22101434373

'

■

*

■

*

. •

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Wellcome Library

/

https://archive.org/details/b30093168

c~*J ı^.yŞC>\

REDHOUSE’8 TURKISH DICTIONARY,

In Ufoo parts,

ENGLISH AND TURKISH,

AND

TURKISH AND ENGLISH.

if (AJamO âyŞl.Jb'G LS \ jj) $ jS

^ J <A<WW<4vj^ 1 ^ i.^It1

c-Jeî a^\AC'\ tefSjî

Ljj&'î]

REDHOUSE’S TURKISH DICTIONARY,

In ®foo ^arts,

ENGLISH AND TURKISH,

AND

TURKISH AND ENGLISH.

IN WHICH THE^ TURKISH WORDS ARE REPRESENTED IN THE ORIENTAL CHARACTER, AS WELL AS THEIR CORRECT PRONUNCIATION AND ACCENTUATION SHOWN IN ENGLISH LETTERS.

By J. W. REDHOUSE, M.R.A.S.

MEMBER OP THE IMPEBIAL ACADEMY OP SCIENCE OP CONSTANTINOPLE, ETC.

J^mtıîr (ûrîftttön, Mcfcteefc antf ^ıılargeîj

BY

CHARLES WELLS, Ph.D. (Leipsic),

Formerly Professor at the Imperial Naval College, Constantinople, Author of

(An Essay on Political Economy in Turkish), of “ Mehemet the Kurd and other Tales from Eastern Sources .” Late Private Secretary to Lieut. -General Sir Arnold Kemball on the Turco-Persian Frontier Commission,

Turkish Prizeman of King's College, London, Sçc.

LONDON:

BERNARD QUARITCH, 15 PICCADILLY.

1880.

"WYMAN AND SONS,

ORIENTAL, CLASSICAL, AND GENERAL PRINTERS, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON, W.C.

Qyi

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION.

-♦O©

IT is an extraordinary and lamentable fact that the language of the Turks has hitherto received little or no attention in England, although it is spoken by millions of people belonging to a vast empire with which we are closely connected by mutual vital interests, and is more or less used, in official circles, from Tunis in Africa to the walls of China. It is the Court language of Persia, and in many provinces of that country is spoken as much as Persian. It is difficult to account for the absolute neglect of the study of such an important language, considering that it is used by a people who once influenced half the world, who overturned and established empires, who have possessed the thrones of Persia, Syria, Greece, and Arabia, whose power was once dreaded by Italy, Germany and France, and to whom our proud Queen Elizabeth applied for aid against the Spanish Armada. The Turkish lan¬ guage has always been of the greatest consequence to us, owing to the importance of our political and commercial relations with the Ottoman Empire, and the complete ignorance of it on the part of our countrymen has greatly impeded proper communication and intercourse between the two nations and given rise to most serious misunderstandings and difficulties, both in the diplomatic and commercial world. Hitherto, the only means of com¬ munication between the two peoples has been the employment of Levantine interpreters, who seldom or never know either English or Turkish properly, and speak the latter unidiomatically and with a vulgar accent peculiarly dis¬ tasteful to the educated Osmanlis. Pecent events in the East, by which we have become in one sense identified with the Turkish Empire through having undertaken the Protectorate of Asia Minor and the administration of Cyprus, now render the acquisition of the Turkish language by English officials and commercial men more urgent than ever, and indeed it is absolutely indis¬ pensable if we wish to fulfil our task efficiently and avoid endless complica¬ tions with the natives and the Turkish Government. We may therefore hope that this subject will at last receive the attention it deserves on the part of the Government and the nation, that proper facilities will be afforded for the acquisition of the language by a Professorship of Turkish being

Vİ REDHOUSE’s TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

founded at one of our Universities, and encouragement and reward being offered to those who devote themselves to this arduous study. Persons wishing to become student-interpreters, or officials in any part of Turkey, in Asia Minor, or in Cyprus, should be required to possess, at least, some knowledge of Turkish before being appointed and before leaving England, as they will find the want of proper teachers in Turkey an insuperable barrier against beginning its study in that country. The only persons who teach Turkish in the East are Greeks and Armenians, most of whom appear phys¬ ically incapable of pronouncing Turkish correctly, and possess in general little or no knowledge of the literary language. As we have in English nearly every sound existing in Turkish, an Englishman, if properly taught, can pronounce far better than a Greek or an Armenian. For the same reason, as I found from experience in instructing the students at the Imperial ISTaval College of Constantinople, Turks can pronounce our language far more purely than the Christian races under their government. A good dictionary is indispensable for acquiring any language, and Mr. Pedhouse rendered a national service when he produced his excellent work, which I hesitate not to say is incom¬ parably the most correct and trustworthy Turkish lexicon in any European language. The original edition having been exhausted, I willingly consented to Mr. Quaritch’s proposal that I should edit a second issue, as all students of the language would find such a book most necessary, and the learned author sanctioned my undertaking. While preserving all the valuable matter contained in the first edition, I have attempted to increase its use¬ fulness by the addition of a considerable number of words omitted originally for want of space, or which have been coined by the Turks during the last twenty years to meet the requirements of their advancing civilisation. Amongst other things, the names of countries, towns, rivers, mountains, and other geographical words were entirely left out of the English-Turkish part, and nearly completely omitted in the other part. These I have supplied, giving special attention to names of places in the East. The English-Turkish portion being scarcely copious enough to enable a Turk to read an English book, or an Englishman to write or speak on all subjects in Turkish, I have introduced a large number of fresh words into it, and I have also, to some extent, augmented the Turkish-English part. Thus, the present edition will be found to contain several thousand more words than the original work published twenty-five years ago, which, however, was far more correct and copious than any other European Turkish lexicon.

It is a strange fact that the number of Englishmen who can read and write Turkish is so small that they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The English public, and what is more astonishing, the English

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION,

Til

residents in Turkey, know scarcely anything of this curious and interesting tongue, and rarely succeed even in speaking a few words properly; yet to understand a nation rightly a knowledge of its language is most essential. As I once remarked in an article in the Gentleman’s Magazine published some years ago, the physical features of the East,' the length and breadth of its rivers, the height of its mountains, and the costumes of its peoples, have been ascertained and described by enterprising European travellers ; but the spirit of the East, which only can be comprehended by a thorough acquaintance with its language and familiar intercourse with the natives, has remained a sealed book to Europe. Indeed many works which have been written for the purpose of enlightening us with regard to the East, have, with rare exceptions, only misrepresented and burlesqued it, although, I admit, that the writers did this in all sincerity and unconscious¬ ness. If Europeans ever learn what the inner life of the East is, they will find that their ideas have been wonderfully narrow and one-sided; that many things they believed to be universally true are, under certain cir¬ cumstances and in certain places, absolutely false; and they will discover much that is good and valuable in the institutions, and much that is admirable in the manners and customs of the Turks, as well as some things which we might with advantage imitate.

A lengthy discourse on the language and literature of the Osmanlis would be somewhat out of place here, but a brief account of them may be interest¬ ing to the general reader and, especially, to those about to commence the study of Turkish. The Turkish language is of Tartar origin, as the Turks came from Central Asia, and is consequently quite distinct from Arabic and Persian ; although it is true that in modern times the Arabic characters have been adopted for all three languages, and that the Constantinople dialect is half filled with Arabic and Persian words, but these have been incorporated without affecting the nature or framework of the Turkish, which is as different from Arabic and Persian as Anglo-Saxon from Latin and Creek. The original Turkish tongue was somewhat barbarous, but extremely forcible and concise when spoken. Very often, in colloquial language, a whole sentence in a European language can be expressed by one or two words in Turkish. For example, the phrase “ The book which I have written,” can be expressed in Turkish in two words, viz., yazdighim kitab. In fact, Turkish is a language in which pronouns personal and relative, conjunctions, and other parts of speech constantly recurring in European languages are almost entirely dispensed with, by the help of certain peculiar inflections of which the verb is capable. Unfortunately, this superiority in Turkish has been more than counterbalanced by the cumbersome and inflated style which

VÎİİ REDHOUSE’S TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

has become prevalent in writing, especially in official documents, sentence on sentence being strung together into one, until the reader is at a complete loss to catch the writer’s meaning. Another mistake the Turks have made is in adopting Arabic and Persian words ad libitum ; so that to understand their language it is absolutely necessary to be acquainted with nearly all the words in the other two, and something of their grammars. Thus in reality to comprehend written Turkish you have to acquire three languages, in great part, instead of one. This fact, no doubt, is one great reason why so few Europeans have succeeded in mastering Turkish ; and a Turk must study his own language many years before he can either read or write it properly. There are almost always in Turkish three names for everything — the original Turkish, the Arabic, and the Persian — and thus the student has a triple vocabulary to acquire. Had Persian and Arabic words been taken only when there was no Turkish word to express what was required, Turkish would have become an extremely rich and powerful language; but words having been adopted indiscriminately has led to a redundancy which is only embarrassing both to the native and the foreigner, while thousands of abstract but most useful words are still non-existent in Turkish. Notwithstanding, therefore, the enormous number of words to be found in a Turkish dictionary, it is an extremely difficult thing to express one’s self in Turkish on any civilised subject, or to translate any ordinary European work into it. Great progress, however, has been made during the last twenty years in simplifying the Turkish style, and in coining words to express scientific ideas. Ali Pasha and Fuad Pasha took the initiative in this matter, and they have since had many worthy imitators, such as Ali* Suavi Efiendi, Kemal Bey, and Zia Bey. The Imperial Military and Naval Colleges have also been most useful laboratories for the production of new words, the necessity for which was found in instructing the students in European arts and sciences, and in translating French and English works for them. A great number of very useful books have been prepared by the professors of those excellent institutions, and although generally not original, they are very creditable, and have done much good in shaping and improving modern Turkish. Some enlightened and unprejudiced officials, such as Said Pasha, who was Minister of Marine in 1878, and formerly Governor of the Naval College,

* Ali Suavi Effendi, a well-known Turkish savant and a very able writer, was the editor of

a Turkish newspaper, called the “ Mukhbir” ( published some years ago in London,

to which I myself contributed, which aimed at introducing not merely political reforms into Turkey, such as parliamentary government, financial control, &c., but also recommended and inaugurated a reform of Turkish composition, orthography, &o., and the introduction of a clear and simple style similar to that approved of in most European languages.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION.

IX

have also lately set the example of writing Turkish in a simple and practical style, and encouraged and promoted this improvement. This able statesman (Said Pasha) is a striking illustration of what I have stated above, that Turks and Englishmen can acquire each other’s language with remarkable purity, as he speaks and writes English like an Englishman.

Yet, notwithstanding the cumbrousness I have above complained of, the language of the Turks possesses a great and interesting literature ; works on almost all subjects known to Orientals : history, geography, astronomy, mathematics, logic, theology, geometry, arithmetic, &c., were to be found in Turkish hundreds of years ago — in manuscripts only, of course. Indeed, books on those subjects had been written at so remote a period as a century prior to the conquest of Constantinople, and some historical, astronomical, and poetical works by celebrated writers of that day are still in existence. It is also to the credit of the Turks that they always had in ancient times, and still have, a deep reverence for learning and literary men, while their sovereigns have been great patrons of literature, and have treated authors and savans with the most liberal favour and munificence. It is reported that the last words of Sultan Othman to his son Orkhan were, “Be the upholder of the faith and the protector of science ; ” and no sooner had the crescent been planted on the walls of Broussa than Orkhan gave orders for the erection of a royal college. This example was followed by his successors, who have vied with each other in the protection and encouragement of letters.

The Turkish writers excel particularly in historical composition. They have many valuable works of history, written by private individuals, and a regular series of public annals from the most remote times to the present, compiled by the official historiographers of the empire.

Among their most celebrated historians are Sead-u-din, the historio¬ grapher of Murad the Third, the author of “ Taj-u-Tevarikh ” (“The Crown of Histories,”) Jelal Zade, the author of “ Tarikhi Jelal Zade” the Annals of the reign of Suleiman I. and Selaniki, whose works are only to be found in manuscript, and Bashid Effendi, Sami, Shagir, and Subhi, whose works have been printed by the Imperial press. Amongst historians also must not be for¬ gotten the learned Haji Khalife, who wrote several historical and geographical books, and a work on Oriental bibliography, a universal history in Arabic, and also the History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks, the History of Constantinople, and the celebrated Oriental geography called “ Jihan Numa ,” (“ The World-Shewer”).

The Turks have always cultivated poetry with the greatest zeal and considerable success. Poets have ever been greatly honoured and muni¬ ficently rewarded by them. Their poetry, it is true, is somewhat wild and

X REDHOUSE’S TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

extravagant, but full of power and imagination. Amongst others, Fazli’s version of the Gul-u-Bulbul (“ The Rose and the Nightingale ”) is a really beautiful poem, and a mere list of Turkish poets of respectable ability would fill pages.

In conclusion, the Turkish language, in the simplicity and regularity of its original framework and mechanism, is only equalled among European languages by the Spanish, in the attention it pays to euphony by no European language, except perhaps Hungarian, and in the richness of its resources, if it would make but proper use of them, it might rank with any language of Europe or Asia.

To cement the alliance and the friendship which have existed for so many years between England and Turkey, and to promote the interest of both nations, nothing is more indispensable than that they should acquire each other’s language. The Turks have made great efforts and spared no expense to this end. Hundreds of young Turkish officers studied English under me, after my appointment by the Turkish Government as Professor of the English Language at Constantinople, and nearly all of them displayed the greatest zeal and ability. It is to be hoped now that the same ardour will be shown and the same attention given, on the part of the British Government and people, in promoting the study of the Turkish language in England.

Having had great experience in connection with the acquisition of Turkish and other Oriental languages, I venture to call the attention of the Govern¬ ment and the public to the fact that sending out gentlemen to Turkey who have merely given proof of possessing an ordinarily good European education, and who have evinced no special aptitude for acquiring Eastern languages, is not the best method they could have adopted for obtaining a body of Oriental scholars who would be really useful to them. Facilities should be afforded for studying Turkish in England, and then only those who gave proof of capability to master Turkish — a feat by no means in everybody’s power — should be appointed student-interpreters. Austrian and Russian officials in the East learn Turkish at their respective universities before going to Turkey, and Russia and Austria have consequently had for many years good Turkish scholars in their service. We shall never have good Oriental scholars in ours until we adopt the same system. No one can learn to speak and write Turkish by mere residence in the country, as is proved by English and other European residents in Turkey not being conversant with the language who have lived there for twenty and thirty years.

But any one who goes to Turkey, having already studied the language successfully, will speedily become thorough master of it. He will find plenty of opportunities for practising his knowledge of Turkish, if he have any ; but

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION.

XI

if he have none, he will never pick the language up, as it is called, by merely breathing the air of Constantinople. Without study, Turkish, as written and spoken for diplomatic purposes, can never be mastered, and facilities for this study at first, at least, are best found in England. Moreover, it is far better that the government should only help those who have given proof of their ability, and this could be tested by establishing a Turkish Professorship here, and sending out only those who should have passed an examination in Turkish — the plan already adopted, I believe, in the case of Chinese students.

London, December, 1879.

CHARLES WELLS.

I

-

.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND EDITION ... ... ... V

NOTICE ... ... ... ... ... ... ••• ... XİV

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION ... ... ... ... 1

REDHOUSE’S DICTIONARY. — ENGLISH AND TURKISH ... ... 25

„ „ TURKISH AND ENGLISH ... ... 383

ERRATUM ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 882

APPENDIX...

883

NOTICE.

The abbreviations \ and in the Turkish character , and et and ol in the English, used in both parts of this Dictionary, stand respectively for the auxiliary verbs and and their pronunciations ktmek and olmak.

REDHOUSE’S TURKISH DICTIONARY.

i

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

«o»

IN the spring of 1855, on the occasion of the formation of the Turkish Legion, the author of the present work published a “ Vade-Mecum of Ottoman Colloquial Language,” in the Preface of which he promised to prepare, “ for the information of those who may wish afterwards to penetrate deeper into the arcana of this really beautiful tongue, a series of more complete and scientific works.”

The following pages are a first instalment towards the redemption of the pledge then given. From the size of this volume, the reader must at once perceive that it has not the pretension of being a complete dictionary of the two languages, which it would require several years of constant labour to bring into existence. But as there does not exist in English any similar work, it has been judged that a book which shall contain the more usual terms of the two languages, and explain the more striking modifications of their meanings — which shall give, not only the orthography of the Turkish words (whether of Arabic, Persian, or Turkish origin), but also their correct pronunciation and accentuation — two things never achieved, and the latter never attempted, even in the best dictionaries published on the continent — could not fail of being acceptable to the very great number of our country¬ men now interested in obtaining quickly a competent knowledge of the language of our Eastern allies ; and the author has therefore undertaken to provide them with as good a dictionary as could be prepared within a reasonable space of time.

For the materials of this book he is indebted to no one, even of the continental authors, unless in so far as he has used two dictionaries to arrive without loss of time at the alphabetical arrangement and selection of the words contained in either part of this publication. He does not pretend to be absolutely and entirely free from mistakes of any kind ; but he confidently appeals to all capable of judging, to pronounce whether the great number of errors to be traced in every page of the more voluminous continental works, ancient or modern, is not a circumstance which greatly deteriorates the value

c

2 REDHOUSE’s TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

of their productions, although, at the same time, the greatest credit is due to the authors for the immense labours they have undertaken in preparing their works for the use of the public. They have done their best, and the thanks of a host of students have been, and will continue to be, their just meed. Neither is it in any spirit of detraction that the author here notices these defects of his precursors ; but, on the contrary, by alluding to them, he desires to stir up their authors, or others, to investigate the subject with renewed zeal and acumen, under the conviction that the greater the facilities afforded for an interchange of ideas between the East and Yv^est, the more rapidly will be effaced those invidious distinctions of caste or class, or nation¬ ality, or religious denomination, which ignorance and intolerance set up in bygone times, but which in England have generally given place to the more becoming rule and feeling of respecting in all the conscientious dictates of faith and taste, even as we ourselves wish to have respect and consideration shown to our own by all.

As above noticed, the publication of a complete Turkish and English Dictionary, if ever undertaken, will be a work of considerable expense, and will require years for its performance. Hitherto the number of those who might have occasion for such a book has been too limited by far to induce any one to make the attempt. These circumstances appear now likely to be changed, through the attention drawn to Turkey by the recent aggressions of Russia, and also by the vitality so unexpectedly discovered in the Ottoman Empire — the “sick man” of the aggressor. The author would be proud to answer this change, if effective, by an energetic attempt to fill up the void in English literature left by the want of such a work. The Turkish language is, in itself, well worthy of the labour ; and, whatever the ideas on the sub¬ ject hitherto current in England, as in the rest of Europe generally, there exists in that language a literature, mostly in manuscript as yet, it is true, as varied and as refined as that which is known to be found in the Persian tongue, though it does not embrace those periods of time, the middle ages, which render the study of Arabic and Persian doubly interesting. In a political and in a commercial view, the tongue of the Osmanli merits as great attention as any, since its use, or that of its congeners, among natives of every sect and nationality, or among official people, is spread from Tunis in Africa, throughout the Turkish Empire, the northern half of Persia, Khorassan, to Independent, Chinese, and Russian Tartary. But it is as true, as it will appear singular, that whether from apathy, or from the fatal delivering themselves up into the hands of double sets of interpreters (one set consisting of Greeks, Armenians, Jews, or Levantines, who explain verbally

3

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

between Europeans and Turks, and the other of Turkish writers, who reduce these verbal expressions into written forms of their own), the greater part of our merchants and consuls living in Turkey, some for periods of fifty years, are unable, with a few rare exceptions, to read a word of the language, or perhaps to understand it when read to them ; and many are even incapable of uttering a single phrase in common conversation. The fact, however, of servants, working engineers, and others picking up Turkish in a short time, without books or aids of any kind, is sufficient to indicate that there is nothing peculiarly difficult in the language itself; while the mere mechanical difficulty of the handwriting, as is known to all students, is equally easy to be got over with a little practice.

Hoping, therefore, that a taste for this useful language may spread, and that the occasion will thence arise for the preparation of more extensive works on the subject, to which he engages to respond to the best of his abilities, the author now offers the present work to the public, in the trust that it will be found as useful in its sphere as he could wish or expect.

London, 1856.

4

REDHOUSb’s TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

ON THE SYSTEM OF ORTHOGRAPHY EMPLOYED TO REPRE¬ SENT THE TURKISH WORDS, AND ON THE POWERS OF THE TURKISH LETTERS AND ORTHOGRAPHICAL SIGNS.

IN representing the sounds of one language with the characters of another, we find that all or many of those characters generally possess more than one value in their original language. We observe, further, that the authors of pronouncing dictionaries are obliged to have recourse to various systems of orthography, in order to represent to the mind, through the eye, in a way freed from doubt, the sound of every letter in each separate word ; and that a con¬ siderable difference exists between the current orthography and the results of each such system. The reasons of this divergence, in respect to the English language, may be reduced to three : 1 st. Many words of foreign origin have preserved their original orthography and pronunciation (this latter more or less vitiated), which do not follow the same rules as the words of our own language ; 2ndly, Many other words of foreign origin, though they have more or less been submitted to a process of adaptation to our pronunciation and orthography, still retain so many traces of their origin as to require explanation on the former, and authority for the latter, inasmuch as the two do not agree together with sufficient simplicity, or according to our received ideas of the fundamental values of their component letters ; 3rdly, The difference of pronunciation of even indigenous words in different parts of the country, whereby an orthography more or less in consonance with the pronunciation of one part, at a certain period of time, was adopted by some one or other of the early English writers, and has since become (either with or without modification) generally or universally current, although it does not accord with the usual pronunciation now in use among the educated classes in the greater part of the kingdom.

Causes analogous to these have also affected the orthography and pronun-

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

5

ciation of the Turkish language, the present alphabet and orthographical system of which are originally Arabic. In the pure Arabic the simple short vowels are never written, being merely marked over or under the consonant affected by them, and are but three in number — a, i, and u (Latin). When these are long, they are represented by separate letters, which have still their special values as consonants, viz. l,j, and o. Of these, the \ represents the sound of a, the j of ü ( oo English), the of i (ee English). This system of the Arabic language (common also to the other Semitic dialects) was next adopted by the Persians when they embraced the religion of Muhammed ; and although four consonants (c—J, ^ ,Jj\ viT) were added to the twenty-eight of the Arabians, nothing was done to extend the number of vowel-letters, or of the vowel-points, beyond the original three, excepting the definite adoption of a fourth consonant (Jî>) to represent the terminal broad e or surd a found in so many Persian words. The three original vowel-letters received also a second value each in addition to the Arabic one, viz. \ was made to represent the broad a of the English, the ^ the o of European languages, and the l_? the e of the same as heard in our word there. The Turkish nation, coming from the eastern parts of Central Asia, first encountered the Arabian system of writing, under its modified form, in Persia. Adopting this, and, by their chief and early conquests in Greece and Asia Minor, escaping from the direct influence of the Arabians, they in their turn gave a new value to one consonant (cJ) by making it represent a nasal n in addition to its Arabic value of k, and its Persian value of g hard (gh, or gu ), and they also greatly extended the use occasionally made by the Persians of the three long vowels as representatives of their cognate short vowels.

Passing over, therefore, the consideration of the true number of different vowel-sounds which may exist in Arabic or in Persian, or of the number which may exist in any uncultivated Turkish or Tartar dialects, we may now proceed to observe that there are eleven distinct vowel-sounds in the cultivated Ottoman Turkish language, besides the modifications of certain of them by mere prolonga¬ tion of sound ; whereas there are still but three vowel-signs, and but four vowel- letters to represent them. This necessarily causes great confusion and difficulty, especially to learners ; and to it, in great measure, I attribute the prevalent use of Arabic and Persian words (in writing, much more than in speaking) in preference to many of their most common Turkish equivalents. In all three of these languages a combination of twro, three, or four letters, may often be read several different ways, the signification varying with each modification of sound ;

6

REDHOUSe’s TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

and there is no system in use among the nations speaking them whereby the true vowel-pronunciation of each word can be depicted to the intelligence through the medium of the eye, in a manner entirely free from doubt. The Persians have adopted two terms whereby they describe the different values of the vowel j as representing u and o, also of lS as representing e and i ; hut further they have not gone, and these terms have no equivalent mark in writing; so that the number of vowel-letters remains but four, and of the vowel-points but three, to represent the eleven vowels existing in Turkish. At the beginning of words they employ two combinations ( and cil) of these vowel-letters, which have been looked upon as diphthongs ; but this is not really so : they represent no separate vowel-sound ; they are merely used, or rather the j and the lS are introduced to define the value of the which in Arabic takes the Ihree vowel-sounds indifferently, in the same way as the other consonants. These, then, are no true addition to the number of Turkish vowel-letters, and is read u the same as j* is read ku, and lJ\ i as (_£ is ki*

The eleven Turkish vowel-sounds are the following : —

1st,	of a	in all.	7th,	of i	in girl.
2nd,	. . a	far.	8 th,	. . 0	. . go.
3rd,	. . a	about.	9th,	. . u	in the French tu.
4 th,	. . a	. . pan.	10th,	. . u	. . full.
5 th,	. . e	. . pen.	11th,	. . u	. . fun.
6th,	. . i	. , pin.

Our system of orthography in this book for representing the pronunciation of the Turkish words is founded upon the two following axioms : — First, No character shall have two values ; and second, No value shall he represented by more than one special character.

In applying these two rules to the eleven vowel- sounds, we have been led to

# There exists even at the beginning of some Turkish words the combination which may have been considered in like manner a triphthong ; but in this case, as in that of the two combinations, and <-£■ at the ends of some words and syllables, the ^ is a true consonant, and therefore we are justified in totally denying the existence of diphthongs or triphthongs in the Turkish language.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

7

adopt the following eleven characters to represent them, all of which are well known modifications in form of our own five vowels : —

1st,	a	as in wall, thus	A	7 th,	i	as in girl,	thus	i
2nd,	a	. . . far, . . .	a	8 th,	0	... go,	• • •	o
3rd,	a	. . . about, . . .	a	9th,	u	. . . tu French . .	u
4 th,	a	. . . pan, . . .	E	10th,	u	. . . full,	« • •	u
5 th,	e	. . . pen, . . .	e	11th,	u	. . . fun,	• • •	u
6th,	i	• • • pm, • • •	i

By the use of these modified vowels the learner can see at once what par¬ ticular value is attached to each, and, at the same time, he will not be obliged to make the distinction, unless he prefers doing it, in making notes himself of words he may meet with in reading or in conversation. This book is essentially a pronouncing dictionary ; and were the European character ever to be adopted in Turkey, for the purpose of writing the Ottoman language, there is no reason why the a, the e, the i, and the u should not bear several values as they do with us ; whereas, in printing, and, if necessary, even in writing, the difference could be pointed out by one or two strokes under them, thereby leaving the upper part free for the introduction of special signs to distinguish the long from the short vowels, and the accentuated from the unaccentuated syllables.

We have adopted these characters in preference to others, because they are to be found at the printers’, and because every one knows them. True it is that their special value here has to be learnt and remembered, but so would that of any signs we might have invented. Our special reason for not adopting Sir William Jones’s “ dashed vowels ” is because, their dash being over them, it would have interfered with the introduction of the signs of syllabic accent and vowel quantity. We have further felt obliged to abstain from and condemn the diphthongs ai and au of that great philosopher and most distinguished writer, by reason that the idea which caused him to employ them is fundamentally erroneous in conception • and we have been grieved to observe that these errors have been already too extensively adopted by other writers of distinction, and by the numerous body of missionaries in India and the South Seas. It is singular that an Englishman should have fallen into the error of calling these combinations diphthongs, when his own language contains the true solutions to the problem. Sir William Jones appears to have been led away in this matter by the study of French or Latin, in neither of which languages does the consonant w exist, neither is the letter y regarded in their grammars as a consonant.

s

REDHOUSe’s TURKISH AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY.

English grammarians have laid it down as a rule that w and y are consonants at the beginning of words or syllables, but vowels at the end or in the middle. It must be conceded that y standing alone in the middle of a syllable is a vowel ; but w is never so used in English. As the second letters of diphthongs in the middle of syllables they may be considered either as vowels or consonants, without much practical inconvenience resulting from the error in either case ; and y, at the end of syllables, when immediately preceded by a consonant, may certainly be considered a true vowel. There remains then to be considered the case of these two letters when they terminate a syllable and are preceded by a vowel. In this case Oriental grammarians have justly regarded them as con¬ sonants ; nor would it be difficult to establish that the practice of the English tongue fully confirms that decision, as regards the letter y, and also as regards the w if preceded by an o. Take for instance the words flow and flay : now, in forming from them the participles flowing and flaying, we can perceive that w and y are as much consonants as though the division of the two words into separate syllables was flo-wing and fla-ying, when, even by the admitted rules of our grammarians, these letters would be consonants. This being established, more as a means of comparison between certain conditions of our language and the elements of the Turkish, we may now state that we consider the letters w any y as consonants in all cases where we use them in our system of orthography as here adopted for representing the sound of the Turkish language ; and, to complete our system of syllabic formation, we have but to follow out the series of vowels preceding or following these two letters in the same manner as for the other consonants ; thus : —

Ab	ab	ab	eb	Eb	ib		ob	ub	ub	ab
bA	ba	ba	bd