≪迎日冷水里碑≫의 중국어 역사문법적인 검토

韓炅澔 한국중어중문학회 2015 한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2015 No.11

상고~중고중국어의 ‘owl’ 관련 어휘에 대하여 ― ‘鴟’ *tʰiᵇ > ⊂tɕʰji과 원시 베트남-몽어 *ciːm 계열 및 ‘服~鵩’ *bikᵇ > bɰuk⊃ 중심으로

韓炅澔 중국어문학회 2019 中國語文學誌 Vol.0 No.69

This paper aims to discuss the lexicons “owl” in Old~Middle Chinese by focusing on ‘鴟’ *tʰiᵇ>⊂tɕʰji, Proto-Viet-Muong *ciːm and ‘服~鵩’ *bikᵇ> bɰuk⊃ and elaborate several historical linguistic facts of them in Sino-Tibetan language family. Firstly, ‘鵄’ as the variation ‘鴟’ *tʰiᵇ>⊂tɕʰji is well attested from oracle bone inscriptions, and also their meaning ‘exhibit, display’ which is not related to bird ‘owl’ can be also confirmed. Meanwhile, ‘tinH’ (small owl) in Galo and ‘周’ *tiwᵇ>⊂tɕʰɰiw as the variation of ‘鴟’ in the excavated documents during Warring States Period are considered as semantically associated with each other, but not phonologically. Secondly, not only the words related to ‘鴟’ *tʰiᵇ>⊂tɕʰji mentioned above, but also ‘鴟鴞’ *tʰiᵇ.ɢrowᵇ > ⊂tɕʰji.⊂hɰεw, ‘鳲梟’ *hliᵇ.kewᵃ(?)>⊂ɕji. ⊂kew, ‘鴟梟’ *tʰiᵇ.kewᵃ>⊂tɕʰji.⊂kew, ‘鴟鵂, 鵄鵂’ *tʰiᵇ.qʰuᵇ>⊂tɕʰji.⊂hɰiw, ‘久’ *tʰiᵇ.kʷiʔᵇ>⊂tɕʰji.⊂kɰiw, ‘鴟鳩’ *tʰiᵇ.kuᵇ>⊂tɕʰji.⊂kɰiw can be considered as deriving from *tʰiᵇ>⊂tɕʰji and PTB *gu ⪤ ku. Moreover, a number of words from PTB *gu ⪤ ku appears as compounds of *tʰiᵇ>⊂tɕʰ ji, such as ‘怪鴟’ *kʷrisᵃ.tʰiᵇ>kwεj⊃.⊂tɕʰji and ‘角鵄’ *krokᵃ.tʰiᵇ>koek⊃.⊂tɕʰ ji. Thirdly, ‘鵵(兎、菟)’ *dzroma>⊂dʐam in ‘鵵(兎)軌’ *dzromᵃ.kruʔᵇ>⊂ dʐam.⊂kɰwi and ‘老鵵(-兎、-菟)’ *ruʔᵃ.dzromᵃ>⊂lαw.⊂dʐam are well attested as a transcription of *kcem from Proto-Mon-Khmer, or *tshim from Proto-Kuki-Chin, whose meaning is related to ‘bird’. However, a number of words like PTB*gu~ku or ‘鵩’ *bikᵇ from‘鵵(兎、菟)’ which are unrelated to ‘owl’ can be explained as unfamiliar dialect or loanword to ancient recorders. Fourthly, ‘服~鵩’ *bikᵇ>bɰuk⊃ from the Western Han Dynasty as a cognate from Tibeto-Burman word ‘owl’ is also attested in Chinese dialects. Meanwhile, the direction of diffusion of 服~鵩 *bikᵇ>bɰuk⊃ is explained originally from Changsha area in Chu to the west of Hunan Province, and Derung or Nusu languages in Yunnan Province nowadays.

중세한국한자음 내의 ‘更·暴’의 복수한자음과 그 의미상 관계에 대하여

韓炅澔(한경호) 한국중어중문학회 2015 中語中文學 Vol.62 No.-

The conclusion of this paper is explained below. 1) The glyph “更”. Before the publication of “Sohakeonhae”, if the usage as a unit of time like in “Yukjobeoppodangyeongeonhae” is excluded, the reading was prominently “깅” regardless of the accent. The same is found in the glyph dictionaries of late 16thcentury,namely “the Thousand Character Classic” of Gwangju and Seokbong, and “Sinjeungyuhap”. 2) While the reading of the glyph “更” was written as “L깅 or “H깅” in the “Beonyeoksohak”, “L경” was more common in “Sohakeonhae” as the reading for the syllable 古行切*kraŋa > ͔kɐŋ. But there were also examples of “L깅” (like in “Sohakeonhae” 6:53b), suggesting that the reading of “L경” was not yet universal at the time of “Sohakeonhae”. 3) In case of “Yukjobeoppodangyeongeonhae”, the reading of the glyph “更” was prominently “L경”, but the usage of “L경” was limited in the unit of time(this is a derivation of meaning of ‘to pass’); this phenomenon (reading the glyph “更” differently for the unit of time as class-III rhyme) is commonly found in Old Mandarin. This suggests that this phenomenon is directly caused by Mandarin dialects. 4) The glyph “暴”. It is shown that the distinction of different readings by the different meanings was clear-cut in Middle Korean reading. But in Modern Korean reading, many cases of “포” readings have changed into “폭” without any explicit conditions; this requires further research.

「詩經諺解」에 제시된 독음과 「經傳釋文」 反切의 비교연구

韓炅澔(한경호) 한국중어중문학회 2016 한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2016 No.4

上海博物館藏楚竹書(參)의 《周易 · 訟卦》에 대한 새로운 해석

韓炅澔(한경호) 한국중어중문학회 2015 한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2015 No.08

고대 韓國漢字音에 반영된 東漢~六朝代 中國音(1)

韓炅澔(Han Kyung-ho) 구결학회 2010 구결연구 Vol.24 No.-

본고에서는 한국한자음의 새로운 연구방법론을 제시하고자 하는 일환으로서, 고대 한국어의 차자표기에서 나타나는 ‘支’와 ‘只’가 ki라는 독음을 갖는 현상에 대하여 논의하였다. 연구의 결과, ‘支’와 ‘只’ 두 글자의 聲母는 공통적으로 상고음의 **kj-성모에서 기원하였음을 알 수 있었으며, 이것은 諧聲字 뿐만 아니라 漢藏語 동원사로도 실증됨을 알 수 있었다. 그러나, 이러한 현상은 결코 ‘支’·‘只’ 두 글자의 ki라는 독음의 기원이 상고음에 있음을 직접적으로 증명하는 것은 아니며, 이 독음이 직접적으로 상고음에서 기원하였을 가능성은 중국어 음운사에서 [章]組가 출현하는 연대가 東漢代를 전후한 시기임을 볼 때, 적다고 생각된다. 이러한 문제점을 해결해주는 것이 六朝 江東方言의 구어상태를 보여주는 佛經譯音資料들이다. 이들 자료들에서는 ‘只’와 ‘支’ 두 글자가 이미 중고음 단계에 들어선 육조시기에 이르기까지도 외국어의 ke에 대응되는 모습을 보여주고 있으며, 현대의 일부 방언에서도 그러한 상태를 유지하고 있는 경우가 보인다. 이를 볼 때, ‘只’와 ‘支’ 두 글자는 중국어 음운사에 있어서도 특수하게 상고음의 聲母상태를 대단히 후대까지도 유지하고 있었으며, 고대 한국어의 차자표기에서 ki라는 독음이 나타나는 이유는 이 두 글자가 갖는 위와 같은 특수한 음운사적 지위 때문이라고 볼 수 있다.

東京大學圖書館藏 淸原宣賢의 訓點本 『中庸章句』와 『經典釋文』의 比較硏究

韓炅澔(한경호) 한국중어중문학회 2016 한국중어중문학회 학술대회 자료집 Vol.2016 No.11

사가르(Sagart)의 《상고 중국어의 어근(The Roots of Old Chinese)》중 어휘의 어원(5)

韓炅澔(번역자),申?哲(번역자),卞志源(번역자),申世利(번역자),盧慧?(번역자) 중국어문논역학회 2020 中國語文論譯叢刊 Vol.0 No.47

본 본고는 사가르(Sagart, 1999)의 《상고 중국어의 어근(The Roots of Old Chinese)》의 후반부 24장 1절에서 26장 3절까지를 번역한 것이다. 24장에서는 가축화된 동물, 25장에서는 음식, 26장에서는 금속류에 대한 내용을 담고 있다. This paper translates chapter 24.1-26.3 of The Roots of Old Chinese by Laurent Sagart (1999) in Korean. Here translates chapter 24 domesticated animals, chapter 25 food, and chapter 26 metals including dogs, pigs, fowl, horned cattle, goats, sheep, horses, gruel, vegetables, meat, copper, bronze, iron and silver.

≪経典釋文≫の音義に基づく16世紀朝・日の≪詩経≫翻譯比較 - ≪詩経諺解≫(1583~1593成立)と清原宣賢の≪毛詩鄭箋≫ 訓點本(1521)に表れた声母相違による意味派生の反映(1) -

韓炅澔(Han Kyungho) 동아인문학회 2021 동아인문학 Vol.55 No.-

The aim of this paper is to examine the phonological and semantic changes of polyphonic characters jiāng~qiāng (将)、bài (敗) and kăn~hàn (感) in the Máoshī zhèngjiān、by comparing the Korean translated text Sigyeong eonhae and Nobukata Kiyohara"s Japanese Kunten glossed Máoshī zhèngjiān、which is based on the Chinese text Jīngdiǎn shìwén. This author’s conclusions are as below. (1) Regarding the first case about jiāng~qiāng (将)、the semantic difference between *tsaŋᵇ > ꜀tsɰɑŋ (‘to devote’; ‘magnificentness’) and its causativated derivation “*tsʰaŋᵇ > ꜀tsʰɰɑŋ” (‘to request’) is not well attested since the same Sino-Korean readings and interpretations in the Sigyeong eonhae、in spite of several examples cited from the Shījízhuàn. By contrast、Nobukata Kiyohara"s Japanese Kunten glossed texts not only consulted the Japanese dictionary Ruiju Myōgishō、but also cited the annotation from the Máoshī zhèngjiān. (2) Concerning the second case about bài (敗) * prat sᵃ > paj ꜄ (‘to tear’) and * brats ᵃ > baj ꜄ (‘to die out’~‘to lose’)、the phonological and semantic differences are still not attested in the Sigyeong eonhae、 however、they were both glossed as yaburu (やぶる、‘to tear’) uniformly in Nobukata Kiyohara"s texts. (3) On the third case about kăn~hàn (感) * kɨmʔᵃ > ꜂kʌm (‘to feel’) and * N-kɨmʔᵃ > * ɡɨmʔᵃ > ꜂ɦʌm (‘to shake’~‘to tremble’)、the phonological difference is only attested in the Sigyeong eonhae、however、without any specific explanation. Nevertheless、Nobukata Kiyohara selected the exact pronunciation in *N-kɨmʔᵃ > *ɡɨmʔᵃ >꜂ɦʌm and glossed as ugokasu (ウコ(゛)カス、‘to move’). (4) Both having the [± aspirated] and [± voice] features of one character is the condition to trigger the causativated change in Old Chinese syntax、which is well attested in this article.

東京大学国語研究室所蔵清原宣賢の訓点本『中庸章句』と『経典釈文』の比較研究

韓炅澔(Han Kyung ho) 고려대학교 글로벌일본연구원 2017 일본연구 Vol.27 No.-

本稿の研究資料である清原宣賢(1475~1550)の訓点本中庸章句は、現在東京大学国語研究室に所蔵(請求記号:21H:11、登録記号:4803718537)されている日本の戦国時代の文献である。本文献の著者は上記の清原宣賢であるが、表紙にはそれ以外に兼右卿十三歳御筆として書写者が示されている。この兼右は吉田家門の養子になって改姓した清原宣賢の次男である吉田兼右(1516~1573)である。これに依ると、本稿の研究資料である清原宣賢の訓点本中庸章句は吉田兼右が13歳であった1528年(大永8年)に作られたことを知ることができる。本稿の研究資料は今まで出版されていない上、東京大学図書館サイトにも公開されていないため、これと直接的に連関した研究は余り見られない。従って、本稿は訓点本に対する研究の試みとして、清原宣賢の訓点本中庸章句に訓点と一緒に表記された分節音素に準じて音読みを表わした仮名、及び、超分節音素を表わした声点を中心として、経典釈文卷第十四に現れる禮記中庸に対する音切(直音及び反切)との比較を通じて、日本の訓点本に中国原書の音義が如何に反映されたのかを探求しようとするのである。本稿で進めてきた清原宣賢訓点本中庸章句と経典釈文音切の比較で得られた情報は以下のとおりである。 分節音素と超分節音素の対応は、殆どの例で規則的である。 分節音素では、慣用音として現れた例外以外に目立つ問題はない。 超分節音素としては、沼本克明(1987/2008)と佐々木勇(1988)などで指摘された日本漢字音内部の去声→上声の変調が幾つが見られたが、数は多くなかった。類推(analogy)に依って現れた声点もある程度見られた。無論、今回の研究では、経典釈文のみと比較を進めたため、資料の範囲は充分とは言えない。今後の研究では経典釈文との対応以外の例に対しても整理し、不足部分も補っていきたい。 The research material of this article, a kuntenbon of “Zhongyong Zhangju” edited by Kiyohara Nobukata (1475~1550), is a text from Sengoku period (the Age of Civil War in Japan) currently in the Dept. of Japanese Linguistics, University of Tokyo (Registered as 21H:11, No. 4803718537). As mentioned above, the book was edited by Kiyohara Nobukata, but the cover page also has a sentence “Kanemigi wrote this at thirteen years old”. This name, “Kanemigi”, refers to Yoshida Kanemigi (1516~1573), the second son of Nobukata, who was adopted by Yoshida clan and thus changed his surname. This sentence informs us that the kuntenbon was made in 1528 (Daiei 8) in which Yoshida Kanemigi was 13 years old. As there is no published research material of this book, nor available online from the website of the library of the University of Tokyo, there is not much studies directly referring to this book. Therefore, this study took this book as a test case for study of kuntenbon — especially, kana written parallely to kunten to indicate segmental phonemes, and shoten (tonal points) to indicate suprasegmental phoneme, which are compared to the phonetic notations (직 음and fanqie) for “Liji･Zhongyong” in “Jingdian Shiwen･Vol. 14”. By this comparison, this paper demonstrates how the original readings and meanings of Chinese classics are reflected into kuntenbon of Japan. This study, the comparison of Kiyohara Nobukata’s kuntenbon of “Zhongyong Zhangju” and phonetic notations in “Jingdian Shiwen”, showed the following: First, the reflexes of segmental or suprasegmental phonemes are in regular correspondence mostly. Second, in the segmental phonemes, there is no anomally except some (관용음) idiomatic irregular readings. Third, in the suprasegmental phonemes, it does show some examples of merger of rising tone and departing tone in Sino-Japanese readings (as pointed out by Numoto Katsuaki (1987/2008) and Sasaki Isamu (1988)), but rarely. Fourth, some shoten (tonal markings) shows examples of analogy. Of course, this analysis is based on the comparison with “Jingdian Shiwen” only, so I’m afraid that we need more sources. Further study will aim to complement this paper by making comparison with material other than “Jingdian Shiwen”.