5 
1891.] F. B. Sbawe — Tibetan Orthography and Pronunciation. 
It is well-known that one of the great difficulties presented to the 
student of the Tibetan language is the pronunciation. Whilst there 
is no essential difference of opinion as to the articulation of each letter 
when taken individually, the greatest possible variety of pronunciation 
prevails as soon as letters are combined into words. The dialectical 
divisions and sub-divisions are almost all apparently more or less at 
variance with the orthography, most of all in the central provinces 
U-Tsang When, e. g ., spyod-pa is pronounced 
•v" 
* cii-pa* smy on-pa is pronounced * nyom-pa,* dbyar is pro- 
nounced * yar* bcom-ldan- Q das is pronounced * com-dan 
da* as is the case in the central provinces, the student can easily get the 
idea, that the orthography, which now stands in the remotest possible 
relationship to the pronunciation, never did to any reasonable extent 
correspond to the spoken word. This opinion has indeed been expressed, 
of late years—unless I misunderstand him—by Babu Sarat Chandra 
Das, 1 who is acquainted particularly with the central dialects just 
referred to. 
Inquiries into the phonetics of the Tibetan language have been 
made, besides by Schiefner, Lepsius, and Czoma de Koros, notably by 
Jaeschke, who brought to bear on the matter an ear trained by the study 
of many languages to distinguish the smallest variations of pronuncia¬ 
tion, coupled with an infinite patience in continually revising and com¬ 
paring apparently well-ascertained facts. Jaeschke embodied the results 
of his observations in an essay “ Ueber die Phonetik der Tibetisclien 
Sprache ” 2 and in the “ Introduction ” to his “ Tibetan-English Diction¬ 
ary.” 3 The following remarks are based upon these two essays. 
My object, however, is not, as was Jaeschke’s, to enquire into the 
whole question of Tibetan phonetics, but simply to bring together what 
evidence we seem to have, especially in the western dialects, as to the 
original relationship of Tibetan spelling and pronunciation. An abso¬ 
lutely conclusive argument on this point cannot at present be given. To 
attempt it would pre-suppose an exhaustive practical and scientific ac¬ 
quaintance with the whole system of Tibetan dialects, besides Chinese and 
1 S. Ch. D., “The Sacred and Ornamental Characters of Tibet,” J. A. S. B., 
1888, Pt. I, No. 2, p. 43 :—“ It does not appear to me, that the Tibetans ever pro¬ 
nounced their words as they wrote them.” 
2 In the “ Monatsbericht der Konigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin,” 
1866. Re-printed as a pamphlet. 
3 London, 1881.—The labour involved in compiling the invaluable “ Phonetic 
Table ” on pp. XVI—XXI can only be appreciated by those who have attempted to 
trace a few words through dialectical variations often quite imperceptible to the 
untrained ear of a newly arrived foreigner. 
