Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:04:54.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Supplementary Note sent from Baghdad, 25th August, and received in London, 8th October, 1846

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

Extract

Having been engaged in considering the question of aspiration, and having had the advantage at the same time of consulting Professor Lassen's acute but incomplete remarks upon the old Persian alphabet, I have been induced to adopt a somewhat different classification of the Cuneiform characters from that which is given in the preceding chapter. The peculiarity of Cuneiform writing, which I have long suspected, but only recently verified, and upon which depend the rectifications now proposed, consists in the constant occurrence of compound vowel articulations in the interior of words, of which, owing to the inherence of the a in the preceding consonant, the second element only is expressed. I have satisfied myself, indeed, that the groupes ai and au are as common in the language of the inscriptions as the diphthongs é and o in Sanskrit, (to which, be it observed, the said groupes phonetically and grammatically correspond,) and I have further remarked, that although in such Cuneiform groupes the vowel a is unexpressed, its existence may usually be detected by the form of the preceding consonant; an explanation being thus afforded of many of the supposed anomalies in the organization of the alphabet, and a very important step being gained in reducing it to simplicity and order.

Type
Memoir
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1847

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 175 note 1 I have been indebted for this assistance to Lieut. Eastwiek's English translation, communicated to me in manuscript.

page 175 note 2 I have indeed expressly stated in my examination of the Cuneiform vowels, a belief in the principle of interior vowel combination; but I had not at that time sufficiently examined the grammatical inflexions to be enabled to derive from the discovery its full phonetic value.

page 175 note 3 Professor Lassen terms the different grades tenues, aspirated tenues, and medials; but I prefer retaining the old nomenclature, which I have all along followed.

page 176 note 1 Hence we have the Greek &c.; the being, as I think, the true phonetic representative of the old Persian au.

page 178 note 1 Compare the Zend taokhma.

page 178 note 2 “A friend,” or “supporter,” probably from the Sans. “an arm,” with which are allied both the Pers. dush, “back,” and dost, “a friend.” I suspect also that the obscure daosha of the Zend is connected.

page 179 note 1 There is however much uncertainty attaching to this name, the Median and Babylonian copies evidently distinguishing it from the well-known title of Media. It may possibly denote the

page 180 note 1 The m in those languages opening on a vowel is certainly a labial.

page 180 note 2 I do not think, however, that the Cuneiform combines freely with the u. In the combination could not be avoided; but in paru for puras, the transposition of the vowel can only be explained by a repugnance to the groupe The only second example of it is in an imperfect name in the geographical list at Nakhsh-i-Rustam.

page 180 note 3 The orthography of this word, it must be remembered, is in Pehlevi and Parsi, kup.

page 182 note 1 Compare the Zend raocha.

page 182 note 2 As in the Sanskrit superlatives and

page 182 note 3 The conversion of the primitive vowel in the first four tenses is common to several of the Sanskrit conjugations.

page 182 note 4 The ush and aush of the old Persian, are of course equal to the us and os of the Sanskrit.

page 184 note 1 Respecting the terminations in ish and ush, I have already observed, that the sibilant is aspirated by the force of the preceding vowel, and is then retained in virtue of its aspiration.

page 184 note 2 There is also a difficulty with regard to the final r. From the Median and Babylonian orthography, I should certainly be disposed to read the name of the Babylonian king Nabukudrachar, and the Sans. should give us atar rather than atara; but on the other hand, according to the above classification, r is a surd, and if final should be elided.

page 184 note 3 I do not yet understand upon what principle the old Persian wrote pri instead of fri, (of pru I am doubtful); but I think I see that where an aspiration was necessary, and such an aspiration would disfigure the word, the language rejected the r and retained the p in its Bimple form; compare pati and palish, for prati and

page 186 note 1 I do not think it necessary to notice the anomalous compounds, or and