http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
崔錫圭 서라벌대학 1994 논문집 Vol.8 No.-
Anaerobic wastewater treatment of the food and the surfactant was carried out and evaluate applicability of process. The reactor was same as 0.09m-D×l.5m-Height. The types of substrate and the HRT were considered as experimental variables. With the glucose wastewater as a susbtrate and 1 day of HRT, gas production(9ℓ/day), the methane content(57%) and the efficiency of COD removal(92%). With the food wastewater, the gas production was increased with a decrease of HRT, but COD revmoal efficency was decreased. 7.5ℓ/day of the gas production, 88% of the COD removal, 70% of the methane content were taken in food. With the surfactant wastewater as a substrate, 1.5ℓ/day of the biogas production and 50% of the COD removal were achieved, but there were many problems in operating. As a conclusion, the wastewater of the food wastewater could be treated by the anaerobidc digestion successfully.
최석규 대한치과기재학회 1999 대한치과재료학회지 Vol.26 No.5
Titamium은 생체적합성이 매우 우수하므로 현재 Implant의 재질로 가장 많이 사용되고 있는 금속이다. 이와 같이 Implant를 치조골에 매식시 골과 Implant간에 연조직의 개제없이 직접 접촉이 이루어져서 장기간에 걸쳐 교합력을 감당해내는 것을 osseointegration(골융합)이라고 한다.
崔碩圭 연세대학교 인문과학연구소 1962 人文科學 Vol.7 No.-
The passage of Vulgar Latin 'paca ̄re' to Modern Spanish 'pagar' is precisely speaking a modification in an articulatory mode (Grammont), which explains not only VL amica > MS amiga, VL baca > MS baga, etc. but also such parallel changes as |t|→|d|, |p|→|b| in VL sape¨re > MS saber, VL muta ̄re > MS mudar, etc. What we call phonetic law is in fact very far from what we usually understand by 'law' for it is a simple description of an isolated fact. No science has ever contented itself with a narration of events or description of particular facts. If linguistics is a science, it should find out general principles to explain those facts. Through studies of phonetic phenomena, the existence of such principles underlying isolated facts is not to be doubted. (e.g. the tendency toward closure in the diphthongation of tense vowels and that toward opening in lax vowels, the irreversibility of some sound changes in certain contexts: e.g. s implosive>h, but not h>s,etc.) The problem is that in actual practice such panchronic principles can explain some facts but not others. They are possibilities, but not necessities, and will never attain status as particular facts in a language (Saussure). What is the use of them if they remain possibilities incapable of becoming concrete facts? We can, however, convert them into necessities by determining their realizing factors, for 《if there are possibilities, there should be conditions》(Hjelmslev). By fixing the exact conditions we can obtain necessities, and panchronic principles will attain the status of particular facts. Can historical phonetics give sufficient explanation of all sound changes? Traditional phoneticians generally think it can: any cause of sound change should be within its scope, for it deals not only with physiological but also psychological elements. How is it then that there are still facts which it leaves unexplained? (e.g. the palatalization of VL |u|in French). It should be remembered that the object of phonetics is not linguistic units but physical sounds. The phoneticians' optimism reposes on the supposition that the linguistic structure plays no part in sound modification. Doesn't it really? In Parisian French, 'joli' |??li| is very often pronounced [??œli] (dialation by |i|). How can |??| maintain itself against so frequent palatalization? No confusion would arise if it were palatalized into |??œ|or delabialized into |e|, since there is no such word as ※'jeuli' or ※'je'li'. Could it be explained without considering the whole vowel system? French has two nasal and four oral vowels of back series, the two upper orals (|u| and |o|) having no nasal correspondents, In Paris dialect,[??]has passed to [o~],a movement toward the centre, which took advantage of the vacancy. Lately, this is followed by anther shift [a~]→[??], which will take the place of [??] vacated by the first shift. This threatens in no way the existing opposition |a~| : |o~|, but the silent shifting could not be explained without considering the structural influence. If we call all structural influences in a language internal factors, any element which makes up the object of phonetics, physiological or psychological, will be grouped under external factors (Martinet). Diachronic phonemics differs from historical phonetics in that it explains sound changes not only with external but also with internal factors. Phonetics has indeed done much in exploring external factors but, not embracing all of the causes, it cannot explain everything in a sound change. Diachronic phonemics and historical phonetics are not two divisions of work with distinct objects, nor are they two studies of same objects from distinct points of view complementing each other. In other words, historical phonetics is not 《a chapter of diachronic phonemics》but 《an incomplete diachronic phonemics》, and for this reason diachronic phonemics is a principle of explanation which cannot leave a part of its territory to historical phonetics.