278 Rev. Dr. Watt on the different Kinds of Cuneiform Writing 
tion cannot be applied to the use of the cuneiform / to express a ; both because 
there is not the slightest reason to think this consonant had any name similar to 
alpha, and, more positively, on account of the transition from the cuneiform 
matres lectionis to letters that were exclusively employed as vowel-signs ;—a 
transition that, in all probability, would never have been made by the Persian, 
any more than by Shemitic scribes, if their alphabet had been, as the application 
to it of the above explanation would require, an old one before the introduction 
into it of vowel-letters of the former kind. Supposing this to be a just view of 
the matter, it follows that the framers of the Persian cuneiform alphabet must have 
collected, pretty nearly at the same time, its materials of Greek and Shemitic 
origin, although it is proved to be chiefly of Grecian descent, not only by the 
direction of the writing in which it is employed, but also by the occurrence in 
this writing of syllables commencing with vowel-signs, as exemplified in the last 
paragraph,—a class of designations that has no place in Shemitic orthography. 
9. Itis for the most part very uncertain, or quite unknown, how the defects 
of vocalization in the groups of cuneiform letters ought to be supplied. The rule 
at present observed upon the subject is, whenever, in-the transcription of those 
groups into writing in the Roman character, a vowel is wanted, to insert a short 
a,—a practice which is grounded solely on the affinity of the ancient Persian to 
the Sanscrit language. But the Zend has likewise an affinity to Sanscrit, and yet 
does not admit of the application to it of this rule. In fact, it by no means fol- 
lows from the existence of a close connexion between two dialects, that, wherever 
the consonantal parts of words, or inflexions of words are the same, the vocal 
parts must also be identical. ‘This remark may be illustrated by the example of 
the Hebrew and Syriac tongues, in which many of the grammatical forms are, in 
their written ingredients, exactly the same, and yet are pronounced with diffe- 
rent vowels. But surely Sanscrit does not approach nearer to the old Persian 
language, as preserved in the cuneiform legends of the first kind, than Syriac 
does to its Hebrew original. Besides, a further objection lies against the existing 
practice, that it is, in a large class of instances, at variance with the express testi- 
mony of the very legends to which it is applied. ‘The secondary consonants 
are appropriated, most of them at least, to vowels different from a, which are 
sometimes, though irregularly, omitted. But, in such cases, the groups, as 
more fully written, clearly point out with what elements the transcriptions of the 
