This page has been validated.
ESSAY IV
249
dentals. But no valid arguments have been advanced against my view, which I supported in a former monograph.[1]
V. Precisely the same applies to the labial media, which some scholars likewise refuse to attribute to Original IN.
VI. We must not overlook the fact that the picture which we are at present able to draw of the Original IN sounds is very much in the rough. For example, it is certain that Original IN possessed the dental series, but we are not in a position to form any precise view as to whether they were postdental, or supradental, etc.
VII. The symbolization of the pĕpĕt by ĕ is clumsy and misleading, but in general use. It is quite a mistake to represent the hamzah by an apostrophe, since the latter has also to serve entirely different purposes, e.g. to indicate the omission of a sound. The objectionable ambiguity caused by using the apostrophe for the hamzah is plainly shown by such a book-title as "De Bare'e-sprekende Toradja's": here the first apostrophe stands for the hamzah, while the second one serves to separate the sign of the plural from a noun. — For my part, I denote the hamzah by q.
The Phonetic Systems of the Living Languages,
compared with that of Original Indonesian.
41. The modern IN languages exhibit the following peculiarities in phonetics as compared with Original IN.
I. Some languages have lost certain of the original sounds; some more, some less. In Old Javanese, r2 has disappeared. Rottinese has lost the pepet, the palatals, and r, and has got y and w only in interjections.
II. Some languages have created new sounds; thus Hova has created the spirants f and z.
III. Some languages have lost certain of the Original IN sounds, but have formed them again out of other sounds. Original IN h has disappeared in Hova, hence Hova, fulu <
- ↑ [See Essay II, §§ 37-40.]
