论文部分内容阅读
楹联上下联对应处究竟是要求“词类相同(相当)”还是要求“词性相同(相当)”呢?以往楹联书刊中这两种提法都有,似乎并未引起多大的争论,但在前不久关于联律的讨论中,有同志较真起来,认为“从古到今,根本不存在‘词性对仗’现象,所以讲联律时,应彻底剔除词性对仗、词性一致、词性相同等一类说法,统用词类对仗、词类相当或相同、一致的术语”(《中国楹联报》总688期《关于联律的思索(二)》),看来对此还有认真讨论的必要。
The couplet should be the same as the lower part of the correspondence is asked “the same part of speech (equivalent) ” or ask “the same part of speech (equivalent) ” In the past couplet both of these references does not seem to have caused much controversy, However, in the discussion on the association law recently, some comrades came to the fore to think that “since ancient times, there has absolutely not been a part-time antithesis. Therefore, when talking about the syncretism, the part-of-speech battle should be completely eliminated with the same part-of-speech distinction and the same part- And other terms, the same type of antithesis, the same or the same part of the word, the same terms ”(“ China Lianlianbao, ”the total of 688“ thinking about the law (II) ”), it seems that there is serious discussion of this necessary.