从金文的“■”“旅”说到甲骨文的“■”

The Study about Characters"■""旅"in Jinwen and"秜"in Jiaguwen

曾伯克父甘娄与伯克父甘娄器铭"黍稷■粱"中的所谓"■",簠乙器铭作"旅"。前者多释读为"稻",认为"旅"为"■"误写。或以为"■"为"稻"省变。经比较分析,■应是从禾从"旅"省的"■"字,簠乙的"旅"并非误书,■也非"稻"省变。■、旅即■、稆,原本野生稻(或再生稻)名。金文"稻"从"■"应是从"旅"省,是栽培稻来源于野生稻在文字上的反映。甲骨文的"秜"也为野生稻名,其用为"稻"字,犹如金文"稻"或作"■""旅"。目前所见甲骨文中究竟有没有"稻"字,还需要进一步探讨。

In the inscriptions o￡Zengbokefu Ganlou(曾伯克父甘娄)and Bokefu Ganlou(伯克父甘娄),the character "■"from"黍稷族粱"is inscribed as"旅"in the inscription of Fuyi(簠乙).The former is mostly inteqareted as"稻"and"旅"is considered as a mistake in writing"■".Or someone thinks that"■"is a simplified transformation of"稻".Through comparative analysis,"■"should be the character"■"which composed of"禾"and the reduced form of"旅".The character"旅"in Fuyi is not a mistake,"■"is not a simplified transformation of"稻",too."■""旅"are also"穞""稆",which were original names of wild rice.The ideographic component"㫃"from Jinwen(金文)"稻"should be the reduced form of"旅",which is the literal reflection of cultivated rice derived from wild rice.Jiaguwen(甲骨文)"秜"is also the name of wild rice and used as"稻",just like the Jinwen"稻"could be"■"and"旅".Whether there is"稻"in Jiaguwen we have seen at present still needs further discussion.