チベット; チベット語; Bacot, Jaque; Si tu; Thonmi Saṃbhoṭa; Buddhacarita; Grammaire du tibétain littéraire; Khri srong lde brtsan王詔勅; sGra ba'i sgo; Shol rdo ring; Si tu'i sum rtags; Sum cu pa; 月灯三昧経; 唐蕃会盟碑; de; ste; te; 具余; 叙述補語; 接続辞; 独立提示格; 補述文
摘要
In Tibetan the conjunctive suffixes -te, -ste and-de are distinguished only in samdhi, but not in use. However, when we classify their uses in classical Tibetan, we can find two different usages. The one is to combine two sentences or predicates in temporal sequence, while the other is to connect them in no such relations. In Si-tu’s grammar is quoted a passage from the Smra-baḥi-sgo (“the Gate of Language”), where lhae-ma bcas is considered to be a specific use of the demonstrative pronoun de. In this case Si-tu cites only -de as the example from among the conjunctives mentioned above. This shows nothing but his misunderstanding. Obviously the Smra-baḥi sgo considers that the pronoun de may function as a connective without respect to samdhi, though no temporal relations are implied. The present writer endeavors to point out these facts by adducing various instances from classical Tibetan texts and at the same time to explain how the pronoun de came to denote the connective function. According to him, the conjunctive -ste is originally the pronoun de in connective usage combined with the suffix -s which may have characterized the event expressed by the preceding sentence as temporally anterior to that of the following sentence. Curious uses of -te and-ste in the Khri Sron Lde Brtsan Edicts and the contrast between –s te and -s ste in the Shol rdo-riṅ reflect the older distinction of usage. Besides, the orthographical peculiarities in the Tun-huang Documents may be also taken into consideration. In short, against the traditional view that -te and-de are derived from -ste owing to euphonic rule, the writer intends to maintain that –de (or -te) and -ste were originally different morphemes and therefore were distinguished in usage, but they had been gradually confused, so that they became to be considered as variants of one and the same suffix.
