^{page 41 note 1} prystr(-dys), ibid., line 2, is frestr,corruption of Av. xrafstra-.There is much to be said for deriving Bal. rastarfrom the same word. Restore prystr ′y zmygin M482 v 7.

^{page 41 note 2} Also in Man. MPers. (S11 and Mir.Man.,ii). But Parthian ′bystn(once in Mir.Man.,iii) is presumably “delay, respite” = Sogdian (′)pstnh(see S.T.,ii; cf. possibly also Av. apastananhō BSOS.,x, 509).

^{page 42 note 1} Cf. Pers. humāi(1) a mythical bird, (2) = Pers. ustu-x^vān-x^vār “ossifrage (osprey) ”. The confusion is ultimately due to the use made of γρvψin the Septuagint

^{page 43 note 1} In MPers. = thirsty, but in Parthian = drink (cf. Sogdian cs′nt“ drink ’ beside csn-“thirst”).

^{page 44 note 1} So also in the Chin. Hymn–scroll 124c.

^{page 44 note 2} Chavannes–Pelliot, Cf., 24 [520], n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} Probably fraspid“ thrown aside ”, rather than parispīd(which should be spelled pryspyd);Av. fraspaya-.

^{page 45 note 2} Beruni′s, Cf. remark, India,p. 59 end (transl., i, 123).Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 3} The Chinese is here much closer to the Turkish than to the Parthian.

^{page 46 note 1} Morgertfand,vol. xxviii, 106, n. 2.

^{page 46 note 2} Which, however, is r′din Parthian. With Persian ba-rāy,also ba...rā,Pahl. PWN... I′d, we can compare Sogdian pyd′r (pyδ′r)from pati-δār, cf. the old spelling pytδ′rin the Ancient Letters. Metathesis of the consonants (ef. Persian bīdār, BSOS., X, 103, n. 1) is present also in the Khwarezmian postposition δār, cf. e.g. ī juft δār= Ar. ilà zaujihā, apudS. L. Volin, Zap. Inst. Vost.,vii, 88; i nānām δār“ to N.N.” and rāyyān šuylān δār “ for field work ”, apudFreiman, ibid, 314.

^{page 46 note 3} ′bd′g′n...′wd dwy′n, Mir.Man.ii, 316, 7, cf. BSOS.,IX, 82 (the preceding words mayhave been taken from the Ascensio Jesaiae,x, 13); Transact. Phil. Soc,1942, 56, n. 2.

^{page 46 note 4} BSOS.,IX, 87.

^{page 46 note 5} S 12a 28; Mir.Man.,ii; BBB.

^{page 46 note 6} Dalman, Aram.-Neuhebr. Wb.,123, proposed zndnq′.

^{page 47 note 1} For Pahl. forms see Zaehner, BSOS.,IX, 311; X, 620; Bailey, Zor.ProbL,109, 138.

^{page 47 note 2} Misunderstood and misapplied as “ erect” in Persian.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 3} Pers. -a-from MPers. -i-is common and occurs even in monosyllables (zam “ cold ” from zim-).Metathesis as in yarv“ cane ” from grav-, surb“ lead ” from sruv-.Words in -abzare rare, dabz/gabz“ thick ” are equally dubious; if dabzis correct, it could be from dbaz(Duchesne- Guillemin, BSOS.,IX, 864) and help to prove the case for sabz. bavz (bauz,with a side-form buz)“humble-bee” has original -bž-,cf. Morgenstierne, NTS.,v, 45 sq.–Sabzoccurs as “green” even in Pahlavi books, e.g: GrBd.,140, 7, spz(in the next line repeated aa.spycz), Pahl.Riv.,202, 6 spz(not “ brilliant ” as de Menasce, Anthropos,xxxvii-xl, 183 sqq.).Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 4} ′zgryft,etc., has original uz-. ′sprhm-is from spargman-.Latin stratabecomes sratin Pahlavi, see Bailey, JRA8.,1934, 505; Zor.Probl,115. Istraēlbecomes Sr′yl,see BSOAS.,XI, 54. The only exception, Parth. ‘strtywt’ = στρατιωτης,is deceptive. It was no doubt pronounced as startiyōtā.Google Scholar

^{page 47 note 5} Khowar, Cf.isprenJjik “ to blossom rdquo; (with secondary nasalization). Cf. Morgenstierne, BSOS.,VIII, 662.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 1} I made the mistake there of making use of the WLWC′N MLK′who is mentioned in the Great Inscription of Shapur I. The later discovered Greek and Parthian versions of that inscription (see below, p. 53), which became accessible to me only in August, 1945, have proved me wrong and shown that the WLWC′N MLK′was the king of Iberia (in Parthian WYRŠN).It is only fair to say that I had envisaged the possibility that Iberia was meant, but had discarded it because I did not see (and still do not see) how such a spelling, which no doubt underlies the Warjanof the Armenian Geography, could be defended, in view of the other forms of the name, Arm. Wirk′Gr. ‘Ypicavoi,and now Parth. Wyršn = Wirčān.Persian (etc.) Gurj/Gurzis easily derived from Waruč;the difficulty lies in explaining Waruč.–Striking out the WLWC′N MLK′does not necessarily affect the chief argument of my article. As we have two countries of the name of Warjan/ Warčanin the Armenian Geography, one = Iberia, the other somewhere near Balkh, so should we find two Waručānsin the Iranian material. The Manichsean fragments in which Wrwc′noccurs are in Parthian: the name of Iberia should there be spelt *wyrc′n;for wrwc′nis known only as the Middle Persian form. On the other hand, one feels some hesitation on account of the name of the king, Haβazā (Habaza),which strangely resembles the name of the contemporaneous king of Iberia, Hamazasp,and could perhaps be regarded as a hypocoristic form of it.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} That is clear from his mentioning la ville de Ho-mo (Mém.,ii, 180) as the eastern frontier of Persia. Ho-mo,as already Marquart pointed out (Erānšahr,75), is a mistake for *Mo-ho (muât-yâk)= Mary/Marv.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Or qptynws.

^{page 50 note 2} Orrryl.

^{page 50 note 3} Or nysryl,possibly even nysnyl.

^{page 50 note 4} Or pwšxwr?

^{page 50 note 5} Or d(â)lbwhr? Or r- ?

^{page 51 note 1} Apart from Khotanese Saka, it is only in Parthian that Skt. -ksis rendered by -xi;for 1. y'yS(Bailey, BSOAS.,xi, 771) does not exist (see ibid., 719), and Man. Sogd. cxi′pt(whence Uigur and Mongol) comes from Parthian.

^{page 52 note 1} Parth. ′skd ibid, is evidently “ thorns ” = Sogd. ‘skt’‘ thorns ’ SGE.,48, also Man. skt′(1060 V4). This meaning fits Av. skaitibetter than any other.

^{page 53 note 1} The other terms used to define the eastern limits will be discussed at the end of this note.

^{page 53 note 2} I.e. Πapaδηvηin Gedrosia. Sprengling (353) wrongly attributes to Marquart the view that the corresponding name in the Pāikuli inscription should be localized in Surat. On Skt. Pāratasee S. Levi, J.A.,1915, i, 103 sq., on Mahamayflri, 95, (where Pāralāh).stands beside Sakasthāna, Pahlava, and Kāpisi,

^{page 54 note 1} Not understood by Sprengling. Same list as in the Armenian Geography, provinces of K′usti-Kapkoh,1–6 (where Sisakan follows Balasakan).

^{page 54 note 2} A new sub-sentence begins with to hmk...Not understood by Sprengling.

^{page 54 note 3} It occurs several times in the inscription. Sprengling misreads it throughout.

^{page 54 note 4} Sprengling′s transliteration.

^{page 55 note 1} This suggestion is supported by the Avatamsaka-sutra and Suryagarbha-siitra, where “ la Grotle de Na-lo-yen[i.e. Nārāyana] est le lieu saint de la Chine” (BEFEO).v 282, 6 For details see BEFEO.,ii, 248; iv, 547.

^{page 55 note 2} -pas in lyšp,etc., cf. Sogdica,58 and Add,Google Scholar

^{page 56 note 1} It is beyond my province to express an opinion on Hebr. migdānoth(from √mgdor migda?). The ultimate provenance of the word for “ fruit ’ (Semitic ? Iranian ? or a third group ?) is not clear to me.

^{page 57 note 1} The etymology recently proposed for this word by H. W. Bailey, BSOAS.,xi, 774, n. 1, would require -hrin the MPers. form. The absence of -h-from all other spellings, even that in the inscription of Shapur, is against *naxti-čiθra-.One would also hesitate to regard Sogdian nys′yras a loanword (the regular Sogdian form should end in -iš).Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 1} For the arguments against his analysis are overwhelmingly strong. No such ending (!T) is known in any type of the more ancient Pahlavi material (inscriptions, Dura-Europos, coins, papyri, psalter), a large part of which antedates our oldest Pahlavi manuscripts by as much as a millennium. Indeed, the letter ∏ had fallen into disuse (except in the fossilized ideograms, i.e. word pictures) even before the third century. The sehriftgeschichtliche Analyseseems to operate in vacua.

^{page 58 note 2} In my view they were written in Southern Persia, in Fars and Kerman.

^{page 58 note 3} I am using capital letters here where I want to indicate the shape of the Pahlavi signs without expressing an opinion on their value, but small letters for their value. Thus, DŠcan stand for dš, gš yš,in my view also for dd′ dy′etc. The drawback is that those who are not acquainted with the peculiarities of the Pahlavi script will be prevented from following the discussion. It is outweighed by the precision secured by this mode of writing; the printed Pahlavi type is inadequate for our purposes.

^{page 59 note 1} The case does not occur.

^{page 59 note 2} Recte: Maši ud Mašāni.

^{page 59 note 3} In this case there should be no change at all in the wording; but there is rasetagainst rasat.One of them must be wrong. Nyberg judges differently, p. 86.

^{page 60 note 1} That, rather than “ un tel”,is the meaning of has.

^{page 60 note 2} This could have been found out easily enough by referring to West′s translation (SBE.,47, p. 7) or to Christensen, Premier Homme,i, 28 sq. One wonders why the work of earlier scholars should be so pointedly overlooked.

^{page 61 note 1} Another we owe to J. Stephenson, The Zoological Section of the Nuzhatu-l-Qulub,p. 44, ′ the spider... they prepare a net as a snare for flies, which form their food. The male spins the thread and becomes a female[my italics].” The Persian text has “ the male spins the warp and the female the woof (pud)”.

^{page 61 note 2} Forms derived from MPers. vēnōkoccur in modern Iranian not only in Nāyinī (as Geiger says, ibid., p. 552). Cf. Tajikī bum,“ lentil ” (Mann, i, 53); Bakht. gindi“ lentil ” (ibid, i?186); Codex Cumanicus,110, 8, bunu= “ Latin ” erbegia(i.e. ervilia) =Turkish brizac(i.e ). Differently Grenbeeh, Roman. Wb.,72 s.v. byrcaq; erbegiais hardly = Ital. erbaggio,but rather = Ital. rubiglia,Span, arveja,etc. [Persian dictionaries have compounds with bunu: bunu-surx, bunH-siyah, bunu-mas, bunu-naxle,for various species of lentils and peas.]

^{page 64 note 1} The distinction of -ē- and -ī-in MPers. and early NPers. is a matter of some difficulty.

^{page 64 note 2} This spelling exemplifies the three most common values of the group HH,viz. (1) ‘ + ’ (h + h),(2) yd′ = iyā,(3) in final position ī/ē.One would like to know how Nyberg would propose to read the word; in view of his words gētāh“ world ” frahāt“help ”, one would expect Mahrahānāh.