404 THOUGHTS ON THE FORMATION OF 



the other, and then the latter must be considered the diffe- 

 rentia. 



The nomenclature of both writers indicates the influence of 

 the old view, adopted by Remusat and quoted with apparent 

 censure by Gallery, that the class of characters of which we are 

 speaking was based on a scientific arrangement of objects, ac- 

 cording to genus and species. 



The name phonetic is unobjectionable, and the other ele- 

 ment might be termed non-phonetic. But it would, I think, 

 be better to call it the logical element, inasmuch as it has rela- 

 tion to the word as such ; that is, as it has a meaning, and is 

 not a mere sound. 



Gallery presents a list of 1039 characters, which enter into 

 others as phonetic elements. These he distributes into classes 

 according to the number of strokes, arranging those in each class 

 on what may be called the principle of graphic analysis, namely, 

 that of Goi^alves. Under each of these 1039 characters he 

 places those of the same or the kindred sound, which are formed 

 by the union of that character with one of those which he called 

 1 classifiers/ these being arranged subject to certain modifications 

 in the same way as the phonetic elements, under each of which 

 we find on an average about a dozen characters. 



The plan, though in many respects very instructive, is not 

 all that one wishes for in a complete dictionary. His list of 

 primary phonetic characters contains many themselves made up 

 of a phonetic and a logical element. 



The classifiers are for the most part phonetic elements also, 

 but when they are not, one has to look for them in a separate 

 list, given only in the first part of his work. 



Moreover, there are certain characters, some of them common 

 and important, and not admitting of analysis into others, which 

 do not seem to have been used by the Chinese, in the formation 

 of compound characters, either as logical or phonetic elements, 

 and which therefore he does not notice at all, or if he does, only 

 incidentally. 



But the great defect is, that he cuts himself off from the 

 advantage resulting from the analysis of characters in all cases 

 in which neither element is phonetic. Some indeed he seems 

 to introduce by mistake. Thus, the character for dog has no 

 relation in point of sound to that for bark, which is compounded 



