^{page 713 note 1} Monumenta Lingziarum Asiae Maioris, ed. K. Gronbech. Vol. iii, Codices Sogdiani. Manuacrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Mission Pelliot), reproduits en facsimilè, avec une introduction par E. Benveniste.

^{page 713 note 2} Mission Pelliot en Asie Centrale, sèrie in-quarto, vol. iii, Textes Sogdiens, èditès, traduits et commentès par E. Benveniste. Geuthner, P., 1940Google Scholar.

^{page 713 note 3} A worthy specimen of their quality is the explanation of άkivákŋs (p. 202).

^{page 713 note 4} See BSOAS., XI, 465, n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 713 note 5} In translation: “Take three drams of cummin (zyr'kk), three of Ipomcœa turpethum, and three times as much sugar as (both) those drugs together. Pound it finely, mix it with hydromel, give it to drink. It purges all impurities, is useful in all illnesses. Should it purge too much, drink pt″pch, it will cease”. δrγmδnk=δraχmθang corresponds to Persian diramsang. kpčky in line 7 is “spoonful” (= Pers. kafče); βtskpyc(8) = Skt. vatsakabīja; wšny 'spy (20) = stallion (Pers. gusšn); mγ't (9) read mγ'wn.

^{page 713 note 6} Not recognized as such by the editor. It belongs to the Wazrgān āfrīwan: cf. Waldschmidt Lentz, Stellung Jesu, p. 71.

^{page 714 note 1} 'nyw (ZY) nyk in both copies stands for 'BYW (ZY) ny'k. In both read rštw instead of nšlw. In ii, line 2, read zrw', line 3 rwyšnt; ″βryty 'yš at the end is a mistake for ″βrytyt “⃛to the King of Gods, the Great King God Zrwān, who is the father and grandfather of all Light Gods. Praised and blessed art thou, together with the great Light World, (and) the BlessedAions”.

^{page 714 note 2} Cf. also BSOAS., XI, 482, n. 3Google Scholar.

^{page 714 note 3} See ibid., 465, n. 2. The “yadči” (read yadači) of the Uyγur confession prayers is a rainstone magician rather than a snake-charmer, cf. Müller, Uignrica, ii, 84 and note; Bang-Gabain, T.T., iv, 438, line 60.

^{page 714 note 4} See below on P 3, 273.

^{page 714 note 5} Read nypysw = “I painted” in the place of nypyšw.

^{page 714 note 6} Of articles, etc., concerning Sogdian that were published in Europe during war-time, the following have come to our notice:Freiman, A. A., Novaya rabota po sogdiyskomu kalendaryu Vestnik Drevney Islorii, 4 (9), 1939, 124Google Scholar; Sogdiyskiy rukopisnîy dokument na, koźe 6 B 5 iz sobraniya dokumentov s gorî mugh, ibid., 1 (10), 1940, 99–101 [note srtγy'n or sytγy'n pwst in line 5, read mrtγw'k by Freiman, = “ pieces of morocco leather” = Pers. saχliyān]. Hansen, O., Berliner soghdische Texte, i, Bruehstücke einer soghdischen Version der Georgspassion (C 1), Abh. P.A.W., 1941, No. 10, here quoted as OhcarglsGoogle Scholar; Dr. Dresden kindly presented me with a copy. Dresden, M. J., Bibliographia sogdiana concisa, Jaarbericht No. 8 van het Voor-Aziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex Oriente Lux, Leiden, 1942, 729–734Google Scholar, to which should be added: Freiman, A. A., Sogdiyskiy nadpis' iz starogo Merva, Zap. last. Vost., vii, 1937, 296–302Google Scholar; Sogdiyskiy rukopisnîy dokument astrologišeskogo soderźaniya (kalendar'), Vestnik Drevney Istorii, 2 (3), 1938, 34–49 (cf. JRAS., 1942, 242); K imeni sogdiyskogo ixšida Gureka, 3 (4), 1938, 147Google Scholar sq.; and my paper in Orieulalia, viii, 1939, 87–95.Google Scholar

^{page 715 note 1} Tales = BSOAS., XI, 465–487Google Scholar. Kawān = BSOAS., XI, 52–74Google Scholar. Gershevitch with paragraph = I. Gershevitch, A Grammar of Afanichean Sogdian (to be published soon).

^{page 722 note 1} It is perhaps not always realized with sufficient clarity that the Sogdian translators (l)may have had before them Chinese manuscripts whose text differed considerably from that printed in the Taishú Tripiṭaka, (2) may have thoroughly misunderstood the Chinese. An instructive example is SCE., 79/80, γwnγ ZKZY ym'n nwš'kw 'wy cšmy' syt. Anyone acquainted with Sogdian will understand “that one to whom faults appear in the eyes perpetually”, viz. a habitual fault-finder. I venture to think that a true-born Sogdian would have understood the same thing. But alas the Chinese text used by M. Pelliot bears no resemblance to it. It says mot à mot“ sew-falcon-eye-joint” = “(he that) sew(s together a) falcon's eye-lid(s)”. One wonders if it is wise for us to resign our knowledge of Sogdian and try to bring the Sogdian text into line with the Chinese. For this short sentence we have to impute to the Sogdian language not less than three otherwise unknown words, all of them homonyms of well-known words, namely (1) ym'n a new pronominal form (as if we had not enough of such already), otherwise = fault, defect; (2) nwš'kw a falcon (which in fact is nwš or zwš), otherwise = always; (3) syt he sews, otherwise = he appears.

^{page 723 note 1} 1 M. Benveniste (in the Glossary) connects pn-y with pny in the medical fragment P 19, 8. It would, however, seem that pny-ϓr'y in that text is a single word. In unpublished medical fragments it occurs (throughout out of context) as pnγry. There is little doubt that this is the name of a medicinal measure or weight, presumably a fraction of the st'yr (P 19, 6) = ounce. In Uyγur Turkish the tenth part of a sitir = tael = ounce is called “baqîr” = mace, see F. W. K. Müller, Uigurische Glossen, Oslas. Ztschr., viii, p. 320. This “baqîr” (p'γyr) or paχir, which should not be confused with Turk, baqîr “copper”, is evidently the same word as the Sogdian pnγry (etc.) = *panχSri One frequently finds -aχ- instead of -anχ- in Sogdian words.

^{page 723 note 2} In view of M. Benveniste's remark, p. 181 n., it should be noted that BBB. was published on 13th April, 1937. I received Notes iii, through the kindness of the author, on 4th May, 1937.

^{page 724 note 1} rysk Anc. Lett, hardly so.

^{page 724 note 2} cytβnt serves also as transliteration of Jetavana P 8, 30, “to the farn of Jetavana Vihāra (and to the farn) of Navavihāra” [sic].

^{page 725 note 1} Not connected with MPers. myn, Mir.Man., i, which was assumed to be the offspring of Av. maēni- (Skt. meni). ibid, gbr = uterus (cf. Kephalaia, 177, 29); dn'ẖ = tooth-ache (dannfrom dant- ? + Pera. āh); wcyẖ = Pahl. wcyh- = Av. vyusam; hng'w'n read hngn'n “to fill up (a well)”; phng read p'ng. In Mir.Man., ii, pylg may be “altar” = Akkadian parakku, Syr. prakkā, Mand. pryky' (NÖldeke, Mand. Gramm., 14). But in Parthian pylg is apparently “steps, staircase”, hence = Pers. pille.

^{page 727 note 1} = barbuṭ ? p. 161 (cf. Battal, p. 26. çiήir) is not clear.

^{page 728 note 1} If this can be established, it may even become worthwhile to consider whether the Sogdian is related in any way to the Chinese term for “musk” (see Karlgren, Analyt. Dict., No. 865).

^{page 728 note 2} Not recognized by indigenous dictionaries. P. de Menasce (on ŠGV.) quotes a solitary Pers. “xarak D”, but does not explain the D. This *xarak which I find in Johnson–s Dictionary is, of course, a mispointed xarg/xorg.

^{page 729 note 3} This passage, along with many others, was discussed by Dr. Mirza in his able commentary on Pahl. Riv., ch. 35, where he proposed “light (emanating from fire, etc.)”. However, the word was sometimes confused with xvarreh (as Mirza pointed out) and thus may appear as GDH in Pahlavi texts. Thus, e.g., in GrBd., 124¹⁰,“three fires like three embers in a fire-place” (differently Bailey, Zor. Problems, 45).

^{page 730 note 1} Often misunderstood as “the horns of spikenard”.

^{page 732 note 1} One wonders how often more “MPT. kambišl” will be quoted. No such word is attested. Cf. OLZ., 1934, 751.

^{page 733 note 1} βstγwnp'y'skum, ibid, 771, must mean “she pushed the wheel”. This reveals a root of five consonants, (fra +) stγnp, or at least four, *stγm, if -np- = -mb- developed from an original -m-. Hence compare Pahl. stahm, stahm(b)ak, and Vistahm.

^{page 734 note 1} To save space, where no confusion is possible only those readings are given which are correct in my opinion. Thus, “P 2, 17 'krt'” means that in that line the MS. seems to have, in my view, ‘krt’ instead of 'krty.

^{page 736 note 1} Sogd. βrpš- “pregnant” (mentioned there) has been left untranslated in P 22, 18.

^{page 736 note 2} ṣynst'n in the Si-an-fu inscription is the Persian term.

^{page 736 note 3} Care should be taken not to confuse it with 'my, the suffixed pronoun of the first person, as in VJ. 18, 462, 524, 570; even 'myh VJ. 689; ordinarily -my.

^{page 736 note 4} “zy'n, 1st pers. subj. of “zy-. M. Benveniste has a different explanation.

^{page 737 note 1} δ'p'tsyγ], ibid, can be explained now. syγ appears to be synonymous with žām “fine”. E.g. M 568, 12 šyr syγ ptryδ (Man. script) “mix very finely”.

^{page 737 note 2} Thus, δnn prγrš 'PZY δnn “z'wnt “avec les défunts (?) et avec les vivanis” (191/2), but “z'wnt is “children”. The proper meaning of “z'wn- is “that which has been born (or re-born)”, whence “child” and “anything born” “a (living) being”. It is never found in opposition to “deceased”. The dead also were born.

^{page 740 note 1} Dr. I. Gershevitch has put me under a great debt of gratitude by reading the proofe of this article and kindly adding the index during my absence from this country.