| 自古九州之內 風土雖異 未有因方言而別爲文字者 雖蒙古西夏女眞日本西蕃之類各有其字 是皆夷狄事耳無足道者 傳曰用夏變夷 未聞變於夷者也 歷代中國皆以我國箕子遺風 文物禮欒 比擬中華 今別作諺文 捨中國自同於夷狄是所謂棄蘇合之香而取螗螂之丸也 豈非文明之大累哉
|
“Within the Chinese realms, though customs may differ, but their dialectal speech never caused the people thereof to develop their own script. Though western barbarians such as the Mongols, the Tangut, the Jurchens, the Japanese, and the Tibetans all have their own script, but it is a matter of being barbaric and does not merit consideration. The saying is "use Xia to convert the barbarians" - who has ever heard of adapting to their ways? Through its various dynasties, China has always taken us to be the descendants of Gija, the legendary Chinese Viscount of Ji because our artefacts, customs, and rituals are similar to those of China. Now if we were to create separate eonmun, discard China and make ourselves alike to the barbarians, we would as it were ‘desert the fragrant herbs for the dung of a praying mantis.’ How could this not be a setback to our civilization!
|
| 新羅薜聰吏讀, 雖爲鄙俚, 然皆借中國通行之字, 施於語助, 與文字元不相離, 故雖至胥吏僕隷之徒, 必欲習之。 先讀數書, 粗知文字, 然後乃用吏讀。 用吏讀者, 須憑文字, 乃能達意, 故因吏讀而知文字者頗多, 亦興學之一助也。 若我國, 元不知文字, 如結繩之世, 則姑借諺文, 以資一時之用猶可, 而執正議者必曰: “與其行諺文以姑息, 不若寧而習中國通行之文字, 以爲久長之計也。” 而況吏讀行之數千年, 而簿書期會等事, 無有防礎者, 何用改舊行無弊之文, 別創鄙諺無益之字乎? 若行諺文, 則爲吏者專習諺文, 不顧學問文字, 吏員岐而爲二。 苟爲吏者以諺文而宦達, 則後進皆見其如此也, 以爲: “二十七字諺文, 足以立身於世, 何須苦心勞思, 窮性理之學哉?” 如此則數十年之後, 知文字者必少。 雖能以諺文而施於吏事, 不知聖賢之文字, 則不學墻面, 昧於事理之是非, 徒工於諺文, 將何用哉? 我國家積累右文之化, 恐漸至掃地矣。 前此吏讀, 雖不外於文字, 有識者尙且鄙之, 思欲以吏文易之, 而況諺文與文字, 暫不干涉, 專用委巷俚語者乎? 借使諺文自前朝有之, 以今日文明之治, 變魯至道之意, 尙肯因循而襲之乎? 必有更張之議者, 此灼然可知之理也。 厭舊喜新, 古今通患, 今此諺文不過新奇一藝耳, 於學有損, 於治無益, 反覆籌之, 未見其可也。
|
Although Idu, a script created by Seol Chong in Silla , is rustic and indecent, it assists the language by recording Korean words through its equivalent meaning or sound in Chinese, which does not alienate itself from Hanja. Therefore, even petty officers and servants would like to learn it. Through reading a few books, they would have a rough understanding of Hanja and would turn to Idu after that. Since Idu users have to learn Hanja in order to express themselves, and therefore, many have acquired Hanja ability thorugh it. It is, still, an assistance to the promotion of education. If our country had no script at all in the first place, as if the knotting-string era, then it is still plausible to implement eonmun as a tentative measure. That said, upstanding officials must say," Compare with learning the interim eonmun to muddle along, one should rather tardily learn Hanja, which is prevalent in China, in the long run. Moreover, Idu has been working for thousands of years, and there hasn't been any hindrance to the bureaucratic paperwork. Then why should we change the effectual script by inventing a vulgar and futile one?Should eonmun is to be implemented, then officials would solely study eonmun and ignore the scholarly Hanja script, spiting the officialdom into two. Should a senior bureaucrat have a successful career without knowing eonmun, then the juniors would think that: "If (knowing)27 eonmun characters already suffices to position ourselves in the world, why should we exhaust ourselves to pursue the Chinese-based Confucianism?" If that is the case, then hardly anyone would know Hanja decades later. Although eonmun might be helpful in the bureaucracy, not knowing the script of the saint is as ignorant as staring at a plain wall, oblivious to right and wrong. What is the purpose of being good at eonmun? I am afraid our accumulation of culture will be gradually obliterated. The idu aforementioned, although borrowing hanja, is stilled despised by people with insight who intend to replace it by authentic Chinese, the officialese. Not to mention that eonmun has nothing to do with Hanja at all. Why are we to use such earthy and indecent script? Even if eonmum has already existed in the past dynasties, but by considering our prosperous civilisation today, should we still be wiling to follow it? It is evidently obvious that there must be proposals rectifying it. Loathing the old out of the desire for the new is a general problem of all times, regardless of past and present. Now, such eonmun is nothing but a new gadget. It is detrimental to study and is of no good to political governance. I don't see the feasibility of planning for it over and over.
|
| 若曰如刑殺獄辭 以吏讀文字書之 則不知文理之愚民 一字之差 容或致冤 今以諺文直書其言 讀使聽之 則雖至愚之人 悉皆易曉而無抱屈者 然自古中國言與文同 獄訟之間 冤枉甚多 借以我國言之 獄囚之解吏讀者 親讀招辭 知其誣而不勝棰楚 多有枉服者 是非不知招辭之文意而被冤也明矣 若然則雖用諺文 何異於此 是知刑獄之平不平 在於獄吏之如何 而不在於言與文之同不同也 欲以諺文而平獄辭 臣等未見其可也
|
"Some might claim that when it comes to the criminal justice system, for testimonies written in Idu, the ignorant illiterates might be wronged by the mere nuances in words. Now, with the help of eonmun, (the judiciary) can write directly and inform the prisoners. Even the most ignorant commoners will all no longer be unfairly treated. That being said, China has been using the same spoken and written language, yet wrongful convictions are still pervasive. By taking this as an example, Korean prisoners who master Idu are able to read their testimonies, but they would still often submit themselves to misjudges when being tortured, even having known that they are wronged. It should be more than clear that the miscarriage of justice has nothing to do with one's understanding of what was written in one's testimony. If that is the case, then the situation would still be of no different than that even if eonmun were to be implemented. Now (we) know that the fairness of the justice system depends on how do the prison officers perform their duties, instead of whether the written and the spoken languages are of the same script. We do not regard eonmun as a tool to equalise the judiciary.
|
