Chinese and Sumerian

30 PROGRESSIVE TRANSFORMATION OF CHARACTERS

on a steelyard’, “heavy ’, and in other characters. Edkins infers an old sound ao-p from P. 502, which seems an insecure basis. Otherwise, dop=dok would not be remarkable; cf Sumerian DUG=DUB, ZAG=ZIB, Moreover, do-p, do-b, do-m, are related sounds (cf. chung, dom, heavy; I-DIM, heavy).

Ef mu, ‘mother’, differs from Ze uz, ‘woman’, in the old writing, merely or mainly by the addition of marks denoting the teats. Zaz-twung therefore calls it a picture of the object; but Edkins would rather explain the character by the principle of Suggestion, observing, truly enough, that ‘the separate provinces of the Six Principles of Formation are not always well defined’. The fact, however, that in Sumerian the woman-symbol ~w or V (D. 327-336) has the sounds RAG, LAG (Br. 11171), and MUG, MU, may perhaps be held to throw more light on the connexion f the two characters. The harmony with the Chinese is perfect, for the old sound of nu is nok (R. 38, P. 50), and zz is Uz dialectically; so that we at once discern the possibility of a close etymological relation between Chinese nok, lok, and Sumerian RAG, LAG. Further, mz, ‘mother’, appears to be from mu (P. 187); cf. Sumerian ele] MUG, ‘parent’, Br. 8837. For the rest, any one with an eye for essentials may see that the Sumerian woman-symbol (a pictogram of the vwéva) is identical with

, my, (woman), and ee et, fa (mother).

The character - 722, ‘child’, ‘son’, is represented by over forty older forms in the Luh-shu tung. The principal type is F, supposed to depict a baby strapped on the back, its legs looking like one. Other forms add hair, hands, legs, and other details to the simple figure, which is really the oldest, as is proved by the Sumerian prototype YY DU, ‘child’, ‘son’, from which it almost certainly sprang. The Sumerian symbol (D. 338) has been thought to figure the flowing feats of a mother, and hence to denote a ‘suckling’ or infant (Hilprecht; Hommel). But whatever else it was intended to portray, it was clearly not meant for the figure of a human baby. It is equally clear that the Chinese have halved the obscure original symbol, perhaps thinking the double sign with its suggestion of duality inappropriate, or merely for the sake of abbreviation; afterwards adding the indication of uplifted arms, in order to make the character more truly pictorial. The only forms besides the one already given that need concern us here are one from a drinking-cup (74-472), viz. ¥, and another cited as occurring on a Wang-tzu kiieh (‘King’s Son Gateway’), viz. we (cf. the Tung-wén tsth character ci); the triangular heads of which agree so well with the Sumerian symbol. One of the 4 wéx forms looks strangely like a combination of the two halves of the Sumerian character, so as roughly to suggest a human figure URL) ; but no stress need be laid upon this possible explanation of an isolated symbol.

As to the sound, it is obvious that ¢z7, tsze, F. chii, chi, K. cha, J. shi, A. ti, ti (G. 12317), which according to Edkins is from an older ¢a& (R. 39) or t& (P. 36),