Whatever degree o f affinity may he difcovered between the
founds o f the Chinefe language and thofe o f other nations, their
«written eharadter has no analogy whatfoever, but is entirely
peculiar
A S heep y*ns Wool (Sheep’ s Hair)yangmau
A Goat, or mounyhan
yang
Coals tan
tain Sheep Sugar tang
AvCat miau Cheefe, they have i
A Stag jhan loo .none but thick > naiping,
A Pidgeon koo tfe Milk
Poultry lee A Houfe jhia
A n Egg lee-tan A Temple ■miau
A Goofe goo A Bed tchuang
■Oil jyeo A Door men
Rice mee A Table tai
Milk nai A Chair ye-t%é
>Vinegar tjoo A Knife tan
Tobacco yen A Pitcher ping
Salt yen A Plough lee
Silk tfoo .An Anchor man
Cotton mien- wha A Ship Sichuan
¡Flax Plant ■'ina Money j/tcn
'Hemp ma
I muft obferve, however, for the information o f thefe philologifts, that fcarcely
t w o provinces in China have the fame oral language. The-officers and their atten-
,-dants who came %lth us from the capital could converfe only with the boatmen o f
the fouthermprovinces, ■ through the medium of an interpreter. The character of the
language is unrverfal, but the name oriound of the charafter is arbitrary. I f ^convention
offounds could have been fettled like a convention o f marks, one would fuppofe
that a commercial intercourfe -would have effected it, at leaft in the humeral
founds, that rtrtlft neceflarily be interchanged from place to place and myriads of
times repeated from one corner o f the empire to the other. L e t us compare
then the nunicrals o f .Pekin with thofe of Canton, the two greateft cities in
„China.
i . Yc
peculiar to itfelf. Neither the Egyptian infcriptions, nor the
nail-headed charaders, or monograms, found on the Babylonian
bricks, have, any nearer refemblance to the Ghineie than
the Hebrew letters have to the Sanfcrit; the only analogy that
can be faid to exift between them is, that o f their being com-
pofed o f points and lines. Nor are any marks or traces o f
alphabetic writing difcoverable in the compofition o f the
Chinefe charader; and, i f at any time, hieroglyphics have been
employed to convey ideas, they have long given way to a col-
led ion o f arbitrary figns fettled by convention, and conftruded
on a fyftem, as regular and conftant as the formation o f founds
Pekin. Canton. Pekin. Canton.
I. Y e ' yat 11. lhee-ye ihap-yat
2. ul ye 12. ihee-ul ihap*ye
3. fan faam 20. ul-ihee ye-ihap
4* foo fee 3°* fan-ihee faam-ihap
5. ou um p s fan-fhee-ye faam-ihap-yat
6. leu lok 33* fan-ihee-ul faam-ihap-ye
7. tehee ltfat 100. pe paak
8. pas pat 1000. tiien tfeen
9. tcheu kow 10,000. van man
10. fhee ihap -100,000. ihe-van ihap-man
I f then,:inthishighly civilized empire, the oral language of the northern part differs
fo widely from the fouthern that, innumerousdnflancas. by none of the etymological
trieks * can they be brought .to bear any kind of .analogy; if the very word
which in Pekiii implies the number car, Be ufed in Canton to exprefs two, how very ab-
furd and ludicrous muft thofe learned and laboured differtations appear, that would
affign an oriental origin to aU our modern languages >
* S u ch a s t h . ad d itio n , d c d u f f io n , m o t , .io n , and t ra hfp d fitlon o f le tter s , o r e v en fy lU b le s . T K . s
M r .W e b b e th in k s ¡th at th e d e riv a tio n o f t h e G r e e k , jw r f . w m t t , im m th e C h in e fe o a -g i«, i t fe tf-
e v id en t.
in