126 



Report on Transliteration. 



[July, 



of symmetry ; side by side with r and f, has so much the less importance 

 because the I as a long vowel is more rarely used. 



For the e and the o in Sanskrit it seems of no advantage to place 

 the sign of the long accent above the letter; no confusion is possible : 

 and it appears preferable to keep the use of diacritical signs for 

 exceptional cases where, whether in Sanskrit or in Prakrit, one has to 

 denote the short e or the short o, <?, o. 



For the guttural w, we propose to adopt n with a dot above it. 

 It does not seem that there is any ground for introducing as the London 

 table proposes, a particular sign specially invented to meet this unique 

 case. The notation n is widely used among Indianists of all countries, 

 and as for the objection which the London Society advances against 

 the addition of a diacritical sign over a consonant, this has all the less 

 weight with us in that every one agrees in accepting the form n to 

 represent the palatal n. The notation n is based on the analogy of 

 other nasals nnd need give rise to no surprise. 



By a very cuiious change of positions it is the English who propose 

 p for the palatal sibilant and the Germans who propose the notation s, 

 whereas s was originally very generally employed in the English 

 trancriptions and p in those of the continent. This is perhaps, for the 

 very reason of the wide diffusion of this sign p, the most delicate point 

 upon which you have to decide. 



Your Sub-Committee did not underrate the difficulties which 

 exist in modifying old customs, and the danger there is of more serious 

 error between three different s forms. If however, they finally decide 

 in favour of the transcription 5, this decision is not due to any excessive 

 desire for symmetry between the sibilants, but is for three reasons 

 which it will suffice to rapidly indicate. 



The first is happily expressed by the report of the London Society. 

 It rightly recommends preference being given to transcriptions of such 

 a kind that in cases where the diacritical signs are compulsorily or 

 accidentally omitted, the pronunciation will not be too far disfigured for 

 European ears. Although this principle is not capable of invariable 

 application it is good to keep to it as far as possible. 



On the other hand, great stiess has been laid upon the disfavour 

 with which the notation p is sure to be regarded in India : the French 

 practice having only familiarised very few people with this letter. This 

 would come as a surprise to the great majority of those interested. 

 Dr. Biihler considers that if we attempted to bring over to it, for example 

 the Indian Antiquary, we should encounter an invincible opposition. 

 This is a consideration whose gravity it is impossible to ignore. The 

 superiority of s for clearness and convenience of indexing has no less 

 impressed the Commission. 



