The borrowing of the character “Mou” (某) originally meaning “sour plum” as a pronoun should lag far behind the spoken language. Therefore, the pronoun “Mou” (某) in the Chinese literature can no longer explain its origin. Through cognate affiliation and related analogy, it is inferred that the pronoun “Mou” (某) should go through such a stage of development as “negative indefinite pronoun to indefinite pronoun, and then to specific pronoun”. From the etymological point of view, the earliest usage of “Mou” (某) should be a negative indefinite pronoun. Zhou Guangye of the Qing Dynasty thought that the use of “Mou” (某) as a pronoun began with taboo, which was not the source of its pronoun usage. The usage of the word “Mou” (某) used as a taboo should be the third stage of its development.

For thousands of years, there have always been many disputes over the interpretation of the word JianShi (練實) in ZhuangZi Qiushui (《莊子·秋水》). The explanations about JianShi (練實) such as Bamboo fruits (竹實), neem fruits (楝實), white and pure fruit, and so on, but they are all debatable. The theory of “Bamboo fruits” (竹實) has no connections with the word form, which is quite abrupt and puzzling. The theory of “neem fruits”(楝實) is unreasonable and does not accord with the literal meaning of ZhuangZi Qiushui (《莊子·秋水》). The theory of “white and pure fruit” is contrary to the Ancient Chinese culture. Combined with the word form of JianShi (練實) and the literary meaning of Zhuangzi Qiushui (《莊子·秋水》), this paper holds that “練” and “揀” have the same meaning (selection), JianShi (練實) is JianShi (揀實) which means “Selected high-grade fruits”.

Fanqie (反切) is a traditional method of indicating the pronunciation of a Chinese character by using two other Chinese characters, one having the same consonant as the given character and the other having the same vowel (with or without final nasal) and tone. There are seven problematic aspects regarding Fanqie (反切) phonetic notation of polyphonic characters in The Grand Chinese Dictionary, 漢語大詞典. The first, the cited Chinese characters used as phonetic notations are wrong; the second, the attributions of phonological status about some polyphonic characters are not correct; the third, one or two phonetic notations are missing among several pronunciations of the polyphones; the fourth, the materials for phonetic evidences are neglected; the fifth, the evidences of some ancient sounds are lagging because of not finding the earliest evidence in citing ancient sound; the sixth, the main sounds and the secondary ones are reversed; and the last, the selected Chinese characters are not appropriate in some Fanqie phonetics.

The taboo system in the Song Dynasty was very strict, correspondingly, the academic notes of Scholars in the Song Dynasty also have a lot of taboo studies. These taboo studies have recorded a wealth of taboo materials of the past generation, which has high data value. Some of them are also good at textual research, and thus benefit the study of the later periods.But most of these studies Only record taboo materials and lack of innovation. Scholars are good at the induction of taboo materials and ignores the application research and theory construction of taboo. The reasons of taboo studies in the Song Dynasty have developed include cultural environment, the severity of the taboo in the Song Dynasty,and the adaptability between the notes genre and the characteristics of the Scholars’ taboo studies.

Examining Yang Shuda’s Interpretations by the contemporary standards, it is hard to avoid some mistakes or time limitation. Yang Shuda’s two interpretations of the word “ ” are contradictory. The word “戴目” in Hanshu Kuiguan (<漢書窺管>) should not be interpreted as “側目” (strabismus). It is also debatable for the interpretations of “ ”, “ ” and “ ”.