Indian Antiquary Vol 54

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 31

FEBRUARY, 1925] REMARKS ON THE ANDAMAN ISLANDERS AND THEIR COUNTRY
o, as the vowel in 'not' or in 'nought.'
o, as in 'go.'
u, as in 'fool.'
25
ö, nearly as the German ö.
"I have not attempted to distinguish all the different varieties of the vowel sounds that are found in the different dialects. Slightly different but closely related sounds are represented by the same letter."
4
On these statements I have to remark that apparently Mr. Brown has rearranged the system of representing the Andamanese vowels by introducing new ones into the Latin script £, a, a, and o, of which a, 2, and o would certainly be taken when in script for italicised vowels by printers, and are therefore innovations of doubtful value on that account. Next, he does not distinguish between long and short vowels, apparently of set purpose. E.g., he writes "e as the e in 'error' or the a in Mary'": "o as the vowels in 'not' or in ought.' Thus in South Andamanese he would not distinguish the a in alaba, a kind of tree and that in dake, don't: or between the two e's in emej, a kind of tree: or between the i in igbadigre, did-see, and that in pid, hair: or between the four kinds of o in boigoli, European; job, a basket; polike, does-dwell; and the two o's in togo, a shoulder, vrist: or between the two u's in bukura a kind of tree. He ignores altogether the diphthongs in daike, does-understand, chopaua, narrow and chau, body (the uu in the first is short and in the latter long in South Andamanese), and in boigoli, European. Can one accept Mr. Brown as a trustworthy guide to language in view of these remarks ?
The last quotation from him to be given here is: "Although I had acquired some knowledge of phonetics before I went to the Andamans, as a necessary part of the preliminary training of an ethnologist, yet it was not really sufficient to enable me to deal in a thoroughly scientific manner with the problems of Andamanese phonetics, and my further studies of the subject give me reason to believe that my phonetic analysis of the Andaman languages was not as thorough as it might have been." As a matter of fact he has merely succeeded in puzzling students, not in helping them.5
I now propose to give some account of the history of the script adopted for writing Andamanese by " former writers" for whose sake Mr. Brown has been willing" to make some 'sacrifices, of scientific exactness." The first person to attempt to 'write' Andamanese seriously was Mr. E. H. Man, and in this attempt I joined him in 1876, bringing to the task an extensive knowledge of what was then known as the Hunterian System of romanization, and an acquaintance with Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam among Dravidian languages, with Burmese and Talaing among Indo-Chinese languages, with Hindi, Hindustani and Persian of the Indo-Aryan languages, and some Sanskrit. I mention this fact to show that I was then no novice at hearing and recording an Oriental language or even a new unwritten
46
6 Mr. Man writing to me about Mr. Brown's transliteration says: "(Appendix B: pp. 495-6) Mr. Brown's choice of a system for representing the sounds in the Andamanese languages could scarcely be more unfortunate, and even if it were not faulty and defective, it is quite unsuitable for English and American students, whatever it may be for others. He gives e as the sound of a in say, and e as the e in error or as the a in Mary.' Yet he considers it necessary to have a to represent the sound of a in French pas" and a to represent the a in path: but o has to serve for the vowel in not as well as for the sound in nought. No provision is made for many sounds common in Andamanese. And then why represent such a word
as chalanga yb balaa. Shades of Ellis !"
• Sir William Hunter in reality merely modified Sir William Jone's system of 1794.