¹ Initial vocalic r in OP was written a-r^a-, which without prejudice to the vocalic r I normalize ar-, as in artācā; but Herzfeld, wishing to indicate the pronunciation more clearly, refuses to write the a- and is therefore driven to regard the a- as a symbol for the glottal stop, thus normalizing ‘r- as in ‘rtāčā. OP gives no evidence for such a glottal stop. My use of c rather than of č is a typographic simplification; the same cuneiform symbol is represented by both transcriptions.

² The Elamite and the Akkadian versions of this inscription contain an unusual number of OP words which are not translated, but merely transliterated.

³ This in order to make three syllables of artā, as artāa^t = Av. ašāat as in the Gāthās, Yasna 32.4c; in this way he makes an eight-syllable pada out of artācā brazmaniya. But this is forcing the matter; the OP texts are couched in very simple language, and any atempt to see in them a series of padas of eight syllables, or of any other number of syllables, is doomed to failure, like F. W. König's attempt in Relief und Inschrift des Koenigs Dareios I am Felsen von Bagistan 84–92 (Leiden, 1938), cf. my remarks in JAOS 58.677.

⁴ But Yasna 53.5 mnčā, which he cites, is not a valid example; see M. W. Smith's interpretation, Studies in the Syntax of the Gathas of Zarathushtra 159.

⁵ Cf. the following instrumental forms: Av. (Gathic) ašï, (Late) paiti, cišti, and similar forms in Vedic Skt.; Brugmann, Gdr.² 2.2.189, 191–3, regards these as the original pIE formation of the instr., but Bartholomae, Gdr. d. iran. Phil. 1.§218.3, and Reichelt, Aw. Elmb. §333, consider them analogical new formations for older (Aryan) -yā, on the basis -ï to -ĭ- stems as (Aryan) instr. -ā to -ă- stems. There is no possibility that OP brahmaniya is an instr. in -ya with an ending identical with that in the Skt. gerunds krt-ya etc., if such gerunds are in fact instrumentals (cf. Brugmann, Gdr.² 2.2.189), since final -ă in OP, if not protected by an unwritten minimal consonant, was written as though a long vowel, and such a form would therefore in OP be written -yā.

⁶ Median origin is very probable for any ritual phrase in the OP inscriptions, though such origin militates against Nyberg's thesis that the Achaemenian kings were not worshippers of Ahuramazda in the form preached by Zoroaster; for Zoroaster came from northwestern Iran, which is precisely where Media was situated. But he cannot maintain that barzman-is a special Median form; for while -zm- (from pIE -ĝhm-) became -sm- in Avestan, we have no evidence that -zm- is not its regular development in OP, nor have we any evidence that this cluster has a special development in Median which differs from that in OP. Note OP patiyazbayam ‘I proclaimed’, Uvārazmiš ‘Chorasmia’, uzmayā-patiy ‘on a stake’.

⁷ This ablaut variation pIE -re-:-ṛ- he could find elsewhere also, as in OP imperf. arasam ‘I went’, Mod. Pers. räsäδ ‘he goes’, tense-stem rasa- from pIE *re-sk̑e-, as comparedwith Skt. ṛccháti from pIE *ṛ-sṛe-ti. But cf. note 14.

⁸ The same objections hold against his rule of order, as against Hartmann's view that -cā and its cognates may be attached to the prior of the two elements; cf. §5.

⁹ Cf. §5.

¹⁰ Cf. the second part of note 5.

¹¹ JAOS 35.332–4; where I failed to include Justi's etymology, Iran. Namenbuch 101, of the personal name Frāda- as *fra-hada-, to the root pIE *sed- ‘sit’. A better etymology, not involving a loss of intervocalic -h-, is given by Bartholomae, AiW 1013. The words and forms of inscriptions published since the time of my article in JAOS give no contrary evidence.

¹² On ahăniy, cf. C. J. Ogden ap. JAOS 58.325.

¹³ But Sen is wrong in citing akariy in line 42 (found also in DSf 37) as being for *akāriy = Skt. akāri, aorist with long vowel; such OP forms are passives with -ya- suffix and active endings (cf. Schaeder, Ung. Jrb. 15.560–3) and are to be normalized akariya etc.

¹⁴ I regret that brazmaniya is not equatable with Avestan *barəsmanyō in a meaning ‘holding in hand the barəsman-‘; this would be a deceptively easy solution, but would require an ablaut variation (Aryan) -ra-/-ar-, rarely if ever found in precisely equivalent words. Peculiarly, no other development of the ancestor of Skt. brahmaṇ- has been found in Iranian; but there are many words and forms which appear in the Avesta, for example, but a single time. Yet unless brahman- is a specifically Indic formation, not yet made in Pro to-Aryan times—and who would be so bold as to urge such a view?—the OP may well have preserved the word from Pro to-Aryan times. It is even possible that its disappearance in Avestan is due to the competition of the phonetically similar barəsman- in an important technical use, of quite different meaning.