Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 6

III. — How can this Physiological Alphabet be applied to existing Languages?

page 43

III.

How can this Physiological Alphabet be applied to existing Languages?

a. To unwritten Languages.

After the explanations contained in the first and second parts there is little more to be said on this point.

The missionary who attempts to write down for the first time a spoken language, should have a thorough knowledge of the physiological alphabet, and have practised it beforehand on his own language or on other dialects the pronunciation of which he knows.

He should put from recollection, as much as possible, the historical orthography of German, English, French, or whatever his language may be, and accustom himself to write down every spoken sound under the nearest physiological category to which it seems to belong. He should first of all endeavour to recognise the principal sounds, guttural, dental, and labial, in the language he desires to dissect and to delineate; and where doubtful whether he hears a simple or a modified secondary sound, such as have been described in our alphabet, he should always incline to the simple as the more original and general.

He should never be guided by etymological impressions. This is a great temptation, but it should be resisted. If we had to write the French word for knee, we should feel inclined, knowing that it sounds ginokyo in Italian and genu in Latin, to write it gĕnu. But in French the initial palatal sound is no longer produced by contact, but by a sibilant flatus, and we should therefore have to write zĕnu. If we had to write down the English sound of knee, we should probably, for the same reason, be willing to persuade ourselves that we still perceived, in the pronunciation of the n the former presence of the initial k. Still no one but an etymologist could detect it, and its sound should be represented in the Missionary alphabet by "ni."

Those who know the difficulty of determining the spelling of words according to their etymology, even in French or English, although we can follow the history of these languages for centuries, and although the most eminent grammarians have been engaged in analysing their structure, will feel how essential it is, in a first attempt to fix a spoken language, that the writer should not be swayed by any hasty etymo- page 44 logical theories. The Missionary should give a true transcript of a spoken language, and leave it to others to decipher it. He who, instead of doing this, attempts, according to his own theories, to improve upon the irregular utterance of savages, would deprive us of authentic documents the loss of which is irreparable. He would act like a traveller who, after copying an inscription according to what he thought, ought to have been its meaning, destroyed the original; nay, he may falsify unawares the ethnic history of the human race.

Several sentences having been once written clown, the Missionary should put them by for a time, and then read them aloud to the natives. If they understand what he reads, and if they understand it even if read by somebody else, his work has been successful, and a translation of the Bible carried out on these principles among Papuas or Khyengs will assuredly one day become the basis for the literature of the future.

Although the basis of our Standard Alphabet is purely physiological, still no letter has been admitted into it, which does not actually occur in one of the well known languages of Asia or Europe. The number of letters might easily have been increased, if we had attempted to represent all the slight shades of pronunciation, which affect certain letters in different languages, dialects, patois, or in the mouth of individuals. But to increase the number of letters is tantamount to diminishing the usefulness of an alphabet.

It may happen, indeed, as we become acquainted, through the persevering labours of Missionaries, with the numerous tongues of Africa, Polynesia, and Asia, that new sounds will have to be acknowledged, and will have an independent place allotted to them in our system. But here it should be a principle, as binding as any of the principles which have guided us in the composition of our alphabet, that

"No new sound should ever be acknowledged as such, until we are able to give a clear and scientific definition of it on physiological grounds."

We are too prone perhaps to imagine, particularly where we have to deal with languages gathered from the mouth of a single interpreter, or in the intercourse with a few travellers, that we hear sounds of an entirely new character, and apparently requiring a new sign. page 45 But if we heard the same language spoken for a number of years and by a thousand speakers, the natural variety of pronunciation would make our ears less sensitive, and more capable of appreciating the general rule, in spite of individual exceptions. We are not accustomed to pay attention to each consonant and vowel, as they are pronounced in our own language; and if we try for the first time to analyse each word as we hear it, and to write down every vowel and consonant in a language we do not understand, say Russian or Welsh, we shall be able to appreciate the difficulties which a Missionary has to overcome, if he tries to fix a language alphabetically, before he himself can converse in it freely. It has happened, that travellers collecting the dialects of tribes in the Caucasus or on the frontiers of India, have brought home and published lists of words gathered on the same spot and from the same people, and yet so different in their alphabetical appearances, that the same dialect has figured in ethnological works, under two different names. Much must be left to the discretion of Missionaries; for in most cases it is impossible to control the observations which they have made in countries hitherto unexplored, and in dialects known to themselves alone. But it will be found that Missionaries who know their language best, and have used it for the greatest number of years, familiar thus with all its sounds and accents, are least clamorous for new types, and most willing to indicate, in a general manner, what they know can never be represented with perfect accuracy. Too much distinction leads to confusion, and it shows a spirit of wise economy in the Phenician, the Greek, the Roman; and Teutonic nations, that they have contrived to express the endless variety of their pronunciation by so small a number of letters, rather than invent new signs and establish new distinctions. Attempts have been made occasionally, at Rome and elsewhere, to introduce new letters; but they have failed; and though we may feel no scruple to introduce new signs, and marks and accents into the African alphabets; though we, with our resources, may succeed for a time in framing an alphabet of our own where each letter, besides its simple value, has two or three additional values expressed by one, two, or three accents piled one upon the other,—common sense, without appealing to history, should teach us, that Africa will never bear what Europe has found insupportable.

page 46

The following alphabet, taken out of the general system of sounds, defined physiologically and represented graphically in the preceding pages, will be found to supply all that is necessary for the ordinary purposes of the Missionary, in his relation to tribes whom he has to teach the writing and reading of their own spoken language, pronounced inevitably by them with shades of sound that no alphabet can render. In philological works intended for a European public, the case will be different. Here it will be necessary to represent the accents of words, the quantities of vowels, and other features essential for grammatical purposes. Here the larger alphabet will come in; and it will always prove a reserve-fund to the scholar and Missionary, from which they can draw, after their usual supply of letters has been exhausted.

It should be borne in mind, that although in this smaller alphabet it would be easy to suggest improvements, no partial alteration can be made with any single letter, without disturbing at once the whole system of which it is but a segment.

Missionary Alphabet.

1. a, a Sara, psalm.
2. b bed.
3. d dock.
4. e, e debt, date.
5. f fat.
6. g gate.
7. h(') hand.
8. i, i knit, neat.
9. k kite.
10. 1 let.
11. m man.
12. n not.
13. o, o not, note.
14. P pan.
15. r run.
16. s sun.
17. t tan.
18. u, u full, fool.
19. v vail.
20. w will
21. y yet.
22. z zeal.
23. g join, gin.
24. k church.
25. ng (n) English.
26. ny (ñ) España, new.
27. h,('h) loch.
28. s she.
29. z pleasure.
30. th thin.
31. dh the.
32. O (ĕ, ŏ) but, birch, work.
33. ai ire.
34. au proud.
35. oi voice.
36. ou bought.
37. ä Väter.
38. ö König.
39. ü Güte.
page 47

If we compare this list of letters with the Anglo-Hindustani alphabet, so ably advocated by Sir Charles Trevelyan, the differences between the two are indeed but small; and if we had only to agree upon a small alphabet sufficient to express the sounds of the spoken Hindustani, there is no reason why the Anglo-Hindustani alphabet should not be adopted. It expresses the general sounds which occur in Oriental dialects, and it employs but five dotted letters, for which new types would be required.

The defects of this system become apparent, however, as soon as we try to expand it; and we are obliged to do this even in order to write Hindustani, unless we are ready to sacrifice the etymological distinction of words by expressing Hindustani script and Hindustani script by h, Hindustani script and Hindustani script by s, Hindustani script and Hindustani script by t, and Hindustani script and Hindustani script by z. If distinct types must be invented to distinguish these letters, the array of dotted letters will be considerably increased. Even in Hindustani we should have to use different diacritical marks where we have to express two, three, or four modifications of the same type; and it would become extremely perplexing to remember the meaning of all these marks. Our difficulties would be considerably increased if we tried to adapt the same letters to more developed alphabets, like Sanskrit and Arabic; and if we went on adding hooks and crooks, crosses and half-moons, dots and accents, &c., we should in the end have more modified than simple types.

These modified types might, no doubt, be reduced to a certain system; and, after determining the possible modifications of guttural and dental consonants, each diacritical mark might be used as the exponent of but one modification. A glance at the comparative table of the different systems of transliteration will show how this has been achieved by different scholars more or less successfully.

But it is only after this has been done, after all letters have been classified, after their possible modifications have been determined, after each modification has been provisionally marked by a certain exponent—such as the accent for expressing the palatal, dots for expressing the lingual modification,—it is then only that the real problem presents itself: "How can all these sounds be expressed by us in writing and printing, without sacrificing all chances of arriving page 48 in the end at one uniform and universal alphabet? " It is clear that every type that has to be compounded or cast afresh is an impediment in the progress of uniformity, because those who have once provided themselves with diacritical types will not change them for others, and those who have but a common English font at their disposal will express the necessary modifications as best they can. The question, then, that must be solved, is not whether we should take dots or hooks, but whether it is possible to express all essential modifications in such a manner as to take away all excuse for individual crotchets, by proposing an expedient accessible to every one. This can be done if we avail ourselves of the resources of our fonts, which invariably contain a supply of one class of modified letters—italics. Many scholars, from Halhed down to Ellis, have seen the use to which these letters could be put in transliterating Oriental languages; but they have not hitherto been employed systematically. The principle by which we have been guided in making use of italics is this:

As in each language most letters are liable to but one modification, let that modification, whatever it be, be expressed by italics.

We thus reduce the number of letters, in our physiological alphabet, that require diacritical marks, on account of their being liable to more than one modification in the same language, to two: and while our Missionary alphabet is thus accessible in every part of the world, we reserve our few diacritical dots to the purposes of transliteration, where, as in Arabic, we may have to represent the same type with more than one diacritical mark.

b. To written Languages.

Though this is a question which for the present hardly falls within the compass of Missionary labours, still it may be useful to show that, if required, our alphabet would also be found applicable to the transliteration of written languages. Besides, wherever Missionary influence is powerful enough, it should certainly be exerted towards breaking down those barriers which, in the shape of different alphabets, prevent the free intercourse of the nations of the East.

page 49

The philologist and the archæologist must, indeed, acquire a knowledge of these alphabets, as in the case when their study is a language extinct, and existing, perhaps, in the form of inscriptions alone. But where there is no important national literature clinging to a national alphabet, where there are but incipient traces of a reviving civilisation, the multiplicity of alphabets—the worthless remnant of a bygone civilisation bequeathed, for instance, to the natives of India—should be attacked as zealously by the Missionary as the multiplicity of castes and of divinities. In the Dekhan alone, with hardly any literature of either national or general importance, we have six different alphabets—the Telugu, Tamil, Canarese, Malabar, Tuluva, and Singhalese—all extremely difficult and inconvenient for practical purposes. Likewise, in the northern dialects of India almost every one has its own corruption of the Sanskrit alphabet, sufficiently distinct to make it impossible for a Bengalese to read Guzerati, and for a Mahratta to read Kashmirian letters. Why has no attempt been made to interfere, and recognise at least but one Sanskritic alphabet for all the northern, and one Tamulian alphabet for all the southern, languages of India? In the present state of the country, it would be bold and wise to go even beyond this; for there is very little that deserves the name of a national literature in the modern dialects of the Hindus. The sacred, legal, and poetical literature of India is either Arabic, Persian, or Sanskrit. Little has grown up since, in the spoken languages of the day. Now it would be hopeless, should it ever be attempted, to eradicate the spoken dialects of India, and to supplant them by Persian or English. In a country so little concentrated, so thinly governed, so slightly educated, we cannot even touch at present what we wish to eradicate. If India were laid open by highroads, reduced by railways, and colonised by officials, the attempt might be conceivable, though, as to anything like success, a trip through Wales, and a glance at the history of England, would be a sufficient answer. But what might be done in India, perhaps even now, is to supplant the various native alphabets by Roman letters. The people in India who can write are just the men most open to Government influence. If the Roman alphabet were taught in the village schools—of late much encouraged by the Government, particularly in the north-western provinces—if all official documents, in page 50 whatever language, had to be transcribed into Roman letters to obtain legal value; if the Government would issue all laws and proclamations transcribed in Roman characters, and Missionaries do the same with their translations of the Bible and other works published in any dialect of India, I think we might live to see one alphabet used from the "snows " to Ceylon.

Let us see, then, how our physiological Missionary alphabet could be applied to languages which have not only an alphabet of their own, but also an established system of orthography.

We have here to admit two leading principles:—

First, that in transliterating written languages, every letter, however much its pronunciation may vary, should always be represented by the same Roman type, and that every Roman type should always represent the same foreign letter, whatever its phonetic value may be in different combinations.

Secondly, that every double letter, though in pronunciation it may be simple, should be transliterated by a double letter, and that a single letter, although its pronunciation be that of a double letter, should be transliterated by a single letter.

If these two principles be strictly observed, everyone will be able to translate in his mind a Canarese book, written with Roman letters, back into Canarese letters, without losing a tittle of the peculiar orthography of Canarese. If we attempted to represent the sounds in transcribing literary languages, we should be unable to tell how, in the original, sounds admitting of several graphic representations were represented. In written languages, therefore, we must rest satisfied with transliterating letters, and not attempt to transcribe sounds.

This will cause certain difficulties, particularly in languages where pronunciation and spelling differ considerably. In Arabic we must write al ra'hman, though we pronounce arra'hman; and even in Greek, if we had to transliterate Greek script, we should, no doubt, have to write 'eggus, though none but a Greek scholar would know how to pronounce this correctly ('engüs). But if, instead of imitating the letters, we attempted to represent their proper pronunciation at a certain period of history, how should it be known, for instance, in transcribing the French of the nineteenth century, whether "su" stood for "sou," page 51 halfpenny, or "sous," under, or "soul," tipsy. In historical languages the system of orthography is too important a point to be lost in transcribing, though it is a mistake to imagine that in living languages all etymological understanding would be lost if phonetic reforms were introduced. The change in the pronunciation of words, though it may seem capricious, is more uniform and regular than we imagine; and if all words were written alike according to a certain system of phonetics, we should lose very little more of etymology than we have already lost. Nay, in some cases, the etymology would be re-established by a more consistent phonetic spelling. If we wrote "foreign" "forĕn," and "sovereign" "soverĕn," we should not be led to imagine that either was derived from "reign," regnum, and the analogy of such words as "Africĕn" would point out "foranus"or " foraneus" as the proper etymon of "forĕn." But although every nation has the right to reform the orthography of its language, with all things else, where usage has too far receded from original intention, still, so long as a literary language maintains its historical spelling, the principle of transliteration must be to represent letter by letter, not sound by sound.

Which letter in our physiological alphabet should be fixed upon as the fittest representative of another letter in Arabic or Sanskrit, in Hindustani or Canarese, must in each case depend on special agreement. If we found that Sanskrit script in Sanskrit had in most words the nature of the guttural spiritus, we should have to write it' or h, even though m some respects it may represent the guttural semi-vowel. If Hebrew script in Hebrew can be proved to have been originally the simple guttural semi-vowel, it will have to be written 'h, even though it was pronounced as semi-vocalis fricata("h), as guttural flatus asper ('h), as guttural media aspirata (gh), or not pronounced at all. Likewise, if English were to be transliterated with our alphabet, we should not adopt any of the principles of the "Fonetic Nus;" but here also, if the letter h had been fixed upon as on the whole the fittest representative of the English letter h, we should have to write it even where it was not pronounced, as in honest.

It will be the duty of Academies and scientific societies to settle, for the principal languages, which letters in the Missionary alphabet will best express their corresponding alphabetical signs.

page 52

The first question, taking a type, for instance, of the Sanskrit alphabet, would be, "What is its most usual and most original value? " If this be fixed, then, "Is there another type which has a better claim to this value? "If so, their claims must be weighed and adjusted. When this question is settled, and the physiological category is found under which the Sanskrit type has its proper place, we have then to look for the exponent of this physiological category in the Missionary alphabet, and henceforth always to transliterate the one by the other.

The following lists will show how some of the Arian, Semitic, and Turanian languages have been transliterated, and how all these alphabets and their transcriptions can be expressed by means of the Missionary alphabet. Objections, I am aware, can hardly fail to be raised on several points, because the original character of several Hebrew, Arabic, and Sanskrit letters has been so frequently controverted. If the disputed value of these letters can be clearly settled by argument, be it so; and it will then never be difficult to find the exponent of that physiological category to which it has been adjudged. Failing this, the question should be decided by authority or agreement; for, of two views which are equally plausible, we must, for practical purposes, manifestly confine ourselves to one.

page break
Comparative Table,

Comparative Table,

Showing Some of the Chief Systems of Transcription and Transliteration Hitherto Adopted in England, France, and Germany, and Their Correspondence with the Missionary Alphabet

page 53

Text of a Hymn of the Rigveda,

Transcribed with the Missionary Alphabet.

Na-asad asin, no sad asit tadanim, na-asid rago, no vyoma paro yat,

Kim avarivah? kuha kasya sarmann? ambhah kim asid gahanam gabhiram?

Na mrityur asid, amritam na tarhi; na ratrya ahna asit praketah

Anid avatam svadhaya tad ekam, tasmad dba-anyam na parah kimka na-asa.

Tama asit, tamasa gulham agre 'praketam salilam sarvarn a idam,

Tukhyena-abhv apihitam yad asit tapasas tan mahina-agayata-ekam.

Kamas tad agre samavartata-adhi, manaso retah, prathamam yad asit,

Sato bandhum asati niravindan hridi pratisliya kavayo manisha.

Tiraskino vitato rasmir esbam adha svid asid? upari svid asit?—

Retodha asan, mahimana asant, svadba avastat, prayatih parastat.

Ko addha veda, ka iha pravokat, kuta agata kuta iyam visrishlih?

Arvag deva asya visarganena-atba ko veda yata ababhuva?

Iyam visrishtir yata ababhuva, yadi va dadbe yadi va na,

Yo asya-adhyaksbah parame vyomant, so anga veda—yadi va na veda.

Oxford, Christmas,

The End,

page break

London:

A. and G. A. Spottiswoode,

New-street-Square.