1867.] On the Transliteration of Indian Alphabets. 141 



defect." It may be necessary to take with, some modification, at the 

 present day, the above severe reflections on the ignorance of our 

 surveying officers ; but whatever their knowledge, it is evident that 

 they have not had sufficient courage to deviate from the traditional 

 groove of barbarism. To initiate a reform in this direction, is an 

 undertaking well worthy the highest efforts of the Asiatic Society. 

 But the whole question has been treated so often, that there is no 

 occasion for further words ; it only remains for some definite action to 

 be taken. 



On the other hand, equal carelessness and neglect of philological 

 principles are displayed in the ordinary modes of representing English 

 words in Nagari characters : thus the names of the four months 

 September, October, November, and December are frequently so spelt 

 in Hindi translations, as quite to obscure the fact that they are iden- 

 tically the same as the vernacular Saptami, Ashtami, Navami, Dasami. 

 It has also become a uniform practice to represent the English t on 

 all occasions by the letter il ; thus ignoring the fact that in the 

 English alphabet the one symbol does double duty, and our pronun- 

 ciation of it varies, though perhaps unconsciously, in different words, 

 accordingly as it has a murdhanya or simply dental power. For 

 instance, the name Victoria is, so far as my experience goes, invariably 

 written with the ~z, though most incorrectly so ; for both in meaning 

 and derivation, it corresponds precisely to the common appellation 

 Vijay, the j by an invariable rule becoming k before dental t ; while h 

 with murdhanya t is an impossible compound, and a short vowel would 

 have to be introduced between the two consonants, before they could 

 be pronounced. Indeed Her Majesty may reasonably complain of the 

 injurious treatment she receives here in India : for not only is her 

 name misspelt, but her royal title also is most grossly misrepresented. 

 The crafty Musalman, whoever he was, who first suggested the pre- 

 posterous expression mdliJcd mtiVizzam^ must, when he found it adopted, 

 have chuckled immensely over the indignity he was passing on the 

 Queen of the unbelievers. Fortunately, the phrase is so thoroughly 

 outlandish, that it practically conveys no meaning in this country ; 

 though any Arab chief who heard it would derive from it a strangely 

 derogatory idea of the Empress of India. I remember reading an 

 article, which appeared in England about a year ago, taking this phrase 



