This study has the purpose for comparing the various syntactic and semantic characteristics of conjunctive and adnominal endings in Korean and Mongolian language. While Korean has verbs and adjectives designated as declinable words that play the role ...
This study has the purpose for comparing the various syntactic and semantic characteristics of conjunctive and adnominal endings in Korean and Mongolian language. While Korean has verbs and adjectives designated as declinable words that play the role of inflection when conjoined with endings, Mongolian is restricted with conjunctive endings since the verbs only can inflect.
I studied the systems of endings in Korean and Mongolian in chapter 2. The two languages have shown differences in the aspects on endings. For instance, the conjunctive endings in Korean can be classified largely into 3 main groups ? ranking, dependent and auxiliary. On the other hand, conjunctive endings are only bisected into ranking and dependent in Mongolian. Moreover the dependent in Korean consists of noun endings, adnominal endings and adverbial endings, while adnominal endings merely exist in Mongolian. Although the two languages show identical characters in respect with the meaning of endings, they differ greatly while concrete matters are taken into account. For example, the tense endings in Korean belong to the pre-final ending while it is a subdivision of final ending in Mongolian.
I focused on the comparison of conjunctive endings conjoined with verbs in chapter 3.
Both ?-go? ending in Korean and ?-j? ending in Mongolian stand for ranking, occasion and confrontation, though the ?-j? ending does not represent the meaning of cause and reason. But it shows the meaning of compromise or permission when it joins the principal verb with the supportive one.
In the syntacto-semantic aspect, both ?-ja?, ?-jamaja?, ?-(eu)myeon? endings of Korean and ?-nguut?, ?-magts?, ?-val? endings of Mongolian bear no difference at all.
Although ?-gosa? ending in Korean and ?-aad? ending in Mongolian show similarity in representing the meaning of occasion, cause and reason etc., the ?-aad? ending can take place only in a sentence containing identical subjects.
Besides, both ?-(eu)myeo? in Korean and ?-n? endings in Mongolian bear close relation with respect to time. But ?-(en)myeo? can not mean occasion or cause and effect like its Korean counterpart. In syntactic aspect, both differ to a very small extent.
Korean ?-ado? refers to the meaning of compromise, confrontation, condition and permission while its comparable counterpart ?-vch? in Mongolian shows the meaning of compromise and insufficiency.
On the other hand, while the ?-dorok? in Korean represents outcome, its Mongolian counterpart ?-tal? provides the meaning of outcome and limit. In this respect, unlike ?-dorok?, the ?-tal? ending can only be written in a sentence having identical subjects.
But the most significant difference in the conjunctive endings of these two languages is that while the conjunctive ending in Korean can unite with tense ending, the same in Mongolian can not conjoin with a tense ending at all.
I studied the comparison of adnominal endings in Korean and Mongolian in chapter 4. Although Mongolian has three future adnominal and two present adnominal endings, Korean has only one from each. On the other hand, Korean is having two past adnominal endings. For instance, there is no past adnominal in Mongolian corresponding to ?-deon? in Korean. Both the adnominal endings from Korean and Mongolian represent the time of verb and modify the noun. In addition to this, the adnominal ending in Mongolian can complete a sentence. Also in Mongolian, when a noun following an adnominal ending disappears, the verb conjoined with the adnominal can unite with the case marker, plural case and reflexive case like the substantives do. But the Korean adnominal ending does not have the aforementioned function.
，韩语论文题目，韩语毕业论文 |
