tative spelling of the foreign name has been given its simplest English transliteration, preference being given, in cases of doubt, to the form, for instance in African countries, adopted by the European nation in possession or control. In the absence of any central authority or international Method adopted. agreement, the result is occasionally different in some slight degree from any common English variant, but this cannot well be helped when English variants are so capricious, and none persistent and the names selected are those which for purposes of reference combine the most accuracy with the least disturbance of familiar usage. Thus the German African colony of Kamerun is here called Cameroon, an English form which follows the common practice of English transliteration in regard to its initial letter, but departs, in deference to the German official nomenclature, from the older English Cameroons, a plural no longer justifiable, although most English newspapers and maps still perpetuate it.
In the case of personal names, wherever an English spelling has become sufficiently established both in literature and in popular usage it has been retained, irrespectively of any strict linguistic value. Foreign names in English shape really become English words, and they are so treated
Proper names
in Oriental
languages. here; e.g. Alcibiades (not Alkibiades), Juggernaut (not Jagganath). But discrimination as to where convenience rather than philological correctness should rule has been made all the more difficult, especially with names representing Arabic or other Oriental originals, by the strong views of individual scholars, who from time to time attempt in their own writings to impose their own transliterations upon others, in the face of well-established convention. In the course of the preparation of the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, various eminent Arabic scholars have given strong expression to their view as to the English form of the name of the Prophet of Islam, preference being given to that of Muhammad. But the old form Mahomet is a well-established English equivalent; and it is here retained for convenience in identification where the Prophet himself is referred to, the form Mahommed being generally used in distinction for other persons of this name. Purists may be dissatisfied with this concession to popular usage; our choice is, we believe, in the interest of the general public. If only the “correct” forms of many Oriental names had been employed, they would be unrecognizable except to scholars. On the other hand, while the retention of Mahomet is a typical instance of the preference given to a vernacular spelling when there is one, and customary forms are adopted for Arabic and other names in the headings and for ordinary use throughout the work, in every case the more accurate scientific spelling is also given in the appropriate article. While deference has naturally been paid to the opinion of individual scholars, as far as possible, in connexion with articles contributed by them, uniformity throughout the work (a necessity for the purpose of Index-making, if for no other) has been secured by transliterating on the basis of schemes which have been specially prepared for each language; for this purpose the best linguistic opinions have been consulted, but due weight has been given to intelligibility on the part of a public already more or less accustomed to a stereotyped spelling. In the case of Babylonian names, a section of the general article Babylonia is specially devoted to an elucidation of the divergences between the renderings given by individual Assyriologists.
While the Encyclopædia Britannica has aimed, in this matter of local and personal nomenclature, at conciliating the opinion of scholars with public usage and convenience, and the present edition makes an attempt to solve the problem on reasonable lines, it should be understood
Public and
Scholar. that the whole question of the uniform representation in English of foreign place and personal names is still in a highly unsatisfactory condition. Scholars will never get the public to adopt the very peculiar renderings, obscured by complicated accents, which do service in purely learned circles and have a scientific justification as part of a quasi-mathematical device for accurate pronunciation. Any attempt to transliterate into English on a phonetic basis has, moreover, a radical weakness which is too often ignored. So long as pronunciation is not itself standardized, and so long as the human ear does not uniformly carry to a standardized human brain the sound that is uniformly pronounced—and it will be long before these conditions can be fulfilled—even a phonetic system of spelling must adopt some convention; and in that case it is surely best, if a well-recognized convention already exists and is in use among the public at large, to adopt it rather than to invent a new one. The point is, indeed, of more than formal importance. So long as scholars and the public are at issue on the very
