1 MEMOIRS OF THE CARNEGIE MUSEUM 
3. Artificial Alteration of Old Symbols. 
The earliest, recorded attempt to artificially reduce the heterogeneous written 
signs to a system was by one Chou (#5), of the eighth century, B. C., who became ¢ 
literary authority in the state of Chou ()¥]). His very flowery system of writing has 
since borne his name, being referred to in all Chinese works upon the history of the 
language as “Chou Wén” (Chou-writing).¥ 
Following this, but of disputed date, was the catalogue of signs called Hr Ya (5 
4#). The next great effort to classify the existing symbols was by the author of the 
Shuo Wén, Hsti (3), whose posthumous lexicon appeared A. D. 120, as already 
stated. He classified all existing characters under 540 primitives, which gave rise 
to the modern classification under 214 primitives (“radicals”). This conventional- 
ization of the written language forced many incongruous symbols into classes with 
which they had no etymological affinity. These isolated ideograms were artificially 
changed that they might be classified for ease of lexicography. A marked instance 
of this was the symbol % piao, to which reference has been made above, This was 
originally the picture of a mulberry bush or other shrub used to mark the boundary 
of afield. It depicts a bunch of sprouts.. Later it took the general meaning of 
“indicator” and to-day it is applied to any instrument which records or marks 
degrees, as a watch, barometer, cyclometer, etc. This interesting sign now appears 
’ in the anomolous form aa seemingly 
under the “radical” or primitive 7% ‘cloak’ 
composed of a modified $ “lord” and mR “cloak,” neither of which signs have any- 
thing to do with its original form or meaning. 
3% wan (“myriad”) is another case in point. It now is classified as if derived 
from +f ‘“ plants,” but this is an artificial modification, for the oldest forms are ¥ 
and 8, picturing some prolific creature as the scorpion or frog.” The antenne of 
the scorpion or fore-legs of the frog have been confounded with ¥¥ (+f) “ plants.” 
The modern character 2, yi, “fish,” happens to be itself a “radical,” but has 
been so altered as to appear to contain the symbol m1» (modified form of Ys), “ fire.” 
This is misleading, for the “fire” is only the fish’s tail; thus > Hr® >R>B-h. 
The symbol for “swallow” (a bird) i is analogous to that for “fish,” but 
? 
now is classified under the radical % “fire,” contrary to its origin, the develop- 
ment of the pictograph having taken place as follows: Br fe a ihe. 
The above examples plainly show that the radical and phonetic system was an 
invention at a date long after the heterogeneously devised symbols had become 
current in writing, and even the compounding of signs had come into vogue. 
6 This highly ornate style of writing was not generally adopted on account of the complexity of the symbols. 
Analogous to the Egyptian use of the sign “frog”? for 100,000. 
