This appendix shows the names of people, places, and things as spelt by Mr. Chenery in 1867, compared with the transliteration of the present day by Dr. Steingass, who prefaces the subjoined list with the following explanatory remarks:

“The system of transliteration observed by me is based on two distinctive principles: Firstly, to represent, to the exclusion of every element of doubt, the written Arabic character, which, excepting some slight variations in the shape of the letters, has not altered ever since the Koran was first committed to writing; secondly, to select the representative symbols so as to make them fit in with the transliteration of other Oriental languages in England, particularly with that of the diverse idioms of India, partly derived from Sanscrit.

“The former of these principles applies especially to the vowels, and aims at the uniform rendering of the three unvariable signs for the elementary vowels Fatḥah (‘a’), Kasrah (‘i’), and Ẓammah (‘u’), taken by themselves and in connection with the weak consonants Yâ (‘y’) and Wâw (‘w’), irrespectively of their sounds, or the way in which they are pronounced. Pronunciation has changed, and probably will go on changing, in different times and places, and is therefore in all languages, as English illustrates in the most striking manner, only to be acquired by oral instruction. When it is made the basis of transliteration, it leads unavoidably to inconsistencies. To begin, for instance, with the beginning: The name of the first letter ‘Alif,’ which, with the original sound of its initial, has, thanks to Greek, survived until this day in the first syllable of the English word ‘alphabet,’ is spelt by Mr. Chenery ‘Elif,’ because it is thus pro­nounced by the modern Arabs. But for the same reason he should write ‘El Ḥârith’ instead of ‘Al Ḥârith,’ for ‘El’ is the pronuncia­tion now given by most Arabs to the article, and adopted, e.g., in Professor Wright’s Arabic Grammar. Again, if Mr. Chenery spells ‘Moslem’ instead of ‘Muslim,’ he may with equal right transliterate ‘Ḥâreth’ instead of ‘Ḥârith,’ the last syllable of either word having Kasrah for its vowel. Another point of divergence between the two systems refers to Fatḥah, followed by a quiescent Wâw or Yâ, in which case the Sukûn over the weak consonants indicates that their consonantal character submerges in their cognate vowel element, which forms with the preceding Fatḥah the diphthongs corresponding to the Greek <Greek> and <Greek>, in Roman letters ‘au’ and ‘ai.’ I therefore would have written ‘Zaurâ’ for Chenery’s ‘Zowrâ,’ and ‘Zaid’ for his ‘Zayd’ (why not ‘Zeyd’ in analogy with ‘Zowra’?).

“With regard to the second principle concerning the consonants, I substitute the symbols ‘Ẓ,’ ‘T̤,’ and ‘Z̤’ respectively, for Mr. Chenery’s ‘Ḍ,’ ‘Ṭ,’ and ‘Ẓ,’ or in other words, I would spell ‘Tumâẓir’ for his ‘Tumâḍir,’ ‘T̤ûr’ for his ‘Ṭûr,’ ‘Z̤âhir’ for his ‘Ẓâhir,’ etc. Thus the first two of his letters with a single dot underneath, ‘Ḍ’ and ‘Ṭ,’ remain available for the transliteration of cognate letters in some of the Indian languages. ‘Z̤’ for his ‘Ẓ’ recommends itself as a correlative of ‘T̤,’ both consonants repre­sented thereby having in Arabic similar outlines and a strong organic affinity, and ‘Ẓ’ for ‘Ḍ’ is justified by the relation of the transcribed letter to that designated by Chenery and myself by ‘Ṣ,’ the Arabic character of which has the same shape, and from whose peculiar sibilant sound it inclines towards ‘Z.’

“Chenery’s ‘Th’ corresponds to my ‘S̤,’ and when underlined, as in ‘Jathîmeh,’ to my ‘Ẕ,’ the object of which substitutions is to avoid as much as possible the use of compound letters in the trans­literation. If in this respect the time-honoured ‘Gh’ and ‘Kh’ are preserved, they should be underlined, in order to indicate that they are not to be pronounced separately, but as a single sound—the ‘Kh,’ for instance, somewhat like the Scotch ‘ch’ in ‘loch.’ This is of prosodic importance when the letters occur in the middle of a word; for if in the transliteration of the Arabic ‘lughah,’ for instance, the constituent parts of the compound character were kept separate in pronunciation as in the English word ‘loghouse,’ it would, according to the laws of Arabic prosody, form a spondee, while in reality it is an iambus.

“There is one point more to consider in every system of trans­literation, namely, the avoidance of diacritical signs altogether as far as feasible. This applies to the letters Kâf and Ḳaf (Qâf). Their distinction by means of a dot below the second one has much in its favour, but, on the other hand, both occur so frequently in Arabic, that the accidental breaking off of the dot in type or its omission by oversight may cause numerous mistakes. In France and England, therefore, the second letter was represented by ‘C,’ of which the English dictionary word ‘cadi’ is a remnant; but the different pronunciation of ‘C’ before ‘E’ and ‘I’ from that before other vowels led to its abandonment. The same objection, however, does not exist against my transcribing the guttural in question by ‘Q,’ and this practice gains more and more in extension.

“After an attentive perusal of the above remarks, and by aid of the annexed alphabetical list, the student of Arabic will have no difficulty to retransliterate, according to my system, any of the names of persons, places, and objects which the editor has taken great pains in altering from the original spelling of vol. ii. into that of vol. i.: