Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1but transcribes. Ner. refers to aj = ‘to drive’, followed by Spiegel (see below). Haug to jy@ with the a priv., the indelebilis (?) ‘The indestructible’ is hardly a neat expression for the ‘original’, or ‘mother’. Justi to ah%, whose indication is followed by Bartholomae; see the P. W. ali = ‘cow. We might say that this finds its best explanation in the Zend azi? What has the the sacred ‘Cow’ to do with the demon ahit? The Zend word ought to be cited in the Sansk. dictionaries. Others might suppose ji, jinv = ‘to make alive’ present, plus the prefix; cp. the 4% Sansk. jy@ = ‘the earth’, and ‘mother’; azi = aji = ‘the mother’, initial »» in Pahl. representing @, or @, aeydo = dzydo(?). Dvaidé has been most sagaciously rendered by Roth as a first dual (°vaid? = °vahi, as omaidht = °mahi) dvaid? = duvaidi (which is very possible), as from the root du: ‘We two pressed Mazda with questions’. This certainly looks smoother than when dvaid? is regarded as a noun, and the suggestion is of great value; but du is used in the Avesta elsewhere exclusively of evil beings. . 422 The rendering zak? pavan giimdnik points to an adverbial instr. dvd + di = ‘in double-sight’, ‘in doubt’ (cp. Indian dadht (?) = ‘having evil view’, and - ddhi = ‘longing’, also dvaydé = ‘the state of being double-tongued’), See the entire connection dealing, as it does, with questions; see v. 2 answered in v. 3; see also the doubt in v. 3 noid(t) viduyé(é) (vidvé). The verb, in this case, would be the frinemnd carried down, as often. Erezh(e)jyot is not difficult of explanation. It is, according to the in- dication of the Pahl. trlr. followed, I believe, by nearly all but Haug, to be brought into its original shape as erezh(eyjivé, or erezh(e)jivé. Nothing is commoner than for the constituent parts of the letters y 99 and v (Eng- lish w) >» to become confused in the venerable MSS., and also for some one or other of the pen-strokes to fall out; sbyyse became shave in the course of frequent transcriptions (cp. jydtdm for jivittum). I would recall — the fact already mentioned, that, in K.4, one of the most important MSS., no distinction is made even between the signs representing such differing letters as long @ and lone 4%. Erezhjivé(é), or Erezhjivé(e) = riju + *770e, is a dat. sg. masc. noun from the root jw, or jiv. It has three syllables ere = ri, and e before the j is superfluous. Frajyditis to jy@ = ‘to overwhelm’, the Aryan j again not changing to 2, so indicated by the Pahl. trlr., followed by almost all, except Haug, whose suggestion is interesting, but rather too advanced, and alien from the tone of the Gathas: ‘Sowie die das Rechte Liebenden, und die Vermégenden, vom Weiterleben unter den Liignern befreit werden’ (2). One writer cites the Pahl. as rendering vdo by avd valman. A question arises as to what word in the Pahl. trlr. translates ahva(° dao). It has been supposed that ¢@khshdkthd venders it (of course freely), But I greatly doubt that opinion.
2den, vom Weiterleben unter den Liignern befreit werden’ (2). One writer cites the Pahl. as rendering vdo by avd valman. A question arises as to what word in the Pahl. trlr. translates ahva(° dao). It has been supposed that ¢@khshdkthd venders it (of course freely), But I greatly doubt that opinion. Tikhshakihd, like taband, may properly express Jré = fra (see below). Or it may, like tébdénéd so often elsewhere, have reference to zastdiS, and be either gloss, or emphatic iteration of the idea in dastih (sic). Is ahva(°do) translated at all? If not, we may have a most significant confirmation of Roth’s view. Ahvd (or ahvd) may not have been translated separately because its force was expressed in Sranémam. Other- wise where was the translator’s first person taken from? The trlr. may have seen ahvd - - frénemné = ‘we two are praying’; and freely rendered Srandmam = ‘I am praying’ or ‘worshipping’. Or was mé(é) a sufficient ex- pression of the first person to him, as it may be also to us? Fri was no unknown root to the Pahl. trlr.; see fr(dyd, fr(d)yo, and Jr(ydi rendered by dést®, we therefore conclude, as it is only possible to conclude, that the trlr. had some such reading as frénemnd (K.*) in his 5 ee. a or eee SN ee 2 Po a. ee ° ee eee he ac 7 ay 423 MSS. before him. Pavan gimédnik is most valuable, hampérsén? intelligently free (possibly ferasdbyd was divided ferasd. + ---). The gloss ‘more than the A.’ was probably occasioned by the false Pie of frinemnd. The other glosses are all intelligent. Ner. slightly modifies frandmam by prabravimi. He refers azydo to az = ‘to drive’, as describing a cow of three years, and fit for use. Vind, like bard, gives emphasis to the sepa- ration of the wicked. The Persian text reads fravdémam, but this is merely accidental. 6. I am very far indeed from vehemently repudiating the Pahl. trans- lation for vafas, vishipishnd. (It may be mentioned in passing that one writer is a little too hasty in casting a slur upon this rendering. He thinks that the Pahl. trlr. read vashdpishno, the corrupt Pazand form, and, as he supposes vashiipishné to resemble vafis, he would have us indulge in merri- ment at the expense of the trlr. for copying the form of the word; but it is very doubtful indeed whether the trir. was aware of any such lettering as vashtipishnd. If he transliterated at all, he may well have understood the syllable 27, which is of prime importance to the word.) ‘Ruin’, as the object under discussion in the entire chapter, is by far the better meaning for vafas, not so however in Y. 48, 9 where it is also possible, but not so probable. If I were to follow the example of recent writers in other cases, I should suggest two totally different words for the two places. It is well possible that the Pahl. trlr. is right in this place, and wrong in the other. Opinions drifted from ne document to another, and translations were some- times mechanically repeated.
3e example of recent writers in other cases, I should suggest two totally different words for the two places. It is well possible that the Pahl. trlr. is right in this place, and wrong in the other. Opinions drifted from ne document to another, and translations were some- times mechanically repeated. I therefore compare the Vedic vdpus in the sense of ‘inspired truth’, root vd, vi, u (2) = ‘to weave’; cp. ufydn?; but I add an emphatic alternative’ in the sense of the Pahl. ca not discussing an etymology, except.to recall the fact that vap = ‘to cast’ might well convey the idea of ‘ overthrow’ or ‘scattering’ in an evil sense, the meaning ‘sow’ being secondary. Vydnayd seems awkward; its meaning is however well indicated by the Pahl. followed by Roth and others. I should explain the etymology as vi + ad + nayd from nt = ‘to lead’; cp. for form, and for meaning, vinayd = ‘dividing’. The word is an instr. = ‘with discrimination’. The Pahl trlr. does not render vyd@nayd in Y. 44, 7 as amat vabdanéd = ,wenn er tut (!). The exclamation point is not mine. There is no such mond as vabdénéd in the place; but one is not surprised at such mistakes, as the Pahlavi alphabet requires close study. Asiatic scholars should be on their guard against Haug’s rendering for aévd - ahti-vistd (2), wnam ~ vitam- possidens. He renders ratu§ dominus here, and ratio in v. 2. The word is con- 424 ; crete in both cases. Ahi as a nom. mase, is quite important; cp. also daé(é)td as possibly in the same form. I am not aware of any exact Indian analogy. The Pahl. trlr. rendered what now stands as @ in eévaochad(t), as if it were separated and more extended, by pavan piimman. As he treats @.¢. d (?), @.¢. dnd, and @.e. donhd in the same way, it is only reasonable to suppose that he had donhd, or some other word meaning ‘mouth’, in every case before him, or else that he so corrected those meaningless (?) fragments. See just above for a justification of vishtipishno as a rendering for vafds. The question of the woes of the kine is never lost sight of. I think that ‘possess a Lord’ in view of Y. 29, 8 is rather better than ‘consider a lord (as an authority)’, although the latter is more idiomatic as Pahlavi. Ner. perhaps meant ‘the clearing up of the ruin’. He curiously renders ahtikih vindishno by svdmibhrishtasya (sic). It is hard to say whether he meant ‘the fallen from the lord’, seeing vindsishnd () for vindishno, or nistd (sic) for vsté. Or could he have had in his mind’s eye bhrijj (!) in the sense of ‘prepare’, ‘provide’? As the Pahl. is intelligently free as to the application of tatashé and thwd, so the nirmitavan of Ner. seems to show that he did not fail to recognize the perfect 7. The ‘mathra of fatness’ (hardly ‘of invocation’) was the holy reve- lation, which (indirectly indicated in the vohd vastryad Y. 29, 1) protected and prospered husbandry, supplied material for the offering, food for the cattle, and for the consumers (cp. Y.
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.
1but transcribes. Ner. refers to aj = ‘to drive’, followed by Spiegel (see below). Haug to jy@ with the a priv., the indelebilis (?) ‘The indestructible’ is hardly a neat expression for the ‘original’, or ‘mother’. Justi to ah%, whose indication is followed by Bartholomae; see the P. W. ali = ‘cow. We might say that this finds its best explanation in the Zend azi? What has the the sacred ‘Cow’ to do with the demon ahit? The Zend word ought to be cited in the Sansk. dictionaries. Others might suppose ji, jinv = ‘to make alive’ present, plus the prefix; cp. the 4% Sansk. jy@ = ‘the earth’, and ‘mother’; azi = aji = ‘the mother’, initial »» in Pahl. representing @, or @, aeydo = dzydo(?). Dvaidé has been most sagaciously rendered by Roth as a first dual (°vaid? = °vahi, as omaidht = °mahi) dvaid? = duvaidi (which is very possible), as from the root du: ‘We two pressed Mazda with questions’. This certainly looks smoother than when dvaid? is regarded as a noun, and the suggestion is of great value; but du is used in the Avesta elsewhere exclusively of evil beings. . 422 The rendering zak? pavan giimdnik points to an adverbial instr. dvd + di = ‘in double-sight’, ‘in doubt’ (cp. Indian dadht (?) = ‘having evil view’, and - ddhi = ‘longing’, also dvaydé = ‘the state of being double-tongued’), See the entire connection dealing, as it does, with questions; see v. 2 answered in v. 3; see also the doubt in v. 3 noid(t) viduyé(é) (vidvé). The verb, in this case, would be the frinemnd carried down, as often. Erezh(e)jyot is not difficult of explanation. It is, according to the in- dication of the Pahl. trlr. followed, I believe, by nearly all but Haug, to be brought into its original shape as erezh(eyjivé, or erezh(e)jivé. Nothing is commoner than for the constituent parts of the letters y 99 and v (Eng- lish w) >» to become confused in the venerable MSS., and also for some one or other of the pen-strokes to fall out; sbyyse became shave in the course of frequent transcriptions (cp. jydtdm for jivittum). I would recall — the fact already mentioned, that, in K.4, one of the most important MSS., no distinction is made even between the signs representing such differing letters as long @ and lone 4%. Erezhjivé(é), or Erezhjivé(e) = riju + *770e, is a dat. sg. masc. noun from the root jw, or jiv. It has three syllables ere = ri, and e before the j is superfluous. Frajyditis to jy@ = ‘to overwhelm’, the Aryan j again not changing to 2, so indicated by the Pahl. trlr., followed by almost all, except Haug, whose suggestion is interesting, but rather too advanced, and alien from the tone of the Gathas: ‘Sowie die das Rechte Liebenden, und die Vermégenden, vom Weiterleben unter den Liignern befreit werden’ (2). One writer cites the Pahl. as rendering vdo by avd valman. A question arises as to what word in the Pahl. trlr. translates ahva(° dao). It has been supposed that ¢@khshdkthd venders it (of course freely), But I greatly doubt that opinion.
2den, vom Weiterleben unter den Liignern befreit werden’ (2). One writer cites the Pahl. as rendering vdo by avd valman. A question arises as to what word in the Pahl. trlr. translates ahva(° dao). It has been supposed that ¢@khshdkthd venders it (of course freely), But I greatly doubt that opinion. Tikhshakihd, like taband, may properly express Jré = fra (see below). Or it may, like tébdénéd so often elsewhere, have reference to zastdiS, and be either gloss, or emphatic iteration of the idea in dastih (sic). Is ahva(°do) translated at all? If not, we may have a most significant confirmation of Roth’s view. Ahvd (or ahvd) may not have been translated separately because its force was expressed in Sranémam. Other- wise where was the translator’s first person taken from? The trlr. may have seen ahvd - - frénemné = ‘we two are praying’; and freely rendered Srandmam = ‘I am praying’ or ‘worshipping’. Or was mé(é) a sufficient ex- pression of the first person to him, as it may be also to us? Fri was no unknown root to the Pahl. trlr.; see fr(dyd, fr(d)yo, and Jr(ydi rendered by dést®, we therefore conclude, as it is only possible to conclude, that the trlr. had some such reading as frénemnd (K.*) in his 5 ee. a or eee SN ee 2 Po a. ee ° ee eee he ac 7 ay 423 MSS. before him. Pavan gimédnik is most valuable, hampérsén? intelligently free (possibly ferasdbyd was divided ferasd. + ---). The gloss ‘more than the A.’ was probably occasioned by the false Pie of frinemnd. The other glosses are all intelligent. Ner. slightly modifies frandmam by prabravimi. He refers azydo to az = ‘to drive’, as describing a cow of three years, and fit for use. Vind, like bard, gives emphasis to the sepa- ration of the wicked. The Persian text reads fravdémam, but this is merely accidental. 6. I am very far indeed from vehemently repudiating the Pahl. trans- lation for vafas, vishipishnd. (It may be mentioned in passing that one writer is a little too hasty in casting a slur upon this rendering. He thinks that the Pahl. trlr. read vashdpishno, the corrupt Pazand form, and, as he supposes vashiipishné to resemble vafis, he would have us indulge in merri- ment at the expense of the trlr. for copying the form of the word; but it is very doubtful indeed whether the trir. was aware of any such lettering as vashtipishnd. If he transliterated at all, he may well have understood the syllable 27, which is of prime importance to the word.) ‘Ruin’, as the object under discussion in the entire chapter, is by far the better meaning for vafas, not so however in Y. 48, 9 where it is also possible, but not so probable. If I were to follow the example of recent writers in other cases, I should suggest two totally different words for the two places. It is well possible that the Pahl. trlr. is right in this place, and wrong in the other. Opinions drifted from ne document to another, and translations were some- times mechanically repeated.
3e example of recent writers in other cases, I should suggest two totally different words for the two places. It is well possible that the Pahl. trlr. is right in this place, and wrong in the other. Opinions drifted from ne document to another, and translations were some- times mechanically repeated. I therefore compare the Vedic vdpus in the sense of ‘inspired truth’, root vd, vi, u (2) = ‘to weave’; cp. ufydn?; but I add an emphatic alternative’ in the sense of the Pahl. ca not discussing an etymology, except.to recall the fact that vap = ‘to cast’ might well convey the idea of ‘ overthrow’ or ‘scattering’ in an evil sense, the meaning ‘sow’ being secondary. Vydnayd seems awkward; its meaning is however well indicated by the Pahl. followed by Roth and others. I should explain the etymology as vi + ad + nayd from nt = ‘to lead’; cp. for form, and for meaning, vinayd = ‘dividing’. The word is an instr. = ‘with discrimination’. The Pahl trlr. does not render vyd@nayd in Y. 44, 7 as amat vabdanéd = ,wenn er tut (!). The exclamation point is not mine. There is no such mond as vabdénéd in the place; but one is not surprised at such mistakes, as the Pahlavi alphabet requires close study. Asiatic scholars should be on their guard against Haug’s rendering for aévd - ahti-vistd (2), wnam ~ vitam- possidens. He renders ratu§ dominus here, and ratio in v. 2. The word is con- 424 ; crete in both cases. Ahi as a nom. mase, is quite important; cp. also daé(é)td as possibly in the same form. I am not aware of any exact Indian analogy. The Pahl. trlr. rendered what now stands as @ in eévaochad(t), as if it were separated and more extended, by pavan piimman. As he treats @.¢. d (?), @.¢. dnd, and @.e. donhd in the same way, it is only reasonable to suppose that he had donhd, or some other word meaning ‘mouth’, in every case before him, or else that he so corrected those meaningless (?) fragments. See just above for a justification of vishtipishno as a rendering for vafds. The question of the woes of the kine is never lost sight of. I think that ‘possess a Lord’ in view of Y. 29, 8 is rather better than ‘consider a lord (as an authority)’, although the latter is more idiomatic as Pahlavi. Ner. perhaps meant ‘the clearing up of the ruin’. He curiously renders ahtikih vindishno by svdmibhrishtasya (sic). It is hard to say whether he meant ‘the fallen from the lord’, seeing vindsishnd () for vindishno, or nistd (sic) for vsté. Or could he have had in his mind’s eye bhrijj (!) in the sense of ‘prepare’, ‘provide’? As the Pahl. is intelligently free as to the application of tatashé and thwd, so the nirmitavan of Ner. seems to show that he did not fail to recognize the perfect 7. The ‘mathra of fatness’ (hardly ‘of invocation’) was the holy reve- lation, which (indirectly indicated in the vohd vastryad Y. 29, 1) protected and prospered husbandry, supplied material for the offering, food for the cattle, and for the consumers (cp. Y.
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.