『四聲通解』의 魚語御韻과 模姥暮韻에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』의 비교 연구

曲曉雲 ( Qu Xiaoyun ) 한국중국언어학회 2021 중국언어연구 Vol.- No.94

本文對崔世珍在≪四聲通解≫魚語御韻和模姥暮韻標註≪蒙古韻略≫何音的字與≪蒙古字韻≫做的比較分析結果如下: 1) 除了「遽」等字的訓民正音轉寫「:뀨」應改為「·뀨」、「貯」等字的訓民正音轉寫「쥬」應改為「:쥬」、「戍」等字的訓民正音轉寫「슈」應改為「·슈」外, ≪四聲通解≫魚語御韻和模姥暮韻所引≪蒙古韻略≫小韻字讀音與≪蒙古字韻≫完全一致。但≪蒙古韻略≫和≪蒙古字韻≫在收錄字上存在不同。 2) 漢語[-əw]音的≪蒙古字韻≫八思巴字轉寫為/-uw/, ≪蒙古韻略≫的訓民正音轉寫為/-əw/。八思巴字轉寫/-uw/與漢語拼音的/-ou/類似, 訓民正音的轉寫與IPA標記一致。 3) 「醵」在≪蒙古字韻≫裡有平聲 [giu]和入聲 [giεw]二音, 但在≪蒙古韻略≫裡還有去聲[giu]一音;「柱」在≪蒙古字韻≫裡有上聲 [dʒiu]一音, 在≪蒙古韻略≫裡還有上聲 [t∫iu]和去聲 [giu]二音;「紵」在≪蒙古字韻≫裡有上聲 [dʒiu]一音, 在≪蒙古韻略≫裡還有上聲 [t∫iu]一音。「輸」在≪蒙古字韻≫裡有平聲 [∫iu]一音, 在≪蒙古韻略≫裡還有去聲 [∫iu]一音。 4) ≪四聲通解≫的收錄字以≪洪武正韻≫為基準, 在≪洪武正韻≫、≪蒙古韻略≫均收錄並且在二書中的讀音一致的收錄在先, 不標註≪蒙古韻略≫何音;二書讀音不一致的漢字收錄在其後, 并標註≪蒙古韻略≫何音。崔世珍在≪四聲通解≫裡添加了≪洪武正韻≫未收錄的「續添字」, 一些「續添字」也見於≪蒙古字韻≫, 本文推測, 這樣的「續添字」可能也收錄在≪蒙古韻略≫。 5) ≪蒙古字韻≫和≪蒙古韻略≫有魚母一聲紐, 八思巴字轉寫為/’-/, 有別于喩母的/j-/, 但是崔世珍的轉寫均為/ㅇ/, 所以二母的實際音值均為零聲母[ø-]。 6) ≪蒙古字韻≫魚韻(≪蒙古韻略≫魚語御韻) 有[-u]、[-iu]兩個韻母, 但是[-iu]中的[i]受其後圓唇母音u的影響, 實際音值為接近圓唇[y]的一個音, 所以八思巴字轉寫為/ė/, 訓民正音裡無這樣的元音, 並且帶有圓唇性質的[i]與純粹的[i]在音位上不構成對立, 所以訓民正音轉寫為[i]。通過≪蒙古字韻≫魚韻(≪蒙古韻略≫魚語御韻) 的八思巴字和訓民正音的轉寫, 證明漢語的[y]韻母在≪蒙古字韻≫(≪蒙古韻略≫) 成書的時代還未產生。 7) 崔世珍在≪四聲通解≫魚語御韻和模姥暮韻引用的包括「迂」在內的≪古今韻會≫的記錄均與≪古今韻會擧要≫一致。花登正宏(1997:71) 主張從崔世珍的注釋可以證明崔世珍所見「韻會」為≪古今韻會≫, 而非≪古今韻會擧要≫, 這一主張是錯誤的。 Choi Se-Jin makes a comparative analysis of the pronunciation of some words marked “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” in “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae” Yú (魚), Yǔ (語), Yù (御) and Mú (模) Mǔ (姥) Mù (暮) Rhyme. This paper makes a comparative analysis of these words and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, and the results are as follows: 1) The Chinese [-əu] sound is translated into /-uw/ in the Phags-pa character of “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”. The Hunminjeongeum of “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” is translated into /--əw /. The transliteration of the Phags-pa character /-uw/ is similar to the /-ou/ of Hanyu Pinyin, and the transliteration of the Hunminjeongeum is consistent with the IPA mark. 2) “醵” has 平聲 [giu] and 入聲 [giεw] in “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, but there is 平聲 [giu] and 入聲 [giεw] and 去聲 [giu] in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” ; “柱” has 上聲 [dʒiu] in “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”,but there is 上聲 [dʒiu] and 上聲 [t∫iu] and 去聲 [giu] in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” ; “紵” has 上聲 [dʒiu] in “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, but there is 上聲 [dʒiu] and 上聲 [t∫iu] in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” ; “輸” has 平聲 [∫iu] in “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, but there is 平聲 [∫iu] and 去聲 [∫iu] in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” ; 3) The included words of “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae” are based on “Hongwu Zhengyun”. The words with the same pronunciation in Hongwu Zhengyun and “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” are included first, and The words with inconsistent pronunciation in the two books are included later, and marked with he Yin of “Mongolian Rhyme”. Choi Se-Jin added “續添字” which is not included in “Hongwu Zhengyun” in “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae”, some of which can also be found in “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”. This paper speculates that such “續添字” may also be included in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe”. 4) “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” have 魚母, and the Basiba character is /’- /, which is different from the 喩母’s / j- /, but Choi Se-Jin’s transliteration is /ㅇ/, So the actual sound values of the two initials are both zero consonants [ø-]. 5) The “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” Rhymes of Yú (魚) (“Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” Rhymes of Yú (魚), Yǔ (語), Yù (御)) has two vowels [-u] and [-iu], but the [i] in [-iu] is affected by the subsequent lip vowel u, and the actual sound value is close to that of the lips [y], so the Phags-pa character is pronounced as /ė/, Hunminjeongeum does not have such a vowel, And there is no phoneme opposition between the lip-sensitive [i] and the essential [i], so the Hunminjeongeum is called [i]. Through the transliteration of the Phags-pa and Hunminjeongeum of the “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” Rhymes of Yú (魚) (“Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” Rhymes of Yú (魚), Yǔ (語), Yù (御)), Prove that [y] vowels were not generated at the time of “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” (“Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe”)’s writing. 6) Cui Shizhen’s records of “Gu Jin Yun Hui”, including “迂”, are consistent with the “Gu Jin Yun Hui Ju Yao”. Masahiro Hanato (1997:71) argued that it can be clarified from Cui Shizhen’s notes that the “rhyming meeting” seen by Cui Shizhen is “ancient and modern rhyming meeting” rather than “ancient and modern rhyming meeting”, which is wrong.

헬리콥터 설계기술 및 개발 동향

유경민,Yu, Gyeong-Min 한국항공우주산업진흥협회 1994 航空宇宙 Vol.18 No.-

로스 번역본과 후대 번역본의 어휘 문체적 영향 관계 연구

유경민(Yu, Kyung Min) 한국기독교역사연구소 2022 한국기독교와 역사 Vol.- No.57

한국어 번역 성경을 표기를 기준으로 크게 나누면 한글전용문 성경과 국한혼용문 성경으로 나눌 수 있다. 국한혼용문 성경은 한국어 번역 성경이 민중에 국한되지 않고, 지도층에게까지, 우리 민족의 각계각층에 전파되어 오늘날의 기독교 부흥에 이를 수 있게 한 간행물이었다는 점에 의의가 있다. 15세기(1443)부터 이미 우리는 우리 문자를 가지고 있었지만 우리는 우리말과 우리글을 제대로 쓸 줄 몰랐고, 쓸 수 없었다. 우리만의 문자가 있으면서도 활용할 줄 몰랐던 우리에게 한글전용문으로 성경을 번역하여 배포한 로스와 한국인 조사(助事) 및 권서인(勸書人)들은 우리 민족에게 제2의 독립투사와도 같은 존재들이다. 로스는 절대 다수의 평민을 위해 한글전용문 성경을 간행하였다. 그러나 이는 표기의 특징이고, 실제 로스본에는 많은 한자어가 쓰였다. 본 연구에서는 한글전용문인 로스 번역본에 다른 번역본보다 많은 한글 표기 한자어가 있다는 것을 밝힐 수 있었다. 또, 로스 번역본에서만 확인되는 번역어가 중간에 버려졌다가 현대어 번역을 할 때 다시 활용된 예들도 살폈다. 로스본을 중심으로 역대 번역 성경의 대조를 통하여 방언 사전에도 등재되어 있지 않은 서북 방언의 여러 유형과 활용형도 제시되었다. 로스 번역본 간의 대비를 통해 의주 방언이 중앙어로 수정되는 과정과 고유어 표현으로 수정된 예를 실증할 수 있었다. 성경 번역과 같이 동일 원문을 대상으로 시기별로 번역되는 텍스트는 동일문화권의 과거와 현재를 잇는 소통구가 된다. The Korean Bible is divided into two parts based on the notation. It is meaningful that the Korean-language Bible and the Korean-Chinese mixed Bible were not limited to the people, but were also disseminated to leaders and to all levels of the Korean people, leading to the revival of Christianity today. From the 15th century (1443), we already had our own letters, but we didn’t know how to write our language and our writing properly, and we couldn’t. Ross and Korean investigators and scribes who translated and distributed the Bible into Korean-only texts to us, who had our own texts but did not know how to use them, are like a second independence fighter to our people. Ross published the Bible dedicated to Hangeul for the absolute majority of commoners. However, this is a characteristic of notation, and many Sino-Korean word were actually used in Ross translation. In this study, it was possible to reveal that there are more Korean characters in the Ross translation, which is a Korean-only text, than other translations. In addition, examples of translation words that are only confirmed in the Ross translation were discarded in the middle and then used again when translating modern languages were examined. Through the contrast of the translation Bible in the past, centering on Rosbon, various types and applications of the Northwest dialect that were not registered in the dialect dictionary were also presented. Through the contrast between the Ross translations, it was possible to demonstrate the process of modifying the Uiju dialect into the central language and the example of modifying it into the expression of the local tongue expressions. The texts, like the Bible versions of the same original text translated per period, are the communication channel of linking between the past and the present of the same cultural area.

사상의 정착과 번역어의 선택에 대한 언어 문화적 연구 -‘사도’, ‘선지자’, ‘교사’를 중심으로-

유경민 ( Yu Kyung-min ) 국제어문학회(구 국제어문학연구회) 2020 국제어문 Vol.0 No.84

본 연구의 목적은 현대 한국어 성경에서 ‘사도’, ‘선지자’, ‘교사’로 번역된 기독교 직분 용어가 성경의 수정과 개역 과정 속에서 어떻게 변화되어 왔는지, 그것이 성경 내용의 이해에 어떤 영향을 주었는지를 고찰하며 새로운 사상의 언어적 번역 과정과 토착화의 관계를 밝히는 것이다. 개신교의 번역 성경은 중세국어 시기부터 있어온 문헌도 아니고, 개신교가 불교나 유교처럼 한 시대의 국교로서 영향력을 발휘했던 적도 없고, 언해서처럼 국가 기관에서 그 간행을 주관한 적도 없는 텍스트이다. 이러한 역사적 사실들이 개신교 번역서가 불교나 유교 언해서만큼 정제되지 않았을 것이라는 고정관념을 형성하였고, 번역 성경에는 전통적이거나 일상적인 어휘보다는 서양어의 번역 전문어가 더 많아 우리의 어문 생활과 큰 상관 관계가 없을 것이라는 편견까지 만들었다. 그러나 한국어 번역 성경의 간행 이전에 그렇게 방대한 양의 국문 전용이나 국한혼용문 텍스트가 만들어진 적이 없었고, 우리 스스로 한국어의 문법과 표기법을 고민하기 전에 한국어 문법에 대한 근대 학문적 문법서와 이중어사전을 서양 선교사이 집필하였다. 이러한 사실만으로도 선교사들이 남긴 방대한 양의 한국어 번역 성경의 국어사적 연구의 필요성과 의의는 충분하다. 특별히 ‘사도, 선지자, 교사’에 주목하는 이유는 성경에 이들이 첫 번째 단계의 리더로 정의되어 있어 번역어의 선택에 있어 더욱 신중했을 것으로 보이기 때문이다. This study explores how the translated words of Christian offices, ‘apostle,’ ‘prophet,’ and ‘teacher’ have been modified or replaced in the Korean version of the Bible for 130 years. This study also examines how these modifications or replacements have affected the understanding of the Bible in Korea. Because ‘apostle,’ ‘prophet,’ and ‘teacher’ are ordinary words that are used by Koreans in daily life, this study regarding the sematic transition of those words is meaningful for understanding about the transition of words into Korean everyday language. This study also focuses on the process of selecting a specific word among several synonyms as a translated word. Therefore, this study focuses on the indigenization of religious thought brought into Korean society, and aims for the exposition of the relationship between the linguistic translation and indigenization of a new thought. The Korean version of the Bible, which is not a literature of the Middle ages when our life of Korean language created, is unlike the Korean translation and publication of Buddhist or Confucian scriptures that were led by natural institutes. In addition, Christianity has differed from Buddhism or Confucianism which have strongly affected Korean culture on the level of a national religion or ideology. These facts shape the prejudice in our minds that the Korean Bible is linguistically less refined, compared with the Korean version of Buddhist or Confucian scriptures. Moreover, the Korean Bible has not affected our language life due to the lack of ordinary vocabulary in it. Therefore, scholars have not duly examined the Korean Bible in comparison with the Korean version of Buddhist or Confucian scriptures. However, before the publication of the Korean Bible, there was not a significant number of purely Korean text related to Christianity. In addition, American missionaries in Korea launched the scholarly establishment of Korean grammar since the late 19^th century, when Koreans did not establish a keen sense of Korean grammar and orthography. Therefore, I intend to verify the significance of examining the Korean Bible as the most voluminous masterpiece of missionaries. This study particularly focuses on specific words, such as ‘apostle’, ‘prophet’ and ‘teacher’ because the Bible regulates them as leaders who have responsibility to appoint and edify elders and deacons.

“X하-”와 “X되-” 및 “X시키-”의 대응쌍 연구

유경민 ( Gyeong Min Yu ) 국어학회 2005 국어학 Vol.0 No.46

<특집>한국어 교육의 오늘 : 개신교 선교사가 정리한 한국어 속담과 수수께끼 연구 -외국인의 한국 언어 문화 습득에 대한 고찰을 중심으로-

유경민 ( Kyung Min Yu ) 한국민족연구원 2014 민족연구 Vol.0 No.59

This paper studies the lists of Korean proverbs and conundrums published in KOREAN REPOSITORY and KOREA REVIEW. The lists of Korean proverbs and conundrums reported in this paper are significant for foreign missionaries collected and arranged the originals for themselves. Through the considerations of these linguistic materials which were sorted by foreigners in the late 19th century to the early 20th century, the first purpose of this paper is to understand not only the characteristics of Korean language but those of Korean society and culture on those days. Furthermore, the other purpose of this paper is to examine that what this paper should consider in the field of contemporary Korean language education by studying the foreigners who were interested in Korea tried to learn Korean language and what they thought of Korea highly. This paper surveys Korean proverbs and conundrums by dividing rather vehicle than tenor, and systematize the specific vocabularies of high frequency which were used in the proverbs and conundrums. This is the way of study to examine the language using aspects of Korean people, and to analyze the vocabulary preferences of Korean. This conclusion will be utilized for selecting the vocabularies to non-mother tongue learners.

‘잔나비’의 형태 및 의미 연구

유경민(Yu Kyung-min) 어문연구학회 2016 어문연구 Vol.88 No.-

한국어 문헌 자료에서 ‘원숭이’는 18세기 말부터, ‘납’은 15세기부터 쓰인 명칭으로 확인된다. 17세기부터는 ‘납/납이/나비’와 함께 ‘/  /  / 잣 /잔’이 결합된 ‘/  납 ’ 형태가쓰였다. 선행 요소 ‘/  /  / 잣 /잔’은 결합 초기에는 ‘납’에 어떤 추가적인 의미를 부여하기 위해 결합된 것이었을 테지만, 그 어형이 굳어져 곧 ‘납’과 ‘잔납’은 同義語처럼 쓰였던 것으로확인된다. ‘잔나비’의의미를규명하는과정에서문제가되는 것은선행요소인 ‘ᄌ’과‘’ 이 같은시대의문헌들에서확인된다는것이다. 선행연구중에‘’ 의 형태를설명하기 위해 ‘잔나비’의 의미를 “灰색 원숭이(잿빛 원숭이)”라고 밝힌 것도 있으나 그 형태변화나 변천 과정에 대하여 설득력 있는 설명을 제시하지 못하였기에 ‘납’의 선행요소의 정체는 여전히 문제로 남아 있다. 이에 본고에서는 선행 요소인 ‘잔’ 관련 어형들을 설명하기 위하여, 통시적 자료들을 살피며, 유사한 음운 변화를 보이는 다른 단어들의 변천을 함께 고찰하여 그 어원적 실체를 밝힌다. 형태적으로, ‘나 비 ’가‘잔나비’가되기까지의과정을생각해보았을때, 가장문제가되는 것은 ‘ ’가 무엇인가 하는 것이다. 우선은, 명사의 수식형인가, 용언의 관형형인가를 밝혀야 한다. 본고에서는 ‘- ’이 ‘- ’가 되는 것을 설명한다. 이는 ‘/ㄹ/→/j/’ 음운 변화현상의 한 예로, ‘대구’의 俗地名이 ‘달구(벌)’임을 밝힌 선행 연구에 기대어 설명할 수 있다. 다음으로, ‘- ’의 ‘ㅅ’의 문제이다. 이 ‘ㅅ’은 일종의 ‘수식 표지’로서 차자표기 및 언해 본 자료에서도 확인되었던 것으로, 명사나 용언을 수식할 때 쓰였던 형태이다. 이 또한기존의 ‘ㅅ’형 수식 표지에 대한 연구 결과를 수용하여 설명한다. 이렇게 ‘- ’이 ‘- ’가 되 고, 여기에 수식 표지 ‘ㅅ’이 결합하여 ‘- +ㅅ+납+-이〉납 이 ’가 된 것이다. ‘- ’의 수식형인 ‘- ’과 ‘- ’의 수식형인 ‘- ’은 , 하향성 이중모음()과 단모음( · /ㅏ)의 공존현상으로 설명할 수 있다. 이는 ‘ - →  - /  - → 만들-’, ‘ - →아끼-’, ‘기리 -→기다리-’ 등의 예에서도 확인할 수 있는 음운 현상이다. 의미적으로는, 한문소설이나 한시에서 ‘잔나비’와 관련된 표현이 풍부한 만큼 그것이 갖는 의미도 다양하다. 원숭이의 울음소리를 이미지화하여 “如怨如慕함”이나 “애절함”을 드러내기도 하고, 얼굴 생김새는 “못생기거나 모자란 인간”에 빗대어지고, 신체(팔의 길이)는 “호걸”에 비유되었다. 또, 행동거지의 빠름과 날렵함이 부각되어 “輕擧妄動”을 나타내기도 하였다. 문헌 자료에서 확인되는 이러한 의미와 이미지는 현대국어의 속담이나 관용구, 속어에도 그대로 반영되어 활용되고 있어 어렵지 않게 이해할 수 있다. 즉, ‘- ’은 “[小], [些], [細]” 등의 구체적 지시물로서의 중심의미에서, 긍정적으로는 폭넓은 “[親愛]”의 의미를 나타내고, 부정적으로는 광범위한 “[輕視]”의 의미로 확장되어 쓰였음을 국어사적 문헌 자료들을 통해 확인한다. ‘잔나비’는 국어 및 문학 교과서에 실린 문학 작품들에서도 확인되는 단어이기 때문에 국어교육적 차원에서도 그 형태와 의미가 규명되어야 할 단어이다. This paper is intended to provide that one called ‘납 is gray monkeys’ in previous studies. The first purpose of this paper is to find out the wordform mixed in the same representation ‘납’, ralated to the name of animals. Secondly, to study the relation among ‘납’, ‘나비’, ‘ 납’, ‘납 ’, ‘잔납이’, ‘잔나비’, ‘원숭이’ and to explain these. Thirdly, regarding ‘잔나비’, the word form of ‘납 , 납 , 납 , 잣납, 잔납’ is investigated and the meaning of ‘잔나비’ is figured out. In order to trace an origin of ‘잔나비’, it is necessary to research and analyze the dialectal form and word form which have been showed in literature since Pre-Modern of Korean. There is little preceding study about ‘잔나비’. However ‘잔나비’ has been used informally as the meaning of ‘원숭이’(as the one of Chinese Zodiac sign). There, the study of origin and meaing of ‘잔나비’ is highly required at this point of time. ‘나 비 ’ is ‘- ’ a s the result changed to ‘- ’, which is described by the phonological process of ‘/ㄹ/→/j/’. This is an example of the same kind, 'Dalgubeol' as another name for the 'Daegu'. ‘납 → 잣납’, ‘납 → 잔납’ were monophthongization of diphthongs, i. e. ‘→ㅏ’. These are examples that coexist in the same period. Semantically, ‘납’ and ‘잔납’ are synonymous and ‘- ’ i s Polysemy. ‘-’ is an adjective representing a meaning, such a "[小], [些], [細]". And, a central meaning is positively extended to the showed the meaning of “[親愛]”, negative has been expanded by means of the “[輕視]”. ‘JANNABI' is a word that can be identified form and meaning in Korean educational level. This is because it is a word that is confirmed by the literature published in the middle and high school textbooks.

‘自由’의 용언형과 다의화에 대한 어휘론적 접근

유경민 ( Kyungmin Yu ) 한국외국어대학교 언어연구소 2021 언어와 언어학 Vol.- No.94

In the Chinese character culture, the word ‘自由’ was re-established after a period of chaos in the process of modernization. The purpose of this study is to explain the traditional meaning of ‘自由’ and the meaning and usage patterns created under the influence of Western modernization with a lexical approach in connection with the cultural background of the times. In the 21st century, the word ‘jayu’ is used not only in multiple ways, but also in various forms and syntactical terms. The forms of 'jayu', 'jayuha-', 'jayulop-', and 'jayuslop-' are being used. However, in modern Korean, ‘jayuha-’ is an expression that is only found in Bible texts.

『新約全書 국한문』(1906)의 용언의 한자어화

유경민(Yu, Kyung-min) 국어국문학회 2012 국어국문학 Vol.- No.162

Since the publication of the first-ever translation in 1882 of Gospel of Luke(『예수셩교누가복음젼셔』) into pure Korean (Hangul), all Korea bibles were published only in Hangul until 1906 when the New Testament(NT henceforth) in Mixed Script(Hangul and Chinese characters, the so-called Kukhanmun or Sunhanmun). It is believed generally that in the New Testament in Mixed Script(1906) version all words including native words were turned into Sino-Korean. The purpose of this paper is to reveal the principle and process of Sino-Koreanization of New Testament in Mixed Script(1906). There are two different methods of Sino-Koreanization. One by replacing native words with sino-korean words, the other by replacing Sino-korean with another Sino-korean. And there are also two principles of Sino-Koreanization. The first one is to put chinese characters to every word. The other one is to keep the word order of Korean.

한국어 번역 성경의 외래어 표기 연구

유경민(Yu, Kyung-Min) 한국어문학회 2018 語文學 Vol.0 No.140

This study investigated the loanword orthography of bible translated into Korean regarding personal and place names. By examining the way in which society adopts loan words from the bible, the study aimed to find similar significant principles regarding Korean translation. The study found that the translation of a common noun is a semantic translation, and the translation of proper nouns such as personal and place names accepts a loan word in the form of a phonetic translation. In other words, it revealed that the common nouns and proper nouns are recognized and translated differently in the process of translation. In the process of phonetic translation, issues regarding phoneme notation and syllable recognition arise. This study took a close look at notation examples relating to these two issues. Korean-translated bibles published between the 19th and 20th century used as an object of Korean language study provides valuable insight into the shaping of Korean language throughout history via identified loan words. Thus, the study identified important linguistic principles for foreign translation and loanword orthography. Further comparison with other texts or documents still remains to be completed, providing fertile ground for future research.