭離盜賊，人民飢餓，不聞雞鳴狗吠之音。明府視事五年，土地開闢，盜賊滅息，五穀豐熟，家給人足。今日歲首，誠上雅壽。」
吳良: 齐国临淄（今属山东）人.  王望: 琅邪王氏琅邪郡（今山东临沂）==> Again, I don't see a Qin connection.  It actually looks like an east-coast (山東) expression (associated with 刘表 and 王望, both being 山東人).

Then again, 夥 *_qˁorʔ_ of 齊宋楚魏之際 vs. *辶*禍 (何果切, 音禍, 過也)*_ɡˁorʔ_ of 關西秦晉之間 ==> It is possible that we have 閜 *_qʰˁraʔ_ of 關東趙魏之閒 vs. 㿿 *_ŋˁraʔ_ or *_ɢˁraʔ_ of 關西秦晉之間, and thus 㿿 can be seen as a phonetic variant of the 關東 "閜".  The onset voicing tendency (e.g., 壯 *_ts‹r›aŋ-s_ vs. 奘 *_dzaŋʔ_) does exist in the Qin dialect.


----------



## Ghabi

Skatinginbc said:


> OK, we are assuming if 《方言疏證》 does not mention 訛, then there is no emendation (改正訛字), and we are assuming 《方言疏證》 and 南宋李孟传刻本 are identical with regard to the passage in question although the Song version is not presented to us as evidence. Fair enough. I'll take those assumptions as givens.


This is not an assumption. Your condescension is unnecessary. 
http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77387&page=71 
(《四部叢刊初編》本《方言》 景江安傅氏雙鑑樓藏宋刊本)

The text you copy-and-pasted randomly from the internet is riddled with errors. No one would use that as a reliable source, let alone using that as a means to defame a dead scholar and to promote one's own theories.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Ghabi said:


> This is not an assumption. Your condescension is unnecessary.


I never doubted that 㿿 is the word in 《方言疏證》.  Why did both Bsbaby and you kindly present the images of  《方言疏證》 as evidence?  How can 《方言疏證》 alone be a proof?  I was puzzled and logically challenged.  To make sense of it, I could only assume that "if 《方言疏證》 does not mention 訛, then there is no emendation (改正訛字)", and that "《方言疏證》 and 宋本 are identical although the Song version is not presented here as evidence".  That was exactly my thought process.  If it sounds "condescending", I'm sorry.  I was only thinking about logic, not superiority (condescension).


Ghabi said:


> http://ctext.org/library.pl?if=gb&file=77387&page=71


That's what I needed.  Thank you, Ghabi.  You are the man.


Ghabi said:


> to promote one's own theories


Of course I had preconceived doubt and that's why I asked questions here in the first place.  If I have a theory that I'm confident about, I would not be so stupid as to reveal in this forum before proper publication has been made.  My thoughts often evolve as the discussion goes, thanks to the inputs from other posters that inspire new ideas and directions.  This is how my thoughts have evolved so far through discussion:
Before:
㿿 might not have originated from the Qin dialect because I was unable to trace it to a non-Sinic substrate or a Sinitic word through regular sound correspondence.  Even so, I really wanted to know the justifications of 戴震 for fear that I might have overlooked something important.
After:
(1) 㿿 could be a phonetic variant of a Sinitic word.  I overlooked the word 閜.
(2) After a second look at the word 㿿(雅), I realized that it might have been used in the east-coast during the Han Dynasty to mean 'wine cup'.  Given its existence both in the east (Qi) and in the west (Qin), it must have also existed in General Old Chinese.  And it reminded me of 《方言》 盂 'basin, cup' (一种盛液体的器皿), 宋楚魏之間或謂之㿿.  So, my latest "theory" (thought) is: 㿿 "cup" was not a Qin-specific expression and probably came from General Old Chinese 㿿 (= 盂).  The word in the Qin dialect at most might have involved semantic narrowing (i.e., restricted to 'cup').  That's all.

The purpose of my asking questions here is to get inputs or stimuli from fellow posters that may inspire thoughts and directions.  Perhaps you are not aware of it, but you guys are helping me formulate a "theory" or better understand the ins and outs of the Qin dialect as depicted by 《方言》.  And I really appreciate the help from you guys.


----------



## Skatinginbc

Skatinginbc said:


> 宋楚魏之間或謂之㿿.


Again, I made the same mistake.  I took that quotation from 中國哲學書電子化計劃.  But in the printed text, it is actually a different word.


----------



## Mamanunique

之所以頷变成了㿿，是从一部电脑到另一部电脑的复制黏贴过程中，后面的电脑字体编码有所不同，就出现了乱码而已。我把电脑上的繁体字黏贴到手机上时经常会碰到这样部分字变成“㿿”或者其他奇怪符号和文字的


----------



## Ghabi

bsbaby said:


> He is a bit upset for what you have said :
> 
> 
> Skatinginbc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 為什麼《方言疏證》把"頷"改成"㿿", 害得後人皆以此為據?
Click to expand...

Your friend was justified to feel upset. This is very upsetting.


Skatinginbc said:


> The purpose of my asking questions here is to get inputs or stimuli from fellow posters that may inspire thoughts and directions.


Instead of finding ways to attack genuine scholarship, you can try to learn what genuine learning actually requires. It probably requires much more than googling-copying-and-pasting, and badmouthing genuine scholars.


----------

