표제지

목차

제1장 序論 9

1.1. 硏究目的 9

1.2. 硏究資料 11

1.3. 硏究史 14

1.4. 硏究方法및 論議의 構成 19

제2장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 書誌的特徵 23

2.1. 『月印釋譜』의 書誌的特徵 24

2.1.1. 『月印釋譜』의 初刊本 26

2.1.2. 『月印釋譜』의 重刊本 35

2.1.3. 지금까지 발견되지 않은 『月印釋譜』 38

2.2. 『法華經諺解』의 書誌的特徵 39

2.2.1. 『法華經諺解』의 初刊本 40

2.2.2. 『法華經諺解』의 重刊本 41

제3장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 表記法 43

3.1. 冠形詞形語尾‘-ㄹ/-ㅭ’의 表記 44

3.2. ‘ㅸ’字의 表記 58

3.3. 分綴表記와 ‘ㆁ’字의 表記 63

3.4. 漢字語와 漢字音의 表記 67

3.4.1. 漢字語의 表記 67

3.4.2. 漢字音의 表記 70

제4장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 夾註와 原文比較 75

4.1. 夾註의 比較 75

4.1.1. 夾註의 特性 75

4.1.2. 夾註의 比較 82

4.2. 原文의 比較 92

4.2.1. 大文의 比較 92

4.2.2. 大文의 註釋文의 比較 93

4.2.3. 偈頌의 比較 100

제5장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 飜譯順序比較 106

5.1. 名詞類의 飜譯順序 107

5.2. 動詞類의 飜譯順序 113

5.2.1. 動作動詞의 飜譯順序 114

5.2.2. 動作動詞句의 飜譯順序 154

5.2.3. 狀態動詞의 飜譯順序 159

5.3. 副詞의 飜譯順序 162

5.3.1. 成分副詞로 飜譯된 漢字와 漢字語의 飜譯順序比較 162

5.3.2. 文章副詞로 飜譯된 漢字의 飜譯順序比較 199

제6장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 意譯과 直譯 203

6.1.『法華經諺解』에서 直譯되고 『月印釋譜』에서는 意譯된 경우 205

6.1.1. 名詞類의 意譯과 直譯 205

6.1.2. 動詞類의 意譯과 直譯 222

6.1.3. 副詞類의 意譯과 直譯 276

6.1.4. 節의 意譯과 直譯 280

6.2. 『月印釋譜』에서 直譯되고 『法華經諺解』에서는 意譯된 경우 291

6.2.1. 動詞類의 意譯과 直譯 291

제7장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 飜譯되지 않은 部分比較 294

7.1. 『月印釋譜』에서는 飜譯되지 않고 『法華經諺解』에서 飜譯된 경우 294

7.1.1. 飜譯되지 않은 名詞類 294

7.1.2. 飜譯되지 않은 動詞類 313

7.1.3. 飜譯되지 않은 副詞類 360

7.1.4. 飜譯되지 않은 複數接尾辭 391

7.1.5. 飜譯되지 않은 冠形詞 392

7.1.6. 飜譯되지 않은 句와 節 395

7.2. 『法華經諺解』에서는 飜譯되지 않고 『月印釋譜』에서 飜譯된 경우 398

7.2.1. 飜譯되지 않은 名詞類 398

7.2.2. 飜譯되지 않은 動詞類 400

7.2.3. 飜譯되지 않은 副詞類 401

7.3. 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』에서 모두 飜譯되지 않은 경우 408

제8장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 語彙的差異 411

8.1. 名詞類와 名詞類 411

8.1.1. 名詞와 名詞類 411

8.1.2. 名詞句와 名詞類 414

8.1.3. 代名詞와 名詞類 419

8.2. 名詞類와 動詞類 421

8.2.1. 名詞와 動作動詞 421

8.2.2. 名詞와 動作動詞句 430

8.2.3. 名詞와 狀態動詞 433

8.2.4 名詞句와 動作動詞 435

8.2.5. 名詞句와 動作動詞句 441

8.2.6. 名詞句와 狀態動詞 441

8.2.7. 名詞句와 狀態動詞句 444

8.2.8. 代名詞와 動詞類 446

8.3. 名詞類와 冠形詞 446

8.3.1. 名詞와 冠形詞 446

8.3.2. 名詞句와 冠形詞 448

8.3.3. 代名詞와 冠形詞 449

8.3.4. 數詞와 冠形詞 451

8.4. 名詞類와 副詞類 451

8.4.1. 名詞와 副詞類 451

8.4.2. 名詞句와 副詞類 453

8.5. 動詞類와 名詞類 454

8.5.1. 動作動詞와 名詞類 454

8.5.2. 動作動詞句와 名詞類 465

8.5.3. 狀態動詞와 名詞類 469

8.6. 動詞類와 動詞類 472

8.6.1. 動作動詞와 動詞類 473

8.6.2. 動作動詞句와 動詞類 478

8.6.3. 狀態動詞와 動詞類 481

8.6.4. 狀態動詞句와 動詞類 485

8.7. 動詞類와 副詞類 486

8.7.1. 動作動詞와 副詞類 486

8.7.2. 動作動詞句와 副詞類 487

8.7.3. 狀態動詞와 副詞類 487

8.8. 副詞와 副詞類 489

8.9. 副詞와 名詞類 493

8.10. 副詞類와 動詞類 496

8.11. 副詞類와 冠形詞 502

8.12. 冠形詞와 冠形詞 503

8.13. 冠形詞와 動詞類 505

8.14. 冠形詞와 名詞類 507

8.15. 冠形詞와 副詞類 511

8.16. 複數接尾辭와 冠形詞 512

8.17. 複數接尾辭와 動詞類 513

8.18. 複數接尾辭와 名詞類 514

8.19. 繫辭와 動作動詞 516

8.20. 助辭와 副詞 516

8.21. 助辭와 冠形詞 517

8.22. 助辭와 名詞 518

8.23. 節과 動詞句 518

8.24. 節과 名詞 519

제9장 『月印釋譜』와 『法華經諺解』의 文法的比較 520

9.1. 格의 比較 520

9.1.1. zero 주격과 ‘-ㅣ’ 주격 520

9.1.2. 主格과 屬格 526

9.1.3. 主格과 對格 536

9.1.4. 對格과 主格 541

9.1.5. 對格과 屬格 546

9.1.6. 對格과 具格 547

9.1.7. 屬格과 複合格‘-엣’ 549

9.1.8. 處格과 主格 550

9.1.9. 處格과 對格 553

9.1.10. 屬格과 具格 557

9.1.11. 具格과 屬格 558

9.1.12. 處格과 屬格 559

9.1.13. 主格과 處格 561

9.1.14. 主格과 具格 562

9.1.15. 對格과 與格 564

9.1.16. 複合格과 共同格 567

9.1.17. 屬格과 主格 567

9.1.18. 具格과 主格 569

9.1.19. 共同格과 與格 569

9.1.20. 處格과 處格 570

9.1.21. 處格과 複合格‘-엣’ 571

9.2. 動詞類의 格支配比較 572

9.2.1. 主格과 對格의 支配 573

9.2.2. 對格과 主格의 支配 577

9.2.3. 處格과 對格의 支配 578

9.2.4. 與格과 對格의 支配 583

9.2.5. 具格과 對格의 支配 585

9.2.6. 對格과 具格의 支配 586

9.2.7. 對格과 處格의 支配 590

9.2.8. 副詞形語尾‘-디’와 主格의 支配 594

9.2.9. 比較格과 處格의 支配 595

9.2.10. 主格과 處格의 支配 595

9.2.11. 對格과 對格의 支配 596

9.2.12. 對格과 與格의 支配 597

9.3. 語尾의 比較 598

9.3.1. 終結語尾의 比較 598

9.3.2. 連結語尾의 比較 603

9.3.3. 轉成語尾의 比較 611

9.3.4. 先語末語尾의 比較 611

9.4. 節構成의 比較 615

9.5. 否定法의 比較 622

9.5.1. ‘아니’ 부정법 626

9.5.2. ‘��’ 부정법 630

9.6. 敬語法의 比較 633

9.6.1. 존대법 634

9.6.2. 겸양법 640

9.6.3. 공손법 643

9.6.4. 어휘에 의한 경어법 645

9.7. 使動法과 被動法의 比較 649

9.7.1. 使動法의 比較 649

9.7.2. 被動法의 比較 653

9.8. 轉移語의 比較 655

9.8.1. ‘-ㄹ씨’와 ‘-ㄴ 젼ㅊ로’ (이미지 참조) 655

9.8.2. ‘-ㄹ씨/-알 因ㅎ야’ (이미지 참조) 659

9.8.3. ‘-ㄹ씨’와 ‘-로브터’ (이미지 참조) 659

9.8.4. ‘-ㄹ씨’와 ‘-ㄴ 다ㅅ로’ (이미지 참조) 660

9.8.5. ‘-아/어’와 ‘-ㄴ 젼ㅊ로’ (이미지 참조) 660

9.8.6. ‘ㅎ다가’ (이미지 참조) 661

9.9. 助詞의 省略 662

제10장 結論 671

參考文獻 680

ABSTRACT 704

〈표1〉 『月印釋譜』, 『法華經諺解』,『釋譜詳節』의 卷次對比 10

〈표2〉 연구 대상 자료 : 『月印釋譜』, 『法華經諺解』, 『法華經』(底本經典) 13

〈표3〉 引用文獻과 略號 14

〈표4〉 15世紀에 刊行된 佛敎關係資料 24

〈표5〉 現傳하는 『月印釋譜』의 重刊本 36

〈표6〉 『法華經諺解』의 卷次에 따른 수록 品次 39

〈표7〉 『法華經諺解』初刊本의 書誌사항 41

The objective of study is to compare different linguistic aspects of two books: Worinseokbo(月印釋譜) (vol. 11-19) (1459) and Beophwagyeongeonhae(法華經諺解) (1463). These books are translated versions of the original text Myobeopyeonhwagyeong(妙法蓮華經) (so called Beophwagyeong(法華經)). Although the publication dates of the books are merely 4 years apart, they represent a number of different linguistic aspects in terms of style, orthography, lexicon, and grammar. In this paper, a comparative study of a Korean linguistics was conducted to such differences, and to eventually shed a light on linguistic aspects of Korean language used in the 15th century. Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae have been the foundation for research of the medieval time Korean language serving as important documents of Korean language history that show many aspects of modern Korean language. The comprehensive and proof-based study is carried out to compare those books with Buddhist scriptures Beophwagyeong, the original version of Myobeopyeonhwagyeong. Therefore, it is possible to see in the Korean linguistics perspective the differences of linguistic aspects appeared in the two books translated in the same period.

Details discussed in this paper are summarized by chapter.

In chapter 2, bibliographic considerations toward Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae are compared. In a bibliographic consideration towards Worinseokbo, it aims to improve the understanding of Worinseokbo by identifying its compilation and publication process, contents, characteristics of editions, and the original Buddhist scriptures. Worinseokbo is not a book that simply combines the contents of Worincheongangjigok(月印千江之曲) and Seokbosangjeol(釋譜詳節), but a new book that was modified and added in the combination process of such contents, meaning that many changes were applied to the editions of the book. After examining editions of Worinseokbo, it takes a look at main contents of the first edition and the second edition, and comparisons that were taken to the editions of the original Buddhist scriptures, Seokbosangjeol and Worincheongangjigok. In a bibliographic consideration towards Beophwagyeongeonhae, it contains characteristicsof editions, bibliographic features of the first edition and second edition, and contents of each edition. In addition, it is revealed that annotation insertion and editing of original texts appeared in the two books might be attributed to the attitude of translators.

Chapter 3 covers different aspects of Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae in areas such as orthography of determiner ending "-ㄹ" and "-ㅀ,""ㅸ," isolating orthography, orthography of “ㆁ,” and Chinese characters and Chinese characters' sounds. As for orthography of determiner ending "-ㄹ" and "-ㅭ," this study identified the differences of two cases such as one that following noun was Chinese and the other that following noun was Korean. When following noun was Chinese and an initial sound of following Chinese letter was voiceless, determiner ending "-ㄹ" and "-ㅭ" were used in a mixed manner and the case that an initial sound of following Chinese letter was voiced was not found in the book. In Worinseokbo, when following noun was Korean, determiner ending "-ㅭ" usually caused following initial sounds to be written as lax sound or to be written in double consonants instead of being written in "ㆆ," but these two methods were used in a mixed manner. Meanwhile, except for some cases where following nouns were Chinese, Beophwagyeongeonhae did not use "ㆆ." In stead of that, initial sounds were generally written in double consonants, leading to an idea that "ㆆ" was already not widely used in Beophwagyeongeonhae. As for orthography of "ㅸ," Worinseokbo used "ㅸ" in an accurate manner following its rules except for some cases, but Beophwagyeongeonhae did not use "ㅸ" for the word forms where Worinseokbo used it. In respect to isolating orthography and orthography of “ㆁ,” Worinseokbo generally adhered to liaison orthography, but “ㆁ” was written in isolating orthography as final consonant in front of postpositions beginning with vowels when the last sound of nouns were "ㆁ" and this similar trend also appeared in Beophwagyeongeonhae. When it comes to orthography of Chinese characters, both Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae adopted Korean orthography as well as Chinese orthography in a mixed manner for the same Chinese words but in terms of orthography of Chinese characters, Korean reading sounds were put under those letters. On the other hand, the original text adopted Korean gugyeol(口訣) words for Chinese letters. In respect to orthography of Chinese characters' sounds, Donggukjeongun system of reading Chinese letters was used both in Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae when Chinese characters' sounds were exposed in Korean. When these sounds were not written in Korean in the books, the real reading system of Chinese letters was used.

Chapter 4 considers characteristics of inserted annotations and translators' attitudes appeared in Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae with a comparison on the original text, their inserted annotations and annotated notes, and editing relations with the Buddhist praising songs. Compared to Beophwagyeongeonhae, Worinseokbo has a bigger number of longer annotations and that is seen as an effort to improve readers' understanding. It is revealed that a circle mark(圓圈) was used for long annotations to show changes in meaning of paragraphs and sometimes to reflect the differences from the original Buddhist scriptures. When it comes to positions of inserted annotations, those annotations in Worinseokbo were written within sentences, but such annotations in Beophwagyeongeonhae were written within both sentences and annotations, clearly showing that inserted annotations never used right behind gugyeols. As for grammar characteristics of inserted annotations, two books often employed declarative sentence endings, but Worinseokbo adopted less emotion-expressing endings, leading to the fact that Worinseokbo's annotators took a more expository attitude than their counterparts of Beophwagyeongeonhae. This paper takes a look at how Chinese characters were being translated in annotations when such characters were either nouns or verbs. When they were nouns, they were 이라 translated into forms such as "A is B", "A는 [B ]s {하논, 혼} {말, 뜯} 이라", and "B를 [A라]s 하니라." It is discovered that they were translated into forms such as "A는 [VP]ㄹ 씨라," "[VP]ㄹ 씨 A이라," "A는 [VP]ㄴ 뜯이라, "and"[VP]ㄹ씨 일후미 A이라" when they were verbs.

Chapter 5 discusses different aspects of Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae that appeared in the process of translation, focusing on several points as a function of the categories of noun, verbs, and adverbs.

In chapter 6, as for translation of the original text, Beophwakyeong-eonhae stuck to gugyeols, meaning that it followed literal (word-for-word) translation, but Worinseokbo adopted liberal (sense-for-sense) translation, meaning that it was affected by the translators' attitude.

In chapter 7, it is discovered that translation sequence of the original text became different depending on the differences of translators' attitudes, and some original sentences were skipped without being translated in both books.

In chapter 8, lexical comparison was made. It takes a view through classification by parts of speech to consider different translation of the same Chinese letters and phrases.

chapter 9 covers grammar comparison. It is divided into comparisons of cases, verbal case control, postposition omission, transitive words, honorific forms, causative and passive methods, endings, and infinitive moods.

So far, there have been researches of Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae and comparative researches of such books by their editions, but there has been no single paper that takes a comprehensive approach to the overall editions of Worinseokbo and Beophwagyeongeonhae focusing on the original text Peophwagyeong. This paper shows features of the Korean language used in the 15th century and the overall linguistic aspects appeared in the two books that were translated in the same period by taking a close review on such books. This research is meaningful in a sense that it shows the direction and provides a clue for proof-based research of the medieval Korean language.