01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
¡¡6À¤µª¤Ë¥¥ê¥¹¥È¶µ¤¬¥Ö¥ê¥Æ¥óÅç¤Ë¤â¤¿¤é¤µ¤ì¤¿¡¥¤½¤Î¸å¡¤¸Å±Ñ¸ì´ü¤Ë¤Ï¿ôÉ´¸ì¤Î¥é¥Æ¥óñ¸ì¤¬±Ñ¸ì¤ËήÆþ¤·¤¿¤¬¡¤Â¿¤¯¤Ï¥¥ê¥¹¥È¶µ´Ø·¸¤ÎÍѸì¤Ç¤¢¤ë¡¥¤³¤ì¤Ï¡¤¡Ö#32. ¸Å±Ñ¸ì´ü¤Ë¼ÚÍѤµ¤ì¤¿¥é¥Æ¥ó¸ì¡× ([2009-05-30-1]) ¤ä¡Ö#1437. ¸Å±Ñ¸ì´ü°ÊÁ°¤Ë¼ÚÍѤµ¤ì¤¿¥é¥Æ¥ó¸ì¤ÎÎã¡× ([2013-04-03-1]) ¤ÇÏÃÂê¤Ë¤·¤¿Ä̤ê¤Ç¤¢¤ë¡¥
¡¡¤·¤«¤·¡¤¥¥ê¥¹¥È¶µ´Ø·¸¥é¥Æ¥óñ¸ì¤ÎήÆþ¤È¤¤¤¦³°¸«¤À¤±¤ò¤ß¤Æ¤¤¤Æ¤Ï¡¤¤³¤Î»þ´ü¤Î¥¥ê¥¹¥È¶µ²½¤Î¸À¸ìŪ¦Ì̤ò½½Ê¬¤ËÍý²ò¤¹¤ë¤³¤È¤Ï¤Ç¤¤Ê¤¤¡¥Baugh and Cable (90) ¤ò°úÍѤ·¤è¤¦¡¥
The words that Old English borrowed in this period are only a partial indication of the extent to which the introduction of Christianity affected the lives and thoughts of the English people. The English did not always adopt a foreign word to express a new concept. Often an old word was applied to a new thing and by a slight adaptation made to express a new meaning. The Anglo-Saxons, for example, did not borrow the Latin word deus, because their own word God was a satisfactory equivalent. Likewise heaven and hell express conceptions not unknown to Anglo-Saxon paganism and are consequently English words.
¡¡¡Ö#865. ¼ÚÍѸì¤ò¼õÍÆ¤·¤Ë¤¯¤¤¸ì×ÃÎΰè¤Ï²¿¤«¡× ([2011-09-09-1]) ¤ÇÏÃÂê¤Ë¤·¤¿Ä̤ꡤ¤Ê¤¼ deus ¤òɮƬ¤Ë¡¤¤¢¤ë°ÕÌ£¤ÇºÇ¤â¥¥ê¥¹¥È¶µÅª¤È¤¤¤¨¤ë¤¤¤¯¤Ä¤«¤Î¸ì¤¬¼ÚÍѤµ¤ì¤Ê¤«¤Ã¤¿¤Î¤«¡¥¼çÍפʻ²¹Í¿Þ½ñ2ÅÀ¤«¤é¡¤¤³¤ÎÌäÂê¤Ë¤Ä¤¤¤Æ¤Î¸ÀµÚ¤ò¸«¤è¤¦¡¥¤Þ¤º¤Ï¡¤Kastovsky (310) ¤Ï¼¡¤Î¤è¤¦¤Ë½Ò¤Ù¤Æ¤¤¤ë¡¥
Substitutive semantic borrowing is particularly frequent in the religious vocabulary, since in using a native ('heathen') word for a Christian concept, the pagan interpretation had to be replaced by the Christian concept and all its theological associations. A good example is the word God as used for Deus (cf. Strang 1970: 368). Originally it seemed to have meant 'that which is invoked', 'that to which libation is poured', was a neuter noun and could form a plural, since the Germanic peoples had a polytheistic religion. The missionaries, however, had to convey the notion of a single Deity, a Person or One of the persons of the Trinity. Instead of adopting the lexical item Deus, its meaning was substituted for the old meaning of god, which, in this case, even produced a grammatical change: God as a singular noun became masculine; if it occurred in the plural, it only referred to pagan gods and remained neuter.
¡¡¼¡¤Ë¡¤¾å¤Î°úÍÑʸ¤Ç¸ÀµÚ¤µ¤ì¤Æ¤¤¤ë Strang (368) ¤òÅö¤¿¤Ã¤Æ¤ß¤ë¡¥Strang ¤Ï¡¤¸Å±Ñ¸ì¤ÎËÝÌõ¼ÚÍÑ (loan_translation) ¤ä°ÕÌ£¼ÚÍÑ (semantic loan) ¤Ë¤Ä¤¤¤Æ¿¨¤ì¤Æ¤¤¤ë²Õ½ê¤Ç¡¤god ¤Î°ÕÌ£ÊѲ½¤ò°Ê²¼¤Î¤è¤¦¤ËÏÀ¤¸¤Æ¤¤¤ë¡¥
The best term to start with is the word god. This is an old neuter noun, the meaning of whose stem has been disputed. It may mean 'that which is invoked' or 'that to which libation is poured' (in which case, it represents the same stem as we find in the name of the Goths and the Geats . . .); OE shares the form with other Germanic languages, which have formations from the same stem with the same meaning. In its inherited form the noun has a plural, since the monotheistic idea was unfamiliar to the Germanic peoples. The missionaries need to convey to the English the conception of a single Deity, a Person, One of the Persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Creator of the Universe, etc. They have a choice of explaining all this, and adding that the word for it is Deus; or of saying that the English have hitherto misunderstood the nature of god --- not it, but He, not many but One, etc. They choose the latter course, and their usage, as well as their belief, prevails. The noun acquires a new meaning, or rather, the whole complex of Christian meanings, though it is still the term for the old gods. From this development follows a curious grammatical change, akin to the modern use of the capital letter. When singular the word becomes masculine; when plural (therefore pagan in reference) it remains neuter. Thus, even syntax enters into the pattern of adaptation.
¡¡É¸Âê¤Ï¡¤¸ß¤¤¤Ë´ØÏ¢¤¹¤ë2¤Ä¤ÎÅÀ¤Ç¶½Ì£¤ò°ú¤¯¡¥1¤Ä¤Ï¡¤¸ì¤òľÀܼÚÍѤ¹¤ë¤è¤ê¤â°ÕÌ£¤ò¼è¤êÆþ¤ì¤ë¤ä¤êÊý¤Î¤Û¤¦¤¬¤¸¤ï¤¸¤ï·¿¤Ç¤¢¤ê¡¤¥¥ê¥¹¥È¶µ¤ÎÉÛ¶µ¤Ë¤¢¤¿¤Ã¤Æ¡¤¤È¤¤Ë͸ú¤À¤Ã¤¿²ÄǽÀ¤¬¤¢¤ë¤³¤È¡¥¤â¤¦1¤Ä¤Ï¡¤°ìÈ̤ˡ¤Â¾¸À¸ì¤«¤é¤Î¸ì×äؤαƶÁ¤ò¹Í¤¨¤ëºÝ¤Ë¤Ï¡¤³°¸«¡Ê·ÁÂ֡ˤÀ¤±¤Ç¤Ê¤¯ÃæÌ£¡Ê°ÕÌ£¡Ë¤â½Å»ë¤·¤Ê¤±¤ì¤Ð¤Ê¤é¤Ê¤¤¤È¤¤¤¦¤³¤È¤À¡¥ºÆÅÙ Baugh and Cable (91) ¤ËÌá¤Ã¤Æ¡¤¼¡¤ò°úÍѤ·¤Æ¤ª¤³¤¦¡¥
It is important to recognize that the significance of a foreign influence is not to be measured simply by the foreign words introduced but is revealed also by the extent to which it stimulates the language to independent creative effort and causes it to make full use of its native resources.
¡¡´ØÏ¢¤·¤Æ¡¤¼ÚÍѤΠimportation ¤È substitution ¤Î¶èÊ̤ˤĤ¤¤Æ¡¤¡Ö#901. ¼ÚÍѤÎʬÎà¡× ([2011-10-15-1]) ¤ò»²¾È¡¥
¡¡¡¦ Strang, Barbara M. H. A History of English. London: Methuen, 1970.
¡¡¡¦ Baugh, Albert C. and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 5th ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
¡¡¡¦ Kastovsky, Dieter. "Semantics and Vocabulary." The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 1. Ed. Richard M. Hogg. Cambridge: CUP, 1992. 290--408.
2026 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2025 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2024 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2023 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2022 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2021 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2020 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2019 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2018 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2017 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2016 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2015 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2014 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2013 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2012 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2011 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2010 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
2009 : 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
ºÇ½ª¹¹¿·»þ´Ö: 2026-06-26 03:46
Powered by WinChalow1.0rc4 based on chalow