years before. It is possiljle that the later writer is
more complete and accurate ; it could scarcely have
])eeii othei'wise, considerhi^- the larij-e amount of data
n(nv available and the im])os-il)ilitv of not beintr
iruided, to some extent at least, by the Svllabarium of « - » »
Hawlin^on and Ilinrks. Yet in this eleraentarv work
of simjile classification there are numerous errors he
mipht have escaped if he had condescended to place
more dependence ui)on their authority. Thus, for
example, amonir his i>utturals wc iiiid U)f course bare
and stripped of their vocalic garments) the sisins for
ijf, f(j', (d and zi. His dental> include two gutturals,
the siuns for ga and (ji. Among his labials he
irives us the si^rn^ for ns and /;//. Amonir his
linuuals are those for ki and S'l and they include
the siiins for the svllables f(n\ hnr and rit\ while « . »
the ^ii>'n for nl is found amonii" the sibilants. Xot- withstanding all liis efforts to escape syllabic values, he was forced to enumerate a few — /y///?, al\ akh, at, b<ii\ f(ii\ in or aiu ai\ ^rs. is. Some of these are cor- rect : ])ut not even here would he sU()mit to autlioritv, and lie has accordiniilv l)lunder(:^d. His ak should be uk\ liis akJi aL liis hir )>a)\ and of the two siuns lie gives for (IS, one should l)e si and the other shi\ while his is should Ix^ us. With few exceptions all these might liave been found correctlv ijivcn l)v Eawlinson three vears before. Hincks had Iohlj' aii'o pointed out in his Kliorsabad Ks^av (June 1840) that a clear distinction is maintained between the vowels, and l)etween the surd and sonant consonants. Yet here we find the siirns for )iK /'*, OIL and b^ and thost- for / and r all classed indilVerentlv together. His treatment of the vowels is not less l)ehind the knowled<je of the time. The sinorle vowel a is represented l.)v no less than seven signs that really express an^ (/, ap, /, ruli, man. it. Two of these
