Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1gment. Mardnéé) looks far more like an infin. in the sense ‘to mark’ (cp. smarana). It might be a loc. noun infinitively used. Haug, as 1% sg, conj. = ‘dicam’, But hata marenis, actually cited from this place in the Avesta itself, as a positive name for Ahura, although in the much inter- polated Yt. 1, 8, gives colour to the view that we have a voc. here. It is unlikely that the interpolator should have invented a word which so neatly fits this mardné(é) (corrected (?)). (This by the way, proves the genuine vitality of the language at the date of the composition of Yt. 1). As to séighé in the sense of ‘praiser’, and as a nom. sg., I like the idea, but I fear it is not defensible, Szighé is either acc. pl. fem. from séngh, or a loc. from sénghu. It is of course possible as a nom. sg., but unlikely. Vidam, to da = dha + vi; cp. yd vi (or v2) ashis savdi viddydd(t). ‘To extend the doctrines in the holy state’; see the other expression to ‘establish’, or ‘produce’ the praises in Garddman: ad(t) hoi vahméeng demané(é) gard nidamd, But so simple an explanation is no longer to the taste of some Zendists. Dé = dd, and dé = dhd are the commonest verbs in the language; hence we must put into the mouth of the ancient sage something fresher. Perhaps vid in its sense of ‘gain’ would excite less prejudice than dd, as the accepted root: ‘I will discover’, that is, ‘learn your holy utterances’; (cp. y@ vé mathrad screvae(é)md rdddo). Others would bring in vidh = ‘to venerate, serve’; but what becomes of the quasi parallel vahmeng demdné(é) gard niddma? As ordinary Pahl., read as of course: ‘Upon many haters hatred is desired - - - (b) An open enumerator is A.--.-’., but in dealing with such a fettered document we must look at its original. Ath@ = asdr reminds us of hathrd, Y. 30, 9 rendered by the same word asdr. We have at least & quasi transliteration here; the th of athd@ suggested the s of asér; and 476 secondly the r (consonant generally at the end in Pahl. save in a few cases seems to show that the Pahl. trlr. read hathré or athrd, and not athé (see for reasons remarks on Y. 30, 9). The trlr. knew well enough how to render athd as it stood before him at Y. 29, 4, 31, 18; 44, 6. ete. I should render as a curiously reproduced athré (asht° is also reproduced without translation) if it were possible to get rid of the gloss. The history of the gloss was evidently this. An earlier transcriber had an uncertain Zend text, and transliterated asdér for an uncertain athrad, or hathréd. <A later scholar added the gloss which explained the Pahl. asdr, and not the badly transliterated Zend athrd (or hathré), which was imperfectly reproduced in the same letters as the true Pahl. asér = ‘endless’. Ner., as an ordinary document, would be read: ‘Much hatred he beseeches for these haters - - -’; but see the Pahl. and Gatha. 7.
2xplained the Pahl. asdr, and not the badly transliterated Zend athrd (or hathré), which was imperfectly reproduced in the same letters as the true Pahl. asér = ‘endless’. Ner., as an ordinary document, would be read: ‘Much hatred he beseeches for these haters - - -’; but see the Pahl. and Gatha. 7. Some have rendered somewhat to the following effect: ‘Not even an experienced person (védvdo) is able (that is, is ‘endowed with complete- ness”) to say (wojéé) how many living (y@ javiyd (2)) he cuts (sénghaité(é)) with his bright steel, of whose fury thou art most cognizant’. This contains suggestions well worth weighing. But naée(é)chid(t) vidvéo hardly means ‘not even an experienced, or a clever one ’, as it refers to the constant subject throughout; cp. ahyd of v. 1, yasché of verse 3, the paouru.aé(é)ndo (?) of v. 6, the dussasti$ of v. 9, the hod - - - nd of v. 10, ahyd gréhmé in y. 14. Naé(é)chid(f) means ‘nothing’, as naé(é)chis Y. 43, 6, 13. means ‘nobody’. ‘Not able (védvdo) to say’ must be carefully considered, as agq/éz is certainly more simple in its grammatical form than ajoi, the reading selected by the last Pahl. trir. At the same time such an expression seems a platitude. I strongly incline to retain, at least as an alternative, my earlier opinion that dj6¢ = zanishnd is simply correct in the significant, and well adapted sense, ‘to be smitten’. Ajéi seems at first glance only explicable (in the Sense of zanishnd) when regarded as a dat. inf. from jan = ‘to slay’, the form being compared with the dative of jé = ‘child’ from jan = ‘to pro- duce’, or ‘be born’. [(Or dj might = dayé(é), infin. of 77 = ‘to conquer’; see the metre. Infinitives in e¢) are not to be expected in 7 verbs, but ov = é¢) in khshathréi etc., and é(/) Wy, 49, are positively the Pahl. com- bination yd, as in kainy@ erroneously transliterated é (or @). J, like ¢ in geurodin = geurwayan(en), may have inherent a, like all Zend Pahl. conso- nants ; the following Uy M9 (Ww) would then = yd (dayd pl. nom. (?)). But this use of 49 = xy (45) once begun, the conditions were not strictly held to, we should not think of objecting to 4%) = yd, whereas originally it was actu- ATT ally y@, nor to its representing ye, which would be its value in vayem, a transliteration of oygarl which would be strictly vaydm for vayam. If then the two letters y + @ (4), viz. 4%, can = ye, we easily understand that the original force of 4% = yd could be further violated, and 4) may = y¢(é). This explains the actual later infin. te = tayé(¢). Strictly ac- cording to orig. use, ¢2é(¢) is teyd; but @ became used for a, and yd for ye(é), yee). From this, with 7 as possessing an inherent vowel, as other Zend consonants sometimes have, and as all Pahlavi consonants have, we should read jé¢ = = jayé(é), dat. infin.
3later infin. te = tayé(¢). Strictly ac- cording to orig. use, ¢2é(¢) is teyd; but @ became used for a, and yd for ye(é), yee). From this, with 7 as possessing an inherent vowel, as other Zend consonants sometimes have, and as all Pahlavi consonants have, we should read jé¢ = = jayé(é), dat. infin. noun inz (?).)| The evilteacher is not aware that his so-called victorious hosts are destined (Addroyd) to be smitten’, or ‘he is not able to describe (aojéé (?)) his victorious hddroyd, (hyperbole’). Hadréyé is difficult, if * sédhry@ is strictly compared. Changing the text to hadryd, it might be an adverbial instr. = ‘with fixedness, completely’. But this seems like a mechanical imitation of sddhryd, and would show the waste of three syllables, by the succinct Gathic writer, on a useless adverb. Hédroyd may be a transition form from hadri to the a declension (cp. prithu-jrdya from jri) as an acc. pl. neut, = ‘the collected possessions’, ‘the mass of the military and politico-religious forces at hand’. ‘About the destruction (4jéi - - - irikhtem) of these forces he is ignorant’, An acc, with the infin. would be indicated; ‘he does not know that his forces are to be smitten’, There isa reading ahkyd dréyd which would fill out the defective number of syllables. Drédyd like vdthréyd may show the frequently mis- written v (y = 03; cp. tanuyé = tanvé, etc.). The word may be dravd (cp. drdvinas = possessions): ‘He does not know that his possessions are to be smitten’. Some render irikhtem ‘sin’., I prefer, with the Pahl. trlr., a rendering more in accordance with Iranian etymology; cp. rich (¢ in ire has no value, cp. u in wru). The reading fréftak should be corrected by raspatak, or read ristak (?), DJ. om. ‘f’. In Y. 44, 2 the irikhtem does not mean ‘sin’. Like ahydchd and mahmi in v. 1, like the antitheses be- tween Y. 31, 15 and 31, 16, Y. 31, 19, and Y. 31, 20, etc., etc., naé(é)chitd(t) vidvdo + - - and vaée(é)distd aht are unquestionably opposed, one meaning ‘knowing nothing’, and the other meaning ‘knowing everything’. Haug’s in-acie castrorum-duorum quae auailia (sint) for addi hddroyd ya joyd has been followed by no one, also his swo ipsius modo for gaénd ayanhd, The indications of the Pahl. trir. have been followed largely by all here. Haug, except as above, well follows, as usual, the general indications, or hints, of Ner. Once more we have clear traces of a Gatba text in the Pahl, character ; 478 hddroyd (sic) would have initial s = h, or a(d); the trir. probably translit- erated ddréya, see ddréig in Y. 29, 3 which he similarly translated réshand. Joyd = zanishné does not refer that. word positively to jan = han. Ji = ‘to conquer’ is fairly rendered by zanishnd. Irikhtem = raspatak, Aside from its original, read 4; ‘who inculcate a smiting --- who have proclaimed - - -’, Ner. of course means ‘smiting’ by vighdtam = zanishnd. ‘Their smiting in the soul’ (gloss 4) shows that merely physical suffering was not borne in mind. Ner.
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.
1gment. Mardnéé) looks far more like an infin. in the sense ‘to mark’ (cp. smarana). It might be a loc. noun infinitively used. Haug, as 1% sg, conj. = ‘dicam’, But hata marenis, actually cited from this place in the Avesta itself, as a positive name for Ahura, although in the much inter- polated Yt. 1, 8, gives colour to the view that we have a voc. here. It is unlikely that the interpolator should have invented a word which so neatly fits this mardné(é) (corrected (?)). (This by the way, proves the genuine vitality of the language at the date of the composition of Yt. 1). As to séighé in the sense of ‘praiser’, and as a nom. sg., I like the idea, but I fear it is not defensible, Szighé is either acc. pl. fem. from séngh, or a loc. from sénghu. It is of course possible as a nom. sg., but unlikely. Vidam, to da = dha + vi; cp. yd vi (or v2) ashis savdi viddydd(t). ‘To extend the doctrines in the holy state’; see the other expression to ‘establish’, or ‘produce’ the praises in Garddman: ad(t) hoi vahméeng demané(é) gard nidamd, But so simple an explanation is no longer to the taste of some Zendists. Dé = dd, and dé = dhd are the commonest verbs in the language; hence we must put into the mouth of the ancient sage something fresher. Perhaps vid in its sense of ‘gain’ would excite less prejudice than dd, as the accepted root: ‘I will discover’, that is, ‘learn your holy utterances’; (cp. y@ vé mathrad screvae(é)md rdddo). Others would bring in vidh = ‘to venerate, serve’; but what becomes of the quasi parallel vahmeng demdné(é) gard niddma? As ordinary Pahl., read as of course: ‘Upon many haters hatred is desired - - - (b) An open enumerator is A.--.-’., but in dealing with such a fettered document we must look at its original. Ath@ = asdr reminds us of hathrd, Y. 30, 9 rendered by the same word asdr. We have at least & quasi transliteration here; the th of athd@ suggested the s of asér; and 476 secondly the r (consonant generally at the end in Pahl. save in a few cases seems to show that the Pahl. trlr. read hathré or athrd, and not athé (see for reasons remarks on Y. 30, 9). The trlr. knew well enough how to render athd as it stood before him at Y. 29, 4, 31, 18; 44, 6. ete. I should render as a curiously reproduced athré (asht° is also reproduced without translation) if it were possible to get rid of the gloss. The history of the gloss was evidently this. An earlier transcriber had an uncertain Zend text, and transliterated asdér for an uncertain athrad, or hathréd. <A later scholar added the gloss which explained the Pahl. asdr, and not the badly transliterated Zend athrd (or hathré), which was imperfectly reproduced in the same letters as the true Pahl. asér = ‘endless’. Ner., as an ordinary document, would be read: ‘Much hatred he beseeches for these haters - - -’; but see the Pahl. and Gatha. 7.
2xplained the Pahl. asdr, and not the badly transliterated Zend athrd (or hathré), which was imperfectly reproduced in the same letters as the true Pahl. asér = ‘endless’. Ner., as an ordinary document, would be read: ‘Much hatred he beseeches for these haters - - -’; but see the Pahl. and Gatha. 7. Some have rendered somewhat to the following effect: ‘Not even an experienced person (védvdo) is able (that is, is ‘endowed with complete- ness”) to say (wojéé) how many living (y@ javiyd (2)) he cuts (sénghaité(é)) with his bright steel, of whose fury thou art most cognizant’. This contains suggestions well worth weighing. But naée(é)chid(t) vidvéo hardly means ‘not even an experienced, or a clever one ’, as it refers to the constant subject throughout; cp. ahyd of v. 1, yasché of verse 3, the paouru.aé(é)ndo (?) of v. 6, the dussasti$ of v. 9, the hod - - - nd of v. 10, ahyd gréhmé in y. 14. Naé(é)chid(f) means ‘nothing’, as naé(é)chis Y. 43, 6, 13. means ‘nobody’. ‘Not able (védvdo) to say’ must be carefully considered, as agq/éz is certainly more simple in its grammatical form than ajoi, the reading selected by the last Pahl. trir. At the same time such an expression seems a platitude. I strongly incline to retain, at least as an alternative, my earlier opinion that dj6¢ = zanishnd is simply correct in the significant, and well adapted sense, ‘to be smitten’. Ajéi seems at first glance only explicable (in the Sense of zanishnd) when regarded as a dat. inf. from jan = ‘to slay’, the form being compared with the dative of jé = ‘child’ from jan = ‘to pro- duce’, or ‘be born’. [(Or dj might = dayé(é), infin. of 77 = ‘to conquer’; see the metre. Infinitives in e¢) are not to be expected in 7 verbs, but ov = é¢) in khshathréi etc., and é(/) Wy, 49, are positively the Pahl. com- bination yd, as in kainy@ erroneously transliterated é (or @). J, like ¢ in geurodin = geurwayan(en), may have inherent a, like all Zend Pahl. conso- nants ; the following Uy M9 (Ww) would then = yd (dayd pl. nom. (?)). But this use of 49 = xy (45) once begun, the conditions were not strictly held to, we should not think of objecting to 4%) = yd, whereas originally it was actu- ATT ally y@, nor to its representing ye, which would be its value in vayem, a transliteration of oygarl which would be strictly vaydm for vayam. If then the two letters y + @ (4), viz. 4%, can = ye, we easily understand that the original force of 4% = yd could be further violated, and 4) may = y¢(é). This explains the actual later infin. te = tayé(¢). Strictly ac- cording to orig. use, ¢2é(¢) is teyd; but @ became used for a, and yd for ye(é), yee). From this, with 7 as possessing an inherent vowel, as other Zend consonants sometimes have, and as all Pahlavi consonants have, we should read jé¢ = = jayé(é), dat. infin.
3later infin. te = tayé(¢). Strictly ac- cording to orig. use, ¢2é(¢) is teyd; but @ became used for a, and yd for ye(é), yee). From this, with 7 as possessing an inherent vowel, as other Zend consonants sometimes have, and as all Pahlavi consonants have, we should read jé¢ = = jayé(é), dat. infin. noun inz (?).)| The evilteacher is not aware that his so-called victorious hosts are destined (Addroyd) to be smitten’, or ‘he is not able to describe (aojéé (?)) his victorious hddroyd, (hyperbole’). Hadréyé is difficult, if * sédhry@ is strictly compared. Changing the text to hadryd, it might be an adverbial instr. = ‘with fixedness, completely’. But this seems like a mechanical imitation of sddhryd, and would show the waste of three syllables, by the succinct Gathic writer, on a useless adverb. Hédroyd may be a transition form from hadri to the a declension (cp. prithu-jrdya from jri) as an acc. pl. neut, = ‘the collected possessions’, ‘the mass of the military and politico-religious forces at hand’. ‘About the destruction (4jéi - - - irikhtem) of these forces he is ignorant’, An acc, with the infin. would be indicated; ‘he does not know that his forces are to be smitten’, There isa reading ahkyd dréyd which would fill out the defective number of syllables. Drédyd like vdthréyd may show the frequently mis- written v (y = 03; cp. tanuyé = tanvé, etc.). The word may be dravd (cp. drdvinas = possessions): ‘He does not know that his possessions are to be smitten’. Some render irikhtem ‘sin’., I prefer, with the Pahl. trlr., a rendering more in accordance with Iranian etymology; cp. rich (¢ in ire has no value, cp. u in wru). The reading fréftak should be corrected by raspatak, or read ristak (?), DJ. om. ‘f’. In Y. 44, 2 the irikhtem does not mean ‘sin’. Like ahydchd and mahmi in v. 1, like the antitheses be- tween Y. 31, 15 and 31, 16, Y. 31, 19, and Y. 31, 20, etc., etc., naé(é)chitd(t) vidvdo + - - and vaée(é)distd aht are unquestionably opposed, one meaning ‘knowing nothing’, and the other meaning ‘knowing everything’. Haug’s in-acie castrorum-duorum quae auailia (sint) for addi hddroyd ya joyd has been followed by no one, also his swo ipsius modo for gaénd ayanhd, The indications of the Pahl. trir. have been followed largely by all here. Haug, except as above, well follows, as usual, the general indications, or hints, of Ner. Once more we have clear traces of a Gatba text in the Pahl, character ; 478 hddroyd (sic) would have initial s = h, or a(d); the trir. probably translit- erated ddréya, see ddréig in Y. 29, 3 which he similarly translated réshand. Joyd = zanishné does not refer that. word positively to jan = han. Ji = ‘to conquer’ is fairly rendered by zanishnd. Irikhtem = raspatak, Aside from its original, read 4; ‘who inculcate a smiting --- who have proclaimed - - -’, Ner. of course means ‘smiting’ by vighdtam = zanishnd. ‘Their smiting in the soul’ (gloss 4) shows that merely physical suffering was not borne in mind. Ner.
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.