5. “‘Mundari Phonology and the Linguistic Survey.” 
By Prorgssor Sten Konow, Pu.D. 
The Revd. C. Mehl has written a review of the Mundari 
section of the Linguistic Survey of India in this Journal, 
vol. vi, pp. 247 and ff., in which he asserts that the sounds of 
Mundari have there been wrongly described and noted. The 
Munda Volume of the Survey has been written by me, and as the 
questions raised by Mr. Mehl are of some importance, I hope 
that I am justified in stating the reasons which lead me to 
differ from him. 
There are two points in which he maintains that I am 
rong, vz., in stating that Mundari like Santali possesses 
double sets of the vowels e and o, and that the Mundari semi- 
consonants are hard and not soft. If I am not mistaken the 
latter point, the marking of the semi-consonants as hard in the 
Linguistic Survey, is, in the opinion of my critic, the most 
serious mistake. 
Similarly I have distinguished two o-sounds, an o and an 4d. 
Mr. Mehl states that the sounds d@ and d@ do not exist in 
Mundari. Now Ihave not put any stress on this point. I have 
not distinguished the two sets in the specimens printed in the 
v I have only tried to do so in the List of words. I 
think it is necessary to state this because Mr. Mehl’s words 
cannot fail to give the impression that 1 have carried the dis- 
tinction through in all specimens. Then I must confess that a 
mere dictum like Mr. Mehl’s does not carry immediate convic- 
tion. He has not given us a description of the sounds in ques- 
tion which enables us to judge. It will be necessary to goa 
little into detail in order to explain what is meant. Before 
doing so, however, I should like to say a few words in explana- 
tion of an expression I have used in the Munda Volume, and 
which seems to have given offence to Mr. Mehl. I refer to my 
the Linguistic Survey owes its best materials. It is a well-known 
ng good linguists really 
ng their own language 
