In Part I, the present writer has treated Karnamak i Artaxšer i Papakan (KN), §168 (Nosherwân's ed.)=chapt. XII 5 (Sanjana's ed.) where is read 'be y'lymwn 'amdb 'ap i 'to pat kar 'ne apdyet. In y'lymwn he has recognized a verbal form of Aramaic RWM (rum/rim) ‘to be high’, rather than that of 'LM, the hilp^e'al of which means ‘to be silent. If the p^e'al form of’ LM can mean the same, y'lymnin comes near to yel^e mun impf. 3rd pers. pl. masc. and the Pahlavi passage then would mean ‘Be silent! For us thy water is of no use.’, seemingly suitable to the context. But the second yoδ of y'lymwn cannot represent the shäwa mobile in ^yel<SUP>emun</SUP>. In Part II, the present writer has given a general survey on the wide employment of Aramaic RWM and its various derivatives. Among others it may be of some interest to note that in the 3rd line of the Aramaic inscription of Asoka near Qandahar, Afghanistan, Prof. Franz Altheim has successfully pointed out R'M as Aramaic ra'em. In the last Part, the present writer has come to the conclusion that 'be y'lymwn in KN § 168=XII 5 is nothing but 'be yab^arimtin, yab^arimun being haf'el imperfect 3. p1. masc. of RWM ‘to be high’, whcih was so widely employed throughout the Official Aramaic in Achaemenian period. Of the yab^arimun, what is then the Pahlavi equivalent? In KN we have ‘she was drawing the water’ 'ap hame bext-§166), ‘I will draw the water’('ap banjam-§167), ‘draw the water!’('ap abanjet-170), ‘it was unable to draw up the bezak’(bizak.'ul kašitan 'ne šayast-§171), ‘it was unable to draw the bezak’(bezak. bextan 'ne šayast-§172), ‘'he drew up the bezak’(bizak.ul bext-§172), of which verbal expressions, Frahang i Pahlavik has the logoram YZLWNtn for kašitan ‘to draw’(cf. KN §171). Then the reading bextan or (a) banjitan for YHLYMWN (yab^arimun) tn seems preferable. The present writer, therefore, would like to interpret KN § 168 in this way: 'be (a) banj!'amab 'ap i 'to pat kar'ne apayet ‘Draw [up the bezak]! We have no need of thy water.’ Needless to say, there is another way of possible interpretation: the af'el form of RWM is attested in the sense of ‘to remove’. The meaning of KN § 168 would be something like this: ‘Remove [the bezak]! We have no need of thy water.’, taking 'be as meaning ‘off, away’. To the present writer, however, this interpretation seems no preferable. Seeing that the girl was going to thraw down the bezak into the well, Shahpuhr said: ‘Thou shouldest not thraw down the bezak but pull it up: we have no need of thy water.’-so interprets the present writer.