158 SCHNEIDER. 



generic term finger. After each English word, those of the three 

 Mangyan dialects are given in the following order : a, Bulalakao ; 

 b, Abra de Hog; c, Nauhan. 



The spelling of the Mangyan words, as well as of those from 

 other languages collected by me directly, is strictly phonetic, the 

 following rules being observed : 



a, e, i, 0, u have the Latin or "contiiiental" value. (Long and 

 short vowels are not distinguished, except in Ifugao, where short 

 vowels are marked with a circumflex accent.) 



0, similar to, if not identical with, Germ. 6, or Eng. e in her; 

 it occurs in a few Mangyan words and has been substituted in 

 this paper for E as used by Christie ^ in Subanun. 



b, d, f, h, j, k, 1, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, z as in English, 

 g, always hard, as in get. 



S^ as in ringing; where used without the tilde, n and g are 

 pronounced separately, as in ingrate. 



ngg as ng in finger. 



ck as in church. 



w as in water; used only at the beginning of a word or a 

 syllable. 



X as Germ, ch in loch. 



y as in yard; used only at the beginning of a word or a 

 syllable. 



The apostrophe (') represents the glottal check, or hamzat, 

 (Germ. Kehlkopfexplosiva) . It will be noticed it does not occur 

 in any Mangyan word here recorded; it undoubtedly exists in 

 the language, but if present in any of the words collected, Doctor 

 Miller did not observe it. 



c and qu are not used, being replaced by k. 



In order to avoid the confusion incident to citing material 

 written in as many orthographic systems as there are authors, I 

 have reduced all words to the above system, except in doubtful 

 cases wher there seemed to be some risk of misrepresenting a 

 word whose true pronunciation I could not learn. Also, in the 

 cases of words like apui, bdbui, etc., which are found with the 

 endings -ui, -uy, -oi and -oy, and olo or idu, in which is found 

 every possible combination of o and u, I have unified the different 

 spellings to avoid the endless repetition of practically identical 

 forms. This seems to me unobjectionable both because it is well 

 known that o and u are frequently interchangeable even within 

 very limited localities and because the majority of writers have 

 been notoriously careless in the use of these two letters. 



^ Pub. P. I. Bur. Sci., Div. Ethnol. (1909), 4, 107. 



