the soul of the far east-第13节
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！
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 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 indeed you who are wanting； not the thing。
The question of verbs leads us to another matter bearing on the subject of impersonality； namely； the arrangement of the words in a Japanese sentence。 The Tartar mode of grammatical construction is very nearly the inverse of our own。 The fundamental rule of Japanese syntax is； that qualifying words precede the words they qualify； that is； an idea is elaborately modified before it is so much as expressed。 This practice places the hearer at some awkward preliminary disadvantage； inasmuch as the story is nearly over before he has any notion what it is all about； but really it puts the speaker to much more trouble； for he is obliged to fashion his whole sentence complete in his brain before he starts to speak。 This is largely in consequence of two omissions in Tartar etymology。 There are in Japanese no relative pronouns and no temporal conjunctions； conjunctions； that is； for connecting consecutive events。 The want of these words precludes the admission of afterthoughts。 Postscripts in speech are impossible。 The functions of relatives are performed by position； explanatory or continuative clauses being made to precede directly the word they affect。 Ludicrous anachronisms； not unlike those experienced by Alice in her looking…glass journey； are occasioned by this practice。 For example； 〃The merry monarch who ended by falling a victim to profound melancholia〃 becomes 〃To profound melancholia a victim by falling ended merry monarch；〃 and the sympathetic hearer weeps first and laughs afterward； when chronologically he should be doing precisely the opposite。
A like inversion of the natural order of things results from the absence of temporal conjunctions。 In Japanese； though nouns can be added； actions cannot； you can say 〃hat and coat；〃 but not 〃dressed and came。〃 Conjunctions are used only for space； never for time。 Objects that exist together can be joined in speech； but it is not allowable thus to connect consecutive events。 〃Having dressed； came〃 is the Japanese idiom。 To speak otherwise would be to violate the unities。 For a Japanese sentence is a single rounded whole； not a bunch of facts loosely tied together。 It is as much a unit in its composition as a novel or a drama is with us。 Such artistic periods； however； are anything but convenient。 In their nicely contrived involution they strikingly resemble those curious nests of Chinese boxes； where entire shells lie closely packed one within another；a very marvel of ingenious and perfectly unnecessary construction。 One must be antipodally comprehensive to entertain the idea； as it is； the idea entertains us。
On the same general plan； the nouns precede the verbs in the sentence； and are in every way the more important parts of speech。 The consequence is that in ordinary conversation the verbs come so late in the day that they not infrequently get left out altogether。 For the Japanese are much given to docking their phrases； a custom the Germans might do well to adopt。 Now； nouns denote facts； while verbs express action； and action； as considered in human speech； is mostly of human origin。 In this precedence accorded the impersonal element in language over the personal； we observe again the comparative importance assigned the two。 In Japanese estimation； the first place belongs to nature； the second only to man。
As if to mark beyond a doubt the insignificance of the part man plays in their thought； sentences are usually subjectless。 Although it is a common practice to begin a phrase with the central word of the idea； isolated from what follows by the emphasizing particle 〃wa〃 （which means 〃as to；〃 the French 〃quant a〃）； the word thus singled out for distinction is far more likely to be the object of the sentence than its subject。 The habit is analogous to the use of our phrase 〃speaking of；〃that is； simply an emphatic mode of introducing a fresh thought； only that with them； the practice being the rule and not the exception； no correspondingly abrupt effect is produced by it。 Ousted thus from the post of honor； the subject is not even permitted the second place。 Indeed； it usually fails to put in an appearance anywhere。 You may search through sentence after sentence without meeting with the slightest suggestion of such a thing。 When so unusual an anomaly as a motive cause is directly adduced； it owes its mention； not to the fact of being the subject； but because for other reasons it happens to be the important word of the thought。 The truth is； the Japanese conception of events is only very vaguely subjective。 An action is looked upon more as happening than as being performed； as impersonally rather than personally produced。 The idea is due； however； to anything but philosophic profundity。 It springs from the most superficial of childish conceptions。 For the Japanese mind is quite the reverse of abstract。 Its consideration of things is concrete to a primitive degree。 The language reflects the fact。 The few abstract ideas these people now possess are not represented； for the most part； by pure Japanese； but by imported Chinese expressions。 The islanders got such general notions from their foreign education； and they imported idea and word at the same time。
Summing up； as it were； in propria persona the impersonality of Japanese speech； the word for 〃man；〃 〃hito；〃 is identical with； and probably originally the same word as 〃hito；〃 the numeral 〃one；〃 a noun and a numeral； from which Aryan languages have coined the only impersonal pronoun they
