mih the Nature of the Chinese Language. 19 



It is true, that in the grouping of characters to represent 

 single words, the inventors have called to their aid the ideas 

 which the words express. Thus the character which answers 

 to the word hand, is grouped with those which answer to words 

 expressing manual operations. But this was not done with a 

 view to an ideographic language. It was merely an auxiliary 

 means to aid in the classification of the numerous signs, which 

 otherwise the memory could not have retained. The sino- 

 logists see great beauties in these associations, of which I am 

 not competent to speak. I suspect, however, that there is in 

 that more of imagination than reality. 



Be this as it may, as the Chinese characters represent the 

 words of the language, and are intended to awaken the remem- 

 brance of them in the mind, they are not, therefore, indepen- 

 dent of sound, for 'words are sounds. It makes no difference 

 whether those sounds are simple and elementary, as those which 

 our letters represent, or whether they are compounded from 

 two or three of those elements into a syllable. There are syl- 

 labic alphabets, like that of the Sanscrit and other languages, 

 and it has never been contended that they do not represent 

 sounds. And it makes no difference that the Chinese syllables 

 are also toords, for that does not make them lose their charac- 

 ter of sounds. But on account of this difference, I would 

 not call the Chinese characters a syllabic, but a logographic 

 system of writing. 



This being the case, it seems necessarily to follow, that as 

 the Chinese characters are in direct connection with the Chi- 

 nese spoken words, they can only be read and understood by 

 those who are familiar with the oral language. 1 do not mean 

 to say that they cannot be applied to other monosyllabic 

 idioms (and they are, in fact, applied even to polysyllabic lan- 

 guages, as 1 shall presently show), I only contend that their 

 . meaning cannot be understood alike in the different languages 

 in which they are used. 



You very well know, my dear sir, how various are the 

 forms of human lanfjuages. You know that even in the same 

 language, there are not two words exactly synonymous ; a 

 fortiori it must be so in two different idioms. Take the word 

 grand, for instance, which belongs both to the French and to 

 the English languages. Though its general meaning be the 

 same in both idioms, yet how strong are the shades which 

 distinguish the ideas they particularly represent ! Now let us 

 suppose that England is in possession of a logographic system 

 of writing. Will the character representing the word grand be 

 clearly understood by a Frenchman who does not know the 

 English oral language ? Will an Englishman understand the 



J) 2 I'rcnch 



