≪漢韓大辭典≫ 一卷에 나타난 意味解釋 誤謬硏究

Abstract

This research points out the problems with some semantic interpretation shown in the first volume of the Great Chinese-Korean Dictionary by selecting items of three expressions. The author divided this study into three parts. First, error analysis of semantic interpretation of 'Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho'(一雙兩好), second, 'Sam-Moo'(三武), and third, 'Bul-Seong-In-Sa'(不省人事) and 'In-Sa-Bul-Seong'(人事不省). This study is briefly summarized as follows. First, this research examines the errors in the semantic interpretation of 'Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho' and suggests some modification by reviewing a variety of literature such as 'Yoo-Rim-Oe-Sa'(儒林外史), 'Cheong-Pa-Jab-Ji'(?波雜志) 'Go-San-Ang-Ji'(高山仰止), 'Seo-Ho-Yi-Jip'(西湖二集) and 'Gi-Mae-Hwa-Gui-Ryo-Suh-Gak'(寄梅花鬼鬧西閣). The findings of the study suggest that the meanings of 'Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho' can be interpreted as 'matching well each other', 'both look good together' and 'both are good together', but the meaning like 'the couple lives in conjugal harmony' is inappropriate and thus should be deleted. In addition, the reasons of the erroneous semantic interpretation of the item, 'Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho' shown in the Great Chinese-Korean Dictionary are revealed by comparing and contrasting the items presented in various dictionaries including 'Dae-Han-Hwa Dictionary'(大漢和?典), 'Joong-Mun Great Dictionary'(中文大辭典), and 'Han-Uh Great Dictionary'(漢語大詞典). Second, through the examination of historical facts, this study finds out that 'Sam-Moo' (三武) includes 'Tae-moo-je, Moo-je, and Moo-jong' but does not include 'Do-moo-je.' Furthermore, this study discusses the inappropriateness of the expression 'oppression' shown in the item, 'Sam-Moo' by comparing it with other great dictionaries. In particular, this study argues that one of the item expressions, 'annihilating buddhists' does not represent objective historical views and thus introduces Ryu-ang's argument that it is appropriate to interpret the expression as 'prohibiting buddhists.' Third, this study finds out that the meanings between the two words, 'Bul-Seong-In-Sa' and 'In-Sa-Bul-Seong' in reverse order are the same and thus it discusses the problems with the lack and wrong usage of examples of the item in the dictionary as well as the discrepancy between a word and its word class in semantic interpretation. Moreover, it points out the lack of clarity of the interpretation, 'not knowing the proper manner as a human being' and thus suggests that the meaning should be modified to 'being ignorant of the world as a human being'. This research points out the problems with some semantic interpretation shown in the first volume of the Great Chinese-Korean Dictionary by selecting items of three expressions. The author divided this study into three parts. First, error analysis of semantic interpretation of ``Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho``(一雙兩好), second, ``Sam-Moo``(三武), and third, ``Bul-Seong-In-Sa``(不省人事) and ``In-Sa-Bul-Seong`` (人事不省). This study is briefly summarized as follows. First, this research examines the errors in the semantic interpretation of ``Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho`` and suggests some modification by reviewing a variety of literature such as ``Yoo-Rim-Oe-Sa``(儒林外史), ``Cheong-Pa-Jab-Ji``(淸波雜志) ``Go-San-Ang-Ji``(高山仰止), ``Seo-Ho-Yi-Jip``(西湖二集) and ``Gi-Mae-Hwa-Gui-Ryo-Suh-Gak``(寄梅花鬼鬧西閣). The findings of the study suggest that the meanings of ``Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho`` can be interpreted as ``matching well each other``, ``both look good together`` and ``both are good together``, but the meaning like ``the couple lives in conjugal harmony`` is inappropriate and thus should be deleted. In addition, the reasons of the erroneous semantic interpretation of the item, ``Il-Ssang-Yang-Ho`` shown in the Great Chinese-Korean Dictionary are revealed by comparing and contrasting the items presented in various dictionaries including ``Dae-Han-Hwa Dictionary``(大漢和辭典), ``Joong-Mun Great Dictionary``(中文大辭典), and ``Han-Uh Great Dictionary``(漢語大詞典). Second, through the examination of historical facts, this study finds out that ``Sam-Moo``(三武) includes ``Tae-moo-je, Moo-je, and Moo-jong`` but does not include ``Do-moo-je.`` Furthermore, this study discusses the inappropriateness of the expression ``oppression`` shown in the item, ``Sam-Moo`` by comparing it with other great dictionaries. In particular, this study argues that one of the item expressions, ``annihilating buddhists`` does not represent objective historical views and thus introduces Ryu-ang`s argument that it is appropriate to interpret the expression as ``prohibiting buddhists.`` Third, this study finds out that the meanings between the two words, ``Bul-Seong-In-Sa`` and ``In-Sa-Bul-Seong`` in reverse order are the same and thus it discusses the problems with the lack and wrong usage of examples of the item in the dictionary as well as the discrepancy between a word and its word class in semantic interpretation. Moreover, it points out the lack of clarity of the interpretation, ``not knowing the proper manner as a human being`` and thus suggests that the meaning should be modified to ``being ignorant of the world as a human being``.