Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1azda (or mazdd) in apposition with a neut., cp. Yt. 1, 8 dasemd yad(t) ahmi spéno, with an abstract, cp. Yt. 1, 7 khstvd yad(t) ahmi khratuS- - chisti§. In apposition with a pl. neutr. (?), cp. Yt. 1, 7 Téirya (ahmi) asha vahista (ashem vahistem (?)). This is however the later Zend of interpolation. As to vazdvaré, which, comparing ayaré, saddaré, etc. one would naturally call a neutr. pl., but which, as indeclinable, may be a sg., it is hard to resist the impression that vaz = vah is the root extended by d + the suffix van = varé; cp. karsvan, karshvaré, and the meaning is ‘strength from abundance’,) J and prosperity’; see the Pahl. as rendered by Ner. Haug takes haurvaté amereta- tascha as accus., but ddpaithydd(t) as = e (suis) bonis = seiner Giiter Wohlstand. The Pahl, might, as usual, be rendered much closer to the Gatha, Yet lame as . 470 the rendering is, it gave the clue to the meaning of every word. Bérézs = béindak, which latter is properly gen. by position; and avd should strictly be taken as referring to it, see @: ‘to the full one, that one who is Righte- ousness’. Vapaithyad(t) = nafshman = ‘own’, and patih, which is hardly to be referred to khshathrahyad = zak 7 valman 7 khiddt; saré = sar- darth, so, uniformly. Urvathd = désté, giving us our earliest information. Vazdvarih may be merely transcribed, but there is always danger in talking about the ‘mere transliteration’ of the words of a mother language into those of the daughter dialect. Mother and daughter are really one. If vazdvaré was Zend, vazdvarih was Pahl. ipso facto. Ner. knew what vazd- varth meant; his pivaratvam at least is no transliteration. .Avd, if read in c, might even be regarded as carrying its force so far as déstd, ‘to his own soul’ is not the needed sense; valman would be better read to escape this last. 22. Astis, if = dsti$, might properly be referred to std = sthd as = ‘stand by’, ‘helper’; cp. Vedic pratishthts, but I think it is hardly desirable to depart from the MSS. simply to show that we are aware that @ may become 7, as in Ind. sthiti etc., etc. The simple and concrete ex- planation of the Pahl. trlr. comparing dsthi =.‘bone’ is more probable, because not so advanced as the idea of ‘helper’, ‘stand-by’ (to the Deity). Cp. also Y. 33, 2 where the MSS. also read astém, and Y. 46, 11; Y. 49, 11, where the astayé are in Hell, a locality where assistance to the Deity could scarcely be rendered. Péddkihd may possibly be a pl. in °thd, and so a literal rendering for chithrd; see the Parsi-pers. which does not see the adverb, also Ner.’s prakatatvam ‘manifest things to (DJ. avd) the wise (are these)’. See the certain freedom, as opposed to error, in what follows. The concrete khudd in this particular phrase is not bad for khshathré; see the certainly free vddinyén = hapti. Vilokayitéd in Ner. is also not bad for hapt?. XXXII, See for summary and additional notes S. B. E. XXXI pp.
2are these)’. See the certain freedom, as opposed to error, in what follows. The concrete khudd in this particular phrase is not bad for khshathré; see the certainly free vddinyén = hapti. Vilokayitéd in Ner. is also not bad for hapt?. XXXII, See for summary and additional notes S. B. E. XXXI pp. 54—67, changes in opinion decided upon since its composition are however not uni- formly noted. 1, Ahydché (so to be read) refers to the subject in paouru (or pouru). aé(é)ndo v.6, in naé(é)chtd(t) vidvdo in v. 7, to dussasti$ in v. 9, to the subject in yasché vadaré vdizhdad(t) ashduné(é) in v. 10. This person re- presented his evil daé(é)tu, verezéna, and airyaman; see Y. 33, 4(?), Y. 46, 1, Y. 46, 5. Ydsad(t) = ‘prayed’ (not ‘wished’); cp. yds@, Y. 28, 1. Spiegel’s important mahmt = smdsi_ ig, notwithstanding its interesting character, hardly tenable. Haug, following the Pahl. indirectly, is correct. Mahmi 471 mandi are both loc. in meaning (Justi), and there is no reason whatever (except a desire to differ for the sake of differing) why manéc should not be compared with the Indian °manw, or even with the fem. mand. The latter by a familiar transition might well account for a masc. mana. Manahydcha (Y. 71, 3) proves the certainty of a stem mana in Zend, as manayd points to the fem. and manaé(e)ibyé (?) to the masc. Others insist upon a dat. infin., but, if such be the form, the word is still used in the sense of the loc. Mahmi = ‘through me’ is improbable. The prosaic attempt made by able scholars to string lines a and 6 together is, I think, a mistake, as is the neglect to supply the ever-recurring form of ah = ‘to be’, where indicated as in line 6, with Daé(é)vd (hent?), and with mahmi mandi, the latter words being obviously intended to agree. Antithesis, a chief agent in poetical diction, is present in ahydchd and mahmit: ‘His baé(é)tu prayed (as the holy prophet did in Y. 28, 1); his are the Daé(é)vas, but in my venerating thought 7s the friendship, or friend, of Mazda’. That a and b should be addressed to the Devils (the Demons, informing them (even in defiance) that the community desire to know the disposition of Ahura Mazda is, I think, unlikely. Haug’s ad ortus = urvdzem 4 is not desirable; his mahmi mandi = ‘in my opinion’ is better. Pahl. Zak is gen. by position; see ahydchd, and Ner.’s asya; ydn is gloss; see Ner.; read ‘- - - in his proprietorship, or kinship (that is, as lord, or kinsman) - - -’. (A propos of varying Zend texts attested by the Pahl. trls. in this and other chapters, I repeat once more that the Pahl. trls. which appear in our MSS. are very improbably the untouched work of any original Pahlavi commentator. They were unquestionably modified at every rearrangement, and finally transcribed by a copyist who often blundered, and paid little regard to the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between Gatha text and Pahl. trl.) In Ner.
3improbably the untouched work of any original Pahlavi commentator. They were unquestionably modified at every rearrangement, and finally transcribed by a copyist who often blundered, and paid little regard to the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between Gatha text and Pahl. trl.) In Ner. I supply ‘we are’ from the ‘I am’ of his gloss, as his glosses are, unlike many of those of the Pahlavi, probably contemporaneous with his text. 2. Sdremné, according to Haug’s one-sided investigation, was simply from sar = Sk. eri = ‘to lean’, ‘to seek shelter’, a sense akin to the Iranian, but by no means dominating it. According to the latest comparative philology, sar would be more original than ¢gr7. The verb sar = ‘to head’, ‘protect’, ‘rule’ came from the noun sar which is degenerated in g¢iras. Can the Deity be said to ‘lean toward’ vohu manah, while khshathréd(t) hachéd is taken merely to modify ‘answered’?: ‘He answered from His King- dom’. How much better to yield to the evidence of a comparative philo- logy which takes in the Persian and Pahlavi, and not to a comparative philo- eo ae 472 logy built up on a total disregard of the Iranian languages. I think there- fore that we had better follow the ancient scholar in his admirably free pavan sardérih. Otherwise saré in Y. 81, 21 has a meaning radically opposed to sdéremné. Ahura ‘rules’ from His kingdom’, He does not ‘answer from His kingdom’. This verse moreover confirms my recognition of the antithesis in v. 1. Verse 1 is a graphic contest between two supplicants petitioning, not from the same Deity, but from opposed Deities. The evil party, whose ¢aé(é)tu, as in Y. 46, 1, works for them, prays, and naturally enough the answer of the Devils (Daé(é)vas) is not reported in the holy hymn. They are already spurned in line c, y. 1. Ahura now utters his sharply pointed: ‘We have chosen your Ready Mind; according to your prayer; Ours shall she be’. And v. 3 is an indirect answer of Ahura to the petition of the Daé(é)vas contained in the ydsad(t) of v. 1. Afigra Mainyu is not reported as answering, but Ahura answers, and the entire chapter expresses what he has to say. Haug, for the most part, well follows the general indications of Ner., properly disregarding his syntax. The Pahl. trlr., rendering many forms literally, proceeds on the whole freely. Omitting va with DJ. A.- - + hamkhék nadik kardd may be ren- dered: ‘A. made a good friend’. I had rendered: ‘ And A., the good, he made his good friend’. Lekim rdi should of course equal vé; I doubtfully add ‘on your account’. I should think that wiceshate in Ner. (cp. geshant. Whitney’s Verbs, also vigesha = ‘distinction’) ought to mean ‘He makes a — distinction’; see the text to which it is gloss, But I have later thought of ‘he distinguishes himself by his teachership’ explaining the preceding sa- harevardt = ‘sovereignty’. According to the later Parsi Spenta Ar(a)- mati = Spendarmad was a name for the earth; see Y. 47, 3, 3.
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.
1azda (or mazdd) in apposition with a neut., cp. Yt. 1, 8 dasemd yad(t) ahmi spéno, with an abstract, cp. Yt. 1, 7 khstvd yad(t) ahmi khratuS- - chisti§. In apposition with a pl. neutr. (?), cp. Yt. 1, 7 Téirya (ahmi) asha vahista (ashem vahistem (?)). This is however the later Zend of interpolation. As to vazdvaré, which, comparing ayaré, saddaré, etc. one would naturally call a neutr. pl., but which, as indeclinable, may be a sg., it is hard to resist the impression that vaz = vah is the root extended by d + the suffix van = varé; cp. karsvan, karshvaré, and the meaning is ‘strength from abundance’,) J and prosperity’; see the Pahl. as rendered by Ner. Haug takes haurvaté amereta- tascha as accus., but ddpaithydd(t) as = e (suis) bonis = seiner Giiter Wohlstand. The Pahl, might, as usual, be rendered much closer to the Gatha, Yet lame as . 470 the rendering is, it gave the clue to the meaning of every word. Bérézs = béindak, which latter is properly gen. by position; and avd should strictly be taken as referring to it, see @: ‘to the full one, that one who is Righte- ousness’. Vapaithyad(t) = nafshman = ‘own’, and patih, which is hardly to be referred to khshathrahyad = zak 7 valman 7 khiddt; saré = sar- darth, so, uniformly. Urvathd = désté, giving us our earliest information. Vazdvarih may be merely transcribed, but there is always danger in talking about the ‘mere transliteration’ of the words of a mother language into those of the daughter dialect. Mother and daughter are really one. If vazdvaré was Zend, vazdvarih was Pahl. ipso facto. Ner. knew what vazd- varth meant; his pivaratvam at least is no transliteration. .Avd, if read in c, might even be regarded as carrying its force so far as déstd, ‘to his own soul’ is not the needed sense; valman would be better read to escape this last. 22. Astis, if = dsti$, might properly be referred to std = sthd as = ‘stand by’, ‘helper’; cp. Vedic pratishthts, but I think it is hardly desirable to depart from the MSS. simply to show that we are aware that @ may become 7, as in Ind. sthiti etc., etc. The simple and concrete ex- planation of the Pahl. trlr. comparing dsthi =.‘bone’ is more probable, because not so advanced as the idea of ‘helper’, ‘stand-by’ (to the Deity). Cp. also Y. 33, 2 where the MSS. also read astém, and Y. 46, 11; Y. 49, 11, where the astayé are in Hell, a locality where assistance to the Deity could scarcely be rendered. Péddkihd may possibly be a pl. in °thd, and so a literal rendering for chithrd; see the Parsi-pers. which does not see the adverb, also Ner.’s prakatatvam ‘manifest things to (DJ. avd) the wise (are these)’. See the certain freedom, as opposed to error, in what follows. The concrete khudd in this particular phrase is not bad for khshathré; see the certainly free vddinyén = hapti. Vilokayitéd in Ner. is also not bad for hapt?. XXXII, See for summary and additional notes S. B. E. XXXI pp.
2are these)’. See the certain freedom, as opposed to error, in what follows. The concrete khudd in this particular phrase is not bad for khshathré; see the certainly free vddinyén = hapti. Vilokayitéd in Ner. is also not bad for hapt?. XXXII, See for summary and additional notes S. B. E. XXXI pp. 54—67, changes in opinion decided upon since its composition are however not uni- formly noted. 1, Ahydché (so to be read) refers to the subject in paouru (or pouru). aé(é)ndo v.6, in naé(é)chtd(t) vidvdo in v. 7, to dussasti$ in v. 9, to the subject in yasché vadaré vdizhdad(t) ashduné(é) in v. 10. This person re- presented his evil daé(é)tu, verezéna, and airyaman; see Y. 33, 4(?), Y. 46, 1, Y. 46, 5. Ydsad(t) = ‘prayed’ (not ‘wished’); cp. yds@, Y. 28, 1. Spiegel’s important mahmt = smdsi_ ig, notwithstanding its interesting character, hardly tenable. Haug, following the Pahl. indirectly, is correct. Mahmi 471 mandi are both loc. in meaning (Justi), and there is no reason whatever (except a desire to differ for the sake of differing) why manéc should not be compared with the Indian °manw, or even with the fem. mand. The latter by a familiar transition might well account for a masc. mana. Manahydcha (Y. 71, 3) proves the certainty of a stem mana in Zend, as manayd points to the fem. and manaé(e)ibyé (?) to the masc. Others insist upon a dat. infin., but, if such be the form, the word is still used in the sense of the loc. Mahmi = ‘through me’ is improbable. The prosaic attempt made by able scholars to string lines a and 6 together is, I think, a mistake, as is the neglect to supply the ever-recurring form of ah = ‘to be’, where indicated as in line 6, with Daé(é)vd (hent?), and with mahmi mandi, the latter words being obviously intended to agree. Antithesis, a chief agent in poetical diction, is present in ahydchd and mahmit: ‘His baé(é)tu prayed (as the holy prophet did in Y. 28, 1); his are the Daé(é)vas, but in my venerating thought 7s the friendship, or friend, of Mazda’. That a and b should be addressed to the Devils (the Demons, informing them (even in defiance) that the community desire to know the disposition of Ahura Mazda is, I think, unlikely. Haug’s ad ortus = urvdzem 4 is not desirable; his mahmi mandi = ‘in my opinion’ is better. Pahl. Zak is gen. by position; see ahydchd, and Ner.’s asya; ydn is gloss; see Ner.; read ‘- - - in his proprietorship, or kinship (that is, as lord, or kinsman) - - -’. (A propos of varying Zend texts attested by the Pahl. trls. in this and other chapters, I repeat once more that the Pahl. trls. which appear in our MSS. are very improbably the untouched work of any original Pahlavi commentator. They were unquestionably modified at every rearrangement, and finally transcribed by a copyist who often blundered, and paid little regard to the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between Gatha text and Pahl. trl.) In Ner.
3improbably the untouched work of any original Pahlavi commentator. They were unquestionably modified at every rearrangement, and finally transcribed by a copyist who often blundered, and paid little regard to the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between Gatha text and Pahl. trl.) In Ner. I supply ‘we are’ from the ‘I am’ of his gloss, as his glosses are, unlike many of those of the Pahlavi, probably contemporaneous with his text. 2. Sdremné, according to Haug’s one-sided investigation, was simply from sar = Sk. eri = ‘to lean’, ‘to seek shelter’, a sense akin to the Iranian, but by no means dominating it. According to the latest comparative philology, sar would be more original than ¢gr7. The verb sar = ‘to head’, ‘protect’, ‘rule’ came from the noun sar which is degenerated in g¢iras. Can the Deity be said to ‘lean toward’ vohu manah, while khshathréd(t) hachéd is taken merely to modify ‘answered’?: ‘He answered from His King- dom’. How much better to yield to the evidence of a comparative philo- logy which takes in the Persian and Pahlavi, and not to a comparative philo- eo ae 472 logy built up on a total disregard of the Iranian languages. I think there- fore that we had better follow the ancient scholar in his admirably free pavan sardérih. Otherwise saré in Y. 81, 21 has a meaning radically opposed to sdéremné. Ahura ‘rules’ from His kingdom’, He does not ‘answer from His kingdom’. This verse moreover confirms my recognition of the antithesis in v. 1. Verse 1 is a graphic contest between two supplicants petitioning, not from the same Deity, but from opposed Deities. The evil party, whose ¢aé(é)tu, as in Y. 46, 1, works for them, prays, and naturally enough the answer of the Devils (Daé(é)vas) is not reported in the holy hymn. They are already spurned in line c, y. 1. Ahura now utters his sharply pointed: ‘We have chosen your Ready Mind; according to your prayer; Ours shall she be’. And v. 3 is an indirect answer of Ahura to the petition of the Daé(é)vas contained in the ydsad(t) of v. 1. Afigra Mainyu is not reported as answering, but Ahura answers, and the entire chapter expresses what he has to say. Haug, for the most part, well follows the general indications of Ner., properly disregarding his syntax. The Pahl. trlr., rendering many forms literally, proceeds on the whole freely. Omitting va with DJ. A.- - + hamkhék nadik kardd may be ren- dered: ‘A. made a good friend’. I had rendered: ‘ And A., the good, he made his good friend’. Lekim rdi should of course equal vé; I doubtfully add ‘on your account’. I should think that wiceshate in Ner. (cp. geshant. Whitney’s Verbs, also vigesha = ‘distinction’) ought to mean ‘He makes a — distinction’; see the text to which it is gloss, But I have later thought of ‘he distinguishes himself by his teachership’ explaining the preceding sa- harevardt = ‘sovereignty’. According to the later Parsi Spenta Ar(a)- mati = Spendarmad was a name for the earth; see Y. 47, 3, 3.
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.