Report on Transliteration. 
126 
[July, 
of symmetry ; side by side with r and f, has so much the less importance 
because the l as a long vowel is more rarely used. 
For the e and the o in Sanskrit it seems of no advantage to place 
the sign of the long accent above the letter; no confusion is possible : 
and it appears preferable to keep tlie use of diacritical signs for 
exceptional cases where, whether in Sanskrit or in Prakrit, one has to 
denote the short e or the short o, e, o. 
For the guttural n, we propose to adopt n with a dot above it. 
It does not seem that there is any ground for introducing as the London 
table proposes, a particular sign specially invented to meet this unique 
case. The notation n is widely used among Indianists of all countries, 
and as for the objection which the London Society advances against 
the addition of a diacritical sign over a consonant, this has all the less 
weight with us in that every one agrees in accepting the form n to 
represent the palatal n. The notation n is based on the analogy of 
other nasals and need give rise to no surprise. 
By a very curious change of positions it is the English who propose 
p for the palatal sibilant and the Germans who propose the notation s, 
whereas s was originally very generally employed in the English 
trancriptions and p in those of the continent. This is perhaps, for the 
very reason of the wide diffusion of this sign p, the most delicate point 
upon which yon have to decide. 
Your Sub-Committee did not underrate the difficulties which 
exist in modifying old customs, and the danger there is of more serious 
error between three different s forms. If however, they finally decide 
in favour of the transcription s, this decision is not due to any excessive 
desire for symmetry between the sibilants, but is for three reasons 
which it will suffice to rapidly indicate. 
The first is happily expressed by the report of the London Society. 
It rightly recommends preference being given to transcriptions of such 
a kind that in cases where the diacritical signs are compulsorily or 
accidentally omitted, the pronunciation will not be too far disfigured for 
European ears. Although this principle is not capable of invariable 
application it is good to keep to it as far as possible. 
On the other hand, great stress has been laid upon the disfavour 
with which the notation p is sure to be regarded in India : the French 
practice having only familiarised very few people with this letter. This 
would come as a surprise to the great majority of those interested. 
Dr. Biihler considers that if we attempted to bring over to it, for example 
the Indian Antiquary , we should encounter an invincible opposition. 
This is a consideration whose gravity it is impossible to ignore. The 
superiority of s for clearness and convenience *of indexing has no less 
impressed the Commission. 
