

336 XL G. Baverty — Beply to ' Misty, and Geogr. of Bengal, No. III? [No. 3, 



should translate it Thepolestarofthefaith, but Kutb-ud-Din — The Polestar 

 of [the] Faith. 



There is not the least cause for " the izdfat" to be cancelled in I'-bak- 

 i-Shil : to do so would be contrary to the primary and simplest rules of the 

 Persian Grammar— the Trani I mean— of the " Turani" dialect I know 

 nothing. In Shil T-bak an adjective precedes the noun, and the cJL£|— 

 izdfat — does not take place ; but, when the adjective or qualifying word 

 follows the noun, the Jcasrah of izdfat is required. See the "Am," page 

 629 for an example, where Mr. Blochmann himself writes " A'zam KhXst, 

 vide Kha^-i-A'zam." Any Persian Grammar, however simple, will show 

 this, as well as Lumsden, or Sir W. Jones, Forbes, &c. The following is 

 given as an example, and is very pertinent to the subject : — 



" The last letter of every Persian word is quiescent, or un-accented— 

 i. e. (j.S'U* as v-**»| asp, a horse ; cu^^ dast, a hand ; dj*> mard, a man. But, 

 in composition, when such word is either the ol^ — muzdfi or governing 

 noun, or the vJ^yo mausufi or substantive noun, the last letter must be 

 accented with the Jcasrah of izdfat : as for example — aJ^ y*»l asp-i-jald — 



a swift horse ; &i) cu-*^ — dast-i-Zaid — the hand of Zaid ; ^# &j*> mard-i- 



nek — a good man ; ou*»|j ty rdh-i-rast — a true or right way, the Jcasrah 



being the sign of the governing noun, or the antecedent of the relative 

 adjective." 



Again : " When the adjective follows the substantive, the latter must 

 be accented with the Jcasrah ; as *U*° yH asp-i-smh — a black horse, but, on 



the contrary, when the adjective precedes the noun, the Jcasrah must not 

 be used, as y*»| *U** sidh asp — a black horse. The same rule is likewise 

 applicable to the governing and the governed nouns substantive ; as w%°j 



e;U>Uob — hddshdhdn-i-zamin — kings of the earth ; a>4^ 8L& shdh-i-jahdn — - 



f * 



king of the world ; *^ cjI^ jahdn-shah — world king," &c. 



When I learned these simple rules just thirty years since, I did not 

 expect I should have to quote them again. Shil T-bak therefore and 

 I'-bak-i-Shil, and f-bak-i-Lang, as he is styled in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, 

 and in Fanakati, come under these rules, but no writer who pretended to 

 elegance of style would prefer the former to the latter. I am quite content 

 to leave this to any Persian scholar — Persian or European. In aU^^c 

 which Mr. Blochmann himself translates [page 136] " Lord of the Moon," 

 why is he so m- Persian, and why does he not " cancel the izdfat?' and 

 write Moon Lord ? and without an artificial izafat whence comes " of the ?" 



I do not know that any one has said that Mr. Thomas is not quite 

 correct in looking upon i£bj| as " the original name." I, certainly, have not 

 said so. I only write I-bak what Mr. Thomas writes Aiheg and Mr. Bloch- 



