Проблемы китайского и общего языкознания. К 90-летию С. Е. Яхонтова

 584  David Sehnal   For example: 樸 p N “piece of uncarved wood” > ADJ “be uncarved and unspecialized like a piece of raw wood” > n “primitivity”, “lack of specialization”. We read the formula in the following way: from the word 樸 p which was originally a noun, an adjective was derived which in turn is used as a noun in the given construction. Thus, in my work I admit that a function ( Redetheil ) can be lexicalized. Why do I think that 樸 p in the meaning “primitivity”, “lack of specialization” is derived from the adjective 樸 p , but not directly from the noun 樸 p “piece of uncarved wood”? 1. We have an actually attested instance of the adjectival usage of 樸 p : 道常無名，樸 “For the proper Way there was common the absence of denominations, [everything] was primitive (like a piece of uncarved wood).” (XXXII). A great number of nouns when functioning syntactically as adjec- tives obtains the categorial meaning “to possess the quality typical for the given noun”. 2. Formation of de-adjectival abstract nouns is a prominent feature of OC adjectives. Yakhontov even thinks that the majority of OC monosyllabic abstract nouns has the adjectival origin. 3. Through the adjectival stage one can much easier explain the shift in meaning from 樸 p “piece of uncarved wood” to 樸 p “primitivity”. The derivation along the line “thing” > “possess the quality typical for the given thing” > “abstract denomination of the given quality” is very regular and is in accordance with general derivational processes. 4. It appears that big groups of OC “full” words behave according to the scheme “thing” > “possess the quality typical for the given thing” > “abstract denomination of the given quality”. Such scheme on one hand enables us to predict analogical cases, on the other hand it enables us to apply the model in cases which are not evident at the first view. For example: let us to assume that the abstractum 仁 r n “humanity” is derived from the adjective 仁 r n “be human”. But if we apply our model, we can find the following association: 人 r n “human” > 仁 r n “possess the qualities typical for a human, i. e. be human” > 仁 r n “humanity”. The change of the grapheme may mark the lexicalization of the adjective derived from the noun 人 r n according to the above mentioned model. According to my view, such specification of the concept 仁 r n is much more solid than considerations of the kind that the character 仁 consists of the parts meaning “human” and “two” and what this implies as far as its meaning is concerned. In this work I use several similar derivational schemes. The question of what is basic and what is derived I am trying to solve namely from the point