좀 오래됐지만 미국 디스커버리지에 연재된 한글소개기사(영문임)

[니오]

해석했으면 좋았겠지만 불행히도 읽기도 겨우 하는 수준이라서...
외국인이 한글을 얼마나 높이 평가하는지 알 수 있습니다. 출저는
하이텔입니다.


제 목:Discover지 한글 소개 기사
보낸이:정석근 (fishery ) 1998-02-21 10:32 조회:789

안녕하세요. 인터넷 편지로 제럴드 다이아몬드씨가 디스커브리라는
과학잡지에 기고한 한글과 세종대왕 관련 영문 기사에 관심이 많다는 편지를
받았습니다. 94 년 6 월호 Discover 지에서는 사람의 지적 능력에 대한 특집
기사를 실었는데 그 중 하나로 글이 어떻게 발달했으며 세계 각국에서
알파벳이 어떻게 만들어지게 되었는가를 살펴보는 내용이었습니다. 알파벳을
만드는데는 창의력이 필요한데 세계 역사를 통틀어 한글이야말로 가장
창의력이 높은 초이성적인 알파벳이라는 것을 소개하고 있습니다. 그리고 왜
남한에서 우수한 한글을 두고 중국 글자를 오랫동안 고집하는가 그 이유도
나름대로 분석해놓고 있습니다.

제가 오늘 시간을 내어 스캐너로 잡지 이미지를 얻어서 글자 해독
소프트웨어로 읽어드렸습니다. 중간에 혹시 틀린 글자는 이 이미지 해독 (OCR)
과정에서 생긴 것입니다. 나름대로 찾아서 고쳤지만 완벽하지는 않을 것
같군요. 자료 그림도 자료실에 올릴까 생각중인데 다음에 하도록 하지요.
이미지 해독하는 것보다 직접 타자로 치는게 더 빠를 뻔 했습니다. 한
페이지에 한 칼럼이 아니고 3 칼럼에다가 매 페이지마다 그림이 중간에 있어서
정리하는데 시간이 좀 걸렸습니다.

그럼 많이 읽어주시길... 한글뿐만 아니라 다른 나라 알파벳 역사도
살펴볼 수 있는 좋은 글입니다. 글쓴이 다이아몬드씨는 미국에서 유명한
컬럼니스트입니다.

WRITING RIGHT

SOME WRITTEN LANGUAGES ARE A PRECISE REFLECTION OF A PEOPLE S SPEECH,
WHILE OTHERS, LIKE ENGLISH, ARE A COMPLETE MESS. IS THIS ALPHABETICAL
EVOLUTION? OR THE UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF LOGIC TO LITERACY? BY JARED
DIAMOND

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO read and write English? You answer, "Of course,
Jared Diamond, you dope. How else would I be reading this magazine?" In
that case, have you ever tried to explain the rules behind written
English to someone? The logic, say, of spelling the word seed as we do
instead of cede, ceed, or sied? Or why the sound sh can be written as ce
(as in ocean), ti (as in nation), or ss (as in issue), to name just a few
possibilities?

Innumerable examples like these illustrate the notorious
difficulties of written English, even for educated adults. As I am now
rediscovering through my twin sons in the first grade, English spelling
is so inconsistent that children who have learned the basic rules
(insofar as there are any) still can't pronounce many written words or
spell words spoken to them. Danish writing is also difficult, Chinese and
South Korean harder, and Japanese hardest of all. But it didn't have to
be that way. French children can at least pronounce almost anywritten
word, though they often cannot spell spoken words. In Finland and North
Korea the fit between spoken sounds and written signs is so nearly
perfect that the question "How do you spell it?" is virtually unknown.

"Civilized" people have always considered literacy as the divide
between themselves and barbarians. Surely, if we civilized English
speakers sat down to devise a writing system, we could do as well as
Finns or North Koreans. Why, then, is there such variation inthe
precision of writing systems? With thousands of years of literacy now
behind us, are today's writing systems-even imperfect ones like our
own-at least more precise than ancient ones, such as Egyptian
hieroglyphics? Why do we, or any other people, cling to systems that are
demonstrably lousy at doing what they're supposed to do?

Before exploring these questions, we need to remind ourselves of the
three basic strategies that underlie writing systems. The strategies
differin the size of the speech unit denoted by one written sign: either
a single basic sound, or a whole syllable, or a whole word.

The most widespread strategy in the modem world is the alphabet,
which ideally would provide a unique sign-a letter-for every basic sound,
or phoneme, of the language. Another widespread strategy employs
logograms, written signs that stand for whole words. Before the spread of
alphabetic writing, systems heavily dependent on logograms were common
and included Egyptian hieroglyphs, Mayan glyphs, Sumerian cuneiform.
Logograms continue to be used today, notably in Chinese and in kanji, the
predominant writing system employed by the Japanese.

The third strategy uses a sign for each syllable. For instance,
there could be separate signs for the syllables fa, mi, and ly, which
could be strung together to write the word family. Such syllabaries were
common in ancient times, as exemplified by the Linear B writing of
Mycenaean Greece.Some persist today, of which the most important is the
kana syllabary, used by the Japanese for telegrams, among other things.

I've intentionally termed these three approaches strategies rather
than writing systems because no actual writing system employs one
strategy exclusively. Like all "alphabetic" writing systems, English uses
many logograms, such as numerals and various arbitrary signs+, $, %, for
example that are not made up of phonetic elements. "Logographic" Egyptian
hieroglyphs included many syllabic signs plus a virtual alp habet of
individual letters for each consonant.

Writing systems are still coming into existence, consciously
designed by trained linguists. Missionaries, for example, are translating
the Bible into native languages of New Guinea, and Chinese government
linguists are producing writing materials for their tribal peoples. Most
such tailor-made systems modify existing alphabets, although some instead
invent syllabaries, But those conscious creations are developed by
professional linguists, and linguistics itself is barely a few centuries
old. How did writing systems arise before that-also through purposeful
design, or by slow evolution? Is there any way we can figure out whether
Egyptian hieroglyphs, for example, were a conscious creation?


One way of approaching that question is to look at historical
examples of systems that we know were consciously designed by
nonprofessionals. A primeexample is Korea's remarkable hangul alphabet.
By the fifteenth century, when this alphabet was invented, Koreans had
been struggling for more than 1,000 years with cumbersome adaptations of
already cumbersome Chinese writing-a "gift" from their larger,
influential neighbor. The unhappy results were described in 1446 by
Korea's King Sejong:

"The sounds of our country's language differ from those of the
Middle Kingdom [China] and are not confluent with the sounds of our
characters. Therefore, among the ignorant people there have been many
who, having something they want to put into words, have in the end been
unable to express their feelings. I have been distressed because of this,
and have newly designed 28 letters, which I wish to have everyone
practice at their ease and make convenient for their daily use."

THE KING'S 28 letters have been described by scholars as "the world's
best alphabet" and "the most scientific system of writing." They are an
ultrarational system devised from scratch to incorporate three unique
features.

First, hangul vowels can be distinguished at a glance from hangul
consonants: the vowels are written as long vertical or horizontal lines
with small attached marks; consonants, meanwhile, are all compact
geometric signs. Related vowels or consonants are further grouped by
related shapes. For example, the signs for the round vowels u and o are
similar, as are the signs for the velar consonants g, k, and kb.

Even more remarkable, the shape of each consonant depicts the
position in which the lips, mouth, or tongue is held to pronounce that
letter. For instance, the signs for n and d depict the tip of the tongue
raised to touch the front of the palate; k depicts the outline of the
root of the tongue blocking the throat. Twentieth-century scholars were
incredulous that those resemblances could really be intentional until
1940, when they discovered the original draft of King Sejong's 1446
proclamation and found the logic explicitly spelled out.

Finally, hangul letters are grouped vertically and horizontally into
square blocks corresponding to syllables, separated by spaces greater
than those between letters but less than those between words. That's as
if the Declaration of Independence were to contain the sentence:


A me a cr a re e qua
IL n re e d l

As a result, the Korean hangul alphabet combines the advantages of a
syllabary with those of an alphabet: there are only 28 signs to remember,
but the grouping of signs into larger sound bites facilitates rapid
scanning and comprehension.


The Korean alphabet provides an excellent example of the cultural
phenomenon of "idea diffusion." That phenomenon contrasts with the
detailed copying often involved in the spread of technology: we infer
that wheels, for example, began to diffuse across Europe around 3500 B.C.
because all those early wheelsconformed to the same detailed design.
However, the Korean alphabet conformed to no existing design; instead it
was the idea of writing that diffused to Korea. So too did the idea of
square blocks, suggested by the block format of Chinese characters and so
did the idea of an alphabet, probably borrowed from Mongol, Tibetan, or
Indian Buddhist writing. But the details were invented from first
principles.

There are many other writing systems that we know were deliberately
designed by historical individuals. In addition, there are some ancient
scripts that are so regularly organized that we can safely infer
purposeful design from them as well, even though nothing has come down to
us about their origins.

For example, we have documents dating from the fourteenth century
B.C., from the ancient Syrian coastal town of Ugarit, that are written in
a doubly remarkable 3 0-letter alphabet. The letters were formed by a
technique then widespread in the Near East called cuneiform writing, in
which a reed stylus was pressed into a clay tablet. Depending on the
stylus's orientation, a sign could be a wedge-tipped vertical line, a
wedge-tipped horizontal line, or a broad wedge.

The Ugaritic alphabet's most striking feature is its regularity. The
letterforms include one, two, or three parallel or sequential vertical or
horizontal lines; one, two, or three horizontal lines crossed by the same
number of vertical lines-, and so on. Each of the 30 letters requires, on
average, barely three strokes to be drawn, yet each is easily
distinguished from the others. The overall result is an economy of
strokes and consequently, we assume, a speed of writing and ease of
reading. The other remarkable feature of the Ugaritic alphabet is that
the letters requiring the fewest strokes may have represented the most
frequently heard sounds of the Semitic language then spoken at Ugarit.
Again, this would make it easier to write fast.

Those two laborsaving devices could hardly have arisen by chance.
They imply that some Ugarit genius sat down and used his or her brain to
design the Ugaritic alphabet purposefully. As we shall see, by 1400 B.C.
the idea of an alphabet was already hundreds of years old in the Near
East. And cuneiform writing was by then nearly 2,000 years old. However,
as with King Sejong's 28 letters, the Ugarit genius received only those
basic ideas by diffusion, then designed the letterforms and the remaining
principles independently.

There were other ancient writing systems with such regular
organization and for which we can similarly infer tailor-made creation.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that even some highly irregular systems
were consciously designed. The clearest example of these is the most
famous of all ancient writing systems: Egyptian hieroglyphics, a complex
mixture of logograms, syllabic signs, unpronounced signs, and a 24-letter
consonantal alphabet. Despite this system's complexity, two facts suggest
that the underlying principles were quickly designed and did not evolve
through a lengthy process of trial and error. The first is that Egyptian
hieroglyphic writing appears suddenly around 3050 B.C. in nearly
full-blown form, as annotations to scenes carved on ceremonial objects.
Even though Egypt`5 dry climate would have been favorable for preserving
any earlier experiments in developing those signs, no such evidence of
gradual development has come down to us.

The other fact arguing for the deliberate creation of Egyptian
hieroglyphic writing is that it appears suspiciously soon after the
appearance of Sumerian cuneiform a couple of centuries earlier, at a time
of intense contact and trade linking Egypt and Sumer. It would be
incredible if, after millions of years of human illiteracy, two societies
in contact happened independently to develop writing systems within a few
hundred years of each other. The most likely explanation, again, is idea
diffusion. The Egyptians probably learned the idea and some principles of
writing from the Sumerians. The other principles and all the specific
forms of the letters were then quickly designed by some Egyptian who was
clever, but not quite as clever as Korea's King Sejong.

So far, I've been discussing writing systems created by conscious
design. In contrast, other systems evolved by a lengthy process of trial
and error, with new features added and old features modified or discarded
at different stages. Sumerian cuneiform, the oldest known writing system
in the world, is one prime example of such an evolved writing system.

Sumerian cuneiform may have begun around 8000 B.C. in the farming
villages of the prehistoric Near East, when clay tokens of various simple
shapes were developed for accounting purposes, such as recording numbers
of sheep. In the last centuries before 3000 B.C., changes in accounting
technology and the use of signs rapidly transformed the tokens into the
first system of writing. This included a number of innovations, such as
the organization of writing into horizontal lines. The most important,
however, was the introduction of phonetic representation. The Sumerians
figured out how to depict an abstract noun, one that could not be readily
drawn as a picture, with another sign that was depictable and that had
the same phonetic pronunciation. For instance, it's hard to draw a
recognizable picture of life, say, but easy to draw a recognizable
picture of arrow. In Sumerian, both these words are pronounced ti. The
resulting ambiguity was resolved by adding a silent sign called a
determinative to indicate the category of noun the intended object
belonged to. Later the Sumerians expanded this phonetic practice,
employing it to write syllables or letters constituting grammatical
endings.

While revolutionary, the phonetic signs in Sumerian writing
nonetheless fell far short of a complete syllabary or alphabet. Some
symbols lacked any written sign, while the same sign could be written in
different ways or be read as a word, syllable, or letter. The result was
a clumsy mess. Eventually, as with the subsequent users of cuneiform
writing and along with the 3,000 years of Egyptian hieroglyphics, all
passed into oblivion, vanquished by the advantages of more precise
alphabetic writing.

MOST AREAS of the modern world write by means of alphabets because
they offer the potential advantage of combining precision with
simplicity. Alphabets apparently arose only once in history: among
speakers of Semitic languages, roughly in the area from modern Syria to
the Sinai, during the second millennium B.C. All the hundreds of ancient
and modern alphabets were ultimately derived from that ancestral
alphabet, either by idea diffusion or by actually copying and modifying
letterforms.

There are two likely reasons that alphabets evolved first among
Semites. First, Semitic word roots were specified uniquely by their
consonants; vowels merely provided grammatical variations on that
consonantal root. (An analogy is the English consonantal root s-ng, where
vowel variations merely distinguish verb tenses-sing, sang, and sung-from
one another and from the corresponding noun song.) As a result, writing
Semitic languages with consonants alone still yields much of the meaning.
Consequently, the first Semitic alphabet makers did not yet have to
confront the added complication of vowels.

The second reason was the Semites' familiarity with the
hieroglyphics used by nearby Egypt. As in Semitic languages, Egyptian
word roots also depended mainly on consonants. As I've mentioned,
Egyptian hieroglyphics actually included a complete set of 24 signs for
the 24 Egyptian consonants. The Egyptians never took what would seem (to
us) to be the logical next step of using just their alphabet and
discarding all their other beautiful but messy signs. Indeed, probably no
one would have noticed that the Egyptians even had a consonantal alphabet
lost within their messy writing system had it not been for the rise of a
true alphabet. Starting around 1700 B.C., though, the Semites did begin
experimenting with that logical step.


Restricting signs to those for single consonants was only one crucial
innovation that distinguished alphabets from other writing systems.
Another helped users memorize the alphabet by placing the letters in a
fixed sequence and giving them easy-to-remember names. Our English names
are otherwise meaningless monosyllables (i6a 5 17 "bee," "cee," "dee,"
and so forth). The Greek names are equally meaningless polysyllables
("alpha," "beta", "gamma," "delta"). Those Greek names arose, in turn, as
slight modifications, for Greek ears, of the Semitic letter names
"aleph,"beth," "gimel," "daleth," and so on. But those Semitic names did
possess meaning to Semites: they are the words for familiar objects
(aleph = ox, beth = house, gimel = camel, daleth = door). Those Semitic
words are related "acrophonically" to the Semitic consonants to which
they refer-that is, the first letter of the object is also the letter
that is named for the object. In addition, the earliest forms of the
Semitic letters appear in many cases to be pictures of those same
objects.

A third innovation laying the foundations for modern alphabets was
the provision for vowels. While Semitic writing could be figured out even
without vowel signs, the inclusion of vowels makes it more comprehensible
since vowels carry the grammatical information. For Greek and most other
non-Semitic languages, however, reading is scarcely possible without
vowel signs. (Try reading the example "II mn r crtd ql," used earlier in
the Korean hangul format.)


The Semites began experimenting in the early days of their alphabet
by adding small extra letters to indicate selected vowels (modern Arabic
and Hebrew indicate vowels by dots or lines sprinkled above or below the
consonantal letters). The Greeks improved on this idea in the eighth
century B.C., becoming the first people to indicate all vowels
systematically by the same types of letters used for consonants. The
Greeks derived the forms of five vowel letters by co-opting letters used
in the Phoenician Semitic alphabet for consonantal sounds lacking in
Greek.

From those earliest Semitic alphabets, lines of evolutionary
modifications lead to the modern Ethiopian, Arabic, Hebrew, Indian, and
Southeast Asian alphabets. But the line most familiar to us was the one
that led from the Phoenicians to the Greeks, on to the Etruscans, and
finally to the Romans, whose alphabet with slight modifications is the
one used to print this magazine.

AS A GROUP, alphabets have undergone nearly 4,000 years of evolution.
Hundreds of alphabetshave been adapted for individual languages, and
some of those alphabets have now had long separate evolutionary
histories. The result is that they differ greatly in how precisely they
match signs to sounds, with English, linguists agree, being the worst of
all. Even Danish, the second worst, doesn't come close to us in atrocity.

How did English spelling get to be so imprecise? (As a reminder of
how bad it is, recall seven fascinating ways we can pronounce the letter
o: try horse, on,one, oven, so, to, and woman.) Part of the reason is
simply that it has had a long time to deteriorate-the English language
has been written since about A.D. 600. Even if a freshly created writing
system at first represents a spoken language precisely, pronunciation
changes with time, and the writing system must therefore become
increasingly imprecise if it is not periodically revised. But German has
been written for nearly as long as has English, so that's not the sole
answer.Anothertwist is spelling reforms. As anyone familiar with
English and German books printed in the nineteenth century knows,
nineteenth-century spelling is essentially identical to modem spelling
for English, but not for German. That's the result of a major German
spelling reform toward the end of the nineteenth century.


The tragicomic history of English spelling adds to the horror. Those
Irish missionaries who adapted the Latin alphabet to Old English did a
good job of fitting signs to sounds. But disaster struck with the Norman
conquest of England in 1066. Today only about half of English words are
of Old English origin; the rest are mostly derived from French and Latin.
English words were borrowed from the French using French spellings,
according to rules very different from English spelling rules. That was
bad enough, but as English borrowings from French continued, French
pronunciation itself was changing without much change in French spelling.
The result? The French words borrowed by English were spelled according
to a whole spectrum of French spelling rules.

English pronunciation itself changed even more radically with time;
for example, all written vowels came to sound the same in unstressed
syllables. (That is, when pronounced in normal speech, the a in elegant,
e in omen, i in raisin, o in kingdom, and u in walrus all sound much the
same.) As new words were borrowed from different languages, they were
spelled according tothe whim of the individual writer or printer. But
many English printers were trained in Germany or the Netherlands and
brought back still other foreign spelling conventions besides French
ones. Not until Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755 did English spelling
start to become standardized.

While English may have the worst writing system in Europe, it is not
the worst in the world. Chinese is even more difficult because of the
large number of signs that must be independently memorized. As I said
earlier, probably the most gratuitously difficult modem writing system is
Japan's kanji. It originated from Chinese writing signs and now has the
added difficulty that signs can variously be given Japanese
pronunciations or modifications of various past Chinese pronunciations.
An attempted remedy that compounds the confusion for Japanese readers is
the insertion of spellings in yet another writing system, the kana
syllabary, for hard-to-read kanji. As George Sansom, a leading authority
on Japanese, put it, back in the 192 Os: "One hesitates for an epithet to
describe a writing system which is so complex that it needs the aid of
another system to explain it."


Do sub-ideal writing systems really make it harder for adults to
read, or for children to learn to read? Many observations make clear that
the answer is yes. In 1928 Turkey switched to the Latin alphabet from the
Arabic alphabet, which has the twin disadvantages of a complex vowel
notation and of changing the forms of letters depending on where they
stand within a word. As a result of the switch, Turkish children learned
to read in half the time formerly required. Chinese children take at
least ten times longer to learn to read traditional Chinese characters
than pinyin, a Chinese adaptation of the Latin alphabet. British children
similarly learned to read faster and better with a simplified English
spelling termed the Initial Teaching Alphabet than with our conventional
spelling. Naturally, the educational problems caused by inconsistent
spelling can be overcome by increased educational effort. For example,
Japan, with the modern world's most difficult spelling system,
paradoxically has one of the world's highest literacy rates-thanks to
intensive schooling. Nevertheless, for a given educational effort, a
simpler spelling system results in more literate adults.

HEBREW PROvides interesting proof that not only spelling but also
letter shapes niake a difference. Hebrew writing has several sets of
extremely similar letters: only one letter is distinctively tall, and
only one letter stands out by dipping below the line (ignoring the
special forms of Hebrew letters at the ends of words). As a result, a
study suggests that, on the average, readers of Hebrew have to stare at
print for longer than do readers of Latin alphabets in order to
distinguish those indistinctive letter shapes. That is, distinctive
letter shapes permit faster reading.


Since details of writing systems do affect us, why do so many
countries refuse to reform their writing systems? There appear to be
several reasons for this seeming perverseness: aesthetics, prestige, and
just plain conservatism. Chinese writing and Arabic writing are widely
acknowledged to be beautiful and are treasured for that reason by their
societies; so were ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics. In Japan and Korea, as
in China, mastery of Chinese characters implies education and refinement
and carries prestige. It's especially striking that Japan and South Korea
stick to their fiendishly difficult Chinese-based characters when each
country already has available its own superb simple script: kana for the
Japanese, and the hangul alphabet for Korea.


Unlike some of these writing systems, our awful English spelling is
not considered beautiful or prestigious, yet all efforts to reform it
have failed. Our only excuse is conservatism and laziness. If we wanted,
we could easily improve our writing to the level of Finland's, so that
computer spell-check programs would be unneeded and no child beyond
fourth grade would make spelling errors. For example, we should match
English spelling consistently to English sounds, as does the Finnish
alphabet. We should junk our superfluous letter c (always replaceable by
either k or s), and we should coin new letters for sounds now spelled
with arbitrary letter combinations (such as sh and th). Granted, spelling
is part of our cultural heritage, and English spelling reform could thus
be viewed as a cultural loss. But crazy spelling is a part of our culture
whose loss would go as unmourned as the loss of our characteristic
English medieval torture instruments.

But before you get too excited about those glorious prospects for
reform, reflect on what happened to Korea's hangul alphabet. Although it
was personally designed by King Sejong, not even a king could persuade
his conservative Sinophilic countrymen to abandon their Chinese-derived
script. South Korea persists with the resulting mess even today. Only
North Korea under Premier Kim 11 Sung, a dictator far more powerful than
King Sejong ever was, has adopted the wonderful hangul alphabet as the
writing norm. Lacking a president with Kim 11 Sung's power to ram
unwanted blessings down our throats, we Americans shall continue to
suffer under spelling rules that become more andmore archaic as our
pronunciation keeps changing. (끝)

(표지 그림 설명) Sumerian cuneiform (this page) evolved gradually
over some 5,000 years. But Egyptian hieroglyphics (opposite) seem to have
been a deliberate invention. They appear suddenly, in full-blown form,
around 3050 B.C.


98-2-21 오전 1:55 정석근

[韓流 韓國 韓樂]

영어공부좀 해야지...

[~쿠우~]

이거보구 내가 한심하다는~ 님~무심도 하셔라~^^

[*〓▒驥璘▒〓*━〓〓☆〓〓━]

흠... 그런면에서는 스페인어도 발음나는 대로지만 모음과 자음 특히 모음이 부족한 면이 있군. 근데 핀란드가 저런 면이... 몽고족 계열인 핀족 혈통이라서 그런가? ㅎㅎ 그리고 서구 언론인에 의해 김일성이 칭찬받기도 하는군.

[닥터스컬]

아유 웬 벌레가 이리 많아 ^^;

[다이스끼유우]

이렇게 방대한 걸 읽으라니요...ㅋㅋ 한문단도 버거운 사람한테 너무하세용~

[퓨마]

전부 영어 @~@

[우기]

뭐라니..후..

[겨울남자]

푸......

[chul-kim]

이사람 먼가 잘못알고 있는 듯 싶네요 한국이 한자혼용표기를 하는걸로 아는거 같은데요. 책이나 문서에 한자를 쓰는 경우는 어휘의 의미에 혼동이 올 경우에만 괄호로 표기하고 있지 않습니까? 물론 법전이나 관공서문서는 예외겠지만요. 외국인의 시점은 확실히 한계가 있군요. 한국어 어휘의 상당수가 한자어로

[chul-kim]

되어있는 이마당에 한자교육은 불가피하다고 봅니다 물론 정보화 시대에 국한문혼용은 반대지만요