oct. —-MA.it. 1859-60.] in Roman characters. 247 



ley then expressed the same objection he does now, but conceded 

 the matter in consideration of the gain on the side of simplicity 

 of notation. 



I consider therefore that this adaptation should stand. 



5. I regret that I cannot give in my adhesion to the use of 

 " ts" and " dz" for the Telugu -jf and and that for the reasons 

 adduced in the report. The people themselves do not make any 

 such distinctions in their system of notation and have no difficulty 

 in catching the proper sound in practice. This case differs, I con- 

 ceive, from the partly analogous use of Tamil, because in the latter 

 the alphabet is actually deficient in the normal sounds required, 

 whereas the Telugu alphabet is complete and the circumstance of 

 two letters being liable to certain varying shades of pronunciation 

 should not, in my opinion, lead to the adoption of additional signs 

 to represent such differences. 



6. I have no objection to Mr. Bayley's additions in respect to 

 the letter ^ but I see no advantage in having a diacritical mark 

 as in the word darkhwast. 



7. A reference to the para, at p. 13 and to the scheme at p. 16 

 at which the letter is discussed will show that it is prepared to 



be represented by ? as Mr. Bayley desires, and that no reference 

 is made to the substitution of " zh." 



8. At p. 15 of the Report, Mr. Bayley's scheme for writing ^ 

 is distinctly recommended for adoption, and it is only added that 

 the Megsis plan is deserving of commendation. Mr. Bayley's re- 

 marks refer to my Memo, which was written long before we had 

 any discussion or before I had read his or Mr. Norman's schemes. 



I should have been glad to have seen the continuation of Mr. 

 Bayley's paper and with reference to it and to the foregoing re- 

 marks to have prepared a revised edition of the report. This 1 may 

 perhaps have the opportunity of doing in combination with him 

 at home. 



Walter Elliot. 



