second class he corrects four[1] and he supplies correct values to three of those previously omitted.[2]
He now presents us with a list of a hundred and twelve distinct signs, and no less than fifteen ideographs; but when their syllabic values are also known the majority are included in the hundred and twelve signs. Four, however, appear among the ideographs for the first time, and raise the total number of signs to a hundred and sixteen. Six of these are,[3] however, repeated twice over to express different syllabic values, thus reducing the number of distinct signs to a hundred and ten. He accepts a hundred and five of the hundred and six signs that were already known, rejecting only (me (No. 21). He completes his number by the addition of five other signs,[4] of which Weisbach has accepted three. With these two exceptions, the whole of Oppert's signs are to be found in Weisbach: that is, a hundred and eight out of the hundred and ten. Weisbach, however, includes in his list the No. 21 of Hincks, omitted by Oppert.
The two writers are also substantially agreed as to the values of the signs. Of the hundred and six given
in Menant's list, we find they differ only as to seven.
- ↑ These are: 16 'ni' to 'ne': 34, 'ta'to'te'; 75, 'ha' to 'a'; 77, 'nu' to ' ni.'
- ↑ 16a 'çi'; 39c, 'mak'; 60(illegible text) 'tin.'
- ↑ No. 5 appears us Nos. 9 and 50. No. 28 „ Nos. 18 „ 69. No. 25 „ Nos. 29 „ 76. No. 16a „ Nos. 60 „ 94. No. 26 „ Nos. 80 „ 81. No. 68 „ Nos. 91 „ 101.
- ↑ These are: Oppert No. 36 ' mu ' = Weisbach No. 5. „ No. 66 ' iz' = „ No. 33. No. 107, ' race' = „ No. 82. No. 49, 'la ' Not in Weisbach. No. 109, 'paz' (animal) Not in Weisbach.
