Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ch, uchyati. The Pahl., aside from the gloss, might be read in c: ‘I of that, O A., of it from, or of Thee, I think the first possession’; so, literally. 11. Mashdé; nom. pl. utr. (or masc. (?); ep. perhaps jimd (?) Y. 29. 3) in agreement with the three neuters Ashem, Vohuchéd Mano, and khshathrem. One scholar sees in it mashd = ‘O ye men (?)’. Another emends (md) (?). amashé = ‘O ye immortals (?)’ (Haug’s suggestion). The name Ameshd Sperta belongs to the later Avesta, we have only the beings, or personi- fied attributes, as yet, in the Gathas. Then again md@mashd, so reading, might be a 1* sg. conj. (so Haug, as to form only) of the redup. root of makshi, maksh (2?) = mash, as taksh = tash; but a first person, although a striking interruption, seems too advanced. Consider also mém (mdm) ashd, mam as governed by paiti-zdnatd, but see below. Frakhshnené(é), root khshnd = jnd (so Haug rendering sapientia, and zum Erkennen). HRenderings are: ‘Sprechet mich also nur, 0 Mazda, einem ~Versorger zu, 2u grossem Lohne (2); ‘nehmt thr mich auf, 0 M., in die grosze Wee bundesgenossenschaft (2). Better: ‘Assign to us your aid’ (see below). The Pahl.’s kabed is very general, pointing only to the frd°; but it recalls forms of priksh, prakshd for instance; and this explains admirably Srakhshné(é), frakhshni in the sense ‘to satisfy us’, ‘in satisfying’; ep. Yt. 19, 48 Srakhshni ustano-chinahya = ‘in the satisfying of his love of life’, That passage has been otherwise inadequately, I think, but still cleverly, explained by an able scholar as ‘caring (frakhsni = * prajnt) for the saving (?) of his life’. First, I do not think that chinahya means ‘of saving’, and secondly, the gen. after * prajn? = ‘caring’ would not suit so well as the dat. ‘To satisfy his love for life’, or, ‘in the fulness of his love for life’ is better. Moreover in Y. 44, 7 the MSS. show frasné(e)ni, and frakhsnini beside frakhshné(é). Is it possible that the reading frdkhshnené(é), and frdkhshnenem (one MS. at Y. 43, 14 has frdkhsnené(e)) should give place to frdkhshné n@? One very ancient MS. has °né at Y. 48, 12, frdkhshnenem has two variations and _ we have only Y.43, 12, 14 and Y.29, 11 to contend with. This would give us ‘to satisfy us’, while the short a of one MS. enables us to read frakhshné(é) mé. Otherwise we are confined to the unheard-of suffix nena, if priksh were compared; yet the meaning ‘to satisfy’, or ‘in the fulness’ is well adapted everywhere. Possibly frakhshné(é) |° ni], and frakhshnené [° nem] have different roots (?). If however khshnd is the root in both, I would not render; ‘assign me to a guardian’, but ‘assign to us a helper (avaré with change of accent) for our guiding’, dat. infin. in ané; cp. dhiirvane. Or, with frdkhshnenem in view, it might be loc. ‘in guardian wisdom’ (cp. prajndna). aa 431 Ehma, as a 1% pl. pret.
2is the root in both, I would not render; ‘assign me to a guardian’, but ‘assign to us a helper (avaré with change of accent) for our guiding’, dat. infin. in ané; cp. dhiirvane. Or, with frdkhshnenem in view, it might be loc. ‘in guardian wisdom’ (cp. prajndna). aa 431 Ehma, as a 1% pl. pret. of a (Roth), leads us to the further question, ‘can it be conjunctively taken, not as equalling @sma, but an unaugmented form, and so the improper conj.?’: ‘May we be partakers’ (rdtois as par- titive gen.). Still the long @ would more naturally equal 4. Looking at all sides of the subject here, 2hmd@ might be taken as the pronoun (but see below). Spiegel takes it with rdéd/s, as a compositum, which is interesting; ‘of your gift for us’. Hhmd as instrumental (cp. the dative ahmd:) might be a quasi adverbial expression ‘the liberality - - - with reference to us’. Or we may read eimai = ‘for us’. Nd nado may be a misreading for niind = nindm, am and an often contracting into d. Or reading n@ ndo, we may recall ahmdi né in Y. 30, 2, ‘now to us for this (great cause)’, mazdi magdi from line 8. The Pahl. trlr. might be brought nearer the Gatha, but for serious students this is not always continuously necessary. The termination of kudd is rendered as if the word had stood divided ka@. dé. in the MSS. before the trlr., but dahishn may not have been originally intended to affect the general bearing of the translation (see above on v. 9 where it does not interfere with the expression of ‘duration’). The final syllable of y#zhem was possibly treated in the same way by the transcriber of DJ.’s MS., although that is not certain, or indeed probable; for am may be explained by the occur- rence of avd li in a. Probably having avaré before him as a. varé, the trir. regarded the word as a form from var, rendering kdmak. He elsewhere shows no difficulty in récognizing ar as equivalent to as in terminations, and avah was of course first explained to us by him, or rather by them, the trlrs. as having its accepted meaning, ‘aid’. Notwithstanding such blem- ishes, which have however (so far as they have been observed) unfor- tunately given great scandal to some readers, the trl. is full of valuable suggestion, having given us for the most part our first conceptions as to the meanings present. We might read 6: ‘Ye are rewarding: - - they shall bring about my reward’; but the imper. is of course better; see °zdnata. Y, XXX. See for summary and additional notes S. B. E. XXXI. pp. 25 — 35; changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noticed here. 1. Mazdéthd. A mad is the root in maz, mad + dathd a compositum. That in vimddhaydonté(e) etc. might also be brought into connection, as it is not a critical procedure to require exact correspondence between the mean- ings of related words. In Sanskrit we have what may well be a degene- rated form of the same root in medhd; cp. nédishtha = nazdista, Whether a 432 the Sansk.
3onté(e) etc. might also be brought into connection, as it is not a critical procedure to require exact correspondence between the mean- ings of related words. In Sanskrit we have what may well be a degene- rated form of the same root in medhd; cp. nédishtha = nazdista, Whether a 432 the Sansk. mad, mand may be also connected should not be considered an improbable question on account of the particular meanings prominent in mad. The once-suggested change of text (without MSS.) to mdazdathd is no longer called for. As to the 2 for d, that is phonetic; d before d be- comes z. Another writer prefers a stem mazdd + tha. I have been somewhat tempted to change my former opinion, rendering hyad(t)chid(t) vidushé(é) as referring to the attending worshipper, but the persons in the dat. (for gen.) are all superhuman. Others, following Spiegel, refer the word to the human subject; ‘wenigstens (hyatchit) fiir den Ver- sténdigen’. Another reports ‘was zu merken ist von dem, der es einmal ver- nommen’. Another brings y@ and hyad(¢)chid(¢) into relation as in yé- - - kaschid(t) in Y. 49, 5, rendering ‘alles’. JI can find no better connection for hyad(t)chid(t) than as the object of vidushé(é) = ‘to the knower of whatever (everything)’; recall véidvdo elsewhere often applied to Ahura as well as to the ‘saint’. If the datives need any defence, compare the use of dat. for gen. in the Brahmanas. Humdadzdréd. One able scholar explains as a voc. pl. from the stem mazdar, mazdr after the a declension like vazhdréng Y. 46, 4. Another prefers mazd + ra. We should naturally divide (in view of the sense which is hardly that of a voc. addressed to the worshippers at one end of a strophe in the be- ginning of which the impulse to exclamatory appeal had been already relieved) hu + mand + tra, the ¢ sonant after the d, and the d later turned by the common usage to the sibilant. Whether any vital objection can lie against this I can hardly believe, as the expression is evidently one more designation of the things promised to be announced. The word means ‘the beneficially inspiring truths’, or something kindred (Haug valde- felicia (?)). Some read ashayaé(é)ché@ in line c = ‘of Ashi’, better ‘of the blessed reward’. This is a very valuable, and perhaps the correct’, suggestion of Roth. I had taken yé(e)ché as = yichdni = ‘I will pray for’ (with Haug and Hiibschmann). But, as ‘I will pray for’ is a new element in the strophe, we might fall back on the dual nt. yaé(é)chd ya as = yécha yéna, rendering ‘the joy-bringing admonitions which are inspired by Asha (Sanctity), and those two doctrines which are those whereby (yé = yéna) « - -. Cp. the two spirits announced in vy. 3. Some scholars would not hesitate to take ashé as the acc. pl. neut. Can it be an irreg. dual neut.? ‘the two holy verities, which two - - -’? Cp. the» frequent intrusions of irreg. nom. Ved. forms into grammatical positions otherwise foreign to them.
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.
1ch, uchyati. The Pahl., aside from the gloss, might be read in c: ‘I of that, O A., of it from, or of Thee, I think the first possession’; so, literally. 11. Mashdé; nom. pl. utr. (or masc. (?); ep. perhaps jimd (?) Y. 29. 3) in agreement with the three neuters Ashem, Vohuchéd Mano, and khshathrem. One scholar sees in it mashd = ‘O ye men (?)’. Another emends (md) (?). amashé = ‘O ye immortals (?)’ (Haug’s suggestion). The name Ameshd Sperta belongs to the later Avesta, we have only the beings, or personi- fied attributes, as yet, in the Gathas. Then again md@mashd, so reading, might be a 1* sg. conj. (so Haug, as to form only) of the redup. root of makshi, maksh (2?) = mash, as taksh = tash; but a first person, although a striking interruption, seems too advanced. Consider also mém (mdm) ashd, mam as governed by paiti-zdnatd, but see below. Frakhshnené(é), root khshnd = jnd (so Haug rendering sapientia, and zum Erkennen). HRenderings are: ‘Sprechet mich also nur, 0 Mazda, einem ~Versorger zu, 2u grossem Lohne (2); ‘nehmt thr mich auf, 0 M., in die grosze Wee bundesgenossenschaft (2). Better: ‘Assign to us your aid’ (see below). The Pahl.’s kabed is very general, pointing only to the frd°; but it recalls forms of priksh, prakshd for instance; and this explains admirably Srakhshné(é), frakhshni in the sense ‘to satisfy us’, ‘in satisfying’; ep. Yt. 19, 48 Srakhshni ustano-chinahya = ‘in the satisfying of his love of life’, That passage has been otherwise inadequately, I think, but still cleverly, explained by an able scholar as ‘caring (frakhsni = * prajnt) for the saving (?) of his life’. First, I do not think that chinahya means ‘of saving’, and secondly, the gen. after * prajn? = ‘caring’ would not suit so well as the dat. ‘To satisfy his love for life’, or, ‘in the fulness of his love for life’ is better. Moreover in Y. 44, 7 the MSS. show frasné(e)ni, and frakhsnini beside frakhshné(é). Is it possible that the reading frdkhshnené(é), and frdkhshnenem (one MS. at Y. 43, 14 has frdkhsnené(e)) should give place to frdkhshné n@? One very ancient MS. has °né at Y. 48, 12, frdkhshnenem has two variations and _ we have only Y.43, 12, 14 and Y.29, 11 to contend with. This would give us ‘to satisfy us’, while the short a of one MS. enables us to read frakhshné(é) mé. Otherwise we are confined to the unheard-of suffix nena, if priksh were compared; yet the meaning ‘to satisfy’, or ‘in the fulness’ is well adapted everywhere. Possibly frakhshné(é) |° ni], and frakhshnené [° nem] have different roots (?). If however khshnd is the root in both, I would not render; ‘assign me to a guardian’, but ‘assign to us a helper (avaré with change of accent) for our guiding’, dat. infin. in ané; cp. dhiirvane. Or, with frdkhshnenem in view, it might be loc. ‘in guardian wisdom’ (cp. prajndna). aa 431 Ehma, as a 1% pl. pret.
2is the root in both, I would not render; ‘assign me to a guardian’, but ‘assign to us a helper (avaré with change of accent) for our guiding’, dat. infin. in ané; cp. dhiirvane. Or, with frdkhshnenem in view, it might be loc. ‘in guardian wisdom’ (cp. prajndna). aa 431 Ehma, as a 1% pl. pret. of a (Roth), leads us to the further question, ‘can it be conjunctively taken, not as equalling @sma, but an unaugmented form, and so the improper conj.?’: ‘May we be partakers’ (rdtois as par- titive gen.). Still the long @ would more naturally equal 4. Looking at all sides of the subject here, 2hmd@ might be taken as the pronoun (but see below). Spiegel takes it with rdéd/s, as a compositum, which is interesting; ‘of your gift for us’. Hhmd as instrumental (cp. the dative ahmd:) might be a quasi adverbial expression ‘the liberality - - - with reference to us’. Or we may read eimai = ‘for us’. Nd nado may be a misreading for niind = nindm, am and an often contracting into d. Or reading n@ ndo, we may recall ahmdi né in Y. 30, 2, ‘now to us for this (great cause)’, mazdi magdi from line 8. The Pahl. trlr. might be brought nearer the Gatha, but for serious students this is not always continuously necessary. The termination of kudd is rendered as if the word had stood divided ka@. dé. in the MSS. before the trlr., but dahishn may not have been originally intended to affect the general bearing of the translation (see above on v. 9 where it does not interfere with the expression of ‘duration’). The final syllable of y#zhem was possibly treated in the same way by the transcriber of DJ.’s MS., although that is not certain, or indeed probable; for am may be explained by the occur- rence of avd li in a. Probably having avaré before him as a. varé, the trir. regarded the word as a form from var, rendering kdmak. He elsewhere shows no difficulty in récognizing ar as equivalent to as in terminations, and avah was of course first explained to us by him, or rather by them, the trlrs. as having its accepted meaning, ‘aid’. Notwithstanding such blem- ishes, which have however (so far as they have been observed) unfor- tunately given great scandal to some readers, the trl. is full of valuable suggestion, having given us for the most part our first conceptions as to the meanings present. We might read 6: ‘Ye are rewarding: - - they shall bring about my reward’; but the imper. is of course better; see °zdnata. Y, XXX. See for summary and additional notes S. B. E. XXXI. pp. 25 — 35; changes in opinion arrived at since its publication are not always noticed here. 1. Mazdéthd. A mad is the root in maz, mad + dathd a compositum. That in vimddhaydonté(e) etc. might also be brought into connection, as it is not a critical procedure to require exact correspondence between the mean- ings of related words. In Sanskrit we have what may well be a degene- rated form of the same root in medhd; cp. nédishtha = nazdista, Whether a 432 the Sansk.
3onté(e) etc. might also be brought into connection, as it is not a critical procedure to require exact correspondence between the mean- ings of related words. In Sanskrit we have what may well be a degene- rated form of the same root in medhd; cp. nédishtha = nazdista, Whether a 432 the Sansk. mad, mand may be also connected should not be considered an improbable question on account of the particular meanings prominent in mad. The once-suggested change of text (without MSS.) to mdazdathd is no longer called for. As to the 2 for d, that is phonetic; d before d be- comes z. Another writer prefers a stem mazdd + tha. I have been somewhat tempted to change my former opinion, rendering hyad(t)chid(t) vidushé(é) as referring to the attending worshipper, but the persons in the dat. (for gen.) are all superhuman. Others, following Spiegel, refer the word to the human subject; ‘wenigstens (hyatchit) fiir den Ver- sténdigen’. Another reports ‘was zu merken ist von dem, der es einmal ver- nommen’. Another brings y@ and hyad(¢)chid(¢) into relation as in yé- - - kaschid(t) in Y. 49, 5, rendering ‘alles’. JI can find no better connection for hyad(t)chid(t) than as the object of vidushé(é) = ‘to the knower of whatever (everything)’; recall véidvdo elsewhere often applied to Ahura as well as to the ‘saint’. If the datives need any defence, compare the use of dat. for gen. in the Brahmanas. Humdadzdréd. One able scholar explains as a voc. pl. from the stem mazdar, mazdr after the a declension like vazhdréng Y. 46, 4. Another prefers mazd + ra. We should naturally divide (in view of the sense which is hardly that of a voc. addressed to the worshippers at one end of a strophe in the be- ginning of which the impulse to exclamatory appeal had been already relieved) hu + mand + tra, the ¢ sonant after the d, and the d later turned by the common usage to the sibilant. Whether any vital objection can lie against this I can hardly believe, as the expression is evidently one more designation of the things promised to be announced. The word means ‘the beneficially inspiring truths’, or something kindred (Haug valde- felicia (?)). Some read ashayaé(é)ché@ in line c = ‘of Ashi’, better ‘of the blessed reward’. This is a very valuable, and perhaps the correct’, suggestion of Roth. I had taken yé(e)ché as = yichdni = ‘I will pray for’ (with Haug and Hiibschmann). But, as ‘I will pray for’ is a new element in the strophe, we might fall back on the dual nt. yaé(é)chd ya as = yécha yéna, rendering ‘the joy-bringing admonitions which are inspired by Asha (Sanctity), and those two doctrines which are those whereby (yé = yéna) « - -. Cp. the two spirits announced in vy. 3. Some scholars would not hesitate to take ashé as the acc. pl. neut. Can it be an irreg. dual neut.? ‘the two holy verities, which two - - -’? Cp. the» frequent intrusions of irreg. nom. Ved. forms into grammatical positions otherwise foreign to them.
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.