Page:Proposals for a missionary alphabet; submitted to the Alphabetical Conferences held at the residence of Chevalier Bunsen in January 1854 (IA cu31924100210388).pdf/39

 alphabet to our physiological sounds on which there has been a general agreement since the days of Halhed and Wilkins:

1. That each sound shall have but one representative letter, and that therefore each letter shall always express the same sound.

2. That each simple sound shall be expressed by a single letter, and compound sounds by compound letters.

If with these two principles we try to write the forty-four consonants of our physiological alphabet by means of the twenty-four consonants of the Latin, it follows that we must add to the latter diacritical signs, in order to make them answer our purpose.

Now, in the adoption of diacritical signs, another principle should be laid down:

"That the same modification should always be expressed by the same diacritical mark."

In a theoretical system we might even go a step beyond this, and lay it down as a principle that the same diacritical mark should always express one and the same modification. The advantages which would result from the adoption of such a principle are palpable; but the variety of diacritical marks which it would entail upon us, and the number of new types which would have to be cast to carry it out consistently, must strongly militate against it, particularly in the construction of a Missionary alphabet. Here, as in all branches of Missionary labour, it must be our aim to obtain the greatest results by the smallest means.

The guttural, dental, and labial tenues are naturally expressed by k, t, p.

The modification which changes these tenues into mediæ should consistently be expressed by a uniform diacritical sign attached to k, t, p. For more than one reason, however, we prefer the Latin letters, g, d, b.