Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1hat is to say, he renders at times as a particle meaning ‘according to these things’, ‘as one observes’, and at times as a particle containing the idea of a prep. of approach (not necessarily thinking of ¢ = ‘to go’ at all); 1. , he renders alternatively. Andi$ = andgantd = anaydténishnth radi in Y. 28, 9, n@ ’gachchhanti = la ydtind in Y. 53, 6, and andgantad = min ana- yatdnishno in Y. 53, 8, while here we have anirikshaniyd and andgamatvdt, alternatives. ' 16. Haug correctly follows the etymology suggested by the Pahl. trir. as reported by Ner. for ushuruyé. Accepting the reading syaschit, he could only render adjacens, or similarly. Cujus me ad rem-omnino for yéhyd ma dithischit is hardly judicious. Spiegel, as to this last, boldly follows tradition (sic). I however can only venture to put its suggestions in the second place. Haug’s Adewndos faciam has had no followers as a translation for ishyéng anhayd. See S.B.E. XXXI, p. 66. Ushuruyé(é) is, I now think, a miswriting for ushi + wruvé(é) (ep. the frequent miswriting of y for v else- where, ushé being a dat. (cp. Ind. uti), and urwve(é) = urdve, or urvé(é) (ep. gegve); by synthesis with three syllables, (yé) ushyurvé, the meaning being ‘for wide enlightenment, that is, teaching’, We should not indeed hesitate to overlook etymology where it is imperative to do so, but the father of Zend etymology, the Pahl. trir., should not be too hastily abandoned here. (It is to be hoped that even the most inactive student is aware that the one characteristic which all must praise in the Pahl. trir. is a never ceasing and, in the overwhelming number of instances, correct effort to indicate the etymology, his real, or supposed, errors lying in grammatical connection). ‘With enlarged intelligence’ is especially applicable in Y. 84, 7, with vaé(¢)d° in one line, and nac(é)chim tém anyem ytshmad(t) vae(éjdéd in another. Reading schyaschid(t), it is especially in place here. Adthis, eae Cee Pee re re Wee ee eat eet 487 see 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 67. Dvaé(é)tha, poss. to bi = ‘to fear’, = ‘terrors’, d being not organic, vaé(é)tha = baé(é)thd; ep. non-organic f in #(d)bad(é)sh°. For the shattered zednd@ here and in Y. 47, 2 (cp. also zedonhd Y. 28, 11, and ged vd in Y. 29, 7) we may say that except here, the context every- where speaks for the restoration of donhd, or énd, and here also it is rather favourable than the contrary. We have ‘with words from the mouth - ‘declare from the mouth’, ‘and delivering doctrinal statements from the mouth (?)’, and here ‘missives (¢s(k)yeig = *eshydni (2), as vispeig may equal vigvdni, in Y. 28, 1, from the mouth’; see the entire context with its denun- ciations. No causative of ah = as occurs in Zend, or Vedic; this is however no argument at all against the possibility of such a formation here. The Pahl. ham, rendered ‘equally’, in accordance with the glossaries, may, I think, mean ‘all’ in these translations. See Ner.’s sarvam, otherwise Ner. saw hamak in the MS.
2tive of ah = as occurs in Zend, or Vedic; this is however no argument at all against the possibility of such a formation here. The Pahl. ham, rendered ‘equally’, in accordance with the glossaries, may, I think, mean ‘all’ in these translations. See Ner.’s sarvam, otherwise Ner. saw hamak in the MS. before him. The trlr. evidently read schy- aschid(t). ‘By the sovereignty of A.’ fairly rendered: ‘A. as ruling well’. Kiné avi (so D.) = ‘vengeance for’. The idea of 7§(k)yzng is tentatively rendered by khvdstdr. The idea of anhayd, as a form of ah, so understood, and therefore as expressing ‘existence’ seems to account for arjdnikih. ‘Non- existence’ was the synonym of demerit with the Parsis of a thousand years ago. Amat, corresponding to yo, seems to show that the Pahl. MS. used by Ner. read mén for amat, as our present MSS. frequently do. Y. XXXII. See for summary and further remarks S. B. E. XXXI, pp. 68 — 79. Changes in opinion arrived at since its composition are not invariably noted here. 1. That ratus is the proper reading, as equalling the personal subject, I regard as being beyond a doubt. As observed 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 72, I follow the Pahl. here with great reluctance. My alternative translation there sees in yé&e)hydchd - - - mithahyd (a partitive gen. governed by hémydsaité(é), and ydchd héi @ erezvad, the needed antithesis; but the antithesis is also recognized in my accepted rendering here. In my rendering above I escape taking mthahyd as a (most suspicious) nom. pl. neutr., but I must accept a change of structure for yachd hédi @ erezvd. I would modify my alternative rendering now. Ydchd héi @ erezvd may be adverbially used, as so often, (cp. the constant usage in Greek); ‘and according to what things seem. to him just (in the other). But it may well be, on the other hand, that S(k)yaothand (syaothnd) is understood, with a transfer of subject in line c from line 4: ‘The deeds of whose fraud (the frauds of the one) he will reach (he administers justice to), and what ere (or seem) to him the right- So 488 eous deeds of the other’. Ydsaité(¢) to yam + hem (governing the gen. mithahyd, or acc. s(k)yaothnd understood) = ‘come up with’, ‘overtake’. Otherwise yat + ham = ‘strive in rivalry together’; ‘whose good and evil deeds are balanced’, ‘strive together’, so in §. B. E. XXXI, of the Hamistakan. Otherwise hém(e)mydsaité(é) = ‘are mixed’, to mis, mais, so, some scholars. But the doctrine of the Hamistakan is anything but Gathic, as is also the distinction between good and evil Zoroastrians. This latter belongs entirely to the later Avesta; in the Gadthds we have the struggle for existence as against the Da6(6)va-worshipping foe. I therefore prefer my original explanation, and regard my later one in S. B. E. XXXI, 72, as the doubtful alternative. Mithahyd is a most suspicious neut. pl. in view of yé(¢)hyd.
3entirely to the later Avesta; in the Gadthds we have the struggle for existence as against the Da6(6)va-worshipping foe. I therefore prefer my original explanation, and regard my later one in S. B. E. XXXI, 72, as the doubtful alternative. Mithahyd is a most suspicious neut. pl. in view of yé(¢)hyd. Haug here equals the acknowledged, or supposed oddity of ‘tradition’ by his perficienti for vareshaité(é), and his totam-rem colenti for hem ’m (sic) jdsaité(é). The Pahl. renders @§ as ‘by the observation of’, or better ‘in con- sideration of these things’; a merely amplified instr. (so elsewhere). Aside from the Gatha read: (4) ‘In the case of a lord, his actions are to be done righteously ; [with a Dastur] who is wicked, one prays that he may become righteous, [and with a righteous Dastur, one desires him to become even more righteous], etc’. 2. Notice the adverbial loc. vanhdu used exactly as in Y. 47, 6. See also the adverbial loc. in vanhdu sravaht in Y. 30, 10. Astim = tandm = ‘person’ or ‘people’; with some, astim = dstiyem = “stand-by, help’; @ + std (= sthd); so, possibly, but cp. Y. 46, 12. where simply ‘person’ is the better meaning; to dsthi(?) = ‘bone’. I see no reason for abandoning the far more natural rendering of zaoshé(é) ‘in the friendship, love’ for the colder, if more theological, ‘in Thy will’. It is not very probable that Ahura should be besought (v.10) to grant all the hujéti, ‘blessings of life’, ‘in, or according to His will’, or to ‘please Himself’. Zaoshé(é) means I think there ‘in His good will’, ‘friendship’, or ‘love’ to the believer beyond any doubt. And here it similarly refers, with change of subject, to the love of the believer for his God. See the loc. in both places. Vérdi might more properly express the will of Ahura; but I think a more commonplace con- ception probable. Rddeiti, to Ind. rddh. Haug, well following the hints of Ner. in general in his verbatim trl., is unfortunate in departing from him in non-enistentiam for astém, and in propugnaculo for vdrdt. Oe Vaeleta seems to be a nom. masc. in @ (comp. ahi). The absence of the s is to be remarked as having no analogy in the Sk. @ nouns. It is of course not impossibly a soc. instr, Verezényd = ‘working-class’ may be well compared, as to form, with vrijania. Vidas, part. pres. from second Ww Feces aes ae, r Pe 4 489 vid = ‘inventive’, ‘clever in acquisition’; cp. vidatgdvao, Some seem to prefer the meaning ‘devoted’, to vidh (?), or vi-dayas to — (?) (possibly dé). Védstré(é) = ‘in the field’, ‘in the sacred service of Vohu Manah as representing the holy commonwealth’. Haug, while for the most part well following the hints of Ner. as to the root ideas present, is yet I think mis- taken in domesticorum-duorum vel servorum-duorum clientium-duorum for batth vd atvd (sic) verezényd airyamnd. He well abandons Ner. in his hint as to vahistd. The earlier Pahl. trlr. had some form of vakhsh before him, or, more probably, misread the Pahl.
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.
1hat is to say, he renders at times as a particle meaning ‘according to these things’, ‘as one observes’, and at times as a particle containing the idea of a prep. of approach (not necessarily thinking of ¢ = ‘to go’ at all); 1. , he renders alternatively. Andi$ = andgantd = anaydténishnth radi in Y. 28, 9, n@ ’gachchhanti = la ydtind in Y. 53, 6, and andgantad = min ana- yatdnishno in Y. 53, 8, while here we have anirikshaniyd and andgamatvdt, alternatives. ' 16. Haug correctly follows the etymology suggested by the Pahl. trir. as reported by Ner. for ushuruyé. Accepting the reading syaschit, he could only render adjacens, or similarly. Cujus me ad rem-omnino for yéhyd ma dithischit is hardly judicious. Spiegel, as to this last, boldly follows tradition (sic). I however can only venture to put its suggestions in the second place. Haug’s Adewndos faciam has had no followers as a translation for ishyéng anhayd. See S.B.E. XXXI, p. 66. Ushuruyé(é) is, I now think, a miswriting for ushi + wruvé(é) (ep. the frequent miswriting of y for v else- where, ushé being a dat. (cp. Ind. uti), and urwve(é) = urdve, or urvé(é) (ep. gegve); by synthesis with three syllables, (yé) ushyurvé, the meaning being ‘for wide enlightenment, that is, teaching’, We should not indeed hesitate to overlook etymology where it is imperative to do so, but the father of Zend etymology, the Pahl. trir., should not be too hastily abandoned here. (It is to be hoped that even the most inactive student is aware that the one characteristic which all must praise in the Pahl. trir. is a never ceasing and, in the overwhelming number of instances, correct effort to indicate the etymology, his real, or supposed, errors lying in grammatical connection). ‘With enlarged intelligence’ is especially applicable in Y. 84, 7, with vaé(¢)d° in one line, and nac(é)chim tém anyem ytshmad(t) vae(éjdéd in another. Reading schyaschid(t), it is especially in place here. Adthis, eae Cee Pee re re Wee ee eat eet 487 see 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 67. Dvaé(é)tha, poss. to bi = ‘to fear’, = ‘terrors’, d being not organic, vaé(é)tha = baé(é)thd; ep. non-organic f in #(d)bad(é)sh°. For the shattered zednd@ here and in Y. 47, 2 (cp. also zedonhd Y. 28, 11, and ged vd in Y. 29, 7) we may say that except here, the context every- where speaks for the restoration of donhd, or énd, and here also it is rather favourable than the contrary. We have ‘with words from the mouth - ‘declare from the mouth’, ‘and delivering doctrinal statements from the mouth (?)’, and here ‘missives (¢s(k)yeig = *eshydni (2), as vispeig may equal vigvdni, in Y. 28, 1, from the mouth’; see the entire context with its denun- ciations. No causative of ah = as occurs in Zend, or Vedic; this is however no argument at all against the possibility of such a formation here. The Pahl. ham, rendered ‘equally’, in accordance with the glossaries, may, I think, mean ‘all’ in these translations. See Ner.’s sarvam, otherwise Ner. saw hamak in the MS.
2tive of ah = as occurs in Zend, or Vedic; this is however no argument at all against the possibility of such a formation here. The Pahl. ham, rendered ‘equally’, in accordance with the glossaries, may, I think, mean ‘all’ in these translations. See Ner.’s sarvam, otherwise Ner. saw hamak in the MS. before him. The trlr. evidently read schy- aschid(t). ‘By the sovereignty of A.’ fairly rendered: ‘A. as ruling well’. Kiné avi (so D.) = ‘vengeance for’. The idea of 7§(k)yzng is tentatively rendered by khvdstdr. The idea of anhayd, as a form of ah, so understood, and therefore as expressing ‘existence’ seems to account for arjdnikih. ‘Non- existence’ was the synonym of demerit with the Parsis of a thousand years ago. Amat, corresponding to yo, seems to show that the Pahl. MS. used by Ner. read mén for amat, as our present MSS. frequently do. Y. XXXII. See for summary and further remarks S. B. E. XXXI, pp. 68 — 79. Changes in opinion arrived at since its composition are not invariably noted here. 1. That ratus is the proper reading, as equalling the personal subject, I regard as being beyond a doubt. As observed 8. B. E. XXXI, p. 72, I follow the Pahl. here with great reluctance. My alternative translation there sees in yé&e)hydchd - - - mithahyd (a partitive gen. governed by hémydsaité(é), and ydchd héi @ erezvad, the needed antithesis; but the antithesis is also recognized in my accepted rendering here. In my rendering above I escape taking mthahyd as a (most suspicious) nom. pl. neutr., but I must accept a change of structure for yachd hédi @ erezvd. I would modify my alternative rendering now. Ydchd héi @ erezvd may be adverbially used, as so often, (cp. the constant usage in Greek); ‘and according to what things seem. to him just (in the other). But it may well be, on the other hand, that S(k)yaothand (syaothnd) is understood, with a transfer of subject in line c from line 4: ‘The deeds of whose fraud (the frauds of the one) he will reach (he administers justice to), and what ere (or seem) to him the right- So 488 eous deeds of the other’. Ydsaité(¢) to yam + hem (governing the gen. mithahyd, or acc. s(k)yaothnd understood) = ‘come up with’, ‘overtake’. Otherwise yat + ham = ‘strive in rivalry together’; ‘whose good and evil deeds are balanced’, ‘strive together’, so in §. B. E. XXXI, of the Hamistakan. Otherwise hém(e)mydsaité(é) = ‘are mixed’, to mis, mais, so, some scholars. But the doctrine of the Hamistakan is anything but Gathic, as is also the distinction between good and evil Zoroastrians. This latter belongs entirely to the later Avesta; in the Gadthds we have the struggle for existence as against the Da6(6)va-worshipping foe. I therefore prefer my original explanation, and regard my later one in S. B. E. XXXI, 72, as the doubtful alternative. Mithahyd is a most suspicious neut. pl. in view of yé(¢)hyd.
3entirely to the later Avesta; in the Gadthds we have the struggle for existence as against the Da6(6)va-worshipping foe. I therefore prefer my original explanation, and regard my later one in S. B. E. XXXI, 72, as the doubtful alternative. Mithahyd is a most suspicious neut. pl. in view of yé(¢)hyd. Haug here equals the acknowledged, or supposed oddity of ‘tradition’ by his perficienti for vareshaité(é), and his totam-rem colenti for hem ’m (sic) jdsaité(é). The Pahl. renders @§ as ‘by the observation of’, or better ‘in con- sideration of these things’; a merely amplified instr. (so elsewhere). Aside from the Gatha read: (4) ‘In the case of a lord, his actions are to be done righteously ; [with a Dastur] who is wicked, one prays that he may become righteous, [and with a righteous Dastur, one desires him to become even more righteous], etc’. 2. Notice the adverbial loc. vanhdu used exactly as in Y. 47, 6. See also the adverbial loc. in vanhdu sravaht in Y. 30, 10. Astim = tandm = ‘person’ or ‘people’; with some, astim = dstiyem = “stand-by, help’; @ + std (= sthd); so, possibly, but cp. Y. 46, 12. where simply ‘person’ is the better meaning; to dsthi(?) = ‘bone’. I see no reason for abandoning the far more natural rendering of zaoshé(é) ‘in the friendship, love’ for the colder, if more theological, ‘in Thy will’. It is not very probable that Ahura should be besought (v.10) to grant all the hujéti, ‘blessings of life’, ‘in, or according to His will’, or to ‘please Himself’. Zaoshé(é) means I think there ‘in His good will’, ‘friendship’, or ‘love’ to the believer beyond any doubt. And here it similarly refers, with change of subject, to the love of the believer for his God. See the loc. in both places. Vérdi might more properly express the will of Ahura; but I think a more commonplace con- ception probable. Rddeiti, to Ind. rddh. Haug, well following the hints of Ner. in general in his verbatim trl., is unfortunate in departing from him in non-enistentiam for astém, and in propugnaculo for vdrdt. Oe Vaeleta seems to be a nom. masc. in @ (comp. ahi). The absence of the s is to be remarked as having no analogy in the Sk. @ nouns. It is of course not impossibly a soc. instr, Verezényd = ‘working-class’ may be well compared, as to form, with vrijania. Vidas, part. pres. from second Ww Feces aes ae, r Pe 4 489 vid = ‘inventive’, ‘clever in acquisition’; cp. vidatgdvao, Some seem to prefer the meaning ‘devoted’, to vidh (?), or vi-dayas to — (?) (possibly dé). Védstré(é) = ‘in the field’, ‘in the sacred service of Vohu Manah as representing the holy commonwealth’. Haug, while for the most part well following the hints of Ner. as to the root ideas present, is yet I think mis- taken in domesticorum-duorum vel servorum-duorum clientium-duorum for batth vd atvd (sic) verezényd airyamnd. He well abandons Ner. in his hint as to vahistd. The earlier Pahl. trlr. had some form of vakhsh before him, or, more probably, misread the Pahl.
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.