Shuowen Etymologies and an Arrangement by Sounds《說文通訓定聲》, as a representative work by Zhu Junsheng who is a famous expert in study of Shuowen Jiezi《說文解字》 in Qing Dynasty, consists of three parts: Shuowen (說文), Tongxun (通訓), and Dingsheng (定聲). Amongst them, Tong xun consists of Zhuanzhu (轉注) and Jiajie (假借). The quest for original words in the course of making scientific researches on Jiajie is highly important for us to make researches on ancient literature. Analyzing the mistakes and causes of the formation of multiple original words in the text of Shuowen Etymologies and an Arrangement by Sounds, we discover that there are the following types of errors in multiple original words in the text: 1. The different ancient annotations form the basis for the study on original words and multiple original words; 2. The faux creation of original words is made by considering a group of synonyms as original words; 3. Interchangeable words are wrongly regarded as original words; 4. The intending meaning is wrongly regarded as loaning meaning. The reasons for such mistakes can be further attributed to two major aspects: 1. The strong concept of original words of Zhu Junsheng who wrongly believes all Jiajie have original words; 2. There are some problems in the understanding of the meaning of words. Although Zhu Junsheng’s understanding of the connotation of original words is correct, the meaning, in practice, is a very complicated problem. Therefore, it is easy to make mistakes when the actual judgement takes place.

The article indicates that usually there exists no correspondence between the term and its conception illustrated by the case of loangraph and its related term orthograph. Different conceptions of contemporary Loangraph, namely, “diachronic usage relation”, “relation of form and meaning”, “prevailing usage in an era”, have inherited some views produced in the academic history, which includes Xu Shen’s loangraph of “benwuqizi”, Wang Yun’s “shengjie”, Duan Yucai’s “three changes” of loangraph, and Zhu Junsheng’s “three sources” of loangraph. By listing examples of misunderstanding and obscure caused by the different comprehension of the loangraph term, the article analyzes its objective linguistic foundation, stating that in the use of the term, the same conceptual meaning of the term should be taken as the criterion, otherwise it will constitute exchange barriers and cause unnecessary contradictions and arguments.

本文旨在通过分析段玉裁对假借的观点，阐明段玉裁对本和非本的区分与其意义。段玉裁在≪说文解字注≫中提及了好几次的“假(叚)借”这个语言文字现象，而他的观点与一般的假借概念有所不同，如果用一般的假借概念去了解他说的假借，有的时候很难解释。语言学术语往往限定学习者的思维，因此有时候会引起误解。段玉裁注释里面应该有自己的脉络，如果了解他持有的基本观念，也可以解释出他自己的假借观。笔者认为为了了解段玉裁对假借的观点，需要了解他的“求本”观念。因为他作为对≪说文解字≫这本字书的注释家持有追究“本”的态度，还有区分“本”与“非本”的态度，结果两个字虽然在语义上是派生关系，但被段玉裁认为是假借关系。段玉裁所认为的“假借”就是包括某字不表示它本义的状况的。结果段玉裁说的假借跟一般的假借概念稍微不同，其包括的范围也更广。本文在资料梳理方面还缺少很多，这点有待补充。