A Fantasy of Far Japan Part 26

[1] The _Outlook_.

[2] The law also permits the companies const.i.tuting such a corporation of a part of the whole for a similar object. But as its general purport does not materially differ, I omit its account in order to avoid confusion.--_The Author_.

VIII

THE LANGUAGES OF CHINA AND j.a.pAN

People often ask me if there is any affinity between the Chinese language and ours. I can at once say there is no affinity whatever, but this requires much explanation before I can clearly show it.

The written language of China, viz. ideographs, is the same all over the extensive sphere of China proper, but its p.r.o.nunciation is different almost in every province. The spoken language of the Chinese is, roughly speaking, the same as the written language, as is the case in the Western nations. Therefore, the Chinese residing in different provinces do not understand each other colloquially, except those educated in the Mandarine Chinese, which is in fact the p.r.o.nunciation used in Peking amongst the Mandarins and studied by all Mandarins in provinces as well as those in Peking.

The first difference between Chinese and j.a.panese is that the former is monosyllabic, whilst the latter is polysyllabic. The second difference, which is a natural consequence of the first, is that in Chinese there is no declension of nouns or conjugation of verbs, whilst in j.a.panese there are conjugations of verbs and a method of the formation of the cases of nouns which is in purport similar to declensions. The third difference is the position or order of words in sentences. The fourth difference is the difference of p.r.o.nunciation of the Chinese ideographs, viz.

characters, even when they are used in our writing in their original shapes.

I will now explain in detail all these points in the succeeding pages.

To begin with, Chinese is monosyllabic, as I said. Each word, which always has one signification, be it a noun or a verb, has only one sound. Thus a harbour in Chinese is _kong_, whilst it is _minato_ in j.a.panese; and a man in Chinese is _jen_, whilst it is _hito_ in j.a.panese. It is the same with verbs. The sound of each word of Chinese never changes, whatever position it may stand in relation to other words in the same sentence, that is to say, there is no declension and no conjugation. Each word is represented by a distinct ideograph, and, from what I have just said, it follows that the form of the ideographs also never changes, in the same way as the sounds do not change.

In Chinese different shades of meaning as to the actions and agents are expressed by the position of the words, by addition of some other words.

In simple sentences, therefore, it resembles English very much; thus, for instance, when a Chinese says: 'John likes Paul,' it is plain, like English, that he who likes Paul is John, and he who is liked is Paul.

When a Chinese wishes to express the same idea in the pa.s.sive voice, he would say, 'Paul by John is liked,' which is the same as 'Paul is liked by John,' Neither has Chinese any preposition like English or French, nor any post-position like j.a.panese, to designate the cases, except a few which resemble prepositions meaning 'from,' 'to,' and 'by,' but even these are very sparingly employed and by no means with any regularity.

When a verb is used as a substantive the form is still identical; thus one identical ideograph, 'like,' may represent a verb 'to like' or a substantive 'liking.' Of course there are many terms designating one thing or one action consisting of more than one sound; such are, however, combinations of two or three distinct words, like the English word 'firearms' or 'seesaw,' and therefore none of them could properly be called one distinct polysyllabic word.

In j.a.panese, unlike Greek, Latin, or German, there is no proper declension in nouns. In this respect it is more like English or French, but it has a method of forming the cases, so that in this respect it differs from Chinese. Our cases are formed by putting after them the so-called _ga--no--ni--wo_--thus:

_Hana ga saku_ . . Flowers blossom _Hana no Kage_ . . The shade of flowers _Hana ni chikazuku_ . . Approach the flowers _Hana wo Miyo_ . . See the flowers (imperative).

_Ga_ is generally omitted in writing. It is more like the Greek _Ge_, which is often suffixed to the nominative substantives. _Ni_ is equal to the English _to_ and the French _a_; but such ideas as the English _by_ or _in_, or the French _en_ or _par_, are generally expressed by it.

There is another particle _wa_ for the nominative, its position is the same.

_Made_ (until, jusqu'a) and _yori_ or _kara_ (from, de) are also put after the substantives. In fact, all equivalents to English or French prepositions are put after the substantive, and therefore they are more appropriate to be called the post-positions.

In Chinese the idea of time is generally very vague, it is mostly left to the conjecture of the hearers or readers, as the case may be, from the context of the whole sentence. But when it is necessary to express it, it is also done by addition of some words, such as 'already' or 'once.' Thus a Chinese would say, 'John once like Paul,' meaning 'John once liked Paul,' or 'John already come,' meaning 'John has already come.' But this is very different in our language. We have regular declensions of verbs in both the active voice and the pa.s.sive voice and their form is accordingly changed. Thus, for instance:

_Kitaru_ - come _Kitaran_ - shall come _Kitaris.h.i.+_ - has come _Kitare_ - come (imperative).

I shall here develop my dissertation a little further, and make some comparison between our language and some of the European languages.

In j.a.panese there is no gender in nouns, for grammatical purposes, although some words from their very nature signify male or female; thus, for instance, _otoko_ = man, _onna_ = woman, _ondori_ = c.o.c.k, and _mendori_ = hen. To us it sounds very odd that the Germans give feminine gender to the sun and masculine to the moon, whilst the French do vice versa, or that both the French and German give masculine gender to 'regiment' or 'battalion,' but feminine gender to 'company.' In this respect the English method of dividing into masculine, feminine, and neutral, allowing only on rare occasions, for poetical purpose, personification of inanimate objects, sounds more rational and comprehensible to our ears. It follows, therefore, that our nouns do not modify their forms on account of the gender, and that it is more like English in this respect.

We have, moreover, no number in the nouns. Whereas in European languages nouns which have no number are exceptions and very few, all the nouns in j.a.panese are without number without any exception. When we wish to express any particular numerical idea, we make use of a numerical adjective in a similar manner as the English would say 'a sheep,' 'ten sheep,' or 'numerous sheep.' Here again we can see that our nouns never change their form on account of the number. It is true, we also put after the nouns _ra_, _tachi_, or _domo_ to signify plural, but it is rare, and the style becomes rather clumsy unless it is done very carefully.

Furthermore, there is no gender or number in our verbs. All conjugations are the same whatever gender or number they may relate to. It goes without saying that in Chinese also there is neither gender nor number in its nouns and verbs. It also goes without saying that in j.a.panese as well as Chinese there is, like English, no gender or number in adjectives. I may also add here that, like Latin, there are no articles either in Chinese or j.a.panese.

As to the adverbs in Chinese, they are as a rule identical with adjectives, the difference between them being only perceived by the context, although there is a certain form which always gives adverbial signification, and which is done by putting another word after an adjective (there are three or four words which are used for the purpose of thus forming adverbial terms). In j.a.panese adverbs are formed by suffixing _ni_ and _to_, like the English _ly_ and French _ment_. As _s.h.i.+zukani_ (slowly) _yuku_ (goes), and _s.h.i.+zus.h.i.+zu to_ (slowly and slowly) _yuku_ (goes). _To_ may be written _tos.h.i.+te_ according to euphony.

The use of conjunctions in j.a.panese and Chinese is much similar to that of the Western languages, except that in both Chinese and j.a.panese it is very commonly understood. Thus where the Europeans say, 'East and West'

or 'black and white,' we both, Chinese and j.a.panese, would simply say, 'West East' or 'white black,' unless we have some particular reasons in giving emphasis to the distinction.

In Chinese the p.r.o.nouns also have no gender, so also in j.a.panese. When we particularly wish to designate gender, we say, 'that man' or 'this woman,' which in reality is no longer a p.r.o.noun. As to the number of p.r.o.nouns, it is formed by adding another word after it; but in Chinese this is by no means uniformly done, for in most cases where the meaning is plain enough, the same person as that of the singular number is also used for the plural. It is so especially with regard to the third person, but even in the first person this occurs sometimes, as for instance when two opposing objects, one of which is on one's own side, are collectively spoken of. There is something similar in English as far as the third person is concerned, but the Chinese carry it even into the first person. Thus in English may be written, 'When the enemy attacked us we have repulsed him,' but a Chinese would go further and write, 'When the enemy attacked me, I have repulsed him,' without meaning that he, the writer himself, did it alone, or did it at all, but that the army on his side did it.

In j.a.panese the number of the p.r.o.nouns is far more precise than it is in Chinese. One thing which may be novel to the Western readers is that in Chinese there are many different _I_'s and _you_'s, and still more in j.a.panese. They all signify, when used, a certain difference in degree of politeness. It is one of the difficult points in our colloquial language. I may here note that in the West it is almost impossible to carry on a conversation for a few minutes without making use of so many _I_'s, _he_'s, and _you_'s, but, like Latin, p.r.o.nouns are used very sparingly in Chinese, still less in j.a.panese. In Latin the form of the verbs suggests very easily the person which is the substantive understood. In Chinese the context suggests it, while in j.a.panese the construction of sentences based upon conjugation does it.

Relative p.r.o.nouns, _who_, _which_, _qui_, _que_, or _dont_, do not exist both in Chinese and j.a.panese. This is one of the great difficulties when we translate Western books. We must write the phrase governed by the relative p.r.o.nouns as a distinct one or else must employ a clumsy method in rendering the whole sentence.

From what I have stated above, it would appear that Chinese is very simple as far as the a.n.a.lysis of the words is concerned, for they have no declension and conjugation. The difficulty of the students of Chinese does not lie in remembering different forms of declensions and conjugations, but first in remembering so many ideographs, one by one, and secondly to make head and tail of the agglomeration of ideographs, for one can never tell from their form which is a noun and which is a verb, or which is an objective or which is a possessive case. Definite meaning of Chinese sentences could only be appreciated by those who have accustomed themselves by long experience. But even such people often differ in their interpretation of some phrases, by giving different attributive to one or other particular ideograph in a sentence, not only in its meaning but in its position as regards the part of speech. This often occurs in interpretation of cla.s.sical books. All this, however, does not signify that Chinese is a poor language, because its literal standard is really very highly developed.

The j.a.panese language is also simple enough as far as the a.n.a.lysis of words is concerned. Nouns never change their forms under any circ.u.mstances, except that their cases are made by the use of _ga_, _no_, _ni_, or _wo_, which is only an addition. Verbs are conjugated, but it is done simply to denote time and voice, and for no other reason.

In a word, we may say that j.a.panese grammar is very easy. The real difficulty of j.a.panese is in the proper construction of phrases, for it is by it that many shades of meaning are suggested. True it is that this is more or less so with all languages. Difference of the degree of politeness or gracefulness is manipulated by difference of construction everywhere, but the variety of this difference is more complicated in j.a.panese than in any other language, and it can only be acquired by long practice and observation. This is why all foreigners who study j.a.panese think it is so easy at the commencement and so difficult after they have made a little progress. Nevertheless, colloquial j.a.panese is on the whole easy, because one can learn it easily so long as he is not sensitive of nicety or grace. There is in open ports even a new j.a.panese spoken between foreigners and natives, in which no _ga--no--ni--wo_ is used, or no conjugation of verbs employed, and yet it is perfectly intelligible.

Now as to the difference of the order of words between j.a.panese and Chinese. Where in English one says, 'I cannot go,' in Chinese one would say, 'I not can go,' whilst in j.a.panese it would be, 'I go can not.'

This order of j.a.panese has a slight resemblance to German, but the difference lies in that, whilst in German it is chiefly so in subordinate sentences, it is in j.a.panese uniformly so under any circ.u.mstances. In Chinese a verb which governs an object directly or indirectly always precedes the object; thus, like English, a Chinese would say, 'Girls eat cakes,' or 'he goes to Paris,' but in j.a.panese the verb succeeds; thus a j.a.panese would say, 'Girls cakes eat,' or 'he Paris to goes.' In this respect of order there is some resemblance between Latin and j.a.panese.

From all that I have said it is plain that there is no affinity between Chinese and j.a.panese so far as construction is concerned, but I may go further. There is no resemblance whatever suggestive of same origin between any Chinese and j.a.panese word, except those whose introduction into j.a.pan at later ages is clearly known.

In speaking of the j.a.panese language in the foregoing pages, I have made no difference between the colloquial and the written one, but in fact there is much difference between them which requires some notice here. Even in the West written phrases can be, and are often, much shortened than spoken ones; but in j.a.pan this difference is carried almost to the extreme, so much so, that they a.s.sume almost entirely different shape, the phrases of the spoken language being unsparingly curtailed in those of the written one. Of course, there are some old books which were written like the colloquial, and of late years much movement is made for an a.s.similation of the written and spoken languages, making the written one approach the spoken one. But as the matter stands at present the difference is still very great.

I am afraid my explanation is becoming too minute and consequently tedious, but I presume I must complete it. In the writings, too, there are in j.a.pan two systems, one of which consists of our own phonetic letters, and the other consists of a mixture of our phonetic letters and Chinese ideographs. Unfortunately, the latter system is in common use.

It is done in the following manner. The order of the words is not changed, but nouns and verbs, for instance, are written in the original ideographs with the significance of the cases or conjugations, which are written in the phonetic letters succeeding these ideographs. Let me take an example in the English word 'telegraphed' or 'telegraphing,' and let us write 'telegraph' in the original Greek letters, writing 'ed' or 'ing,' which is the part of the pure English, in the ordinary English letters. This will give you an idea of our using Chinese ideographs in our sentences. But our method is still more complicated. Besides the above examples we read very often the ideographs thus used, not according to their p.r.o.nunciation but according to so-called 'kun' of the word, which is in reality a translation. In English books the term 'viz.' is used and is read as 'namely.' Here 'namely' is not p.r.o.nunciation but translation. This is an example similar to our 'kun'

of a word. When to read by p.r.o.nunciation and when to read by 'kun'

entirely depends upon the construction of the phrases, but one thing is certain, and it is that in j.a.pan one has to know both the p.r.o.nunciation and 'kun' of Chinese ideographs.

The j.a.panese p.r.o.nunciation of Chinese ideographs is not the same as any kind of the modern Chinese p.r.o.nunciation, and therefore even one simple word expressed by an ideograph is unintelligible between a Chinese and a j.a.panese, though they understand when it is written. In China the p.r.o.nunciation of ideographs underwent much change; besides it has varied according to localities. In j.a.pan the p.r.o.nunciation of those Chinese ideographs, which is comparatively ancient, has been preserved on account of our possessing phonetic letters, by the use of which the preservation has been effected. But then there are two kinds of p.r.o.nunciation of those ideographs, on account of its introduction into j.a.pan at different periods from the different localities. This is an additional difficulty we have in reading Chinese characters used in j.a.pan, though the usual customs where to use one or where the other are usually plain to educated people.

j.a.panese phonetics consist of fifty letters.[1] Five of them are vowels, being equal to _a_, _e_, _i_, _o_, _u_, and each of the rest represents the sound of two Roman characters, _i.e._ a consonant and a vowel; thus, for instance, the sound of _ka_ or _ke_ is represented by a single letter without spelling.

I said above that the modern Chinese p.r.o.nunciation is different from the ancient one. It goes without saying that the style of phraseology is much changed, even in a greater measure than the modern English writing is different from that of the Elizabethan epoch. The Chinese, which has been studied in j.a.pan indeed very commonly, is the ancient one, _i.e._ cla.s.sical Chinese, and we are familiar with cla.s.sical Chinese even more than the Chinese themselves. As a system of writing, that of the pure j.a.panese, which consists of phonetic letters, is in its quality far superior to the other one, which is in our common use, nay, even superior to the proper Chinese system itself. Our phonetic system, however, has not made sufficient progress on account of the introduction of the Chinese system, to which we had paid too high value and devoted too much attention, the result being the mixture of Chinese ideographs in our phonetic system, that is to say, the other system just mentioned.

Even in the West there is some similarity to this. Take, for instance, some modern English books. One would scarcely find a few lines in which a large number of words which are Latin or sometimes Greek in origin is not contained. Are there not even now names for new inventions coined from Greek or at least from Latin? And is not all this due to the fact that such words sound more scholastic or else more concise or accurate?

If it were not so, why does one call a horseless carriage 'automobile'

instead of 'self-moving carriage'? Fortunately for the Western nations, however, there is no difficulty in transcribing Greek or Latin words in their modern letters, inasmuch as those letters are similar to, in fact evolved from, the Greek and Latin letters, and therefore, when once a Greek or Latin word is employed, it is easy to get naturalised, as it were. But, unfortunately for us, the Chinese method is ideographs, and our own is phonetic, and one cannot be directly transcribed from the other, except that either it be translated or merely phonetically represented, which in truth presents much ambiguity. For this reason the original ideographs themselves have come to be interposed between the phonetic letters as I have ill.u.s.trated above, and the ideographs so interposed have never become thoroughly 'naturalised,' from the very nature of the case. Thus one would see that as far as the mechanical side is concerned, the deep study of Chinese has given much drawback to j.a.pan. On the mental side, however, I may say that it has helped us in enriching our thoughts for many centuries, inasmuch as there is rich treasure for ethical teaching in the cla.s.sical Chinese, although this is not the place for me to dwell on that topic.

I may add a few words. Philological researches of different Asiatic languages are still very incomplete, but I understand from what is stated by experts that there is some resemblance between our language and those of Korea, Manchuria, and indeed Mongolian tribes: first, in that all those languages are monosyllabic like ours; second, in the order of words in forming sentences. Moreover, it is said that there were already discovered several words which are much similar to ours. No satisfactory statement could be made as yet, but it would be a matter of no common interest if further researches be made. It goes without saying that there is much similarity, so it is said, between ours and the language of the Inoes, who are rapidly disappearing from the surface of the earth, despite our taking care of them. They once occupied the greater part of j.a.pan and were a brave race. It is no wonder that there is that similarity in the tongues, though it is a matter of question whether they left their words behind them or we gave them those words.

For example, _Kami_, which in the colloquial j.a.panese means G.o.d, superior, or upper part of anything, is _Kamui_ in Ino, the meaning being the same. This word, then, must surely belong to the same origin.

There are also many names of rivers and mountains in j.a.pan which, beyond doubt, are of Ino origin.

[1] These phonetic letters were invented in j.a.pan between the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., during which time they gradually became improved. As to their form they are a simplification of some simple Chinese ideographs, and as to the principle of their formation, it is based upon, the Sanscrit.

IX

ONCE MORE ON j.a.pAN AND FRANCE[1]