论文部分内容阅读
一、侗族的族称问题 侗族的族称和族源问题,是侗族历史研究中的一个重要问题,至今学术界尚未得到统一的认识。1987年10月笔者的《侗族源于“干越”考》(《贵州民族研究》第4期)认为侗族自称的kam~(55)与干越的“干”有音义上的对应关系,汉语典籍中释干为“水傍,故停水处”(《易·渐卦》《释文》引郑玄注),又联系侗族“依山傍水”的居住特点,认为侗族自称的kam~(55)、am~(55)、也都是江边、水边、河边的意思。现在看来侗族的自称是具有其深刻的历史渊源的,不能作出那样简单的解释。因此本文想从语源学和民族学的新角度对侗族自称的音义重新作出解释,以修正以前的观点,但本文不否定前文侗族与“干越”有族源关系的基本观点。
First, the ethnic issues of Dong Dong ethnic issues and ethnic origin, is an important issue in the study of Dong history, so far the academic community has not yet been a unified understanding. In October 1987, the author of “Dongs originating from” Gan Yue “test” (“Guizhou Ethnic Studies” No. 4) argues that the Dongs self-proclaimed kam ~ (55) has the sound-sense correspondence with the “Qian” The interpretation of the books is “waterfront, so the water park” (“Yi · Gua Gua” “interpretation of” cited Zheng Xuan Note), but also with the Dong “Yishanbangshui” living characteristics, that the Dong claimed kam ~ 55 ), Am ~ (55), are also the riverside, waterfront, the river’s meaning. Now it seems that the self-declaration of the Dongs has its profound historical origins and can not be interpreted as such. Therefore, this paper attempts to re-interpret the self-proclaimed meaning of the Dongs from a new perspective of etymology and ethnology in order to correct the previous views. However, this article does not negate the basic viewpoints of the ethnic origin of the Dongs and the Qian-Yue predecessors.