Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1rendered freely in the conj. for imper.; see Ner.’s samtishthantu, recognizing the fact that an infin. may express an imper. He did not at all Suppose stéz to be a 34 pl. conj.; see Y. 31, 8 where he renders by a 3°4 se. pres., so at Y. 45, 10; 49, 2. In Y. 46, 16 he renders as an infin., hastishn. In 50, 2 he omits in the text, in the gloss perhaps rendering ‘in time’; that is, as infin. ‘in being’, in Y. 50, 6 again as an infin. ‘hastéshnih ’. We might almost hope that these syntactically more correct renderings show freedom, or at least exceptional and accidental error in our present passage. Notice the similarity of the line a@ as to the structure of the first words here with that inv.11. The trir. did not seriously intend to render dbakhshdhvd literally as a 374 pl. He was aware that °ivd = °sva, as the Qna sg. mid. imper. term. (see for instance, dahvd = yehabinéd pl. for sg. Y. 50, 2); see its gloss frdz vakhsh which is literally a 24 gg. imper. He may be said even to make the distinction between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, hent? and bavaiitt. Ukhshyd@ is recognized as a 224 so. imper. Vakhshindi is certainly a 24 so, and I think that we have a conj. It should be remarked however that imperatives in ¢ 495 sometimes give the trirs. trouble. It is difficult to say whether Ner. meant ‘the blessings of life’ by sujtvanayah, or disciples. 11. For merezhddid we may choose the meaning ‘pardon’, or ‘purify’. ‘Pardon’ is the more objective, and therefore the more probable. Surely it ought not to be necessary to cite this verse to prove that the ‘Immortals’ were poetically, and perhaps dogmatically, personified in the Gdthds; see — however, beside other passages, Y. 28, 3, 5, 7; .Y. 29, 2, 11; Y. 34, 5, 6; Y. 48, 5; Y. 50, 5; Y. 51, 2, where others beside Ahura are addressed. As to ddd@i, some have been inclined to recognize a root ad = ‘to pray’, noticing azdé as a possible participle. Id might possibly be compared with an ad (as in with an an, in Gnmd etc.); cp. also akhsh = tksh. One scholar preferred: ‘Be merciful to me in every care’ (reading ddyé@ instr. of ddi = ddht). But the second dd, dhd is the obvious root, the form being a dative by transfer to the a declension. There appear to be no forms of the dat. neut. from @ roots in the Rig Veda; but cp. the infin. graddhé. ‘For every service rendered’ is the sense , including prayer, offering, and activity in the holy cause. See the idea more closely defined in the next verse with reference to zavé(ddd). The Pahl., proceeding with much correctness throughout, falls into dis- order by taking pact? as = pait? = ‘chieftain’ (instr. or dat.; comp. 777). ‘For the deed, or gift, = dddi’ may have been thought to be equivalent to a dat. inf. for imper.: ‘Be ye for the giving of everything to me’, rendered by; ‘give me whatever (sovereignty) there is’ (?). With Ner. spendarmad means ‘the earth’. He errs in ¢rinomi, having read am nydkhshid6, which may be a 1** sg. pret., and rendering the pret.
2een thought to be equivalent to a dat. inf. for imper.: ‘Be ye for the giving of everything to me’, rendered by; ‘give me whatever (sovereignty) there is’ (?). With Ner. spendarmad means ‘the earth’. He errs in ¢rinomi, having read am nydkhshid6, which may be a 1** sg. pret., and rendering the pret. freely as pres. Kshamaydmi following out his error in ¢rinomi equals ‘I assume the attitude of patience’, or ‘I ask indulgence’ (dmérzidé li (2) read for dmérzédé li). Mattah of the gloss, which is however omitted by Haug’s MS., would forbid of course the rendering ‘I pardon’, even if that were otherwise possible. 12. Haug is judicious here. His véva Armaiti also raises an interesting question; does ahurd refer to Armaité? It is possible, but on the whole hardly probable. Zavé.ddé@d. = hava + ddhd, as an instr. of the noun in radical ¢. Fse-ratim; fsé-occurs in three MSS. in Y. 39, 5, and @ some- times is written for @, as in yéig. fse = fs? = psd. But it may not be necessary to select the less frequent readings. If the @ can vanish alto- gether, as in wend -psnydya, vigvd-psnyasya, there is no difficulty about its becoming @ under exceptional circumstances, and it may appear even as e before vr, as it ends a syllable; fseratu = “*psd-ritu = *psa-ritu = *psartu. So fse or fsé = fshu, as psd = psu (see psdras and psuras). (S gets into 496 the shape of sh, as it does in fshébis from pas = pag; consider also Sansk. kdca = kasha from akag = kash(?)). (In this connection I beg to express my doubts as to the propriety of referring pagu to a pa¢ = ‘to bind’ (2) the process was the reverse; pag + u may have meant the ‘browser’, ‘the grazing cow’, the original form of the word being our fsé; and from the fact that it had a ‘tether’ came the notion of ‘to bind’. Pa¢(?) meant ‘to tether (the cow)’; and I strongly suspect a connection between Vedic psd and pac (?) mediated as above. The idea that primitive speech developed from verbal roots is, it is to be hoped, now past. Fsé is then the grazing cow (as is Sshu)). fatu may well be the original of ritu. We may take it as concrete, or abstract; see the other abstracts; but cp. the ratw of Y.29, 2, 6 who was to nurture and tend the sacred Cow, the agricultural chief of Y. 29,1 (see Y. 51, 4). In the abstract it was the law representing the regulator; so in Wicoleos 43.6, The earlier Pahl. trlr. grievously errs as to dreshvd, probably having had @ reshvd before him in his MSS., or at least certainly so dividing, he renders reshvd, naturally enough, as if it were from a stem in °van. Am bdzaz, in the gloss, may indeed be alternative trl. for ar(e)shva (ar), and it is very possible that a later ancient scholar, in working over the texts which lay before him, should have felt necessitated to work-in the alter- native translation, so as to make a readable whole. Am bédzdi, if gloss, ex- presses the Parsi doctrine that, purification was needed in connection with bloody wounds.
3le that a later ancient scholar, in working over the texts which lay before him, should have felt necessitated to work-in the alter- native translation, so as to make a readable whole. Am bédzdi, if gloss, ex- presses the Parsi doctrine that, purification was needed in connection with bloody wounds. Min zak would then be properly gloss with ddzd2; the original Pahl. trlr. may have read: ‘Up Ahura, from the inflictor of wounds deliver me’ (lé = méi); and then alternatively: ‘Up, Ahura, purify me’ (ar in the sense ‘perfect me’); see its form as 24 se. imper. (24 cl.). Also bitndak- minishné may well have been meant as a yoc., some scholars also holding that Ar(a)maitt, which it literally renders, may be in that form. Otherwise Ar(a)maité is taken as a comitative rather than as a pure instr.: ‘Give me energy together with a perfect mind, that is, give me energy and a perfect mind (acc.)’. From what text, or error, did his vohtiman griftér arise? The reading vanhu (vohu) yazavé ddd (sic) might have been considered as equal- ling: ‘May I establish’, or ‘take’ (notwithstanding an active form) ‘the benefit from the venerated being’. The trir. could not credit hazed in a good sense, hence his avd stahamak and gloss. There may be some question as to whether Ner.’s codhaya simply renders bézd7 repeated in the gloss, or whether he read a form of ruch; cudh might well render forms of ruch. Ner. seems to have partly detected the error of the Pahl. trl., for he puts pidakardt in the gloss. Haug’s text of Ner. is chiefly helpful in that it proves, as usual, that his MS. was independent. 497 13. Vouru-chashéné(é) may perhaps = ‘that I may see at my will’ (Darm.). If vourw = uru (so the later Av.), it occurs in the Gathas only here Ved. jéshi, joshi, as to their outward form, are not to be exactly comp. with doisht = *de¢ + st, a gunated imperatively used pres. of dis = ‘show’; use as jéshi joshi (2). (Yotst from consonantal root gunated supplies the analogon). Abifra; cp. astabifrem = asta-abifrem, Vd. 13, 44 = ‘not. double’, ‘un- doubtful’ = ‘distinct characteristic’; cp. ddvayantam, ddvayum (dva), so bi = dvi; °frem (pra) = ‘full’; cp. (spridhas) jarani-prds. Ashi§ = (more properly) ‘sacred rewards’ here, otherwise, ‘the holy rituals’, and originally purae-indoles. Daé(é)ndo may possibly = ‘souls’ here, but see fradakhstd in Y. 31,17 in the sense of ‘revealer’. Fra in fradakhshayé seems genuine and emphatic iteration, and is not interpolated like similar prefixes elsewhere. Vouru- in the Pahl. is rendered perhaps freely by kamak, chashané(é) by chdashishn referred by West to chaksh = ‘to tell’ in the Sansk. (also in the Veda), more ‘to see’ in both. In the Pahl. chdéstand seems to mean for the most part, if not exclusively ‘to teach’; ‘in a teaching according to desire’; i. e. perhaps freely = ‘in a wide teaching’ (‘wide’ to the. root in vouru(kasha) etc.
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.
1rendered freely in the conj. for imper.; see Ner.’s samtishthantu, recognizing the fact that an infin. may express an imper. He did not at all Suppose stéz to be a 34 pl. conj.; see Y. 31, 8 where he renders by a 3°4 se. pres., so at Y. 45, 10; 49, 2. In Y. 46, 16 he renders as an infin., hastishn. In 50, 2 he omits in the text, in the gloss perhaps rendering ‘in time’; that is, as infin. ‘in being’, in Y. 50, 6 again as an infin. ‘hastéshnih ’. We might almost hope that these syntactically more correct renderings show freedom, or at least exceptional and accidental error in our present passage. Notice the similarity of the line a@ as to the structure of the first words here with that inv.11. The trir. did not seriously intend to render dbakhshdhvd literally as a 374 pl. He was aware that °ivd = °sva, as the Qna sg. mid. imper. term. (see for instance, dahvd = yehabinéd pl. for sg. Y. 50, 2); see its gloss frdz vakhsh which is literally a 24 gg. imper. He may be said even to make the distinction between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, hent? and bavaiitt. Ukhshyd@ is recognized as a 224 so. imper. Vakhshindi is certainly a 24 so, and I think that we have a conj. It should be remarked however that imperatives in ¢ 495 sometimes give the trirs. trouble. It is difficult to say whether Ner. meant ‘the blessings of life’ by sujtvanayah, or disciples. 11. For merezhddid we may choose the meaning ‘pardon’, or ‘purify’. ‘Pardon’ is the more objective, and therefore the more probable. Surely it ought not to be necessary to cite this verse to prove that the ‘Immortals’ were poetically, and perhaps dogmatically, personified in the Gdthds; see — however, beside other passages, Y. 28, 3, 5, 7; .Y. 29, 2, 11; Y. 34, 5, 6; Y. 48, 5; Y. 50, 5; Y. 51, 2, where others beside Ahura are addressed. As to ddd@i, some have been inclined to recognize a root ad = ‘to pray’, noticing azdé as a possible participle. Id might possibly be compared with an ad (as in with an an, in Gnmd etc.); cp. also akhsh = tksh. One scholar preferred: ‘Be merciful to me in every care’ (reading ddyé@ instr. of ddi = ddht). But the second dd, dhd is the obvious root, the form being a dative by transfer to the a declension. There appear to be no forms of the dat. neut. from @ roots in the Rig Veda; but cp. the infin. graddhé. ‘For every service rendered’ is the sense , including prayer, offering, and activity in the holy cause. See the idea more closely defined in the next verse with reference to zavé(ddd). The Pahl., proceeding with much correctness throughout, falls into dis- order by taking pact? as = pait? = ‘chieftain’ (instr. or dat.; comp. 777). ‘For the deed, or gift, = dddi’ may have been thought to be equivalent to a dat. inf. for imper.: ‘Be ye for the giving of everything to me’, rendered by; ‘give me whatever (sovereignty) there is’ (?). With Ner. spendarmad means ‘the earth’. He errs in ¢rinomi, having read am nydkhshid6, which may be a 1** sg. pret., and rendering the pret.
2een thought to be equivalent to a dat. inf. for imper.: ‘Be ye for the giving of everything to me’, rendered by; ‘give me whatever (sovereignty) there is’ (?). With Ner. spendarmad means ‘the earth’. He errs in ¢rinomi, having read am nydkhshid6, which may be a 1** sg. pret., and rendering the pret. freely as pres. Kshamaydmi following out his error in ¢rinomi equals ‘I assume the attitude of patience’, or ‘I ask indulgence’ (dmérzidé li (2) read for dmérzédé li). Mattah of the gloss, which is however omitted by Haug’s MS., would forbid of course the rendering ‘I pardon’, even if that were otherwise possible. 12. Haug is judicious here. His véva Armaiti also raises an interesting question; does ahurd refer to Armaité? It is possible, but on the whole hardly probable. Zavé.ddé@d. = hava + ddhd, as an instr. of the noun in radical ¢. Fse-ratim; fsé-occurs in three MSS. in Y. 39, 5, and @ some- times is written for @, as in yéig. fse = fs? = psd. But it may not be necessary to select the less frequent readings. If the @ can vanish alto- gether, as in wend -psnydya, vigvd-psnyasya, there is no difficulty about its becoming @ under exceptional circumstances, and it may appear even as e before vr, as it ends a syllable; fseratu = “*psd-ritu = *psa-ritu = *psartu. So fse or fsé = fshu, as psd = psu (see psdras and psuras). (S gets into 496 the shape of sh, as it does in fshébis from pas = pag; consider also Sansk. kdca = kasha from akag = kash(?)). (In this connection I beg to express my doubts as to the propriety of referring pagu to a pa¢ = ‘to bind’ (2) the process was the reverse; pag + u may have meant the ‘browser’, ‘the grazing cow’, the original form of the word being our fsé; and from the fact that it had a ‘tether’ came the notion of ‘to bind’. Pa¢(?) meant ‘to tether (the cow)’; and I strongly suspect a connection between Vedic psd and pac (?) mediated as above. The idea that primitive speech developed from verbal roots is, it is to be hoped, now past. Fsé is then the grazing cow (as is Sshu)). fatu may well be the original of ritu. We may take it as concrete, or abstract; see the other abstracts; but cp. the ratw of Y.29, 2, 6 who was to nurture and tend the sacred Cow, the agricultural chief of Y. 29,1 (see Y. 51, 4). In the abstract it was the law representing the regulator; so in Wicoleos 43.6, The earlier Pahl. trlr. grievously errs as to dreshvd, probably having had @ reshvd before him in his MSS., or at least certainly so dividing, he renders reshvd, naturally enough, as if it were from a stem in °van. Am bdzaz, in the gloss, may indeed be alternative trl. for ar(e)shva (ar), and it is very possible that a later ancient scholar, in working over the texts which lay before him, should have felt necessitated to work-in the alter- native translation, so as to make a readable whole. Am bédzdi, if gloss, ex- presses the Parsi doctrine that, purification was needed in connection with bloody wounds.
3le that a later ancient scholar, in working over the texts which lay before him, should have felt necessitated to work-in the alter- native translation, so as to make a readable whole. Am bédzdi, if gloss, ex- presses the Parsi doctrine that, purification was needed in connection with bloody wounds. Min zak would then be properly gloss with ddzd2; the original Pahl. trlr. may have read: ‘Up Ahura, from the inflictor of wounds deliver me’ (lé = méi); and then alternatively: ‘Up, Ahura, purify me’ (ar in the sense ‘perfect me’); see its form as 24 se. imper. (24 cl.). Also bitndak- minishné may well have been meant as a yoc., some scholars also holding that Ar(a)maitt, which it literally renders, may be in that form. Otherwise Ar(a)maité is taken as a comitative rather than as a pure instr.: ‘Give me energy together with a perfect mind, that is, give me energy and a perfect mind (acc.)’. From what text, or error, did his vohtiman griftér arise? The reading vanhu (vohu) yazavé ddd (sic) might have been considered as equal- ling: ‘May I establish’, or ‘take’ (notwithstanding an active form) ‘the benefit from the venerated being’. The trir. could not credit hazed in a good sense, hence his avd stahamak and gloss. There may be some question as to whether Ner.’s codhaya simply renders bézd7 repeated in the gloss, or whether he read a form of ruch; cudh might well render forms of ruch. Ner. seems to have partly detected the error of the Pahl. trl., for he puts pidakardt in the gloss. Haug’s text of Ner. is chiefly helpful in that it proves, as usual, that his MS. was independent. 497 13. Vouru-chashéné(é) may perhaps = ‘that I may see at my will’ (Darm.). If vourw = uru (so the later Av.), it occurs in the Gathas only here Ved. jéshi, joshi, as to their outward form, are not to be exactly comp. with doisht = *de¢ + st, a gunated imperatively used pres. of dis = ‘show’; use as jéshi joshi (2). (Yotst from consonantal root gunated supplies the analogon). Abifra; cp. astabifrem = asta-abifrem, Vd. 13, 44 = ‘not. double’, ‘un- doubtful’ = ‘distinct characteristic’; cp. ddvayantam, ddvayum (dva), so bi = dvi; °frem (pra) = ‘full’; cp. (spridhas) jarani-prds. Ashi§ = (more properly) ‘sacred rewards’ here, otherwise, ‘the holy rituals’, and originally purae-indoles. Daé(é)ndo may possibly = ‘souls’ here, but see fradakhstd in Y. 31,17 in the sense of ‘revealer’. Fra in fradakhshayé seems genuine and emphatic iteration, and is not interpolated like similar prefixes elsewhere. Vouru- in the Pahl. is rendered perhaps freely by kamak, chashané(é) by chdashishn referred by West to chaksh = ‘to tell’ in the Sansk. (also in the Veda), more ‘to see’ in both. In the Pahl. chdéstand seems to mean for the most part, if not exclusively ‘to teach’; ‘in a teaching according to desire’; i. e. perhaps freely = ‘in a wide teaching’ (‘wide’ to the. root in vouru(kasha) etc.
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.