论文部分内容阅读
《图书馆》1987年第5期发表了查启森先生的大作《“目录”商释·附称谓辨》一文,细细拜读,收益匪浅,感慨颇多。查先生在文中经过详细论证,否定了解放后目录学界关于“目录”定义的“定论”,即“‘目’的含义是指篇目而言,即一书的篇或卷的名称。‘录’是指的叙录,即将一书的内容,作者的事迹,书的评价,校勘的经过等,写成简明扼要的文字。将二者合起来称为目录,即书目”。继姚名达先生之后再一次提出了“录”“应当作‘次第’讲,所谓‘目录’者,篇目之次第也。”这一较正确的论断。其论证翔实严谨,说服力颇强。笔者曾与查先生讨论过关于“目录”定义的问题,基本上赞同查先生的观点,为了进一步澄清这个问题,特作下列补辨,祈望同仁指正。
“Library” in 1987 fifth issue of Mr. Richard Chase’s masterpiece “” directory “Shanghang, appellation identified” a text, read carefully, a lot of benefits, feeling a lot. After careful explanation, Mr. Cha denied the “conclusion” of the definition of “directory” after the liberation of the academic circles, that is, “the meaning of the word” refers to the title, that is, the title of a book or volume. Refers to the narrative, the content of an upcoming book, the author’s deeds, book evaluation, collation and so on, written concise text, the two together as the directory, that is, bibliography. After Mr. Yao Mingda, he once again put forward the more correct conclusion: “Record” should be made as the second phrase, the so-called ’directory’, and the title of the article. The argument rigorously rigorous, convincing. I had discussed with Mr. Cha about the definition of “directory” and basically agreed with Mr. Cha’s point of view. In order to further clarify this issue, I made the following special inspection and pray for my colleagues to correct me.