:::::::: 알고 싶은 한글 ::::::::

The principles of making graphemes could not be claimed to show themselves completely. The works, even if fruitful, have been focused on the report in ?Hunmin-Jeongeum?. Even the existing works based upon ?Hunmin-Jeongeum? leave much to be argued over their interpretations and faithfulness.

Now the author has no reasonable ground against the two ascertained principles of making graphemes in ?Hunmin- Jeongeum? and he has also no good alternative. However, this statement does not mean that the two principles--象形, 加劃--can explain all cases. Take a series of labial consonants ‘ㅁ’, ‘ㅂ’, and ‘ㅍ’ for example, it certainly is hard to explain them only with the principle of adding stroke(加劃). Furthermore, in the case of a grapheme ‘?’ it is far away outside the making principles. According to the principles it should have been made by modifying the basic grapheme of a velaric consonantal series ‘ㄱ’. Yet it was in fact made out of a glottal basic grapheme ‘ㅇ’ with an anomalous adding stroke. Of course, ?Hunmin- Jeongeum? left some comments of the reason of this strange graphic shape. But it is not easy to interpret the report correctly, and it is equally disputable to believe the record itself as it is.

The author cannot assert on this very spot the reason why these problems originated and how they are to be understood. The clear elucidation of these problems is a future task to be solved. In such a process of elucidation one point is worth noting. That is the idea that there might have been some trials and errors in addition to the revision of the original plan even in the process of inventing Hangeul.

There is no room for doubt of the fact that the sound represented by the grapheme ‘?’ was recognized as a velaric consonant neither transparent nor fortis(不淸不濁) at the time when ?Hunmin-Jeongeum? was written. However,there is nothing to guarantee that this was necessarily the case when its graphic shape was determined.Furthermore the question of why a velar sound was represented in the shape of a glottal sound may be the wrong question, for it is quite possible that when the shape was determined the sound had been classified as a glottal sound by mistakes. This line of reasoning applies with respect to other problems as well. Even if it must have been true that Hangeul was completed by these principles, there is room for doubt as to whether or not these principles alone were used consistently from the first to the last.17)

Even without clear documentation of the trials and errors and revision of orientation that took place as Hangeul was developed,common would suggest that this must have been the case.18)

There has been a great deal of study done already on the documents,and now it is necessary to look elsewhere for a new breakthrough. The author firmly believes that the secret of the successful invention of Hangeul was not the pursuit of a high-level theory but a matter of common sense and experience. Therefore, he thinks that the right understanding of the making principles should be based upon the same methodology.