138 On the Transliteration of Indian Alphabets. [No. 2, 



simply by itself, as Lakshman, Baladeva ; 2nd, a similar name with 

 the addition of some word denoting \ disciple' or ' by the favour of,' 

 as Bhagawan-clas, Ram-sahay, Hanuman-Prasad, Gauri-datt ; 3rd, 

 some one of the thousand epithets appropriated to the leading charac- 

 ters of the Hindu Pantheon, as Niranjan, the unimpassioned ; 

 Chakrapani, the discus-holder ; Bansi-dhar, the flute-player, i. e. 

 Krishna ; 4th, the name of some one of the appliances of ritual 

 worship, as Tulsi, Salagram, Vibhuti ; 5th, some word expressing 

 beauty or other excellent quality, as Nawal, Sundar, Kirat ; 6th, some 

 heroic or honorific title asRandhir, " the staunch in fight," correspon- 

 ding to the Homeric " meneptoleinus ;" Kharagjit, the conquering 

 swordsman ; Mahabali, the greatly valiant ; Anup, the incomparable ; 

 7th, the name of some precious material, as Hira, a diamond ; Moti, 

 a pearl ; Kanchan, gold ; 8th and strangest of all, some affectionate 

 diminutive, as Nek Ram, a little Ram ; Chhote Lai, a little dear, 

 Nanku, a darling. In the village patois, it is true, many of these 

 names ordinarily appear in a very corrupt form, but even these corrup- 

 tions are reducible to the following simple rule, viz. that the first 

 syllable of the word only be retained unimpaired, and an open vowel 

 substituted for the whole of the termination ; thus Kalyan becomes 

 Kalu, Bhagiratha, Bhagi, and Nayanasukh, Nainu. But these diminu- 

 tives correspond simply to our English Bob, Dick and Tom, and have 

 no right to be included in a formal catalogue of names. The enforce- 

 ment of a correct system of transliteration would naturally be opposed 

 by all who are too indolent to acquire a rational knowledge of the 

 language, or who choose to diversify their style by the simple 

 expedient of spelling the same word two or three different ways in 

 one paragraph ; but the present slovenly system, or want of system, is 

 not only a practical inconvenience, but is also a disgrace to an educated 

 government. 



But, it may be urged, perfect precision is no doubt desirable in 

 scientific treatises, but would be pedantic in ordinary writing. Now 

 can any parallel be found to such a state of things as this argument 

 supposes ? Every language has recognized laws of spelling, which 

 the uneducated classes in practice frequently transgress ; but has any 

 government on that account determined to class itself amongst the 

 illiterate, and to relegate orthography to the professedly learned? 



