국어 문법에서 조사와 어미를 구별하면 복합 형식의 범주는 끝 구성요소가 결정한다는 원칙에서 벗어나는 경우가 많아진다. 복합어나 파생어와 같은 국어 합성어는 끝 구성요소가 그 범주를 결정하는 것이 원칙이다. 현재 국어 문법에서 조사로 분류되는 '-이나', '-이나마', '-이라도', '-이여', '-이시여', '-하고', '-보고', '-더러', '-부터', '-조차', '-서', '-다가' 등의 끝 구성요소는 어미이고, 어미로 분류되는 '-기에', '-기로', '-으매', '-으므로', '-어도', '-어야', '-다만', '-지만', '-으면' 등의 끝 구성요소는 조사이다. 조사와 어미를 구별하기 때문에 조사화를 겪은 이들 조사나 어미화를 겪은 이들 어미가 끝 구성요소와 범주가 달라지게 된 것이다. 국어에서 복합 형식인 조사나 어미의 범주를 끝 구성요소와 일치시키는 방법은 조사와 어미를 구별하지 않고 하나의 범주로 묶는 것이다.

The compound grammatical forms in Korean are the results of grammaticalization. These have been classified as the postpositions and the endings according to their syntactic functions and morphological distributions in Korean normative grammar. But the classification is based not on the basic meaning but on the syntax and the morphology. Regardless of the differences in their functions and distributions, the postpositions and the endings can be explained as an identical form representing 'one basic meaning for one form' in Korean. Generally the category of the compound lexical forms is in accord with that of the final constituents in Korean. But There are many cases that the category of grammatical compound forms is not in accord with that of final constituents as long as the grammatical forms are classified as the postpositions and the endings in Korean . For example, the category of the final constituents of the compound postpositions such as '-ina', '-inama', '-ira', '-irato', '-iyeo', '-isiyeo', '-hako', '-poko', '-teoreo', '-putheo', '-cocha', '-seo', '-taka' etc. is not the postposition but the ending, and the category of the final constituents of the compound endings such as '- myeon', '-keon l', '- mae', '-kie', '- nte', '-kiro', '- m ro', '-ato', '-aya', '-taman', '-ciman', '-tako', '- rako' etc. is not the ending but the postposition. To make the category of the compound grammatical forms in accord with that of the final constituents, this paper claims that the postpositions and the endings can not be described as different categories and that Korean grammatical forms must be explained as an identical category.

The compound grammatical forms in Korean are the results of grammaticalization. These have been classified as the postpositions and the endings according to their syntactic functions and morphological distributions in Korean normative grammar. But the classification is based not on the basic meaning but on the syntax and the morphology. Regardless of the differences in their functions and distributions, the postpositions and the endings can be explained as an identical form representing 'one basic meaning for one form' in Korean. Generally the category of the compound lexical forms is in accord with that of the final constituents in Korean. But There are many cases that the category of grammatical compound forms is not in accord with that of final constituents as long as the grammatical forms are classified as the postpositions and the endings in Korean . For example, the category of the final constituents of the compound postpositions such as '-ina', '-inama', '-ira', '-irato', '-iyeo', '-isiyeo', '-hako', '-poko', '-teoreo', '-putheo', '-cocha', '-seo', '-taka' etc. is not the postposition but the ending, and the category of the final constituents of the compound endings such as '- myeon', '-keon l', '- mae', '-kie', '- nte', '-kiro', '- m ro', '-ato', '-aya', '-taman', '-ciman', '-tako', '- rako' etc. is not the ending but the postposition. To make the category of the compound grammatical forms in accord with that of the final constituents, this paper claims that the postpositions and the endings can not be described as different categories and that Korean grammatical forms must be explained as an identical category.

final constituents, postpositions, endings, grammatical forms, grammaticalization, category.