1895 .] 
Report on Transliteration. 
325 
thinks that, he cannot accept this notation, and he has been kind 
enough to reduce his reservations to writing in the following terms : — 
“ It is desirable, in the interests of Indo-European linguistic science, 
and quite apart from all personal conceptions of the question, that the 
notation r, l should be preferred to the notation r l for this reason, 
that in the analysis of every Indo-Enropean language Sanskrit not 
excepted, the vowels m n hold a position in all respects equivalent to 
that of the vowels r l; consequently, if we adopt r Z, we compel 
linguists to write m n , and as a further consequence there arises a 
confusion between m and certain notations of anus vara—and between 
n and the cerebral consonant nT 
• • 
The Sub-Commission is compelled to recognize the force of this 
argument which is, moreover, all the stronger from the fact that 
MM. Buhler and Windisch bear testimony that the German Oriental 
Society had originally of its own accord inserted in its programme the 
transcription r and Z, with a circle. If in spite of this, the Sub-Com¬ 
mission has not thought fit to propose the adoption of this amendment, 
its action is due to considerations of a purely practical nature. The 
German Committee only decided upon the transcription r and Z (with 
a dot) after due discussion, and a special vote. 
Would it then be wise to reopen the debate upon a question of 
detail upon which the German Committee finally accepted without 
previous agreement, the English proposals ? Would not this be to 
endanger at the very outset, an undertaking the success of which is so 
eagerly desired ? On the other hand, it seems essential to the really 
wide and general spread of the system, that it should as far as possible, 
offer to the eyes even of the uninitiated, only such symbols as will 
neither grate against their sensibilities nor startle them — signs with 
which they are sufficiently familiar from their habitual use in other 
directions in the current alphabet. 
It is moreover only too evident that the transcription in which 
we attempt to come to an understanding, would not satisfy the 
demands of linguistic science, in themselves perfectly legitimate at 
least without many other retouchings which must, however, be given up 
since the only excuse for introducing them would condemn the attempt 
beforehand to an annoying barrenness of results. I pass on to the points 
very few in number, in which we have been obliged to exercise a choice, 
owing to the two systems not agreeing. No sign for the long l vowels 
has been fixed upon by the German Oriental Society. The notation pro¬ 
posed by the London Society, by meams of Z with two dots underneath 
it, appears to recommend itself. Typographic exigencies do not permit of 
the letter Z being surmounted by the sign of the long accent. This lack 
