In this sentence, the first compound, chyèn-chyèn, with fear,' is formed by reduplicating the verb chyen, to fight;' and the second, king-king, with care,' by reduplicating king, to dispute, to litigate.' A reduplication, therefore, seems occasionally to express a meaning in some degree differing from that of the simple character, while it still has a remote connexion therewith.

IV. Beside these three kinds, a fourth often occurs in the Chinese writings, formed by uniting two different characters nearly similar in meaning, which compounds then form either substantives, adjectives, or verbs, as circumstances may require. These particularly deserve notice, as the two characters which form them are generally so far synonimous, that either of them would nearly express the idea conveyed. In the following observa

tion of Chyu-hce, tsih-ping is used to express sickness:

Chyu-hee

But though a compound is here found to express sickness,' the text

which forms the basis of this comment expresses the same idea by tsih, the

"The father and mother alone feel the anguish of his sickness." Lun-yu, vol. i.

Two synonymous characters being thus united, it seems natural to enquire on what principle. That the compound thus formed is generally intensive, will admit of little doubt; but in what way, is the question. Does one character become in reality an adjunct to the other, as in mortal sickness ?' In certain instances, perhaps, traces of this may be found in these compounds. The Latin Chinese dictionaries render tsih, the first character in the compound just mentioned, by infirmitas; and ping, the last, by morbus: were one of them therefore deemed an adjunct, the compound would admit of being translated, morbid infirmity, or disease.’

In the following sentence from the Koo-wun, one of these compounds is used in the sense of a verb:

"If a son be rich and honorable, the parents and relatives fear him.”

In this sentence, the verb ' fear' is a compound formed of wy, 'to fear,' and kyu, to fear or dread.' This instance may therefore remind us of the Hebrew idiom, 'they feared a fear,' or 'they in fearing feared:' but of these compounds the reader must be left to form his own opinion; the Chinese unite the characters, but of the principle on which they are formed, they say little more than that one of the two characters is often euphonic.*

* It is not improbable that this may be the case in some instances; but whoever will take the trouble of examining a few of these compounds, and the single characters as respectively applied, will feel himself unable to rest satisfied in every instance with this easy solution.

V. A fifth kind of compounds are those formed of two characters differing from each other in meaning. These, in many instances, form a substantive different in meaning from them both: they however, though nu, merous, require little more than a bare mention. To this class may be referred that well-known compound by which the Chinese describe the empire of their sovereign: Thyen-hyà, formed of Thyen, heaven, and Thyà, underneath,' as well as that other compound for China, no less geographically just, Choong-kwoh, the middle country;' from Ħ choong, the middle' and kwoh, a country.' In the choice of these compounds, however, the modesty of the Chinese has taken care that they should be such as speak their own meaning. Others of this kind are, 鞭執* chih-pyen, holding the reins,' used by Confucius to signify the employment of a groom; and khwy-kýu, used by Mung to denote 'rule, regulation;' which is formed of, khwy, 'a circle,' and kyu,' a square.' Many others might be added; but this brief idea of them may suffice, as they belong rather to the Dictionary than the Grammar of the language.

These include most of the compounds formed by the union of merely two. To these compounds might be added those formed to express an agent, an object, an adjunct, &c. but these enter so deeply into the lan guage, that were we to place them here, we should bring nearly the whole of the syntax under the head of Compound Words. It seems better therefore to refer them to the syntax of the various parts of speech which they compose; to which we now proceed.

See Lun-yu, vol. i.

Remarks on the Syntax of the Nouns, Pronouns, Verbs, &c.

It will be obvious, that while few of the rules which form the syntax of other languages, can be applied in Chinese, those which are founded on the agreement of the terminations marking the case, gender, and number of Nouns, can have no place therein; as where these do not exist, there can be no room for the application of the rules to which their existence has given birth. Position, which in Chinese supplies the place of termination, forms of course the basis of Chinese Syntax, which necessarily reduces this part of Chinese grammar, so copious in other languages, within a very narrow compass. It may perhaps be advantageous, if in examining the syntax, we pursue the method observed in treating of the various parts of speech, and begin with a few remarks on,

The Substantives.-To some perhaps, it may appear strange to talk of what constitutes a substantive; it is however certain, that in Chinese, many characters become substantives by position; and if position in Chinese supplies the place of termination in other languages, there is in reality no greater impropriety in pointing out the position which constitutes any character, a noun, or a verb, than in describing a noun by its ending in or-oris, &c. As position however, results from the situation of other characters, it is useless to talk of it while a character is considered as standing alone; and hence this part of Chinese grammar necessarily forms part of its Syntax. Should any one question whether any remarks on this subject be at all necessary, it may be replied, that although one determined to persevere, may, through a long course of reading, easily ascertain when a character occurs in

the sense of a substantive, and when it has the force of a verb, a few hints on this subject may save a beginner much labour and perplexity. It is however of greater importance that these be just, than that they be numerous: what is omitted, diligence may discover, but a wrong direction adds to the labour of discovery, that of treading back the ground already trodden. this in view, we proceed to the examination of the subject.

Keeping

1. 1t be may proper to begin with observing, that there are many substantives which are seldom or never used as verbs; such are yin,' man ;' kwoh, a country;'foò, 'father;'

yih, a day;'

min, 'people;'

móo, mother;' má, a horse;' khyúen, a dog,' &c.* These therefore discover themselves at first sight. Those which become substantives by position, are such as occur also in the sense of adjectives, or verbs; but to those acquainted with grammar, it will be evident, that there are two positions which give a character the force of a substantive, its being connected with a verb either as its Agent or Object, or with a prepositive character performing the office of a case: in a word, its being connected either with a verb; directly or obliquely for how can a substantive stand alone? Separately from this connection, however, (the vocative excepted, which in Chinese is confined almost wholly to names), scarcely a character can be found performing the office of a substantive. Hence it will follow, that,

2. A character though itself a verb, has the force of a substantive by its becoming the Agent to a verb.-It may also be observed, that the

* In this respect, the English language exceeds the Chinese in flexibility; to man a ship, to people a country; to dog a thief, are expressions by no means foreign to the genius of the English language.