이두, 향찰, 구결은 번역인가?

Could Idu, Hyangchal, Gugyeol be thought as translations?

This paper has started from the question: Could it be true that three writing systems, Idu, Hyangchal, and Gugyeol, using Chinese characters in the Ancient Period of Korean, are related to translations in some ways. To hit this target, we have established the proper boundary of translation by ascertaining its definition in the first place. Based upon this, we have in turn proposed four criteria to decide whether a given text is thought of as a translation or not. In order for a given text to be regarded as a translation : a. there should exist both SL and TL, and SL must be different from TL. b. there should exist an original source text. c. it should satisfy a target language s specific syntax. d. there should be a producer of ST and a consumer of TL, and the two must be different from each other. The result of our analysis are as follows : As for Idu text, it is not a translation but a simple written product, in that it cannot reflect the Chinese specific syntax as a TL, and a producer of a ST is identical with a consumer of a TT. (Consequently, Hyangchal as an extended system of Idu is naturally just a written product.) But, Idu text read in Korean, which is translated from Chinese text, could be regarded as a translation. As for Gugyeol text, divided into Gugyeol text read phonetically and Gugyeol read semantically, the former is regarded as a reading process of ST in that it cannot reflect a complete syntax of TL, Korean, and the latter, even though regarded as a translation in that it can satisfy all of four criteria above, could be regarded as a pseudo-translation in that the comprehension of a ST is basically different from that of translated text.