« AnkstesnisTęsti »
without violence to grammar or sense. In proof, we are treated to doggerel like the following:
"I'll prove the word that I've made my theme
Repeated seven times is right! Deny 't who can!” Whether any one will deny it, we do not know, but that every one must congratulate himself that there is only one word in English like that, we can have no hesitation in affirming.
Contrast this awkward and precarious 'pagoda of eggs' with the crisp tautology of a well 'woven’ Chinese couplet, for example the following: 傳傳傳新傳傳傳傳詞。調調調古調調調調歌。 At first sight, this appears to be a mere verbal chaos, or at best a combination of the motto of a possible Society for the Propagation of the Faith (thek) in the first line, with the creed of a Peace Society (FU) in the second. The explanation is, however, perfectly simple. Each of the repeated characters is to be read alternately in different tones, with different meanings—ch'uan ito narrate, and chuan a story; t'iao u to select, and tiao a tune. With this understanding, the
JA meaning is obvious: 'When you are narrating chronicles, narrato modern chronicles; and when you narrate chronicles, do it in a poetical form ;''When you pick out a tune, pick out an ancient tune; and when you pick out a tune, pick out a song.'
This couplet is in common use among play actors, but is probably quoted rather for the antithesis than for its inherent value.
The following couplet, also in use among play-actors, is of a somewhat different character: EFETT 51.
今人、鞋古人鞋今柱古人柱人。 There is laughter on the stage, laughter below the stage, on the stage and under the stagelaughter begets laughter; the play actors dress as modern med, they dress as ancient men, dress that is modern and dress that is ancientmen dress as men.'
A correspondent of the Chinese Recorder in one of its early numbers (Feb., 1871), writes to inform its readers that he had come upon some couplets of this kind, which he cautiously (but safely) describes as “a certain method of grouping characters,” and invites "some person kindly to furnish a full explanation of the meaning and character of this style of composition.” As no attention whatever was apparently
paid to this request, either by "some person," or by any other "person," and as the Recorder itself about fifteen months afterwards, fell into a condition of (almost) fatal coma, and was long lost to sight-however dear to memory-the couplets will bear reproducing. Here is the first: 書生書生問先生先生先生。馬快馬快追步快步快步快。 Of this couplet, the following translation is (doubtfully) suggested by the correspondent who furnishes it: "The pupil of an incompetent teacher, engages in the vain pursuit of knowledge; The swift foot-soldier is swiftly pursued by the horseman." This rendering glides easily over the difficulty of so many repetitions, by ignoring them, and is moreover not readily deducible from the characters as they stand. The general meaning of the lines is quite clear, and may be given as follows: 'The pupil (#) who is unfamiliar with books (4), asks his teacher how he (the pupil) is to remedy this ignorance of books. The response to this inquiry is somewhat darkly conveyed in the four characters, i.e. the teacher replies that he himself formerly (when a lad) experienced the same trouble-ignorance of books, (but by diligence he overcame this ignorance, as his pupil by the same means may likewise hope to do). "The thief catcher () swiftly ( pursues the man who serves the warrants(); but the warrant-server () is swift of foot (#). The other couplet is as follows: 朝朝朝朝朝朝夕。月月月月月月圓。 This, we are informed, is to be "translated on the same principle." As no principle, however, has been enounced, or even hinted at, we are not much the wiser for the suggestion. Notwithstanding the formidable reduplication, the meaning is obvious. 'Every day (), has its dawn (J), and every day () has its dawn and eve (). Every month (♬ A) has its moon, and the moon of every month is round' (♬ A ♬ N). (To be continued.)
REVIEW OF A NEW MEDICAL VOCABULARY.
BY J. DUDGEON, M.D.
T is with the deepest regret I learn that my strictures on the work now under review have given offence in some quarters. I can assure the friends of the author-whose carly removal from his useful, self-sacrificing and noble work no one regrets more than myself, that I had no intention of hurting either his memory or their feelings. I have not attempted to criticise the work as a translation. I do not feel myself competent to do so. I believe it to be a very excellent treatise and one calculated to do much useful service. I understood
the Vocabulary to bear the imprimatur of the Committee. The author had drawn it out in the first place perhaps, but it was submitted to one or more competent members of Committee and by them approved and adopted. I understand the nomenclature in all but a few cases, to have been the work therefore of the Committee. The Japanese hare most fortunately adopted a uniform nomenclature, and all medical men translators, authors and publishing houses in the country of the “Rising Sun” have taken the same names. There is very great advantage to be derived from this uniformity. It is a pity the Committee has not sought once for all to establish such a system. It is quite practicable. We may never again have such a good opportunity. But the work is not to be done by mere sinologues, however learned, but by the medical missionaries of many years' standing, who have deeply studied the native medical works and even then it would be wise to submit the lists to every medical man acquainted with Chinese in the country, for his suggestions. We ought not to despair of yet producing such a work, and my very feeble remarks are intended in a small measure to lead to such a result. We do not want a Medical “ Term " question, as a battle field for medical missionaries. It is perhaps not yet too late for the Committee to prepare such a nomenclature. We had no idea-nothing was further from our mind-than to attach blame to either author or Committee. Our sole object was to point out for the sake of future labourers in the same field, the faults that lurk in this work and bestrew their path. Unless these are pointed out, we are likely to have misapprehensions perpetuated in subsequent writings and an influence for evil is thus wielded which is incalculable. As the most recent work on the subject, it is presumably the best, having adopted all the good and rejected and avoided all the faults of its predecessors. It carries, moreover, the stamp of the learned Committee, and this in itself is a high eulogium on the work. The author only in a few instances, where he differed from the Committee, insisted upon his own terms. To write such a vocabulary is not an easy undertaking. It requires a good knowledge of anatomy, of the Chinese language and of Chinese medicine. It is proverbially easy to find fault and point out blemishes; it is another and a different thing to write out a perfect vocabulary one's self. I offer no apology for the very slovenly way in which the English is printed—this is a matter of imperfect proof reading. Having been engaged for many years past in work of this sort, we have experienced the difficulty. At the same time, this very study and the necessity of finding expressions to suit every case, has rendered us not only more observant perhaps of the faults and omissions in others but made it very difficult to accept
terms which do not meet all the possible circumstances. I feel called upon to make this remark to relieve myself from the charge perhaps of hypercriticism. At the same time in common honesty and as much. by way of protecting myself as offering an apology for strictures that to Southern readers may appear uncalled for, if not incorrect, it is but right to say that each province or city has its own peculiar terms and one is apt to think the Chinese of his own particular district the only proper Chinese.
With these few explanatory remarks, we proceed to point out a few additional errors and omissions. And we begin with the urinary organs. The heading of this section has no corresponding Chinese, not at least in situ, but we find it transferred to the top of the following page between the kidneys and the bladder. The same remark holds good with regard to the terms in Chinese for the male and female generative organs. Their Chinese equivalents are not in close attendance upon their English superiors. The pelvis of the kidney is called shen hsuch (). This is the name of the sinus into which the ureter enters after having passed the pelvis. The pelvis should have been called according to the analogy of the nomenclature of the book, used elsewhere, shěn pên (). We think the Japanese term here shẽn ü () good, which describes it correctly and keeps it distinct from the pelvis or basin of the innominate bones. The ureters are called niau kwan (†) and the urethra tsung niau kwan (#). There is here some confusion. The Chinese do not know the functions of the kidneys; they suppose the urine to filter from the small intestines to the bladder. They all know niau kwan () to be the urethra. It is necessary therefore to make some distinction and call the one nei (Ã) internal and the other wai (5) external, urethra. For the former we have the alternative of calling it the shen niau kucan (). The Japanese call it shu niau kwan () and the urethra niau tao () to which there can be no objection. The character tsung (#) general, applied to the urethra is I think objectionable. It is not Chinese and it conveys a wrong idea. It is not collective and general in the sense in which the aorta and trachea have the same term applied to them and correctly too. Were the urethra the common or combined canal formed by the junction of the two ureters, without the bladder intervening, then the term would be applicable. The word for hilus of the kidney is omitted. As the hilus leads into the hollow space called the sinus, it might with propriety have been called shen men (). The male meatus urinarius is appropriately called ma kow(), but why is the corresponding part in the female not also so termed? It is called i kwan kow (1) for which there seems
no good reason. Moreover the character i () has nothing to do with the urine but simply means to emit unconsciously and is applied-in Peking at least in this sense to urine and semen. I cannot imagine how this character has come to stand for the female urinary canal. All I dare venture to hope is that it may be so in the South. In any case it is a strange use of a well-known character. We should certainly expect precisely similar parts to be named correspondingly. The word kan () is adopted for the spongy and cavernous bodies, but it is evident that only under exceptional circunstances can it be so termed. The glans penis is termed yang ching teu () not at all wrong in itself, but the term kwei teu () is very much better, is the proper designation for the part, in the North at least, and has the merit of being Chinese. The prepuce teu pau () is not bad but unfortunately in the North at least, it is the term applied to the band which the women wear round their brows. Pau p'i (1) would be a good term, or even the translation of our own English word ts'ien p'i (). The frænum one would expect to follow the nomenclature of the prepuce, but instead it is called teu hia chin ( Tthe ligament under the head. Pau p'i hsien (1) would have been a good expression. The male organs of generation are called simply yang chu () which errs by defect; the expression being insufficient to denote all that is meant. It is the expression used to denote merely the membrum virile-a part perhaps taken for the whole. If however it denote the particular organ-then the Chinese equivalents for the other terms are altogether omitted. Of the three tunics or coverings of the testes-the Chinese for the same being likewise omitted-we have one only given, that is the tunica vaginalis, but the Chinese given to express it refers not to the vaginalis but to the tunica albuginea. The term for testes is nowhere given, although the word occurs in combination and is plainly indicated by lan tse (M 7). The epididymus is called kau kwan (E). The first of the two words is the proper word for testes. If the word lan tse be used, as it is evident it is meant to be, for testes, why was it departed from in naming the epididymus which is simply the cap of the testes, and therefore not incorrectly perhaps termed kwan (E). The nomenclature and the anatomy both compel that it should be termed lan tse kwan (7). I cannot understand this sort of confusion. If I wished to be hypercritical, I might object to the use of kwan here as not representing the idea very exactly. The epididymus hardly stands in this relation to the testes, and is more like the supra-renal capsules to the kidney, which is not incorrectly termed shen shang ho (E). The Japanese term fu kau (H) extra or assistant testes is perhaps