지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In the Chinese language characters distinguish themselves by their phonetic or pictographic origin. The following thesis explains, that the character ‘父’(fu) is not derived from the pictograph of ‘ax’, but from the phonetic sound of ‘?(fu)’. Consequently, this derivation of the character ‘父’ is a result of the rebus principle.
The writer of this thesis develops and supports his thesis with numerous approaches. The first one being that the historical layer of ‘Human progress’ and the historical layer of ‘Human characters’ chronologically, do not fall in the same time line. Some individuals neglect this aspect and falsely consider the character ‘父’ to represent the idea of the paterfamilias.
The second approach is that there is no clear evidence that proves, that in ancient times the Male was the only one capable of using an ‘ax’. Further, even if the use of an ‘ax’ was an exclusive Male occupation, it would still merely represent the Male and not necessarily the 'Father' figure.
The last consideration suggests, that due to the existence of the latter periodical character ‘斧’ we cannot claim ‘ax’ to be the origin of ‘父’. The upper part ‘父’ of the character ax ‘斧’ simply acts as a sound indicator, therefore the character ax ‘斧’ is pronounced /fu/. Consequently it is the lower part ‘斤’of the character ax ‘斧’ that is responsible for the semantic meaning of the character. It is important to mention that the character ‘斧’ which is a combination of two characters, differs from the classical ax ‘斤’ and is more understood as a tool.
Lastly it is rather unlikely that father is a pictographic derivation of the word ax because humans from a historical point of view instinctively associate /f/ sounds or /m/ sounds to the terms father or mother. Therefore the rebus principle seems to be a more valid explanation. The ‘父’ of father shared the same sound value as its isogenous character 卜 (?). Due to the misleading same phonetic character of this sign, Chinese people needed new character in order to distinguish between ‘Father’ and ‘to hit’ which gave birth to the characters, ‘?’, ‘?’.
The writer of this thesis develops and supports his thesis with numerous approaches. The first one being that the historical layer of ‘Human progress’ and the historical layer of ‘Human characters’ chronologically, do not fall in the same time line. Some individuals neglect this aspect and falsely consider the character ‘父’ to represent the idea of the paterfamilias.
The second approach is that there is no clear evidence that proves, that in ancient times the Male was the only one capable of using an ‘ax’. Further, even if the use of an ‘ax’ was an exclusive Male occupation, it would still merely represent the Male and not necessarily the 'Father' figure.
The last consideration suggests, that due to the existence of the latter periodical character ‘斧’ we cannot claim ‘ax’ to be the origin of ‘父’. The upper part ‘父’ of the character ax ‘斧’ simply acts as a sound indicator, therefore the character ax ‘斧’ is pronounced /fu/. Consequently it is the lower part ‘斤’of the character ax ‘斧’ that is responsible for the semantic meaning of the character. It is important to mention that the character ‘斧’ which is a combination of two characters, differs from the classical ax ‘斤’ and is more understood as a tool.
Lastly it is rather unlikely that father is a pictographic derivation of the word ax because humans from a historical point of view instinctively associate /f/ sounds or /m/ sounds to the terms father or mother. Therefore the rebus principle seems to be a more valid explanation. The ‘父’ of father shared the same sound value as its isogenous character 卜 (?). Due to the misleading same phonetic character of this sign, Chinese people needed new character in order to distinguish between ‘Father’ and ‘to hit’ which gave birth to the characters, ‘?’, ‘?’.
목차
1. 들어가며
2. 父에 대한 지금까지의 해석
3. 왜 (돌)도끼가 아닌가?
4. 父가 ?의 假借字일 가능성에 대한 탐구
5. 나가며
〈參考文獻〉
〈ABSTRACT〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
아베 고보(安部公房) 문학에 있어서의 〈가족〉 : 〈무능력한 아버지〉 상(像)을 중심으로
일본문화학보
2009 .02
-
大江健三郎「父よ、あなたはどこへ行くのか?」論 : 父子関係を通してみる父の復元作業の意味
일어일문학
2018 .08
-
[간행사] 周文謨 神父 特輯을 刊行하면서
교회사연구
1995 .10
-
한일 소설에 나타난 부친상(父親像)의 비교 연구 : 1945년 직후를 중심으로
한국현대문학회 학술발표회자료집
2008 .08
-
[당선소감] 외조부外祖父 길 따라 … 전통, 오늘의 새로움으로 만들 것
시조시학
2015 .03
-
[기조 강연] 周文謨 神父 선교 활동의 배경
교회사연구
1995 .10
-
相談者로서의 本堂神父
신학전망
1993 .06
-
後漢時代 里父老와 國家權力 : 「漢侍廷里父老僤買田約束石券」의 분석을 중심으로
동양사학연구
1991 .01
-
한국과 일본의 아버지 자녀양육참여에 관한 연구
일본문화연구
2018 .01
-
語源을 通해서 본 本堂神父 實存
신학전망
1993 .06
-
G. M. Hopkins의 人間觀 : 神父詩人으로서
새한영어영문학
1986 .12
-
[번역 논문] 周文謨 神父의 朝鮮 入國
교회사연구
1995 .10
-
中国传统文化中的隐逸文化心态 : 以北宋东坡渔父词为主
인문과학연구
2016 .06
-
主敎와 神父들의 關係에 대한 敎會法的 小考
신학전망
1987 .06
-
[설림] 劉方濟 神父 역할의 재조명 - 적응주의의 시각에서 -
교회사연구
1995 .10
-
[번역 논문] 朝鮮에 있어서 周文謨 神父의 天主敎 布敎에 대하여
교회사연구
1995 .10
-
[개별발표] 미야자와 겐지의 음식물 표현 연구-『은하철도의 밤』의 牛乳를 중심으로-
일본문화연구
2003 .10
-
回勅 「교회의 선교사명」에 대한 李濟民 神父의 書評에 대한 評
신학전망
1994 .09
-
[기조 강연] 周文謨 神父 宣敎活動 전후의 殉敎者들
교회사연구
1995 .10
-
가사이 젠조(葛西善藏) 작품에 있어서의 허구와 실생활의 왜곡 -「애절한 아버지(哀しき父)」와 「꿈틀거리는 자(蠢く者)」를 중심으로 -
일어일문학연구
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-820-018388991