INTRODUCTION. 9 



some of the Japanese writings. It was introduced into Japan A. D. 290, but the Japanese have 

 an alphabet^ or rather a syllahariura of their own, constructed on a principle entirely difi'erent 

 from the Chinese idiograph. Each of these Chinese characters is in Japan pronounced in two 

 distinct manners. The one, as among the Chinese, with a sliglit variation in the Japanese 

 pronunciation. This idiom is called /iTo/ze, which means simply '' a Chinese sound or luord ;" 

 the other mode of pronouncing is Japanese, and is called Yomi, which signifies "interpretation;" 

 the meaning of the Koye ivord. An example will illustrate. The words (according to Japanese 

 pronunciation) tin, chi, nin, all Chinese, are Koye, and mean respectively heaven, earth, man : 

 the words ame, tsoutsi,fito, are the Yomi (pure Japanese) of those Koye words, and have, in the 

 proper language of Japan, the same meaning as the three Chinese words above named. 



Hence, among the Japanese, there are three dialects ; the first is pure Yomi, without any 

 admixture of the Koye. This is the primitive langviage of the country, and is at this day used 

 in poetry and works of light literature. The second is pure Koye, and is employed by the 

 bonzes in their religious books. 



The third is a mixture of the two, and constitutes the common language of the Empire. 



But the construction of sentences in the Chinese and Japanese, as to the collocation of words, 

 is entirely different, as is also the pronunciation by a Chinaman and a native of Japan. That 

 of the last is neat, articulate, distinct, and rarely is there heard a syllable composed of more than 

 two or three letters of our alphabet; while the speech of the former is little better than a con- 

 fused sing-song monotone, unpleasant to the ear, in which constantly occurs a disagreeable 

 crowding together of consonants. If an analysis of the sounds of our letters be made, a Chi- 

 nese pronounces our aspirate H very plainly, while a Japanese never sounds it, but invariably 

 substitutes for it F ; while, on the other hand, our E and D, which are sounded by a Japanese 

 with a distinctness equal to our own, always become L in the mouth of a Chinese. But without 

 dwelling longer on this pointy it is sufficient to say that an examination of grammatical struc- 

 ture conclusively settles, on the testimony of language, that the original inhabitants of Japan 

 were not Chinese. 



But the question still remains to be answered, "whence came the primitive occujiants of 

 Japan ?" On this subject a diversity of opinion is to be found. Kamrpfer brings them from the 

 plains of Shinar, at the dispersion. He supposes them to have passed from Mesojiotamia to the 

 shores of the Caspian, thence through the valleys of the Yenisi, Silinga, and parallel rivers to 

 the lake of Argueen ; then following the river of that name, which arises from the lake, he 

 thinks they reached the Amoor, following the valley of which they would find themselves in 

 the then uninhabited peninsula of Corea, on the eastern shore of Asia. The passage thence to 

 Japan, especially in the summer season, would not be difficult. He supposes that this migration 

 occupied a long time ; that they stojjped when they found a pleasant region, and then resumed 

 their march when they were pressed on their rear, or annoyed by other nomadic tribes. It was 

 easy for them to make a home wherever they could find water and pasture for their flocks and 

 herds. From the jnirity of the primitive language of Japan^ (the intermixture of Chinese 

 words is within the historic period and easily accounted for^.) he supposes that the original stock 

 could not, in its migration, have remained very long in any one inhabited place, or mingled 

 much with any people then existing, of whose language we at this day have any knowledge ; 

 otherwise words from such language would have been found incorporated in the primitive 

 Japanese tongue. 

 2 J 



