The so-called semantic components (or radicals) of the Chinese characters can be understood from a cultural point of view, as well as serving their linguistic function as semantic indicators of the meaning of the whole character. In many of the semantic components the connection between their own meaning and the meaning of the character which contains them is culturally obvious and well-founded. Such is the case of the semantic component 'shui' 水 'water' (in characters indicating liquids) or in 'cao hua' 艹 'herbs - flowers' (in characters indicating vegetation). In other characters, however, mainly in those that indicate abstract concepts or sentiments, the given semantic component can reveal to a great extent the underlying cultural and conceptual thought processes of the culture.

The majority of Chinese characters are made up of two components; one (usually called 'semantic component' or 'radical') generically makes reference to its meaning, the other (usually called 'phonetic component') indicates the approximate sound/ pronunciation. Originally formed by pictograms (drawings representing objects) and ideograms (drawings conveying ideas), the written Chinese language, since the earliest stages of its evolution, began establishing a base of semantic-phonetic compounds. This phonetic field, using characters instead of alphabetic letters (denoting isolated sounds), convey the sound of syllables.

Generally, it can be said that Chinese, at a given moment in its development and due to many phenomena of linguistic simplification, ultimately became comprised of too many monosyllabic words with the same sound, but different meanings. Nevetheless, even when similar sounding words with different meanings (homophonous) began to jeopardise efficient communication, the creative genius of Language itself invented ways of solving the problem.

It was a process verified in speech but also reflected in writing. If, for instance, two monosyllabic words had the same sound, they were initially written with the same characters.

The way of solving problems of homographs resulting from homophones is of interest in the analysis of the so-called semantic components. As long as the semantic components are semantic components of characters, they are by nature 'silent'. Placed beside the 'spoken' or phonetic component, they show the character's semantic field.

The verb 'deng' 登 'to rise' (see: TABLE 1) is a single syllable with first tone. The very same syllable, i. e. the combination of the initial consonant 'd' and nasal ending 'end' with first tone means 'lamp' as well as the verb 'to trample'. Another syllable beginning with 'd' and ending with 'eng' but with fourth tone means 'to look with wide-open eyes'. Orally it is only the tone which differentiates the first three meanings of from the fourth which are shown in TABLE 1. However, in written form there are four distinct characters: 'deng' 登, a non-complex (without a semantic component) character, whose form serves as a phonetic component; 'deng' 登 'to rise' with the semantic component 'huo' 火'fire', means 'deng' 燈'lamp'; 'deng' 登 'to rise' with the semantic component 'zu' 足 'foot' is the verb'deng' 蹬 'to trample' and lastly 'deng' 登 'to rise' with the semantic component 'mu' 目 'eye' means 'deng'瞪'action connected with looking'.

If we wanted to find a parallel in Portuguese, we could take the case of 'he'氵 'rio' ('river'), which, when heard on its own and out of context, cannot be distinguished from 'rio', first person singular of the verb 'rir' (which means 'to laugh'), or 'river'.

However in writing can distinguish them in the Chinese 'style', for example, putting 'ko' 口 'boca' ('mouth') (see: TABLE 2) before the verbal form, thus forming a new written character in 'ko-he' 口-氵'boca-rio'. The meaning of 'rio' ('river') can be emphasised by the semantic component 'shui'水'água' ('water'), which gives rise to another written character 'shui-he'水-氵água-rio'.

From the two examples above, 'deng' and 'rio', the first being real and the second invented, it can be seen how the traditional choice of semantic component falls into two different categories. Effectively, the one which wants to become closer to the idea of the semantic component is a later development in speech process which diverged greatly from its origin. When using the traditional Western classification of semantic components, the point of interest is the reasoning behind such choices.

On one hand, there are circumstances where the choice of the character for the semantic component seems almost inevitable. If under all circumstances and everywhere for 'rio' ('river') the idea of 'water' immediately comes to mind, already for 'rio'('I laugh') it can be argued that the idea of 'mouth' may not be the most appropriate to denote 'laughter'. Why not 'ya' 牙 'teeth' (we do tend to show our teeth when we laugh...) or 'xin' 心 'heart' which is used in so many Chinese characters implying the idea of sentiment?

What stands out within the process of making concrete something abstract, which is ultimately what is at stake in the semantic components of Chinese characters, is that the characters are arbitrarily selected and although not "innocent" are far from complying with any general rules. And so, both the meaning of the semantic component and that of the whole character which contains it reveal, in multiple circumstances, cultural conventions and specific mental assumptions from a way of looking at the world particular to Chinese Culture. Within this cultural framework the reading of the semantic component 'nu' 女 'woman' in written Chinese is most revealing.

In some cases the so-called simplification of characters, promoted in 1956 by the People's Republic of China orthographic reform, can be equally revealing. Even if few changes were effected to the semantic components, we can verify how the exchange of one character for another always represents more than a mere substitution of one written form for another. Although, strictly speaking, it happens in a linguistic context with the aim of visualising an abstract concept, both in its origin and effect, it can be regarded as a cultural process.

In the non-simplified characters used in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, the character 'rong' 榮'glorious-splendour' is written with the semantic component 'huo' 火'fire'(see: TABLE 3) twice. In the process of simplification by reducing the number of strokes it is finally written as the semantic component 'cao hua'艹'herbs' - flowers'. Therefore it can be inferred that the concept of 'glorioussplendour' in Chinese Language Culture can be expressed either by the ideogram of 'huo'火'fire' or by the ideogram of 'cao hua' 艹'herbs - flowers'. Whether from a Chinese or Western point of view, comparing the written form of both semantic components in terms of differences, does not seem to be very productive. But this is not always the case. Such an example should not be taken as a general rule.

The same thing does not occur in the semantic field of the character 'nu'女'woman'.

The character 'nu'女 'woman' (see: TABLE 4), apart from existing as a single character in words such as 'nuren' 女人'woman' or 'funu' 婦女 'woman', also exists as a semantic component of characters. A classic example of 'nu' 女'woman' is that of 'ma' 媽'mother'. 'nu' 嬰 'woman' may also exist as a phonetic component, showing the character's precise pronunciation, as for example with the semantic component 'jin'金, 'metal' meaning'nu'釹'neodymium'.

The list of characters with the semantic component 'nu' 女 'woman', naturally combine the two realities which can nevertheless be distinguished. If on one hand characters like 'Ma' 媽'mother', 'ying' 嬰 'baby', 'gu' 姑'aunt', 'ji nu' 妓女 prostitute, 'nai' 奶'milk', etc., have a universal concrete meaning linked to the female world, on the other hand characters appear which despite having the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman', its feminine significance within the character's meaning is not immediately evident or the character as such is plainly not related to realm of women.

Let us now analyse the character 'miao' 妙 'elegant'. It is relatively easy for a Westerner to accept the link between the idea of 'feminine' and 'elegance -beauty - youth', since something from both Chinese and Western cultures is represented here rather than the biology of the female sex, which does not establish 'elegance', 'beauty' or 'youth' as attributes necessary to 'femininity'. Yet, for instance in the characters 'xi'嬉'to play', or 'yu'娛'to have fun - give pleasure' the use of the semantic component 'nu'女'woman' already may (... or may not...) surprise Westerners. In these two examples everyone will deduce the existence of the semantic component 'nu' 女 'woman' as an intrinsic indicative of the significance of the characters 'to play - to have fun - give pleasure' according to one's own cultural assumptions. Acknowledging that 'men' and not "Man" were responsible for creating the Chinese language, at least in its written form, one may logically infer that the semantic component 'nu'女'woman' is aptly used to denote the meanings of the characters 'xi' 嬉'to play', and 'yu'娛'to have fun - give pleasure'. Associations, that some will refer to as clichés, i. e. women being an object of men's pleasure without being reciprocal, are unavoidable. There will even be some who go further by questioning the absence of a phonetic component denoting 'man' in the Chinese written language. But how far do these strange underlying assumptions relate to the choice of a particular semantic component for these specific inferences meaning? For instance, the idea of 'woman' is equally strongly related to 'play' as a child's activity, an activity that woman encompasses as mother and also as protagonist. Apart from multiple associations between different meanings that one is able to make in one's own language culture context, there will certainly be others which will not occur to Westerners because we can only imagine those meanings which come from our way of looking at the world.

It appears to be harder to question the linguistic impossibility of the character 'nan'男 'man' functioning as a semantic component within a language culture whose opposites, yin-yang, are the basis of reality in cultural and philosophical terms. Above all, it is difficult for those who come from language culture origins, like those of the West, which take the masculine part of humanity to be the whole, thus forcing the other half, the feminine, to define itself as 'man'.

Let us try to analyse from a linguistic point of view the two characters 'nu'女 'woman', and'nan' 男'man'. It is clear to see that 'nu' 女 'woman' is a character formed by a basic pictogram which cannot be subdivided into parts. The pictogram is traditionally explained in the history of the Chinese language as representing the stylized image of a woman kneeling. On the other hand, 'nan' 男 'man' is a complex ideogram which ideally represents an idea by linking two concepts: 'tian' 田'field' and 'li' 力 'force'. Therefore, to the concrete and visually formed representation of a woman's body contrasting with the abstract and non-visible idealisation of the concept of a man's power. One initial and tentative hypothesis is that Chinese written language reflects the cultural and philosophical approach: while 'feminine' is a body -yin, whereas while 'masculine' is an energy -yang. This reflection is validated by the assumption that because 'men' (symbolized by the number 'one') created the Chinese written language, 'women' (symbolized by the number 'two') were created as semantic components (or radicals). In less ideological terms closer to linguistic reasoning, the fact that while the written character 'nu' 女 'woman' is a primary character/simple representation/basic ideogram unable to be broken down, the written character 'nan' 男'man' is a composite character/complex representation/complex pictogram able to be broken down into parts. In Chinese writing, because only primary characters such as 'woman' are semantic components; the composite character 'man', due to its own representational and linguistic nature, cannot function as a semantic component, acting only as a phonetic component.

TABLE 5

‘nu’女 ‘woman’+‘sheng’姓=‘xing’  姓(‘surname’) ‘nu’女‘woman’+‘dan’   亶=‘shan’  嬗‘handing down from generation to generation’ ‘nu’女‘woman’+‘xu’      婿=‘xu’      婿‘son-in-law’(cf.媳‘daughter-in-law’) ‘nu’女‘woman’+‘zhang’嫜=‘zhang’嫜 ‘father-in-law’

The basic pictogram 'ren' 人 'person' represents the human form and is able to function both as a primary character, forming words like 'nuren'女人'nanren'or 男人, or as a character's semantic component indicating the many and varied activities in the human domain as a whole. It is this 'ren'人 'person' that, by juxtaposition, forms all Chinese words which simultaneously indicate both sexes of the human race, i. e.: 'ren wen' 人文 'humanism' or 'ren lei' 人類 'mankind'. In an apparent total opposition to what happens in Western written languages where one of the meanings of the word 'humanity' has come to denote the whole of it (i. e.: 'mankind') in Chinese 'man' never indicates something which is common to both genders.

This apparent basic equality, if ever brought into question, is by 'women' not by 'men'. In fact, in what seems to be remnants of feminine priority, in Chinese written language some characters which denote 'man' (and are clearly and irrevocably masculine in meaning) include the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman'. They mostly denote family relationships as in: 'xu'婿'son-in-law' and 'zhang' 嫜'father-in-law' (see: TABLE 5) These compared with 'xing'姓 'surname', and 'shan' 嬗 'handing down from generation to generation', which also contain the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman', seem like linguistic fossils from the ancient Chinese matriarchal society.

One initial and tentative hypothesis deduced from different ways of 'understanding' the two sexes in Chinese writing is that while 'woman' is a body -yin, 'man' is an energy -ying. Or in other words, because 'men' created [the Chinese] written [language], 'woman' was made a semantic component.

The Xin xiandai hanya cidian 新現代漢語詞典 Dictionary of Contemporary Chinse includes around two-hundred characters with 'nu'女'woman' as semantic component. Approximately half of them have obviously feminine related meanings. The analysis of the remainding characters of this group shows that the semantic component 'nu'女'woman' was predominantly used to denote physical or psychological attributes, actions, feelings and concepts considered to be positive; the meanings of about fifty of these characters relating to the concepts of 'beauty - goodness - graciousness - favourableness - stability - sweet-ness - serenity - congeniality'. One of these is the paradigmatic ideogrammatic character 'e'娥 'pretty woman', constructed from the semantic component 'nu' 女 'woman' and 我'I-myself'.

This initial evidence is contradicted by the remaining fifty characters, whose meanings are far from being positive.

Finally, the meanings of half a dozen characters relating to 'hesitancy - prudency - embarrassement - virtuosity - honesty', naturally come from the same language culture sense underlying those in the first group and have associations with the concepts of 'beauty - goodness'. They belong to a transitional phase and as such they refer to both the positive and the non-positive groups.

Characters like 'ru' 如, 'wei'委 and 'wei' 娓, all three meaning 'conform - obey' (besides other meanings) although still forming part of the process of idealising the 'women' where the fulfilment of 'men"s pleasure is concerned already make up something which creates the conditions for a qualitative change in terms of the basis of reality from the positive to the non-positive. It is not the case in every context that obedience and submission are beneficial for the person who obeys or submits. Nor does it follow that all those who obey will be appreciated, especially in the eyes of the one who commands...

The non-positive group seems to cover more meanings than the positive group. For instance, examples range from the character 'chi'媸'stupidity' to the paradigmatic 'jian' 奸, 'disloyalty - cunningness - wickedness - badness', which non-simplified form is written as 'three women' 姦(see: TABLE 6). 'Three' being a common substitute in Chinese written language for 'many', is often a way of forming characters with a collective meaning.

The People's Republic of China orthographic reform of 1956 which 'simplified' the number of strokes per character, transformed the character 'jian'姦'disloyalty-cunningness-wickedness - badness', constituted by the complex ideogram of 'three women', into a semantic-phonetic compound comprising the semantic component 'nu' 女 'woman', to indicate meaning, plus the phonetic component 'gian'千 'to make' to indicate approximate sound/pronunciation. Regarding this example, in Southern China it is common practise to use 'jian' 奸 in its simplified form to denote the meanings already mentioned and 'jian' 姦, the character's complex form to denote the specific meaning of 'violation'. This example suggests that like speakers, writers are also aware of the degree of expressiveness of both forms - simplified and non-simplified - of the character and prefer the visually 'stronger' image for the semantically 'stronger' meaning. In terms of orthographic expressiveness, they take advantage of a process which is only viable in the Chinese written Language.

There are more examples of how simplifications of characters were at times more than merely linguistic, as if linguists were re-reading the semantic components and reorganising them in a way more in keeping with their historical context. It is questionable whether it is faster to write, or easier to memorise, the simplified form 'lan'懶'lazy', with the semantic component 'shu xin' 忄 'heart' rather than the non-simplified 'lan'嬾'lazy', with the semantic component 'nu'女 'woman' (see: TABLE 7). In the midst of the Socialist Revolution in the People's Republic of China, which glorified work, the traditional semantic component 'nu' 女'woman' contained in 'lan'嬾'laziness' was changed to 'shu xin' 忄 'heart - mind', a typical semantic component indicative of psychological activities. A synonym, 'duo' 惰'lazy' still kept the old written form, perhaps since it was less widely used, although some dictionaries, aware of substitutions made by speakers and then writers, have started substituting the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman' for 'shu xin' 忄 'heart - mind' in this character.

TABLE 7

‘lan’ 嬾 ‘lazy’=‘nu’     女  ‘woman’+‘lai’賴‘rascally shameless’(non-simplified)→ ‘lan’ 餿 ‘lazy’=‘shu xin’忄   ‘heart-mind’+ ‘lai‘(simplified) 　 ‘duo‘ 姷  ‘lazy’= ‘nu‘     女   ‘woman’+ ‘lazy‘有(non-simplified)→ ‘duo‘ 惰  ‘lazy’= ‘shu xin‘忄   ‘heart-mind’+ ‘lazy‘(simplified) ‘xin‘ 心  ‘heart’(as semantic component)

'Xing' 婞'obstinacy' must have also be considered as typically feminine attribute, as this character contains the semantic component'nu' 女 'woman'.

Characters like 'lan' 婪 and 'fu' 富 both meaning 'greediness', also contain the semantic component 'nu'女'woman', just as 'wang' 妄'arrogance' and 'pie' 嫳'superficiality-frivolity'. The presence of the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman' in characters like 'ji'嫉, 'du' and 'mao'媢all three meaning 'jealousy - envy' equally express feelings that these characteristics must once have been considered as predominantly feminine. The verb 'xian' 嫌'detest -suspect- be taboo' also has 'nu' 女 'woman' as the semantic component as do various other verbs such as 'fang' 妨, 'man'嫚, 'rao' 娆all three meaning 'injure - obstruct - disturb - confuse - neglect - insult'.

Despite the difficulty in speaking categorically of the grammatical classification of a Chinese character (word) out of the context of a sentence, it is perhaps possible to consider whether examples mentioned, depending on whether they are verbs or adjectives, bring up different relationships between 'nu' 女 'woman' as semantic component and as complete meaningful character. In Chinese written language, when a positive or non-positive group is denoted, 'nu' 女 'woman' seems to function as its 'allegory'. However, in verbs, 'woman' appears to be the object of the agent of the the action denoted by the character.

There are certain exceptions, one of which is 'jidu' 嫉妒 'to be jealous', which relying on the information provided by the semantic compounds should be an exclusively feminine characteristic.

We have already seen that the representation of the character 'nu'女'woman' is perceived foremost as a human body (a pictogram), without a corresponding and linguistic equivalent of 'nan' 男 'man's' physical presence (an ideogram). The result is that, in practice, this female human body is the only one available to denote sexuality in general. In this way 'li' 娌 'couple', 'hun'婚'to marry', and 'yin' 姻'to marry - marital relations' although containing the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman' (and not containing the character 'nan' 男 'man') have an intrinsic meaning inevitably shared between the two sexes. 'qu' 娶'to marry' is an ideogram only used for men and formed by 'nu' 女 'woman' and 'qu' 取 'take'. The corresponding feminine character, 'jia' 嫁, is formed by 'nu' 女'woman' and 'jia'家'housefamily' (see: TABLE 8).

The semantic component 'nu' 女 'woman' may also denote an excess of sexuality as in 'xie' 媟, 'indecent - obscene' and in the non-simplified form of 'yin'婬 'lascivious - excessive', which simplified character is written with the semantic component 'shui'氵 'water'.

The fluctuation between looking at 'woman' as positive or non-positive can synthesise into a single character. For instance, the character 'yao' 妖, 'beautiful - demonic' (amongst others) when interpreted under its first mentioned meaning can be included in the group of positive examples, but when interpreted under its second mentioned meaning is to be included in the group of non-positive examples. This is not the only case that seems to confirm what is often expressed in traditional Chinese literature - the ambivalence of the interpretation of the meaning of 'femininity - woman', something both feared and desired.

TABLE 8

‘nu‘女 ‘woman’+ ‘li ’娌 ‘inside’= ‘li ’娌 ‘married couple’ ‘nu‘女 ‘woman’+ ‘hun‘婚 ‘faint-fall unconscious’ ‘hun’婚 ‘to marry’(for both genders) ‘nu‘女 ‘woman’+ ‘jia’家 ‘house-family’= ‘jia’嫁 ‘to marry’(for women only) ‘nu’女 ‘woman’+ ‘qu’取 ‘to take’= ‘qu’娶 ‘to marry’(for women only) ‘nu’女 ‘woman’+ ‘yin’婬 ‘follow-carry on’ ‘yin’姻 ‘to marry-marital relations’

It is not that different from the ambiguous symbolism present in the word 'woman' in the Occidental language cultures.

Let us now look at the character 'niao' 嬲 'to woo - to court' (see: TABLE 9). The character graphically contains one 'nu' 女 'woman' between two 'nan' 男 'man'. Westerners might wonder who is seducing who. Could it be that a single woman with two men is to be interpreted as also meaning 'greediness', something already referred to ['lan'婪 and ''yao' 妖 as a feminine characteristic? Or is it rather men's greed for women which underlies there being more than one 'man'? How does one explain other meanings of 'niao'嬲 'to provoke - to annoy'? Do they confuse or clarify internal relations of the above mentioned love triangle? The character 'xi' 嬉, 'to play at wooing - to play at annoying' contains the semantic compound 'nu' 女 'woman' juxtaposed to morpheme 'yu'娛 'play' in a more descriptively discrete meaning, the 'men' as usual being absent. The contamination of the meanings of 'shua' 耍 'to play' and 'fan rao'煩扰'to annoy' is even shown in ideogrammatic character 'shua' 耍'to play' formed by the phonetic component, 'er' 而 'hair on the cheekbones' (according to the dictionary), i. e.: a male metaphor, over the semantic component 'nu'女'woman', i. e.: a female body. The characters 'shan' 姗'tease - satirise' and 'suo' 娑'provoke-torment' are both formed by the semantic component 'nu' 女'woman', and respectively, with the phonetic components 'shua'耍 'to play' and 'fan rao' 煩扰'to annoy'.

It seems appropriate to emphasise that since 'women' did not create Chinese written language, their points of view seem to have been left out. This concept is in sharp contrast to the recurrent depiction of the ideogram 'woman' in Chinese characters. Who could know what might have happened if, for some strange reason, woman had had the authority to invent the written language using signifiers of their own choice? Would they have used a symbol expressing 'man' as a semantic component for their 'fears' and 'desires'? One thing is certain: they would have projected themselves in their choices, just as 'men' have done. And maybe it would now be 'men' who dedicated themselves, without making a scandal, to interpreting the meaning of themselves in the descriptively graphic image of their multiple bodies.

In reality this was not the case, and because of this, Chinese 'women', for thousands of years, have allowed themselves to be invented, reinvented, and forced into characters whose sense they no longer and most probably never did have anything to do with.

Also no 'women' in the West would have identified herself with the word 'man' which obviously evokes masculine associations. It gives the same feeling of estrangement that is felt in generic expressions like "men' have difficulty giving birth'. And yet it is the only word, as well as its derivatives, 'human', 'humanity', 'mankind' etc., which 'women' can use in order to define themselves and their feminine vital interests.

However, the distortion has to be forgotten because of the risk of 'women' disturbing their feminine self-image. Just as putting aside the culture language 'terrorism' shown in the fact that all 'mothers' and 'daughters' or even two-thousand 'feminine' factory workers must be linguistically converted, in Portuguese, to 'eles' (third person plural masculine) if only is present amongst 'elas' (third person plural feminine) someone of the 'masculine' sex, even be it one new born baby.

Thus, the pervading presence of the masculine gender in Western languages is as revealing as the relationship of power between 'men' and 'women' than is its absence in the Chinese language. The truth is, in both cases, that the meaning of 'masculine' is always 'to look' and never 'to be looked at'.**

Translated from the Portuguese by: Louisa Millar

NOTES

**This article is the adaptation of a paper presented in May 1995 in Oporto, Portugal, at the II CONGRESSO INTERNACIONAL DA ASSOCIAÇÃO PORTUGUESA DE LITERATURA COMPARADA (SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF THE PORTUGUESE COMPARATIVE LITERATURE ASSOCIATION).

1 In the Sou nu king by Maurice Mussat, the differences are established between "[...] creation and creativity which correspond to substance and energy respectively and in which the duality of yin-yang is found." Mussat underlines that"[...] creation implies fertility [...] in its material aspects yin, whereas the creativity implicit in spirit, intelligence and imagination is part of yang in the same Chao In Tchong Mo system." The French writer concludes that this explains the importance of art and poetry in China.

See: MUSSAT, Maurice, Sou nu king, Paris, Seghers, 1978, p.17.

2 Evidently there are important differences. Being a notion of sexuality, one of the fundamental parameters of traditional principles in Chinese culture, it has a broader sense and from various points of view, is different to that of the West. The view of sexual relationships contains a level of being a truly beneficial activity for one's health and for long life, as well as the level of fecundity, important in itself in philosophical terms. The traditional idea that during copulation man, yang, has the chance to fill himself with yin in a woman, the yin he needs, while a woman can assimilate the yang energy released by. the man during ejaculation, seems to exist even today. I have quoted part of an article on ways of avoiding cancer published on 13th October 1994 in the "Guangzhou Wen Zhai" newspaper. It says that as well as eating soya beans, vegetables and sleeping well, "[...] for married women, what helps avoid tumours in the uterus is the husband's sperm which can lower hormonal levels."

3 In practice, the sexist assumption that 'mankind' is a species of machos becomes fact. Erich Fromm certainly thought like this when he wrote that "Men's vital interests are living, eating, and having access to women."

See: DALE, Spender, Man Made Language, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981, p.155.

*Studious of the Chinese Language.