1. E.g., William G. Boltz's editorial note to Keightley's, David N. review of The Cradle of the East (by Ho, Ping-ti, University of Hong Kong, University of Chicago Press, 1975)Google Scholar entitled (Supplementary Comments,” Early China, No. 3, 1977, p. 61; E.G. Pulleyblank's review of Sources of Shang History (History of Religions, forthcoming); my communication addressed to David N. Keightley, November 13, 1977.

2. Typescript, Taipei, 1971, 101 pp. Lefeuvre In this paper collects over forty graphs that share the element, many, if not all, of which are said to function as sacrificial verbs; reviews the opinions of various Chinese scholars concerning the question of what the graphic element might have represented, expressing his agreement with the opinion of some Ch'ing scholars that 7t represented an axe or lance head; and concludes that, if not used as a place name, it expresses the act of sacrificing, and that the other graphic elements, such as , etc., “might have been notations for a series of ritual actions, indicating, for example, the vessels and Implements to be used, rather than serving as word signs.” (The quoted portion is Keightley's own phrasing; p. 68.)

3. Op. cit., p. 2 (manuscript pagination).

4. The traditional methodology employed to reconstruct the Archaic or Old Chinese of the Chou period relies primarily on rhyme and on the structure of the characters (hsieh-sheng series.) While we are still bound by these two bodies of data, some new approaches to reconstructing Old Chinese are in the offing; see, for example, Pulleyblank, E. G., ”Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European: The Case for a Genetic Comparison” (paper presented at the Conference on the Origins of Chinese Civilization, Berkeley, California, 06 26-30, 1978Google Scholar -- cf. Early China, No. 4 [1978–1979], p. 97 for an abstract)Google ScholarPubMed.

5. The word *xwâr , reconstructed by Karl gren as belonging to the ko-pu, should belong to the wei-pu on the basis of its rhyming in the Shih-ching with a wei-pu word (i.e. i). Cf. Akiyasu, Tōdō, Kanji gogen jiten : (Tokyo: Gakutōsha, 1965), p. 738Google Scholar. See also T'ung-ho, Tung, Shanq-ku yin-yün piao-kao (Taipei: Academia Sinica, 1967), p. 213, p.210Google Scholar. Fang-kuei, Li also considers the word as belonging to the wei-pu in his “Shang-ku-yin yen-chiu ” Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series IX, Nos. 1 and 2 combined, 1971, p. 36)Google Scholar. He reconstructs the word as *hwərx, further postulating that it is derived from *hmərx. As for the rationale for supposing the labial *-m-, which is absent in the hsieh-sheng series represented by (see infra), one can cite a dialect word for “fire,” , with the initial m- reflex in Middle Chinese. The dialect word in question is of Ch'i Han time according to Fang-yen (Ch. 10, 62/6 -- Fangyen chiao-ch'ien. Centre d'études sinologiques de Peking ed.) It is, therefore, unlikely that *hmərx was borrowed for *gwar. Keightley's further suggestion that the expression may be analogous to (p. 69, n. 58) is questionable. The former expression means, literally, “have that (some spirit) causes misfortune” (i.e., be afflicted with misfortune), while the latter means “make a fire-attack.” This interpretation, first suggested to me by Professor David Nivison, takes the phonological distinction seriously, and seems to me to be contextually superior.

6. For the possibility that is to be reconstructed as *gwriat (?), see n. 17.

7. Karlgren, Bernhard, Grammata Serica Recensa (Reprinted from BMFEA, No. 29 [1957]), p. 133, #486dGoogle Scholar. Hereinafter, abbreviated GSR.

8. GSR, p. 25, #18f.

9. GSR, p. 25, #18e.

10. Tōdō, op. cit., p. 628.

11. Consider Tōdō's comment given in the n.b. on top of p. 628; In particular, he wishes to avoid semantic homogeneity with other word-family series, , etc. (P.611) and , , etc. (p. 631).

12. Second edition (Tokyo: Kyūko Shoin, 1971), pp. 303.1-306.2. Hereinafter, abbreviated “S.”

13. For other observations, see Mickel, Stanley, “A Semantic Analysis of the Disaster Graphs of Period One Shang Dynasty Oracle Bones” (Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1976), pp. 89–90Google Scholar.

14. For other observations, see ibid, pp. 186-192.

15. Tōdō, op. cit., p. 628 (No. 167-3); cf. also pp. 107-110.

16. E.g. Pulleyblank, E.G., “Some New Hypotheses Concerning Word Families in Chinese,” Journal of Chinese Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1973), pp. 111–125Google Scholar; Boodberg, Peter A., “Notes on Chinese Morphology and Syntax, III” (Typescript. Berkeley, 1934)Google Scholar; see also Downer, G. B., “Derivation by Tone-change in classical Chinese,” BSOAS, No. 22 (1959), pp. 258–290Google Scholar.

17. The Kuang-yün records two readings for with different meanings associated with them: the entry in the gives a binome defined as (“playful,” words, perhaps derived from “go against harmony”?) and the entry in the gives a definition (smooth, slippery; moves without obstruction). In the same entry, however, the word is defined as (to disturb, disorder). The fan-ch'ieh spelling is which suggests the reading *gwriat.

18. For further discussion, see G. B. Downer, op. cit., pp. 258-290, p. 168 (E, G, H). Cf. also Takashima, K., “The Early Archaic Chinese Word Yu in the Shang Oracle Bone Inscriptions: Word-Family, Etymology, Grammar, Semantics and Sacrifice,” Cahiers de Linguistique -- Asie Orientale (forthcoming), p. 13 (mss. pagination)Google Scholar.

19. For example, it is possible to refine the meanings suggested by Keightley for the following words and expressions:

(a) romanized as t'ou (which is correct), standing for a “verb of sacrifice” or for a word referring to the “nighttime no-man's-land between two cyclical-day dates” (p. 43, n. 79). The two usages are, in my opinion related, and it is possible to take the word in a sense that would explain the usages in a uniform manner. The basic meaning, I would suggest, is “to cut.” Applied to “sacrificial” activity, it means “to cut up a victim, to dismember.” When used in a context of time-expression, the verb means “(when)… cuts (i.e., separates, demarcates) …” These conclusions are, in fact, anticipated by Keightley himself in his 1974 manuscript “The Sources of Shang History,” pp. 142-144. However, there is a difference between our two interpretations that one might further consider. That is, while Keightley thinks that the word t'ou referred to the period which cleaved and divided two days, i.e., his “no-man's land” time duration, my formulation would have to refer to a period of some duration in the day following the first kan-chih date. This is so because I am in effect suggesting the word t'ou Is a verb and, semantically, a “punctual” rather than a “durative” one. Most, if not all, punctual verbs denote actions or happenings that are accomplished in a short period of time, and when what I presume to be the punctual verb t'ou occurs, it “cuts,” “separatess” or “demarcates” the object. Once it has done so, the object is in the state of having been cut, separated, or demarcated. Of course, one can suppose that the verb t'ou is a durative one, but if one does so, it would be difficult to account for its “sacrificial” usage, “to cut, chop, cleave,” which seem to be punctual verbs also.

(b) The word tso , translated as “assist” (p. 66, n. 44) means “to go against, oppose” in this context. My own earl 1er error is perpetuated here.

(c) The meaning “season” is offered as a functional translation of (p. 78, n. 85). Although I cannot offer an alternative meaning better than Chang Ping-ch'üan's reading of ch'un “springs” the functional translation does not seem superior to ch'un.

(d) For the word ting, Keightley offers the generic sense of “the ritual performed at the cauldron” (p. 80). But this can be refined to a significant degree. The conclusions I have obtained as a result of my study of this word are as follows:

(i) When used in conjunction with other ritual verbs, it means “to do it by employing a cauldron.” Sc.: “it” refers to the antecedent ritual activity.

(ii) When used alone, it means “to do it by employing a cauldron.” Sc.: “it” refers to chenging.

(iii) When used as a phonetic loan, it stands for ting “to stabilize, regulate”; used adverbially it means “surely, certainly”; used verbally it means “to decide to …”

is also related etymologically to .

(e) The expression , understood to mean pu tsai ming “not again charge” (p.121, n. 134), should mean in my opinion “(The crack) did not go against (the spirit of) the turtle.” I feel that it is more appropriate to treat these examples in depth elsewhere than to do so in the present review for reasons of space.

20. . Revised edition. (Kyoto: Chūbun Shuppansha, 1972), p. 5.2a.

21. Mo-jo, Kuo, Chin-wen yü-shi'h Chih yü (Tokyo: Bunkyūdo Shoten, 1932), p. 36aGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Joken, Kotō, Kanji no kigen (Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten, 1970), p. 453Google Scholar.

22. See the rubbings in Chen-yü, Lo, San-tai chi-chin wen-ts'un (Reprinted in Taipei: Ming-Tun ch'u-pan-she, 1970), p. 6. 22bGoogle Scholar. See also the drawing of a “spoon” by Kuo Mo-jo, op. cit., p. 35a. This is reproduced partially in Hsiao-ting, Li, Chia-ku wen-tzu chi-shih (Nan-keng: Academia Sinica, 1965), vol. 8, p. 2680Google Scholar.

23. Cf. Kuo Mo-jo, op. cit., p. 36b; Katōo, op. cit., p. 444; Tōdō, op. cit., p. 456.

24. Kuo Mo-jo (op. cit., p.34b) quotes a commentary to SW by Tuan Yü-ts'ai who points out that the Fang-yen [Ch. 13, 88/146] according to the Fang-yen chiao-ch'ien -- see n. 5] records an entry where is called . He also points out that Su Lin's commentary to Han-shu says that “the northerners designate as .”

25. Cf. also Tōdō, op. cit., pp. 765-768.

26. An important point not appreciated by Keightley is that there is really no distinction in principle between hsieh-sheng and chia-chieh graphs. That there is no fundamental distinction is clear when one realizes the ease with which an original pictograph (wei *rjəd), for instance, is used as the phonetic speller in chiu (*trjəd), ch'ui (*sthəd?), shei (*djəd), etc. as well as the phonetic loan for the copula ( *rjəd). Pulleyblank in private discussion has also pointed out Keightley's failure to grasp the nature of the hsieh-sheng and chia-chieh graphs.

27. Cf. S 80.2, 3; Yi-pien 1532; Li Hsiao-ting, op. cit., p. 2665.

28. Chūshū, Takata in his Kochūhen (Tokyo, 1919Google Scholar; Reprinted in Taipei: Hung-yeh shu-chü), p. 2.21, lists a “chisel head” graph presumed to have been ancestral to liu, but the element does not seem to be the later changed form of , nor is likely a “transitional” form of . The small-seal form of liu is not attested, but a Han seal form of is already complete with all the graphic elements of . Pulleyblank has pointed out to me in private discussion that certain prefixes and infixes, including the *m- and *-r- did not affect the spelling practices of the hsieh-sheng graph makers.

30. Cf. n. 2, n. 19 in this review article.

31. For a fuller account of this word, see Takashima, op. cit., (n. 18), pp. 12-13.

32. My reference to “basic” phonological features is based on an a priori assumption. They must be determined by an extensive and in-depth investigation of all the hsieh-sheng graphs. Ideally, it should be carried out with reference to a time when the graphs were created or used, as well as to a given place where they were made or where they were current.