摘要
王晓朝教授在探讨eimi的过程中提出一个观点,要区别语法和词义,因而要区别其实义动词与系动词;并由此认为eimi是一个多义词,其词义主要来自其动词,而不是来自系词。他最终认为,理解eimi的词义时应该把它看作两个或多个词,做不同翻译,因此“一是到底论”是行不通的。本文指出,区别语法和词义是有益的,但是王晓朝教授并没有把这一区别贯彻始终。“一是到底论”恰恰坚持了语法和词义的区别:“是”(being或eimi)一词有不同含义,比如系词含义和存在含义,因而字面上保留了多种含义理解的空间和可能性。
This paper shows it is right to distinguish grammar and the word meaning and taking the distinction as a principle in dealing with the Greek Word eimi,hut what is more important is to keep the principle.It is also right to hold that eimi is polysemous and at least or mainly has two meanings,one is copulative and the other existence,but is wrong to translate it into CUNZAI,the Chinese word for existence.On the country,one should translate it throughout into SHI,the Chinese word for being,which literally has the meaning of copula,but can be interpreted as existence in some context other than the copulative use.The difference between the two translations is fundamental,since the word SHI has the meaning of cupola and also keeps the room for the interpretation of existence,while the word CUNZAI cuts off all our understand of copula as it literally has no such a sense at all.Farther more we should realize that how to translate into Chinese the Greek word eimi in particular,and the English word being in general as well,is not only an issue for translation but one for how to understand Western Philosophy as a whole as it plays an important role throughout.
出处
《哲学门》
CSSCI
2015年第1期59-90,共32页
Beida Journal of Philosophy
关键词
语法
词义
是
存在
Grammar
Word meaning
SHI(the Chinese word for being)
CUNZAI(the Chinese word for existence)
作者简介
王路,1955年生,清华大学人文学院哲学系教授。
