The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 6
[subsection]
How can these principal Sounds, after proper Classification, be expressed by us in writing and printing, so as to preserve their physiological Value, without creating new typographical Difficulties?
The results at which we have arrived in the first part of our inquiry are those on which, with very slight and unimportant exceptions, all may be said to agree, who, whether in India or Europe, have attempted to analyse scientifically the elements of human speech. There are, no doubt, some refinements, and some more accurate subdivisions, as will be seen in the extracts given from the Pratisakhyas, which it will be necessary to attend to in exceptional cases, and particularly in philological researches. But, as far as the general physiological outlines of our phonetic system are concerned, we hardly expect any serious difference of opinion.
Widely different opinions, however, start up as soon as we approach the second question, how these sounds are to be expressed in writing. Omitting the different propositions to adopt an Oriental alphabet, such as Sanskrit or Arabic, or the Greek alphabet, or newly invented letters, whether short-hand or otherwise, we shall take it for granted that the Latin alphabet, which, though of Semitic origin, has so long been the armour of thought in the struggles and conquests of civilisation, has really the greatest and most natural claims on our consideration.
1. | That each sound shall have but one representative letter, and that therefore each letter shall always express the same sound. |
2. | That each simple sound shall be expressed by a single lette, and compound sounds by compound letters. |
If with these two principles we try to write the forty-fourconsonants of our physiological alphabet by means of the twenty-for consonants of the Latin, it follows that we must add to the latter diacritical signs, in order to make them answer our purpose.
"That the same modification should always be expressed by tie same diacritical mark."
In a theoretical system we might even go a step beyond this, and lay it down as a principle that the same diacritical mark should always express one and the same modification. The advantages which would result from the adoption of such a principle are palpable; but the variety of diacritical marks which it would entail upon us, and the number of new types which would have to be cast to carry it out consistently, must strongly militate against it, particularly in the construction of a Missionary alphabet. Here, as in all branches of Missionary labour, it must be our aim to obtain the greatest results by the smallest means.