6 
F. B. Shawe —Tibetan Orthography and Pronunciation. [No. 1, 
Sanskrit, in order to be able to follow the influences exerted by these 
languages, especially by the former. At the present stage of our 
acquaintance with Tibetan, such comprehensive knowledge is an im¬ 
possibility. I confine myself therefore chiefly to the western dialects and 
the internal evidence of the classical book-language, referring to the 
eastern and central dialects only when comparison is necessary. 
Briefly expressed, the peculiarities of the usual modern pronun¬ 
ciation are:—1. A quite abnormal number of mute consonants, both at 
the beginning and end of the syllable. 2. Modulation of vowels, ap¬ 
parently dependant on the elision of consonants. 3. A large number 
of compositions of consonants pronounced identically, many of them 
becoming cerebrals. jy 
As the tendency of all languages is to tone down or el ide all harsh 
sounds, the fact that there are many mute consonants need not in itself 
cause surprise. We know from European languages, e. g., French 
and English, that such apparent vagaries in modern pronunciation are 
quite explicable, and present no reason for surprise to the student of 
the history of these languages.* 'The modification of vowel sounds is 
also a well-known process. But the wti olesal e sm oothing away and 
elision of consonants, which has taken place in Tibetan pronunciation, is, 
to say the least, of a sufficiently startling character. The rules which 
have governed such changes in other languages do not seem to hold good 
in this case. In numberless cases the consonants seem to have quite 
lost the power they originally appear to have had, so that the pronun¬ 
ciation now affords scarcely any clue to the orthography. Still, arguing 
iiby analogy, it must be granted, that the probability is in favour of the 
original ortho graphy really representing the oiufflnar~pronunciation. 
Very cogent reasons must be brought forward to induce us to abandon 
this position, indicated as it is alike by common sense and our knowledge 
of the development of other languages. 
In dealing with this question two great peculiarities of the Tibetan 
language must be borne in mind. One is, that the Tibetan language 
stands quite isolated, and allows of no comparison with other languages 
from a common stock. The other peculiarity is, that for us the Tibetan 
language not only suddenly comes into existence as a written language, 
but that since the invention of the alphabet by Ton-mi Sam-bho-ta in the 
7th century A.D., it has undergone no alteration in its character as a 
written language. 1 This is no doubt owing to the fact, that Tibetan 
1 This does not imply that absolutely no change or development has taken 
place, for it is possible to make three or four broad distinctions in style and con¬ 
struction. But a student of Tibetan can read an ancient and a modern book with 
the aid of one and the same grammar and dictionary, whilst, e. g., the “ Brut ” and 
even the “ Canterbury Tales ” require special study with special appliances. 
