Sigh... I didn't want you to just repeat the numbers. I was asking if you would give me some clue what they are, if they're not page numbers. Before the 237, you have a related text (roughly corresponding Irish/English, both with the "Greeks of Scythia" weirdness) marked 123. Before the 273 is a section marked 29 in the middle and 159 at the end. Before the 254 is a section 137 (where Cecrops, founding king of Athens, is mentioned as the king where Nemed came from). Before the 248 is a section 129 which is obviously not from the Lebor at all: it describes inferences drawn from putting different sections of the Lebor together, and variant traditions disagreeing with the Lebor, and I'm interested to know what the source is. You didn't understand at all what I was talking about, but it is probably more my fault for not explaining well. Where the original language had two different sounds, then in the descendant languages we would usually expect that these would stay two different sounds, even if not the same two sounds as before (one or both might shift: "p" and "f" were different in Latin, and become "p" and "h" in Spanish, pater/filius "father/son" > pater/hijo), but what used to be two different sounds might merge into one ("f" and "h" were different in Latin, but merge in Spanish). The reverse is more difficult: where the original language had only one sound, we do not expect it to split into two different sounds in descendants, except where the shift is driven by differences in the neighboring sounds: "c" in Latin was always pronounced "k", but before a front-vowel (i/e) it typically shifts to "s" where a back-vowel (a/o/u) leaves it alone, cattus/centum "cat/hundred" becoming English cat ("k" sound) but cent ("s" sound). There is no difference in neighboring sounds that distinguishes Sanskrit "b" from "bh" (or the corresponding Germanic "w" vs. "b" or the corresponding Latin "v" vs. "f") since both can occur before any sort of vowel. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE, therefore, that this arose from the Avestan, in which both of them are "b"; if the single sound "b" had originally been present in all of the words, there is no reason why some cases of "b" would shift and not others, particularly not in systematic ways where, in each descendant language, the "bear/fer/bharati" word would shift one way while the "wield/valor/bala(ti)" word would shift the other, despite the fact that each descendant is shifting by a different pattern. It is totally established that Avestan shows a merger of two original sounds into one, here and in the analogous cases where Sanskrit also has aspirated vs. unaspirated while Avestan has a merger. It is hotly debated among Indo-Europeanists what the two original sounds were, whether Sanskrit's "b" vs. "bh" is faithful to the original, or whether there used to be glottalized consonants (something no IE language now has but related Nostratic languages do) which got reduced in varying ways in the descendant languages. It is however believed that in the Indo-Iranian branch at least, "b" and "bh" was original. There have to have been 8 separate consonants in the Indo-Iranian, which are merged into 4 in the Avestan, where Sanskrit preserves the set of 8. What you were claiming is that "gh" shifting to "h", which is totally direct and straightforward, could only have happened through an intermediate stage "z": the shift "z" to "h" is not impossible, though rare, but "gh" to "z" is totally bizarre. You are confusing what happens to non-native words that get borrowed, with the evolution within a language of native words. Vietnamese doesn't HAVE the "z" sound, so they have to substitute the next-nearest approximation when they borrow a word like "zoo". Both of these are unheard-of. Since x > sh is rare, the expectation is that the majority of descendants would retain the original, a small minority showing the shift. Rarely. So under your hypothesis, the majority should have the original "x"; of the minority, most should show "sh"; hardly any should have "s". Instead ALL BUT ONE have "s". It is totally implausible, unless you are arbitrarily trying to attribute some kind of language dominance to Irano-Afghans. But if you think the Avestan form is original, then why don't you see "Aryan" as a distortion, and "Iran" (pronounced EYE-ran) as the original? Not only have I talked about this with you repeatedly, I just got through asking you, specifically, to stop replying without paying attention to what I am saying. FOR AT LEAST THE FOURTH TIME: Old Persian is written in a weird script, syllabic cuneiform where each character is consonant+vowel, and the pronunciations of the words are not faithfully reflected, as the words are shoehorned into that shape. My best guess as to how a.ri.ya. was pronounced is that the ri. character is here being used for "ir" and that the word was airya exactly like in the Avestan. Is there any possibility that you could respond to this hypothesis of mine, or at least acknowledge that I have made it? Or am I going to have to post this same thing again next time, and then again, and then again... Hopeless... I was giving you those words thinking it was OBVIOUS TO ANYBODY that they had NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with each other. OK: so do you think Iran is derived from English "I ran" because Irano-Afghans are all cowards, related of course to iron in the sense of "to flatten out wrinkles"? The shah was the king. From Cyrus on, no rival to the royal authority was tolerated. OK, my bad. Yeah, it says the name means "rage", just like I told you. They also suggest a connection to the PIE *wat "shamanic trance" root in Latin vates "soothsayer; diviner" and the Irish faidh. That's possible, but there is no relation to the root of Germanic wit/wise, Latin videre "to see", Irish fis "sight", Indo-Iranian veda/avesta. There's a rare Sanskrit vaadiza "soothsayer" that looks to belong to the other root: the two roots are plainly distinguished in all branches. Yeah, confirming what I told you. Do you have a point?