• Title/Summary/Keyword: solecism

Search Result 2, Processing Time 0.019 seconds

A study on the Greeting's Types of Ganchal in Joseon Dynasty (간찰(簡札)의 안부인사(安否人事)에 대한 유형(類型) 연구(硏究))

  • Jeon, Byeong-yong
    • (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
    • /
    • no.57
    • /
    • pp.467-505
    • /
    • 2014
  • I am working on a series of Korean linguistic studies targeting Ganchal(old typed letters in Korea) for many years and this study is for the typology of the [Safety Expression] as the part. For this purpose, [Safety Expression] were divided into a formal types and semantic types, targeting the Chinese Ganchal and Hangul Ganchal of modern Korean Language time(16th century-19th century). Formal types can be divided based on whether Normal position or not, whether Omission or not, whether the Sending letter or not, whether the relationship of the high and the low or not. Normal position form and completion were made the first type which reveal well the typicality of the [Safety Expression]. Original position while [Own Safety] omitted as the second type, while Original position while [Opposite Safety] omitted as the third type, Original position while [Safety Expression] omitted as the fourth type. Inversion type were made as the fifth type which is the most severe solecism in [Safety Expression]. The first type is refers to Original position type that [Opposite Safety] precede the [Own Safety] and the completion type that is full of semantic element. This type can be referred to most typical and normative in that it equipped all components of [Safety Expression]. A second type is that [Safety Expression] is composed of only the [Opposite Safety]. This type is inferior to the first type in terms of set pattern, it is never outdone when it comes to the appearance frequency. Because asking [Opposite Safety] faithfully, omitting [Own Safety] dose not greatly deviate politeness and easy to write Ganchal, it is utilized. The third type is the Original position type showing the configuration of the [Opposite Safety]+Own Safety], but [Opposite Safety] is omitted. The fourth type is a Original position type showing configuration of the [Opposite Safety+Own Safety], but [Safety Expression] is omitted. This type is divided into A ; [Safety Expression] is entirely omitted and B ; such as 'saving trouble', the conventional expression, replace [Safety Expression]. The fifth type is inversion type that shown to structure of the [Own Safety+Opposite Safety], unlike the Original position type. This type is the most severe solecism type and real example is very rare. It is because let leading [Own Safety] and ask later [Opposite Safety] for face save is offend against common decency. In addition, it can be divided into the direct type that [Opposite Safety] and [Own Safety] is directly connected and indirect type that separate into the [story]. The semantic types of [Safety Expression] can be classified based on whether Sending letter or not, fast or slow, whether intimate or not, and isolation or not. For Sending letter, [Safety Expression] consists [Opposite Safety(Climate+Inquiry after health+Mental state)+Own safety(status+Inquiry after health+Mental state)]. At [Opposite safety], [Climate] could be subdivided as [Season] information and [Climate(weather)] information. Also, [Mental state] is divided as receiver's [Family Safety Mental state] and [Individual Safety Mental state]. In [Own Safety], [Status] is divided as receiver's traditional situation; [Recent condition] and receiver's ongoing situation; [Present condition]. [Inquiry after health] is also subdivided as receiver's [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety], [Safety] is as [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety]. Likewise, [Inquiry after health] or [Safety] is usually used as pairs, in dimension of [Family] and [Individual]. This phenomenon seems to have occurred from a big family system, which is defined as taking care of one's parents or grand parents. As for the Written Reply, [Safety Expression] consists [Opposite Safety (Reception+Inquiry after health+Mental state)+Own safety(status+Inquiry after health+Mental state)], and only in [Opposite safety], a difference in semantic structure happens with Sending letter. In [Opposite Safety], [Reception] is divided as [Letter] which is Ganchal that is directly received and [Message], which is news that is received indirectly from people. [Safety] is as [Family Safety] and [Individual Safety], [Mental state] also as [Family Safety Mental state] and [Individual Safety Mental state].

A Study on the Standardization and Diversification of Chinese Biographies of the Eminent Monks in the 7th and 8th Century (7~8세기 중국 고승전의 정형화와 다양화)

  • Jung Chun-koo
    • Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
    • /
    • v.48
    • /
    • pp.305-335
    • /
    • 2024
  • In the 7th and 8th centuries, Chinese Buddhism was at its peak, and major sects emerged and began to differ from one another in significant ways. This fact was also revealed through several versions of Biographies of the Eminent Monks and changes observable in the peculiarity of their formats. In the early 6th century, Huijiao (慧皎) compiled Gaosengzhuan (高僧傳, Biographies of Eminent Monks) which contains the history of Buddhism after it was introduced to China. At this time, he established a new format called the ten-subjects (十科). In 645, Daoxuan (道宣) used these ten-subjects as the basic framework to compile Xu-Gaosengzhuan (續高僧傳). However, by modifying and supplementing some parts of the ten-subjects, he standardized the ten-subjects into a format suitable for historiography. After the Xu-Gaosengzhuan, several versions of Biographies of the Eminent Monks were compiled in a format that further modified the ten-subjects. Fazang (法藏) wrote Huayanjing zhuanji (華嚴經傳記, 690?) which consisted of the ten-subjects, but the names and meanings of the subjects changed significantly to emphasize the Avatamsaka philosophy. Subsequently, while compiling Hongzan fahuazhuan (弘贊法華傳, 706?), Huixiang (惠詳) compiled a newly modified list of eight-subjects based on the ten-subjects of Gaosengzhuan and Xu-Gaosengzhuan. Sengxiang (僧詳) compiled Fahua xhuanji (法華傳記, 750?) in the format of twelve-subjects which added two new subjects to the ten-subjects of the Huayanjing zhuanji. These two formats focused on faith rather than philosophy. Even in the Chan (Zen) schools, a series of Biographies of the Eminent Monks was compiled from the beginning of the 8th century. Chuan fabaoji (傳法寶紀, 713?), Lengqui shiziji (楞伽師資記, 713?), Lidai fabaoji (歷代法寶記, 774), and Baolin zhuan (寶林傳, 801) are all examples of such compilations. However, the format of these four Biographies of the Eminent Monks was completely different from prior versions. Without setting any subjects, the authors established and described a dharma lineage transmitted continually from master to disciple. This is because Chan Buddhism does not rely on Buddhist texts but focuses on monks achieving realization through other means. At first, only the Chinese patriarchs were listed, but starting with Baolin zhuan, 27 patriarchs including Buddha and Kasyapa were included in the dharma lineage and presented as history. This fictional lineage was based on the need to secure sectarian superiority and legitimacy as Chan Buddhism flourished.