Rev. Mr. Gurstirr’s Remarks on the Siamese Language. 297 
shew the moods and tenses. This stiffness is little supplied by particles 
expressive of those relations which in other languages are pointed out by 
the termination. With the ideas we entertain of languages, we think this 
essential to perspicuity, while neither the Chinese nor the Indo-Chinese 
always feel the same necessity of expressing their ideas with similar pre- 
cision. Hence the efforts of authors, to find an exact etymological analogy 
between these languages and the European, have proved futile; and even the 
least treatises of the most penetrating geniuses have amply shewn, that the 
way in which these eastern nations think and express their thoughts differs 
widely from our own. The principal part of etymology in these languages, 
consists in unfolding the system of tones and sounds, and in showing their 
relation to each other: so far we have native works for our guides. A full 
treatise on those particles, which constitute so conspicuous a part of the 
language, by being substituted for grammatical declension, will render the 
whole etymological part conspicuous. These remarks are fully applicable 
to the elucidation of the Siamese language, which will appear in its true 
light in this point of view only. The language is rich in particles, so as 
to render grammatical terminations as plain as possible, but the best writers 
seldom make use of them. It is only in common writings, and in the 
colloquial dialect, that these particles are now and then used. Hence arises 
the great ambiguity, which does not escape the most superficial observer. 
The syntax of the Siamese language is simple, like that of the Chinese. 
Where the most important relation of words to each other cannot be ex- 
pressed but by position, the construction is fixed, and naturally stiff. The 
stress of words occasioned by interchange of position is entirely lost, and 
this monotony, which always recurs, renders the most flowing Siamese style 
languid. Besides, every Siamese author strives more to express, in all his 
sentences, a certain nwmerus or cadence, than to give his ideas in the most 
proper words. This affectation is highly injurious to the natural and most 
simple arrangement of expressions, and even obscures whole sentences. 
On this account the most trivial expressions are difficult to be understood ; 
and instead of tracing at the first sight the flow of thought, one is frequently 
at a loss to account for the connection. ‘The Chinese language likewise 
requires this cadence in most compositions, but it is seldom carried so far as 
to mutilate the sense of the writer. In other respects, the Siamese and 
Chinese syntax is almost the same, with this exception, that the former 
is more varied than the latter. 
