^{page 1018 note 1} The dimensions of the rubbings (counting only the actually inscribed parts) are—(1) Talaing, height (from top of superscript letters of first line to bottom of subscript letters of last line) 31½inches, breadth 13½inches; (2) Burmese, 39 × 13 inches. In most parts of these rubbings the letters show up at the back of the rubbing in fairly high relief.

^{page 1019 note 1} The published transcript reads The subscript letter is, however, certainly not dh but a subscript form of d almost identical in form with the subscript ḍ in the word paṇḍit.

^{page 1020 note 2} Perhaps the original has

^{page 1020 note 3} Evidently a wrong way of writing

^{page 1020 note 4} [Sic], but the rubbing is blurred here owing to damage to the stone.

^{page 1020 note 5} So far as the letters go, this word might be read

For . In this inscription subscript is used for the tonal accent subscript. final appears to be used much in the same way as in Talaing.

^{page 1020 note 7} would be in modern Burmese, and perhaps the original has it so.

^{page 1020 note 8} is for in these two words.

^{page 1021 note 9} Perhaps should be read and belong to the preceding word.

^{page 1021 note 10} In the original the and the two form one letter-group, the being superscript, and of course devoid of a virāma.

^{page 1021 note 11} Perhaps the true reading is here.

^{page 1021 note 12} is for

^{page 1021 note 13} The reading appears to be as given, but the letter is blurred. It might be but the sense seems to require

^{page 1024 note 1} Caused (I suspect) by quickly closing the glottis; cf. Malay -k and Arabic hamzah. It sometimes gives a peculiar quality to the vowel that precedes it. Final w in Talaing is not pronounced either, but also affects the preceding vowel.

^{page 1025 note 1} But v. infra.

^{page 1025 note 2} I shall not attempt to enlarge upon this subject here, and I merely introduce it as necessary evidence in support of my reading of this inscription, but I hope to discuss it in greater detail elsewhere.

^{page 1026 note 1} I must point out that, as my opportunities for recording these sounds have been very limited, this scheme must be regarded as tentative. I have, however, done my best to make it a correct representation of the Talaing sounds as pronounced by my friend Mr. Halliday.

^{page 1027 note 1} When two vowels come together in my phonetic spelling of Talaing they are meant to be read as a diphthong, forming one (very long) syllable. In other eases I insert a hyphen between them.

^{page 1028 note 1} Abbreviation of

^{page 1028 note 2} Pegu pronunciation kya:t, Martaban-Maulmain kya:ik, according to Haswell (ed. Stevens); but I suspect the final is a mere checked or halfconsonant. I have so heard it myself pronounced by a Talaing. In all these cases I put the forms in the order: (1) inscription, (2) modern spelling, (3) literal transliteration of modern spelling, (4) modern pronunciation.

^{page 1028 note 3} Almost tåila (by rule one would expect tå:ila).

^{page 1029 note 1} One would naturally suppose that it was the years that elapsed, but if cnām be taken as the subject, sās is left out of the construction of the sentence. Possibly the order has been influenced by the Burmese original. But I think the clause can be understood to read “after the religion of our lord Buddha had been going on for 1628 years”. Anyhow the meaning is not affected by these details of construction.

^{page 1029 note 2} Haswell (ed. Stevens, 1901), my authority for the spelling in the native character, gives the pronunciation to:e: (dialect not stated; either Pegu or Martaban-Maulmain, I suppose), but Mr. Halliday distinctly gave me tu:i as the Pegu sound.

^{page 1030 note 1} I do not think this means that “there was” a king, which (in modern Talaing at any rate) would require the word but that the king at the time was Ś.T. or that Ś.T. was king at the time. Perhaps smiṅ should be understood after das; cf. the Burmese Mr. Halliday says it is good Talaing as it stands, and translates it “King Ś.T. was king”.

^{page 1031 note 1} I transliterate thus merely because the symbol looks like ui, though it was certainly never sounded thus, and may have had a quite different origin. I believe its former sound was something like ö.

^{page 1032 note 1} Cambojan has kreia (written krayā), “substance; aliments; enjeu, gage.”

^{page 1035 note 1} Conceivably there may be yet another explanation; for aught I know the mysterious letter might be an old form of (the secondary form of ḅ), of which I do not know the eleventh century shape. But one would expect it to be a modified m, like the modern form.

^{page 1036 note 1} Abbreviation for

^{page 1036 note 2} Unless the subscript letter can be read as a variant form of subscript h, for which I have no authority in support.

^{page 1041 note 1} The order, too, of ther, paṇḍit, and warapaṇḍit (after the proper names to which they apply) is an imitation of the Indian and Burmese order, and really foreign to Talaing (cf. “Hotel Cecil”, which is not proper English). But I find it in the Rājāwan, Pegu, B xiii 2, pp. 96–7 (Schmidt): Uttara the.Google Scholar

^{page 1044 note 1} To justify this statement as to the force of vū in this text I cite the following specimens of its queer method of spelling:—Vrahmaba = Brahmapāl (Pali Brahmapālo), Sūmedha = Sumedha, Sū = Son (Pali Sono). For the i instead of e in the first syllable of Henbuiw cf. this text's rendering of the name Saṁghasena, which is Sagasi. I think the word is probably spelt Hivū, the –n– being omitted as in Sū. (The ū of Hivū is followed by a visārga, which I have left unrepresented as it is probably a tonal mark, as in Burmese.)

^{page 1045 note 1} The last letters visible on the rubbing in these lines are—1. 26, h; 1. 27, ḍe; 1. 28, -e; 1. 29, ñ (the first half of it only); 1. 30, the first part of o; 1. 31, ḍ.

^{page 1045 note 2} There is also a Talaing word “thicket,” but then I can give no explanation of gin (or gir).

^{page 1046 note 1} I find in the Sanskrit dictionary (Monier-Williams) a word māpanā = “measuring or meting out (especially the place for a sacrifice); the act of measuring or forming or shaping”; but to speak of the statue (at this stage) as “which he had shaped” seems senseless, and there is no evidence that the word is used at all in Talaing.

^{page 1049 note 1} I am told that there is a similar difficulty in the Burmese text. It is not within my scope to discuss this text, but I may point out that in these imprecations the common form in Burmese is or the like ( being the negative). On p. of Inscriptions of Pagan, etc., I have found however, and I assume it to be a correct transcription.

^{page 1050 note 1} A reference to the chronological tables at the end of Phayre's History of Burma shows that this is the date of the king's death. His Burmese name was Kyanzit.

^{page 1050 note 2} It appears from the Pali version that she was his chief queen; tass' āsekā piyā devī sā Tilokavaṭaṁsikā (sic), hitesī kusalā sabbakiccesu pana rājino is the phrase by which she is described.

^{page 1050 note 3} He must, I assume, have been the queen's son by a former marriage (for else I imagine he would have been styled “the king's son ”).

^{page 1050 note 4} Or “to enshrine it”.

^{page 1050 note 5} Or “niche-pagoda”.