Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.
High Antiquity of the Chinese Empire and Remains discredited by Sir William Jones and Adelung. But the Differences between the Chinese Language and those of Western Asia more ancient than the peculiarities which distinguish the African Languages from those of Europe and Western Asia. These Differences not fundamental. Identity of the Chinese with the Hebrew and with the English and other European Languages, &c.
Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to have been built 240 years b.c., is not mentioned by early writers, especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several adjoining nations, and Confucius's morality as nothing better than a medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or [pg 148] knowledge of their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle.
On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct branch of the human race.
In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however, that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian languages respectively.
According to Adelung's lucid analysis, the following are the principal steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel between two or more consonants, [pg 149] as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more of the monosyllabic terms.
The African, American,[129] European, and all the Asiatic languages, with the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only. In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a language purely monosyllabic, but as one in which the monosyllables are of the most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one consonant and a vowel (as in Pa). They have no words which have a second consonant, as in P-a-p.
Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:[130] the same word is at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes, such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin, “Man-man” (i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as Muen, “Many,” Tschung, “All!”
It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock as those of western [pg 150] Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been constructed after the separation.
The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung's conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which the peculiar structure of that language will only serve to give additional[131] force; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in the Chinese! Thus we have Mu, “A Mouse,” (Chin.,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu (Greek), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and Foo Tsin, “A Fa-ther,” (Chin.,) Moo and Moo Tsin, “A Mo-ther,” (Chin.)
I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists, that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those which differ[132] in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner [pg 151] with the kindred English and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ widely!
Pronouns of the First Person, “I” and “We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo, “I” and “We,” (Chinese.) Iōnga, Egōn, “I,” (Greek.)
Pronouns of the Second Person, “Thou” and “Ye.”—Irr, “Thou” and “Ye,” (Chinese.) Ihr, “Ye,” (German.) Yú, Yŏh, “Thou” and “Ye,” (Chinese.) You, “Ye,” (English.) Yō (Provincial English). Eoh (Anglo-Saxon), “Ye.” Nee, Nai, Nyú, “Thou” and “Ye,” (Chinese.) Ne, “You,” (Mandans, a North American Tribe.)
In these instances the English “You” and the German “Ihr” differ totally. Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by “Du,” and in the English by “Thou.” The Chinese, which uses these terms, “Ihr” and “You,” conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to these anomalies!
Pronouns of the Third Person.—E.e, “He,” “She,” “It,” (Chinese.) E.ee.a, E.v.e, (Hebrew.) He, masculine, (English.) He, feminine, (Welsh.)—Peé, “He,” “She,” “It,” also “That,” (Chinese.) Phe, Ph, “This,” “That,” (Hebrew.) Pha or Pe, the article “The,” (Egypt.)
Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c.
Keuen, “A Dog,” (Chinese), Kuōn (Greek), Coun (Plural, Welsh), Can-is (Latin).—Ma, “A Horse,” (Chinese), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre (German), Ma-re (English), Ma-rch (Welsh.)—Mu, “A Mouse,” (Chinese), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu [pg 152] (Greek), Mu-s (Latin.)—Lung,[133] “A Wolf,” (Chinese), Lukon (Greek), Lloun-og, “A Fox,” (Welsh.)—Ioanģ, Iong, Io, “A Sheep,” (Chinese), Oin (Greek), Oen, “A Lamb,” (Welsh), Oi, Ai, Yi (Irish.)
Foò “A Father,” Moo “A Mother;” also Foò Tsin “A Father,” and Moó Tsin “A Mother.” Tsin means “A Relation,” (Chinese.) The equivalent terms in the English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.) Fä-der (Anglo-Saxon), Fa-ther (English), Fa-ter (German), Mo-ther, (English), Mua-ter (Old high German.)[134]
Nan and Yin, “A Man,” (Chinese.) Ninetz, “Men,” their national name, (Samoieds.) Ninnee Inin, “A Man,” (Algonquyn Dialects of N. America.)
Nan “A Son,” (Chinese,) N.n [Parturio] (Heb.)—Neang, “A young Lady,” (Chinese,) Non (Mantschu,) Nonn-us (Lat.,) Nun, “Tender,” (Chinese.)—Nyu, “A Daughter,” (Chinese,) Nea, Feminine, “Young,” [Juvenis] (Greek,) New (Eng.)—Chan, “To produce, bear,” (Chinese,) Gen-i (Welsh,) Genn-ao (Greek.)—Chuen, “A Boat, or Ship,” (Chinese,) Kahn (Ger.,) Cymba (Latin,) Kumbī (Greek.)
Chuy, “To blow, The Breath,” (Chinese,) Chwa (Welsh.)—Fe, “Fat,” (Chinese), Fe-tt (German,) Fa-t (English.)—Ho, “Fire,” (Chinese,) Ho-t (English.) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the Chinese.—Hoo, [pg 153] “To escort,” (Chinese,) Hü-ten (Ger.)—Fan, “To subvert, Contrary,” (Chinese,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (Hebrew,) Fun, “To divide,” (Chinese,) Fun do, Fin do (Latin.)—Gan, “Favor,” (Chinese,) Gönn-en, Gun-st (German,) Gynn a (Swedish,) c'H.n (Hebrew.)—Gaou, “Proud,” (Chinese,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (Hebrew) Gang “Lofty,” Ge “The Forehead,” Ke “To rise,” Ka.ou “High,” (Chinese,) Ga-e, “To rise,” (Heb.)—Kang, “More,” (Chinese,) Chwaneg (Welsh.)—Hae, “A large River, The Sea,” (Chinese,) Aa (Icelandic,) Eia (Ang.-Sax.,) Wy (Welsh.)—Heuen, “To explain,” Heaou “To understand,” Heo “To learn,” (Chinese,) c'Hou.e “To show, explain, declare,” (Hebrew,) He-ar (Eng.)—Hwō, “Living,” (Chinese) c'Hee.a, E.ou.e (Hebrew.)—Kwae, “Prompt, active,” (Chinese,) Chwae (Welsh.)—Kia “A Family,” Kiwo “A Nation,” (Chinese,) Kiw (Welsh,) Gou.e (Heb.)—Keen, “To see,”[135] (Chinese), Ken (English,) Kee, “And,” (Chinese,) Kai (Greek and Algonquyn Tribes of N. America,) King “To respect,” (Chinese,) Kun-ēō (Greek,) Kwăn, “Fatigued,” (Chin.,) Gwan (Welsh.)—Laou, “Labour,” (Chinese,) La.e (Hebrew), La-bor (Latin.)—Mae, “To buy,” (Chinese,) Emo (Latin.)—Lo, “Green,” (Chinese,) L.c'he, (Hebrew.)—Leo, “Small,” Lu, (Irish,) Low (English.)—Muen, “Many,” (Chinese,) Many (English.)—Yaou Yo, “To will, desire,” (Chinese,) Aeō (Greek,) Aveo (Lat.)—Meen, “To dispose,” (Chinese,) M.n.e (Hebrew.)—Mien, “The Face,” (Chinese,) Mine (French,) Mien (English.)—Pew, “Spotted Tiger,” (Chinese,) Pie [Colour] (English,) Pei, “To receive,” (Chinese,) Piai, “To possess,” (Welsh.)—Pin, “Poor,” Penuria (Latin.)—Sae, “To agitate,” (Chinese,) Sway (English.)—Saou, “A Brush,” (Chinese,) Shoue, “To rub,” (Hebrew.)—Scun, “To inspect,” (Chinese,) Sehen (German.)—Sha, “To [pg 154] kill,” (Chinese,) Sha.e (Hebrew.)—Shen, “Good, Pious,” (Chinese,) Sanctus (Latin,) Shin, “A Spirit, God,” (Chinese.)—Shing, “To ascend,” (Chinese,) Scan-deo (Latin.)—Shwa, “To sport, Play,” (Chinese,) Sho sho (Hebrew,) Soo, “To number,” (Chinese,) Shou e (Hebrew.)—Sung, “To present to,” (Chinese,) Schenk-en (German.)—Sing, “A Star,” (Chinese,) Schein-en, “To shine,” (German,) Sun (English.)—Yun, “Fog, Cloud,” Ying, “Shadow,” Wan, “Evening,” (Chinese,) On.n, “A Cloud, To cloud over,” (Hebrew.)—Wang, “To hope.” (Chinese,) Chwannawg, “Desirous,” (Welsh.)—We, “Taste,” (Chinese,) Chwae-th (Welsh.)