نمیرد همیشه ... (پژوهشی درباره قیود استمرار وکاربرد آنها در جملات منفی در زبان های ایرانی با توجه به مصراعی از حافظ) (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
از مهمترین مناقشات و مجادلات علمی در باب شعر حافظ، بحث درباره وجوه مختلف قرائت ابیاتی از دیوان اوست، و از جمله معروف ترین موارد آن می توان به اختلاف نظر در مورد تعلّق قید «همیشه» به یکی از دو جمله پایه و پیرو مصراع دوم در بیت معروف «از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند/ که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست» اشاره کرد. اغلب حافظ پژوهان و مصحّحان دیوان او، در این مورد قائل به تعلّق قید «همیشه» به جمله پایه «که آتش[ی] در دل ماست» هستند. در پژوهش حاضر، با استخراج شواهدی از کاربردهای معنایی مختلف قیود دیمومت و استمرار از قبیل «همیشه» و مترادفات آن، در انواع مختلف جملات منفی در متون فارسی دری، و دسته بندی آنها و اثبات وجود معنای «هرگز» در برخی شواهد و با اشاره به سابقه وجود چنین ساختاری در زبان های باستانی و میانه ایرانی، ضمن طرح دیدگاه های گوناگون در باب وجوه قرائت دوگانه بیت مذکور و نقد آنها، چنین نتیجه گرفته شده است که با توجّه به سوابق و شواهد موجود، نه تنها اشکالی بر فرض تعلّق قید «همیشه» به فعل «نمیرد» وارد نیست، بلکه به احتمال قریب به یقین شاعر به تعلّق این قید به جمله موصولی (نمیرد همیشه) بیشتر نظر داشته است.A Study of the Use of the Adverbs of Continuity and Permanency in the Meaning of “Never” in Iranian Languages
One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتش [ی] در دل ماست). In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه). Keywords : Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never. One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتش [ی] در دل ماست). In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه). Keywords : Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never. One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتش [ی] در دل ماست). In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه). Keywords : Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never. One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتش [ی] در دل ماست). In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه). Keywords : Adverb of the continuity and permanency, Negative sentence, Adverb of always and never. One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتش [ی] در دل ماست). In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه). One of the most important scientific controversies about Hafez’ poetry is the debate about the different readings of the verses of his Divan. Among the most famous cases of such disagreement is about the belonging of the adverb “همیشه” (always) to the main or the subordinate sentence of the second hemistich of the verse از آن به دیر مغانم عزیز می دارند//که آتشی که نمیرد همیشه در دل ماست. Most of the Hafez researchers and editors have considered the adverb as a part of the main sentence (که آتش [ی] در دل ماست). In this study the evidences of various uses of the adverbs of continuity and permanency, such as “همیشه” and their cognates in various negative sentences in modern Persian are extracted. After categorizing them, the meaning “never” for such words is proved and the history of such structures in old and middle Iranian languages has been traced. After presenting the various ideas about the double reading aspects of the verse in question, it is concluded that not only it is not wrong to assume the adverb as relating to the verb “نمیرد”, but also it is more probable that the poet has considered it as the adverb of relative sentence (نمیرد همیشه).
تبلیغات
