It might be well also to call attention to the little misprints in spelling, which might be overlooked and might later lead to real mistakes:—
(a) The first (
Arabic characters) (as-sultan) in the reading of Plate I should be written (Arabic characters) (tis-sultan) as we find it correctly written in the Romanised reading; and the word (Arabic characters) should read (Arabic characters).
(b) The words (Arabic characters) on page 3 should, I think, read (Arabic characters).
(c) The words (Arabic characters) (lais a'd-dunia.) in the reading of Plate III should read (Arabic characters) (laisa li'd-dunia).
That the "n" of (Arabic characters) and the "r" of Mansur cannot be
traced may indeed be due to the mistakes of the mason. So also
may the absence of any dots or diacritical points (titek) from the inscription be accounted for. But it is quite possible also that
both have their explanation in (b) 5 above, or may have been
worn out because of their smallness.
On any other matter regarding this subject, I am not able to form any independent idea; nor have any strong view to express beyond that, in my opinion, the reconstructions are really very ingenious, and the reading certainly much more acceptable than the one which used to be accepted before it.
