Chinese scholars have lately devoted considerable attention to the history of Logic in their country, more especially to the history of its Buddhist branch.

Hsüen-tsang's school, which was translating and commenting on the Buddhist Canon, drew its attention to the logical literature, issuing a whole series of valuable translations and commentaries. It is to that school, so far as we know, that belongs the first attempt of the Chinese to understand the history of Indian logic. Chinese tradition considersDignāga's system, partly completed by his disciple Śankaraswāmi, to be the final stage in the development of Indian logic. Chinese authors knew nothing of its further development. Logic before Dignaga, according to the Chinese conception of it, was divided into two periods: the first—non-Buddhist period—connected with the name of Akṣapāda, and the second—Buddhist one-connected with that of Vasubandhu.

The dynasty which ruled the khānate of Bukhara during the greater part of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries claimed descent from Chingiz Khān's son Jochi, as did the Shaybānids of the preceding dynasty. It is known as Ashtarkhānid, to recall the place of origin of the family, viz. Astrakhan. More often it is referred to as Jānid, after Jānāī Muḥammad Khān, who is considered by some as the first ruler of the dynasty. But it will be seen that there is no clear basis for such an assumption, and that in fact his father and his eldest son were between them the founders of the dynasty

It would be all but impossible to compile a complete list of all the Arabic writers who used Ibn Isḥāq's Biography of the Prophet. In the Introduction to my translation of his work1 I endeavoured to collect and include anything of importance which other writers had quoted on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq. Among the writers whom I may have overlooked must now be mentioned Abū Nu‘aym Ahmad b. ‘Abdullah al-Ispahānī (d. 430)2 who wrote a book entitled Dalā’ilu'l-Nubၫwa.3

This article examines the meanings and etymologies of several problematic Sogdian lexemes.I am very much obliged to Dr. J. Cheung (Leiden), Professor V. Livšic (St. Petersburg), P. Lurje (St. Petersburg), Professor M. Schwartz (Berkeley) and Professor N. Sims-Williams (London) who took pains to read the first drafts of this article and made valuable remarks, to Dr. B. Williams (Berkeley) who was very helpful in the matter of everything Chinese, to M. Ellsworth (Berkeley), A. Kassian (Moscow) and A. Kozák (Berkeley) who corrected my style. Final decisions are, of course, my own and none of those listed above are responsible for my errors. I am also grateful to the Houtan foundation (www.houtan.org) for its generous financial support, without which the completion of this article would hardly have been possible.

The special importance of the Ādi Granth as the defining scripture of the Sikhs has encouraged the production of commentaries whose language and approach reflect changing understandings of the Gurus' teachings over the last four centuries. The oral style of the earlier commentaries which typically demonstrate a catholic inclusiveness towards the wider Indic tradition came largely to be replaced in the twentieth century by the more exclusive approach of Sikh reformist commentators, in part aroused by the dismissive attitudes of the first English translation by Trumpp. Continuing to shape most modern understandings of the scripture, these highly organized commentaries composed in the new idiom of Modern Standard Panjabi are only now beginning to be challenged by new styles of exegesis being pioneered in the Sikh diaspora.