Page:Discovery and Decipherment of the Trilingual Cuneiform Inscriptions.djvu/433

404 years before. It is possiljle that the later writer is

more complete and accurate ; it could scarcely have

])eeii othei'wise, considerhi^- the larij-e amount of data

n(nv available and the im])os-il)ilitv of not beintr

iruided, to some extent at least, by the Svllabarium of « - » »

Hawlin^on and Ilinrks. Yet in this eleraentarv work

of simjile classification there are numerous errors he

mipht have escaped if he had condescended to place

more dependence ui)on their authority. Thus, for

example, amonir his i>utturals wc iiiid U)f course bare

and stripped of their vocalic garments) the sisins for

ijf, f(j', (d and zi. His dental> include two gutturals,

the siuns for ga and (ji. Among his labials he

irives us the si^rn^ for ns and /;//. Amonir his

linuuals are those for ki and S'l and they include

the siiins for the svllables f(n\ hnr and rit\ while « . »

the ^ii>'n for nl is found amonii" the sibilants. Xot- withstanding all liis efforts to escape syllabic values, he was forced to enumerate a few — /y///?, al\ akh, at, ba)\ and of the two siuns lie gives for (IS, one should l)e si and the other shi\ while his is should Ix^ us. With few exceptions all these might liave been found correctlv ijivcn l)v Eawlinson three vears before. Hincks had Iohlj' aii'o pointed out in his Kliorsabad Ks^av (June 1840) that a clear distinction is maintained between the vowels, and l)etween the surd and sonant consonants. Yet here we find the siirns for )iK /'*, OIL and b^ and thost- for / and r all classed indilVerentlv together. His treatment of the vowels is not less l)ehind the knowled<je of the time. The sinorle vowel a is represented l.)v no less than seven signs that really express an^ (/, ap, /, ruli, man. it. Two of these