Killyleagh 14th Nor 1862
Dear Sir,
I received your last letter, but am not convinced by your reasoning respecting Zabil. The discussion, however, involves questions on which I know that we are not agreed & therefore it would be likely to be endless as well as unsatisfactory.
Although, too, your reasoning about <cuneiform> is very plausible, I think it unsound. One of my values of this character is sikh. In two words where I have not with it the word i is certain; & you must be aware that there are many instances when the Tiglath Pileser inscription has a when none <illeg> all have a. The word which you quote fm Bellino’s inscription, it appears to me that you both read & translate wrong. It is cognate to <cuneiform>, and indicates a value Jaz. In no case can I admit sakh.
Oppert admits no homophones; <practically?>, however there are several pair between which no distinction can be established. <cuneiform> and <cuneiform> are both kin and the latter cannot be qui, however it has also the value gi.
I shew that you distinguish between lub in the last line of the Michaux inscription & sib(NR.27) & again tsib (NR 24) & then again we have a hideous <cuneiform> which seems interchanged with the sound of those in 2.16 & which you seem to identify (but I cannot) with <cuneiform>. I should like to know the form used in l.24 & 27 of the NR inscription; but no copy, unless a photograph, could <now?> be trusted. Are these here distinct characters compounded by <Cognates?>? or is <cuneiform> polyphonous?
Believe me Yours vy truly
Edw Hincks
H F Talbot Esqre