Since 1923 we have witnessed an attempt to reconstruct the Chinese of the Sui Dynasty, or more accurately to reconstruct the Chinese dialect spoken about A.D. 600 in the capital of that time, Ch'ang An (Hsi An), namely Professor Bernhard Karlgren's Analytic Dictionary of Chinese and Sino- Japanese, which constitutes a brief summary of the results of the first three parts of his Études sur la phonologie chinoise (Archives ďÉtudes Orientales XV (1915–1919)) and their practical application to about 6,000 characters which can now be verified in their reconstructed form (v. Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1924, col. 1905, etc.).

In 1904 Dr. H. Stönner published as an appendix to a paper on Zentralasiatische Sanskrittexte in Brāhmīschrift aus Idikutšahri, Chinesisch-Turkistān, i, a short description of a fragment of Turkish in Brāhmi script containing forty lines of text with a Chinese text on the recto side. Its interest and importance for Turkish is evident. We have here a fully vocalized fragment of Turkish. It is therefore somewhat unexpected not to find more use made of it, after the references of Professor F. W. K. Müller in Uigurica [i], 1908, in the many recent publications of Turfan texts. In a brief note, A Brāhmi Aksara, in the JRAS, 1936, 92–4, reference was made to this publication of Dr. Stönner owing to its interest for Iranian studies. Shortly after the publication of that note it was possible to reach clearer views. It had been, however, intended to await the complete publication of the fragment of forty lines. But, since inquiries have made it likely that the publication cannot be expected for a considerable time, and Iranian studies are affected, it has seemed profitable to publish a brief study of the fourteen lines (25–38) already available. They suffice to supplement and correct the earlier note.

The present article is intended to be the first of a series devoted -L to the “Zervanite question”. It seemed desirable that before embarking on the uncertain seas of speculation, the author should publish a transliterated text and translation of the more important passages in the Pahlavī and kindred literature which might be found to bear upon this problem. The present article contains two excerpts from the Dēnkart, and a short passage from the Persian Rivāyats of the greatest interest. It is hoped that the first chapter of Zātspram will appear in the next number of the Bulletin. The notes in this and the next article will be confined, so far as possible, to matters of philology: discussion of the problem itself must be deferred till the linguistic difficulties have been adequately dealt with.

The following conjecture which occurred to me owing only to the fact that Persian is my own language, is one of innumerable proofs for the great desirability and the real necessity for an adequate dictionary of the living Persian language.

Upon the fascinating problem of the dynastic names Sātavāhana and Śātakarṇi there has been “great argument”, and it is to be feared that the judicious reader's experience thereof has been like that of Omar Khayyam.

In Bsos. viii, 781 ff., Mr. E. J. Thomas argues that “Tathagata” may have been taken over by the Buddhist from the Jain Tathāgaya, and that it may be an incorrect Sanskritization of some unknown non-Aryan and non-Dravidian word. This seems very far-fetched. Mr. Thomas does not take any account of possibly Vedic origins, common to Buddhism and Jainism. We have shown incidentally elsewhere that countless Buddhist terms, for example arkat and attā, are purely Vedic, and have argued that the Buddha legend is almost wholly made up of Vedic material with only such modifications as are inevitable when the eternal birth is to be retold in terms of a temporal narrative. We are convinced, in other words, that the Buddha, the “Kinsman of the Sun”, the “Eye of the World”, and “Great Person” of the Pali texts, the Buddha who may be represented in art by a pillar of fire, is an incarnation or descent (avatarana) of the Vedic Agni.

In an article by W. Eilers, entitled “Eine mittelpersische Wortform aus frühachämenidischer Zeit ?” (ZDMG., 90, 160 ff.), it is contended that already by the end of the sixth century B.C. the nominal inflexions of Old Persian had completely disappeared from the Persian spoken language, in contradistinction to the literary language of the Achsemenid inscriptions. The author's arguments are based entirely upon his own novel interpretation of two short passages contained in Neo-Babylonian private letters of the time of Darius I, which are to all intents and purposes identical the one with the other, and which may be provisionally transliterated:—

Through the courtesy of the authorities of the Preussische Staatsbibliothek I have had the opportunity of reading in the India Office Library the apparently unique copy of Abū Sa'd 'Abd al-Malik b. Muhammad b. Ibrāhīm al-Wā'iz al-Khargūshī's manual of Sūfism entitled Tahdhīb al-asrār. Khargūshī, who is otherwise known for his voluminous biography of the Prophet and a treatise on the interpretation of dreams, died at Nīshāpūr in 406/1015 or 4Q7/1016. He is therefore an earlier authority than Sulamī (d. 412/1021), Abu Nu'aim al-Isfahānī (d. 430/1039), and Qushairī (d. 465/1072), but is junior to Sarrāj (d. 378/988), Kalābādhī (d. 385/995), and Abū Tālib al-Makkī (d. 386/996). These comparisons are important, for they show Khargūshī as being a sufficiently early writer in the genre of systematic Sūfism. His name is not included in Nicholson's list of eight authorities for the history of early Sufism, and he does not appear to have received the attention which he deserves; though it is true that he has been utilized by Massignon in his study of Hallaj. The purpose of the present note is to supplement the somewhat exiguous account of the work given by Ahlwardt, and also to estimate the true value of Khargūshī's manual as a primary source.

Cairo is probably one of the noisiest towns in the world but it is amusing, if not interesting, to endeavour to sort out some ofthe sounds so familiar in Cairo's streets. The main thoroughfaresare crowded with hawkers of every description; as one sits in acafe, one is offered articles of the most extraordinary variety by them, hair-pins and oranges, daffodils and bananas, sand-paper and flywhisks, sausages and sadlery, the latest editions of French and Arabic novels, copies of works on Quranic Exegesis and the Traditions, motor car tyres and flea-powder.

The vocabularies of the present notice are due to Dr. W. M. Strong. They were collected at Panakrusima (Earle Island) in the east-centralpart of the Calyados Chain, about 48 miles south-east of Panaieti(Deboyne Island) and at Panatinani (Joannet Island), about 18 milesto the east, close to North-West Tagula (Sud-Est Island).

In his various grammars in Melanesian Languages Codrington places the Melanesian demonstratives under “ Pronouns ”; as also does Ray in Melanesian Island Languages. To class them asdemonstrative pronouns is the nearest approximation to a correct statement of their nature and use. In general they answer to theEnglish “this”, “that”, “here”, “there”; but, as Codringtonsays, the Melanesian demonstratives are in use also as articles andadverbs, and are to be found embedded in the personal pronouns.

The foundations of a house are useless in themselves; they exist merely to support the living rooms which we build for our enjoyment, comfort, and protection. Yet the superstructure cannot exist without the foundations, although the foundations can exist without a superstructure. Facts are the foundations of science: they are of no interest in themselves, but only as they serve to support theories in which we house our lives.

The Bamum language is spoken in theFrench mandated territory of the Cameroons around the town of Famboun by about 55,000 speakers.

The observations set out here are based upon a short but intensive period of investigation at the Paris Exhibition in 1937, when, through the kind offices of Professor Henri Labouret, I was able to work with a native craftsman (an embroiderer) from Famboun, Andre Njoya.