SEYFFARTH—CHAMPOLLION AND RENOUF. 555 
deal of it affects only modern inscriptions, where, e. g., the 
child (shert for kere) sounds s for & acrophonically, as is ex- 
plained in my Grammar. Perhaps, however, the wise Egypt- 
ologist of Dublin believes that the Egyptian language, with 
all its particulars, remained the same during three thousand 
urther, he denies that the so called induction-proof, for 
which I called in my Grammar, proves any thing in favor of 
my system. “If this, he says, “be true, Mr. Osburn’s system 
is as infallibly correct as that of Seyffarth, ” and (he ought to 
have added) as that of the Jesuit Kircher. In proof of this, 
2 gives a witty illustration similar to the following. 
f in order to show his companions how much he had 
improved in Latin, translates thus: Jnteger (my) vite (good) 
sque (Mic hael) purus (loves) non (me) eget (with) 
Mauri (1 (Irish) joculis (faithfulness). The difference is only 
Hea sie erudite Academical Professor has not learned what 
a seage -is, and that my induction is a little differ- 
a py at of Dublin; for Mr. Renouf misquotes my words 
~~ > P. )s ope? read thus: “The induction- I logis 
ess of a hieroglyphic em is tosu 
eb translating entire oak peinbaon to that very same 
system. Whoever deciphers whole piers I: while he 
always soe the same sounds to Typhi 
ttaches the same Sgnifcations pte the same gi 
apples the same language and the same ere the 
inve d ena and thus ox a reasonable rion.” Wa eT 
eon =A to aks after — years, the 
oe translation and explanation of the Rosetta- 
ee of the Flaminian Obelisk, t translated by Hermapion ; 3 
dae os: of the Decani, translated by Firmicus; of a great 
Fe ang inscriptions and chapters, oad the whole first sa- 
oe book of the tians, and, peal Mr. Stone’s Papy- 
3 While the “great master” and the whole “orthodox 
I) hole means of the “true sy m,” “the foundation of 
Philo ology,” had i acomplihed nothing of 
