先秦出土文獻總括詞「屯」的再考察

Revisiting the Universal Quantifier Tun屯in Unearthed Documents of Early China

朱德熙、裘錫圭先生指出戰國出土文獻中的「屯」有總括詞的用法，後來朱先生又有專文對傳世文獻和出土文獻中總括詞「屯」的用法及其源流作了貫通古今的詳細考察。在朱、裘兩位先生的文章發表以後，又有一些包含總括詞「屯」的楚簡資料陸續公布，也有學者對朱先生的觀點提出了一些疑問。本文綜合現在已經公布的出土材料，對先秦文獻中總括詞「屯」的用法重新作了考察。曾侯簡、信陽簡遣策中的「屯」主要出現在謂語前面，凸顯複數主語所指事物某方面性狀的的共同性，用法與「皆」相當。曾侯簡遣策中單數主語後面也可以用「屯」，表示主語所指事物某方面性狀的純粹性，用法與「全」相當。朱德熙關於「屯」「皆」不同之處的看法仍然成立：「屯」是實詞，「皆」是虛詞；「屯」有凸顯全體的語義特徵，「皆」有凸顯個體的語義特徵；「屯」「皆」區別與現代漢語的「全」「都」類似。新蔡卜筮祭禱簡中「屯」主要出現在雙賓語中「數＋名」結構的前面，嚴倉簡遣策「屯」主要出現在謂語包含「數＋度量單位」結構的前面，用法都與「各」相當。《山海經》的「屯」字訓為「皆」「各」皆可，與其書來源複雜有關。鄂君啟節的「屯」訓為「皆」「各」都存在問題，「屯」可能包含了「每」的語義，「屯」「各」的區別類似「每」「各」的區別。「屯」兼all、every、each幾種語義特徵。先秦出土文獻中的總括詞「屯」既有方言性，又有口語性。

Scholars Zhu Dexi朱德熙(1920–1992) and Qiu Xigui裘錫圭(1935–) are the earliest to have pointed out that tun屯in unearthed documents of the Warring States period has the usage of a universal quantifier, with Zhu later giving a more thorough investigation on its usage, origins, and evolution in both unearthed and passed-down texts. After the publication of Zhu’s and Qiu’s articles, more bamboo slips of the Chu State containing the universal quantifier tun have been released, and some scholars have raised doubts about Zhu’s views. Based on the unearthed materials that have been published, this article re-examines the usage of the universal quantifier tun in early Chinese literature. In the inventory slips from the tombs of Marquis Yi of Zeng曾侯乙and in Xinyang, the universal quantifier tun mainly appears in front of the predicate, highlighting the commonality of a certain aspect of the things referred to by the plural subject, a usage which is equivalent to the universal quantifier jie皆; in those of the tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng, tun is also used after a singular subject to express the purity of a certain aspect of the thing(s) referred to by the subject and is thus equivalent to quan全; in the divinatory and ritual slips from a tomb in Xincai, tun mainly occurs before the quantity structure between the objects in double object constructions, and in the inventory slips from a tomb at Yancang, tun mostly appears in front of quantity structures that include a unit of measure in the predicate, both of which are equivalent to ge各; tun in Shanhai jing山海經(Classic of Mountains and Seas) can be interpreted as jie or ge, which is related to the complexity of the source of the book; and finally, there are problems in interpreting tun in the tallies of Lord Qi of E鄂君啟as either jie or ge, as tun can also contain the meaning of mei每. Zhu’s views on the differences between tun and jie are still valid: first, tun has the semantic feature of highlighting the whole, whereas jie has the semantic feature of highlighting the individual; second, tun is a content word, and jie is a function word; and third, the difference between the two is similar to that between quan全and dou都in Modern Standard Chinese. Moreover, the difference between tun and ge is similar to that between mei and ge. Ultimately, the universal quantifier tun contains some of the semantic features of“all,”“every,”and“each,”and in early Chinese literature, has both dialectal and colloquial properties.