The longest inscription published in Miss Caton Thompson's report on her excavation of the temple of the moon-god at Ḥuraidha l presents some problems which are not unfamiliar in South Arabian inscriptions, but are now set in a fresh light because they are related to the definite archæological results obtained by an exceptionally well-directed, if brief, excavation conducted under difficult conditions.

The röle which the Manichæans played in the migration of tales and fables from East to West and West to East has received much attention in recent years, but next to nothing has been published of the abundant Iranian material which was found in Chinese Turkestan. The present collection of Sogdian stories, taken (with the possible exception of text J) from Manichæan manuscripts, is meant to close this gap. These stories are also of some interest from the linguist's point of view. For while the Christian and Buddhist Sogdian texts are valuable merely as repositories of vocables, the Manichæan texts alone (apart from the few available Sogdian documents and letters) give us a clear idea of the true structure and syntax of the Sogdian language, and this quality is nowhere better apparent than in these stories, which are sometimes pleasingly vivid. Even the translated texts are written in good Sogdian, partly because the Manichæans were better translators than their Christian and Buddhist compatriots, partly because it was easier to translate from Middle Persian or Parthian, languages closely related to Sogdian, than from Syriac or Chinese. How different real Sogdian was from the miserable stammer of the Christian and Buddhist translators is shown at a glance by the Sogdian Tale of Rustam, of which we have a larger fragment now, thanks to the publication of the Codices Sogdiani, Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Mission Pelliot).

The famous manuscript in Kharoṣṭhī script which contains an anthology of Buddhist verses similar to the Sanskrit Udānavarga and the Pali Dhammapada became known first in 1892, when portions came into the hands of MM. Dutreuil de Rhins and Grenard in Khotan. They were told that the MS. had been found in the ruins of the Vihāra at the Gośṛnga hill (on this site see M. A. Stein, Ancient Khotan, pp. 185 ff.). Other portions were acquired by the Russian Consul-General in Kashghar, M. N. Th. Petrovskii, and were sent by him to M. S. F. Oldenburg in St. Petersburg in February, 1897. In the same year, 1897, M. Oldenburg prepared a photograph and transcription of one folio of the St. Petersburg collection, which was published and presented by the Oriental Faculty of the University of St. Petersburg to the Eleventh International Congress of Orientalists held in Paris in 1897 (Predvaritel'naja zametka o buddijskoj rukopisi, napisannoj pismenami Kharoṣṭhī, St. Petersburg). Meantime, also in 1897, the portions of the MS. which had been brought to Paris were placed in the hands of M. Émile Senart, who published his reading and interpretation of the MS., with five facsimiles, in the Journal Asiatique (1898, ii, pp. 193–308). He used in addition to the text published in facsimile a large number of small fragments, and was also able to add the readings of that part of the St. Petersburg manuscript which contained half-lines fitting into his fragment B. M. Senart remarked that the portion of the MS. in St. Petersburg was more extensive and better preserved than the portion in Paris.

This document (No. 661 in Kharosṣṭhī inscriptions transcribed and edited by A. M. Boyer, E. J. Rapson, and É. Senart [and P. S. Noble]) has been the subject of special study by Professor Konow (Acta Orientalia, ii, pp. 124–7; x, pp. 77–80; xiv, pp. 233–240), and by Professor Noble (Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, VI, pp. 445–455), not to mention the subsequent discussion by Dr. Burrow of the word hinajha and his translation. The historical and linguistic importance which has been given to the document may excuse a further study of its problems. In order to make an auspicious commencement of these notes we may welcome the opportunity of acknowledging the advance made in the interpretation by Professor Konow's latest discussion, in Acta Orientalia, xiv, pp. 231 sqq. He shows that on the basis of the Saka-Khotanī forms the prima facie surprising royal name Vijita-Siṃha may be interpreted as practically equivalent to the Vijaya-Siṃha of the Khotan Chronicle. In Sanskrit-Prākrit also vijita could in certain circumstances have the same meaning as vijaya “victory” (as well as also that of “dominions”), so that a hearer or reader need not have been misled into understanding “Vanquished Lion”. We may accordingly forgo the reading Avijita-Siṃha or the idea of a guasi-approbrious name on the lines of Raṇa-bhīta, etc.: to understand the name as a bahu-vrīhi “one who has vanquished (s.c. surpasses) the lion” would be inappropriate, since the Vijaya/Vijita is a recurrent, dynastic, element in the names. Possibly, however, we may not even yet have completely solved the problem the (elsewhere also instanced) form Vijita, to which we may recur infra.

One of the greatest Persian poets, Afḍal al-Dīn Ibrāhīm Khāqānī, is still insufficiently known to the public. Only in 1937 was his Dīvān printed in Tehran, and before that date the readers had to content themselves with an inconvenient Indian lithograph published some seventy years ago. The long Mathnavī (Tuḥfat al 'Irāqayn) in which the poet describes his pilgrimage accomplished in 551–2/1156–7 is available only in Indian lithographs.

The word tuṭhdyātanāni occurring in the Seventh Pillar Edict of Aśoka at Delhi-Topra, line 27, has caused much difference of opinion. A. C. Woolner, in his Asoka—Text and Glossary, ii, has cited the following interpretations given by various scholars : “sources of contentment” (Bühler), “opportunities for charity” (Vincent Smith), “sundry places where satisfaction may be given” (V. Smith, Asoka, 3rd edition), “persons who deserve suitable presents” (Liiders), “worthy recipients of charity” (Hultzsch).

Sinhalese is a member of the Indo-Aryan family of languages and “is derived from a form of speech of which our earliest document is the Rgveda” [TND., Introduction, p. xii]. Concerning its original home in Aryan India opinion is divided. The ancient tradition regarding the Aryan immigration into Ceylon is narrated in the old Pali Chronicles, Dīpavaṁsa, ix, 1 sq., and Mahāvaṁsa, vi, 1 sq. It is not necessary to discuss all its details here. Different interpretations of this legend have been advanced by various scholars. The main point of controversy is the identification and location of Lāḷa, the homeland of Vijaya. H. W. Codrington [“A Short History of Ceylon ”, pp. 6 sq.], W. Geiger [SghD., vol. 1, pt. 1, pp. xvii–xviii; also SghG., pp. vii–xi, pp. 1–3], and S. K. Chatterji [ODBLang., p. 15, pp. 72, 73 fn.], who identify Lāḷa with Lāṭa (Gujarat), maintain that the first Aryan colonists under the leadership of Vijaya came from Western India. On the contrary, E. Müller [Aic, pp. 23, 24; also IA., xi, p. 198], Rev. R. Siddhartha [“ The Indian Languages and their Relation with the Sinhalese Language“ in JRAS. (Ceylon Branch), xxxiii, No. 88, 1935, pp. 123 sq.], and M. Shahidullah [“The First Aryan Colonization of Ceylon” in IHQ., ix, 1933, pp. 742 sq.[, identifying Lāḷa with Rāḍha (West Bengal), contend that they came from Eastern India. Various arguments and explanations are propounded by them in support of their individual theories, and they all admit some measure of historical truth underlying the tradition.

An initial y- is found in Tamil only before long ā in such Words as yā1E49;ai elephant, yāṭu goat, yāṟu river, yāmai tortoise, etc. Side by side with these forms We also have forms without the initial y-, āṉai, āṭu, etc., and an examination of literary usage shows that the forms with initial y- has been dropped. In the early anthologies the forms with initial yā- greatly preponderate; in Middle Tamil, literature yā- and ā- forms are indifferently used; while in Modern Tamil, Particularly in the spoken language, ā- forms alone are current. The following is a list of such words together with their cognates in the other Dravidian languages:—

Ta. yā, ā to bind, tie; to dam up, stop, confine, yākkai binding, bond; body, ākkai body; strips of fibre used for thatching, yāppu binding, bond; metre, prosody, āppu bandage, tie; body; wedge, Ma. āppu wedge, plug, what stops a crevice, Ka. āpu a restraint, a stoppage, what stops, Malt. eye to tie, bind, 3rd p.t. ēcha, ēpu the fibres of a wild plant of which cord is made, Kur. ēp string, cord, rope, (with prothetic h-) hē' enā to tie, bind, 3rd p.t. hēcas.

From early times China was surrounded by states of lower culture, and on the whole, of lesser military power, which the Chinese regarded as protectorates or tributaries. As early as the Chou dynasty, interpreters were appointed to deal with envoys bringing tribute or declarations of loyalty. The Chou interpreters were called chi , hsiang , ti t'i , or i , and took charge of peoples from the east, south, west, and north respectively. The Ch'in dynasty bureaux of tributary affairs were the tien k'o and tien shu kuo , which the Han later replaced by the Ta Hung Lu under which there were interpreters (i kuan ). In the Sui, T'ang, and Sung dynasties tributary affairs were handled by the Ssŭ Fang Kuan (). In the Ming dynasty the Ssŭ I Kuan was founded to translate foreign diplomatic documents, and was continued in the Ch'ing with a change of name ( to ) and accompanied by the Hui T'ung Kuan, which handled oral interpreting.

The Pokau or Nara (also spelt Pokao or Nala) language is spoken in a hilly district near the coast to the east of Hall Sound in the Central Division of British New Guinea. The villages speaking the language are Vanuamai, Oroi, Alaala, Diumana, Dubu (or Tubu), Kaiau (or Bokama), Lalime, Abo and Epa.