Sanscrit Writing and Language. 91 



syllabic powers, the inconvenience of making the inferior use of it is far greater ; 

 and also because it is still more easily convertible into a superior alphabet, since 

 it is not merely the case that its characters are obviously resolvable into sets cor- 

 responding to the elements of the syllabic powers, but they are virtually so 

 resolved since the introduction of the vowel-letters ; and all that is wanted on 

 the part of those making use of it, is a clear conception of the nature of a 

 consonant. 



So far the point is made out from a general comparison of the two syllabaries ; 

 but there are particular considerations, applicable to the Sanscrit one alone, 

 which lead very forcibly to the same result. In the first place, that this syllabary 

 is not an invention of the Hindoos, is quite obvious even from the single circum- 

 stance of its being unsuited to their language ; for it cannot be applied to the 

 expression of all Sanscrit syllables, but merely serves to denote those which begin 

 with a consonantal power ; and, consequently, must have been derived by imita- 

 tion from some foreign system connected with a tongue which, like the Ethiopic, 

 includes no articulate sounds except such as are of the latter description. In the 

 second place, it is positively absurd to suppose this people to have invented their 

 syllabary unless they had a distinct idea of consonantal powers ; for It would be 

 altogether Impossible for them to determine the syllabic sounds to be reduced to 

 a common class without their clearly perceiving what was common to those 

 sounds. For instance, supposing the arrangement of their syllabary to be en- 

 tirely their own work, unaided by the observation of any prior system, how could 

 they possibly have selected the syllables ka k«, k^ k^, 'kit kw, &c. as those to 

 be represented by a common character variously modified In shape, unless they 

 had a distinct conception of the proper power of k ? But that they have no such 

 conception of this or any other consonantal power, is evident not only from their 

 foregoing in the greater part of their writing the advantages of a superior alpha- 

 betic system, but also more immediately from what is known respecting their mode 

 of considering the subject. For instance, whenever any of their characters is not 

 modified by a vowel mark, they consider It as the sign of a syllable ending in a, 

 and say that a is essentially inherent In it ; evidently thereby showing that, as they 

 are unable to utter any articulation without the help of some vowel-sound, so they 

 are unable even to conceive it without the same help. Again, when a character 



M 2 



