1840.] from Bactrian and Indo- Scythian coins. 377 



sen from the mere misunderstanding of the Scythian die-founders. 

 Observing upon the former coins ordinarily the Greek genitive in 

 ov, on the reverse in the native language the nominative in 6, 

 which did not sound very differently, they overlooked the different 

 application. KavrjpKov therefore appeared to them the proper 

 form, to be placed by the Greek titles, even when the use of 

 the nominative was then adopted for the Greek legend. Thus 

 is KavrjpKov put by fiacriXevq, though Kanerko could be only 

 properly used, when accompanied by Mahdrdjo. 



I have already previously professed my ignorance concerning 

 KOPANO ; it is singular, that awTrjp, according to our con- 

 jecture, corresponding to that word, never occurs, to my know- 

 ledge^ with the word fiaaiXevg upon these coins. 



Rao Nano Rao is certainly properly explained by Mr. Prinsep 

 to be the same with fiacnXsvQ fiacnXstov ; I add the following 

 remarks on the forms. Rao (viz. rao) points to a dialectic dif- 

 ference^ a step more distant from the original form, than is the 

 form rajo of the other coins ; for in the first place the consonant j 

 is dropped, a proceeding indeed often resorted to in the learned 

 Pracrit ; but whenever rda and rdjd are found together in the 

 ordinary spoken language, the difference in form, refers to a 

 difference in dialect. To the historic grammarian rad is a later 

 form than raja ; however, it need have therefore arisen at a 

 later period ; for one dialect may have anticipated the rest in the 

 reduction of the old forms j we may, or may not, therefore, refer 

 dialectically rao to another province. Again, the declination of 

 rao is not as the simple word rdjan would require it should 

 be, according to Sanscrit rule; but, on the other hand, the com- 

 pound word maharajah is most properly brought under the 

 declination in a ; but as we do not know any instance of the 

 simple word rdjan, the parallel has no application. 



Rao Nano can merely be the genitive plural. In Pracrit it 

 would be rannam, or after the declination in a rdfjjd nam. 

 Instead of this, Nano seems to be the termination upon the coins 

 in question, and this termination is not joined to rda, as to the 

 root of the word, but to the nominative rao, and the m of the ter- 

 mination is changed into no. If I take a right view of the form 

 raonano, it belongs to the period of transition, when from the 



