Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1us. (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. Reading azind (if we could so correct), or Spiegel’s azédd (so in both places), we have less difficulty; it might equal 2d¢, from az = ‘to say’ (see above), ‘tell us’. Or else ‘inform us’ is free for ‘be an instructor’. It seems improbable to refer azind, or azédd, simply to the Zend az, yet 2 = 2 in Zend and Pahl; ep. vdz = dbded. The instrumentals in Ner. should be often rendered ‘as regards’, ‘according to’; so pavan. Yato cor- responds to vad°, and is a good instance to show the impossibility of reading Ner. without his originals. 18. Dushitd, loc. sg. of °t to a *dubkshita, Otherwise, with Roth, cp. duriti, following the Pahl. through Ner. The Pahl. trir. renders sdzdiim _as if from sd@(g@) = ‘to sharpen’. The MSS. are in confusion as to the reading in a; J.3 sadbhyo, J.* bhavadbhyo, (so I think J.4 means, aS a correction of sadbhyo in J. which was its original; see Y. 34, 7.) Ner., as should be well marked, renders alternatively, by vighdtaya = ‘smite’, ‘kill’, and, in the gloss, by drachayata (so Haug) with the Pahl. The reading drayet (J.3) might however point to dr as a verb of motion in the sense of arpdyet = ‘send out’, ‘let fly (a blow)’. I note this, as Haug’s text of Ner. is so excessively erroneous that there is danger in trusting it; see his own apology for it. J.4 has here what seems a corrected dsdrayet, or dchar°. 19. Ahébis, or ahtimbis. Ahitmbis, ahtim.bi§ stand in the MSS. here (K> has aha.bis at Y. 44, 16). Ahdm was probably a separated ahu, provided by the early scholiast with the case sign of the acc. Cp. the case | 465 signs elsewhere before the suffix in yavaé(é)tdité(2), avaé(é)tds (°tdts). The Pahl. trlrs., who have given us such rich emendations as well as decisive render- ings, might be trusted here, as they were by Westergaard. But ahdmbi§ of the MSS. must be considered. As = ‘healer of the world’ it sounds rather advanced for the document, although thoroughly possible, Justi and Spiegel having long since pointed out d:§ = ‘healing’ in vispddcs, hubis, eredhw(v)dbis (names of plants). Ahdmbis is grammatically possible in some places, but it is not probable in Y. 44, 16 chithrad méi dam ahibis ratim chizhdi, where ahibisem would be required, unless the word were applied to Ahura, but ‘healer of world’ would apply rather to the prophet; also its position between daém and ratim does not favour a voc. AhimbiS = *asu- bhiksh = ‘seeking after life’ (for the people) might be considered. But the word as = ahibis means for ‘the people’ (so, long since privately circulated), or ‘the worlds’. As to the pl. apparently for dual., it may be said that no dual was in view.
2ém and ratim does not favour a voc. AhimbiS = *asu- bhiksh = ‘seeking after life’ (for the people) might be considered. But the word as = ahibis means for ‘the people’ (so, long since privately circulated), or ‘the worlds’. As to the pl. apparently for dual., it may be said that no dual was in view. Ahvdéo = ‘of two lives’, but ‘the worlds’ might include Heaven, Earth and Hell, or the hamistakdn (?) might constitute a 3"4 state; see also ahvdhi Y. 51, 9. As to instr. for dat., cp. dregvddebis Y. 29, 2, Y. 48,11. There is of course a syntactical difficulty in holding erezhukhdhdi to be governed, as would seem so natural, by g@stéd (which governs the dat. of the person and the accus. of the thing); we should not expect to find the nom., which is quite natural before erezhukhdhdi, emerging far off in khshayamané, with erezhukhdhdi referring to the same person before it. I had therefore severed erezhukhdhdi from gistd@, and regarded it as ex- pressing the object of the energetic khshayamand hizvé.vasd, ‘the person’ here, but preferring ‘the thing’ in §.B.E. XXXI. But one does not know what to expect in the Gathds. Perhaps the meaning is: ‘Let him listen to the truthful speaker, who conceived of Asha, etc. - - - powerful over words, and free of speech’ - - - (2). Of course this is greatly to be preferred, if it is possible, and it may not be impossible, Haug makes the vidvdo the hearer (?), Spiegel (far better) takes the middle in the sense of the passive: ‘let the wise A. (but voc. for nom. (?)) be heard- - - who rules with truly spoken words, who has power in his tongue’, explaining; ‘he needs only to ‘speak, so it happens’. Haug: Vachanhim khshayamané hizvd.vasd = ‘dessen Zunge frei sich bewegt’, Roth gives an admirable suggestion that gastéd is understood; ‘(héret) auf seine Versicherung. Der Worte ist er miachtig, beherrscht seine Zunge’. De Harlez: ‘qui parle en maitre’, Jack- son; ‘who will have power at will over the words of his tongue—so that they will be verified - - -’ (see Spiegel). I prefer to regard the words as affording the reason for the admonition; the yé mantd ashem is declared to have absolute command of speech, to give the infallible and inspired direc- 59 ‘466 tions which are to be heard. Hrezhukhdhdi (S. B. E. XXXI, p. 51, infin. (?)) is concrete; cp. the eresvachdo contrasted with mithahvachdo v.12, But who is the vidvdo - - - khshayamandé hizvd.vas6? Almost everything points to ‘the prophet’ of the ‘holy Faith’, as opposed to the dregvant of v. 18, save only v. 7. Mazda also needs to be accounted for, and cannot well be termed an instr. (It is however possibly in place as a prayerful exclamation not affecting the syntax). Yas td mantd - -- Ashem (v. 7) almost forces us to refer the same words here to the same Divine Being whose activity had already been expressed by them in an earlier verse of the same hymn.
3ell be termed an instr. (It is however possibly in place as a prayerful exclamation not affecting the syntax). Yas td mantd - -- Ashem (v. 7) almost forces us to refer the same words here to the same Divine Being whose activity had already been expressed by them in an earlier verse of the same hymn. Able writers, who have bewailed the obscurity of the Gathds, regard it as the critical procedure to seize every expression that bears any resemblance to language applying to the human subject, and to force all grammatical analogies, and parallel passages, which refer the words to the Deity, with one sweep out of the way. I myself also certainly hold that an alternative translation should be rendered in all cases where the words fit a human subject, and I also hold strongly that the text should be slightly changed where indicated, and alternative renderings afforded in emended texts; but the question is as to our jirst translation. I hold that the frequent inten- tional obscurity of the Gathic composer, or composers, should be critically held in view, and oblique address in the 3*4 person should be recognized as possible when made to Ahura, or a description in the 3'4 person made, with an address in the voc. in the midst of it. Can then yé mantd Ashem be referred to Mazda with a voc. Mazdé in c? See him referred to in the 34 person in two lines of v. 7, and in the voc. (224 person) in the 3*4 line. Then in Y. 32, 16, according to a disinterested criticism, yé(e)hyd md aithischid(t) dvaé(é)thd may well refer to some superhuman power; yet we have in this same Y. 32, 16 vocatives, Maedd Ahurd, thrown in. See also the curious structure in Y.44,1, and the voc. Mazddé in Y. 44, 2; see especially Y. 45, 4. I therefore conclude that the Deity was addressed in the Gathas sometimes with affected and intentional obscurity of diction, and that in view of the strong expression yé@ mantd- - ahtibis vidvdo, Ahura Mazda may be here indicated (possibly as representing his prophet). But I would add a most emphatic alternative in the other sense. Véddtd might well be loc. of a vidditi, but it seems needed as in agreement with dthrd. At first sight vanhdu seems loc. with viddta, but see the parallel Y. 47, 6 dthrd vanhdu vidditim (or °té(é)). Vanhdu is, like usta, a loc. used adverbially. The form — of gistd perplexed the Pahl. trlr., as it has others. But I rendered him | formerly far too much in the sense of ordinary Pahlavi. Nydkhshishnih : (practically = nydkhshishnd) is one of the frequent infinitives for imper. — (see Ner.’s grotavyam), indicating ‘propriety’, if not ‘obligation’, As ordinary , ; é 467 Pahl. I would render as formerly: ‘He whose listening is the hearing which is discretion and righteousness - - -. (6) The authority of speech rightly spoken, etc’. Vanhdu in c seems not rendered. Atrid was formerly read and rendered ‘pure’ by me from excess of carefulness; better diréd (?) = ‘the thoroughly impure’; cp. Pers.
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.
1us. (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. Reading azind (if we could so correct), or Spiegel’s azédd (so in both places), we have less difficulty; it might equal 2d¢, from az = ‘to say’ (see above), ‘tell us’. Or else ‘inform us’ is free for ‘be an instructor’. It seems improbable to refer azind, or azédd, simply to the Zend az, yet 2 = 2 in Zend and Pahl; ep. vdz = dbded. The instrumentals in Ner. should be often rendered ‘as regards’, ‘according to’; so pavan. Yato cor- responds to vad°, and is a good instance to show the impossibility of reading Ner. without his originals. 18. Dushitd, loc. sg. of °t to a *dubkshita, Otherwise, with Roth, cp. duriti, following the Pahl. through Ner. The Pahl. trir. renders sdzdiim _as if from sd@(g@) = ‘to sharpen’. The MSS. are in confusion as to the reading in a; J.3 sadbhyo, J.* bhavadbhyo, (so I think J.4 means, aS a correction of sadbhyo in J. which was its original; see Y. 34, 7.) Ner., as should be well marked, renders alternatively, by vighdtaya = ‘smite’, ‘kill’, and, in the gloss, by drachayata (so Haug) with the Pahl. The reading drayet (J.3) might however point to dr as a verb of motion in the sense of arpdyet = ‘send out’, ‘let fly (a blow)’. I note this, as Haug’s text of Ner. is so excessively erroneous that there is danger in trusting it; see his own apology for it. J.4 has here what seems a corrected dsdrayet, or dchar°. 19. Ahébis, or ahtimbis. Ahitmbis, ahtim.bi§ stand in the MSS. here (K> has aha.bis at Y. 44, 16). Ahdm was probably a separated ahu, provided by the early scholiast with the case sign of the acc. Cp. the case | 465 signs elsewhere before the suffix in yavaé(é)tdité(2), avaé(é)tds (°tdts). The Pahl. trlrs., who have given us such rich emendations as well as decisive render- ings, might be trusted here, as they were by Westergaard. But ahdmbi§ of the MSS. must be considered. As = ‘healer of the world’ it sounds rather advanced for the document, although thoroughly possible, Justi and Spiegel having long since pointed out d:§ = ‘healing’ in vispddcs, hubis, eredhw(v)dbis (names of plants). Ahdmbis is grammatically possible in some places, but it is not probable in Y. 44, 16 chithrad méi dam ahibis ratim chizhdi, where ahibisem would be required, unless the word were applied to Ahura, but ‘healer of world’ would apply rather to the prophet; also its position between daém and ratim does not favour a voc. AhimbiS = *asu- bhiksh = ‘seeking after life’ (for the people) might be considered. But the word as = ahibis means for ‘the people’ (so, long since privately circulated), or ‘the worlds’. As to the pl. apparently for dual., it may be said that no dual was in view.
2ém and ratim does not favour a voc. AhimbiS = *asu- bhiksh = ‘seeking after life’ (for the people) might be considered. But the word as = ahibis means for ‘the people’ (so, long since privately circulated), or ‘the worlds’. As to the pl. apparently for dual., it may be said that no dual was in view. Ahvdéo = ‘of two lives’, but ‘the worlds’ might include Heaven, Earth and Hell, or the hamistakdn (?) might constitute a 3"4 state; see also ahvdhi Y. 51, 9. As to instr. for dat., cp. dregvddebis Y. 29, 2, Y. 48,11. There is of course a syntactical difficulty in holding erezhukhdhdi to be governed, as would seem so natural, by g@stéd (which governs the dat. of the person and the accus. of the thing); we should not expect to find the nom., which is quite natural before erezhukhdhdi, emerging far off in khshayamané, with erezhukhdhdi referring to the same person before it. I had therefore severed erezhukhdhdi from gistd@, and regarded it as ex- pressing the object of the energetic khshayamand hizvé.vasd, ‘the person’ here, but preferring ‘the thing’ in §.B.E. XXXI. But one does not know what to expect in the Gathds. Perhaps the meaning is: ‘Let him listen to the truthful speaker, who conceived of Asha, etc. - - - powerful over words, and free of speech’ - - - (2). Of course this is greatly to be preferred, if it is possible, and it may not be impossible, Haug makes the vidvdo the hearer (?), Spiegel (far better) takes the middle in the sense of the passive: ‘let the wise A. (but voc. for nom. (?)) be heard- - - who rules with truly spoken words, who has power in his tongue’, explaining; ‘he needs only to ‘speak, so it happens’. Haug: Vachanhim khshayamané hizvd.vasd = ‘dessen Zunge frei sich bewegt’, Roth gives an admirable suggestion that gastéd is understood; ‘(héret) auf seine Versicherung. Der Worte ist er miachtig, beherrscht seine Zunge’. De Harlez: ‘qui parle en maitre’, Jack- son; ‘who will have power at will over the words of his tongue—so that they will be verified - - -’ (see Spiegel). I prefer to regard the words as affording the reason for the admonition; the yé mantd ashem is declared to have absolute command of speech, to give the infallible and inspired direc- 59 ‘466 tions which are to be heard. Hrezhukhdhdi (S. B. E. XXXI, p. 51, infin. (?)) is concrete; cp. the eresvachdo contrasted with mithahvachdo v.12, But who is the vidvdo - - - khshayamandé hizvd.vas6? Almost everything points to ‘the prophet’ of the ‘holy Faith’, as opposed to the dregvant of v. 18, save only v. 7. Mazda also needs to be accounted for, and cannot well be termed an instr. (It is however possibly in place as a prayerful exclamation not affecting the syntax). Yas td mantd - -- Ashem (v. 7) almost forces us to refer the same words here to the same Divine Being whose activity had already been expressed by them in an earlier verse of the same hymn.
3ell be termed an instr. (It is however possibly in place as a prayerful exclamation not affecting the syntax). Yas td mantd - -- Ashem (v. 7) almost forces us to refer the same words here to the same Divine Being whose activity had already been expressed by them in an earlier verse of the same hymn. Able writers, who have bewailed the obscurity of the Gathds, regard it as the critical procedure to seize every expression that bears any resemblance to language applying to the human subject, and to force all grammatical analogies, and parallel passages, which refer the words to the Deity, with one sweep out of the way. I myself also certainly hold that an alternative translation should be rendered in all cases where the words fit a human subject, and I also hold strongly that the text should be slightly changed where indicated, and alternative renderings afforded in emended texts; but the question is as to our jirst translation. I hold that the frequent inten- tional obscurity of the Gathic composer, or composers, should be critically held in view, and oblique address in the 3*4 person should be recognized as possible when made to Ahura, or a description in the 3'4 person made, with an address in the voc. in the midst of it. Can then yé mantd Ashem be referred to Mazda with a voc. Mazdé in c? See him referred to in the 34 person in two lines of v. 7, and in the voc. (224 person) in the 3*4 line. Then in Y. 32, 16, according to a disinterested criticism, yé(e)hyd md aithischid(t) dvaé(é)thd may well refer to some superhuman power; yet we have in this same Y. 32, 16 vocatives, Maedd Ahurd, thrown in. See also the curious structure in Y.44,1, and the voc. Mazddé in Y. 44, 2; see especially Y. 45, 4. I therefore conclude that the Deity was addressed in the Gathas sometimes with affected and intentional obscurity of diction, and that in view of the strong expression yé@ mantd- - ahtibis vidvdo, Ahura Mazda may be here indicated (possibly as representing his prophet). But I would add a most emphatic alternative in the other sense. Véddtd might well be loc. of a vidditi, but it seems needed as in agreement with dthrd. At first sight vanhdu seems loc. with viddta, but see the parallel Y. 47, 6 dthrd vanhdu vidditim (or °té(é)). Vanhdu is, like usta, a loc. used adverbially. The form — of gistd perplexed the Pahl. trlr., as it has others. But I rendered him | formerly far too much in the sense of ordinary Pahlavi. Nydkhshishnih : (practically = nydkhshishnd) is one of the frequent infinitives for imper. — (see Ner.’s grotavyam), indicating ‘propriety’, if not ‘obligation’, As ordinary , ; é 467 Pahl. I would render as formerly: ‘He whose listening is the hearing which is discretion and righteousness - - -. (6) The authority of speech rightly spoken, etc’. Vanhdu in c seems not rendered. Atrid was formerly read and rendered ‘pure’ by me from excess of carefulness; better diréd (?) = ‘the thoroughly impure’; cp. Pers.
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.