the soul of the far east(远东的灵魂)-第18章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
facts to feed its flame。 Little by little the fires of devotion burnt
themselves out。 At last great Pan died。 The body of the old belief was
consumed。 But though it perished； its ashes preserved its form； an
unsubstantial presentment of the past； to crumble in a twinkling at the
touch of science； but keeping yet to the poet's eye the lifelike semblance of
what once had been。 The dead gods still live in our language and our art。
Even to…day the earth about us seems semiconscious to the soul； for the
memories they have left。
But with the Far Oriental the exorcising feeling was fear。 He never
fell in love with his own mythological creations； and so he never
embalmed their memories。 They were to him but explanations of facts；
and had no claims upon his fancy。 His ideal world remained as utterly
impersonal as if it had never been born。
The same impersonality reappears in the matter of number。
Grammatically； number with them is unrecognized。 There exist no such
things as plural forms。 This singularity would be only too welcome to
the foreign student； were it not that in avoiding the frying…pan the Tartars
fell into the fire。 For what they invented in place of a plural was quite as
difficult to memorize； and even more cumbrous to express。 Instead of
inflecting the noun and then prefixing a number； they keep the noun
unchanged and add two numerals； thus at times actually employing more
words to express the objects than there are objects to express。 One of
these numerals is a simple number； the other is what is known as an
auxiliary numeral； a word as singular in form as in function。 Thus； for
instance； 〃two men〃 become amplified verbally into 〃man two individual；〃
or； as the Chinaman puts it； in pidgin English； 〃two piecey man。〃 For in
49
… Page 50…
The Soul of the Far East
this respect Chinese resembles Japanese； though in very little else； and
pidgin English is nothing but the literal translation of the Chinese idiom
into Anglo…Saxon words。 The necessity for such elaborate qualification
arises from the excessive simplicity of the Japanese nouns。 As we have
seen； the noun is so indefinite a generality that simply to multiply it by a
number cannot possibly produce any definite result。 No exact
counterpart of these nouns exists in English； but some idea of the
impossibility of the process may be got from our word 〃cattle；〃 which；
prolific though it may prove in fact； remains obstinately incapable of
verbal multiplication。 All Japanese nouns being of this indefinite
description； all require auxiliary numerals。 But as each one has its own
appropriate numeral； about which a mistake is unpardonable； it takes some
little study merely to master the etiquette of these handles to the names of
things。
Nouns are not inflected； their cases being expressed by postpositions；
which； as the name implies； follow； in becoming Japanese inversion；
instead of preceding the word they affect。 To make up； nevertheless； for
any lack of perplexity due to an absence of inflections； adjectives； en
revanche； are most elaborately conjugated。 Their protean shapes are as
long as they are numerous； representing not only times； but conditions。
There are； for instance； the root form； the adverbial form； the indefinite
form； the attributive form； and the conclusive form； the two last being
conjugated through all the various voices； moods； and tenses； to say
nothing of all the potential forms。 As one change is superposed on
another； the adjective ends by becoming three or four times its original
length。 The fact is； the adjective is either adjective； adverb； or verb；
according to occasion。 In the root form it also helps to make nouns； so
that it is even more generally useful than as a journalistic epithet with us。
As a verb； it does duty as predicate and copula combined。 For such an
unnecessary part of speech as a real copula does not exist in Japanese。 In
spite of the shock to the prejudices of the old school of logicians； it must
be confessed that the Tartars get on very well without any such couplings
to their trains of thought。 But then we should remember that in their
sentences the cart is always put before the horse； and so needs only to be
50
… Page 51…
The Soul of the Far East
pushed； not pulled along。
The want of a copula is another instance of the primitive character of
the tongue。 It has its counterpart in our own baby…talk； where a quality is
predicated of a thing simply by placing the adjective in apposition with the
noun。
That the Japanese word which is commonly translated 〃is〃 is in no
sense a copula； but an ordinary intransitive verb； referring to a natural state；
and not to a logical condition； is evident in two ways。 In the first place； it
is never used to predicate a quality directly。 A Japanese does not say；
〃The scenery is fine；〃 but simply； 〃Scenery； fine。〃 Secondly； wherever this
verb is indirectly employed in such a manner； it is followed； not by an
adjective； but by an adverb。 Not 〃She is beautiful； but 〃She exists
beautifully；〃 would be the Japanese way of expressing his admiration。
What looks at first； therefore； like a copula turns out to be merely an
impersonal intransitive verb。
A negative noun is； of course； an impossibility in any language； just as
a negative substantive； another name for the same thing； is a direct
contradiction in terms。 No matter how negative the idea to be given； it
must be conveyed by a positive expression。 Even a void is
grammatically quite full of meaning； although unhappily empty in fact。
So much is common to all tongues； but Japanese carries its positivism yet
further。 Not only has it no negative nouns； it has not even any negative
pronouns nor pronominal adjectives； those convenient keepers of places
for the absent。 〃None〃 and 〃nothing〃 are unknown words in its
vocabulary； because the ideas they represent are not founded on observed
facts； but upon metaphysical abstractions。 Such terms are human…born；
not earth…begotten concepts； and so to the Far Oriental； who looks at
things from the point of view of nature； not of man； negation takes another
form。 Usually it is introduced by the verbs； because the verbs； for the most
part； relate to human actions； and it is man； not nature； who is responsible
for the omission in question。 After all； it does seem more fitting to say； 〃I
am ignorant of everything；〃 than 〃I know nothing。〃 It is indee
