II
Three elements constitute the formation of Chinese words: first the form, next the sound, and third the meaning. From the traditional point of view, the form must be pleasing to the eyes, the sound must be pleasant to the ears, and the meaning must be expressive of the most subtle ideas and feelings that can appeal delightfully both to mind and heart. In the Indo-European languages the first element does not play so important a part as in Chinese, for the possibilities of variation in penmanship are still limited to the forming of letters and the style of writing them, while in Chinese each word has its proper and exact form and if not written precisely in that definite form, it is usually a mistake. The other two elements are more or less the same in all languages.
In Hsu Shên’s work, six principles used in the Chow Dynasty for teaching the language were given, defined and elucidated as follows：
1) Indicatives:
defined as “words recognizable at the first glance and the idea understood upon observation”.
2) Pictographs:
defined as “words formed by drawing the object, and curved lines are made according to the thing itself ”.
3) Harmonics:
defined as “words formed with the fact taken as an appellation, and the sound harmonized in a similitude”.
4) Ideatives:
defned as “words formed through a combination of diverse elements of diferent categories with the meaning seen in the compound”.
5) Transmissives:
defined as “by the establishment of groups under one heading, words in the same idea are mutually receptive”.
6) Borrowed Words:(6)
defined as “words taken in accord with the sound, entrusted with the meaning where the original word is lacking”.
It must be noted here that these terms are close to the originals but not identical, since that can never be. Since the seventeenth century European scholars have been studying Chinese and they might have translated these technical terms differently. However, the substance must be the same because all have been taken from the same source.
Generally speaking, all Chinese words can be defined as “ideatives”if we take the word “idea” in the Platonic sense, or all as “indicatives”, since each word must mean something and thus indicate something. But here we need not delve so much into philosophy as into etymology, leaving a broad margin for further corrections because of the antiquated, cryptic terminology and also because of the discrepancy between the construction of the western languages and this oriental one. (7)
Let us first look superficially into the arrangement of these six groups or categories. We must suppose that the indicatives preceded the pictographs mainly because of their simplicity. But from the anthropological point of view, pictographs must have been formed first, since the figures were simply drawn or designed from the natural objects, in either complicated or abbreviated forms, in whatever perspective. Indicatives must have come next, because in a sense they were a step advanced, for there must have been the thing indicated and the indicator. Every child draws pictures, but he does not make an indication of anything. Combining the signs of these two categories together, words—mostly ideatives—were formed. A sign is also a word but, etymologically speaking, there is a difference, as signs are mostly simple and symbolic, serving as elements of complicated words. Yet even with the large vocabulary formed by these three groups there was still an insufficiency of words, and new words had to be formed. So the sounds of all these three categories were taken and combined with the different forms in a great complexity and multiplication, and from this the harmonic words came into existence, amounting to nine-tenths of all Chinese words. The method of making words ended there. It is generally understood that sound comes after form or shape, and so the harmonics occupy the third place, even though, if we followed strictly this line of development, they would be placed in the fourth. Furthermore, in the usage of words, two more devices were employed: transmission (5th), in order to bring forth new ideas, and borrowing(6th) in order to consummate the changes of sound. Hence there was no longer any shortage of words or any inconvenience in usage.
These principles stand separately but are also to a certain extent related to each other; by correlation, the richness of compounded single words is increased. We find apart from
pure indicatives, also
pictographs cum indicatives,
ideatives cum indicatives,(8) and
pure harmonics, and
harmonics cum indicatives, and apart from
pure pictographs, there were also
harmonics cum pictographs,
ideatives cum pictographs, and
ideatives cum harmonics cum pictographs, and among
ideatives, there were also
harmonics cum ideatives.
The first four categories of the six are clear enough and their examples will be given as they are treated separately afterwards, but with regard to the fifth, scholars are not agreed in their explanations. The original definition given by Hsu Shên remains very obscure, nor do the two words given as examples, K’ao 考 and Lao 老, both meaning‘old’ enlighten us further. The term “transmissive” is used here simply because there is no better; the exact English equivalent is lacking. The term is a compound of two words: Chuan 转 meaning “to turn around”, and Chu 注, meaning “water flowing” or “to pour water into”. But what is meant by “group” and “one heading”? Does the “heading” mean the heading in Hsu Shên’s Dictionary? Could the people of the Chow dynasty have used the headings of a dictionary one thousand years later? And above all, what is meant by “mutually receptive”?
One explanation makes the thing more complicated. It divides the “headings” into two groups: one group of words taking sound as its basis and another taking meaning as its basis. Besides, there arises another group of “exchangeable words with special sounds”, and another group of “exchangeable words with special meanings”. This theory utterly lacks support; and mixed with “vulgar words” of later styles, it brings this enigma into greater confusion. Yet this was advocated by Cheng Ts’iao 郑樵(1104–1162 A.D.), otherwise a great compiler of an encyclopaedia.
Another explanation takes the idea of “transmissive” as “mutually receptive”, meaning simply “mutually explicative”. In Erh Ya 《尔雅》, an ancient dictionary, one meaning could be represented by as many as forty words, showing the way of “transmission”. Thus one word used in diverse senses is a “borrowed word”, while diverse words used in one sense are “transmissives”; in other words, “transmissives” are synonyms. This theory by itself is a sound one, not mentioned by anyone precedent to its author. But its weak point is that if one word is taught as synonymous with another, or vice versa, they are understood as “mutually explicative” indeed, but they need not form a separate category. Many synonyms cannot be grouped under one heading from the viewpoint of word construction. Furthermore, if words having more than one meaning can be mutually explicative only in one meaning, just as two or more polygons can only coincide with each other on one of their sides, how can they be successfully grouped under one “heading”?If Erh Ya is taken merely as a book of “transmissives”, then many“borrowed words” included therein must be taken as the same, and there will be no distinction between these two categories. Yet this was the theory founded by Tai Chen 戴震 (1723–1777 A.D.).
Another explanation based on the previous one but more or less modified confines “transmissives” merely to the field of meaning (with the form and sound excluded) and holds that it is only the meaning that can be transmitted. The headings and groupings must be taken as those found in Hsu Shên’s Dictionary. By establishing one word as a heading, e.g. Lao 老 “old”, other words meaning “old” are grouped under it. This explanation seems to be nearer to the truth and is made by Chiang Shêng 江声 (1721–1799 A.D.), a noted phonologist.
It is worthwhile to treat these two categories here a bit more broadly, since they will not be discussed afterwards. We must admit that during the Han Dynasty, in Hsu Shên’s time, the original idea of those six principles had already become antiquated and somewhat obliterated, and it is no wonder that Hsu shên should have somehow misunderstood it. According to Chu Tsun Sheng (mentioned above) it can be briefly explained in this way: a word without changing its form yet with its meaning extended for another application is called a “transmissive”, or to express this in another way, if a word has its meaning extended and is so changed into another sense—but not many words are forced into one meaning and grouped as synonyms—the term “transmissive” is used. “Borrowed words” then have nothing to do with the original meaning, but they are adopted because of the identity of pronunciation. If one idea can go through several words, these are“transmissive”; if due to the sameness of one sound several words are used in a certain sense, these are “borrowed words”. A “transmissive”is the original word with its original meaning, yet by “turning” or“going around” it is used in another sense with the word unchanged. A“borrowed word” is a different original word with a different original meaning, but without any extension of “turning around” it is used as a substitute for another word with the sound unchanged. It is through the “borrowed words” that ancient phonology can be studied because several words were used as one, owing to the sameness or likeness of the sound. By “transmissive”, in which the word remained unchanged, yet the meaning was extended—so to say “turned around” —there could be unformed or unshaped words, saving the trouble of coding new words. In later ages the so-called “vulgar words” were substituted, viz., words formed without being based upon these six principles.
This explanation clarifies much of the ancient obscurity; even then, we need not take it as final. Our modern scholar Chang Tai Yen章太炎 (died in 1936), a famous writer, historian, phonologist and a great master in Sinology in general, formulated another theory; he held that the last two categories pertained also to the field of the “formation of words”. By both alliteration and repeated rhyme in “turning around” or extension new words were formed, and these were the “transmissives”. When words had become too numerous, restrictions were made by using words of identical sound and similar idea to substitute for each other without forming new words; these were then the “borrowed”ones. This theory is not entirely satisfactory in so far as it would enlarge both items to an unlimited extent, and the multiple ramifications and spontaneous growth, change, shaping and re-shaping of the language would be seen as quite arbitrary and controlled, which could not be the fact. Even if the fifth category could be explained in this way, the sixth could not, as can obviously be seen from his own explanation.
In Hsu Shên’s Dictionary, not many words of the fifth group were given, words of the sixth group being much more numerous. Among the latter, several rules could be deduced:
a) Words were borrowed through the identity in sound or, to put it another way, words of different forms with the same pronunciation could be substituted.
b) Words were borrowed through the identity of rhyme, or monosyllables with the same vowels or diphthongs were capable of being borrowed.
c) Words were borrowed because of alliteration or identity in consonants at the beginning; this is the least understood one.
d) Words were borrowed through combination, or two words were written as one in accordance with the sound.
On the whole, a clear understanding of these last two principles presupposes a fairly good knowledge of ancient Chinese texts or, at any rate, the mastery of a good number of words. So among the six principles only the first four are illustrated below with subdivisions, though occasionally here and there something of the fifth category is explained.
In conclusion it can be said that all that has been mentioned above and the words given below are among the essentials of the Chinese language, and, without this basic knowledge it would be impossible to understand the language at all. Only equipped with such a basic knowledge can one proceed with the general research work. The method of studying the Chinese language has always been a scientific one, and the same way of scientific research is open to all, whether Westerners or Easterners.
In the following chapters various categories of words are presented. The first word in each group is the modern typescript, which is used in all printing work—for newspapers, journals, books, etc. The second one is the form of the word in the Minor Script (Hsiao Ch’uan), discussed in Chapter 2. The third is the word as it is written today. The pronunciation of each word has been denoted both by the Chinese phonetic signs, which constitute the fourth item, and by the latinized transliteration. A brief explanation in English is also given.
Some antique forms of the same word, dating from the dawn of Chinese civilisation to about the middle of the third century B.C., as given in the book, A Comprehensive Study of the Six Principles by the scholar Ming Yue Wu (written in 1661 A.D. and edited and published in 1720 A.D.) are also added in some cases. Some of these words are written in the Archaic style and some are in the Major Script; in both several different forms of the same word might exist. Others have been taken from the category in the Archaic style which was called the“Peculiar Words”. These various forms are placed below some words and numbered a, b, c, etc. They were gathered from diverse sources, such as old bronze pieces, bamboo slips, ancient texts (like that of Laotse), seals etc. Only those forms which help clarify the evolution of the written word, which illustrate the possibilities in the change of a word or its historical development, are shown here. A word may have ten or twenty or more different antique forms; only the ones that best show the possibilities of variation have been chosen. Antique forms with dubious interpretations, or those which are of other origins, have been discarded. The antique forms that were gathered from seals of the Han Dynasty which, though not entirely baseless, could have been created out of the imagination of the people of that period, and which were mainly done for artistic purposes, have not been adopted. The serial number of each word has no special significance; it is given merely for the convenience of reference.
(1)See II. 4.
(2)See II. 9.
(3)I beg to note that I do not know from which authentic source the erudite German Sinologue Richard Wilhelm has taken the notion that ‘Yes’ was indicated by a simple unbroken line, and ‘No’ by a broken one, and also his conclusion about the archaic characters in connection with the trigrams. —Vide I Ging, Diederichs Taschenausgabe, S. 11, 18. Book of Changes, trl. by C. F. Baynes, Ldn. ed. 1951, pp. xxix, xxx, xxxviii, xxxix.
(4)These are also called “Large” and “Small” Seal Scripts because they are used on seals even today.
(5)In the introduction to an English translation of Śatapatha-Brahmana, a Chinese word 宿meaning ‘to dwell’ was etymologically explained as ‘a house capable of accommodating a hundred persons’. The writer must have taken it from a source unknown to us. In the ancient script it was written differently. The lower portion of the word indicates only the sound and it is the Archaic form of the word 夙, which is to be found in Hsu’s Dictionary. See also 经义述闻十九下 That its lower right portion shows a ‘mattress’with ‘a man’ sleeping on it is a modern explanation, cf. Pl. III. No. 13.
(6)The term. tech. for “borrowed word” is perhaps “loan word”, which denotes a word taken from another language, but this means a word taken from the same language.
(7)Nowadays certain scholars disagree as to the classification of some words in these six categories, but they do not dispute the definitions of those words.
(8)This item is merged into Ideatives in this book.