1. Preface

Hangeul is a very conspicuous writing system different from every other writing system in various aspects. It is needless to explain here again that which is conspicuous, and where such a characteristic originates. This is because innumerable research studies and explanations have been made on it, and as a result, nowadays its scientific distinction and originality are recognized world-wide. Nevertheless, every time we discuss Hangeul, we cannot but mention its peculiarity again and again (which no one denies), and cannot emphasize its right implications too frequently. To know well and always to speak of the distinctions of Hangeul theoretically is one thing, and not to fail to overlook and neglect it in discussing and describing Hangeul practically is another.

The Roman alphabet and Japanese Kana(假名) are derived from other writing systems. This was not true of only these two, but most extant and extinct writing systems were known to be brought about in this way.1)

But Hangeul was not the case. It was invented by King Sejong in the 15th century. And the method which King Sejong used in inventing it was scientific and creative, never at random. The fact that Hangeul has many traits appearing in no other writing system was due to its unique process of birth.

The various theories and methodologies applied to the invention of Hangeul are called ‘the principles of making graphemes’ as a common designation. It is the very ‘principles of making graphemes’ that this present paper will chiefly deal with. As is revealed in the title, the graphic shapes will be discussed in this paper. Yet as the principles fixing graphic shapes or the content implied in graphic shapes are ultimately the principles of making graphemes, the two subjects could be identical.

The principles of making graphemes cannot be discussed in every writing system. They can be discussed only in Hangeul and can be meaningful. In the other cases of writing systems, as a result of long transformation of the existing writing system, the very term ‘making principles’ is meaningless. Yet even in the other cases of writing systems the ‘graphic shapes’ could possibly be discussed and it may be necessary to do so. However, even in this case the content cannot be the same as that of Hangeul. The graphic shapes of Hangeul are not only mere symbols which distinguish themselves from each other, but the significant signs which contain various theories and pieces of information in their shapes.
The principle of making graphemes of Hangeul, that is, the various theories and methodologies appearing in the process of inventing a new writing system could not be handed down in their actual aspects afterwards.2)

What could not handed down afterwards was not only the principles of making graphemes; the very fact that King Sejong himself invented Hangeul had been almost forgotten for a long time. As a result even as late as the beginning of this century, not a few people thought that Hangeul was also derived from other existing writing systems. Many hypotheses presented under the name of the origins of Hangeul, were eloquent of the affairs at that time. In the article of Choi Hy?n-Bae's (1961) the summary and criticisms of the various opinions on the origin of Hangeul, were seen.

It could not be said that the similar opinions completely disappeared. Anyway, in the case of Hangeul if we took no notice of the invention or denied it, the subject of ‘making principles’ itself could not come into existence. In other words the discussion of the making principles presupposes the scientific invention. The author does not dispute this fact. There could be seen few counter-examples to doubt or refute the very fact of the invention at least for the present time.