So also in the position in the cuneiform where he should expect to find a word corresponding to the one translated ‘stirps,’ in the Pehlevi he observed a word of three letters of which he knew the first two, _p_, _u_ —. He hit upon a word in Pehlevi—_bun_—that had precisely the signification of ‘stirps.’[309] So he gave his _p_ the alternate value of _b_, and added _n_ to his list. These also were both wrong. His attention was next turned to the two different inflexions which had been remarked at the end of ‘king.’ In the one consisting of three signs, he already knew the two last, — _h_ _a_, and, for some reason we have not found explained, he assumed the first (𐏃) was a second sign for _a_. In this addition to his alphabet he was nearly right, for the letter has the value of _h_ before _a_, _i_, _u_. In the second inflexion of four letters the first and third signs are the same, his _e_ or _a_; and he learned from Anquetil that the Zend has a genitive ending _e_ _tsch_ _a_ _o_. This was sufficient to add _tsch_ and another _o_ to his alphabet—both wrong. Here, then, are six more letters, _gh_, _e_, _n_, _a_, _tsch_ and _o_, to be added to the thirteen already found, making nineteen in all. There are twenty-five letters in the two inscriptions given by De Sacy in 1803; and there is no doubt that before that time Grotefend had, with two exceptions, completed his alphabet, as it is found in the Appendix to Heeren in 1815.[310] According to it we see that he had already attempted to assign values to thirty-seven cuneiform signs, three of which are not to be found in Niebuhr’s list and are due to defective copying. Two others occur in Niebuhr’s list, but are also defective (_e_, [Persian], and _r_, letter No. 8), so that there remain thirty-two genuine signs for which he has now found values. Several signs are, however, allotted to express the same sound. Thus he gives three signs for _e_ (Nos. 3 [defective], 4 and 10) besides the sign for _e_ or _a_ which he generally transliterates _e_. He also gives three signs for _o_ (Nos. 12, 16 and 23). It was afterwards found that these signs, which he took to be synonymous, are very far from being so: for example, not one of his three signs for _o_ has that value, being respectively _i_, _ch(a)_, and _m(a)_. Indeed, among all the additions we are now considering he only succeeded in arriving at two correct values, 𐎳, _f_ (No. 39) and 𐏃, _a_ (No. 41), if indeed the second may be allowed to pass. Its true value is the aspirate _h_. But, as we shall afterwards see, it takes an inherent _a_, and it is very commonly used to express the sound ‘Ha,’ the vowel _a_ being altogether omitted. In an inquiry of this kind it is necessary to admit approximate values as correct; and in the present case the value allotted to this sign by Grotefend ultimately led to the important identification of the word ‘Achaemenian.’ Here the first syllable, ‘Ach,’ is represented by the two signs for _h_