Some corresponding phenomena between Archaic Chinese and Korean inherence words have been considered as the coincidence so that they have been ignored to be the research objects. This could be explained by some examples, such as the relation between [*plum](風)(Zheng zhang, Sang-fang 2003) and [param](wind) in Archaic Chinese, and the relation between [*khrwds](器) in Archaic Chinese and [kirit](vessel) in Korean as well. According to my previous research (Oh, Se-jun 2004, 2007, 2008), however, these Chinese-Altai corresponding words corresponded to each other in the Phonetic Radical System collectively and systematically, consisting the so-called "Semi-Cognate Words of Archaic Chinese and Altai". The author (Oh, Se-jun 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2010a, 2010b) used to discuss some Chinese-Korean semi-cognate words which were related to the "圭", "京、畺、甲", "韋","解", "秋", and "圭、奚、요" phonetic radicals. Therefore, these phonetic radicals had an intimate relationship with [K-R-] related inherent words in Korean. These corresponding words could be considered as semi-cognate ones based on six facts (2009b). For instance, they corresponded to each other systematically in phonetic radicals, most of which were basic words, different from general loanwords. Because the comparison between the vowels was so complex that they were too difficult to grasp, the foretime researches of the author were only limited to the initial consonants. This essay intended to summarize the vowel system presented in the "Chinese-Altai quasi-cognate phrases", leading to the contrast pattern between them. The contrast methods adopted are as follows: First, take all kinds of prominent phonetic features of archaic Chinese as the discussion standards. Second, adopt the diachronic method, which compares specific archaic Chinese with most Altai words. Third, use the synchronic method, which compares several archaic Chinese wit most words in some Altai language. Fourth, seek the common grounds instead of differences. At first, this essay listed not only the vowel corresponding table, but also all 18 Chinese-Altai corresponding items in it. Then, take four categories of archaic Chinese which were based on the phonetic form as the standard, and make comparisons using synchronic and diachronic methods, leading to several corresponding regularities, such as the correspondence of [*Kre-] (AC) and [KORO] (Altai). In addition, through the comparison, a framework of the archaic Chinese vowel system could be proposed.