Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-03-08
Stevens China Letter
Is.Accorded Approval

To the Editor of The STAR
There is much truth, worthy of serious
consideration, in the letter on China
written by Wilfred Stevens and pub
lished in The Star on February %.
Having spent a number of years in
the Far East, including China and
Japan, and having studied Chinese
characters for number of years,
heartily agree with Mr.. Stevens that it
would be we'll worth our while to pay
more attention to the Chinese people
and their language. I have often Won
dered why the Western peoples, and
especially the Anglo-SaXons, who speak
so much about their practical mind,
show such great impracticability in
building up the English language, which
we proudly proclaim as the most widely
quoted the world over.
If English had been my native tongue,
should perhaps never have noticed it's
shortcomings. But having gone through
the agony of learning the language as
grown person have become only too
we'll aware of many of the silly con-
structions we insist upon. We pride
ourselves on using language with great
elasticity, but let any one stretch the
language so as to include split infin-
| tive and he will soon learn that the
traSt take Chinese or a Japanese
scholar. He can give speech, in which
he may arrange the construction so as
to best express his ideas, and never be
criticized for his grammar; on the con-
trary, he will be applauded for his
ability to convey in clear and unmis-
taxable terms what he has to say.
Let me illustrate our impracticability
by a few examples from the Chinese
language. When the Chinese employ
the verb "to be" they do not use diff
ferent conjugation for each person. In
English we have, as have the French,
three conjugations-that is: Il am, you
are, he Is" If we were as practical as
we say we are we would long ago have
discovered that it would be far easier
and without inconvenience to say, IT
are, you are, he are" One could, Of
course, mention number of similar
cases.
Now as to our large vocabulary, which
by the way includes thousands of words
that are not anglicized, we have many
words that in themselves do not express
an idea. The mere adoption of these
words shows our lack of imagination
and originality. Take the word "auto-
mobile" for example. We say the word
is Of Latin derivation. Well and good,
but 1t Is doubtful that even the fathers
of Latin could interpret this word as
meaning a "self-propelled vehicle" for
the word itself only means "self-pro-
PEELED" and has no reference to ''ve-
hicle." But as to the Chinese, this an
Gent people whom we know to be back
ward, they Immediately, when the need
arose, coined Chinese words for auto
mobile" meaning "self-moving vehicle.
1t did not take long discussions or re-
reach to adopt a word, for the charac-
tiers had been used in the language for
centuries. All it required was to put to-
gether the two characters "self-moving"
and vehicle" Even a child could I'M
derstand the meaning of the word with
out knowing the object.
No, in many ways, we are not so far
| ahead of the Chinese. In language
respect for learning. reverence for per-
sonalities, and philosophy, we can still
learn from the ancient people Of Cathay
ANDERS LARSEN.