Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1) « - -. 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. 438 Notice a gradation from the external to the internal, first the staotd; then the yé(e)snyd, then humazdrd, and ashé yaé(é)chda (if referring to the two elements of doctrine; otherwise ashayaé(é)chd = ‘of the beatitude’). As to urvdzd, one writer suggests a nom. sg. fem.; ‘and the rapture which one sees with the heavenly luminaries’. Another refers it to Ind. °valha, valhitam, rendering ‘enigmatical’. Another regards the meaning as ‘heights’, ‘the heights glisten with light’. Haug, ortus. (Except as noted, Haug follows the indications of Ner., properly only as to the roots present.) Urvdza is of course the usual word = ordzé, to varh (barh), or vraj. As to the interesting suggestion ‘secret, enigmatical’, I think it is foreign to the con- nection. The doctrine of dualism gradually grew; and had long been familiar before it was made the subject of poetical composition. Pahl. The student is again warned against any attempt to construct a pleasing literary translation of the Pahl. Such a treatment will lead to a grossabuse. The translation only exists as an approximate reproduction of its original. As an offset to any undue depreciation of it, read it as it might be rendered without the glosses: ‘Thus these two things are to be spoken’ (free for ‘I will speak’); they are your prayers (that is, ‘ye come seeking’. Perhaps khvahishnd has here literally the force ‘of the present part.; cp. debrinishné in Y. 28, 6) which Afharmazd gave (probably not follow- ing the Zend text now written beside it), and what also is for the intelligent (dkds should of course be rendered as in an oblique case according to vidushé(é) and the izdfat; or read with DJ.’s text, ‘which the intelligent one also gives’), and what is the praise of Afharmazd, and the Yasna of the Good Mind. And I will declare him who is a thinker of good thoughts - etc.’ (The force of gédishn should be felt like that of vakhshyd throughout). Many a modern is equally rough and careless; and it is surely not scholarly to deny to the ancient scholar hampered with every disadvantage the same liberties which are taken by ourselves, and sometimes with little semblance of good reason. : Rendered entirely aside from its original, I should read only: ‘He who (om. ?) is intelligent [by him priestly studies are to be made], (4) whose are the praises of A.- - -’. (c) ‘He who is - - - ete.’ Whether Ner. meant stotrd (= °dni) and swmantd is a question; sumatd might be meant for an ancient pl. = °dné. Between sadéchdritaram (sic), and saddchdrataram J.4, we must choose the latter, as neither °chdritaram nor °charitaram are applicable; the verbal noun was not intended. 2.
2is - - - ete.’ Whether Ner. meant stotrd (= °dni) and swmantd is a question; sumatd might be meant for an ancient pl. = °dné. Between sadéchdritaram (sic), and saddchdrataram J.4, we must choose the latter, as neither °chdritaram nor °charitaram are applicable; the verbal noun was not intended. 2. Avaé(éynatd needs correction to dvaé(é)nata; but initial @ in Zend shows strong traces of its Pahl. character as = @ or @. 55 a 434 As ‘differing renderings, consider; ‘Prove ye. with clear (séchd) mind before (?) each, man by man, decides as to the two beliefs’ (?); again: ‘Look with gaze (séchd) and mind on the decrees’ (?); again: ‘Conceive in your heart (?) what is clear’ (séchd acc. pl. neut.) I take @ with the gen. aS = apud, (so, often), vichithahyd is gen. inf. from chi., so Spiegel, followed by Bartholomae and others. I do not think that we need to in- crease the difficulty as to varendo by regarding it as a dual gen. with the gen. vichithahyd immediately relating to it. Such a heaping-up of genitives is not probable, particularly when naré is also read (without MSS.) as gen. Vi + chit govern the acc. in the Rig-Veda in the sense of ‘know’. Varendo is an acc. pl. neut. from varenah [°nanh]; cp. the reading varenanham Yt. 24, 37. Line & falls in naturally, and continues the ad- dress in line a, dvaé(é)natd might be regarded as understood. Poetical diction is of its nature broken: ‘See the flames - - -; see them in view of the decision to be made as to the beliefs - - -’. It seems to me not at all necessary to link narém, as object, with the far-off daodanté, although this would be admissible, as baodanté may mean ‘render attentive’. The sense is not always completed with each line in the Rik and the Avesta, but it is the more frequent use. ‘Narém narem are purely adverbial in the familiar form. As the accus. forms seem so striking, some would even suggest an emendation, naré = narod. So many genitives strung together would be suspicious, but not im- possible; so one writer reads, and renders ‘before the deciding of each man’. An imper. of the verb ai = ‘to be’ is understood in line c, and the recognition of such forms understood is the secret of a sound pes of the Gathas, as of all other poetical matter. Some scholars would render: ‘Apprehend the most important truth with the ears; look with sight and sense on the conclusions of the decision, man for man, each for his person, to have yourselves taught without great trouble ((?) = pard mazé ydonhé), fixing your attention upon me’. Some would omit né@, and one would read daodantéi without MSS. Né certainly seems to disturb the metre; yet synthesis between ydonhd and ahmdt may throw some light on the difficulty, and one superfluous syllable is not always fatal. Haug, while, as usual, affording many valuable suggestions in his com- q mentary, yet, as too often, decides for a rendering which is truly remark- able for its oddity.
3synthesis between ydonhd and ahmdt may throw some light on the difficulty, and one superfluous syllable is not always fatal. Haug, while, as usual, affording many valuable suggestions in his com- q mentary, yet, as too often, decides for a rendering which is truly remark- able for its oddity. Pard mazé ydonhéd equals, with him, antiquitus magni! — qui = (freely) ‘Ihr Gewaltigen von Alters her’. Haug referred saedydi to gad = ‘zufallen, sich schicken, tibereinstimmen, ad-consentiendum’. Another — renders, ‘mégen uns zu Theil werden’. Another to cad ‘to be helpful’. It 435 seems to be a heresy to refer any 2 to a sibilant, especially before a d, where it generally equals d. Nevertheless it is possible for a z before a sonant to replace an / (s), and I think that the root here is simply sah = gas, cans. ‘Be awake to this (our) declaring’. We should regard it as more natural to take ‘declaring’ not as ‘our declaring’, but as ‘declare to us’. The context however forbids. Sazdydi might be infin. for imper. ‘I will declare to this one; that is, to each man’; but the separation of dao- danté, although introducing an interesting abruptness, seems rather extreme; buodanté (henti) seem to apply somewhat directly to sazdydi, qualified by line 6. The Pahl. inverts the order of sraotd and géushdis. I have little doubt that nydkhshishn(th) has infin.-imper. force. Even as fut. pass. part. an element of imperative injunction inheres in forms with ishn: ‘There is to be a listening’ = ‘listen’; so analogously elsewhere. Is kariténd the shadow of an alternative for sraotd?, the trlr., as so often, understanding ‘recite’ by the form of sr#, sraotd (comp. sridand)?; or does he freely explain ‘°dis’ by it?; cp. d$ (sic) elsewhere rendered by pavan nikézishnd. The word vakhshinishnih is probably an alternative translation for vahistd, which, if it stood in the Pahl. character, might have been read as a form of vakhsh; vahisht stands in Zend characters. Avindpdék (not avindpdak which disturbs the sense) gave us our first knowledge of the meaning of vaé(é)n. Sicha is not rendered as an instr. Nikézénd should be rendered in accordance with its original daodanté, that is, in a subjective sense, “having intention, or attention’ (cp. nékézishn) rather than, as I formerly rendered, ‘expounding’. Omitting the glosses, we should have a translation nearer the original; but taken even as it is, the rendering is full of valuable suggestion, and has been heeded (at second hand) by all. Ner. renders karitind by vikde- ayitd (freely), and sees no a@ priv. in avaé(é)naté, nor in dvindpdak = dlokayitachd, nor instr. in séichd. The instigations in line a produced the Parsi Religion; hence the stress laid on studying them. Saddchéritaram and andchdritaram rendering frdriné, avariné, seem meant for °chdra°: see above on y.1; the verbal noun was not intended. 3. Spiegel, Bartholomae, Geldner, and others, abandon the significant rendering of the neut.
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.
1) « - -. 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. 438 Notice a gradation from the external to the internal, first the staotd; then the yé(e)snyd, then humazdrd, and ashé yaé(é)chda (if referring to the two elements of doctrine; otherwise ashayaé(é)chd = ‘of the beatitude’). As to urvdzd, one writer suggests a nom. sg. fem.; ‘and the rapture which one sees with the heavenly luminaries’. Another refers it to Ind. °valha, valhitam, rendering ‘enigmatical’. Another regards the meaning as ‘heights’, ‘the heights glisten with light’. Haug, ortus. (Except as noted, Haug follows the indications of Ner., properly only as to the roots present.) Urvdza is of course the usual word = ordzé, to varh (barh), or vraj. As to the interesting suggestion ‘secret, enigmatical’, I think it is foreign to the con- nection. The doctrine of dualism gradually grew; and had long been familiar before it was made the subject of poetical composition. Pahl. The student is again warned against any attempt to construct a pleasing literary translation of the Pahl. Such a treatment will lead to a grossabuse. The translation only exists as an approximate reproduction of its original. As an offset to any undue depreciation of it, read it as it might be rendered without the glosses: ‘Thus these two things are to be spoken’ (free for ‘I will speak’); they are your prayers (that is, ‘ye come seeking’. Perhaps khvahishnd has here literally the force ‘of the present part.; cp. debrinishné in Y. 28, 6) which Afharmazd gave (probably not follow- ing the Zend text now written beside it), and what also is for the intelligent (dkds should of course be rendered as in an oblique case according to vidushé(é) and the izdfat; or read with DJ.’s text, ‘which the intelligent one also gives’), and what is the praise of Afharmazd, and the Yasna of the Good Mind. And I will declare him who is a thinker of good thoughts - etc.’ (The force of gédishn should be felt like that of vakhshyd throughout). Many a modern is equally rough and careless; and it is surely not scholarly to deny to the ancient scholar hampered with every disadvantage the same liberties which are taken by ourselves, and sometimes with little semblance of good reason. : Rendered entirely aside from its original, I should read only: ‘He who (om. ?) is intelligent [by him priestly studies are to be made], (4) whose are the praises of A.- - -’. (c) ‘He who is - - - ete.’ Whether Ner. meant stotrd (= °dni) and swmantd is a question; sumatd might be meant for an ancient pl. = °dné. Between sadéchdritaram (sic), and saddchdrataram J.4, we must choose the latter, as neither °chdritaram nor °charitaram are applicable; the verbal noun was not intended. 2.
2is - - - ete.’ Whether Ner. meant stotrd (= °dni) and swmantd is a question; sumatd might be meant for an ancient pl. = °dné. Between sadéchdritaram (sic), and saddchdrataram J.4, we must choose the latter, as neither °chdritaram nor °charitaram are applicable; the verbal noun was not intended. 2. Avaé(éynatd needs correction to dvaé(é)nata; but initial @ in Zend shows strong traces of its Pahl. character as = @ or @. 55 a 434 As ‘differing renderings, consider; ‘Prove ye. with clear (séchd) mind before (?) each, man by man, decides as to the two beliefs’ (?); again: ‘Look with gaze (séchd) and mind on the decrees’ (?); again: ‘Conceive in your heart (?) what is clear’ (séchd acc. pl. neut.) I take @ with the gen. aS = apud, (so, often), vichithahyd is gen. inf. from chi., so Spiegel, followed by Bartholomae and others. I do not think that we need to in- crease the difficulty as to varendo by regarding it as a dual gen. with the gen. vichithahyd immediately relating to it. Such a heaping-up of genitives is not probable, particularly when naré is also read (without MSS.) as gen. Vi + chit govern the acc. in the Rig-Veda in the sense of ‘know’. Varendo is an acc. pl. neut. from varenah [°nanh]; cp. the reading varenanham Yt. 24, 37. Line & falls in naturally, and continues the ad- dress in line a, dvaé(é)natd might be regarded as understood. Poetical diction is of its nature broken: ‘See the flames - - -; see them in view of the decision to be made as to the beliefs - - -’. It seems to me not at all necessary to link narém, as object, with the far-off daodanté, although this would be admissible, as baodanté may mean ‘render attentive’. The sense is not always completed with each line in the Rik and the Avesta, but it is the more frequent use. ‘Narém narem are purely adverbial in the familiar form. As the accus. forms seem so striking, some would even suggest an emendation, naré = narod. So many genitives strung together would be suspicious, but not im- possible; so one writer reads, and renders ‘before the deciding of each man’. An imper. of the verb ai = ‘to be’ is understood in line c, and the recognition of such forms understood is the secret of a sound pes of the Gathas, as of all other poetical matter. Some scholars would render: ‘Apprehend the most important truth with the ears; look with sight and sense on the conclusions of the decision, man for man, each for his person, to have yourselves taught without great trouble ((?) = pard mazé ydonhé), fixing your attention upon me’. Some would omit né@, and one would read daodantéi without MSS. Né certainly seems to disturb the metre; yet synthesis between ydonhd and ahmdt may throw some light on the difficulty, and one superfluous syllable is not always fatal. Haug, while, as usual, affording many valuable suggestions in his com- q mentary, yet, as too often, decides for a rendering which is truly remark- able for its oddity.
3synthesis between ydonhd and ahmdt may throw some light on the difficulty, and one superfluous syllable is not always fatal. Haug, while, as usual, affording many valuable suggestions in his com- q mentary, yet, as too often, decides for a rendering which is truly remark- able for its oddity. Pard mazé ydonhéd equals, with him, antiquitus magni! — qui = (freely) ‘Ihr Gewaltigen von Alters her’. Haug referred saedydi to gad = ‘zufallen, sich schicken, tibereinstimmen, ad-consentiendum’. Another — renders, ‘mégen uns zu Theil werden’. Another to cad ‘to be helpful’. It 435 seems to be a heresy to refer any 2 to a sibilant, especially before a d, where it generally equals d. Nevertheless it is possible for a z before a sonant to replace an / (s), and I think that the root here is simply sah = gas, cans. ‘Be awake to this (our) declaring’. We should regard it as more natural to take ‘declaring’ not as ‘our declaring’, but as ‘declare to us’. The context however forbids. Sazdydi might be infin. for imper. ‘I will declare to this one; that is, to each man’; but the separation of dao- danté, although introducing an interesting abruptness, seems rather extreme; buodanté (henti) seem to apply somewhat directly to sazdydi, qualified by line 6. The Pahl. inverts the order of sraotd and géushdis. I have little doubt that nydkhshishn(th) has infin.-imper. force. Even as fut. pass. part. an element of imperative injunction inheres in forms with ishn: ‘There is to be a listening’ = ‘listen’; so analogously elsewhere. Is kariténd the shadow of an alternative for sraotd?, the trlr., as so often, understanding ‘recite’ by the form of sr#, sraotd (comp. sridand)?; or does he freely explain ‘°dis’ by it?; cp. d$ (sic) elsewhere rendered by pavan nikézishnd. The word vakhshinishnih is probably an alternative translation for vahistd, which, if it stood in the Pahl. character, might have been read as a form of vakhsh; vahisht stands in Zend characters. Avindpdék (not avindpdak which disturbs the sense) gave us our first knowledge of the meaning of vaé(é)n. Sicha is not rendered as an instr. Nikézénd should be rendered in accordance with its original daodanté, that is, in a subjective sense, “having intention, or attention’ (cp. nékézishn) rather than, as I formerly rendered, ‘expounding’. Omitting the glosses, we should have a translation nearer the original; but taken even as it is, the rendering is full of valuable suggestion, and has been heeded (at second hand) by all. Ner. renders karitind by vikde- ayitd (freely), and sees no a@ priv. in avaé(é)naté, nor in dvindpdak = dlokayitachd, nor instr. in séichd. The instigations in line a produced the Parsi Religion; hence the stress laid on studying them. Saddchéritaram and andchdritaram rendering frdriné, avariné, seem meant for °chdra°: see above on y.1; the verbal noun was not intended. 3. Spiegel, Bartholomae, Geldner, and others, abandon the significant rendering of the neut.
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.