http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
ㅎㆍ다' 語詞의 性格에 대하여 : 누러ㅎㆍ다類와 엇더ㅎㆍ다類를 중심으로
李賢熙 한신대학교 1985 한신논문집 Vol.2 No.-
The notion that a diachronic study may be based on a synchronic study has already been suggested by F. de Saussure. This thesis aims to reconsider the Problems in the conjugations of 「h??ta」-suffixed adjectives in Present-day Korean by analyzing the structures and aspects of the conjugations of these adjectives. In this thesis, 「h??ta」-suffixed adjectives are investigated by dividing them into classes-「nur∂h??ta」 (be red) classes and 「att∂h??ta」 (be likely what) classes. The summary of this thesis is as follows: fnurahntaj classes (uur∂h??ta, p^(h)arah??ta, palgah??ta, hayah??ta, k∂m∂h??ta, etc.) originally stem from the construction 「Adjstem+-a/∂ h??ta」, At first, this construction znerely emphasized the adjective's meaning, but later it besame as an integral patt of the adjective. 「*h??yta」 is reconstructed as the source of the form 「hata」.- From this reconstruction, the forms 「h??ya, h??yom, etc.」 , which show the morphologically-conditioned alternations, are explained easily as those of the phonologically-conditioned alternations. 「h??ta」 in Middle Korean is derived from 「*h??yta」 by the /j/ interlude rule. In addition to the /nur??lta~nur??ta/ and /p^(h)??r??lta~p^(b)??r??ta/alternations, it is suggested that 「*nulta」 and 「*p^(h)??lta」 existed earlier than the 15th century, because the forms of syntagmatizing the converbial ending 「-a/∂」 to 「p^(b)??r??lta」 and 「p^(b)??r??ta」 are not 「p^(h)??r∂」, bat 「p^(h)??r??r∂」, This fact is supported by the alternations /ur??Ita~ur??ta~ulta/ in Middle Korean and the forms 「nulnulhata」 (be very red), 「p^(h)ulp^(h)ulhata」 (be very young or powerful) in Present-day Korean. The 「∂tt∂h??ta, ∂ttih??ta, ∂tty∂h??ta, ∂tty∂yh??ta」 classes are discussed. 「am??rah??ta, k??r∂h??ta, ir∂h??ta, etc.」 belong to this 「∂tt∂h??ta」 classes. 「-ti」 of 「∂ttih??ta」 and 「-t∂」of「∂tt∂h??ta」 are considered as separate morphemes. 「∂tty∂h??ta」 is the syntagma of the suffix 「-h??ta」 to the converbial form 「∂tty∂」 of 「∂ttih??ta」. This converbial form 「∂tty∂」 is produced on the analogy of that of 「anih??ta」 (not do), namely, 「auy∂」. The derivational adverbial form of this 「∂tty∂h??ta」 is 「∂tty∂y」, and the syntagmatized form of 「-h??ta」 suffixed to 「∂tty∂y」 is 「∂tty∂yh??ta」. Moreover, it is suggested that 「-ti, -t∂, -ty∂, -ty∂y」 be regarded as separate morphemes an the Basis of 「say, *sayri, sayr∂, sayry∂, sayry∂y, sayro」 (newly). Beraum of an accidentat gap in the Middle Korean verb system, 「*iry∂h??ta, *∂ttoh??ta, *am??roh??ta」 are not found in the documents, of the four classes, only the 「∂ttih??ta」 classes and 「∂tt∂h??ta」 classes, therefore, survived after the 15th century. 「-h??-」 of 「nur∂h??ta」 classes and 「∂tt∂h??ta」 classes is alternated with 「-h-」 before the /k, t, p, c/-initiated endings, with 「-Ø-」 before the /n, m, I/-initiated endings, and with 「-h??-」 before the other phoneme-initiated endings. From the above diseussions, the struetures and aspects of the mnjugations of rhetaj-suffixed adjectives are illuminated in some detail.
이현희 진단학회 2004 진단학보 Vol.- No.98
This paper aims to examine Su-Gwang Lee(Jibong)'s understanding of Korean Linguistics in Jibong-ryuseol. The entire understanding of the text was focused on in this paper. His concept of the origin of Han-geul which is told in the present day was actually concerned with the similarity of the shape of letters, not concerned with its origin itself. His etymology was roughly reasonable, but was partially based on Chinese writing or Sino-Korean. Five Agents (Ohaeng) was assigned by him according to the theory of the Book of Music, not according to the theory of the Book of Changes. This management was different from that of the Hun-min-jeong-eum in the 15th century. 이 글은 芝峰 李 光의 『芝峰類說』에 담겨 있는 국어학적 인식에 대하여 살피고자 하는 목적으로 작성되었다. 이 글에서는 『芝峰類說』이라는 텍스트의 온전한 이해의 관점에서 그에 포함되어 있는 국어학적 기술들을 파악하려고 하였다. 이 문헌의 텍스트적 짜임새는 20권 10책의 목판본으로서 내용상 25部로 분류되어 있으며, 크게는 182項으로 더 나누어지고 전체적으로는 3,435條에 이르는 것이었다. 기존의 업적에서 정음기원론과 관련하여 주목된, 권 18의 '我國諺書字樣, 全倣梵字'라는 기사는 우리 문자의 기원에 대한 내용이 아니라 글자체의 유사성에 대한 언급이라고 결론을 내렸다. 그의 어원론은 대체로 타당한 것이 많았으나, 한자나 한문의 쓰임새에 이끌린 견해도 많았다. 五行의 배정은 易理에 따른 것이 아니라 樂理에 따른 것임이 밝혀졌다. 이것은 『訓民正音』의 <制字解>가 易理의 五行으로 논의한 사실과 배치되는 것이었다.