^{page 345 note 1} The character transcribed o being a digraph of ā and e.

^{page 345 note 2} In setting up equations I have cited modern spoken forms wherever possible in preference to those of the orthographically variable literary language.

^{page 345 note 3} For this term see Simon, H.F., in BSOAS, XV, 2, 1953, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The words dinkel, and presumptively klas, khal, ruṁpo', belong to the grammatical category of quantifiers, which are defined by the possibility of their occurrence immediately following a numeral.

^{page 345 note 4} a, i, u in the first syllable of native disyllables do not appear to represent phonologically differentiated units. The distribution of i and u is almost entirely correlated with that of contiguous consonants; that of i/u and a is partly dialectal.

^{page 345 note 5} The other, at line 13, is equally only apparent; tuḅok does not mean ‘to offer to’, but ‘to come into the presence of’.

^{page 346 note 1} The reading yow seems clear in the rubbings and is confirmed by Dr. Blagden's subsequent notes.

^{page 346 note 2} Seidenfaden, E., ‘Some notes about the Chaubun’, J. Siam Soc., XII, 3, 1918, 1–11;Google Scholar J. Dournes, Dictionnaire Srê (Köho)-Français.

^{page 346 note 3} 'ja ‘he’; the pronominal classification is certain from Nagayon fresco 49, 'ja t'eḥ ‘they’. Cf. literary ω, a term of address to inferiors. The word has been wrongly transcribed rāja at Ananda 33 and elsewhere.

^{page 346 note 4} ‘Miss Small.’ With ya cf. the modern feminine prefix i?–

^{page 346 note 5} cf. n. 1, p. 347. Some personal names in these frescoes show Sanskrit-derived forms.

^{page 347 note 1} ‘to besiege’: cf. Middle Mon ‘to surround’, and modern pàŋ. In the Pali it is Sāgala in Madda (Sialkot) which is besieged, v. Fausbøll, v, 283.26.

^{page 347 note 2} kuṁsīr: cf. literary The usual modem term khamsɔe, and literary represent an irregular variant of this form.

^{page 347 note 3} k'ac. Modern həɔ is perhaps from a frequentative ٭kin'ac.

^{page 347 note 4} 'op 'bār: cf. modern op ‘to hide’, ‘to crouch with bowed head ’.

^{page 347 note 5} It is tempting to assume that kuṁsi is a scribal error for, or a misreading of, kuṁsir; but the point must await determination.

^{page 347 note 6} pa s'ir. The construction is curious if, as seems certain, s'ir ‘to harm’ is the root form of su'er (paṇḍdit su'er mahos ‘the pandits lie in wait for Mahosadha’, Ananda 169; this is wrongly rendered ‘the pandits look for Mahosadha’ at EB, n, 1, p. 57). Cf. literary ‘harsh, savage’.

^{page 347 note 7} For this term see Henderson, E.J.A., ‘The phonology of loanwords in some South-East Asian languages ’, TPS,1951,131–58.Google Scholar The primary system of modern Mon excludes all disyllables with initial S–.

^{page 348 note 1} As in literary ‘uncles and aunts’, literally ‘parents’ younger sisters, younger brothers, elder sisters, and elder brothers’, and ‘uncles’.

^{page 348 note 2} ruṁlos, the attributive form of ٭rlos; the hypothetic srlos occurs at I, C 33, D 20. Cf. literary ‘to have a liking for’.

^{page 348 note 3} Milne, A dictionary of English—Palaung and Palaung-English.

^{page 348 note 4} Rangsit, Sanidh, in Anthropos, XXXVII/XL, 4–6, 1942–1945, [pub.] 1947, 704.Google Scholar

^{page 348 note 5} Ehrenfels, U.R., in Anthropos, XLVIII, 3–4, 1953Google Scholar, 396–12.

^{page 349 note 1} With nasal infix; cf. e.g. scinloḥ tuṁḅaḥ, ‘shall appear’ ~ sc(u)loḥ tuḅaḥ, ‘shall reveal’; dindar ‘to be shaded’ ~ (pdar), pudar ‘to cover, shade’ ~ pundar ‘to keep shaded’.

^{page 349 note 3} EB, II, 1, p. 102.

^{page 349 note 4} This term arises from the division of the text into words, which of course goes beyond the intention of the original scribe.

^{page 349 note 5} In five of the Ananda plaques a final consonant is omitted, apparently for lack of space: 205 co[w], 224 udyā[n], 256 tmo['], 316 tinro[w], 386 prāsā[d].

^{page 350 note 1} cf. Henderson, op. cit. The relevant subsystem is that appropriate to a presumed structure -V. (It is clear from variant spellings that orthographic -a, -i, -u carry the implication of final glottal stop, thus conforming to the structure of the primary system -VC.)

^{page 351 note 1} I use the term ‘learned form’ to denote one marked by its structure as an importation from the literary language. These two words have acquired a collocational differentiation, being used of offerings to spirits and of offerings to monks.

^{page 351 note 2} Edited by Halliday, R. in BEFEO, XXX, 1930, 91–5.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 3} Subject and object are formally definable categories of Middle Mon grammar. The use of the terms here does not invoke any theory of grammatical universals.

^{page 351 note 4} Reprinted with translation by Blagden, C.O. and Tin, Pe Maung in JBRS, XVIII, I, 1928, 21–34,Google Scholar from JASB, VII, 1838. The bell was removed to a Hindu temple in Aligarh after the First Burmese War.