We have already said that Burnouf suspected that _m_ was the true value of the sign Grotefend made an _h_, and that he only rejected it because he could not reconcile himself to the existence of two signs for the same sound. Lassen was less influenced by such considerations, and when he came to a word that transliterated ‘A r—i n,’ he had no scruple in completing it by writing an _m_ for the unknown letter. Indeed the word occurred exactly where, from geographical considerations he would be led to expect ‘Armenia,’ and the conclusion would have been irresistible even if it had not been confirmed by the name ‘Choras_m_ia’ which he observed a little farther down in his list.[454] He made the useful remark that the sign was always preceded by _i_, the full signification of which was not then apparent. We now know that it is precisely the _m_ before _i_. The discovery of the sign for _d_ was a happy intuition, and rested on slight evidence. He found in the eighteenth line a name of which he knew four letters, _a_ _i_—_u_ _s_, and he divined that the unknown letter was _d_, which enabled him to read ‘Aidus’ = India.[455] This guess was confirmed by one other instance only, where the same sign will make ‘_d_aquista,’ which he thought was Zend for ‘the wisest.’ The word is really ‘duvaishtam’ and has quite another signification. We have not noticed how he arrived at the value _g_ for Grotefend’s _u_, or for the sign which Grotefend thought was a defective _n_. We find them without explanation in the place where they appear to be mentioned for the first time.[456] The first is _g_ before _a_; the other _g_ before _u_. In addition to the six correct values just enumerated, Lassen was also very nearly successful in two others—_w_ (𐎺, 10) and _t_ (𐏂, 13), really _v_ before _a_ and _tr_ before _a_. The latter he correctly acknowledged in a later work. The first is the _e_ of Grotefend in his ‘Darh_e_usch.’ Lassen had the Hebrew form of the name ‘Darjavesch’ in his mind, and no doubt he suspected the presence of the sound of _v_ in the Old Persian word. The discovery of the _w_ was certainly ingenious, though scarcely convincing, if it had not been supported from other sources.[457] At the end of the B inscription there is a word in the nominative, ‘Akun_u_sh,’ which is found elsewhere with the accusative termination _m_, but, instead of the _u_, the sign now under discussion is substituted—that is, instead of ‘nus,’ we have _n_ 𐎺 _m_. Now, he argued, it is impossible either in Zend or Sanscrit for a word whose theme ends with _u_ to lose it in the accusative; and therefore the unknown sign must either be a _u_ or the corresponding half-vocal _v_.[458] But in Darius, the letter that follows is a _u_, and therefore it must be the half-vocal—the only question being whether it is the Zend _v_ or _w_. He eventually erroneously decided for the _w_, and pointed to two other words _wᵃsna_ and _wᵃzᵃrk_, where as a _w_ it would make excellent sense.[459]