To the Editor of the Nonrn-Cuiwa Datcy News!
'Sm,—Having read with much interest the special article by Pere @'Elia published in your columns on the origin' and connotation of the tern "San-min chu-i" (noe San Minchui)- and the coining of a new word in English for it, T venture to send you my chservytions there You will notice that I write "'San-min. chu-" and not "San Minehui,"" advisedly, as the latter way of division is quite contrary to Chinese idiom, and hence erroneous: For the same reason I am unablisto agree with Pare é'Elia that "san" does not qualify "min," but quali fies "'chu-i." He makes this assertion because he thinks that "mi meang "people," and the combina tion Three Peoples would be absurd, as there are no three peoples concerned. "Min" ordinarily docs signify people, but as it is used in the term San-min Chu-i, this meaning becomes secondary, if it is not almost entirely ignored, for "min" here is employed to represent the sound of the first part of the three words Min-ts'o (nation), Min-chuan (democracy) and Min-sheng (s0- dalism or national welfare), and has only a phonetic value. Just to use very common analogy to make my meaning clear, when we speak of the Three R ident that "RY here does not signify the 18th Jelter of the siphabet, but is used to represent the initial letter of the three words Reading, Riting and Rithmetic, When we speak of a Three R's textbook, "three" cer tainly qualifies "R's" not "textbook?
Furthermore, san' cannot qualify "chu-i," for the simple reason that Dr, Sun advocated hefwise, I should prefer. San-minism and Sunwenism.
Tam, ete., 'A Crmnese LexicoceaPHen. Tientsin, March 26, 1928,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.