# Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan/Series 1/Volume 1/The Nature of the Japanese language

THE NATURE OF THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE, AND ITS POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS.
BY
The Rev. J. EDKINS, of Peking.
Read before the Asiatic Society of Japan,
on the 9th October, 1873.
———o———
The comparison of Japanese with kindred languages may be expected to yield most interesting results. The field is a new one and its riches are therefore unknown. Why not try what it will yield?
The methods of inquiry are now better than they used to be, and in the present state of our knowledge they are not difficult to apply. Philology is now a recognized science; comparative philologists by limiting themselves almost exclusively to one family of languages have left the more to be learned by inquirers in new fields. We have grammars and dictionaries of the Chinese, Mongol and Manchu languages on the one side, and of the languages and dialects spoken on the islands of the Eastern Archipelago and of the Pacific Ocean on the other. By placing them in juxtaposition it is not difficult to assign to the Japanese language its true place in the world of speech.
The Japanese then is not in immediate sisterly relation to the Chinese because it is polysyllabic and places the verb at the end of the sentence; nor is it Polynesian or Malay because its adjectives do not follow their substantives; nor does it place the genitive after the nominative. ​Polynesian grammar like Chinese grammar requires the verb to come before the word it governs. Not so the Japanese. The verb is rigidly attached to the end of the sentence and marks the conclusion instead of the recommencement of action.
The place of the verb in Japanese is highly unnatural and seems very much opposed to simplicity and good sense. But it is far from being uncommon in languages. The native of Tartary, be he Turk, Mongol or Manchu always pays rigid obedience to the same law. He must by the necessity of his syntax say “The Lama prayers recites,” “the shepherd the flock leads,” “the boy a horse rides.” He cannot alter the position of the nominative or objective noun or of the transitive verb. So it is also in Japanese. For the human mind to resign itself to the control of so inconvenient a law is a decisive proof of intellectual inferiority. It does not belong to the speech of nations with creative genius. There can be no just or well-founded hesitation in calling the Japanese a sister language to the Turkish, Mongol and Manchu when it is remembered that this and similar laws reign in the domain of its syntax.
There is often visible a congruity between the history of nations and the languages they speak. Poets, historians and philosophers have all of them owed not a little to the languages they used. Greatness in literature is impossible to those who have not been born to the use of an elevated language. Hence all the Japanese have attained they owe to the assiduous cultivation of borrowed literature. Unfortunately when they adopted the Chinese writing and books they made no improvement in the native syntax, and after 1600 years the laws of the collocation of words are as objectionable as they were in the infancy of the language. There has been none of that boldness in innovation which might have modified the grammar, shortened the words in the native vocabulary, struck out much of the painfully extensive honorific element, and revolutionized the syntax.
We had in the Anglo Saxon a very good basis for our living English tongue. But before A.D. 1,300 it was ​practically impossible for great writers to achieve an immortality. The infusion of French modifying elements beginning from the Norman conquest, and of Hebrew originated by the intense study of our Sacred Records modified and moulded our language to a form which might suit the genius of Shakspeare.
The Japanese pedagogue does not permit similar modifying influences to come into the sphere of his thought and produce improvement in his language. He admits new words to any extent but the grammatical framework of the language remains. In translating Chinese he alters the order of words to suit his own syntax, instead of allowing the Chinese syntax to improve his own.
But what will these islanders now do with English? It will be well for the intellectual progress of Japan if under this new impulse, which forces the native mind onward in the path of educational improvement, it should become conscious of a power to renovate the native language. This would be worth more to the people than hundreds of steamers and thousands of miles of railways. The English language is much more fitted than the Chinese, to improve the Japanese language. There is more freedom in its syntax, and by its polysyllabic structure it is more akin to the Japanese and perhaps better able to lend to it elements of lasting utility.
The question mooted by Mori the Minister to Washington is of high importance in a way perhaps which did not strike his own mind. The substitution of English for the native language appears to many persons an impossibility, and therefore the proposition is regarded as absurd. But if the question be modified so as to refer particularly to the renovation of the native language by contact with European speech it becomes highly practical and interesting.
The position of Japanese in language as a cousin of the Tartar modes of speech and with them of the Tamul and other languages of South India, may be decided by the place assigned to the verb as already remarked. This may be regarded as a characteristic unique, uniform and conclusive. But it carried with it other laws such as the ​following; case marks must be suffixes. And why? These case suffixes are themselves chiefly verbs. It is the law of the position of the verb which originates and necessitates the law of the position of case marks. The one law embraces the other. Treat the case mark as a verb and its proper place is after its noun. Kara “from” and made “to” must then be looked for among verbs meaning for example to begin and terminate action. Among Chinese roots we have kai to open, k’i begin, pit to end. To some such roots I should look for the origin of these Japanese case marks.
Another group of case marks, those which indicate the nominative, genitive and accusative, are more correctly regarded as demonstrative pronouns. The Japanese and Mongol usage in regard to these are the same, as may be seen by comparing them. In accounting for their origin there need be no great difficulty felt. Take the old English, John Smith his book. His has in modern English become abbreviated into an s. The principle would be the same if he were used instead of his. Probably no genitive particle in any language has any other origin than this. Bopp explains genitives in this way, and his system in this respect serves as well for the Eastern Asiatic languages as for those which he examined.
We may go farther than this. The growth of the European verb tree may be illustrated from Japanese and kindred languages. The European languages are the most perfect and finished in the world. Rudimentary forms are therefore more lost to view in Latin and Greek Grammar than in the more primitive speech of Eastern Asia where the verb is in a sort of chrysalis condition. As the caterpillar changes into the chrysalis and then into the butterfly, and the leaf into the bud and then into the flower, so the bare and unornamental forms of Chinese grammar are seen passing into the crude transitional state assumed by the verb in Japanese and Mongol, previous to their European development, embracing those varieties of voice, mood, tense and person which strike us by their precision, richness and beauty. By dissecting ​the verb in its intermediate condition as in Japanese, Tartar or Tamul, we can trace much of the process by which the European verb was formed.
In the European or Sanscrit verb there is no more interesting point than the formation of the past tense indicative from the participle. One of the ways in which this is done is easily seen in colloquial Japanese. In Mr. Aston’s “Colloquial Grammar,” he says “the ta of the past tense is a shortened form of taru, which is itself contracted from te aru te being the termination of the participle and aru the verb to be.” The crucial point here to be noticed is that the past tense indicative is formed from the participle. So in English the past indicative “loved” is formed from the participle “loved,” by the instinctive effort of language, which is always striving after the attainment of greater precision and variety of idea.
But the question is asked, how does the participle receive an indicative sense? It may be by dropping the last word. Thus in Mongol “yaboju boi”, he is having gone, becomes in colloquial use “yabaji”, he is gone, and sometimes, he went. In this easy way a participle or gerund becomes indicative. Sometimes we cannot trace stich a loss or a last word. Thus in Greek “elegon,” he said from “legōn, legon,” saying. We may then invite attention to a law described in Mr. Aston’s Grammar of written Japanese, by which verbs assume two forms according as they are complete in action or not. The form of completed action occurs in the last place and has a peculiar suffix. The form of incomplete action wants this suffix, and its place is earlier than the last. The law appears in Mongol with greater distinctness. A special suffix, ksan, belongs to the category and expresses completed action.
In the Mongol expression “bi martaju boi” I have forgotten, we have a pronoun “bi,” I, and two verbs, one meaning to forget and the other to be. The verb, to be, is in its primitive radical shape and corresponds in sense and use nearly to the Japanese aru and mas. Etymologically it is more closely connected with mas, than with “aru”, b ​and m being interchangeable letters. The suffix ju in martaju was probably, at an earlier stage, a sort of case suffix used like the Japanese ni in a like position, that is when attached to verbs. It gradually assumed the character of a participial or gerund suffix. In the modern colloquial Mongol the final verb, boi, is omitted and “martaji” (which is the same as “martaju”’), is a past indicative, I have forgotten. So the participle or gerund grows out of the law of position by which, when verbs are used together, completed action claims the last place and incomplete action an earlier place. Let us call this the first stage of metamorphosis. The participle or gerund takes in the next place as a suffix an old verb (for example ju that is de) which has become transformed into a case mark. So far there are two stages of formation. Then the participle becomes transformed into a past indicative. This is a third stage.
Grammar is the work of the human mind, operating systematically on linguistic elements within its reach in an instinctive and unconscious manner. One language shews some special process better then others. Take the expression in Hepburn’s Dictionary, “hanashi wo kiki ni itta,” he has gone to hear what is said, “kiki”, hear, with the suffix “ni”, to, is a verb in the supine in a crude state, where the suffix is still disconnected from the verb to which in favourable circumstances it may subsequently become indissolubly allied. The book Mongol, has a true supine ending in “re.” It is an instance of a noteworthy fact, viz, that the grammar of the Tartar languages is more advanced than that of Japan, and possesses a verb tree more like that of European grammar. All languages are, in a state of transition from one state to another, guided by the principles which are peculiar to them. It is possible for them to be improved by the adoption of new principles. Those who have the control of education and literature wield a power which should always he used for ​the progressive improvement of languages. Without this aid languages deteriorate and pass into decay.
If we understand the place held by the Japanese language, and estimate rightly the value of its special principles of development, it appears undoubtedly possible to improve it by the adoption of suitable educational methods with the aid of English-speaking teachers and of the Government department of public instruction; the Mombusho.
When fifteen hundred years ago the Chinese language was brought over to Japan and taught in schools, no effort was made to introduce changes into the native grammar. The Chinese and Japanese Buddhists taught Buddhism. The object of attention and admiration to the Japanese youths of the time was the literature of China, no attempt was made to translate the Buddhist books or those of Confucius into Japanese tongue. It was the task of the educator to teach both in the Chinese language. The consequence was that Chinese words and phrases were imported into the Japanese language wholesale. The Japanese medium of thought remained in all its grammatical categories unchanged. Nothing but the use of numeratives between numbers and nouns, such as the word “ban” in “ictic ban nie,” the first article, and perhaps some few other unimportant additions, was gained to the grammar. The old stiffness of the laws of position was still retained. This is much to be regretted: a fine opportunity was lost of altering the grammar for the better.
Now that the Mombusho has undertaken to establish instruction in English throughout Japan, another such opportunity for modifying the inconvenient principles of the native grammar is afforded: a vigorous effort now made to correct vicious principles of grammar, and introduce the germs of solid improvement on a sound philological basis would open a new path of progress to the language.
There is no good reason for the verb always coming last, or for the case marks being always suffixes. Why not attempt to restrain and modify these capricious limitations? I would propose the introduction of the English prepositions, from, to, by, with, and would recommend ​that teachers should not allow them to be placed after their nouns. It should be the duty of the teacher in schools to enforce English syntax, so as to accustom the youth of the country to think in the European manner, and to the adoption of our order for the words.
The method have recommended for use is the reverse of “pigeon English.” The characteristic of that jargon is that it uses English words in a Chinese order. The Japanese in learning Chinese were guilty of the same mistake, they read Chinese in a Japanese order. They would have done better if they had adopted the Chinese grammar with the Chinese words. Had they early insisted in native schools on reading Chinese in its order instead of altering it as they now do into a Japanese order, they would long since have introduced into their native tongue principles from which their language would have derived the greatest benefit. By this time the whole nation would have been accustomed to freedom in the place of the verb and of the case marks. There would then be a better prospect of progress in the formation of a good native literature.
The introduction of English words into the Japanese language should also by all means be encouraged. It is not an opprobrium to a vocabulary to be rich in words, derived from various sources. Poverty in a vocabulary indicates poverty in ideas. Our English words are instinct with the life of modern science, art, and learning. The appetite of the Japanese youth for foreign words and knowledge is a happy circumstance and should be gratified. Thus their language will be enriched and may achieve some thing more in the world than it has yet been able to do under the painful restrictions to which it has been subjected. Let it not be said that the vocabulary will become heterogeneous in character. Is not our own English eminently so? All languages are liable to this charge if carefully examined. If we take the Japanese vocabulary as it is and compare it with the Chinese and Mongol, it is seen to be of the most composite character. I do not here refer to Chinese words ​introduced such as “konnichi” to-day, “sakoban” last evening: I speak of the native part of the vocabulary.
Thus “uma”, horse, is the Chinese ma, and Mongol “mori”, with u prefixed; “sakana”, fish, is the Mongol “dagas” with the d changed to s. This tendency to sibilate appears in the Japanese syllabary very distinctly. What but this has introduced irregularity into the t series, and changed “ta,” “ti,” “tu,” “te,” “to,” into “ta,” “chi,” “tsu,” “te,” “to?” The same principle of sibilation which, since the invention of the Japanese syllabic kana ten centuries ago, has expelled ti, tu, di, and du, from the list of sounds and introduced chi tsu, di and dzu in their place, operated at an earlier period to change the (Hebrew “dag” and) Mongol “dagas” into “sakana”. So also “shita” below is in Mongol “dôtai”; “soroi” to agree, correspond, be a match for is in Mongol “taraho.”
I give some examples from Japanese words beginning with k. The Mongol equivalent is h or g. “Kutsii,” shoes gotal; “kitsui”, fierce, strong, huchu; “kayeru”, return home, hairehu; “oki”, great, ihe; “huldehu”, freeze, kori; “koto”, thing, hereg; “kotoba”, speech, language, hele; “kotaye”, return answer, hairehu; “kuro,” black, hara; “kawa”, river, gol; “katai”, hard, hatago; “katana”, knife, sword; “hadogor”, sickle; okure, behind, hotai.
In identifying these words let it be assumed that the letters l and r both come out of t or d. This is in language so common a phenomenon that it is needless to prove it here.
In making a comparison of words throughout the vocabulary, the following changes of letters come to view.
The Japanese k corresponds to h, k and g of other languages. The Japanese h, f and b correspond to the b, p and f of other languages.
The Japanese ts, ch, sh, z, s, j, and r belong to the t and d of other languages, together with the s, l, and r of those languages. The Japanese w and p may usually be referred to g and d respectively.
The Japanese m at the end of the root very often corresponds to the final ng of Chinese roots.
​The Japanese initial m corresponds often to the b of other languages. In modern Japanese m becomes n when final.
The Japanese vocabulary if compared with constant reference to these correspondences of letters will be found to have very little of purely native growth.
* hosoi is petit.
* hitots is the Turkish bir one and the Engl. first.
* hineri is the Chinese pien to plait, twist.
* futatsi is the English both.
* samui, cold, is the Chinese shwang.
* same, to wake, is the Chinese sing.
* sama, shape, form, is the Chinese chwang.
* sumeru clear is the Chinese ts’ing.
* sumi to end is the Chinese chung.
Enough has been said to shew that if any one undertook to prove that the native Japanese words are of home growth he would have a hopeless task. The examples adduced are most of them beyond cavil.
Such being the state of the Japanese language, there is no reason why the process of enriching the vocabulary should not be allowed to continue. This is only to do what has been before, whether before or after the beginning of Japanese history. They were once a Tartar people who came by way of Corea into the beautiful islands they now inhabit. They drove the Ainos, a people originally, as shewn by their hair, of a much more northerly home, into north Nippon and afterwards into Yesso, and proceeded to develop their legends and their grammar till they reached their present form. When the unassisted progress made by the native mind in the formation of religious myth and of the formulæ of Japanese speech had proceeded to the extent of which they were capable, the Chinese language and system of thought appeared on the scene. The effect was most remarkable. A system of instruction was established which resulted in the introduction into the language of many thousands of foreign words and expressions. This was the work of school training in the hands of Japanese masters and assisted by the government. At the present day we find in the ​common talk of the people, including the uneducated men and the women of all classes, Chinese expressions which may be counted by thousands. This striking fact clearly shows the effect of schools in modifying popular speech.
In accounting for this remarkable adoption of Chinese words and phrases the aid of Buddhism must not be overlooked. Religion is always a powerful factor in modifying language. For three centuries the Go on, the pronunciation of Chinese words common among the Buddhist monks, prevailed exclusively in Japan. Early in the seventh century Japanese students were sent to the Chinese capital, in the province of Shensi, to study the Chinese language more thoroughly and to bring back books and information bearing on the Confucian religion. The Japanese at that time were so enamoured of every thing Chinese that they adopted it in the most wholesale manner, and never thought of an alphabet for themselves till late in the eighth century. There was no one to undertake to alter the Japanese language and the attempt was never made. When at last the alphabet was invented, its chief use was to aid pupils in learning the sense of the Chinese books and the sounds of the characters. As, however, most pupils never learned Chinese thoroughly, a mixed written language grew up, resulting in the native literature which has since come into existence.
To foresee what, if left to themselves, would be done by the Japanese in regard to English is not difficult. They would treat English books as they have been accustomed to treat Chinese books. They would introduce the kana into English works to assist students. The native order of words would still be retained and an immense number of new words would be added to the vocabulary.
This course, so highly to be deprecated, they may be induced to avoid. The advice, example and reasoning of foreign teachers, may persuade them to learn English in a more enlightened way, and more thoroughly than they have learned Chinese. In schools where English is taught a mastery of the grammar and the pronunciation should be made a sine quâ non. No vicious pronunciation or ​erroneous syntax should by any means be allowed. When the Mombusho according to its present programme proceeds to appoint native schools for an English education throughout the country, particular pains should be taken that the teachers appointed are qualified to give instruction and enforce correctness in these two particulars.
The consequence of this will be that the principles of European grammar will become familiarized to the juvenile mind of the country. The syllabary will also be greatly enlarged. There is in the English language a very great variety of syllables. By their adoption the Japanese syllabary would be more than doubled in capacity. Their acquisition of the letter l, of th, of f, would be a great gain. They would have a vast number of compound initials such as str, pl, kl, tl, pr, kr, tr. The lost syllables ti, di, tu, du and others would be restored. Finals such as m, rm, rd, ld, lt, ks, ps, nd and many others would be added. By such means a very poor syllabary would become rich. The enunciation of the native of Japan would become as full of energy, variety and expressiveness as our own. He would become master of two languages the one spoken by him from a child, marked by perverse laws for which no good reason can be given, and a syllabary soft and melodious, indeed, but wanting in force, range, and adaptability; the other cultivated, scientific and unrivalled for compass, flexibility and variety.
Let us suppose that in all the 40,000 or 50,000 schools intended to be established by the Mombusho really good English were learned by the boys, could not something decidedly valuable be then done for improving the native language? An immense number of words will soon be added to the vocabulary. The most assiduous care should be taken that they be correctly pronounced. In the departments of religion, science, navigation, politics, and all the arts of the west the importation of new words should be encouraged. For example the word God is so far superior to the Japanese term kami that it would be well ​to adopt it at once by the unanimous determination of all who are interested in the spread of Christianity among the vivacious people of these lovely islands.
The importation of new words, however, will not be enough. The native grammar requires to be expanded and the syntax remodelled. This can only be accomplished by the resolute and enlightened handling of those who, whether natives or foreigners, have charge of the new system of education. I mention here several particulars which appear to be important.
1.—The introduction of English prepositions to be used interchangeably with the Japanese post positions; such are, in, up, from, to, by with, above, below, etc. Such words should keep their own position before the noun while the corresponding Japanese words retain their place after the noun.
2.—The directive adverbs up, down, in, out, above, below, should be introduced as appendages to verbs. It is found very convenient by Chinese, Polynesians and Englishmen to be able to indicate the direction of a verb’s action by these and similar words e. g. press up, press down, press through.
3.—The article should be introduced. It has been found of great use in English, French, Greek and other of the most perfect languages spoken by man.
4.—The relative pronoun should be introduced. The Japanese interrogative dare would form a good base for it, but perhaps the English who, which, that, would in the circumstances of the country be better.
5.—The English syntax in regard to verbs should be carefully followed. There could be no better guide than the Bible because of its Hebraistic cast of expression. For example: “In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judea.” To accustom the Japanese youth to place the verb “came” before “John” and “preaching” before the words “in the wilderness,” ​would be of the greatest benefit to them, because, though contrary to native rules of grammar, it is according to the law of nature and is authorized by the usage of languages of the best type.
6.—The introduction of the genitive with “of” would also be a benefit; adding greatly to flexibility and agreeably varying the expression of native thought. They might learn to say “The Ko of the Mikado” as s variation of Mikado no ko. As these changes found place in the language the present imperfect literature of the country might be ameliorated and elevated. Poetry with sweet, rhyming measures would become possible. The orator’s eloquence might be exhibited in assemblies of the people. Government despatches and epistolary correspondence would undergo a beneficial renovation.
Perhaps, however, English teachers will consider that their task is done if they teach good English to pupils. They will not readily be persuaded that it is part of their work to improve the native language. It is the only aim of this paper to point out the importance of the object in view, and to offer some suggestions as to how it should be done in the hope that educators will take it into consideration.
The government has great power on account of the submissiveness of the people. In China the improvement of the native language by foreign educators is utterly impracticable. It is not so in Japan. The institutions of the country are in the hands of the Government. The gradual abandonment of a Chinese education by the Japanese would open their minds to a true philosophy, and allow of a much more useful education being imparted to the youth of both sexes than that which they now receive. But this object might not to be gained by the sacrifice as suggested by Mori, Ambassador at Washington, of the native language.
Instead of abandoning the native language in favour of English, it should be enriched by large additions and the extension of its idioms after the European type of language. The more able pupils in schools will learn to speak English thoroughly. For an inferior class books ​should be provided by a commission under the superintendence of foreign educators and of the Mombusho. For them a new idiom should be furnished on some such system as that recommended in this paper for a judicious amalgamation of the English and Japanese idioms. The rules of this amalgamation should not be left to chance and caprice. They should be adopted with forethought and with due attention to the principles of philology.
There is no more ill-founded prejudice than that which takes for granted the equality of languages in excellence and in suitability for literary development. A good literature never can grow out of a poor language, and consequently all languages are found to be poor which have not a good literature. The best languages in modern Europe are the English, the French, and the German, just as the literatures of England, France, and Germany are also the best in Europe. So the Japanese language and literature are both poor, the literature being the reflection of the language.
Of course it would be better for the Japanese to improve their own language than for the foreign educators to undertake the task. But they will probably not do it without foreign help. It is also a problem beyond their competence in the present state of things. It would be an achievement worthy of the foreign educator, in the most practical and scientific age the world has ever known, to take in hand the Japanese language and mould it into a shape which should adapt it for the production of a fine literature, and for all the noble uses to which a well-constructed language can be devoted.
There never was a nation more willing than the Japanese to make changes if they only knew how, and except in regard to our religion they have shewn a truly liberal desire for knowledge of all kinds. Through a false impression they are for the time opposed, very unwisely, to the teaching of our religion. This limitation to their liberality they will probably soon abandon. When they have done so they will prove themselves to be deserving of our fullest sympathy and aid.
* ↑ B in Mongol frequently corresponds to m in Japanese, as in the following examples biye or beye, body Jap. mi. Bedere hu, to seek, Jap. motome. Basa, and, also, Jap. mo. Buri, all, altogether, Jap, mattai or mattaku.
* ↑ The word kami at first meant the souls of ancestors, and afterwards the gods of the Shinto religion, which are in fact the souls of ancestors deified. The Buddhists and Romanists have both avoided the term kami. The Protestant Missionaries would do well to imitate their caution. Christian theology seems to require a better word for the Divine Being.