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
Japanese; and a man in Chinese is _jen_, whilst it is _hito_ in
Japanese. 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 passive 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 Japanese, 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 Japanese, 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 _à_; 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'à) 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 passive voice and
their form is accordingly changed. Thus, for instance:
_Kitaru_ - come
_Kitaran_ - shall come
_Kitarishi_ - 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 Japanese 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_ = cock, 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
Japanese 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 Japanese 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 Japanese.
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 Japanese adverbs are formed by
suffixing _ni_ and _to_, like the English _ly_ and French _ment_. As
_shizukani_ (slowly) _yuku_ (goes), and _shizushizu to_ (slowly and
slowly) _yuku_ (goes). _To_ may be written _toshite_ according to
euphony.
The use of conjunctions in Japanese and Chinese is much similar to that
of the Western languages, except that in both Chinese and Japanese it is
very commonly understood. Thus where the Europeans say, 'East and West'
or 'black and white,' we both, Chinese and Japanese, would simply say,
'West East' or 'white black,' unless we have some particular reasons in
giving emphasis to the distinction.
In Chinese the pronouns also have no gender, so also in Japanese. When
we particularly wish to designate gender, we say, 'that man' or 'this
woman,' which in reality is no longer a pronoun. As to the number of
pronouns, 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 Japanese the number of the pronouns 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
Japanese. 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, pronouns are used very
sparingly in Chinese, still less in Japanese. 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 Japanese the
construction of sentences based upon conjugation does it.
Relative pronouns, _who_, _which_, _qui_, _que_, or _dont_, do not exist
both in Chinese and Japanese. This is one of the great difficulties when
we translate Western books. We must write the phrase governed by the
relative pronouns 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 analysis 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 classical books. All this, however,
does not signify that Chinese is a poor language, because its literal
standard is really very highly developed.
The Japanese language is also simple enough as far as the analysis of
words is concerned. Nouns never change their forms under any
circumstances, 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 Japanese grammar is very easy. The real
difficulty of Japanese 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
Japanese than in any other language, and it can only be acquired by long
practice and observation. This is why all foreigners who study Japanese
think it is so easy at the commencement and so difficult after they have
made a little progress. Nevertheless, colloquial Japanese 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 Japanese
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 Japanese and
Chinese. Where in English one says, 'I cannot go,' in Chinese one would
say, 'I not can go,' whilst in Japanese it would be, 'I go can not.'
This order of Japanese 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 Japanese uniformly so under any
circumstances. 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 Japanese the
verb succeeds; thus a Japanese would say, 'Girls cakes eat,' or 'he
Paris to goes.' In this respect of order there is some resemblance
between Latin and Japanese.
From all that I have said it is plain that there is no affinity between
Chinese and Japanese so far as construction is concerned, but I may go
further. There is no resemblance whatever suggestive of same origin
between any Chinese and Japanese word, except those whose introduction
into Japan at later ages is clearly known.
In speaking of the Japanese 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 Japan this difference is carried
almost to the extreme, so much so, that they assume 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 assimilation 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 Japan 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 pronunciation 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
pronunciation but translation. This is an example similar to our 'kun'
of a word. When to read by pronunciation and when to read by 'kun'
entirely depends upon the construction of the phrases, but one thing is
certain, and it is that in Japan one has to know both the pronunciation
and 'kun' of Chinese ideographs.
The Japanese pronunciation of Chinese ideographs is not the same as any
kind of the modern Chinese pronunciation, and therefore even one simple
word expressed by an ideograph is unintelligible between a Chinese and a
Japanese, though they understand when it is written. In China the
pronunciation of ideographs underwent much change; besides it has varied
according to localities. In Japan the pronunciation 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
pronunciation of those ideographs, on account of its introduction into
Japan at different periods from the different localities. This is an
additional difficulty we have in reading Chinese characters used in
Japan, though the usual customs where to use one or where the other are
usually plain to educated people.
Japanese 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 pronunciation 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 Japan indeed very commonly, is the ancient one, _i.e._
classical Chinese, and we are familiar with classical Chinese even more
than the Chinese themselves. As a system of writing, that of the pure
Japanese, 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 illustrated 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
Japan. 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 classical 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 Japan 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 Japanese means god,
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 Japan which, beyond
doubt, are of Ino origin.
[1] These phonetic letters were invented in Japan 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.