Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

which will be 18 large volumes; "Rollin's Ancient History," which will be about 24 volumes; "Gibbon's Decline and Fall," &c. about 9 volumes; "Russel's Modern Europe," 9 or 12 volumes. Here then I have enumerated but a few of the works that go to form the very elements of such a library as should be in the house of every preacher of the Gospel, and we have an array of 93 volumes, and all large and expensive volumes. Now suppose we add what he ought to have in the way of Biblical criticism, works of practical piety, and a few miscellaneous volumes, it would swell the list to at least another 100 volumes. And I have specified only one class of Natives, because that class seems to require attention first. But how many others are to be supplied. Look at any of the large towns in England, and see how many other private libraries there are besides those which belong to the clergy of the place. As many for each of the large towns of equal size in this country will be needed. Now to furnish such libraries for the families of Hindustan, who will estimate the difference in the expense, if they have to be in the Persian or Nágari character, or in both? And for the generations that are to follow us throughout all time, if we shall entail on them the necessity of purchasing all their libraries in a large and cumbrous character;—and when viewed in all its bearings on the future prospects of India-who will tell us how much the difference in the economy of the two systems is short of infinite? Viewed in this single aspect this subject is vastly important; for the mass of the people are a poor people, and in despite of all our efforts will continue to be a poor people, at least till knowledge shall be made cheap and attainable by the common people*.

Allahabad, Feb. 27th, 1838.

W.

2.-" B." AND "CINSURENSIS" ON THE COMPARISON OF EASTERN LAN

GENTLEMEN,

GUAGES.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

I perceive in the February number of your work the remarks of " CINSURENSIS" on an article, in a previous number, on the Comparison of IndoChinese languages. The writer has manifested a spirit of perfect candour and fairness, and I doubt not that his statements in regard to the Bengali language are fully correct. Cinsurensis has adverted to several errors which he supposed me to have made in the article upon which he remarks ; but among the inaccuracies which he has mentioned, I find only one which can be considered such, viz. that I applied the epithet" peculiar" to that feature of the Asamese language which requires a different pronoun in the second person, according as the speaker is superior or inferior to the person addressed. This, however, was said without any reference to the Bengáli; nor had I any means of ascertaining whether this feature was a characteristic of that language or not.

CINSURENSIS says further-"The comparison of adjectives in Bengáli is effected by a similar process to that erroneously stated to be peculiar to the Asamese." The process by which Asamese adjectives are compared, was not stated in the "Comparison, &c." to be " peculiar to the Asámese.”

Our Correspondent W. will perceive that we have omitted the concluding portion of his letter, for reasons which, on reflection, he will himself, we doubt not, approve. We are most desirous that our pages should not contain any thing that either is or might be deemed personal, and which could only give rise to painful and unprofitable controversy. If W. will divest his argument of every thing of this tendency, we shall readily give it room in a subsequent number.-ED.

He again says " Also what are termed in the Comparison, &c.' numeral affixes, are of ordinary use in Bengali; so that the analogy. of the two languages is much closer than supposed in the Comparison.' Nothing was said in the "Comparison" intimating that numeral affixes were a peculiarity of the Asamese.

"All the other grammatical minutia particularized," he observes, "equally apply," to the Bengáli. He has, however, himself afforded us one instance of material dissimilarity, viz. in the third person of the verb, which is varied in the Bengáli to denote the superiority or inferiority of the person spoken of.

CINSURENSIS appears to labour under the error of supposing that the remarks in the "Comparison, &c." on the grammatical construction of the Asamese language, were made for the purpose of showing as great a dietinction as possible between that and the Bengáli; an object the farthest from the writer's aim. The grammatical characteristics of the Asamese noticed in the "Comparison," were not set in contrast with those of the Bengali, inasmuch as no such notices of the latter language were made. Not having a knowledge of that language, it was not part of my under. taking to give a synopsis of its grammar. The list of Bengali words I copied from two or three vocabularies and dictionaries, taking what appear. ed, from them all, to be the primary and most common terms to denote the various objects specified in the list. It was foreign to the design of the Vocabulary to insert columns of secondary and synonymous words in the various languages. Such a compilation, embracing all the secondary terms, and all words transferred from one language to another, though with some changes of meaning, would be highly desirable; but it will at once be seen that it would have been impracticable on the limited plan of the Comparative Vocabulary." An investigation of this kind would doubt less increase the similarity apparent between any other two languages of the Vocabulary, in as great a proportion as it does that of the Bengali and Asamese. It would not however furnish a fair specimen of the real resemblance of any two languages, as actually spoken or written. The proper method to ascertain this, would be to compare specimens of Scripture, or other works, faithfully translated into each language; where the discre pancies, not only of common words, but of all particles, prefixes, and affixes, with the differences of idiom and construction, would be manifest at a glance. This would show a very different result from that obtained by the comparison of a few of the most common terms, as man, horse, dog, cat, &c. which, in languages of a common origin, are almost sure to be alike.

The latter part of CINSURENSIS's article is devoted to the discussion of the Romanizing system. His arguments on this subject I have no design to controvert; but will only observe that the great folly of the Romanizers which he has undertaken to expose, and which he proposes to deduce from the "Comparison, &c." is not to be found there. My words were, "that the Roman character is adequate to express every sound of the human voice, and is well fitted to be the written representative of all languages." "This assertion," says CINSURENSIS, "involves a negation of such adequacy and fitness to all other characters." But this inference is a mere gratuity (gratuitous assertion?) In predicating such adequacy of the Roman character, Ineither assert or deny, that there are other systems, which might be rendered adequate to express the same variety of sounds. It has often been said that the Roman character is inadequate to the expression of the oriental languages. It was sufficient to my purpose to affirm that it was adequate, without asserting either the adequacy or inadequacy of any other set of characters. I might, indeed, and I apprehend with safety, challenge Cinsurensis to produce any existing alphabet, which, with what

ever modifications, would be as well fitted as the Roman "to be the written representative of all languages," or which, waiving comparison, could even be pronounced "well fitted" for such a purpose; but as I have no wish to enter upon a discussion of this point, I content myself with defending my former statement, which appears to me perfectly intelligible and correct, and certainly conveyed no intimation that other alphabets were incapable of being so modified and enlarged as to express the sounds of any or every language. It is therefore a mere waste of labour to prove that" any existing alphabet, or any newly invented symbols whatever," by "the process of omission and of diacritical distinction," would be "adequate to express every sound of the human voice,”—a proposition which could not possibly be disputed by any one.

"Let not any," says CINSURENSIS, "be misled by the fallacious mystification of a plain question, in which the sanguine advocates of the Romanizing system have indulged and do yet indulge. It is of course a subsequent question what alphabet may be made applicable to express the sounds of the Indian languages with the fewest, simplest, and most effective modifications; but the primary one, as to the capability of any set of characters to receive an arbitrary assignment to the office of representing any variety of sound whatever, is that which has been, in our judgment, so mischievously mystified."

What is here called the "subsequent question" is most undoubtedly the question, so far as it regards Romanizing; and it may well excite our surprise that any of its advocates should have engaged in an argument on the other question, whether the Roman is the only alphabet capable of being so modified as to express the sounds of any given language. Whoever may have broached this idea, it is certainly not to be gathered from the article upon which CINSURENSIS has animadverted.

Yours, &c.

B.

The Post-scriptum to the preceding letter, having no bearing upon the question at issue, and reflecting on the procedure of a contemporary upon whose editorial unfairness or impartiality it is not our province to pass a judgment, we have suppressed. We have subjoined the reply of CINSURENSIS; which, if we mistake not, will fully satisfy our excellent friend and correspondent B, that his former remarks were somewhat misapprehended.--ED. C. C. O.

GENTLEMEN,

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

Any remarks of so intelligent and able a writer as the author of the "Comparison of Indo-Chinese languages," must always command consideration. As an opponent he is at once too honorable, and too courteous, to be met otherwise than with respect. I am happy in believing that the remarks to which I now reply have been penned, in great measure, under a misapprehension.

"B." has most courteously admitted me to have manifested in my form er paper, "a spirit of perfect candour and fairness." I trust to secure, in those now offered, a continuance of his favourable opinion, the more gratifying because felt to be not undeserved.

And, in the outset, let me entirely disclaim the remotest intention to assume a hostile position with regard to "B." In my former paper I stated, distinctly enough methinks, what my design really was, "simply and in good faith to throw in my mite of aid, to the excellent individual

who furnished the comparison, in his useful investigations, as well as to draw the attention of others to the subject."

Now I knew of course, that "B," from his position, must necessarily be cut off from the fullest sources of information with regard to the language of this province; and therefore conceived, as I stated, that "he would be glad to obtain the Bengáli forms" with which my paper furnished him, as well as with the notices of grammatical peculiarities that followed. In relation to those forms, "B." says that "it was foreign to the design of his vocabulary to insert columns of secondary and synonymous words, &c." Yet, had he not himself inserted some such, and that too in the very column in question, the Bengáli? And, in fact, if the "comparison” had any purpose of utility to serve, if it were indeed designed to shew the comparative affinities of the languages of which specimens were given, how could it be "foreign," or otherwise than most germane and essential to the design of the vocabulary, to insert those forms, be they first or secondary, on which must necessarily hang the decision of the entire question of the dialectic affinities professed to be under exhibition? Over and above the five Bengali synonyms given by "B." himself, I furnished him with seventeen other synonyms and with seventeen secondary forms besides, i. e. provincial or colloquial variations of primitives, inserted in his list. Now it so happens that, in nearly the whole of those 34 instances, the synony mous or secondary forms are precisely those most current in the spoken language of Bengal, and consequently those which most clearly illustrate its affinity with the Assamese. How then, could that affinity have been either shewn or disproved, without taking them into the estimate? By means of them I established that instead of six-tenths, above eight-tenths of the 60 words included in the vocabulary, was the real proportion of terms common to the two dialects.

Again, as to the grammatical items-" B." says that " among the inaccuracies which CINSURENSIS has mentioned," he finds "only one that can be considered such, viz. that he (B.) had applied the epithet peculiar' to that part of the Assamese language (Grammar?) which requires a different pronoun in the second person, &c. This was said, however, without any reference to the Bengali."

If "B." will kindly refer back to the "Comparison," p. 24, § 1, he will find that after stating the verbal affinity of the Assamese to Bengáli, to be such, as drawn from the table, that above six-tenths of the most common words were identical, "he adds,"-" the grammatical peculiarities of the two languages are considerably unlike;" following which assertion, come the specifications of supposed Assamese peculiarities, which I remarked were in reality not such, belonging equally to the Bengáli. If then, with each specification subsequent to this general heading, as it were, the same epithet of "peculiar" was not introduced, was therefore the inference the less legitimate and unavoidable that all were equally "grammatical peculiari. ties considerably unlike?" How could I, or any reader, even imagine such specifications so strung together under such a heading, to have been "made without any reference to the Bengali ?"

But " B." quotes me as asserting that "all the grammatical minutiæ particularized apply equally to Bengáli; and says thereon, "He (CINSURENSIS), has however himself afforded us one instance of material dissimila rity, viz. in the 3rd person of the verb, which is varied in Bengáli to denote the superiority or inferiority of the person spoken of." It surprizes me, I confess, that a dissimilarity which I myself observed, and which was of course not" one of the minutia particularized" as alike, should be brought forward to shew an inconsistency in my argument. I appeal to "B." himself whether the oversight does not rest with him, not with me. I asserted, not that there were no dissimilarities, for I myself adduced this as one-but

I showed, as well from several instances of what were in "B.'s" paper erroneously stated as peculiarities in Assamese, as from the secondary forms of words. that the analogy of the two languages was much closer than supposed in the "Comparison."

I have thus, I trust, set myself right with my able opponent, and shewn that if any part of his argument has been misapprehended, whether by me or others, it has been unavoidably so misapprehended, in consequence both of his own expression and his arrangement of his matter; yet further, that his present letter has in no way shewn that there really has been any misapprehension; while, on the other hand, he has, notwithstanding my direct assurance, altogether mistaken the purpose of my former remarks as hostile, instead of auxiliary, to his design. "It has been thought advisable to give specimens, &c." he wrote in his first paper, "hoping that others may be induced to extend the comparison." This hope so expressed it was my wish and aim to meet, in the extension of the vocabulary, not indeed "in another language," but in one of those already but incompletely exemplified. And "B." will credit the assurance that I never for one moment contemplated the possible supposition on his part that my remarks were other than those of a friend and fellow-labourer, and such as therefore I might sincerely, as I did, request him "to take in good part."

The second portion of "B.'s" letter regards romanization. On this let me assure him, that my former remarks on this head, to which an expression in his paper furnished me merely with a text, referred I may say perhaps to any one rather than himself; certainly were directed mainly against some thorough-going advocates of indiscriminate romanising on this side the Bay of Bengal.

I admit cheerfully, what I never denied, that "B." has not, in so many words, contended for the exclusive fitness of the Roman alphabet "to be the written representative of all languages;" but all are not so moderate or so prudent as himself; many are ready to go any length' in the patronage of a favourite theory, though thereby only weakening the very cause they profess to advocate. If, therefore, only to prevent the misapplication of his language to support extra-romanization propensities, I was bound to shew that there was, even in his own cautious phraseology as it would surely be interpreted by many, an essential fallacy. And so surely does it exist, that even "B." himself, candid and honorable as he is, is compelled, unconsciously to himself, no doubt, to shift his ground and vary his actual position in order to make out his own argument, though therein, by a species of literary felo-de-se, he only the more effectually overturns it. He says, "It has often been said the Roman character is inadequate to the expression of the oriental languages. It was sufficient to my purpose to affirm that it was adequate.' Yet following this he writes-" I might indeed challenge CINSURENSIS to produce any existing alphabet which, with whatever modifications, would be as well fitted as the Roman to be the written representative of all languages." Thus, from a question of adequacy going over to one of fitness, greater or less! "B." must be reminded that adequacy, as far at least as my argument went, is not by any means synonymous with fitness: this must be determined by many considerations of a wholly different nature from vocal extension, which is the grammatical sense of adequateness, as used by me. The two must not be confounded. "B." himself expressly admits that he does "neither assert nor deny that there are other systems which might be rendered adequate to express the same variety of sounds," as the Roman character. In fact a character may be, till modified, very inadequate, and yet, from entirely other considerations, well fitted to be applied to the expression of the sounds of a language; as e. g. of the dialects of the South Seas and others, hitherto unwritten-so

« ElőzőTovább »