70 E. H. Walsh— Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2, 
Although this Dictionary was published at Hongkong in 1899, 
copies did not reach this country till some time later. Towards 
the end of J901, I had the opportunity of comparing this Dictionary 
of M. Desgodins with the proofs of certain portions of the Dictionary 
now under review, and found that it contained a certain num¬ 
ber of words that did not occur in the present Dictionary. I there¬ 
fore suggested both to Rai Sarat Chandra Das, and to the Rev. 
Mr. Heyde, that it would be useful if a comparison of the two dic¬ 
tionaries were made, and any words found in Desgodins’ Dictionary that 
do not occur in the present one were added as an appendix at the end, 
for reference ; as, even if not accepted as correct, they would serve as a 
basis for further research and enquiry. 
The compiler and reviser, however, both thought that this was not 
desirable. It certainly appears to be a pity that this could not have 
been done. Had these words been published as an appendix, stating the 
source from which they were taken, the compiler and revisers would 
have incurred no responsibility for their correctness, and those using the 
Dictionary ’would have had the opportunity of checking them by the 
test of usage. It is probable that so far as they are not known on this 
side of Tibet, they are words in use in the dialects of the Eastern pro¬ 
vinces where, as already noted, the earlier materials for M. Fage’s 
dictionaries were collected, and where Father Desgodins himself laboured 
for more than thirty years. 
The consideration of this question leads to two other questions of 
importance, namely: (1) what authority is requisite for the acceptance 
of words in colloquial use; and (2) to what extent are the variations 
of dialect to be recognised in a Standard Tibetan Dictionary. 
As regards the first of these questions it must be borne in mind 
that the modern and colloquial language of Tibet differs so entirely? 
except in the case of comparatively few words and expressions, from the 
classical literary language, as to constitute almost two distinct languages ; 
and also that there is practically no Tibetan literature in the current 
colloquial of the day. 
The authority for the meaning or usage of current words cannot 
therefore be based, as in other languages, on their acceptance in the 
writings of the country, and must be accepted on personal authority 
until they can be checked by other observers. 
It is, in fact, the chief defect of the present Dictionary that it does 
not distinguish between words that are purely literary, those which while 
literary are at the same time also in current use, and those which are 
purely current and colloquial. 
It is true that the author “ has marked such words as he considers 
