^{page 40 note 1} BSOAS, xviii, 1, 1956, 32–2.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Yaβnābā -š- represents Old Iran. –š–. Ossetic –s– may come from either –s– or –š–. Khotanese –ś– (older –śś–) has replaced or the -ṡ- palatalized, as in hälśti ‘spear’, Old Pers. aršti-. This mešin is quoted in Abaev, V., Oset. jazyk i fol'klor, pp. 58, 377Google Scholar, see BSOAS, xviii, 1, 1956, 40, and xx, 1957, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 3} E. Fraenkel, Die baltischen Sprachen, p. 36.

^{page 41 note 1} E. Fraenkel, loc. cit., 75 ff., emphasized that Lit. -uo- came from Indo-Eur. -ō-.

^{page 41 note 2} References are Khotanese in Sanghäṭa-sūtra and Jātaha-stava; Manich. Sogdian in W. B. Henning, Manich. Bet- und Beichtbuch, p. 124; Old Persian in Pauly-Wissowa, Reallexikon, and G. G. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury tablets, p. 132; Yidγa in Morgenstierne, G., IIFL, II, 190.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 3} BSOS, vi, 1, 1930, 70Google Scholar; Transactions Phil. Soc., 1954, 146 ff.

^{page 41 note 4} Trans. Phil. Soc., 1955, 80–2.

^{page 41 note 5} J. Pokorny, Indog. etym. Wb., 234.

^{page 41 note 6} No etymology is offered in E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., s.v.

^{page 41 note 7} Edited by G. H. F. Nesselmann, p. 147.

^{page 42 note 1} For mahe, Schmid, Wolfgang, Indogerm. Forschungen, LXII, 3, 1956, 219 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} H. Reichelt used ‘HeUmittel’, as if Avestan btš were concerned.

^{page 42 note 3} Rejected by Horn, P., Neupers. Etymologie, xix, n. 1Google Scholar, quoted in the Altiranisches Wōrlerbuch, s.v. -.

^{page 43 note 1} W. Wüst, PHMA, n, 27 ff., happily called attention to niju.

^{page 43 note 2} J. Endzelin, Lettiache Grammatik, 571, compared the Old Indian nava-nīta-.

^{page 43 note 3} Quoted in Indian Linguistics, xvi, 1955, 116 ff.Google Scholar, and Trans. Phil. Soc., 1955, 70.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} ‘Asica’, Trans. Phil. Soc., 1945, 30Google Scholar; Henning, W.B., BSOS, ix, 1, 1937, 84.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} E. Fraenkel, Lit. et. Wb., s.v., combines this lipù ‘rise’ with limpù ‘to stick’, which are more satisfactorily kept separate in they Wōrterbuch der litauischen Schriftsprache.

^{page 44 note 3} Thus correct the remarks on rίp- in my paper in the Liebenthal Festschrift, p. 10. Since lip- exists we need not posit a base *rei-p-.

^{page 44 note 4} Kādäg Igory stäryl, edited by Gazzaty, L., 1956, p. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 5} I had earlier, BSOAS, XIII, 1,1949, 122–3Google Scholar, tried to Bnd in this nxčyr the word nalcti– ‘night’, as Bartholomae had done previously, and had taken the form to be naxčhr, assuming the Turfan Mid. Pers. nhčyhr to contain -āihr from čiλra- ‘origin’. The –h– before –r– is absent in the many other forms of the word. With the discovery of nax ‘expanse’, the second component was clearly from čar– ‘range’. From čarya– would come čīr, later čīr. It is intended to give fuller details elsewhere.

^{page 45 note 1} Trans. Phil. Soc., 1955, 61Google Scholar; Indian Linguistics, xvi, 1955, 115 G.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 2} W. Wüst holds to the same connexion PHMA, II, 56.

^{page 45 note 3} JRAS, 1953, 115, n.4Google Scholar; Zoroastrian problems, 230. For Ormuǫī, Morgenstierne, G., Etym. voc. Pashto, 73Google Scholar. Hübschmann, H., ‘Die altarmenisehen Ortsnamen’, Indogerm. Forsckungen, xvi, 1904, 288.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 4} BSOAS, xviii, 1, 1956, 35Google Scholar; xix, 1, 1957, 49 ff.

^{page 45 note 5} W. Couvreur, in his review of Poucha, P., Institutiones linguae tocharicae, in La Nouvelle Clio, vii-viii, 1955–1956, 71.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 1} Couvreur, W., Gōttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 208, 1954, p. 86.Google Scholar

^{page 46 note 2} Loeb edition, Fragment 105.3.

^{page 46 note 3} For such wagons, see Schrader-Nehring, Reallexikon, s.v. Wagen.

^{page 46 note 4} BSOAS, xix, 1, 1957, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 1} Trans. Phil. Soc., 1956, 116.Google Scholar