Killyleagh 31st Jany 1862
Dear Sir,
I have received your letter of the 27. I never saw either of the forms in Ménant’s Noms propres &c p.59 & question their existence. Oppert invents forms of words. He says he has often found (“thousands of times”, I think) Ba.bi.lu.ki for Babylon. I doubt if he ever found it. Ba.bi.lam.ki which he does not mention is common enough. I believe that Oppert’s grammar contains not only many blunders but much that is purely imaginary. It is hard, however, to pin him down to any thing as he give no references.
By the way, you quote a word kha.sakh.kha “beloved”. Where is it to be found. I don’t think the passage you quote for the N.R. inscription is consistent with my statement that if [hebrew] could signify “to put on” it would be followed by ana not as. Here it signifies “to carry”. I only know this inscription fm [?gaard?], and your transcription. You speak of Rawlinson’s. Did he ever publish it. I think too, I have heard of Oppert having published a transcripn with Hebrew characters, & a translation; but his Hebrew transcriptions are so false that I should scarcely look at them if I saw them.
I had written the above when it occurred to me that Oppert’s transcription & translation were in the Zeitschrift of the DMG. I have looked over them & find it in p. 133rd of the volume for 1857. He says at the end that he will give the version of the [cuneatic?] text in his next work – here he only gives it in Hebrew. He gives this passage [Hebrew] and translates it die Flechten auf ihren Schuteln tragen. He adds magid ist der ibnische Haarzopf; and reads that taka the [Persian?] equivalent is used in the [illegible] for a horsetail. I had in my own mind connected taka with the Latin tago, our thatch, taking it to mean generally coverings: but Oppert may be right. He is right also I am sure in taking du for a [phonetic?] [illegegible] of sak the last alone is used for head in the Chaldean inscriptions. I don’t see, however, why qudquodu would not be the proper reading; this is the Hebrew form.
He differs widely fm you in some places; & in some I hold that you are both wrong. In l.9. neither of you I think divides the line into words quite correctly.
But to return fm this digression. I was wrong as to zabil which is a noun agentis not actionis; but it may mean a billeter or quarteer – or agent appointed to reque? the granting of the kudurri or soldiers. In my translation of 1854 I see that I made zabil kuduni “a military contingent”. This, by the way, was the first translation ?, where a Persian translation did not exist; & I believe it to be much more correct than many which have since appeared, though of course it contains many errors to be rectified.
Believe me Yours vy truly
Edw Hincks
H. F. Talbot Esq