as it regards their form? And if they be, will each of these twelve hundred produce from three to seventy other characters in all of which they themselves shall be completely embodied? If they cannot do this, the question is decided; they are either those original characters which furnish no derivatives; or they are derivatives themselves and in the latter case their names are not their own; they are borrowed from their primitives. For as most of the primitives communicate their name at least to some one derivative, by carefully culling these from the rest, 1200 derivatives might be selected, which should bear the names of the 1200 primitives. But they would not be found to be equally simple in their form with the primitives; the element added would bewray the spurious nature of their claim; much less would they be found. to perform the office of the primitive, by embodying themselves in the other derivatives. The example already quoted will shew this clearly. The characterngo, hasty, perverse, has precisely the same name with its primitive Ingó, I ; but is it equally simple in its form? Does not the addition of yin, a man, sufficiently bewray its true character as a derivative, and when taken away, lead us to its primitive ngó? Further, does it perform the office of its primitive? Is it found in any one of the other twenty-seven derivatives? in all of them? and in them as communicating in some degree its general meaning? I will go still further, and allow, that a derivative mayassume a name different from that of its primitive; as is the case with ngan, to flatter, (see p. 65) and if there were a sufficient number of these in the language, they might be culled, and said to contain every sound in the language. But would these possess the other qualities mentioned? would they be the simplest characters in form which bear the name? would each of them be found performing the office of a primitive by embodying itself with ten, twenty, or

fifty other characters? Such of them as were found united with even three each, would be the Derivative-primitives described under Class IV, and of which there are not six hundred in the language. These characteristics, therefore, their superior simplicity of from, and their embodying themselves in numerous characters derived form them, unite in the twelve hundred Primitives which appropriate nearly every name in the language,-and in these alone. And if it be a fact, that the significant parts of a character must have existed before they were united with each other, these characteristics united, stamp them indisputably, the Original characters of the language, from which, (the few other original characters excepted,) all the rest are formed in the manner already described.

Thus by collecting into one focus the few scattered rays of light afforded, it is possible to trace this singular language to its origin, a few Imitations. of natural objects, chiefly the Elements,-to ascertain the principles upon which these unite with each other in producing the Primitives,--and to follow these primitives, in their re-uniting with the elements so as to form a multitude of Derivatives; some of which in their turn unite anew with the elements, till five or six characters are combined with each other, and the language becomes, if we may believe one of their own writers,* not only clear and forcible, but rich and elegant in the highest degree. We now proceed to the examination of the Colloquial Medium.

Li-yang-pin. See the quotation from Sir Wm. Jones's address, page 18.

END OF PART I.

ON THE

SOUNDS, OR THE COLLOQUIAL MEDIUM

OF THE

CHINESE.

WE now enter on the examination of the second part of the subject, the Sounds by which the Chinese characters are expressed, and which constitute the basis of the Oral or Colloquial Medium of communication throughout that populous empire. In every alphabetic system the colloquial and the written mediums are identified with each other; the sound is essentially inherent in each written word; and materially to change it, is impossible, the seve ral letters remaining, from age to age, the guardians of the sound affixed thereto. But the case is totally different in Chinese. The sound of no character is inherent therein it may be totally changed, without affecting the meaning of the character. Thus toyin, a man, might be affixed tao, or lee, or any other name; and the character would still convey the same idea, because the written language speaks wholly to the eye. Some characters have two names widely different from each other; several instances of which have occurred in the derivatives given in the preceding part; and one or two even in the elements. The Colloquial Medium however, is scarcely less interesting

K

than the characters. Its antiquity is perhaps greater than that of any colloquial medium now used, except the Hebrew. It is singular in its nature; and if it be not wholly original, the contest for the palm of originality lies alone between it and the Sungskrit system, extended throughout India: while, if duly examined, it will be found to possess much of systematic regularity, and to express a boldness of design in its outlines, scarcely exceeded by any other system;but withal to terminate in a feebleness of execution, which has to this day prevented its passing the bounds of the Monosyllable.

Before we enter fully on the consideration of the system, an introductory remark or two may not be improper. Respecting its Antiquity we have nothing certain, except what may be inferred from the nature of things. Speech must necessarily precede writing, and some colloquial mode of communication must have preceded the invention of the Chinese characters, high as the Chinese place this invention. But a question may here occur, Did they originally convey their ideas to each other by the present system of sounds? or did they ever possess another system of sounds, a colloquial medium totally distinct from this? If they did, whence came the sounds contained in this system? How did these happen to occur to their minds precisely at the time of inventing the characters? Further, when did the pristine colloquial medium fall into disuse? and how happens it that no traces of it can be found remaining, as in the English tongue are to be found traces not only of the Norman language, but of the Anglo Saxon, and perhaps of a language still more ancient? Besides, if when the Chinese invented the characters, they did not affix to them the sounds with which they had already connected ideas, of what service could these characters be when invented?

New sounds could convey no ideas, till these new sounds were universally recognized by them as connected with ideas; and in order to effect this, a nation must agree to throw aside the sounds with which alone they had hitherto connected ideas, and in reality invent for themselves a new language, a circumstance unparalleled in the history of mankind. We have therefore no sufficient ground to conclude that any colloquial medium widely different from the present, has at any time existed in China; but on the contrary, the probability is, that the present system existed in substance, prior to the invention of the characters.

This idea seems corroborated by several circumstances. The elements, two - hundred and fourteen in number, contain a hundred and fifty of the sounds found in the present system, and only one not found there., (irr, which will be noticed hereafter). This is as great a number of the present system of monosyllables as the elements could be expected to possess, particularly if they were not all the original characters of the language; and indeed a much greater than would fall to their share were we to suppose the six hundred and fifty sounds distributed equally among thirty thousand characters; for this on the average would give one sound to about forty characters, and of course about five sounds to the whole two hundred and fourteen elements. So that unless the elements came in for their share of these monosyllables in the early state of the language, when the characters were comparatively few, it is not easy to assign a reason for their obtaining so large a number of them. Further, the twelve hundred primitives mentioned as the most simple in the language, and therefore likely to be the first formed, contain nearly every monosyllable in the present system; but no sound beside, with the exception of irr