卜辭歷經百年來的學者研究，部分問題仍存有討論空間，本文藉由前人的已有成果上重新予以反思與檢討。文中論及：（一）「亦」處於動詞與否定詞之間，僅能視作副詞結構，未能通假作「夜」；（二）卜辭「□方」的「□」非「曷」字，「曷」字下方筆畫是由「匄」演變而來；（三）卜辭中僅存有「周」，過去釋為「周方」者，則應更正為「盧方」；（四）卜辭「□（登）」、「□（□）」未能等同，二者文例差異甚大。

Despite a-hundred-year scholarly research on oracle bone inscriptions, some questions in this field remain theoretically indeterminate and therefore it is not a satisfactory state of affairs. Based on previous research findings, this article reviews and reflects on the following points. Firstly, the word ＂亦＂ (and/also) could be only regarded as an adverb located between a verb and a negative word, rather than the word ＂夜＂ (night) derived from the method of phonetic loan. Secondly, ＂□＂ in the inscriptive words ＂□方＂ did not refer to ＂曷＂ (an interrogative word). The strokes of the lower part of ＂曷＂ was derived from ＂匄＂ (beseech). Thirdly, oracle bone inscriptions contained only the word ＂周＂ (Zhou) but not ＂周方＂ (state Zhou). Therefore, we should correct the previous misinterpretation of ＂周方＂ as ＂盧方＂ (state Lu). Fourthly, the word ＂□＂ (to step or tread on) was not an equivalent to the word ＂□＂ (to offer/supply) in oracle bone inscriptions. The meanings of the two words varied considerably.