In the last number of the Bulletin Sir George Grierson has written a useful article on the regular, method of forming linguistic names in Indian languages. I agree with most, but not all, of it: thus the sentence “it is he who writes Lahndī for Lahndā, the latter having been undisputed for over forty years”, contains, it seems to me, five mis-statements of fact. They do not however affect the position.

It is always interesting to reflect on what one would expect words to be and to compare that with what they actually are. English, Urdu, Panjabi, and Hindi swarm with words which have rejected the line of regular development and adopted another. People's attitude to such words varies with their temperament. Some describe them as “ atrocious examples of hybridism ” or “ false analogies ’ or more briefly as ‘ impossible ’. Similarly many writers call changed words ‘ corruptions ’. Others on the other hand find that in linguistic atters what is is much more interesting than what was, and still more so than what should be.

Sir George Grierson's statement in the last Bulletin, p. 961, that Colonel Lorimer and I were protagonists in a long discussion on d and t sounds in Sinā is misleading. Colonel Lorimer and I have never written against each other on this or any other subject. During the last fifteen years I have owed to him two periods of quite exceptional mental enjoyment and pleasure. The first was connected with his Pashto Syntax, and the second with our work on Sinā. In 1917 I finished a book on Sinā. In 1924 he wrote an ad interim personal report of his investigations, following it up by an article in which the sounds were more carefully differentiated. I wrote two articles.

Sir George has missed the chief point of the objection to the name Brokpā. It is not merely that we do not use for a language the caste name of some who speak it, as Brāhmanī for Avadhī or Khattrī for Panjāī. The graver objection is that Drāsī and Dāh Hanu which differ widely are given the same name, while the almost identical Drāasī and Guresī are called by separate names, as if Avadhī and Southern Panjābi were named alike and Northern Panjābī otherwise. The correct thing is to give the same name to Drāsī and Guresī as Sir George does in the last volume.

The early account of ‘Umar Khayyām published in Vol. V, Part III of the Bulletin contains a reference to his visiting a certain vizier, namely the Shihāb al-Islām “ ‘Abd al-Razzăq, son of the great jurisconsult Abu’l-Qāsim ‘Abdallāh ibn ‘Alī”. In the text as printed these names are followed by the words (trans., ibn Akh Naẓẓzām). But we should undoubtedly read instead either or “ nephew of the Niẓām [al-Mulk] ”, since from other sources we know exactly who this vizier was.

Notices of him are given by al-Bundārī (ed. Houtsma), 267, Ibn al-Athīr (Cairo ed.), x, 226, and Khwānd-amīr (published by Schefer, Siasset-Nameh, Supplément, 47), and a reference is made to him in the rāhat al-ṣūdur (Gibb Trust ed.), 167. He appears to have been called in full Abū’l-Maḥāsin ‘Abd al-Razzāq, the Shihāb al-Islām, though al-Bundārī gives his name as ‘Abd al-Dawwām and Khwānd-amīr as ‘Abd al-Rāziq, and the rāḥat al-ṣudūr gives his laqab as Shihāb al-Dīn.

Since writing my note on the above subject, which was published in Vol. V, Part III, of the Bulletin, I have learned that an exactly similar explanation of the peculiarity of the Semitic numerals was put forward by Dr. David Künstlinger, first in the Vienna Oriental Journal, x, pp. 212–16, and subsequently in a pamphlet entitled Zur Theorie der Zahlwörter in den semitischen Sprachen, Berlin, 1897. I hasten to give Dr. Künstlinger all due credit for priority in formulating his theory of the syntax of Semitic numerals. I may add that before putting what I considered a new explanation before the public I had discussed my theory with a number of Semitic scholars. They, like myself, were not acquainted with Dr. Künstlinger's articles on the subject. It is to be regretted that the Hebrew grammars I have consulted did not even mention Dr. Künstlinger. I hope that this omission will be rectified in future grammars of Hebrew and other Semitic languages. I notice that Dr. Künstlinger, like myself, was indebted to ethnology for his explanation.

With reference to Professor Keith's statement in BSOS., Vol. V, Pt. I, pp. 27 ff., that the Durghaṭa referred to by Sarvānanda in the Ṭikāsarvasva is the well-known Durghaṭa-vṛtti of Śaraṇa-deva, it may be pointed out that Sarvānanda clearly states in the same passage that Puruṣottama-deva is the author of the work in question: Puruṣottama-devena gurviṇītyasya durghaṭe’sādhutvam uktam. This passage has been quoted in full by Professor Keith himself, but he has apparently missed or ignored the name of the author. The Puruṣottamadeva of Sarvānanda's citation in this passage is apparently the grammarian Puruṣottama-deva. But it is not known to us whether this Puruṣottama wrote a book on durghaṭa also. But Rāyamukuṭa (Dacca University MSS. No. 985), while explaining the same word gurviṇī, refers to one Uṇādi-vṛtti by Puruṣottama: (gurviṇityuṇādivṛttau Puruṣottamaḥ). Puruṣottama-deva, however, is known to have written an Uṇādi-sūtra-vṛtti, which, as mentioned by Aufrecht (Catalogus Catalogorum, vol. i, p. 63a), is quoted by Ujjvala-datta.