resenting Tibetan words in
Latin letters:

(_a_) The orthography differs from the modern pronunciation more than
in any other language, except perhaps English, but it apparently
represents an older pronunciation and therefore has historical value.
Also, a word can be found in a Tibetan dictionary only if the native
spelling is faithfully reproduced. On the other hand readers
interested in oriental matters know many words in a spelling which is
a rough representation of the modern pronunciation. It seems pedantic
to write bKah-hgyur and hBras-spuns when the best known
authorities speak of Kanjur and Debung. On the whole, I have decided
to represent the commoner words by the popular orthography as given by
Rockhill, Waddell and others while giving the Tibetan spelling in a
foot-note. But when a word cannot be said to be well known even among
Orientalists I have reproduced the Tibetan spelling.

(_b_) But it is not easy to reproduce this spelling clearly and
consistently. On the whole I have followed the system used by Sarat
Chandra Das in his Dictionary. It is open to some objections, as, for
instance, that the sign h has more than one value, but the more
accurate method used by Grunwedel in his _Mythologie_ is extremely
hard to read. My transcription is as follows in the order of the
Tibetan consonants.

k, kh, g, n, c, oh, j, ny.
t, th, d, n, p, ph, b, m.
ts, ths, ds, w.
zh, z, h, y.
r, l, s, s, h.

Although tsh is in some respects preferable to represent an aspirated
ts, yet it is liable to be pronounced as in the English words _hat
shop_, and perhaps ths is on the whole better.]

[Footnote 911: See Waddell, _Buddhism of Tibet_, p. 19.]

[Footnote 912: It has been argued (_e.g., J.R.A.S._, 1903, p. 11) that
discoveries in Central Asia indicate that Tibetan civilization and
therefore Tibetan Buddhism are older than is generally supposed. But
recent research shows that Central Asian MSS. of even the eighth
century say little about Buddhism, whatever testimony they may bear to
civilization.]

[Footnote 913: See Hoernle MS. _Remains found in E. Turkestan_, 1916,
pp. xvii ff., and Francke, _Epig. Ind_. XI. 266 ff., and on the other
side Laufer in _J.A.O.S._ 1918, pp. 34 ff. There is a considerable
difference between the printed and cursive forms of the Tibetan
alphabet. Is it possible that they have different origins and that the
former came from Bengal, the latter from Khotan?]

[Footnote