Page:Prob of Siamese alphabet - Schrader - 1928.pdf/6

 real 'alksor klāṅ (transcribed by me, as at the beginning of this term, by means of the spiritus lenis which is its exact phonetic value), whereas he does write the Visarga, which, as I have shown, is nothing but a device for indicating shortness in the case of those short vowels which could not be taken over ready-made from the Indian script. And finally, as to the accents, a single glance at ono of Mr. C.'s transliterated texts reveals the awkwardness of their having been taken over untransliterated instead of in the form of numerals (added at the lower end of the word), as in my system.

"M. S. méconnaît cette vue smnple qu'une transcription ne peut pas être phonétique et en même temps respecter une graphie traditionaliste". This is wrong, siune I have expressly declared (on p. 57 of my paper) that "to the transcription of vowels the historical principle is, if ever, anyhow not applicable now". But it may interest my critic to learn that his objection could be made to apply to the "translitération commode et irréprochable" of Mr. Coedès who, in introducing his system (Recueil des Inscriptions du Siam, première partie, p. 10 fll.), declines making "quelques concessions à la prononciation Siamoise" and still transeribes (in spite of its being a "low letter" and in spite of its being derived from ) by f (underlined) instead of by w, as I do,  by kia, and  by kua (in spite of  = y and  = v in other places). As for me, I have denied that the system wanted is possible without a combination of the two methods. The following little consideration will make my meaning sufficiently clear.

Looking at and  (Tāi and nai) we should expect  and  to be read as yāo and hao (or rather yāu and hau). As a matter of fact, however, the last word is sounded hua. To consistently express this latter pronunciation we should have to write plus a symbol for short a, which symbol, however, does not exist. That is to say: in writing hua and not hav we (including Mr. Coedès) correct an orthographic inaccuracy by renouncing the

XXI—3.