sang꜄. I have heard it from men from háp⸰ noi꜅ 狄, 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 Mr. Lockhart's reply to Mr. 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—a
work which he elegantly states
he gutted
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' gutting
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 eviscerated
its contents, writing about the
commentary
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.
