1876.] H. G. Kaverty— Reply to ' Risty. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: 345 



Muhammad Suri, he is never once referred to as Muhammad but as (sj>r» e>!l 

 the son of Stfsf. The Tarikh-i-Alfi, Fasih-i, Jahan-Ara, Bauzat-us-Safa, 

 Habib-us-Siyar, Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, call 

 him son ofSvni only ; and in the account of Mahmiid-i-Sabuk-Tigin's raid 

 upon the Ghiiris in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh he is also merely called son of 

 Suei : never Muhammad. The Bengal A. S. Library contains a copy 

 [No. 14] of this work, and Mr. Blochmann can refer to it. He will find, 

 if the portion copied for me has been correctly copied, that in the first two 

 places this Ghurian chief is called iSJy^ Shiiri — a mistake of <J> for <j» 

 but, four or five lines from the end of the paragraph, he is styled u)**jri, 

 pisar-i-ShuA — that is the son o/Shuri, and it is clear that Kashid-ud-Din 

 followed the Kitab-i-Yamini and styled him son o/Suri likewise, but that, 

 in two instances, the copyist of that MS. No. 14, or the Calcutta Jcdtib, 

 left out the word j^$ before the name, in the first two instances. 



If the two words 'Ali Mardan alone mean 'Ali who was as valiant as 

 many men, and if Muhammad Sheran alone also mean Muhammad who was 

 equal to many Lions, and his brother is also " equal to many Lions" [rather 

 strange that both brothers should be so], whence come these five or six 

 " artificial" words, since without artificial means being adopted, the words 

 ' Ali Mardan are — ' Ali men — and Muhammad Sheran — 'Muhammad lions ? 

 These words would, without the kasrah of description be much the same as 

 Shah Jahan — King World — referred to in what I have said on the izafat, 

 and which is a complete answer also to these questions. Muhammadan 

 " School Eegisters" have nothing to do with it. The Khalj Turks of 

 Garmsir did not keep any Eegisters. 



As this answer to Mr. Blochmann's criticisms may fall under the no- 

 tice of readers not acquainted with the Irani dialect of the Persian, and as 

 he constantly refers me to his " Ain," I must point out how inconsistent 

 he is himself about these izdfats — I do not think I can be taxed with 

 inconsistency — and how often his izdfats are used when they are not requir- 

 ed, and wanting when not used. These inconsistencies, which I take from 

 his translation of the Ain-i-Akbari, may be seen at a glance ; he appears 

 to have no fixed system : — "Mir Sharif- i-Amuli" requires the izafat ac- 

 cording to his theory, but, as Mir Sharif was a native of Amul, the yd-i- 

 nisbat or of relation affixed to Amul — { J*>i — i. e. of Amul — as it is written 

 in the MS. from which it is taken, was" sufficient ; as Mrs — Persia, Bar si 

 —Persian or of Persia ; and Panj-ab— Panj-abi ; Afghan, Afghani, &c. 

 The same occurs in " Shaikh Parid-^'-Bukhari," which last word containing 

 the yd-i-nisbat means, of Bukhara, or the Bukharian. As is now stands it 

 is " Shaikh Farid the Bukhdri" Again, in the words " 'Alauddin-i-AT/k'///," 

 although, at the very first page of Part III. of the " Contributions" refer- 

 red to, the word Khilji is called an adjective. 



