Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1méjaké, a ‘mixing’ recalling an ‘agitation’, ‘vibration’? Ner.’s prachchhannena = nthawik = tayd. Ekahelayd, = ‘with one impulse*’, for guméjaké, contains a word somewhat kindred to thw(v)isrd. _ 14. I think dt? should be taken in its more natural sense ‘goes, ‘are passing by’ (neut. pl. subject). Haug rendered: quae preces conduntur ab (?) creatoribus (2?) veracis (veracibus) et quae Sapiens! a mendacibus, ut hae sint perfectae ita! ; more freely: ‘Dies will ich dich fragen, Lebendiger! fiir jetzt und fiir die Zukunft, wie die Gebete, die von den wahrhaftigen Schipfern und welche von den Liignern gegeben sind, gedichtet wurden’. (?) Roth (keenly): ‘Ich frage dich daher, 0 Mazda, tiber das was gilt und gelten soll: wenn Abbitten geleistet werden statt des Loskaufs, sei es einem gliubigen oder auch den ungliubigen, 0 Mazda, wie die in Ihrer Fassung sein sollen’. Others: ‘I ask thee - - - what claims in the entries above shall be made upon the righteous, and what upon the wicked, and how these will stand when the entries are balanced?’. It is gratifying to see the evidence of the Pahlavi writers beginning to work its way, as in the rendering of ishudé as conveying 462 the idea of avdm, rinam. The only question is as to whether the idea of debt owing ¢o the offerer, or dy the offerer, is expressed. Here I would modify my former opinion. Debts to the offerer seem indicated. Elsewhere however the verbal form expresses perhaps confession of debt. Déthranam (also with the Pahl. trlr.) here equals Ved. détrd rather than a Sansk. dhdtra, as in Vd. 19, 27. I fear I can hardly follow the very narrowed sense of ‘entries’. The ddthra(nam) were the entire series of holy efforts of the righteous referred to in the chapter and culminating in the religious offerings as their outward expression. ‘What prayer-debts are paid for the holy efforts of the righteous’ seems the sense, ‘and what are the debts due to the wicked, and how shall they be in the summing up.’ The Pahl. angardtkih should be taken etymologically (cp. Zend han- karaye(e)mi) = ‘completed reckoning’; see Ner.’s vipdkatd. = ‘completed result’; cp. vipdka. Apart from its original, render the Pahl.: ‘who pays a debt of the lenders, that is, gives of that to him who is righteous - --, and he also who gives to the wicked, is as they are; so the judgment is this’. 15. Maé(é)nis to Sk. ment (so Jackson admirably), the Gathic word affording perhaps the true explanation of the Vedic one. Sp. compared paves. The ment may have been a shaft hurled in just vengeance. Adru- janté should be understood in the concrete; see S.B. E. XXXI, p. 49. Roth has brilliantly solved the difficulty of hanar(e) by taking the traditional (sic) sense of the word as it occurs in Y. 47, 5. He renders c however (last part) wdhrend Vieh und Mann ihm nichts eu Leide thun. Pastus virahyd (?) adrujanté, as gen. absolutes. Hanar(e) may, I think, contain the same elements as sine.
2ly solved the difficulty of hanar(e) by taking the traditional (sic) sense of the word as it occurs in Y. 47, 5. He renders c however (last part) wdhrend Vieh und Mann ihm nichts eu Leide thun. Pastus virahyd (?) adrujanté, as gen. absolutes. Hanar(e) may, I think, contain the same elements as sine. Haug rendered quae cogitatio (Gesinnung) «+ - (et quae cogitatio ejus sit) qui non vitam ullum (ullo modo) (?) destrust (7) ate Spiegel (as usual) better, but taking hanare, like Haug (of course inde- pendently), as from han = san = ein wenig (freely). The abl. term. of the a declension when followed by chd is written Gad(f)ché with much regularity; but I think that later cases (as that here where °aad(t)chd disturbs the metre) are imitations from occurrences where the metre required dd(t)cha to be spoken as dad(t)chd; see remarks on p. 407. The Pahl. pavan vin- dsishné may well be a simple enlargement by anticipation of the rendering padafras for maé(é)nis, or, again, it may be the original translation, pddafrds being alternative. Hanar(e), correctly rendered in Y. 47, 5, seems here. curiously mistaken, as I hold, for a form of han = san, in its sense of ‘gain’, and it was so mistaken, as I think, owing to the following odd in vinasti, which was first explained to us as a form of vid by the Pahl. trlr. 463 here and elsewhere, an important grammatical datwm. The word usually transliterated nivekinédd may be properly mivédinédd rendering nivaé(é)- dhayé(e)mt, notice the New Persian naverd (sic). The misapprehension of hanare threw the renderings into disorder, yet see the correctness in lines a and c. The question arises, ‘is hanare translated at all’? I regard at as far from certain that pavanich mozd is not quasi gloss emphasizing nivékinédo (sic). We must seriously consider whether dard = ‘away’, ‘off’ in the gloss is not the echo of a lost rendering for hanare, so that in the inaccurate gloss we have a trace of the correct rendering of hanare, as in Y. 47, 5. Else where did bard shtkényén possibly come from? Even the limited idea of ‘announcing’ without the added inherent idea of ‘offered acquisition’ does not contain any hint of ‘freeing’, ‘separating’, ‘letting go’. Bard shtkényén contains additional translation as well as worthless gloss. (Of course we must understand in speaking of ‘traces of lost translation, or text’ that the Pahl. tris. have no certain connection at all with the Zend texts now written on the same paper with them, we might even say that it was ex- tremely improbable that the real trlr. had before him exactly the Zend texts which now appear transcribed in our MSS. beside his text. The copyists did nothing but copy; and the arrangers and compilers (editors) handed down Pahl. tris. from predecessors who saw MSS. hundreds of years older than those now extant. They worked these ancient opinions over doubtless, thus doing much mischief, and destroying much real tradition; see similar remarks elsewhere).
3g but copy; and the arrangers and compilers (editors) handed down Pahl. tris. from predecessors who saw MSS. hundreds of years older than those now extant. They worked these ancient opinions over doubtless, thus doing much mischief, and destroying much real tradition; see similar remarks elsewhere). As to Ner.’s Jamcha, see Spiegel’s Ner., also West’s Mainyo-i-khard II, 176 laviché = pédra. 16. A root d@ =*‘to know’ is not needed for huddnus, dé = aha, suffices for ‘the well disposing’, ‘the wise’. To Haug we owe the valuable rendering of yd-s(k)yaothanaschd as a compositum in the masc.; cp. yd-varend Y. 12, 7. This masc. may seem very easy and obvious at present, but that is the case with most discoveries. The Pahl. trlr., as too often in similar cases, when explained by the mischievous gloss, seems to doubt the aug- ment in asperezatd, committing the unpardonable offence of rendering it as an a priv. It is however always probable, or possible, that his text may be older than the gloss; and if that be the case, the text may have been intended to be read @kishidér = ‘emphatically a striver’, or ‘a striver against’; then the gloss only would be erroneous, and this supposition is imperatively necessary. If, however, the actual translator here really fails to see the augment, which is rarely expressed in Zend texts, he is yet, as ever, our first lexicographer as to the root meaning; he saw sperez in the sense of sprih. 17.. Haug’s velaman-faciat (celet) for aipidé-bdvayat (sic) is again rash Bi 464 . and incorrect. The solution of this word we owe to Neryosangh apart from the Pahl. trlr. He was ably followed by Justi, Roth, and others; the root is the curiously extended dab, debu adenom. (?); cp. root of récthwen. It seems a desecration to the memory of Benfey to question zd? as equalling edhi, a degeneration from *as-dhi, but ah == ‘to say’ might recur in Zend as az, in which case we should have edé for aed, 224 se. imper. = ‘inform us’, suiting fradakhstéd which follows, and mraotéd which precedes. See the Pahl. here, and in Y. 50,1. The Pahl. trlr., while, as usual, giving us our earliest intimations, has yet, from some accidental cause, treated the dé in débavayad(t) like the dé in déjdmdspa, and the de in debazaité, and perhaps also in demdnahyd or demanahyd (which may however be from dam); he renders 6dva yad(t) = yehevindi -- vad, not noticing the dé which probably stood detached in the ancient MS. before him, which MS. probably differed more, or less, from that in which his own trl. now stands preserved to us. (Not so Ner. who renders as a form of dab by yato vipratérakdt.) The Pahl. trirs. often render forms of dad with correct recognition, and giving us our earliest information on the subject. I had written azino, but DJ.’s azdiné might be a quasi denom., imitating 2d here, and the azdd in Y. 50, 1.
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.
1méjaké, a ‘mixing’ recalling an ‘agitation’, ‘vibration’? Ner.’s prachchhannena = nthawik = tayd. Ekahelayd, = ‘with one impulse*’, for guméjaké, contains a word somewhat kindred to thw(v)isrd. _ 14. I think dt? should be taken in its more natural sense ‘goes, ‘are passing by’ (neut. pl. subject). Haug rendered: quae preces conduntur ab (?) creatoribus (2?) veracis (veracibus) et quae Sapiens! a mendacibus, ut hae sint perfectae ita! ; more freely: ‘Dies will ich dich fragen, Lebendiger! fiir jetzt und fiir die Zukunft, wie die Gebete, die von den wahrhaftigen Schipfern und welche von den Liignern gegeben sind, gedichtet wurden’. (?) Roth (keenly): ‘Ich frage dich daher, 0 Mazda, tiber das was gilt und gelten soll: wenn Abbitten geleistet werden statt des Loskaufs, sei es einem gliubigen oder auch den ungliubigen, 0 Mazda, wie die in Ihrer Fassung sein sollen’. Others: ‘I ask thee - - - what claims in the entries above shall be made upon the righteous, and what upon the wicked, and how these will stand when the entries are balanced?’. It is gratifying to see the evidence of the Pahlavi writers beginning to work its way, as in the rendering of ishudé as conveying 462 the idea of avdm, rinam. The only question is as to whether the idea of debt owing ¢o the offerer, or dy the offerer, is expressed. Here I would modify my former opinion. Debts to the offerer seem indicated. Elsewhere however the verbal form expresses perhaps confession of debt. Déthranam (also with the Pahl. trlr.) here equals Ved. détrd rather than a Sansk. dhdtra, as in Vd. 19, 27. I fear I can hardly follow the very narrowed sense of ‘entries’. The ddthra(nam) were the entire series of holy efforts of the righteous referred to in the chapter and culminating in the religious offerings as their outward expression. ‘What prayer-debts are paid for the holy efforts of the righteous’ seems the sense, ‘and what are the debts due to the wicked, and how shall they be in the summing up.’ The Pahl. angardtkih should be taken etymologically (cp. Zend han- karaye(e)mi) = ‘completed reckoning’; see Ner.’s vipdkatd. = ‘completed result’; cp. vipdka. Apart from its original, render the Pahl.: ‘who pays a debt of the lenders, that is, gives of that to him who is righteous - --, and he also who gives to the wicked, is as they are; so the judgment is this’. 15. Maé(é)nis to Sk. ment (so Jackson admirably), the Gathic word affording perhaps the true explanation of the Vedic one. Sp. compared paves. The ment may have been a shaft hurled in just vengeance. Adru- janté should be understood in the concrete; see S.B. E. XXXI, p. 49. Roth has brilliantly solved the difficulty of hanar(e) by taking the traditional (sic) sense of the word as it occurs in Y. 47, 5. He renders c however (last part) wdhrend Vieh und Mann ihm nichts eu Leide thun. Pastus virahyd (?) adrujanté, as gen. absolutes. Hanar(e) may, I think, contain the same elements as sine.
2ly solved the difficulty of hanar(e) by taking the traditional (sic) sense of the word as it occurs in Y. 47, 5. He renders c however (last part) wdhrend Vieh und Mann ihm nichts eu Leide thun. Pastus virahyd (?) adrujanté, as gen. absolutes. Hanar(e) may, I think, contain the same elements as sine. Haug rendered quae cogitatio (Gesinnung) «+ - (et quae cogitatio ejus sit) qui non vitam ullum (ullo modo) (?) destrust (7) ate Spiegel (as usual) better, but taking hanare, like Haug (of course inde- pendently), as from han = san = ein wenig (freely). The abl. term. of the a declension when followed by chd is written Gad(f)ché with much regularity; but I think that later cases (as that here where °aad(t)chd disturbs the metre) are imitations from occurrences where the metre required dd(t)cha to be spoken as dad(t)chd; see remarks on p. 407. The Pahl. pavan vin- dsishné may well be a simple enlargement by anticipation of the rendering padafras for maé(é)nis, or, again, it may be the original translation, pddafrds being alternative. Hanar(e), correctly rendered in Y. 47, 5, seems here. curiously mistaken, as I hold, for a form of han = san, in its sense of ‘gain’, and it was so mistaken, as I think, owing to the following odd in vinasti, which was first explained to us as a form of vid by the Pahl. trlr. 463 here and elsewhere, an important grammatical datwm. The word usually transliterated nivekinédd may be properly mivédinédd rendering nivaé(é)- dhayé(e)mt, notice the New Persian naverd (sic). The misapprehension of hanare threw the renderings into disorder, yet see the correctness in lines a and c. The question arises, ‘is hanare translated at all’? I regard at as far from certain that pavanich mozd is not quasi gloss emphasizing nivékinédo (sic). We must seriously consider whether dard = ‘away’, ‘off’ in the gloss is not the echo of a lost rendering for hanare, so that in the inaccurate gloss we have a trace of the correct rendering of hanare, as in Y. 47, 5. Else where did bard shtkényén possibly come from? Even the limited idea of ‘announcing’ without the added inherent idea of ‘offered acquisition’ does not contain any hint of ‘freeing’, ‘separating’, ‘letting go’. Bard shtkényén contains additional translation as well as worthless gloss. (Of course we must understand in speaking of ‘traces of lost translation, or text’ that the Pahl. tris. have no certain connection at all with the Zend texts now written on the same paper with them, we might even say that it was ex- tremely improbable that the real trlr. had before him exactly the Zend texts which now appear transcribed in our MSS. beside his text. The copyists did nothing but copy; and the arrangers and compilers (editors) handed down Pahl. tris. from predecessors who saw MSS. hundreds of years older than those now extant. They worked these ancient opinions over doubtless, thus doing much mischief, and destroying much real tradition; see similar remarks elsewhere).
3g but copy; and the arrangers and compilers (editors) handed down Pahl. tris. from predecessors who saw MSS. hundreds of years older than those now extant. They worked these ancient opinions over doubtless, thus doing much mischief, and destroying much real tradition; see similar remarks elsewhere). As to Ner.’s Jamcha, see Spiegel’s Ner., also West’s Mainyo-i-khard II, 176 laviché = pédra. 16. A root d@ =*‘to know’ is not needed for huddnus, dé = aha, suffices for ‘the well disposing’, ‘the wise’. To Haug we owe the valuable rendering of yd-s(k)yaothanaschd as a compositum in the masc.; cp. yd-varend Y. 12, 7. This masc. may seem very easy and obvious at present, but that is the case with most discoveries. The Pahl. trlr., as too often in similar cases, when explained by the mischievous gloss, seems to doubt the aug- ment in asperezatd, committing the unpardonable offence of rendering it as an a priv. It is however always probable, or possible, that his text may be older than the gloss; and if that be the case, the text may have been intended to be read @kishidér = ‘emphatically a striver’, or ‘a striver against’; then the gloss only would be erroneous, and this supposition is imperatively necessary. If, however, the actual translator here really fails to see the augment, which is rarely expressed in Zend texts, he is yet, as ever, our first lexicographer as to the root meaning; he saw sperez in the sense of sprih. 17.. Haug’s velaman-faciat (celet) for aipidé-bdvayat (sic) is again rash Bi 464 . and incorrect. The solution of this word we owe to Neryosangh apart from the Pahl. trlr. He was ably followed by Justi, Roth, and others; the root is the curiously extended dab, debu adenom. (?); cp. root of récthwen. It seems a desecration to the memory of Benfey to question zd? as equalling edhi, a degeneration from *as-dhi, but ah == ‘to say’ might recur in Zend as az, in which case we should have edé for aed, 224 se. imper. = ‘inform us’, suiting fradakhstéd which follows, and mraotéd which precedes. See the Pahl. here, and in Y. 50,1. The Pahl. trlr., while, as usual, giving us our earliest intimations, has yet, from some accidental cause, treated the dé in débavayad(t) like the dé in déjdmdspa, and the de in debazaité, and perhaps also in demdnahyd or demanahyd (which may however be from dam); he renders 6dva yad(t) = yehevindi -- vad, not noticing the dé which probably stood detached in the ancient MS. before him, which MS. probably differed more, or less, from that in which his own trl. now stands preserved to us. (Not so Ner. who renders as a form of dab by yato vipratérakdt.) The Pahl. trirs. often render forms of dad with correct recognition, and giving us our earliest information on the subject. I had written azino, but DJ.’s azdiné might be a quasi denom., imitating 2d here, and the azdd in Y. 50, 1.
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.