IN 1942 I. J. GELB published the third part of his Hittite Hieroglyphs.1 Its main result is an almost complete decipherment of the " normal syllabary," so that the moment has come where it is possible to read the inscriptions written in these hieroglyphs as far as they employ phonetic syllables and not ideograms. Gelb also assigned values to certain rarer signs; among them are-to mention only the few that are of significance for the purpose of this article-those read su, ki, and ke. When doing so Gelb expressed the opinion that hH (i. e. hieroglyphic Hittite), in contradistinction with cH (i. e. cuneiform Hittite), belonged to the eastern, not the western branch of the Indo-European languages, that it was a satem, not a centum language. In matters Indo-European he was advised by G. Bonfante, and a joint article on this question by both these authors was announced as in preparation. The article has now appeared in this Journal (64. 169-190). It reiterates the claim Gelb had previously made and discusses the question as to the linguistic position of hH in great detail. It can be expected that the view that the two authors advance with so much vigor will soon be quoted by non-linguists and utilized by them as an established fact. Hence, it seems necessary to investigate its foundations. It is not the purpose of this article to enter into a discussion of "areal linguistics," the method used by Bonfante. This is unnecessary. Should the basis for Bonfante's position prove unsound, not even the best method could reach valid results. In a review of Gelb's book which was printed in this Journal (64. 84iff.) I warned against the conclusion which I then foresaw would be drawn from the author's reading su, namely that hi was a satem language, and said: "Such an argument is circular. That very hypothesis was instrumental in positing the value in question." Gelb's argument in favor of the reading Su (litt. Hier. III 19iff.; cf. his own summary JAOS 64 174 f.) is as follows: The sign in question, here marked as x, occurs in three words which everybody agrees are forms of the words for " dog," " horn,," and " horse "; they are x-wa-ni-i-ha, x+r-ni,2 and 'a-x-wa-.3 Their similarity in structure with IE. *k' (u) won, *kfrn-, and *ek'wos is evident. This means that the sign x is the representative of IE *k' followed in all probability by the u-vowel. Since according to Gelb no homophones can be admitted in the syllabary of hH, such syllables as are otherwise represented in the syllabary must be eliminated as possible readings of the sign. For this reason the reading cannot be lcu (as had been proposed by Hrozny) or su; there is already a well established sign klu, and there are four signs with s one of which must be su. A reading zu is for the same reason unlikely and made still more improbable by the fact that hH z is usually a development of t. The conclusion is drawn that " the most likely possibility, then, is S."' 4 Into this argument certain premises have entered. Firstly, that there is no polyphony. With this I agree 5 (JAOS 64 85). Secondly, that additional values must fit the gaps left in the system. This is correct in principle; however, it must not lead to the demand that all places are to be filled in all circumstances. The sound system of the language may limit a consonant to the position in front of certain vowels. Thirdly Gelb exhibits a strange belief in the accuracy of transliterations like su