¹ Kuo-li chung-yang yen-chiu yuan, Li-shih yü-yen yen-chiu-so chi-k'an (Bull. of the Inst. of Hist. and Philol., Academia Sinica) 10.349–70 (1948). For the Chinese characters involved see Lg. 25.417 and any edition of the Shih-ching text; the one by James Legge—The Chinese Classics IV: The She King (London, 1871)—is generally available. I cite the Odes in numerical order.

² Complete glosses on the Odes, with translations, are now available in Bernhard Karlgren's paper, Bull. of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities (Östasiatiska Samlingarna, Stockholm) 14.71–247 (1942); 16.25–169, 171–256 (1944); 17.65–99 (1945); 18.1–198 (1946). Karlgren does not treat hoh in any of his glosses on the passages here cited.

³ Karlgren renders Odes 204, 232, and 123 differently, reading ‘how’ and ‘what’ for ‘when’; but I think Ting's position in each case is well taken, especially in 123. Cf. Karlgren's gloss on 232, BMFEA 16.163 ff. I agree with Ting that such neglect of the earliest commentators is unwarranted.

⁴ Text in Kuo Mo-jo, Chin-wên ts'ung-k'ao 2.128^r (Tokyo, 1932); the translation of the passage in Tseng Chao-yueh, Philobiblon 4.5 (1947), following Kuo's gloss (130^v), is unconvincing.

⁵ Cf. Legge, Chin. Cl. II: The Shoo King 1.175 (London, 1865).

⁶ Cf. Legge, Chin. Cl. V: The Ch'un Ts'ew, with the Tso Chuen 2.572, 579 (London, 1872).

⁷ Cf. Chia Shan-hsieh (ed.), Hsün-tzü Yang Liang-chu 18.15^r line 2 (1786).

⁸ Cf. Richard Wilhelm, Frühling und Herbst des Lü Bu We 228 (Jena, 1928).

⁹ Ting himself suggests another instance: hu (Ware's No. 2) in the Shih-ching < ho (Ware's No. 1) + ku (< *ko) ‘cause, reason’. Cf. George A. Kennedy, A Study of the Particle yen, JAOS 60.196 ff. (1940); Jos. Mullie, Le mot-particule tchē 37, 38 (Leiden, 1942); James R. Ware, The So-called Final wei, HJAS 5.184 fn. 6a (1940).