However, the character of the Irôn grammar is as follows:-- The declension of nouns is simple; being limited to two numbers and four cases. Herein the inflection expressive of number can be separated from the inflection expressive of case--as _fid_-i=_of a father_, _fid-t`_-i=_of fathers_. Furthermore, the sign of case _follows_ that of number. Such is the structure of case and number in Irôn, and such the _sequence_ of the respective inflections expressive of each. _Singular._ _Plural._ _Nom._ fid[42] fid-t`-a _Gen._ fid-i fid-t`-i _Dat._ fid-én fid-t`-am _Abl._ fid-éi fid-t`-éi. _Nom._ moi[43] moi-t`a _Gen._ moi-i moi-t`i _Dat._ moi-én moi-t-am _Abl._ moi-éi moi-t`-éi. The comparative degree is formed by the addition of -_dar_; as _chorz_=_good_, _chorz-dar_=_better_. This has an Indo-European look. Compare it with the -τερ of the Greek comparatives. No superlative inflection. The true personal pronouns (_i. e._, those of the two first persons) are as follows;-- A. 1. _Az_=_I_. Defective in the oblique cases. 2. _Man_, or _ma_--Defective in the nominative singular. A. _Sing._ _Plural._ _Nom._ ---- mach _Gen._ man-i mach-i _Dat._ man-an mach-én _Accus._ man mach _Abl._ man-éi mach-éi. B. _Nom._ di si-mach _Gen._ daw-i[44] si-mach-i _Dat._ daw-on si-mach-én _Accus._ daw si-mach _Abl._ da-wéi si-mach-éi. The signs of the persons are considered to be eminently Indo-Germanic. They are _-in_, _-is_, _-i_; _-am_, _-ut`_, _-inc`_; _e. g._ Qus-_in_ = aud-_io_ Qus-_am_ = aud-_imus_ Qus-_is_ = aud-_is_ Qus-_ut`_ = aud-_itis_ Qus-_i_ = aud-_it_ Qus-_inc`_ = aud-_iunt_. I am as little prepared to deny as to affirm the likeness. The addition of the sound of _t_ _helps_ to form the Irôn preterite. I say _helps_, because if we compare the form _s-ko_-t-_on_=_I made_, with the root _kan_, or the form _fé-qus_-t-_on_=_I heard_, with the root _qus_, we see, at once, that the addition of _t_ is only a _part_ of an inflection. Nevertheless, I am as little prepared to deny as to affirm its identity with the Persian _d_. Beyond this, the tenses become complicated; and that because they are evidently formed by the agglutination of separate words; the so-called imperfect being undoubtedly formed by affixing the preterite form of the word _to make_; thus used as an auxiliary. The perfect and future seem similarly formed, from the auxiliary=_be_. This may be collected from the following paradigms. 1.