60 Remarks on the inapplicability of the Roman fjAtf* 



v, w, x, z, are redundant ; while the two dentals, d and t, must denote, by 

 the aid of the aspirate and a diacritical point, no fewer than eight sounds of 

 that class ! But, while this double defect, of redundancy and insufficiency, 

 opposes the application of the Roman alphabet to the expression of the 

 sounds of the Hindustani, Assamese,and many other languages in question, 

 the Nagari and its derivatives are not only complete without excess, but are 

 positively also the most perfect alphabets in the world, the most philosophi- 

 cally conceived and arranged. The only exceptions that can be shewn are, 

 that in the derivatives of the Sanskrit, the sound of v has been generally 

 merged into b or w, which occasions a seeming redundancy of one letter ; 

 (yet but seeming, because the form is also but one* ;J and that two of the 

 three sibilants are usually confounded in utterance, because of the tenuity 

 of the distinction in their sounds, or rather origin. But if the abuse of even 

 a perfect alphabet, one exactly commensurate with the primitive sounds of 

 the language for which it was devised, be a matter of fact, surely that fact 

 is rather an argument against the adoption of a very imperfect one, as so much 

 more liable to originate far greater abuses. To a certain extent, few living 

 languages, if any, have ever been exempt from these irregularities; but all 

 that can, it should seem, be done to prevent or remedy them, is done when 

 the sounds are, technically, fixed sounds; and, above all, when the written 

 expression of them is exactly commensurate with them when so fixed; and 

 when, if a few irregularities have become obstinate in the usage of any peo- 

 ple, they also are assigned their fixed limits and fixed expression likewise, as in 

 the use of a diacritical point under the dentals T> and \5 to mark a provin- 

 cial utterance not original to the language. Now, as to this last expedient? 

 it should appear to be the only available resource for denoting to the eye 

 the variations from the first sounds of those letters, other than the invention 

 of additional ones not primitive and original to the language; one neces- 

 sary effect of which course, would have been the confounding of the 

 etymologies of words essentially the same. 



But the fallacy alluded to above is involved in the assertion that " the 

 Roman character is adequate (as gathered from the tabular columns of 

 ' the Comparison, &c.') to express every sound of the human voice, and is 

 well fitted to be the written representative of all languages." This assertion 

 involves a negation of such adequacy and fitness to all other characters. 

 Let us see then with what justice. For how are the deficiency and redun- 

 dancy in the Roman alphabet overcome, on the Romanizing system ? Why 

 1st, By entirely discarding those letters in it whose European sounds are not 

 found in the Indian languages. 2ndly, By the use of combination and of 

 diacritical points, to enable the Indian variety of sounds to be expressed 

 by an inadequate number of letters having an original utterance not In- 

 dian. But who does not see that the same operation may be extended to 

 any alphabetic characters whatever ? Of any such, we might with equal 

 propriety and equal truth say, that " it is adequate to express every sound 

 of the human voice, &c." The more or less is altogether, as we said, a 

 * i. e.in the derivcite alphabets only ; the original forms were quite distinct.— Ed. 





