It is only necessary to say in regard to this, that the Committee was appointed to procure uniformity in spelling, and that their system was only recommended to the Society's contributors for that end,[1] and by no means for the purpose of promoting philological study; and no spelling system can properly be gauged by any test of that kind. It may not be beside the point to remark further that the parent Asiatic Society also published, in the first number of its "Researches" (1784). a system of transliteration by Sir W. Jones, the general principles of which have more and more recommended themselves to the best judges, whether in Europe or India. It is confidently asserted that the Committee's system followed those principles much more nearly than their critic's system does, both in adopting "a specific symbol for every sound," and in making use of the help of diacritical marks."
It is, of course, impossible to know when the last word on any subject has been said, but it will be a pity if the ingenious but too fantastic suggestions of this latest writer should be hastily taken for the "last word" by any of the general contributors to our Journal. The system settled in 1878 has now been tried for some years and has been found already of practical advantage—chiefly because it has been looked upon as a settled system.[2]
- ↑ I do not admit that a system of spelling should be recommended to the Society simply because it proposes to establish uniformity. A thoroughly had system might nevertheless be uniformly followed if every one were content. But uniformity has not been attained and cannot be attained when each one has to decide by his ear whether he shall write û, u, ô or o; î, i, ê or e; and so on. The member who takes up the cudgels on behalf of the Committee unintentionally affords me an excellent illustration of this. He quotes the words senduk, the first syllable of which is said to be pronounced like the English word ten. Now this word (senduk) was quoted by me (p. 145) as an example of the indefinite vowel-sound common in Malay and was said to be pronounced s'nduk. Without arguing the question as to which is correct, I ask how uniformity in spelling is to be expected when men are to be guided by pronunciation which varies in different localities and for which there is no recognised standard? Uniformity is an illusion and the sooner the idea is given up the better. What I have proposed is that a or e, i or e, and u or o, shall be equally correct provided that the Malay mode of writing and recognised derivations are not departed from.
- ↑ This seems to me to beg the question. The settled condition claimed for the Government system, will be disproved in five minutes by any one who will take up the Government Blue-book or other publications.W. E. M.
