suffered to appear; but ha, he or e ?, ya, di ?, and oiti are classified among the vowels. Some difference still exists as to the treatment of the vowels. The latest authority limits them to a, e, i and u^ and excludes o} M. Oppert ranks a or ha among the consonants ; and in addition Xo e^ i and il he admits o and such sounds as yi^ ya^ ah among vowels.^'
But it is in the treatment of the consonants that De Saulcy has most departed from the earliest and the latest scholars. He fully admits the syllabic character of the language, but he has done the utmost under the circum- stances to conceal this peculiarity.^ In his list the only sign that appears in syllabic form is the semi-vowel av attributed to a defective sign (No. 10), and the eye already accustomed to the appearance of syllabic com- binations is struck l)y the singular bareness produced by purely alphabetical letters. He admits altogether twenty-one distinct consonantal sounds, of which fourteen are ' quiescent ' or simple consonants, and each is repre- sented by one sign only, except m^ ?r, to which three are allotted. He allows six gutturals to a language that has at most but two, and fills the other classes with scarcely less profusion. He recognises that the signs for m and ir are interchangeable, and that d and /, as well as b and /s have several signs connnon to both ; but he gives both p and t the exclusive use of others ; and de and dh have each a sign reserved to themselves. His con- sonantal sounds are given different signs according as they are supi)Osed to be followed by a, by e or z, and by o or oa^ an idea no doubt suggested by the restricted use of the same principle in Old Persian. These letters may be said to be practically syllabic signs, as they are
' Weisbacb, <>/;. cit. p. 47.
- Le Pcuplo ft la Lajv/ue dcs yii'dcs (1879), p. 41.
^ Journal Asiatt'f/iWf xiv. 103, xv. i'rJT.
