『四聲通解』 皆解泰韻에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』의 비교 연구

곡효운 ( Qu Xiaoyun ) 한국중국언어학회 2022 중국언어연구 Vol.- No.102

本文對崔世珍在《四聲通解》皆解泰韻標註《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「罷」等字《蒙古韻略》的訓民正音轉寫「·빼」應改為「:빼」、「嘬」字《蒙古韻略》的訓民正音轉寫「쵀」應改為「쵀」、「聩」字的《蒙古韻略》訓民正音轉寫「왜」應改為「왜」外, 《四聲通解》皆解泰韻所引《蒙古韻略》韻字讀音與《蒙古字韻》完全一致(旁點未標的太多, 不在本稿校正範圍之内)的占絕大多數, 但雨書在收錄字上存在不同。 2) 在《蒙古字韻》裡讀[uei]的平聲「危 桅 巍 桅 嵬」、上聲「隗 嵬 頠」、去聲「魏 僞 磑」在『蒙古韻略』裡讀[ŋuei]。 3) 《蒙古字韻》佳韻崖小韻與《四聲通解》所引《蒙古韻略》在收錄字上完全一致, 但讀音上呈[ai]和[iai]的差異;《蒙古字韻》佳韻娃小韻與《四聲通解》所引《蒙古韻略》在收錄字上除了「噯」這個續添字和幾個異體字外都完全一致, 但平聲、上聲、去聲收錄字在讀音 上呈[ʔai]和[ʔiai]的差異, 入聲收錄字均為[ʔai]。 4) 據《四聲通解》凡例第二條和第三條可知《四聲通解》裡的「續添字」是崔世珍認為很重要的常用字、但《洪武正韻》沒有收錄的字, 即用圓圈圈住的那些字。但僅看這雨條凡例很可能陷入一個陷阱, 即《四聲通解》裡的「續添字」一定沒有收錄在《洪武正韻》。《洪武正韻》收「聩」, 但是《四聲通解》皆解泰韻疑母下收圓圈標註的「聩」。《洪武正韻》的收錄字「聩」僅有[ɦuei]—讀, 這一音也收錄在《四聲通解》的灰賄隊韻。而《四聲通解》皆解泰韻疑母下的「聩」賣[ɦuai], 《洪武正韻》不收讀的「聩」, 所以崔世珍在皆解泰韻疑母下放入「續添字」「聩」。通過「聩」這個例子, 我們可知《四聲通解》裡的「續添字」有雨種類型:一是《洪武正韻》沒有收錄的常用字;二是《洪武正韻》有收錄, 但是作為常用字使用時的讀音不同於《洪武正韻》的話, 崔世珍也會將其歸為「續添字」, 收錄在《四聲通解》。 5) 依據崔世珍的訓民正音轉寫可知, 《蒙古韻略》的魚母為零聲母, 幺母為影母。 6) 「衰」在《四聲通解》裡有[ʃuei]和[tshuei]二音, 這與「衰」在《洪武正韻》的平聲灰韻淸母倉回切、平聲灰韻審母所追切二音一致。「衰」在《洪武正韻》還有平聲歌韻心母桑何切一音, 但《四聲通解》未收錄。《四聲通解》所引《蒙古韻略》裡的「衰」有[tshuei]和[ʃuai]二音, 《蒙古字韻》裡所收「衰」有[tʄuai]和[ʃuai]二音。 7) 《四聲通解》皆解泰韻中聲「ㅒ」([-iai])起始部分有如下說明:「今俗或從ㅐ([-ai]), (蒙韻) 從ㅒ([-iai])。」”依據這個說明我們可知:在《洪武正韻》、《四聲通解》、《蒙古韻略》裡讀[-iai]的字在崔世珍親自聽到的今俗音 (當時的現實北方標準口語音)裡有的字己經從[-iai]變為[-ai]了。 8) 通過《四聲通解》皆解泰韻所引《蒙古韻略》與《蒙古字韻》的比較分析, 我們可知 《蒙古字韻》佳韻的韻母為[-ai] [-iai] [-uai]。 Choi Se-Jin makes a comparative analysis of the pronunciation of some words marked Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe in Sa-Seong-tong-Hae Jiē (皆),Jiě (解),Tài(泰) Rhyme. This paper makes a comparative analysis of these words and Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun, and the results are as follows: 1)There are two types of 續添字 in Sa-Seng-Tong-Hai: one is the frequently used Chinese characters that are not included in HongWuZhengYun, and the other is that HongWuZhengYun is included. But if the pronunciation of the frequently used Chinese characters is different from that of HongWuZhengYun, Choi Se-Jin will also classify it as 續添字. 2)According to Choi Se-Jin's Phonetic accent of Hunminjeongeum, the 魚母 of Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe are zero consonants [ø-] and 幺母 are shadow initials. 3)“jiā(佳)” rhyme of “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” have six yunmu(韻母): [-ai], [-iai] and [-uai].

『四聲通解』 眞軫震質韻에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』의 비교 연구

곡효운 ( Qu¸ Xiaoyun ) 한국중국언어학회 2023 중국언어연구 Vol.- No.108

本文對崔世珍在『四聲通解』眞軫震質韻標註『蒙古韻略』何音的字與『蒙古字韻』做的比較分析結果如下: 1) 「緊」收錄在『廣韻』和『集韻』上聲臻韻, 一般構擬為[kjen];也收錄在『中原音韻』真文韻上聲和『洪武正韻』上聲軫韻, 一般構擬為[kiən]。但「緊」的『蒙古韻略』和『蒙古字韻』讀[kiein], 不同於『洪武正韻』。 2) 「拮」在『蒙古韻略』有[kie]和[kiei]二音, 在『蒙古字韻』只有[kie]一音。 3) 「趌」在『洪武正韻』和『蒙古字韻』均有收錄, 但不收錄于『四聲通解』。理由有二:雖收錄于『蒙古韻略』但被崔世珍遺漏掉、或未收錄於『蒙古韻略』。 4) 「斤 筋 釿」等在『蒙古韻略』和『蒙古字韻』讀[kin](或者標為[kiən]), 和「緊」的『蒙古韻略』和『蒙古字韻』[kiein]讀音形成對比。 5) 「欯」未收錄于『中原音韻』, 但收錄在『廣韻』『集韻』『中州音韻』, 均讀曉母。但「欯」在『蒙古韻略』讀曉母的[xiei], 在『蒙古字韻』讀匣母的[ɣiei]。 6) 崔世珍對「贇」的『蒙古韻略』『古今韻會』讀音轉寫為「□」 。若把「□」用羅馬字轉寫, 則為/ʔiuiein/, 但實際上近代漢語不存在這樣的讀音。和「贇」一起收錄在『蒙古字韻』同一八思巴字下的「煴 氲 馧」等韻字收錄在『四聲通解』文吻問物韻[ʔiun]音下。崔世珍對這些字沒有做「『蒙古韻略』音如何」的說明, 所以「煴 氲 馧」等韻字的『蒙古韻略』讀音為([ʔiun]。所以「贇」的『蒙古韻略』音為[ʔiun]。 7) (蒙古字韻(眞韻[-iun]的八思巴字轉寫有如下三種:/-ṷin/(影母)、/-uin/(喩(魚)母)、/-ėin/(影母和喩(魚)母以外的聲母)。 Choi Se-Jin makes a comparative analysis of the pronunciation of some words marked “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” in “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae” zhēn (眞), zhěn (軫), zhèn (震), zhi (質) Rhyme. This paper makes a comparative analysis of these words and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, and the results are as follows: 1) “緊” is included in “Guang-Yun” and “Ji-Yun”, which is generally constructed as [kjen]. “緊” is also included in the true rhyme of “Zhong-Yuan-Yin-Yun” and “Hong-wu-Zheng-Yun”, which is generally constructed as [kiən]. However, “緊” is read in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” [kiein], which is different from “Hong-wu-Zheng-Yun”. 2) There are two Hunminjeongeum transliterations of Chinese [iun] pronunciation: “□” and “□”. 3) There are three kinds of translation of Basiba characters in rhyme of “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” zhēn(眞́) [-iun]: /-ṷin/ (影母), /-uin/ (喩(魚)母), and /-ėin/ (consonant other than 影母 and 喩(魚)母).

『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.

≪四聲通解≫ 『東董送屋』韻所引≪蒙古韻略≫考

곡효운 한국중국언어학회 2017 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.68

『四聲通解』 <범례>에서 주지하고 있듯이 『四聲通解』에 인용된 몽고운서는 『蒙古韻略』이다. 『蒙古韻略』이 전해 내려오지 않고 있기 때문에 『四聲通解』에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』의 내용은 아주 귀중하다. 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』이 같은 운서인지 아닌지의 문제는 학계에서도 아직 논쟁중이다. 본 논문은 『四聲通解』 「東董送屋」韻에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』의 기록과 대영박물관에 소장되어 있는 『蒙古字韻』과는 비교 분석하였다. 그 결과, 31개의 예자 중에 독음이 다른 경우가 극소수이지만 차이가 많이 난다. 이 결과를 토대로 우리는 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』이 다른 운서였는지, 같은 운서였는데 지금 볼 수 있는 『蒙古字韻』은 朱宗文이 교정한 필사본이므로 차이가 난 것인지, 아니면 두 운서의 저본이 같고 음운체계가 약간 다른 운서였는지 쉽게 판단할 수 없다. 향후 『四聲通解』 「東董送屋」 이외의 韻에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』을 비교 분석하여 보다 더 합리적인 결론을 내리도록 하겠다.

『四聲通解』에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』의 비교 연구 ― 齊薺霽韻을 중심으로

曲曉雲 ( Qu¸ Xiaoyun ) 한국중국언어학회 2020 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.91

本文首先對寧忌浮(1997)的兩個主張提出質疑, 之後用≪四聲通解≫中的記錄反駁了寧先生的主張:崔世珍所見≪蒙古韻略≫和大英博物館所藏朱宗文手抄本≪蒙古字韻≫在體例上存在著很大的不同;≪蒙古字韻≫有簡單注釋的108個韻字均見於≪蒙古韻略≫, 所以≪蒙古字韻≫和≪蒙古字韻≫原刊本亦收錄這108個韻字, 並非朱宗文所加。 接著之前的研究, 本文對≪四聲通解≫齊薺霽韻所引≪蒙古韻略≫和大英博物館所藏≪蒙古字韻≫作了收錄字和讀音上的比較, 結果是:相同韻字在≪蒙古韻略≫、≪蒙古字韻≫中的讀音完全一致, 但是兩書在收錄字上呈現不小的差異。 依據崔世珍的訓民正音轉寫和≪蒙古字韻≫、碑文、≪百家姓≫等資料中的八思巴字轉寫, 本文認為≪蒙古韻略≫支韻紙韻寘韻、≪蒙古字韻≫支韻「鷄 稽 筓 枅」、「計 係 繫 薊髻 繼」的音為[kiei];「規 □ 摫 圭 珪 邽 閨 袿 窐」、「癸」、「季 桂」的音為[kiuei]。據≪四聲通解≫, [-iuei]音≪蒙古韻略≫八思巴字轉寫為/-ioi/、/-iui/、/-ioei/、/-iuei/四種, 本文對同一韻母的不同轉寫現象作了解釋。 依據≪四聲通解≫支紙寘韻、齊薺霽韻、灰賄隊韻所引≪蒙古韻略≫的記錄和≪蒙古字韻≫等資料的八思巴字轉寫可以得出≪蒙古韻略≫支紙寘韻、≪蒙古字韻≫支韻有[-i]、 [-ɿ]、[-ʅ]、[-iei]、[-uei]、[-iuei]六個韻母的結論。 崔世珍在≪四聲通解≫裡只提及了≪千字文≫的八思巴字注音文獻≪千字蒙音≫兩次, 但是這兩次都很有分量, 體現了他重視現實音的正音觀和對語音的正確認識。 This paper first questions the two propositions of Ning Ji Fu(寧忌浮) (1997), and refutes Prof. Ning’s propositions with the records in “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae”. There is a great difference in style between the “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” seen by Choi Se-Jin and the “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” in the British Museum; the 108 Chinese characters with simple notes are not added by Zhu Zongwen, but are included in the original editions of “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”. This paper makes a comparison between “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” in “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae” and the “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” in the British Museum. The result is that the The pronunciation of recorded Chinese characters in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” is exactly the same, but there is a big difference in the Chinese characters included in the two books. According to Choi Se-Jin’s correct transliteration of Hun-min-Jeong-Eum and the transliteration of Basiba in the materials of “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, inscription and surname, this paper holds that the pronunciation of the Chinese character, “鷄 稽 筓 枅, 計 係 繫 薊 髻 繼” in “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” is [kiei], and the pronunciation of the Chinese character “規 □ 摫 圭 珪 邽 閨 袿 窐, 癸, 季 桂” is [kiuei]. According to “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae”, the [-iuei] sound “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” is translated into four kinds of characters: /-ioi/, /-iui/, /-ioei/ and /-iuei/. This paper explains the different transliteration phenomena of the same vowel. According to the records of “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” quoted by “zhī(支) zhǐ(紙) zhì(寘)” Rhyme, “Qī(齊)Jǐ(薺)Jì(霽)” Rhyme and “huī(灰) huǐ(賄) duì(隊)” Rhyme in “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae” and the rewriting of “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and other materials such as “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun”, we can draw the conclusion that the “zhī(支) zhǐ(紙) zhì(寘)” Rhyme of “Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe” and the “zhī(支)” rhyme of “Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun” have six yunmu(韻母): [-i], [-ɿ], [-ʅ], [-iei], [-uei] and [-iuei]. In “Sa-Seong-tong-Hae”, Choi Se-Jin only mentioned “Qian Zi Meng Yin” twice, but these two times carry great weight, which shows that he attaches importance to the correct view of realistic pronunciation and the correct understanding of phonetics.

四聲通解』 灰賄隊韻에 인용된 『蒙古韻略』과 『蒙古字韻』의 비교 연구

곡효운 한국중국언어학회 2022 중국언어연구 Vol.- No.103

Choi Se-Jin makes a comparative analysis of the pronunciation of some words marked "Meng-Gu-Yun-Lüe" in "Sa-Seong-tong-Hae" Huī(灰), Huǐ(賄), Duì (隊) Rhyme. This paper makes a comparative analysis of these words and "Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun", and the results are as follows: 1)The explanation of the pronunciation of the word "䂓" in "Sa-Seong-tong-Hae"-"韻會ᄀᆈ,千字ᄀᆔ" should be changed to "韻會蒙韻ᄀᆈ,千字ᄀᆔ,下至 摫同。". 2)The word "麾" on the word "hui" in Zhi Rhyme(支韻)in "Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun" is "ꡛꡦꡟꡠ". "ꡛ" is the transliteration of the 心 consonant, but the words 麾 under are all the words of the 曉 consonant in the literature such as "Guang-Yun", so the transliteration of the 心 consonant "Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun" here should be a clerical error. In "Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun", the words "麾" and "嘒" should be combined together, and the transliteration of the Pashiba character should be "ꡜꡦꡟꡠ". 3)Most of the rhyming words in "Sa-Seong-tong-Hae" Huī(灰), Huǐ(賄), Duì (隊) Rhyme are included in "Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun" Zhi Rhyme(支韻), read [-uei] [-iuei]; very few numbers are included in "Meng-Gu-Zi-Yun" Jia Rhyme(佳韻), read [-ai].

《古今韻會擧要》, 《蒙古字韻》과 《東國正韻》

愼鏞權 한국알타이학회 2003 알타이학보 Vol.0 No.13

This paper focuses on studying the relation of Ju-yao (full name Gu-jin-yun-hui-ju-yao), Meng-gu-zi-yun and Dong-guo-zheng-yun. Ju-yao is a rhyme book written in the Yuan dynasty of the thirteenth century. It reflects the actual tongue of those days. Meng-gu-zi-yun is a rhyme book in hPhags-pa script in the early period of the Yuan dynasty. The phonological system of the Meng-gu-zi-yun is similar to the Ju-yao. We consider that, because Meng-gu-zi-yun was based on the phonological system of Mmg-gu-yun-liie(蒙古韻略) or Gu-jin-yun-hui(古今韻會), this book was closely related with the Ju-yao. We can conclude that, Ju-yao reflects the commonly used language in the southern part of China during that time, Meng-gu-zi-yun is, on the contrary, records of the speech spoken among the officers of early Yuan times. Dong-guo-zheng- yun is the first Korean rhyme book which was published in 1447. Among the rhyme books of the sound of Chinese Characters Dong-guo- zheng-yun confered, Ju-yao and Meng-gu-yun-lu¨e were closely related with this book. I am looking into the characteristics of the Dong-guo-zheng-yun by comparing the differences between this book and the Ju-yao. I will also study the influence of the Ju-yao and the Meng-gu- yun-liie on the Dong-guo-zheng-yun. We can say that, the relationship of these rhyme books is an important clue for demonstrating the characteristics of the Dong-guo-zheng-yun.

輕唇化音變兩個「例外」考

곡효운 한국중국언어학회 2016 중국언어연구 Vol.0 No.62

王力(2003:134)은 ``『切韻』때까지 경순음은 쌍순음에서 분화되지 않았다``라고 말한 바가 있다. 칼그렌(2003:417~419)과 王力(2003:134)은 경순음이 쌍순음에서 분리된 조건이 ``合口이며 三等이어야 함``이라고 하였다. 杜其容(2008:311)은 ``3등의 -j-介音 뒤에 원순성 모음이 오는 경우``로 수정하였다. 楊劍橋(2012:114)는 ``三等-j-介音 뒤에 중설 모음이나 후설 모음이 오는 경우``로 규정하여 이 조건을 더욱 합리적으로 수정하였다. 그러나 東三韻과 尤韻의 明母字는 이 조건에 만족함에도 불구하고 官話와 方言에 輕唇音으로 변하지 않았다. 周法高(1948)는 尤韻의 明母字가 원래『切韻』의 侯韻에 속하였는데, 『切韻』을 전사한 사람이 이를 尤韻에 잘못 넣었다는 논증을 펼쳤다. 따라서 경순화하지 않은 예외는 東三韻의 明母字밖에 없다고 할 수 있다. 邵榮芬(1997),黃笑山(1995)등은 이는 東三韻 明母字의 -j-개음이 일찍이 탈락되어서 一等字가 되었기 때문이라고 하였다. 본 논문은 楊濬豪(2012)의 주장을 받아들이면서 그 주장을 더 보충하였다. 『蒙古字韻』이나 『蒙古韻略』에 東三韻과 尤韻의 明母字가 경순음으로 읽혔다는 것으로 기록되어 있는데, 이것은 당시의 현실음을 반영한 것이 아니라 『五音集韻』을 답습한 것이거나 『蒙古字韻』이나 『蒙古韻略』의 저자가 자기 스스로 정리한 규칙에 따라 만든 결과라고 생각한다.

元이후, 《蒙古字韻》·《古今韻會擧要》의韓·中 音韻學的 價値硏究

王玉枝 한국중국문화학회 2006 中國學論叢 Vol.22 No.-