http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
異體字 聲符 分析을 통한 聲符의 意味表出考察 - 丏 · 面 · 免 · 臱을 중심으로 -
김애영 중앙대학교 외국학연구소 2013 외국학연구 Vol.- No.24
You-Wen-Shuo(右文說) that Phominic Component is not only including sound but also have possibility being in charge of meaning expression had been proven by several researches. This paper is a form of proving part of that theory but the varients are the main subject in this study. In the process of consideration in phominic components exchanged varients, in the basis on the group of words which have similar or same pronunciation, only special words can be used for varients. The relation between varients, which can be developed by the group of characters, are considerate it's meaning relations. In the study, above all, four types of these 丏․面․免․臱 phominic component's original meaning, characters includes one of these phonimic components, varients were composed with these phonimic components are being studied and see what does phominic component takes part in it's meaning. The result of study show that 丏․面 are used interchangeably when it means 'can not see' and 丏․面․臱 are used when it means 'fine'. Also 丏․面 are used as both meaning of 'face and wide' and it is confirmed.
金愛英,金始衍 중국어문학회 2002 中國語文學誌 Vol.12 No.-
本論文幷不僅僅把硏究的重点放在筆劃和偏旁上, 而是根据中國傳統的文字分析法--六書的理論再次進行深入地硏究, 以《中華字海》中收錄的異體字爲硏究對象, 考察這些異體字的發展規律。 一般來說, 漢字是從獨體字向合體字、 表意字向表音字發展的, 然后又傾向于强化字形簡化。 考察結果表明: 異體字的形成、 變化的過程也和大部分漢字發展的一般規律相類似。 當然也有與一般漢字的發展規律相違背的異體字, 這樣的異體字叫特殊異體字。 在《中華字海》的8万5千多개字漢字中只조到124개特殊異體字。 從數量上看, 這些特殊異體字在全體異體字中所古的比率幷不大, 大部分的異體字還是沿襲漢字發展的一般規律, 傾向于合體化、 表音化。
김애영,김용수,하상도 한국식품위생안전성학회 2010 한국식품위생안전성학회지 Vol.25 No.3
Currently, in vitro suspension tests using tubes are used as a authorized test method for sanitizers and disinfectants. However, the methods could not accurately assess the efficacy of sanitizers and disinfectant on the food-contacted surfaces in the field. This study evaluated the effectiveness of 5 kinds of representative sanitizers and disinfectants against E. coli and S. aureus to compare three quantitative surface testing methods that have been internationally standardized. As a result, the ASTM E2111-05 (ASTM(1)) test method obtained 5.18 ± 0.03 and 5.27 ±0.04 log cfu/carrier reduction in dealing with E. coli and S. aureus, respectively, the ASTM E2197-02 (ASTM(2)) test method obtained 4.63 ± 0.04 and 3.97 ± 0.03 log cfu/carrier reduction and the CEN EN 13697 test method should 6.14 ± 0.05 and 5.31 ± 0.10 log cfu/carrier reduction in clean condition (CEN(1)) but 4.37 ± 0.02 and 4.06 ± 0.01 log cfu/carrier reduction in dirty condition (CEN(2)). Among them, CEN(1) showed the highest bactericidal effects,whereas ASTM(2) and CEN(2) revealed low performance (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the bactericidal effects of the ASTM(2) method and the CEN EN 13697 method adopting stainless steel were lower than the ASTM(1) method,which uses glass. The effectiveness assessment results among nationally accredited test methods were different each other. This implies that they could not fit for in the accurate evaluation of sanitization and disinfection on food-contact surfaces in practical food-processing fields. These results could be used as a basic data for establishment of an official surface test methods applicable in the field.