万葉集의 음차자 農 (Ⅰ)―馬渕和夫설을 중심으로―
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper considers Kazuo Mabuchi's view of Chinese character used as Many Kana or Japanese phonetic alphabet in Manysh. The result leads us why we have to widen our study to studies and data witten in various languages including FarEastern Asia's old languages. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) Mabuchi insists that there is no Chinese charaters in rime and for /nu/, and is used only by Yamanoueno Okura. However, he has fallacies in data interpretation, because there are 10 characters in rime with rising tone and 5 ones in rime with departing tone, and is also used by Yamabeno Akahito. (2) He emphasizes on Okura's not differenciating between /nu/ and /no/. But we do not agree with him from the two viewpoints. One is that Okura differenciates between /nu/ written with ･and /no/ recorded with kun reading or explanatory reading, and the other is that he did not need to make use of Many Kana only for one word with /no/ used just only for one time. (3) Mabuchi lays stress on a theory that Chinese literary men, not Korean peninsula ones, took part in recording Japanese works. This theory is avaluable only for On Kanas or phonetic alphabets, but is not from the standpoint of literary stylistics in which Old Japan and Baekje, not China, had common.
Abstract
This paper considers Kazuo Mabuchi's view of Chinese character used as Many Kana or Japanese phonetic alphabet in Manysh. The result leads us why we have to widen our study to studies and data witten in various languages including FarEastern Asia's old languages. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) Mabuchi insists that there is no Chinese charaters in rime and for /nu/, and is used only by Yamanoueno Okura. However, he has fallacies in data interpretation, because there are 10 characters in rime with rising tone and 5 ones in rime with departing tone, and is also used by Yamabeno Akahito. (2) He emphasizes on Okura's not differenciating between /nu/ and /no/. But we do not agree with him from the two viewpoints. One is that Okura differenciates between /nu/ written with ･and /no/ recorded with kun reading or explanatory reading, and the other is that he did not need to make use of Many Kana only for one word with /no/ used just only for one time. (3) Mabuchi lays stress on a theory that Chinese literary men, not Korean peninsula ones, took part in recording Japanese works. This theory is avaluable only for On Kanas or phonetic alphabets, but is not from the standpoint of literary stylistics in which Old Japan and Baekje, not China, had common.
참고문헌 (27)
- 국립부여박물관, "제목간-소장품 조사 자료집", 국립부여박물관, 18~ (2008)
- 김대성, "萬葉集의 ‘奴努怒’ 표기 연구(Ⅰ)", 언어과학연구, 37(37), pp.225~241 (2006), 언어과학회
- 김대성, "山上憶良의 ノ甲類와 ヌ의 이중형 문제와 舌音 音借字", 日本語文學, 1(30), pp.19~42 (2006), 한국일본어문학회
- 김완진, "향가 해독법 연구", pp.68~70 (1988), 서울대학교 출판부
- 류렬, "향가 연구", pp.163~ (2004), 박이정
- 유창균, "한국 고대한자음의 연구 Ⅱ", pp.329~330 (1983), 계명대학교 출판부
- 유창균, "삼국시대의 한자음", pp.370~ (1991), 민음사
- 장세경, "이두자료 읽기 사전", pp.25~26 (2007), 한양대학교 출판부
- 한국고대사회연구소, "역주한국고대금석문Ⅱ(신라1･가야 편)", 가락국사적개발연구원, 175~178 (1992)
- 伊藤博, "万葉集釈注" (2000), 集英社
- 稲岡耕二, "万葉集巻五の音仮名に就いて(上)(下）憶良の仮名用字圏", 国語と国文学, 37(7), pp.14~29 (1960)
- 稲岡耕二, "万葉表記論", pp.217~452 (1986), 塙書房
- 大野晋, "奈良時代のヌとノの萬葉假名について", 万葉, 12, pp.1~24 (1954), 万葉学会
- 澤瀉久孝, "萬葉集注釋 卷第一-卷第二十" (1990), 中央公論社
- 小島憲之, "萬葉集(新編日本古典文学全集)" (1996), 小学館
- 小林芳規, "万葉集における漢文訓読語の影響", 国語学, 58, pp.23~47 (1964)
- 高木市之助, "萬葉集 一四(日本古典文学大系)" (1962), 岩波書店
- 土屋文明, "萬葉集私注 第一巻-第十八巻" (1956), 筑摩書房
- 鶴久, "上代特殊假名遣の消滅過程について-｢野｣字の訓の変遷をめぐつて-", 文学研究, 55, pp.71~92 (1956), 九州大学文学部
- 鶴久, "萬葉集" (1995), おうふう
- 藤堂明保, "音注韻鏡校本" (1971), 木耳社
- 沼本克明, "日本漢字音の歴史" (1991), 東京堂出版
- 馬渕和夫, "野はノかヌか-憶良の用字｢農｣を巡って-", 万葉, 166, pp.49~60 (1998), 万葉学会
- 森博達, "古代の音韻と日本書紀の成立" (1991), 大修館書店
- Karlgren,Bernhard, "Compendium of Phonetics in Ancient and Archaic Chinese" (1963), Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities
- Pulleyblank,E.G, "Middle Chinese: A Study in Historical Phonology" (1984), University of British Columbia Press
- 藝文印書館, "等韻五種" (1981), 藝文印書館