^{page 191 note 1} We think that readers who at first object to the very free use of abbreviations and symbols will in time come to appreciate them. We do not like, however, the hybrid ‘cfs.’; it should be cps. or cft. (if Pehlevi has to be learned it does not need to be copied). Certain readers would find it convenient to be told that the frequent references to Ibn Doreid are to the Kitāb el-Ištiḳāḳ, ed. Wüstenfeld. A symbol indicating the origin of the inscriptions cited merely by numbers would have been useful. In the article , e.g., printing 158^N for 168 would have informed the reader that 158, as well as N7, is a Nabataean inscription.

^{page 192 note 1} Occasional slight discrepancies between a note of reference and the place referred to (e.g. on p. 11, third article, compared with on p. 52) are almost unavoidable and will mislead no one.

^{page 193 note 1} On p. 42, however, under , 120⁴ should be 124; and on p. 63, under , 362 should be 662. Moreover, in and in , on pp. 22 and 97, should be . The facsimile is quite unambiguous.

^{page 193 note 2} It is not worth while pointing out such things as omissions or misplacements of ; but it may be of use to some readers to correct the following misprints:— on p. 13 for the of CIS—i.e. ; on p. 19 for of Euting; on p. 27 for ; on p. 37 for ; on p. 43 for ; on p. 53 for ; on p. 55 (following a misprint in De Vogüé) for , and for ; on p. 88 'Obaišat (after CIS) for 'Obaisat; on p. 93 for ; on p. 96 for ; on p. 97 for ; on p. 111 for ; (on p. 113 is a rare form, not an error for ;) on p. 115 for ; and on p. 119 for , and for .

^{page 193 note 3} Sometimes, however, the effort to be concise leads to obscurity or misstatement: on p. 19, under , Nüldeke's explanation “one who is cut from the body of his mother” is not an alternative translation of , but a translation of ; in the same article Leps. 86 refers to Denkmäler aus Aegypten, Abth. vi (Band xi), Tafel 14–21; on p. 22 ānif and ‘nose’ are alternatives, not equivalents; on p. 56 the juxtaposition of and Heb. suggests to the unwary reader that the Arabic word is known in the sense of ‘grasshopper’; on p. 105, if ‘to place, to set’ be correct, should be . On the other hand, there seems to be a misapprehension on p. 38 in the article . does not mean ‘tanner.’ Mordtmann means to say that the Palmyrene proper name , coming from a root = Arab. , will mean ‘tanner.’ Gĕrăm on p. 37, given as the Ethiopic for ‘fear,’ should be germā. On p. 75 , Manawāt, should be , Manāt.

In the case of Assyrian and Egyptian words, it is to be regretted that the system of transliteration employed in the CIS has been preserved. It is extremely desirable that, whatever be done about the Egyptian vowels, the system of transliteration of the consonants that is now dominant should be used in all Semitic work. This does not in Assyrian, as in Arabic, employ a ḥ and a ḫ but only a ḫ— not being distinguishable, except etymologically. In any case it is misleading to find kimaḥḥi on p. 37, and similarly ḥ in almost all Assyrian words, but patâḫu on p. 24. In Egyptian, on the contrary, it need hardly be said, ḥ and ḫ represent distinet symbols and distinet sounds. Thus, in ḥakonu(i) on p. 53, and in Ḥor en ḥeb on p. 56, ḥ is correct; but if so, in ḥrd ḥrt on p. 56, in anḥ (i.e. 'nḫ) on p. 94, in ḥontu on p. 82, in ḥalis on p. 50 (and of course in and ), in ḥonsu on p. 55, and in other examples, ḥ should be ḫ. We may add here that we do not suppose the author means to propose a new theory of the date of Daniel when he assigns it to the middle of the second century b.c. (p. 3, note 2).