308 Rev. Dr. Watt on the different Kinds of Cuneiform Writing 
_ cases I substitute an apostrophe for the vowel that is to be suppressed........ 
The vowels 7 and w are scarcely distinguished ; and, in the application of the 
preceding rule, syllables commencing with the same consonant, and terminating 
with ¢ and w, are regarded as equivalent. I have, therefore, classed them toge- 
ther, placing, however, those characters first which appear most decidedly to have 
contained 2, and those last which always expressed vu. ....... The consonants 
r and / are not distinguished ; nor are b, p, w, and m; nor k, g, and kh; nor s 
and the other sibilants, except in one instance.—See note on 65. Ch appears 
to have been expressed by s, andj by /; but, perhaps, not in every mstance.’’— 
On the three Kinds of Persepolitan Writing, &c., p. 16.* 
In a subsequent part of the same Essay, which was read to a meeting of the 
Academy in the first month of the present year, Dr. Hincks makes, from causes 
which it is here unnecessary to consider, some rectifications of the vocalic struc- 
ture of the system, which he describes in the following manner: ‘‘ — observing 
the greatly increased resemblance to the Semitic dialects which the language 
assumed in consequence of these changes, I thought it best to alter the vowel 
notation, substituting e, equivalent to the Hebrew Sheva, for the w of my former 
alphabet. The simple characters, then, consist of consonants followed by these 
two vowels, a(-) and e(.). The other vowels are represented by combinations 
of these with each other, with or without the intervention of certain semivocal 
labials and gutturals, distinguished in the alphabet by having a { prefixed to 
them. Thus, a. be is au, or d(,); a. ge,é(.); e.be ore.ba, wor 6; and 
e.ge or e.ga, 7; while the short vowels proceed from the concurrence of two 
e’s, the latter of which becomes mute, while the former is generally to be sounded 
as 7, but occasionally as other short vowels. Further researches may, perhaps, 
supply more accurate rules; but I feel confident that, by following these, the 
pronunciation will be attained in a very approximate manner. ‘The concurrence 
of two equivalent syllables will be readily seen to be analogous to the Hebrew 
dagesh. It is found, however, in cases where dagesh could not occur in Hebrew, 
as in ne.ne, when initial. Here, I have little doubt, the duplication has the 
effect of lengthening the vowel, or detaching it from any syllable containing e 
* I am obliged to quote the page of the above passage from the Author’s Essay, printed in a 
separate form, which he was so kind as to send me; as the volume of the Transactions of the 
Academy in which it is to appear has not yet been published. 
