[blind stamp:]
Killyleagh

4^th Jan^y 1862

Dear Sir,

I should be much obliged by your lending me Ménant’s pamphlets which I will carefully return.

The proof of the value rak of [cuneiform] or at least one proof – is that i.sa.rak is given in a letter as the [illegible] present corresponding to is.ru.uk and is.ru.ku and i.sa.ra.ku; in which series all the other characters have well established values. The root is [ךרש?] from which I state in my J. S. L paper surkam cannot be derived. I know no instance of the first word of the imperative in kal or [niscal?] being other than a.

I derive this from [ךרא?] in the causitive conjugation which like the begins with su in the inquisitive. You will see that I discuss (& as I believe satisfactorily explain) the causative from supkil for suhapkil instead of sudapkal ([euphonial?[ [illegible]) –

I agree with you as to the worthlessness of de Sauley’s publications but the French seem to consider it necessary to uphold their value.

Yours vy truly
Edw Hincks

H. F. Talbot Esq^re

[envelope:]
H. F. Talbot Esq.
Millburn Tower
Edinburgh
[upper left corner recto:]
D^r Hincks