Tafel.] 



318 



[October. 



most of tliem being in favor of three, others again of four (Sproat), 

 or Jive (the Sanscrit grammarians, R. v. Raumer, Kudelka, Ellis), 

 or seven (Lepsius, du Bois de Raymond), and Purkine even in favor 

 of ten. Dr. Briicke's argument in favor of only three stations I 

 think conclusive. He says in his answer to Prof. Kudelka, page 16 : 

 ^'This division is well founded in the sudden change which the 

 acoustical character of the mutes experiences at the boundaries of 

 each station. In the jfirst station the mutes are^? and h; through- 

 out the whole extent of the second station, until we arrive at the 

 precinct of the third, we obtain t and d, and again, throughout the 

 whole of the third station we get k and (j and no other mutes." 



The same confusion prevails with regard to the names given to 

 each of these stations by the phonologists and grammarians, and in 

 order to give to the reader some idea of this confusion, I propose to 

 submit a scheme of the terminology employed by the various advocates 

 of three stations : 



Fowler (English Gram- 

 mar) ; the sibilants he 

 calls dentals, . . . labials. 



Dr. Bruch (Zur Physio- 

 logic der Sprache), . labials, 



linguals, 

 lin2;uals, 



palatals. 



faucales. 

 (Rachenlaute.) 



From this scheme it may be seen that almost every phonologist 

 and grammarian has his own terminology. I do not consider it worth 

 while to alter those terms which arc in general use, viz., labials, 

 dentals, (/utturals; although none of them describe any of the stations 



