是奎《太古元音》及其理想音系

Shi Kui's Taigu Yuanyin and the Ideal Phonological System

是奎（1654-1740）《太古元音》四卷，為清代初期的等韻學論著，其編撰目的在於本諸陰陽、五行、《易》象、樂律之玄理，試圖建構出能貫通古今、釐正五方之理想化正音，名曰「太古元音」。當代音韻學者對於《太古元音》鮮少關注；少數研究者，如簡汎純（2010），順隨「語音史」之主流典範，憑藉是奎之籍貫（江蘇陽湖），便先入為主地斷定《太古元音》反映吳語方音，從而參照現代常州方言調查之結果，逐一為韻圖之音類構擬音值，歸納音變規律。
以「語音史」觀點詮釋《太古元音》，看似客觀、精細，實際上卻已陷入「科學主義」的誤區，不自覺地犯了「以今律古」、「斷章取義」的詮釋謬誤。本計畫改以「音韻思想史」路徑詮釋《太古元音》，透過對《太古元音》文本之逐卷細讀，深入剖析韻圖形制、音韻術語、切音方法，以及是奎對諸家等韻得失之評論，理解是奎的音學思想與設計理念，一方面針砭「語音史」路徑之詮釋謬誤，一方面為漢語等韻學之發展開拓可行的新路徑。

Shi Kui's (1654-1740) four volumes of Taigu Yuanyin are the works of Dengyun Xue written in the initial period of the Qing dynasty, with the purpose of basing the abstract ideas of yinyang, wuxing, Yi-xiang, and lelu. Shi attempts to build a standard phonological system capable of comprehensively understanding and regulating the ideal standard sound of Wufang, named “Taigu Yuanyin” (literally, the archetypal ancient sound). The contemporary phonologists pay rare attention to this work. The rare researcher like Chien fan-chun (2010) follows the mainstream paradigm of the “history of phonology,” arbitrarily assumes that this work reflects Wu Chinese dialect simply due to Shi's birthplace in Jiangsu province. Then Chien refers to the results from the investigation of today's Changzhou dialect that, one by one, simulates the sound values of the sound classification of the phonological graph, and that generates the rules of sound changes.
From the “history of phonology” to conduct the research, it seems objective and delicate. However, it falls into the trap of scientism, which unconsciously leads to the fallacy of viewing the old from now and of arbitrariness. The project shifts to the “history of phonological thought” used to approach Taigu Yuanyin, through which the text of it is closely read to deepen and explore the form of the phonological graph, phonological terms, and qieyin methods. Then, the researcher would examine scholars' comments about Shi, and then understand his phonological thought and design ideas. By so doing, one can critique the fallacy of the “history of phonology” on the one hand, and explore possible new routes about the development of Chinese Dengyun Xue on the other.