8 F. B. Shawe— Tibetan Orthography and Pronunciation . [No. 1, 
grub ; the corresponding active verb “ to complete ” is IpTM" sgrub-pa , 
with the Perf. bsgrubs, the Fut. bsgrub , and the Imper. 
-o 
sgrub(s). Here we have at least five different orthographical 
forms, all derived from the same root and all pronounced alike *dup .* 
"'V’* 
Again: Jbyor-ba , nent. “to adhere to,” and g-VH' sbyor-ba , 
act, “ to affix,” both pronounced *jor-iva* (or sometimes *cor-wa *). The 
neuter form has the alternative reading Q byar-ba , whilst the 
Perf. and Fut. of the active form is g*.' 2 ^ sbyar-ba, both pronounced 
* jar-wa* Again Q5 TI T Q du-ba , neut. “to come together; ” Perf. 
o dws ; |JYM T sdud-pa, act “to assemble,” Perf. bsdus, Fut. 
Imper. Mw or bsdus . The pronunciation in central 
Tibet of five of these forms is identical, *dii* Slightly different is the 
case of the verb 0 jug-pa, which is both neuter “ to enter ” and 
active “ to put into.” The neuter verb has Perf. zhugs , whilst the 
active verb has Perf. bcug , Fut. yzhug, Imper. ^^1 'Pug. 
In this case the identical orthography of the Present gives way to a 
marked difference in the Perfects, whilst the neuter Perf. {zhugs) and the 
active future ( yzhug ) are identical in pronunciation, * yzhuh* Again 
slightly different is yton-ba “ to give,” Perf. btan , Fut. 
*)bsr ytan ; both Perf. and Fut. are pronounced “ tanP 
Such examples could easily be amplified ; the “ list of the more 
frequent verbs” in Jaeschke’s Grammar 1 suggests many more. But 
the above will suffice to illustrate the remarkable fact, that though 
homophonous verbal forms are frequent, they are almost invariably care¬ 
fully differentiated by the orthography. The question at once arises, what 
the reason of this peculiarity may be. Do these detailed orthographical 
distinctions rest upon the basis of actual articulation current at the time 
the language became literary, or are they merely grammatical refine¬ 
ments ? Though not probable, it is certainly possible, that the latter 
may be the case. The intricacies of Buddhist philosophy require for their 
correct expression accurately distinguishable verbal forms, and it is 
not impossible that the translators, accustomed to the rich structure of 
Sanscrit, found themselves obliged to make artificial distinctions, where 
the language at their disposal did not supply them. They might there¬ 
fore have adopted the use of mute prefixed and superscribed letters to 
1 2nd Ed., p. 99 and ff. 
