明代張自烈《正字通》「𠧪」字下引用《石鼓文》「條作𠧪」，由於只有三個字，筆者根據《正字通》「𠧪」字其他的文字說明，目前將其理解為「讀為『條』的這個字，在《石鼓文》中寫成『𠧪』形」。由於《石鼓文》字形殘泐，筆者初步無法判斷張自烈所言的「𠧪」形所指為何。為了嘗試找出《石鼓文》中可能寫作「𠧪」形的字，筆者從《說文》「𠧪」字所從的篆形「」出發，根據「■」形下方最具特色的中間部件類圈之形，瀏覽比對《石鼓文》今日所見摹本或拓本的形體，找出了「■（鑾車）」、「■（車工）」、「■（車工）」、「■（田車）」、「■（作原）」、「■（作原）」、「■（霝雨）」、「■（吳人）」等可能被視為「𠧪」的八個形體，進行深入的資料蒐羅、比對、分析等，從中看到學者們不同說法的優點以及缺漏，最後得出「■（車工）」、「■（田車）」、「■（作原）」、「■（作原）」等四形與 「𠧪」形較為相關，期望對於「𠧪」的構形理解有更進一步的釐清與認識。

　　In the Ming dynasty, Zhang Zilie’s Zhengzitong cites the phrase “條作𠧪” from the Shiguwen under the entry for the character “𠧪”. Since this citation consists of only three characters, I have interpreted it, based on the additional explanations provided in Zhengzitong, as meaning: “The character read as ‘條’ appears in the Shiguwen in the form of ‘𠧪’”. However, due to the damaged and eroded state of the Shiguwen inscriptions, I am initially unable to determine which specific character Zhang Zilie was referring to as “𠧪”. 　　To identify possible instances of the character “𠧪” in the Shiguwen, I started from the seal script form of “𠧪” recorded in Shuowen Jiezi (i.e., “■”), focusing on its most distinctive feature—the loop-like structure in the middle. I then examined and compared various rubbings and reproductions of the Shiguwen inscriptions available today. Through this process, I identified eight possible character forms that could correspond to “𠧪”: “■(鑾車)”, “■(車工)”, “■(車工)”, “■(田車)”, “■(作原）”,“■(作原)”, “■(霝雨)”, and “■(吳人)”. 　　By conducting an in-depth collection, comparison, and analysis of these forms, I was able to evaluate the strengths and limitations of different scholarly interpretations. 　　Ultimately, I concluded that four specific forms—“■(車工)”, “■(田車)”, “■(作原)”, and “■(作原)”—are more closely related to the form of “𠧪.” I hope this study contributes to a clearer and deeper understanding of the structural formation of the character “𠧪”.

𠧪;條作𠧪;《石鼓文》;張自烈《正字通》

𠧪“tiáo”; “條作𠧪”; Shiguwen; Zhang Zilie’s Zhengzitong