^{page 140 note 1} Jacobi gives aa parallel from the Romance languages—Latin, vèrecúndia; French, vèrgógne; Italian, vèrgógna; Spanish, vèrgüénza.

^{page 143 note 1} With reference to many of the following examples, it is hardly necessary to point out the close connection between the terminations ika and iya.

^{page 144 note 1} At the time of reading this paper exception was taken to this statement by two gentlemen, whose knowledge of M. and G. was far greater than that possessed by me, and whose authority I at once admit. I allude to Dr. Bühler and Sir Raymond West. I do not, at the present stage, feel at liberty to alter what I have written. My statement is based on the words of Dr. Bhandarkar, on p. 117 of the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the R.A.S. vol. xvii. pt. ii. He says: “There is a rule, which in M. is almost universal, and in G. often observable, in virtue of which the accent, or the whole weight of the sound of a word, falls on the final ā or ē of nouns in the former, and the final ō or ē in the latter; and the preceding vowels are rendered short, while in the original Sanskrit and Hindi they are long.” He then gives as examples—M. kiḍā; M. khiḷā; G. kuvō; M. citā; M. cuḍā, G. cuḍō; M. cunō, G. cunō. He gives farther examples on p. 141 of the same article. On the point of the question of the correct pronunciation of these two languages, Dr. Bhandarkar's evidence is entitled to great respect, and further inquiry as to the exact meaning of his words is necessary. Till then I leave my words as they stand, in the hope that, attention having been drawn to the matter, careful inquiry may be made by observers on the spot. In any case, my main argument is not affected. As regards M., Molesworth's dictionary gives kīḍ and kiḍā, citā, cuḍā, cūṇ, and cunā, all of which exactly bear out Dr. Bhandarkar's remarks.