중세국어 후음 ‘ㅇ’에 대한 몇 가지 문제

배영환(Young-hwan Bae) 한국중원언어학회 2011 언어학연구 Vol.0 No.21

This study discusses the characteristics and functions of the glottal sound, ‘ㅇ’, in the 15th century Korean. The role of ‘ㅇ’ in Middle Korean is divided into two functions: passive and active. While the passive function of ‘ㅇ’ does not have any phonetic content, the active one of ‘ㅇ’ is closely related to the quality of fricative. The Middle Korean ‘ㅇ’ used as an active function can be further divided into two subtypes: the ‘ㅇ’ having the phonetic value ‘?’ and the ‘ㅇ’ having the phonetic value ‘w.’ More specifically, the phonological environment for ‘?’ is closely related to the ‘ㄱ’ (k) weakness rule in the 15th century. That is, the phonetic value ‘?’ is formed by the weakening process of the velar sounds (k or g), which can be all integrated into ‘ㄱ’ according to the data about Korean language and dialect history. On the other hand, the ‘ㅇ’ having the phoentic value ‘w’ is derived from the transition process of ‘??’, and it is related to the β>w rule by which the fricative ‘β’ is changed to the labial ‘w’ and remains as ‘ㅇ’ as the surface form.

수비의 이표기 연구

이동석(Dong Seok Lee) 한국어학회 2013 한국어학 Vol.61 No.-

It is likely that the derivational adverd of ‘쉽다’(sujpta)becomes ‘쉬비’(suj β i). Contrary to our expectations, ‘수비’ was used more often than ‘쉬비’. In addition, different transcriptions were used such as ‘수비, 수이, 쉬이, 쉬, 슈히’. ‘수비’ is the result of /j/ deletion. And to delete /j/ in ‘쉽- + -이’/sujpi/, at least /p/ should be changed to /w/. As there wasn’t /wi/ in middle Korean semi-vowel system, /wi/ should be changed to /i/. Then due to the crach of /j/ and /i/, finally /j/ can be deleted. So ‘ㅸ’ is likely to be the ideal character with the pronunciation of /w/. Because ‘ㅸ’ was the ideal character, it wasn`t used for a long time, then it was soon discarded. since the 1460’s ‘수이, 쉬이’ were used instead of ‘수비, 쉬비’ .

‘ㅸ’ 포함 어휘의 형태론적 분석

이동석 국어사학회 2010 국어사연구 Vol.0 No.11

‘ㅸ’은 일반적으로 그 음가를 양순유성마찰음 / /로 보고 있다. 그러나 사용 시기 및 분포상의 제약을 보면 그 음가를 인정하기 어려운 면이 많다. 기존의 연구들은 ‘ㅸ’의 음가 문제와 관련하여 주로 음운론적인 접근을 시도했지만, 형태론적인 측면에서 음가에 대한 문제를 새롭게 바라볼 필요가 있다. 이에 따라 ‘ㅸ’을 포함하고 있는 어휘를 용언, 체언, 부사로 나누고 각각의 경우에 해당하는 단어들을 형태론적으로 분석한 결과, 몇몇 경우를 빼고는 대부분 형태소 결합 환경에서 ‘ㅸ’이 출현하는 것을 볼 수 있었다. 확실하게 분석이 되지 않는 몇몇 예들도 어원적인 접근 방법을 적용할 때 단일어가 아닌 것으로 추정되므로, ‘ㅸ’에 대한 음가 문제는 형태론적인 측면에서 볼 때 재고의 여지가 있다고 본다. Generally we know that ‘ㅸ’ is a voiced bilabial fricative. But this letter was used only during a little upward of 10 years and was restricted by the phonological distribution; it can appear between voiced and voiced. And it cann’t appear in onset or coda position. So we doubt that ‘ㅸ’ is a voiced bilabial fricative. Until now we have researched into phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ in respect of phonological study. But it isn’t enough for positive verification. In mophological respect there is a possibility that ‘ㅸ’ isn’t a voiced bilabial fricative. Because the mophological analysis of ‘ㅸ’ words reveals that the majority of them isn’t a single word. For this conclusion I made a thorough investigation into ‘ㅸ’ words being divided into a declinable word, a sub-stantive and an adverb. But I finded a few exceptions, they have a possibility of a compound word. So I feel sure that ‘ㅸ’ isn’t a voiced bilabial fricative. By the new analysis we could make an approach to the real nature of ‘ㅸ’.

‘ㅸ’의 음가론

이동석 국어사학회 2013 국어사연구 Vol.0 No.17

‘ㅸ’은 초성 17자에 포함되어 있지 않지만, 『訓民正音』 ‘예의’에 순경음에 대한 규정이 있고, ‘제자해’에 음가에 대한 구체적인 설명이 있다. ‘ㅸ’의 음가에 대해서는 그동안 많은 논의가 있었으나, 양순유성마찰음 / /로 보는 것이 일반적인 견해다. 그러나 초성 17자에 포함되지 못하고 사용 시기가 20년을 넘지 못하며 각자병서, ‘ㅭ’과 같은 인위적인 표기와 비슷한 시기에 폐기된 것을 볼 때 인위적인 표기였을 가능성이 매우 높다. 순경음에 대한 제자해의 음가 설명이 한자음을 대상으로 하는 ‘飜譯老乞大朴通事 凡例’에서의 설명과 유사한 것을 보면 ‘ㅸ’의 음가는 /w/일 가능성이 높다. 『鷄林類事』, 『朝鮮館譯語』와 같은 차자표기 자료에서도 ‘ㅸ’의 존재를 발견할 수 없으며, ‘ㅸ’을 포함하는 대부분의 단어가 복합어로 분석된다는 점에서도 ‘ㅸ’을 기저 음소로 보기는 어렵다. 음운론적으로는 ‘ㅂ’과 ‘ㅸ’이 상보적 분포를 이루지 못하므로 ‘ㅸ’을 변이음으로 볼 수 없고, 또한 ‘ㅸ’이 ‘ㅂ’과 최소대립쌍을 이루지 못하므로 ‘ㅸ’을 음소로 보기도 어렵다. 오히려 ‘쉽다’의 파생부사가 ‘쉬’가 아닌 ‘수’로 나타나는 점, ‘*샙 + -이’의 구성이 ‘*새’가 아닌 ‘사’로 표기되는 점 등은 ‘ㅸ’이 /w/의 음가를 가질 때에만 설명이 가능하므로, ‘ㅸ’은 기저의 /p/가 [w]로 약화된 현상에 대한 인식을 반영하는 인위적인 표기라고 할 수 있다. ‘ㅸ’ doesn’t belong to onset characters, but there are the explanation of sungjeong-um in ‘yeui’ and ‘jejahae’. This character had been used for fifteen years and thereafter changed to ‘ㅗ’, ‘ㅜ’ or vanished. ‘ㅸ’ has been studied for a long time, but the phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ has not been decided yet. It is general theory that the phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ is voiced bilabial fricative / /. But It is likely for ‘ㅸ’ to be artificial character, because it had been used for fifteen years. While not part of onset characters, ‘ㅸ’ had been used in native word notation. It also raise the posobillity of artificial character. In terms of the phonetic value, as it is similar for two descriptions, Jejahae and Beonyeok-Nogeoltai-Paktongsa-Beomlye, it is likely for the phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ to be same, in the case of native word and sound of chinese characters. Then it is almost certainly that the phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ is /w/. In terms of phonology, as the complementary distribution of ‘ㅂ’ and ‘ㅸ’ isn’t established, it is impossible for ‘ㅸ’ to be allophone. As the minimal pair of ‘ㅂ’ and ‘ㅸ’ isn’t established, also it is impossible for ‘ㅸ’ to be phoneme. In addition, there are some grounds to assure that the phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ is /w/. First, the derivational adverb of ‘suipta’ isn’t ‘suibi’ but ‘subi’. Second, the combination of ‘sap’ and ‘-i’ isn’t ‘sabi’ but ‘*saibi’. These are evidence that the phonetic value of ‘ㅸ’ is /w/.

국어 음운사의 연구 성과와 과제 - 자음을 중심으로 -

이동석 ( Lee Dong-seok ) 한말연구학회 2017 한말연구 Vol.- No.44

There are many issues in the Korean historical phonology. Topics to be discussed in this paper include: (ⅰ) opposition between lenis and aspirated and fortis consonants, (ⅱ) opposition between voiced and voiceless, (ⅲ) phonetic value of dental, (ⅳ) consonant cluster, (ⅴ) non-release of the coda. In relation to the opposition between lenis and aspirated and fortis consonants, it is common that there was no distinction of these consonants in accient Korean language. But for now it is difficult to grasp the exact timing of the formation of aspirated and fortis consonants. In relation to the opposition between voiced and voiceless, it`s hard to find evidence that there was an opposition between these consonants in accient Korean language. And in the medieval Korean language, it is unclear that `ㅸ, ㅿ, ㅇ` were voiced consonants. In relation to the phonetic value of dental, there is an opinion that there was no affricative in the ancient Korean language. But in Chinese characters, `ㅅ` and `ㅈ` are distinguished. So for now it is unclear that there was no affricative in the ancient Korean language. In relation to the non-release of the coda, the view that the consonants in coda were released in the ancient Korean language is predominant. And it is common that `ㅅ` and `ㄹ` in coda were released in the medieval Korean language. In the case of the ancient Korean language, it is difficult to judge only with the data and according to the explanation of Hunminjeongum, rather `ㅅ` and `ㄹ` in coda are likely to be released in the medieval Korean language.