『일어유해』의 일본어 기재방법에 대하여 - 『왜어유해』의 일본어와의 비교를 중심으로 -

Abstract

In this research, I've looked for about transition of 『il-eo-yu-hae』 and 『wae-eo-yu-hae』, based on Japanese of 『il-eo-yu-hae』and 『wae-eo-yu-hae』. As a result, I found 2 branches, one is an identical conception between 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 and 『il-eo-yu-hae』, another is not. Details of discord parts between 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 and『il-eo-yu-hae』 , there is many kind of things are different. Because of system of description methods. Among them, it turned out the Japanese about principle of 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 and 『il-eo-yu-hae』were the most discord part. The reason of discord part of noted materials is that the Japanese used 『wae- eo-yu-hae』 is not available when 『il-eo-yu-hae』 is compiled and a new Japanese is used for Chinese character. Also, at the period of 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 compiled, it was reflected with Kamikadago and it compiled, based on Kyo-to. But period of 『il-eo-yu-hae』 compiled, To-Kyo language,based on Edogo, was already settled for common language. So I think such as Kansai dialect, part of Kamikadago system, was corrected because of necessity. The other system, that is discord part in the Japanese, is difference of expression. exception(2), only does description of Chinese character of ha-wi record in 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 where the Japanese must be, is noted Chinese character of san-wi and a new Japanese Hun is noted at place Chinese character of ha-wi. In『il-eo-yu-hae』, noted Japanese's Hun, deleted Japanese from 『wae-eo-yu-hae』. It also have one that a new Hun is made from exception(2). I think, these kind of things were added or deleted while period of 『il-eo-yu-hae』 compiled by common used or not. Including the fact that between the 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 of Chinese character of san-wi and『il-eo-yu-hae』 of Chinese character of san-wi has no difference, there is a system that one of 『il-eo-yu-hae』 was written from Hun which consist of two of Japanese In『wae-eo-yu-hae』. In 『wae-eo-yu-hae』, More than two japanese were written has indicating more than two of Japanese were commonly used and I assume the reason there's only one japanese was used in『il-eo-yu-hae』 with the same title is it has followed by publishing-regulation. The Japanese we can see from both 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 and 『il-eo-yu-hae』 is identical means these commonly used Japanese were the same at the time the each book had published. And the Japanese we can see from both 『wae-eo-yu-hae』 and 『il-eo-yu-hae』 is not identical means these commonly used japanese were not the same at the time the each book had published.