The Disputed Sentence in ZZ2 (2)

In regard to Zhuangzi, Bryan Van Norden writes:

>So, here is my question for this list: Can the relevant sentence be read as a question? The Chinese is

>So, my question is this: Can we read the disputed sentence as a rhetorical question? And, if so, on the basis of what evidence? Can anyone provide an unambiguous case in which QI2 is used to turn a sentence into a question *without the addition of another interrogative word*?

I have four Chinese editions of the Zhuangzi. Two have no punctuation besides periods, but the two that do use full punctuation both punctuate the above sentence as a question. So among Chinese editors this sentence is typically read as a rhetorical question, though that of course doesn't prove that it is a rhetorical question.

If I remember correctly, a YAN1 at the end of a sentence excludes a YE3 (assertion marker) or YI3 (perfective particle) that might otherwise have been placed there. Offhand, without doing some research, I don't know whether a YAN1 excludes an interrogative word as well, but I suspect it might. Does anyone know of a sentence in the pre-Qin literature in which YAN1 is followed by an interrogative particle?

By the way, I think the most puzzling sentence in the "zhenjun" passage is not the "disputed" sentence quoted above, but the one following it.

Date created: 10/28/96
Last modified: 10/28/96
Questions? Contact: Stephen C. Angle