Indian Antiquary Vol 11

SR No.: 032503
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 396
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 292

264
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[SEPTEMBER, 1882.
acters best to be turned into European ones, in view of the very great use made of the latter by Sanskrit scholars and by philologists generally. Not only are Sanskrit words and forms constantly needing to be quoted in philological works, where the intricacy of the devanagart alphabet and the difficulty of setting it along with our ordinary types make transliteration necessary; whole volumes, and of every class, are published in the transliterated form, even such texts as the Rig. Veda (Aufrecht), the Taittirlya-Samhita (Weber), the Aitareya-Brahmana (Aufrecht), etc. There is nothing illegitimate about this; the language is written in India, to no small extent, in whatever alphabet the writers are accustomed to employ for other purposes; and there is no reason why we may not allow ourselves to do the same.
The systems of transliteration employed are in detail very various, almost every leading scholar and periodical having a peculiar one, more or less different from every other. Respecting only a small minority of letters is there entire agree ment: these are a, i, u, k, g, t, d, p, b, n, m, r, 1, 8; although also t, d, h, h, are used nearly universally. It is true that this variety causes little practical difficulty, since he who employs one system is but slightly embarrassed to understand any of the rest; and hence scholars need not be strongly urged to abandon methods long employed by them and take up new ones; yet it is evidently desirable that usage should at any rate be made to tend gradually toward unity. The points of discord. ance are of every kind and degree: in some cases, choice is a matter of indifference, and must be arbitrarily made, merely for the sake of unity; but there are also signs current whose use is decidedly to be reprobated, and, if possible, put down.
In reference to the vowels, in the first place, the leading question is, how long quantity shall be marked. The usual English and hence also Indian) method has long been to write an acute accent over the long vowel : thus, á. This is wholly to be disapproved; both because there is no adaptedness in such a mark to such a purpose, and because it thus becomes impossible to accentuate a vowel at all. Continental usage is divided between the macron and the circumflex accent: thus ã or a. The choice between these two is comparatively indifferent; yet the former (ā) must be allowed to be on the whole preferable, for the reasons that the macron was devised for this particular purpose and has no other, and that it is more easily combined with the accent-marks (a consideration of prime importance): there is, in fact, a degree of incongruity in writing two accent-marks, a circumflex and an acute or graves
over the same letter. Grassmann's device, of using the macron for simple long and the cir. cumflex for long acute, is ingenious, and obviates a certain difficulty as regards type; but it is hardly worthy of general adoption, since it involves an inconsistency, and also leaves the case of a long circumflex (svarita) unprovided for. For these reasons, after employing the circumflex-sign for thirty years, I have myself recently adopted the macron instead.
The question of representation of the r-vowel is of quite another kind. Two signs divide between them general usage: namely, ? and ri (and to the former of these Lepsius's sign, with little circle instead of dot beneath the r, may be regard. ed as practically equivalent, being theoretically preferable). Here the choice is not a matter of indifference, but involves an obviously important principle : not to give unnecessarily to a single element a double sign involving a false utterance. All who understand Sanskrit phonetics know that the sound represented is a pure r-sound, and that ri is a later Hindu mispronunciation; there is no reason, theoretical or practical, why we should adopt and perpetuate the error. Simple, with marks of quantity and of accent to be added as in the case of the other short vowel signs, is the only acceptable representative. It follows, of course, that , and not li, and à fortiori not that monstrous absurdity lri, should be written for the l-vowel.
The representation of the diphthongs has its minor difficulties. For the guna-diphthongs, there is almost universal acceptance of the signs e, o, with the corresponding pronunciation; and this pronunciation has been so long the custom in India, and hence also without exception in Europe, that no scruple need be felt as to admitting the e- and o-signs. Yet the value of those diphthongs was so evidently ai, au at the beginning, and even in earliest Sanskrit, that we cannot help wishing it were possible to introduce the corresponding written forms-as indeed has been done, though without further imitation, by one or two French scholars, the usages of their own language favoring the substitution. The heavier diphthongs are written either ai, au or ai, au: the latter are more etymologically correct, but the former are easier, and sufficiently well suited to e, o; there is not much to choose between them. To make evident the diphthongal quantity, è and 7 are written by some; it is well enough, yet seems a needless trouble; Grassmann's ē, 7 for the heavier diphthongs has found no imitation, and is not to be commended.
The designation of the acute (udatta) accent by our ordinary acute mark is universal: and nearly or quite so is likewise that of the circumflex