As was mentioned in the above, the distinctions of Hangeul including graphic shapes originated from the distinguished principles of making graphemes.3) Therefore, it is needless to say that the making principles must be wholly studied, if the distinctions of Hangeul are to be rightly understood and described. Now, we can count originality and the scientific system as the distinction of Hangeul. It is due to the fact that the content of making principles has been somewhat revealed through research. Yet all the questions related to making principles have not been fully answered. And the content already grasped could not be asserted to be rightly described. To know something is one thing, and to summarize and describe it in its essential aspect is somewhat another.

Not until the method--terminology and theory--to express (or explain) it comes into being, does the distinction of something not reveal its real aspect. Similarly, the distinctions of Hangeul could not be fully explained or described without the appropriate theory and terminology suitable for them. A good example for this is that,from earlier times Korean scholars had already known that Hangeul is a writing system written with a phonemic unit like the Roman alphabet, but that it also has some different characteristics from the Roman alphabet. But with the introduction of the concept of ‘feature system’ the distinction of Hangeul can be rightly described. That is to say that they have described Hangeul only as a phonemic system which was the existing term, even they clearly knew the difference between the two.4)

Ultimately, if not deliberately, it was a distortion or a neglect of the distinctions of Hangeul. Hence, if there remained such aspects, it would be a very serious and important problem.

There have been quite a few discussions which indicated and emphasized the peculiarities of Hangeul. Yet little attention and few efforts have been directed to the question of understanding and describing those peculiarities. As was revealed in the above discussion, the unique distinctions of Hangeul have ultimately become non-distinctions as a result of the same viewpoint as in the case of a general writing system. In this context ‘the principles of making graphemes’ and ‘their graphic shapes’ which this paper will deal with are not exceptional. ‘The principles of making graphemes’ are the distinctions of Hangeul, but the terms used for the description of the principles have not been suitable for them.

If we count the most basic ones among the currently used terms related to the writing system, the term muncha(文字, writing or letter) could be listed first. In addition, the term cha(字, letter or grapheme) and k?lcha(글자, letter), used now in almost the same sense, could be candidates. As these terms are included in two titles ‘cheja wolli’(制字原理, principles of making graphemes) and ‘k?lchakkol’(글자꼴, graphic shapes), the discussion of writing would be impossible without these terms. This could be compared to the situation in which we cannot argue on mankind without using the terms of ‘mankind’, ‘man’, and ‘woman’. Yet those basic terms did not result from the sufficient consideration of the distinctions of Hangeul. It presented a serious problem that even the most basic terms cannot be used for the right description of the distinctions of Hangeul. If the first step fails, the next naturally fails in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.

3) 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.

4) As many papers pointed out, the first who explicitly designated the fact that Hangeul was different from a phonemic system in a general sense of the term, was not a Korean scholar, but rather a foreign scholar (Sampson, 1985). It was not because Korean scholars did not know of Hangeul less than he knew, but because they would not correctly describe even what they knew.