请教“咩重复嗟独奈何”

影達

乐府诗集•卷五十七•琴曲歌辞一•箕子操•殷箕子：

一曰《箕子吟》。《史记》曰：“纣始为象箸，箕子叹曰：‘彼为象箸，必为玉杯；为玉杯，则必思远方珍怪之物而御之矣。舆马宫室之渐，自此始不可振也。’乃披发佯狂而为奴，遂隐而鼓琴以自悲。”《古今乐录》曰：“纣时，箕子佯狂，痛宗庙之为墟，乃作此歌，后传以为操。”《琴集》曰：“《箕子吟》，箕子自作也。”
嗟嗟，纣为无道杀比干。咩重复嗟独奈何！漆身为厉，被发以佯狂，今奈宗庙何！天乎天哉！欲负石自投河。嗟复嗟，奈社稷何！

请问怎样解释“咩重复嗟独奈何”这句话呢？

据我所知，“咩”字除了本义羊鸣，和古代译音用字外，现在还作为粤语的语气词。怎样解释这个“咩”字呢？

谢谢！

foglia_f

之前从未听过《箕子吟》，倒是看过有文章以这个故事论证“牙”字比“齿”字晚出现。
如果给现在说、“写”广州话的青年看“咩重复嗟”，他们可能会理解成“怎么会是重复呢？”但是我觉得这句的意思是“怎么会又重复呢？”特别放在全句中，应该是后者比较对吧。
影达先生觉得句中“重”字读什么音呢？

[ 本帖最后由 foglia_fu 于 2006-7-26 17:12 编辑 ]

影達

呵呵！我就是觉得这句话像极粤语的。如果“咩”字真的是“怎么”的意思，那是我见到的最早出处了。《尔雅》和《方言校笺》没有这个“咩”字。

“重”，我也觉得应该是“还”、“又”的意思。

怎么我看不出这个故事和“牙”、“齿”的关系呢？我没有研究过这两个字。不过，甲骨文已经有个象形“齒”字。“牙”字比较抽象（“上下相错之形”），可能比较晚出。

foglia_f

象牙的“牙”其实是个象形字，应该是大象的头、鼻子跟前足吧。
纣始为象箸，箕子叹曰：‘彼为象箸，必为玉杯；为玉杯，则必思远方珍怪之物而御之矣。此句证实当时象牙是很稀有的东西，而且很有可能是远方民族进贡而来的。粤语中“牙”的发音，基本上与东南亚各国的“象牙”一词发音相同；日语中“齿”可以用以指人的牙齿，可是“牙”却指的是獠牙、象牙；这些都证明“齿”比“牙”出现早，而且在古代“牙”应该不能用于指人的牙齿。

foglia_f

我是在这篇文章中看到的：The Austroasiatics in Ancient South China: Some Lexical Evidence
这是里面的一段
(1)   牙** ngra/nga/ya ‘tooth, tusk, ivory’
AA: VN ng ‘ivory’; Proto-Mnong (Bahnar) * ngo’la ‘tusk’;** Proto-Tai * nga.
Chinese ya has a 2nd Division final in MC, which, according to the Yakhontov-Pulleyblank theory, calls for a medial –r- in OC.  And it is our belief that OC *ngra was derived from an AA form similar to Proto-Mnong * ngo’la.
Our theory that Chinese ya was a loan is base upon the following considerations.  (1) The oldest Chinese word for ‘tooth’ is ch’ih, which once had an unrestricted range of application, including ‘molar,’ ‘tusk,’ and ‘ivory.’  (2) Ya is of relatively late origin.  When it first appeared, it was only used for ‘animal tooth’ and ‘tusk,’ which was and still is the meaning in AA.  (3) While North China once had elephants, they became quite rare during the Shang and Chou dynasties, and ivory had to be imported from the middle and lower Yangtze region.  Imported items not infrequently bear their original names, and by our previous argument, the Yangtze valley was inhabited by the AA’s during the first millennium B.C.
Ch’ih 齿 consists of a phonetic 止 and the remaining part as a signific.  The latter is a pictograph showing the teeth in an open mouth.  Ancestral forms of the pictograph occurred frequently in the oracle bones.  Since adding a phonetic is a standard method for creating new graphs for old words, we can be reasonably certain the oracle bone forms cited represented ch’ih.  The graph of ya, however, has no identifiable occurrence in the oracle bones and only one probable occurrence in the bronze inscriptions.  This statement is based upon the fact that ya is listed neither in Li Hsiao-ting’s compendium of oracle bone graphs nor in Yung Keng’s dictionary of bronze graphs.**  Karlgren cited a bronze form for ya in GSR (37b).  But Kuo Muo-jo marked this occurrence of ya as a proper name, which makes it impossible to ascertain the meaning further.**
There are reasons to believe that the absence of ya from early epigraphic records was not merely accidental.  The oracle bones contained many records of prognosis concerning illness, and among them tooth-ache.**  The graphs used were always ancestral forms of ch’ih.  The oracle bones also contained a representative list of terms for parts of the body, including head, ear, eye, mouth, tongue, foot, and probably also elbow, heel, buttock, shank**.  The absence of ya under such circumstances is quited conspicuous.
A graph must first exist before it can become a part of another graph, and the older a graph, the more chances it has to serve as part of other graphs.  By this criterion, ch’ih is much older than ya.  In the oracle bones, ch’ih occurs as the signific of three graphs.  In the Shuo-wen, ch’ih occurs as the signific of forty-one graphs, all having something to do with tooth; ya, only two graphs, one of which has a variant form with ch’ih as the signific.  The Shuo-wen also tells us that ya has a ku-wen form in which the graph for ch’ih appeared under the graph for ya.  What this seems to indicate is that when 牙 first appeared, it was so unfamiliar that some scribes found ti necessary to add the graph for ch’ih in order to remind themselves what ya was supposed to mean.  牙 also occurs as the phonetic of eight graphs (six according to Karlgren).  But none of these graphs is older than 牙, and our conclusion is not affected.
The meaning of ch’ih in he oracle bones is primarily ‘human tooth’, including ‘molar.’  On one shell, there occurred the statement……which has been interpreted , “Yn came to send a tribute of elephant’s tusks.”**  But other interpretations are also possible.  The use of ch’ih as ‘tusk, ivory’ in most clearly illustrated in Ode 299 憬彼淮夷，来献其琛，元龟象齿 “Far away are those Huai tribes, but they come to present their treasures, big tortoise, elephant’s tusks”; and not quite so clearly in two passages in the 禹贡 “Y kung,” both of which listed 齿，革，羽，毛 as items of tribute.  Here ch’ih can mean either ‘ivory’ or ‘bones and tusks of animals,’ all used for carving.  Lastly, ch’ih also applies to tooth of other animals, 相鼠有齿“Look at the rat, it has its teeth” (Ode 52).
Beginning with the Book of Odes we have unambiguous evidence for the use of ya. But in the pre-Han texts ya still did not occur frequently, and an analysis of this small corpus reveals that ya was never used for human tooth.  Hence the Shuo-wen’s definition of ya as 牡齿, usually interpreted as ‘molar,’ seems to reflect a later, probably post-Ch’in, development.**  The most frequent occurrence of ya in the sense of ‘tooth’ is in the compound 爪牙‘claw and tooth,’ and there the reference to animal tooth is quite clear.  The Yi-ching contains a line in which the meaning of ya was ‘tusk’: ##豕之牙吉‘the tusk of a castrated hog:[the sign is] propitious.’  The line in Ode 17 谁谓鼠无牙 probably means ‘who says the rat has no tusks?’  but some scholars prefer to interpret ya simply as ‘teeth (incisors).’
Elephants once existed in North China; remains of elephants have been unearthed in Neolithic sites as well as in An-yang.**  Ivory carving was also a highly developed craft during the Shang dynasty.**  These facts, however, should not mislead us into thinking that elephants had always been common in ancient North China.  Yang Chung-chien and Liu Tung-sheng made an analysis of over six thousand mammalian remains from the An-yang site and reported the following finding: over 100 individuals, dog, pig, deer, lamb, cow, etc.; between 10 and 100 individuals, tiger, rabbit, horse, bear, badger (獾) etc.; under 10 individuals, elephant, monkey, whale, fox, rhinoceros, etc.**  The authors went on to say that rare species such as the whale, the rhinoceros, and the elephant were obviously imported from outside, and their uses were limited to that of display as items of curiosity.  This view is also confirmed by literary sources.  In the Han Fei-tzu, it is said that when King Chou of the Shang dynasty made ivory chopsticks, Chi Tzi, a loyal minister, became apprehensive – implying that when as rare an item as ivory was used for chopsticks, the king’s other extravagances could be easily imagined.**  Importation of ivory in the form of tribute was also reported in Ode 299 and in the “Yü-kung,” both of which were cited above.
The history of ya and ch’ih can now be reconstructed as follows: The people of the Shang and Chou dynasties have always depended upon import for their supply of ivory.  But during the early stage, ivory and other animal tusks and bones were designated by ch’ih, which was also the general word for ‘tooth.’  Items made of ivory were also indicated by adding a modifier 象 hsiang ‘elephant’ before the noun, for example 象##，象弭，象箸 ‘ivory comb-pin,’ ‘ivory bow tip,’ ‘ivory chopsticks.’**  Then ya came into the Chinese language in the sense of ‘tusk,’  Because a tusk is larger than other types of teeth, ya gradually acquired the meaning of ‘big tooth, molar’ by extension, thus encroaching upon the former domain of ch’ih.  When later lexicographers defined ya as ‘molar’ and ch’ih as ‘front tooth,’ they are describing, though without clear awareness, the usage of the Han dynasty and thereafter.  By further extension, ya also became the general word for ‘tooth,’ while retaining tis special meaning of ‘ivory.’
Some Min dialects still employ 齿 in the sense of tooth.  The common word for tooth in Amoy is simply k’i.  Foochow has nai3 which is a fusion of ŋɑplus k’i, i.e. 牙齿. This strongly suggests that in Min the real old word for ‘tooth’ is 齿 as in Amoy, the implication being that this was stil the colloquial word for ‘tooth’ well into Han when Fukien was first settled by the Chinese.  The Japanese use 齿 as kanji to write ha ‘tooth’ in their language; 牙 rarely occurs.  Both these facts provide supplementary evidence for the thesis that the use of ya as the general word for ‘tooth’ was a relatively late development.
In a note published in BSOAS, vol. 18, Walter Simon proposed that Tibetan so ‘tooth’ and Chinese ya 牙 (OC *ng*) are cognates, thus reviving a view once expressed by Sten Konow.  Simon’s entire argument was based upon historical phonology; he tried to show
(a) OC ha8d consonant clusters of the type sng- and C-, (b) by reconstructing 牙 as sng*>zng >nga and 邪 as zˠ*>z**, one can affirm Hs Shen’s view that 邪 has 牙 as its phonetic, and (c) Chinese sng* can then be related to a Proto-Tibetan *sngwa and Burmese swa:>θwa:.
Our etymology for ya ‘tooth’ implies a rejection of Simon’s view; if ya is borrowed from AA, then the question of Sino-Tibetan comparison simply does not arise.  And even if our theory is not accepted, there is no reason to adopt Simon’s analysis; ya is clearly a word of relatively late origin, and the fact that 邪 has 牙 as its phonetic can be explained by assuming that the z- of 邪 resulted from the palatalization of an earlier g-.**

影達

《段注》：“统言之皆偁齿，偁牙。析言之则前当唇者偁齿，后在辅车者偁牙，牙较大於齿，非有牝牡也。”

既然前面的是齿，那就应该先有“齿”字了。

另外，Chinese Etymology网页http://www.chineseetymology.org/ ... itButton1=Etymology有七个金文“牙”字，第一个是，不大像象的头部。

Artvine

齿






[ 本帖最后由 Artvine 于 2006-7-27 22:22 编辑 ]