-4-
4xii50

(ix) 	Comparing the length-frequency of HT sign--groups with the frequencies
that seem to result from a count of B sign-groups (admittedly liable to
considerable error) we find the following percentage distribution:
				A 	B
2-letter groups ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ	33 %	16 %
3				49	38
4				17	39
5			 	 1	 6
6					 ˝
7					 ˝
Average word-length:	      2.86    3.36

	If we assume that A and B represent parts of a strictly equivalent 
"vocabulary", the A sign-groups must be abbreviated by an average of 
˝ a sign per word, on something like the following scheme:

Words, actual		Shortened	Left	  Words, written
2-letterˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ	16 %  	 0 %		16 %	    33 %
3 ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ38   	17		21	    49
4 ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ39   	28		11	    17
5 ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ 6  	 6	 	 0	     1
6 ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˝	 ˝		 0	     0 
7 ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ ˝	 ˝		 0	     0


	This is not necessarily a fact, but if it was so it would have the 
effect of reducing the probable number of apparent correspondences re-
sulting from a finite vocabulary to something little more than ˝ 
the normal. The resulting figures are entered in red in the table 
overleaf.
	There is still a recalcitrant discrepancy of about 50%, however, 
which seems to make the further assumption necessary that the HT and 
Knossos/Pylos vocabularies are in some significant way not comparable, 
that they deal, to a considerable extent, with different categories - 
with places or gods instead of people, or with words expressed with 
consistently different case-endings. Which is another way of saying, 
in the end, that I agree with you that the facts are odd and still 
need explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFLICTION IN THE PYLOS INSCRIPTIONS.

(x)	Remembering your remarks at lunch the other day, I was very interes-
ted to confirm for my own satisfaction the apparent inflections occur- 
ring in the Pylos tablets published in your AJA article.
They look like a hopeful source of additions to what I call the 
'GRID', that is to say, a table of signs arranged in columns down 
and across according to the evidence for shared vowels and shared 
consonants respectively.
In its very rough state, my grid has 3 separate pages:

1) 	Cases where varying inflections, applied to more than one form of 
	the same 'root', apparently cause a vowel-change in the syllable 
	immediately preceding.
2)	Cases where different inflections do not change the preceding 
	syllable in pairs of words.
3)	Cases of inflections apparently falling within the same series, 
	but for which the evidence for more than one form of root isn't 
	available.

The columns are subdivided under:
1)	Sign-group used as evidence.
2)	Reference.
3) 	Form of the syllable preceding each apparent inflexion, including
	-_, -_, -_,  -_,  -_ -_,  -_ -_,  -_,  -_ -_,  -_, -_, -_, -_, -_, -_, -_-_ .
	There are probably others worth including which I haven't struck
	myself. My reason for ignoring - _ I'll explain below.

	I imagine that you agree that the following items out of Kn02 etc 
rate inclusion in the grid (in fact, I think it was one of them which 
you pointed out to me):