nese signs for their own language. Spoken they could not be understood, as they have their own sounds for these letters; but written, they will be understood-not read--by all who are familiar with their appearance. By a similar contrivance, the Chinese are enabled to use their signs to represent European words; they take them merely in their phonetic power, disregarding their signification entirely, and thus write ling-ki-li for English, ya-su-hoei-sse for Jesuit, or ki-li-sse-tang for Christian.

The number of signs which are exclusively used to convey a meaning to the sign by the side of which they stand, is comparatively small. They are, therefore, constantly repeated, giving a new meaning to an indefinite number of phonetic signs. The latter, again, are divided in as many classes as there are ideo-graphic signs, with which they may be coupled. It is only in this manner that Chinese letters can be arranged in a lexical form. They are all classified under the heads of keys, as the 217 ideographic signs are commonly called. The latter are, in the first place, arranged among themselves according to the number of distinct strokes or parts of which they consist; simplest first, those consisting of several strokes following according to their number. The same standard serves, then, for the arrangement of the numerous signs under the head of each key. In looking for a Chinese word, to ascertain its signification, its two parts have, therefore, first to be examined, with a view to ascertain which of them furnishes the sound, and which the meaning. The form of the latter is then analyzed or dissected, so as to obtain the precise number of parts or strokes of which it consists. The keys of the dictionary being arranged according to this characteristic, it is not difficult to find the corresponding sign among

the words, which consist of the same number of strokes as the word sought for. The next step is to ascertain, in like manner, the number of strokes of which the phonetic element of the word consisted. These phonetic signs are, as has been mentioned, arranged according to the same principle, under the head of each key; and it will, therefore, be comparatively easy, the key once being found, to seek for the second part, also, under the proper head. There the whole word is then met with, and, by its side, both the sound of the coupled letters and their signification.

The sound of a word, it will be seen, stands in no relation whatever to its meaning; these two powers of a sign are entirely independent of each other. Even the oldest monuments, of which the Chinese claim to possess some that date farther back than even the traditional records of Europe, convey, therefore, no information as to the changes which the language must have undergone at various periods, like all other idioms spoken on the globe.

Foreigners, also, learn to understand the Chinese much more readily than to read it; an experience entirely different from that of other languages. Scholars have been found who could fluently read and translate Chinese works, without being able to sound a single letter.

Chinese words are necessarily invariable; there exists, therefore, no grammar of that language. The relation of word to word, or idea to idea, is expressed by position only; all grammar, then, is here syntax. Every word can, according to theory, serve alike as noun, adjective, or verb. Some few signs, however, are in practice used for specific purposes only, and this

is the only evidence which the Chinese exhibits of a tendency to develope itself and to improve. The common language of the Empire, the Kuan-hoà, or so-called Mandarin language, as distinguished from that of Kuang-tung (Canton), and of the coast, Tu-Kian, is especially inclined thus to limit the use of some words, and promises soonest to reach a higher degree of perfection. The dialect of Peking, on the contrary, shows already, and to a considerable extent, the effects of constant intercourse with the Mantchoo.

Ambiguity arises, necessarily, in proportion to the great poverty of the spoken language. As here one sound only is heard for each word, and the sign which determines its meaning, remains mute, the listener has to employ great ingenuity and cunning to guess at the precise signification for which that sound may be intended in each case. Nor does even Chinese etiquette consider it a want of high-bred courteousness, to beg for an explanation. This is commonly given by an additional word, which will lead the mind of the other in the right direction; much remains, however, for the unusually acute and subtle mind of the Chinese to be guessed. For neither number nor gender can be expressed by the word itself; at best, these ideas also are only suggested by additional words, in the same way in which the English speak of hen-sparrows, jackass, roebuck, &c. The word for "man," is thus coupled with "crowd," to express "men," with "child" for "son," and "daughter" is represented by "woman-child." So with other parts of speech: "Usepeople-power," is "with the people's power;" "hundred-mangood," is "the best of men," and "see protection," is "to be protected." In like manner moods and tenses, pronouns and adverbs, are rather suggested than actually expressed.

The Chinese is a language which has been spoken for thousands of years by a nation of millions. Bunsen is disposed to consider it a wreck of the primitive languages of the earth, a great and striking monument of antediluvian speech. Inflexible and inorganic, it has remained the same for ages, and neither change nor progress is perceptible in any of its essential features. Nevertheless, the Chinese also has a literature, older and more abundant in many branches, than that of any Indo-European idiom. Entirely different from the latter in every essential feature; it is, on that account, not to be considered an imperfect or insufficient language. It serves, on the contrary, all the highest purposes of language generally, and is, in its way, perfect. The great Humboldt already remarked the striking consistency with which the monosyllabic, uninflecting principle, is carried out throughout the whole structure. It shows more distinctly than any other tongue on earth, the double nature of spoken words, as containing a sound or a body, on one hand, and a meaning or the spirit on the other hand. In the Chinese alone, these two elements are separated and held distinct from each other, with an intellectual power and perseverance, of which higher idioms and greater nations show no example. The very absence of all grammar, that is, of all external signs of the relation in which words and their meaning stand to each other, suggests a higher capacity of the intellect of the Chinese to supply what is not expressed, and to read the meaning of words in almost imperceptible features, by the mere force of their reasoning power. It is certainly no small triumph for a language to be able to express by the aid of only about 500 distinct sounds, which by tone and accent may be increased to 1200, all that

the boasted superiority of more perfect languages conveys, perhaps, more distinctly, but neither more simply nor more perfectly.

CHAPTER XLV.

II. AGGLUTINIZING LANGUAGES OF EUROPE.

1. Tataric Family.-Mongoliani-Turkish-Karatscha--Nogai-Kumuckian— Kirghis-Tataric of Kasan--Bashkeer, &c.-Finnish Branch.-SamojedicUgrian, Permian, Bulgarian-Lappic, Finnish proper, Estic--Magyar.

EUROPE possesses only a few, but very largely extended, languages which belong to the second class, superior to the monosyllabic, of which an instance has been given in the preceding remarks on the Chinese, and yet not sufficiently developed to rise to the degree of perfection exhibited by the inflecting languages.

They express the idea itself by a word, the relation only by additional syllables or letters which are loosely and mechanically joined with the former. Their superiority to the monosyllabic consists, therefore, in the power to express the relation by a change of the word itself, instead of being compelled to add one or more words to suggest it. They are inferior to the inflecting languages, inasmuch as this change of the root is only mechanical, produced by mere juxtaposition, and not by genuine inflection, following permanent and rational laws. The change from "man," to "men," of the inflecting English, is still rep