¹ In the form of the word-divider, and in the spelling of the first syllable of Vištāspa (vⁱi, not simply vⁱ), our inscription differs from the Behistun inscription, but agrees with the Darius Persepolis inscriptions, as well as with the Naxš-i-Rustam inscription, so that there is no material help from this.

² I believe in this formal identity, despite the skepticism of some (cf. Bartholomae, Altiran. Wtb. 1753) and the fact that Delbrück's explanation (Vergl. Syntax I 752) of the shift of meaning in Iranian is insufficient. The shift is no more violent than that which once took place in Eng. with, only that here we know better the particular context in which it started; nor is it more startling than the opposite poles reached by the group represented by Latin sub and super.

³ In JRAS; “Is it another derivative from the same root as āmātā (if the reading is correct) variously rendered in the Bīsitūn inscription Col. I, 3? In that case should amata yātā a be translated ‘extending up to'?” Herzfeld: “ā-mata kann wohl nur von der Wurzel mad- ‘zumessen,’ im jungawestischen belegt, abgeleitet werden.” Such a participle would have the form masta. His further remark “Im Elamischen ist das Altpers. āmata nur an erster Stelle durch das ebenfalls neue mittuma ausgedrückt” is due to a misunderstanding of the Elamite structure. For mittuma is a postpositive with Šukta, answering to the OP para before Sugdam, just like mittumanna in NR a 23. It is the kuiš, the regular equivalent of OP yātā, which here in both cases answers to the whole Persian phrase amata yāā ā.