214 Rev. Epwarp Hincks on the Number, Names, and Powers 
34. A water plant (X 2; x 2) represents kh, as is generally admitted. The 
comparison of figs. 19 and 21 shews this, and also that its expletive is the eagle. 
It occurs also, accompanied by the same expletive, in the name of a town which 
occurs Pl. 56, 1. 6, styled “the bull on the frontiers,” the country spoken of 
being Southern Palestine. I cannot hesitate to identify this with the Elusa of 
St. Jerome, the ancient Hebrew name of which, he says, was ~19n, Khaltits; and 
the position of which, as described by Dr. Robinson, a few hours to the South of 
Beersheba, at the very border of the plain of Gaza, exactly corresponds with that 
of the Egyptian town. The name is that in fig. 157; and the powers of the 
characters are xANaLutA, or xeNLut. It is well known that the Hebrews were 
in the habit of dropping the N at the close of a syllable, when followed, as here, 
by another consonant. The two names, therefore, coincide as nearly as could be 
expected. I shall have to return to this name when I come to consider the power 
of the last consonant in it. The character now before us is used on the tomb of 
Teta, where, however, it may be ideographic; but it is decidedly phonetic in 
Lepsius, ix. 11 (stele in the Louvre), which belongs to the second period. 
35. A reed (S3; 83) represents s, beg interchanged with S 1 and 8S 2, 
in the name of Rameses the Great, at Abydos and elsewhere. Enough has been 
said in the first part to show that the quail, which often accompanies it, was an 
expletive, and not, at Lepsius and others have supposed, a complement. I will 
add, however, that in the name which Manetho in Josephus represents by Las, 
the terminal syllable is sometimes represented by the reed and quail, Su (fig. 158), 
and sometimes by the following character, and its expletive, which we shall see 
was equivalent to Sa (fig. 160). Both these forms occur in the great hall of 
Karnage, in the sculptures of Seti I. (H. I. 5, Nos. 25, 35); and this proves not 
only that the consonants were equivalent, but that the vowels were not sounded. 
In this word, which I read SXuS, supplying the vowel on the authority of Jo- 
sephus, I have no doubt that we have the Sxv@ai of the Greeks, who converted 
the sibilant, which was in this word probably pronounced soft, as in rose, into @, 
having no letter in their language properly corresponding to it. The Greek ¢ 
was a double letter, and, therefore, could not have been equivalent to this. If we 
may believe the Sanscrit work already mentioned, it must have had the power of 
our 7; for Gvyov and Zevs are transcribed by jika and Jiva, Sta. The latter 
i 
