書紀・歌謡九七の「武須弥陀例」における 「弥」の読みについて

Abstract

In this research, I focused on the fact that “弥” in “武須弥陀例(musubidare)” of Nihonsyoki kayou 97 is used as a pseudonym for “bi(ビ)”.　“弥” mainly used as a pseudonym for ｍi(ミ) is used as a pseudonym for bi(ビ) in kayou 97.　Among the scripts used in the Nihonsyoki kayou, “弥, 弭, 寐” is the one that fulfills the condition of “ｍi(ミ):bi(ビ)” although it is 明system.　I did not have a relationship with　“ｍi(ミ):bi(ビ)”, but I did research with “湄” from Ono(大野) and (the researcher's)　“媚”. Looking at the character of each letter, “mi(弥)” is “meinyū(明紐) siin(支韻) sisetu(止摂) 3toukaikouji(三等開口字)”, “bi(弭)” is “meinyū(明紐) siin(紙韻) sisetu(止摂) 3toukaikouji(三等開口字)”, “bi(寐)” is “meinyū(明紐) siin(至韻) sisetu(止摂) 3toukaikouji(三等開口字)”, “mi(湄)” is “meinyū(明紐) siin(脂韻) sisetu(止摂) 3toukaikouji(三等開口字)”,　“bi(媚)” is “meinyū(明紐) siin(至韻) sisetu(止摂) 3toukaikouji(三等開口字)”,　both rhymes differ but they belong to the same vowel. However, the difference in rhyme is related to vowel, it does not involve consonants.　The difference between these five letters is in tone, “mi(弥/湄)” is “flat tones(平声)”, “bi(弭/寐/媚)” is “oblique tones(仄声)”.　In other words, “弥/湄”, which is flat tones(平声) is “mi” and “弭/寐/媚”, which is a oblique tones(仄声), appears as “bi”.　I wonder if this was a garbled characterization of the difference in tone among the 明system.　 Considering the shape of the letter and the sound value of the phonology, it is highly possible that the “弥” in the “武須弥陀例(musubidare)” of Nihonsyoki kayou 97 is “弭”.