CHALFANT: EARLY CHINESE WRITING 13 
4. Mrcuantcat Invention oF New Sympots. 
This class of new characters forms by far the largest, comprising perhaps nine- 
tenths of the forty-five thousand symbols known to Chinese lexicographers. ‘Ten 
thousand signs isan ample number to put to the credit of the Chinese language at the 
beginning of the Christian Era. This roughly marks the date when the mechanical 
multiplication of characters became excessive. The process was simple, that of com- 
bining existing forms according to the conventional system of radicals and phonetics. 
Indeed, for purposes of etymology three thousand symbols are all that need be ex- 
amined, the artificial combination of signs having been begun as early as 500 B. ©. 
In every branch of industry new usages were requiring new names. This lack 
was supplied by the simple, though often clumsy, union of two or more existing 
signs, usually annexing a “radical” to suggest the nature or material of the new 
thing. Most of these new characters were short-lived, and to-day the basis of the 
written language, as used by scholars, is still the few thousand symbols of the class- 
ical period (B. C. 500-200). 
Errongous Drpucrions rrom tHe Moprrn Sryte or Caines WRritina. 
Mistakes in comparative orthography frequently occur by drawing conclusions 
from the modern Chinese “square-character,” which has so far departed from the 
original pictographic style as to be an unsafe guide to the casual observer. Occa- 
sionally symbols are found, which to-day approximate their originals more closely 
than do the intermediate “seal characters.” 
A few examples may be cited of such pictographs as have passed from a prim- 
itive angular style through the rounded form of the “seal character” into the 
modern “square-character,” in which form they coincide with the original shape. 
Take the modern symbol W tien, “field.” Formerly it was @, but originally it 
was EH, a subdivided square farm. (J wei, “enclosed area,” was originally, as now, 
a square, but was long written thus ©, when curved lines prevailed. But in gen- 
eral it is unsafe to use the modern style of writing for philologic deductions. 
The following will serve as examples of the misleading nature of modern forms : 
The symbol 4 mu, “ tree,” might suggest a rooted tree projecting above the 
ground, and, indeed, has been frequently so interpreted, but the original form, ae 
or X, shows a tree with branches and roots. 
Al p‘éng, “friend,” looks as if it were twin moons (ff) or, as has been actually 
inferred, the duplicated sign for “ flesh.” But in fact this symbol is a contraction 
of a more complex form 3%, “a pair of birds,” a happy symbol of “friendship.” 
ZO we “flesh,’’? in combination usually appears as Fl. Some have supposed HA to have been Oe, “a pair of 
shells,” but I find no authority for such a derivation. 
