Page:Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions.djvu/259

230 We have not noticed how he arrived at the value g for Grotefend's u or for the sign which Grotefend thought was a defective n. We find them without explanation in the place where they appear to be mentioned for the first time. The first is g before α; the other g before u.

In addition to the six correct values just enumerated, Lassen was also very nearly successful in two others — w (, 10) and t (,13), really v before α and tr before α. The latter he correctly acknowledged in a later work.

The first is the e of Grotefend in his 'Darheusch.' Lassen had the Hebrew form of the name 'Darjavesch' in his mind, and no doubt he suspected the presence of the sound of v in the Old Persian word. The discovery of the w was certaiidy ingenious, though scarcely convincing, if it had not been supported from other sources. At the end of the B inscription there is a word in the nominative, 'Akunush,' which is found elsewhere with the accusative termination m, but, instead of the u the sign now under discussion is substituted — that is, instead of ' nus,' we have n m. Now, he argued, it is impossible either in Zend or Sanscrit for a word whose theme ends with u to lose it in the accusative; and therefore the unknown sign must either be a u or the corresponding half-vocal v. But in Darius, the letter that follows is a u. and therefore it must be the half-vocal—the only question being whether it is the Zend v or w. He eventually erroneously decided for the w, and pointed to two other words wᵃ'sna and wᵃzᵃrk, where as a w it would make excellent sense.

With regard to the t it will be recollected that