תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

In different parts of Ireland and Scotland, similar dialects of the old Celtic language have been spoken for at least 18 centuries. There were peculiar letters, of a form distinct from that of other alphabets, to express all the elementary sounds of this ancient language. These letters, having been used chiefly by the Irish Celts, are commonly known under the designation of the" old Irish character." Now, when, about a century ago, great efforts began to be made to improve the condition of the Scottish Celts, the alphabet that contained appropriate letters to express the ordinary and peculiar sounds of their language, was set aside, and the Roman notation of letters universally adopted. And in that character have all works ever since, without one single exception, been printed.

Whether the practice be as yet uniform, I cannot tell, but I have also seen translations of the Bible and the confession of faith into the Irish dialect, published in the Roman character.

In Spain, during the earliest period of its history, letters were used, somewhat similar to the Greek. After the Romans became lords paramount of the soil, they introduced the general use of their own letters. When the country was overrun by the Visigoths, they abolished the Roman and substituted their own very different form of writing. In the 11th century, by the decree of a Synod held at Leon, the alphabet of the Visigoths was superseded by the restoration of the Roman characters.

In Italy, from the vicissitude of its fortunes, the mode of writing was often changed. At one time, the Lombardic mode of writing entirely set aside the use of the Roman letters, being adopted even in the Bulls of the Popes: at another, the modern Gothic, &c. Though in most of these cases, the forms of the letters were as widely different as can well be imagined, it may still be objected, however absurdly, that they all belong to the languages of the West Of the people of the East, their languages, manners, customs, &c. unchangeableness has been predicated!

In removing even this cavil, the following facts may be of some

service:

Who more tenacious of every thing Jewish, than the descendants of Abraham? And yet it is generally allowed that the old Hebrew character, now known under the name of the Samaritan, was abandoned during the time of the Babylonish captivity, and that the Chaldaic form, which is vastly different, was substituted in its place, and has been ever since retained.

Originally the Arabic alphabet, as asserted in the learned Dr. Hales analysis of Chronology, was the same as the Syriac, which differs as much from the modern Arabic alphabet, as it does from the Chaldaic and old Hebrew. This total change in the order and form of the Arabic letters took place about the commencement of the Mohammedan æra.

B B

The old Persian or Zend, which is said by Jones to approach to perfection, was superseded by the Arabic alphabet, which has been adopted by all nations that have embraced the religion of Mohammed.

But, what some may think still more to the purpose, has not the Persian character been often practically employed in representing Indian words, particularly in the Upper and Western Provinces? And, vice versa, has not the Nagari character been employed in expressing Persian and Arabic terms? The Oordoo, which is a compound of Persian and Indian words, has been represented indifferently by Persian or Nagari letters. And if so, why not this, and other Eastern languages by the Roman*?

Rather, if so many and such radical substitutions of one form of letters, for another totally dissimilar, have actually taken place in the West, and in the East, does not the voice of history loudly and emphatically protest against the baseless notion, that to substitute the Roman, in place of the Indian letters, is impracticable ? Does not the testimony of experience, as it rolls along different ages and different countries of the world, perfectly demonstrate that such substitution is, and must be pronounced to be, in every point of view practicable?

III. On the supposition of the possibility and practicability of the proposed change, is it expedient to substitute the Roman, in place of the Indian letters?

Those who oppose the expediency of the substitution often argue thus: "Look at the English orthography; Jones himself pronounces it to be disgracefully, and almost ridiculously imperfect : Look, on the other hand, at the Indian orthography; its precision, clearness, and regularity cannot well be surpassed :—would it not then be most inexpedient to disturb the beauteous order of the latter by introducing the irregularities of the former?" and this sort of

* I have been told by a friend, who has derived his information direct from M. Alexander Csoma de Körös, the celebrated Hungarian, who has thrown so much light on the language and literature of Thibet, that the general structure of the Hungarian language is so very unlike the parent stock of any of the dialects of the west, and so exactly like the Sanscrit, that he doubts not the Hungarian and Sanscrit are essentially connected as to their original source, if not, as Primitive and Derivative. And this conclusion, deduced from the striking similarity of structure, is greatly confirmed by the equally striking similarity in the names of the most common objects. M. Körös is of opinion, that the Huns had undoubtedly an original Alphabetic character of their own when they first invaded Europe, and that it was retained by them till their conversion to Christianity, when they adopted the Roman character.

If this be the case, and the peculiar philological attainments of M. K. render his opinion worthy of the highest possible respect, what a remarkable corroboration does it afford of all that has now been advanced? A language possessing originally a peculiar alphabetic character of its own--and what is more, a language radically Indian in its structure and termshas for ages been successfully represented by Roman characters?

reasoning is backed by what some account a few good jokes and pithy sarcasms at the expense of our poor English orthography. But it will not do to pass off this subject by mere orthographical jokes and sarcasms. There is a radical fallacy in the reasoning of these gentlemen. They suppose that we really wish to introduce the absurd anomalies of English orthography into the East, and without this supposition, their argument is good for nothing. Now this supposition is a most barefaced assumption. It cannot be conceded, because it is not true. We do not wish to see the anomalies of English orthography incorporated with the languages of the East. Neither do we wish to see superfluous Roman characters employed. If, in the East, one alphabetic letter uniformly represents one elementary sound, let the Roman letter substituted in its place be invariably appropriated to the expression of that sound. This is what we propose and, in this way, I should like to know where a corner can be found for a single anomaly-or how the greatest possible clearness, precision, and regularity may not be attained? In this view of the case, the potent arguments of our learned Orientalists must fall with deadly effect on their own false premises. If then the reasons usually urged against the expediency of the substitution be utterly groundless, let us now state a few reasons in favour of it.

1. The substitution is expedient, because thereby we should obtain an alphabet more perfect than any of our Eastern alphabets -more perfect even than the Deva-Nagari.

This may startle the idolizers of Sanscrit; but nevertheless, it can be proved to be true. What are the requisites of a perfect alphabet? Without specifying the whole I may remark that, by the common consent of the soundest philologists, the following are of the number :-As every separate elementary sound ought to have a separate character to express it, so none but separate clementary sounds ought to have separate characters. Elementary sounds, radically the same, but differing somewhat in the tone, time, or mode of enunciation, ought not to have representative characters wholly different in form.

Now, in both these respects, the Deva-Nagari is exceedingly imperfect.

Consonant sounds, such as the two ds and two ts marked by Jones d and d', t and t, though radically the same, and differing in the tone of pronunciation, are represented by characters totally different. Vowel sounds, such as the long and short a, the long and short i, &c. which of course differ only in the time of their pronunciation, are expressed by separate characters.

Sounds not elementary, i. e. compound sounds, which ought surely to be expressed by a combination of the elemental or simple sounds that compose them, are represented by separate letters. Of this description are all the aspirated letters, which form so large a

proportion of the Deva-Nagari and other Indian alphabets. Who can say that this is not a very unnecessary multiplication of alphabetic characters? How vastly more rational and philosophical the simple expedient of having one clear mark, or letter, for the aspiration, which could be applied to all vowels and all consonants. This is the expedient, not less admirable in theory than convenient in practice, which has been resorted to in the European alphabets. And if, after this truly philosophical model, the Sanscrit and other Indian alphabets were framed anew, we should at once get rid of a great number of very superfluous characters.

2. It follows from this that the proposed substitution is expedient, because, by rendering the Indian alphabets more perfect, and thereby getting quit of many wholly useless letters, the complexity which at present characterizes these alphabets would be greatly diminished, and the progress of every learner in the same degree

facilitated.

one

3. The substitution is expedient, as it would remove grand impediment to the free reciprocation of sentiment and feeling among the millions of Hindoostan.

:

To illustrate this, let me revert to an example. If a book in Latin, English, French, Spanish and Italian were presented even to an unlearned Englishman, in the Roman character, he would readily perceive that numberless words, and roots of words, were the same in all; and would conclude that the study of one, two, or more of these might be a comparatively easy task, in consequence of this palpable radical similarity. But were the book presented in Roman, Modern Gothic, Old Gaulish, Visigothic, and Lombardic characters, he could scarcely be persuaded that under forms so wholly different there could lurk any similarity at all. And the study would be regarded a forbidding, difficult, if not, a hopeless one. So actually stands the case in India: the number of dialects is immense and each dialect must have letters of a different figure. Let then a specimen of each be presented to an unlearned Hindoo: what must be his conclusion ?-What can it be, except that his country abounds with totally dif ferent languages? And if so, the attempt to hold any communication with natives not of his own province, must be abandoned as hopeless. Now were the whole presented, in the same character, it would be seen and felt that the natives are not divided into so many sections of foreigners to each other-that they have all fundamentally the same language-and that without much difficulty a community of interest and a beneficial reciprocation of thought might be effected to an extent at present unknown, and from the repulsive aspect of so many written characters, deemed utterly impracticable.

4. It is expedient, as it would tend mightily to encourage the study of the English language.

In the present state of things this is a matter of paramount importance. Of all earthly boons, the bestowment on a native of a sound English education, is beyond all question the highest and the noblest. It is by the quickening impulse of the knowledge to be derived through the medium of English that we are to expect the first awakening of the national mind from its present lethargy. Now by the universal introduction of Roman characters, every indoo might become familiar with them from infancy. The study of English would no longer be looked upon as entirely new, nor the language entirely foreign. It would appear in all respects more inviting: yea, it would allure thousands to engage in it who are now scared away altogether from the task.

5. It is expedient, as regards the enriching of the Indian languages.

If there must be an infusion of a vast number of new ideas into the languages of the East, ere the dense mass of the people can be elevated in the scale of moral and intellectual being, there must be a corresponding number of new terms to express these. Now, while it is conceded that the Indian letters are well suited to the expression of Indian sounds and words, every Orientalist must bear me testimony in saying, that they are very ill adapted to the expression of sounds and words in foreign languages. By the adoption, therefore, of Roman characters, the incorporation of new terms, implying an accession of new ideas, may go on indefinitely, without any difficulty, and without any confusion.

6. The substitution is expedient, as it would save much valuable time and useless trouble to hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands of our fellow-creatures.

It cannot be doubted that soon great numbers in every province from the Himalaya to Cape Comorin, will be engaged in the study of English. These, of course, must become acquainted with the Roman character. Besides, it will always be the lot of many to study more than one of the Indian dialects. What a prodigious saving of time and trouble must it then be, to multitudes in every province of Hindoostan, to be possessed of one common alphabet? Our great Orientalists, our Philological giants, I know, will convert this into a subject for derision or scorn, because they can master a new alphabet in a week :-but I cannot help it. In spite of their thundering canons, I must be allowed to assert, without fear of contradiction, that the majority of mankind cannot in the course of a week, acquire the same facility and speed in reading and writing a totally new set of alphabetic characters as they enjoy in reading and writing those with which they have been long familiar. No: such acquisition is generally the result not of five or six days' practice, but of at least as many months Why, then, waste so much precious time upon nothing? He who, in acquiring new languages or dialects, would voluntarily choose a new set of letters for each, instead of adopting one already known,

« הקודםהמשך »