{"title":"中亚佛教用语","authors":"Alessandro Del Tomba, M. Maggi","doi":"10.1163/15728536-06402002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The Khotanese masculine substantive saña- ‘artifice, expedient, means, method’ cannot be a loanword from the Gāndhārī feminine saṃña ‘perception, idea’ (< Sanskrit saṃjñā-), as has been recently suggested. Bilingual evidence for its meaning, its metrical use, and the contexts where it occurs show unambiguously that it differs formally and semantically from the Khotanese feminine saṃñā- ‘idea, notion, perception, etc.’, the actual loanword from Gāndhārī saṃña. Since the meaning of Tocharian B sāñ, ṣāñ and A ṣāñ ‘expedient, means’ agrees with that of Khotanese saña- ‘artifice etc.’, the old view should not be abandoned that the latter is a genuine Khotanese word < Iranian *sćandi̯a- (to the root *sćand- ‘to appear, seem (good)’) and is the source of the corresponding loanwords in Tocharian.","PeriodicalId":43180,"journal":{"name":"INDO-IRANIAN JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Central Asian Buddhist Term\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Del Tomba, M. Maggi\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15728536-06402002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The Khotanese masculine substantive saña- ‘artifice, expedient, means, method’ cannot be a loanword from the Gāndhārī feminine saṃña ‘perception, idea’ (< Sanskrit saṃjñā-), as has been recently suggested. Bilingual evidence for its meaning, its metrical use, and the contexts where it occurs show unambiguously that it differs formally and semantically from the Khotanese feminine saṃñā- ‘idea, notion, perception, etc.’, the actual loanword from Gāndhārī saṃña. Since the meaning of Tocharian B sāñ, ṣāñ and A ṣāñ ‘expedient, means’ agrees with that of Khotanese saña- ‘artifice etc.’, the old view should not be abandoned that the latter is a genuine Khotanese word < Iranian *sćandi̯a- (to the root *sćand- ‘to appear, seem (good)’) and is the source of the corresponding loanwords in Tocharian.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INDO-IRANIAN JOURNAL\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INDO-IRANIAN JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15728536-06402002\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ASIAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INDO-IRANIAN JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15728536-06402002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
最近有人提出,于阗语的阳性词saña——‘技巧、权宜之计、手段、方法’不可能是来自于Gāndhārī阴性词saṃña‘感知、想法’(<梵语saṃjñā-)的外来词。其含义、韵律用法和语境的双语证据清楚地表明,它在形式上和语义上都与于阗语的阴性词saṃñā不同——“想法、观念、感知等”,这是Gāndhārī saṃña的实际外来词。由于吐火罗语B sāñ, ṣāñ和ṣāñ“权宜之计”的意思与于阗语saña-“技巧等”的意思一致,因此不应放弃旧的观点,即后者是一个真正的于阗语单词<伊朗语*sćandi æ A -(词根*sćand-“出现,似乎(好)”),并且是吐火罗语中相应外来词的来源。
The Khotanese masculine substantive saña- ‘artifice, expedient, means, method’ cannot be a loanword from the Gāndhārī feminine saṃña ‘perception, idea’ (< Sanskrit saṃjñā-), as has been recently suggested. Bilingual evidence for its meaning, its metrical use, and the contexts where it occurs show unambiguously that it differs formally and semantically from the Khotanese feminine saṃñā- ‘idea, notion, perception, etc.’, the actual loanword from Gāndhārī saṃña. Since the meaning of Tocharian B sāñ, ṣāñ and A ṣāñ ‘expedient, means’ agrees with that of Khotanese saña- ‘artifice etc.’, the old view should not be abandoned that the latter is a genuine Khotanese word < Iranian *sćandi̯a- (to the root *sćand- ‘to appear, seem (good)’) and is the source of the corresponding loanwords in Tocharian.
期刊介绍:
Indo-Iranian Journal, founded in 1957, focuses on the ancient and medieval languages and cultures of South Asia and of pre-islamic Iran. It publishes articles on Indo-Iranian languages (linguistics and literatures), such as Sanskrit, Avestan, Middle Iranian and Middle & New Indo-Aryan. It publishes specialized research on ancient Iranian religion and the Indian religions, such as the Veda, Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism (including Tibetan). The journal welcomes epigraphical studies as well as general contributions to the understanding of the (pre-modern) history and culture of South Asia. Illustrations are accepted. A substantial part of Indo-Iranian Journal is reserved for reviews of new research.