One evident current of progress there is,— in favor of adopting the continental value of the vowels, representing the _ou_ sound, for instance, not by _ou_ nor by _oo_ (as does Dr. Thomas), but by _u_; writing, therefore, Butan, not Boutan, nor Bootan, Turgenef and not Tourgueneff; using also _a_ and not _ah_ for the sound of _a_ in father, papa (I speak as a New Englander); using the _i_ for the English _e_ sound; and giving what are unfortunately called the corresponding short sounds by doubling the following consonant; thus Nānā would be spelt with one n, but Nanny with two. This tendency, which has been gathering strength for some time, has at last received the sanction of an influential body, the Royal Geographical Society, and can be followed with safety.
The following notes are taken mostly from Mr. Heilprin’s articles in the _Nation_:
1. For ancient _Greek_ names use the Latin forms, _e. g._, Homerus not Homeros, Plato not Platon, Philippus not Philippos. But where two forms are in common use choose that which is nearest the Greek.
2. For _Egyptian_ names known to us through the Greek, both the Greek and the Egyptian form (as Cheops and Shufu) should be given, with a reference from the one which is not chosen for the main entry.
3. _Biblical_ names are to be written as we find them in the English Bible, and the names of post-Biblical Jews, if derived from the Scriptures, should retain their Anglicized form. On the other hand, a strict transliteration is demanded of rabbinical and other more or less pure Hebrew names which are not taken from Scriptures, and therefore have no popular English forms, to which, again, there is an exception in the case of a few celebrated Jewish authors, as Maimonides, where an un-Hebrew form has been fully adopted in English literature.
East _Indian_ names have such long accepted forms that it might well be doubted whether it will do to use any others. Cashmere, Mooltan, Jellaleddin, Punjaub, have taken their places in literature and in the popular mind. Nevertheless, as the better system which writes Kashmir, Multan, Jalal ud Din, Panjab, is now adopted in most histories, in all official documents, among others in Hunter’s great statistical dictionary of Bengal, it is evident that it is the coming method, and, in accordance with the { 109} principles already laid down, we are inclined to recommend this spelling rather than the clumsy English fashion of the last generation.