上古漢語聲調的起源

The Origin of Old-Chinese Tones

本文圍繞著學術界主流的三種學說，對上古漢語聲調進行了研究。我們認為在「清濁韻尾對立說」、「長短元音說」、「韻尾決定說」三種學說中，「韻尾決定說」的說服力更大。因為它不僅可以解釋上古漢語內部的問題，還可以解釋親屬語、所屬近鄰語系語言的借詞、對譯材料的對應關係。我們認為去聲來源於-s韻尾，這個觀點與大多數主張「韻尾決定說」的學者一致。但大多數主張「韻尾決定說」的學者認為上聲來源於-ʔ韻尾，但本文認為，上聲來源於泛喜馬拉雅語(原始漢藏語)的-q韻尾和-ʕ韻尾，但這兩個韻尾在上古漢語中已經合並為了-q韻尾。

In this papaer, I researched on Old-Chinese tones around three mainstream theories in academia. There are "The Voiced codas and Voiceless codas hypothesis", "The Long vowels and Short vowels hypothesis" and “The codas hypothesis”. I believe that "The codas hypothesis" is more persuasive among the three theories. Because "The codas hypothesis" can not only explain the internal problems of Old-Chinese, but also explain the correspondence between the Sino-Tibetan languages such as Written Tibetan and Written Burmese, the loanwords of the neighboring languages such as Korean and Japanese, the translated materials such as Sanskrit-Chinese. So I think that the departing tone(去聲) is derived from -s in Old-Chinese. This conclusion is consistent with other scholars who advocate “The codas hypothesis”. On the other hand, most scholars who advocate "The codas hypothesis" believe that rising tone(上聲) is derived form -ʔ. But I think the rising tone(上聲) is derived from -q and -ɦ in Trans Himalayan(Proto-Sino-Tibetan). Because this point of view can better explain the internal and external problems of Old-Chinese. However, the codas -q and-ɦ in Trans Himalayan(Proto- Sino-Tibetan), have been merged into -q in Old Chinese.