nt accusative, nlnggenitive.) Moreover, if k :msan-ni be taken as a genitive, the verbs qiiiub-turldr and kisib have no object, no other accusative appearing in the sentence than k : msdn-nt.
A weighty reason against changing sack into sheikh is that Dr. Ilminsky has not done so. He must have attached meaning to sack since he uses it throughout the passage. He was nearer the region wherein the original willows were seen at a feast. Unfortunately nothing shows how he interpreted the word.
Sdchmdq is a tassel ; is it also a catkin and were there decorations, kinisdn-ni (things kimsa, or flowers Ar. kim, or something shining, kimcha, gold brocade) hung in between the catkins ?
Ilminsky writes viu'lah (with hamzd) and this de Courteille translates by hut. The Hai. MS. writes muwallah (marking the zamma).
In favour of reading mawallah (mulah) as a tree and that tree Salix babylonica the weeping-willow, there are annotations in the Second Persian translation and, perhaps following it, in the Elphinstone MS. of ndm-i-dirakht, name of a tree, diddn-i-bed, sight of the willow, bed-i-mawallah, mournful-willow. Standing alone mawallah means weeping-willow, in this use answering to tnajnun the name Panj-abis give the tree, from Leila's lover the distracted i.e. Majnun (Brandis).
The whole question may be solved by a chance remark from a traveller witnessing similar festive decoration at another feast in that conservative region.
