Page:Proposals for a Uniform Missionary Alphabet.djvu/53

{| class=_table-standard
 * colspan=2 |  Which to labial u?
 * , sureq
 * ammah
 * उ
 * colspan=2 |  u?
 * qibu
 * ऊ
 * colspan=2 | lingual ri?
 * ऋ
 * colspan=2 |  ri?
 * ॠ
 * colspan=2 | dental li?
 * ऌ
 * colspan=2 |  li?
 * ॡ
 * colspan=2 | gutturo-palatal e?
 * şegol
 * colspan=2 |   e?
 * ere
 * ए
 * colspan=2 |   ai?
 * ऐ
 * colspan=2 | gutturo-labial o?
 * qame khatuf
 * colspan=2 |   o?
 * kholem
 * ओ
 * colspan=2 |   au?
 * औ
 * }
 * colspan=2 | gutturo-palatal e?
 * şegol
 * colspan=2 |   e?
 * ere
 * ए
 * colspan=2 |   ai?
 * ऐ
 * colspan=2 | gutturo-labial o?
 * qame khatuf
 * colspan=2 |   o?
 * kholem
 * ओ
 * colspan=2 |   au?
 * औ
 * }
 * colspan=2 | gutturo-labial o?
 * qame khatuf
 * colspan=2 |   o?
 * kholem
 * ओ
 * colspan=2 |   au?
 * औ
 * }
 * ओ
 * colspan=2 |   au?
 * औ
 * }
 * औ
 * }
 * औ
 * }

If the alphabet is applicable to Arabic and Sanskrit, languages perhaps the most complete in their phonetic systems, it will, probably with slight additions and modifications, be found practical for other languages also. Let it only be distinctly understood to what category a letter in any language originally belonged, and its transliteration will be determined at once. Where the value of a letter is doubtful and fluctuating in a written language, difficulties will naturally arise, particularly where the same alphabet is used for different languages, where, therefore, the process of transcription, or, as in Hindustani, even of transliteration, has taken place before. In Persian, for instance, which is written with Arabic letters, there is hardly any difference in the pronunciation of and kh (ه and ح): one feels reluctant, therefore, to transliterate ح by kh, particularly as h, with the diacritical dot خ, differs much more from ح kh, than ه  differs from ح kh. Still these are inconveniences which will always