212 Report on Writing Indian Words [No. 8, New Series, 



4. With regard to the 5 first, Professor Wilson gives no 

 reasons for this difference from Shakespear, but it is proba- 

 bly owing to his having arranged his roman letters first for 

 Sanscrit, and when other z's or s's came in Persian and Hin- 

 dustani, he was obliged to adopt a new form. This is evident 

 from his making s the equivalent for the Sanscrit ¥\, and 

 thus Shakespear's s for ^ was changed into s. In Southern 

 India the Sanscrit STT is sounded like " Sh" as in Shiva, and 

 Shrotriyam, and I am inclined to write it Sh, especially as 

 in Hindustani, it is represented by and in Telugu by s\ 

 Sir William J ones writes it s, and so do many other Oriental- 

 ists, and therefor I would adopt s. Which ever way it is, 

 the equivalent for ^ better remain as Shakespear has it viz., s. 



5. With regard to the letters ^ and ; according to 

 Shakespear the former is the common h, but the latter has a 

 dot under it or h. Wilson just reverses this, but with hesita- 

 tion, as he acknowledges. I prefer Shakespear, not only as 

 being established, but because a dot generally denotes a more 

 decided sound, and this is the case with , which is sometimes 

 sounded so strong that Europeans have written it ch, as in 

 Achmet for Ahmad. Sir William Jones distinguished it by 

 an accent thus : Yt. 



6. With regard to V ; Wilson renders it kh, and thus 



makes no difference between it and ^, whereas there is a very 

 wide difference, as any one can hear in the pronunciation of 

 a house, and food, or khdna and hlidnd. Shakes- 

 pear's distinction of kh to shew it is all one letter, I would pre- 

 serve, though I admit it is not absolutely necessary if the as- 

 pirates are accentuated as recommended in para. 2. 



7. With regard to ^ much the same observations as 

 above occur. Wilson says that it is a modification of g, and 

 writes it gh ; but this is mere matter of taste, and no incon- 

 venience can result from the well known equivalent used by 

 Shakespear viz., gh and so distinguishing it from g'h, 



