Page:The China Review, Or, Notes and Queries on the Far East, Volume 22 1RZBAQAAMAAJ.pdf/63

 sang꜄. I have heard it from men from háp noi꜅ 狄狹內 [sic], Sheklung and Má-ch'ung, but have not noticed it in the finals án and ún and in with long vowels. The 入 tones in t and p with such men have a tendency to pass into k sounds.

The Tungkwún city dialect breaks up á and ä, e.g. shik꜇ feán꜅ ꜁m ká? and ꜁meang for 名. In 狹內 at Shek-kong (exc. In-wo) ä becomes ea and the colloquial tone is a rising tone; further South at Ch'á-yün ă becomes ŏa e.g. 得 tŏat, 分 fŏan. Ngi ngúi k'eok꜆ yeok꜆ (you, I, he, ?) is a Sheklung parody (?) of some other Háp꜇-noi꜅ tongue. Fú-mún and Chung T'ong Sz are said to have their own peculiarities. From Ma-ch'ung (half of which is said to speak P'ún-yü) I have heard l for n, s for sh (cp. Lower P'ún-yü), an alternative initial ng (which is just not Lower P'ún-yü), sheak꜇ and ꜁meang for 石 and 名 and ꜀kai tsát꜇ (not ꜀koi) for 'cockroach.'

The reviewer reviewed or Lockhart's reply to  Giles' review of The Manual of Chinese Quotations.

Mr. Giles has been good enough to review at some length my translation of the Ch'êng Yü K'ao&mdash;a work which he elegantly states he some years ago for use in his Chinese-English Dictionary. This poultryman operation should have placed Mr. Giles in a position second to none for reviewing the labours of a translator of the same work, who should have derived much assistance from the internal process to which Mr. Giles declares the Ch'êng Yü K'ao was subjected at his hands. I am, however, bound to confess that I did not obtain much help in this quarter for two reasons. In the first place my translation was completed before Mr. Giles' Dictionary was published; and in the second place when I did consult it as my translation was being printed, in the hope of having difficulties removed, I was not aided to any great extent, because in many cases I could not find the phrases for which I hunted. From this it would appear that either I did not search properly or that Mr. Giles' has not been complete. This point, however, can be easily settled by any one who cares to take the trouble to compare the Ch'êng Yü K'ao with the Dictionary. In any case I do not mean to insinuate that, even if the entries in his Dictionary from the Ch'êng Yü K'ao may not be complete, Mr. Giles is not well acquainted with the latter work. I am quite ready to admit that he knows the work well. Still it is somewhat disappointing to find a person, who professes to have its contents, writing about when the commentaries on the Ch'êng Yu K'ao are by no means confined to one, and basing corrections of my renderings on a commentary in an edition, the title of which is not even mentioned, though the editions of the work are numerous. Mr. Giles must know that commentaries in China differ from each other as they do in other countries, and he must be aware that the dictum of one commentator cannot always be accepted as correct. In fact Mr. Giles himself has given renderings of phrases in the Ch'êng Yü K'ao which are at variance with commentaries on that work consulted by me, but which should not on that account only be regarded as incorrect. Mr.