Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The real difficulty of reading Pahlavi texts lies in the Pazand portion (so far as it may be unexplained by existing vocabularies), and is chiefly occasioned by the ambiguity of some of the Pahlavi letters. The alphabet used in Pahlavi books contains only fourteen distinct letters, so that some letters represent several different sounds; and this ambiguity is increased by the letters being joined together, when a compound of two letters is sometimes exactly like some other single letter. The complication arising from these ambiguities may be understood from the following list of the sounds, simple and compound, represented by each of the fourteen letters of the Pahlavi alphabet respectively :— Da ah kh fb. Opel Ptd Chg zr. 71, lL §z. 298, yi, yad, yag, yag, di, dad, dag, dag, gi, gad, gag, gag, gi, gad, gag, gag. -X) sh, s, ya, yah, yakh, th, ikh, INTRODUCTION. xvii da, dah, dakh, g4, gah, gakh, 78, gah, gakh. 2 gh. gk. 6m. Jnv,w,0,6,1 sy, 4d, g,¢. From this list it is easy to see the confusion produced by the letter 29 s being exactly like the letter 5 y doubled, and by the letter -4%) sh being identical with a compound of 5 y and » 4; and there are, in fact, some compounds of two letters which have from ten to fifteen sounds in common use, besides others which might possibly occur. If it be further considered that there are only three letters (which are also consonants, as in most Semitic languages) to represent five long vowels, and that there are probably five short vowels to be understood, the difficulty of reading Pahlavi correctly may be readily imagined. When Pahlavi writing was in common use this difficulty was probably no more felt by the Persians, than the complexity of Chinese characters is felt as an evil by a Chinese mandarin, or the corrupt system of English orthography by an educated Englishman. It is only the foreigner, or learner, who fully appreciates the difficulty of understanding such cumbrous systems of writing. With regard, however, to their Huzvaris logograms the Persians seem to have experienced more difficulty. As the actual sounds of these Semitic words were rarely pronounced, in consequence of their Pazand equivalents being substituted in reading, there must have been some risk of their true pronunciation being forgotten. That this risk was understood by the Persians, or Parsis, is proved by the existence of the Huzv4ris-Pazand glossary already described, which was evidently compiled as a record both of the pronunciation and meaning of the Huzvaris logograms. But its compilation does not appear to have been undertaken until the true pronunciation of some of these logograms had been already lost. Thus, although the traditional readings of most of the Semitic portion of the Huzvdris can be readily traced to wellknown Chaldee words, there are yet many other such readings which are altogether inexplicable as Semitic (5] _Xvill PAHLAVI TEXTS,
2Thus, although the traditional readings of most of the Semitic portion of the Huzvdris can be readily traced to wellknown Chaldee words, there are yet many other such readings which are altogether inexplicable as Semitic (5] _Xvill PAHLAVI TEXTS, words. In most such cases, however, European scholars have found that the Huzvaris word can be easily read in some other way which at once connects it with some ordinary Chaldee equivalent. It may, therefore, be reasonably assumed that the compilers of the glossary had in some instances lost the correct pronunciation of these old Semitic words, and that, in such cases, they adopted (as a Parsi would probably do at the present day) the most obvious reading of the letters before them, which thenceforth became an artificial word to be handed down to posterity, by successive generations of writers, with all the authority of old tradition. In the same manner the artificial pronunciation of the Iranian portion of the Huzvaris may be explained. The compilers of the glossary found a number of words in the Pahlavi texts, which were written in some obsolete or contracted manner; they knew the meanings of these words, but could not trace the true readings in the altered letters; they, therefore, adopted the most obvious readings of the written characters, and thus produced another series of artificial words, such as anhém4 for adharmazd, yahan for yazdan, madénad for main6ék, shatan for shatr6, &c. Naturally enough the Parsis are loth to admit the possibility of any error in their traditional readings of Huzvaris, and very few of them have yet adopted the views of European scholars further than to admit that they are ingenious hypotheses, which still require satisfactory proof. They are quite right in demanding such proof, and they may reasonably argue that the conflicting opinions of various European scholars do not tend to in-— crease the certainty of their explanations. But, on the other hand, they are bound to examine all proofs that may be offered, and to consider the arguments of scholars, before utterly rejecting them in favour of their own preconceived notions of traditional authority. Fortunately, we possess some means of ascertaining the ancient pronunciation of a few Huzvaris words, independent of the opinions of comparative philologists, in the inscrip- INTRODUCTION. xix
3Fortunately, we possess some means of ascertaining the ancient pronunciation of a few Huzvaris words, independent of the opinions of comparative philologists, in the inscrip- INTRODUCTION. xix tions already mentioned as having been engraved on rocks, and impressed on coins, by the earlier kings of the Sasanian dynasty in Persia. The earliest of these rock inscriptions records the name and titles of Artakhshatar son! of Papak, the first Sasanian monarch (A. D. 226-240); it is engraved in Greek and two kinds of old Pahlavi characters, which have been called Chaldzo-Pahlavi and Sasanian-Pahlavi, because the one bears more resemblance to Chaldee, both in its letters and the language they express, and the other is more frequently used by the subsequent Sasanian monarchs. A similar tri-lingual inscription records the names and titles of his son and successor Shahpdhar I (A.D. 240-271), who has also left a long bi-lingual inscription, in Chaldzo and Sasanian- Pahlavi, in a cave near Persepolis. Another long bi-lingual inscription, fragments of which have been found on stones among the ruins of Pai Kall, is attributed to his early successors, who have also left us several uni-lingual inscriptions in Sasanian-Pahlavi, two of which are of great length, but none later than the end of the fourth century. The language of the earlier of these inscriptions differs from that of the manuscripts preserved by the Parsis, chiefly in the use of several Semitic words unknown to the manuscript Huzvaris, the non-existence of Iranian Huzvaris (which is evidently a growth of later times), and the less frequent use of Persian terminations affixed to Semitic words. These differences, however, are hardly greater than those which distinguish the English of Chaucer from that of our own day. Moreover, they gradually disappear in process of time, as we find the later inscriptions of the fourth century approaching much closer, in language, to the manuscripts. As the alphabets of these inscriptions are less imperfect and ambiguous than that of the Pahlavi manuscripts, they render the pronunciation of many words much more certain. They consist of eighteen letters, having the following sounds :— ‘ So stated in the inscription, but Pahlavi MSS. call him the son of P&pak’s daughter and of Saésan (see Bund. XXXI, 30). b2 xX PAHLAVI TEXTS, lad. 2b 3.p,f. 4.t,@ 5.4, ¢,%. 6.kh, h. 7.d. 8.1,v,w, 0,6. 9.z. 10.8. I1.sh,s. 12.k. 13.g. 14.l,r, 15.m. 16.n. 17. y,%,4& 18. doubtful, being equivalent to Chaldee N-> and to Pahl. MS. -man".
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The real difficulty of reading Pahlavi texts lies in the Pazand portion (so far as it may be unexplained by existing vocabularies), and is chiefly occasioned by the ambiguity of some of the Pahlavi letters. The alphabet used in Pahlavi books contains only fourteen distinct letters, so that some letters represent several different sounds; and this ambiguity is increased by the letters being joined together, when a compound of two letters is sometimes exactly like some other single letter. The complication arising from these ambiguities may be understood from the following list of the sounds, simple and compound, represented by each of the fourteen letters of the Pahlavi alphabet respectively :— Da ah kh fb. Opel Ptd Chg zr. 71, lL §z. 298, yi, yad, yag, yag, di, dad, dag, dag, gi, gad, gag, gag, gi, gad, gag, gag. -X) sh, s, ya, yah, yakh, th, ikh, INTRODUCTION. xvii da, dah, dakh, g4, gah, gakh, 78, gah, gakh. 2 gh. gk. 6m. Jnv,w,0,6,1 sy, 4d, g,¢. From this list it is easy to see the confusion produced by the letter 29 s being exactly like the letter 5 y doubled, and by the letter -4%) sh being identical with a compound of 5 y and » 4; and there are, in fact, some compounds of two letters which have from ten to fifteen sounds in common use, besides others which might possibly occur. If it be further considered that there are only three letters (which are also consonants, as in most Semitic languages) to represent five long vowels, and that there are probably five short vowels to be understood, the difficulty of reading Pahlavi correctly may be readily imagined. When Pahlavi writing was in common use this difficulty was probably no more felt by the Persians, than the complexity of Chinese characters is felt as an evil by a Chinese mandarin, or the corrupt system of English orthography by an educated Englishman. It is only the foreigner, or learner, who fully appreciates the difficulty of understanding such cumbrous systems of writing. With regard, however, to their Huzvaris logograms the Persians seem to have experienced more difficulty. As the actual sounds of these Semitic words were rarely pronounced, in consequence of their Pazand equivalents being substituted in reading, there must have been some risk of their true pronunciation being forgotten. That this risk was understood by the Persians, or Parsis, is proved by the existence of the Huzv4ris-Pazand glossary already described, which was evidently compiled as a record both of the pronunciation and meaning of the Huzvaris logograms. But its compilation does not appear to have been undertaken until the true pronunciation of some of these logograms had been already lost. Thus, although the traditional readings of most of the Semitic portion of the Huzvdris can be readily traced to wellknown Chaldee words, there are yet many other such readings which are altogether inexplicable as Semitic (5] _Xvill PAHLAVI TEXTS,
2Thus, although the traditional readings of most of the Semitic portion of the Huzvdris can be readily traced to wellknown Chaldee words, there are yet many other such readings which are altogether inexplicable as Semitic (5] _Xvill PAHLAVI TEXTS, words. In most such cases, however, European scholars have found that the Huzvaris word can be easily read in some other way which at once connects it with some ordinary Chaldee equivalent. It may, therefore, be reasonably assumed that the compilers of the glossary had in some instances lost the correct pronunciation of these old Semitic words, and that, in such cases, they adopted (as a Parsi would probably do at the present day) the most obvious reading of the letters before them, which thenceforth became an artificial word to be handed down to posterity, by successive generations of writers, with all the authority of old tradition. In the same manner the artificial pronunciation of the Iranian portion of the Huzvaris may be explained. The compilers of the glossary found a number of words in the Pahlavi texts, which were written in some obsolete or contracted manner; they knew the meanings of these words, but could not trace the true readings in the altered letters; they, therefore, adopted the most obvious readings of the written characters, and thus produced another series of artificial words, such as anhém4 for adharmazd, yahan for yazdan, madénad for main6ék, shatan for shatr6, &c. Naturally enough the Parsis are loth to admit the possibility of any error in their traditional readings of Huzvaris, and very few of them have yet adopted the views of European scholars further than to admit that they are ingenious hypotheses, which still require satisfactory proof. They are quite right in demanding such proof, and they may reasonably argue that the conflicting opinions of various European scholars do not tend to in-— crease the certainty of their explanations. But, on the other hand, they are bound to examine all proofs that may be offered, and to consider the arguments of scholars, before utterly rejecting them in favour of their own preconceived notions of traditional authority. Fortunately, we possess some means of ascertaining the ancient pronunciation of a few Huzvaris words, independent of the opinions of comparative philologists, in the inscrip- INTRODUCTION. xix
3Fortunately, we possess some means of ascertaining the ancient pronunciation of a few Huzvaris words, independent of the opinions of comparative philologists, in the inscrip- INTRODUCTION. xix tions already mentioned as having been engraved on rocks, and impressed on coins, by the earlier kings of the Sasanian dynasty in Persia. The earliest of these rock inscriptions records the name and titles of Artakhshatar son! of Papak, the first Sasanian monarch (A. D. 226-240); it is engraved in Greek and two kinds of old Pahlavi characters, which have been called Chaldzo-Pahlavi and Sasanian-Pahlavi, because the one bears more resemblance to Chaldee, both in its letters and the language they express, and the other is more frequently used by the subsequent Sasanian monarchs. A similar tri-lingual inscription records the names and titles of his son and successor Shahpdhar I (A.D. 240-271), who has also left a long bi-lingual inscription, in Chaldzo and Sasanian- Pahlavi, in a cave near Persepolis. Another long bi-lingual inscription, fragments of which have been found on stones among the ruins of Pai Kall, is attributed to his early successors, who have also left us several uni-lingual inscriptions in Sasanian-Pahlavi, two of which are of great length, but none later than the end of the fourth century. The language of the earlier of these inscriptions differs from that of the manuscripts preserved by the Parsis, chiefly in the use of several Semitic words unknown to the manuscript Huzvaris, the non-existence of Iranian Huzvaris (which is evidently a growth of later times), and the less frequent use of Persian terminations affixed to Semitic words. These differences, however, are hardly greater than those which distinguish the English of Chaucer from that of our own day. Moreover, they gradually disappear in process of time, as we find the later inscriptions of the fourth century approaching much closer, in language, to the manuscripts. As the alphabets of these inscriptions are less imperfect and ambiguous than that of the Pahlavi manuscripts, they render the pronunciation of many words much more certain. They consist of eighteen letters, having the following sounds :— ‘ So stated in the inscription, but Pahlavi MSS. call him the son of P&pak’s daughter and of Saésan (see Bund. XXXI, 30). b2 xX PAHLAVI TEXTS, lad. 2b 3.p,f. 4.t,@ 5.4, ¢,%. 6.kh, h. 7.d. 8.1,v,w, 0,6. 9.z. 10.8. I1.sh,s. 12.k. 13.g. 14.l,r, 15.m. 16.n. 17. y,%,4& 18. doubtful, being equivalent to Chaldee N-> and to Pahl. MS. -man".
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.