e Perugian
inscription. The hypercriticism of the learned committee was
therefore altogether erroneous, and their observations not borne
out.[9] These marks are evidently not intended as divisions of words,
but of sentences, and they are not sufficiently precise even in that
respect to constitute an accurate guide. The syllabic division,
however, is governed by rule, is precise, uniform, fixed, and
consistent, and may therefore be acted on with some degree of
certainty. Instances occur where three or four consonants follow each
other, and vowels are altogether omitted; but a little exertion of
sagacity, after some practice and study, enables us to judge of this
and supply the omissions."--(Vol. i. p. 369.)

And again, in the passage referred to at p. 53,

"Whether I was arbitrary and unauthorized in the division of the
words, will now appear by comparison, as the columns stand in
juxtaposition, and all are able to judge. _The division is merely
made into syllables, which, so far from being an unnatural or
arbitrary division, is the only division which could be reasonably
and fairly adopted._"

That is to say _Hibernice_, or rather _Bethamice_--_The ti fis e on is
mear i lu om a do an do is i la bil se i i ac is o bar bro om be en go_
(we only "add a letter here and there in the Irish, when, by the genius
and character of that language, it is justifiable, as when the addition of
a vowel is required to make sense, and when in the original the sound does
not require it to be explained,") _an en na tur al ur ar bi tre re ti fis
i en is the an lu ti fis si an i i ac co al do be re as a ra be lu an do
fa i ar lu a taob tuait_.

But _are_ these singular-looking syllables Irish? They certainly are
neither sense nor grammar; but we take them all _as_ they appear, with
their alleged meanings in English, from that copious store of
ungrammatical nonsense called Irish, collected in those pretended versions
of the tables of Gubbio; and the reader has already seen what a
characteristic jargon they make when rendered by their English
equivalents.

His fatuity and presumption appear almost incredible. Knowing but a single
Etruscan word, and that a word of two syllables, and finding it, as he
alleges, identical with an Irish word also of two syllables, he concludes
that the Etruscan and Irish languages are the same, and both
_monosyllabic_. Had he