of the Letters of the Hieroglyphic Alphabet. 149 
small bars, for the pronoun of the third person feminine plural ; but I will give 
undoubted instances of its being referred to a singular antecedent. In PI. 108, 
in the first three lines, it is so used repeatedly ; in Pl. 159, 1. 10, it is used with 
reference to Neith; and in Pl. 146, |. 6, in reference to another goddess. 
Again, in Pl. 79, 1. 7, it is used with reference to a noun, which is preceded by 
the feminine article singular, and has no mark of plurality. The semicircle is 
also added to the chair-back, when it forms a part of words. I will give but one 
instance, though I have noticed many. In Pl. 82, 1. 4, the name of a plant or 
fruit is written as in fig. 32, which, according to the received mode of reading, 
would be Aasti ; elsewhere the semicircle is omitted. This is, probably, “the 
tamarisk,” of which the Coptic name is oct, os?. 
Of the second class of examples which I proposed to adduce, the following 
may suffice. The participle passive of the verb Meh, “to fill,” is written in PI. 
57, |. 3, as in fig. 33; and in Pl. 58, 1. 2, as in fig. 34; two equivalent forms of 
the letter T being used, and to each is attached its proper expletive; the semi- 
circle has the lituws, which is U, and the purse has the leaf; which is A. Are 
we to read this word Meh-tu or Meh-ta? Or shall we affirm that the Egyptians 
used these two terminations indifferently ? According to the principle for which 
I am contending, there is no difficulty. Neither of the vowels is to be sounded. 
The word is MeHuT; the vowel being supplied in the last syllable from the 
form UT (fig. 35), which is used on the Rosetta stone, and the Coptic oT. 
I will give two more examples, in which, though the expletives are vowels, it 
appears to me impossible that any one can contend for their being properly parts 
of the two words. The word for “evening” occurs, Pl. 44, 1. 4, written with 
four letters, RUHA (fig. 36), and determinative signs. The corresponding 
Coptic word is potg,t, Raht. The first vowel in this word is not, and cannot 
be expletive, for the ditwus is not the proper attendant on the mouth ; the second 
I affirm to be expletive, partly because the final vowel is not A in Coptic, and 
partly because the word is sometimes written with only three letters, as in fig. 37, 
taken from the sarcophagus of the Queen of Amasis (Sharpe, 118, 5). If the 
principle were admitted, and we were only discussing matters of detail, this 
would be quite sufficient to shew that the eagle, at the end of this word, should 
be considered as an expletive; but I cannot rely on such arguments for my 
present purpose. I quote this word, not as an instance of one expletive, but as 
