【摘要】 2001年第10期《语文建设》的《“无须”和“无需”》主张胡须的“须”和遇雨止需不进的“需”是同源字,另一篇文章《说与》又主张有缺口环形玉的“”和器皿有缺口的“缺”是通假字。可是,考之于两对词的语源义,却发现前者的“胡须”义和遇雨不能前进的“止需”义,意义上并无联系,是典型的通假字,而后者两个字都有“有缺口”这一共同义素,是典型的同源词,这两篇文章恰恰把这两种文字现象的关系弄颠倒了。更多还原

【Abstract】 The article 《"无须"和"无需"》in "Chinese Construction"(No.10 in 2001) claims that "须"in "胡须" and "需"in "遇雨止需不进"are cognate words; Another one 《说与玦》claims that "玦"in "表有缺口环形玉" and "缺"in "表器皿有缺口"are interchangeable words. However, according to their etymological meanings, we find that "须"in "胡须"and the meaning of "需"in "遇雨止需不进"are not related to each other in their meanings, and so they are typical interchangeable words, while both "玦"and "缺"are quite related in their meanings, and they mean"有缺口", so they are typical cognate words. Therefore, we can say that the relations of the two kinds of Chinese characters in the two articles were mutually reversed .更多还原