The merit of Hincks consists in this: that he was the first to point out that the various signs allotted to the same letter did not differ from each other by any modification of sound as Lassen supposed, and also that their employment was regulated according to the vowel that succeeded them. He accordingly divided the signs for these consonants into two classes, according as they were followed by _a_, inherent or expressed, and by _i_ or _u_; and he added _r_: the former he called primary, and the latter secondary, consonants. Lassen, as we have said, was of opinion that the secondary letters must have a somewhat different value, and in particular that they were all aspirated. He also thought they might be used indifferently before any vowel. Thus, for example, he supposed that the two signs for _m_ (𐎶 and 𐎷) might both be used before _i_, and that they expressed a slightly different sound. Hincks, on the contrary, maintained that 𐎶 could never really open upon _i_; and when it appears to do so, as in the group 𐎶·𐎡, _a_ is always understood. Thus 𐎷·𐎡 is ‘mi,’ but 𐎶·𐎡 is ‘mai’ or ‘mê,’ the secondary form of _m_ being equivalent to its primary form; and he ascribed the existence in the alphabet of this peculiarity to a survival from a syllabic mode of writing. Its utility is, however, obvious, for with only three vowels—_a_, _i_ and _u_—it would otherwise be impossible to render the sounds _ê_ and _ô_ (_ai_—_au_). As, however, the consonants themselves were of the same value, Hincks writes them with the same sign, and discards the _h_ which had till then been added to mark an imaginary difference in the sound of the secondary consonants. This is precisely what Rawlinson did in his Supplementary Note, and for the same reason. Hincks lays down the general rule that when a primary consonant replaces a secondary consonant before _i_ or _u_ ‘an _a_ must be interposed either as a distinct syllable or as a guṇa to the vowel.’[552] This alteration led to a considerable modification in the method of transliteration, but its importance arose from the altered translation of which the words became susceptible. Thus, in the instance already given, ‘miy’ is the termination of the first person singular present tense of the verb; while ‘mey’ (properly ‘maiy’) is the enclitic pronoun used for _my_. So also the words Lassen transliterates ‘utamija khsathram’ and renders ‘tum hoc regnum,’ when properly transliterated ‘utamê’ (‘utamaiy’) signify ‘meumque regnum.’[553] Hincks had also the merit of calling attention to the indiscriminate addition of _a_ by Lassen to words ending in _iy_ and _uw_. This lengthening of the syllable sometimes entirely obscured the sense—as in ‘thatija’ which Lassen supposed to signify ‘generosus,’ and which is in fact the verb ‘he says.’[554]