Ceci [est] I am Darius roi Darius the great King, divin, roi des rois, King of Kings, roi des provinces, King of countries qui produisent les braves, which consist of many races, roi du monde excellent king of this great earth [et] divin; redoutable, afar and near, protecteur: fils du Goshtasp Achéménide. son of Hystaspes the Achaemenian. A comparison of the two translations with the final version will show at a glance how vastly superior Burnouf’s rendering was to that of his predecessor. Not the least important of his contributions to the work of translation was the identification of the names of some of the provinces of Darius, which are contained in the I inscription. We have already observed that Grotefend had attempted a translation of this inscription in 1832;[425] and in 1836 he again drew attention to the circumstance that it contained a series of geographical names. The list included no less than twenty-four proper names, some of which were entirely beyond Burnouf’s power to decipher; but he made an attempt to read sixteen, and out of these eight were correct. He thus added Persia, Media, Babylon, Arabia, Cappadocia, Sarangia, Bactria and Sogdiana to the names deciphered from the cuneiform;[426] and we have seen how nearly he arrived at four more—Athura (or Assyria), Armenia, Ionia[427] and Parthia. Among his contributions to a knowledge of the grammar, he pointed out that the change of Grotefend’s _o_ into _m_ brought the accusative singular into line with the Zend and Sanscrit; the genitive _aha_ is also found in Zend, and both languages alike use it as a dative. A nominative ending in _oh_ has also its counterpart in the Zend termination in _o_. He indicated the apparent barbarism that treats the nominative case as inherent in the word itself; so that the case-ending is appended to it without modification, as if we wrote ‘dominus-um’ for ‘dominum,’ or ‘dominus-i’ for ‘domini.’[428]