310 
Mr. Taylor. — As a simple test of the usefulness of a syllabic system, I may 
point out that the J apanese are now proposing to replace their own syllabic 
writing by the English alphabet. As you multiply your forms and symbols 
it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between them. If you 
have fifty or sixty syllables to be represented by separate symbols, the 
symbols will be either so much alike as to be difficult to distinguish, or so 
complicated as to be tedious to write, and difficult to remember. 
Sir George Campbell, M.P. — I have been much interested in the 
address which Mr. Taylor has given us, but with regard to the Arabic I 
do not think he has brought out very clearly, to those who are not 
acquainted with it, the direct connection of that with the original Phoenician. 
He describes Arabic as a succession of strokes and dots, the dots being 
necessary in order to distinguish the strokes from each other. Now, I 
have had some practice in it, and I know that, as a written character, it 
has some great advantages over our own, and is written with greater facility 
and quickness. Perhaps Mr. Taylor will be good enough to give us some 
further explanation of the connection between the Arabic alphabet and the 
original Phoenician alphabet. Then I fear Mr. Taylor has done but scant 
justice to the Sanskrit alphabet — that admirable and excellent and expressive 
alphabet, one of the best in the world — in treating it as a mere sub-branch of 
one of the great families of alphabets. I think that in its development, not 
only of the simple consonants, but of the aspirated and double consonants 
and vowels, we may find much that is both interesting and excellent. My 
impression is that the Sanskrit alphabet may be more easily traced to the 
Phoenician, but with regard to the Arabic I do not see the connection. 
Mr. Taylor. — I only mentioned the Arabic as an example of facility in 
writing, and it is obvious that what is easy to write is often difficult to read. 
As to the Sanskrit alphabet, I had no time to dwell on its merits, but merely 
alluded to its derivation from the Semitic alphabet. The exact stages of 
the affiliation are still disputed amongst scholars. As to its perfection, no 
doubt it is beautifully perfect in theory, but its typographical signs are 
numbered up to 328, and I should like to know whether a newspaper, such 
as the Times, could possibly be printed under such a system. The difficulty 
of distinguishing between the numerous types is so great that Sanskrit 
scholars correct their proofs by means of reference numbers referring to 
the types, instead of actually writing the letter in the margin of their 
proof-sheets. 
Sir George Campbell. — My experience is that Arabic is not at all 
difficult to learn or to write, nor is it difficult to read. But the great question 
which I wished to raise was whether there is proof that the Arabic is a 
derived alphabet, and' does not come from an independent source ? 
Mr. Taylor. — I think there is no doubt at all of that. It clearly comes 
from the Aramaic, through the Palmyrene, which is an alphabet written 
at Palmyra in the time of Zenobia. We have many inscriptions in that 
alphabet, and it can be affiliated through the Hauran alphabet to the alphabet 
