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

Missionary Alphabet

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.