unwieldy periphrasis into any Anglo-Saxon words in ordinary use. Somewhat analogous words and expressions may often be found, but they do not convey precisely the meanings intended by the Sikh sacred writers.
Archaisms, though deemed necessary by poets, and though they often contribute to ornateness of style, I have done my utmost to avoid. In this way I hope my book will be more useful to the Sikhs, and assist them in forming an acquaintance with the English tongue.
Indian proper names I have spelled as they are written and pronounced in India at the present time, and not as they were written and pronounced in the Sanskrit age. In this I am but following the practice of all modern languages. Nobody would now call London Londinium, or Marseilles Massilia, or Naples Neapolis. Nor can I adopt the spelling of Oriental words which has been adopted in this country ostensibly for the use of continental scholars, which causes sh to be printed ś, ç, or ṣ; j, g; ch, k, &c. Such spelling is repulsive to many persons, and it can hardly be necessary for the Oriental scholars of any country. The different n's, t's, r's, and s's of Indian languages I have found it hopeless to represent, nor would it be useful for my work, for they are often confounded in Sikh literature. The spelling of English words is that accepted by the Clarendon Press.
In the languages and dialects with which we have been dealing there is no short e corresponding to the e in bed and no short o corresponding to the o in not. Whenever, therefore, the vowels e and o are found in Indian names in this work, they
