Oct. 1858. — Mar. 1859.] In Roman Characters* 213 



8. With regard to ^, that letter will be separately consi- 

 dered in an Appendix to this memo. 



9. I would not use italics at all. They may answer as 

 distinctive marks in printing ; but in writing to underline 

 letter, might denote either a diacritical mark, or an italic ; 

 and it might be doubtful which. 



1 0. In ordinary writing, the following marks might be 

 omitted : the dots underneath, to distinguish d from d, — s 

 from s~—z from z and z, — t from t and t &c. ; but I would re- 

 tain the aspirate in k'h Vh &c. ; unless it were arranged to use 

 hh and gh for^ and^. The long vowel accents should be re- 

 tained, as also the mark over a for the Sanscrit S[f. The 

 mark representing ^might also be omitted in common writing. 



The above concession does not at all diminish the ex- 

 pediency of framing rules, whereby to write in Roman charac- 

 ter, with diacritical points, the Eastern languages. In gram- 

 mars and dictionaries the strict rule should be adhered to, 

 and also in books printed throughout in the Roman character. 

 The Roman rendering should be such, that one conversant 

 with the rules, should be able to convert the words written or 

 printed in that character, into their original character. That 

 is the test of a correct method ; and of course in this case, all 

 the diacritical points are required to be used. 



I now proceed to offer in an Appendix, my remarks on 

 the rendering of ^. 



APPENDIX. 



Rendering of letter * . 



J . The rendering in roman character of the letter ^, has 

 as Wilson observes, " always constituted a difficulty," 



