284: MISCELLANEOUS NOTES. 
t is only necessary to say in regard to this, that the Committce 
was appointed to procure uniformity in spelling, and that their 
system was only recommended to the Society’s contributors for that 
end, (1) and by no means for the purpose of promoting philological 
study ; and no spelling system can properly be gauged by any test 
ofthat kind. It may not be beside the point to remark further that 
the parent Asiatic Society also published, in the first number of its 
“ Researches” (1784), a system of transliteration by Sir W. Jonzs, 
the general principles of which have more and more recommended 
themselves to the best judges, whether in Europe or India. It is 
confidently asserted that the Committee’s system followed those 
principles much more nearly than their critic’s system does, both in 
adopting “a specific symbol for every sound,’ and in making 
use of “the help of diacritical marks.” 
It is, of course, impossible to know when the last word on any 
subject has been said, but it will be a pity if the ingenious but too 
fantastic suggestions of this latest writer should be hastily taken 
for the “last word” by any of the general contributors to our 
Journal. The system settled in 1878 has now been tried for some 
years and has been found already of practical advantage—chiefly 
because it has been looked upon as a settled system. (7) 
(1) I do not admit that a system of spelling should be recommended to 
the Society simply because it proposes to establish uniformity. A thoroughly 
bad system might nevertheless be uniferm!y followed if every one were con- 
tent. But wniformity has not been attained and cannot be attained when each 
one has to decide by his ear whether he shall write @, uv, 6 or 0; 7, 7, é or €; and 
soon. The member who takes up the cudgels on behalf of the Committee un- 
intentionally affords me an excellent illustration of this. He quotes the words 
sendok, the first syllable of which is said to be pronounced like the English 
word ten. Now this word (senduk ) was quoted by me (p. 145 ) as an exam- 
ple of the indefinite vowel-sound common in Malay and was said to be pro- 
nounced s’nduk. Without arguing tae question as to which is correct, I ask 
how uniformity in spelling is to be expected when men are to be guided by 
pronunciation which varies in different localities and for which there is no 
recognised standard? Uniformity isan illusion and the sooner the idea is 
given up the better. What I have proposed is that a or e, i or é, and u or 
0, Shall be equally correct provided that the Malay mode of writing and re 
cognised derivations are not departed from. 
(2) This scems to me to beg the question. The settled condition claimed 
for the Government system, will be disproved in-five minutes by any one who 
will take up the Government Blue-book or other publications. 
W. EM. 
