LANG U A G E. 
than to receive their homage. They were indeed, at a 
very early period, highly revered by the Indians, Perfians, 
and Tartars. In confequence of this veneration, they 
looked upon themfelves as the favourites of heaven. They 
imagined they were iituated in the middle of the earth, in 
a kind of paradife, in order to give laws to the reft of man¬ 
kind. Other men they looked upon with contempt and 
dildain, and deemed them deformed in body and defec¬ 
tive in mind, caft out into the remote corners of the world 
as the drofs and refufe of nature. They boalted that 
themfelves only had received from God rational fouls and 
beautiful bodies, in order to qualify them for being love- 
reigns of the fpecies. 
Such are the fentiments of the Chinefe; and with fuch 
fentiments it is by no means furprifing that their improve¬ 
ments in language, in writing, and other appendages of 
the belles lettres, have not been proportioned to their pro¬ 
g-refs in mechanics. When people are once fully perfuaded 
that they have already arrived at the fummit of perfection, 
it is natural for them to lit down contented, and folace 
themfelves with the idea of their own fuperior attainments. 
The Chinefe had early entertained an exalted opinion of 
their own fuperiority to the reft of mankind ; and there¬ 
fore imSgined that they had already carried their inven¬ 
tions to "the ne plus ultra of perfe&ion ; the confequence 
was, that they could make no exertions to carry them 
higher. 
The Chinefe, for the fpace of three thoufand years, had 
fcarcely any intercourfe with the reft of mankind. This 
was the confequence. of their infulated fituation. They, 
of courfe, compared tkemfelves with themfelves ; and, finding 
that they excelled their barbarian neighbours, they rea¬ 
dily excelled all the reft of mankind in an equal propor¬ 
tion. This conceit at once ftifled the emotions of ambi¬ 
tion, and deprived them of all opportunities of learning 
■what was going forward in other parts of the world. 
They deipifed every other nation. People are little dif- 
pofed to imitate thofe whom they defpife; and this perhaps 
may be one reafon why they are at this day fo averfe from 
adopting the European inventions. A fuperftitious at¬ 
tachment to the cuftoms of the ancients, is the general 
character of the Afiatic nations. This is evidently a kind 
of diacritical feature among the Chinefe. The inftitu- 
tions of Fold are looked up to among them with equal 
veneration as thofe of Thoth were among the Egyptians. 
Among the latter, there was a law which made it capital 
to introduce any innovation into the mufic, painting, or 
ftatuary art, inftituted by that legillator. We hear of no 
fuch law among the former ; but cuftom eftabiilhed, and 
that invariably, for a fpace of three thoufand years, might 
operate as forcibly among them as a pofitive law did among 
the people firft mentioned. An attachment Jo ancient 
cuftoms is often more powerful and more coercive than 
any law that can be promulgated and enforced by mere 
human authority. Tliefe reafons, we think, may be al¬ 
igned as the impediments to the progrefs of the Chinefe 
in the belles lettres, and in the improvement of their lan¬ 
guage. 
The following general remarks upon the Chinefe and 
other monofyllabic languages are colleCled from a German 
work entitled Mithridates, by John Chriftopher Adelung ; 
3807. 
The monofyllabical tongues prevail in the fouth-eaft of 
Alia; they-a're ufed in China, Thibet, the countries in the 
north of India, the empire of the Birmans, the kingdoms 
of Pegu, Siam, Tonquin, Cochin-china, Cambaya, and 
Laos ; that is to fay, in the eighth part of Alia. There, 
within the fpace of 1300 fquare miles, from 150 to 180 mil¬ 
lions of men. itill liFp the unformed language of the in¬ 
fancy of human kind. It is furprifing that the mifliona- 
3'ics of Pekin fttould have reprefented China as the only re- 
gion whofe language is monofyllabical, when, on the coaft 
vi China, fo many other nations lie under the fame dilad- 
vantage. The nations, properly fpeaking, do not poffet's 
words, but merely the materials of which words are form¬ 
ed, rude radical founds, which fuffice for general notions* 
and the moft obvious phrafes ; hut can neither exprefs 
the modifications nor ideas neceflary to fyftematic order. 
Co, for inftance, is to the Chinefe what the radical hab is 
to the Germans 5 it gives a vague idea of pofleffion, appur¬ 
tenance. But the Chinefe, through all the ftiades of this 
idea, have only the fteril and the invariable term co ; on 
the contrary, in addition to hab, the Germans have many 
other decifive words; as, haben, to have; ich habe, I have; 
du haft, thou haft ; wir haben, we have ; ich hatte, I had ; 
habend, having; die habe, to have it, &c. &c. 
The monoiyllabical tongues, ufing the root of each 
word, without any change, can but very imperfectly ex¬ 
prefs the greater part of ideas, which are only the varia¬ 
tions from, and additions to, the primitive fenfe. Hence it 
happens, that this language is fo poor, that it wants terms 
to diftinguilh the moft neceflary things without confu- 
fion; which, in common life, opens avail field for equi¬ 
voque and obfeurity ; which, in matters of fcience an un¬ 
profitable and hopelefs inftrument, does but multiply and 
conlolidate error, to perpetuate the infancy of reafon. 
Indeed the Japanefe call it the language of confufion. 
As long as the Chinefe fet bounds to their language,,, 
fuch as it is, it will always be impolfible to fucceed in na- 
turalifing among them the fciences, or even the arts, of 
Europe. To attain this noble end, the way lies open tea 
them, and to all their neighbours, who only utter mono- 
fyllables; to enrich their language with inflection, deri¬ 
vation, and compoiition, if they dare undertake it, and it 
be done with difeernment. 
Among the Birmans, to defignates the plural; and i the 
genitive, as in Latin. Thus they fay, fa ken, a lord ; fa 
ken i, of a lord ; fa ken to, lords. If they would venture 
to unite their figns, and to fpeak or write faken,fakeni,J'a~ 
kento, &c.they would then have declenfions, and the advan¬ 
tages thence refuiting. But the fyftem of pronunciation 
modulated by peculiar tones, keeps the monofyllabic na¬ 
tions wide of the right path. Syllables, added to the prin¬ 
cipal terms in derived or declined words, cannot with 
them preferve their real founds; or elfethe primitive term 
would lofe its found, and thereby its meaning alfo ; for 
every word has different fenfes which are exprefied by the 
tone; to fupprefs therefore the tones, would only add to 
the obfeurity of the language, and overturn the whole 
fyftem. 
Whilft all other nations, even the moft rude, have fuc- 
ceeded in conquering this obftacle, and thus obtained 
clearnefs and harmony, is it not wonderful that fo many 
nations, who very anciently had brought their language 
to a certain degree of culture, fhould always have pre- 
ferved the monofyllabical paucity? We mull affign as a 
reafon, not only the force of habit, fo ftrong in thefe 
burning climates, where inaCtion of body and mind is 
the fpecial prerogative of gods and of fovereigns, but alfo 
the extreme ifolation by which China and the neigh¬ 
bouring countries are hemmed in, on one fide by the ocean, 
anti on the other by an enormous chain of mountains. It 
is this circumitance, more than any other, which has pre¬ 
vented any innovation in thefe countries ; and the fame 
caul’e has hindered a change of inhabitants ; for we find 
at prefent the direct defeendants of the firft colonies which 
were eftabiilhed in the infancy of the world. 
It is not to be fuppofed, however, that the monofylla¬ 
bical tongues have remained precifely as barren as they 
were at the origin of the human fpecies. Time and other 
circumftances have operated upon the found and fenfe of 
the words; but the form and fuperftrufture of the lan¬ 
guages of thefe countries are ft ill the fame as we may con¬ 
ceive them to have been in the firft infancy of reafon. 
The following table may ferve to compare the roots of 
monofyllabical languages, 
Face* 
