[Footnote 25: Until a rational account of these changes, comprehended under the name of _Lautverschiebung_, is given, we must continue to look upon them, not as the result of phonetic decay, but of dialectic growth. I am glad to find that this is more and more admitted by those who think for themselves, instead of simply repeating the opinions of others. Grimm’s Law stands no longer alone, as peculiar to the Teutonic languages, but analogous changes have been pointed out in the South-African, the Chinese, the Polynesian dialects, showing that these changes are everywhere collateral, not successive. I agree with Professor Curtius and other scholars that the impulse to what we call _Lautverschiebung_ was given by the third modification in each series of consonants, by the _gh_, _dh_, _bh_ in Sanskrit, the χ, θ, φ, in Greek. I differ from him in considering the changes of _Lautverschiebung_ as the result of dialectic variety, while he sees their motive power in phonetic corruption. But whether we take the one view or the other, I do not see that Dr. Scherer has removed any of our difficulties. See Curtius, _Grundzüge_, 4th ed., p. 426, note. Dr. Scherer, in his thoughtful work, _Zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache_, has very nearly, though not quite, apprehended the meaning of my explanation as to the effects of dialectic change contrasted with those of phonetic decay. If it is allowable to use a more homely illustration, one might say with perfect truth, that each dialect chooses its own phonetic garment, as people choose the coats and trousers which best fit them. The simile, like all similes, is imperfect, yet it is far more exact than if we compare the ravages of phonetic decay, as is frequently done, to the wear and tear of these phonetic suits.] [Footnote 26: Edkins, _Grammar_, p. 84.] [Footnote 27: Having stated this on the authority of Mr. Edkins, one of our best living Chinese scholars, it is but fair that I should give the opinion of another Chinese scholar, the late Stanislas Julien, whose competence to give an opinion on this subject Mr. Edkins would probably be the first to acknowledge. All that we really want is the truth, not a momentary triumph of our own opinions. M. Julien wrote to me in July, 1868:-- “Je ne suis pas du tout de l’avis d’Edkins qui dit qu’un grand nombre de mots mongols sont chinois; c’est faux, archifaux. _Sain_ est mandchou et veut dire bon, en chinois _chen_. _begen_, low: en chinois _hia_. _itchi_, droit; en chinois _yeou_. _sologaï_, left, gauche; en chinois _tso_. _c’hihe_, straight; en chinois _tchi_ (rectus). _gadan_, outside; en chinois _waï_. _logon_, green; en chinois _tsing_. _c’hohon_, few; en chinois _chao_. _hungun_, light (not heavy); en chinois _king_.