Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1e Haug) 3°¢ pl. perf.; ‘. - who ag the instructed of the Good Mind have proclaimed blessings to us, producing the treasures of the Good Mind (recall the shtz) 503 in weal or woe’. Chakhrayé to chdkri (not 2"4 sg. with H.). I can see no valid reason at all for distorting the plain words wshi-uri. Ushi (sic) and uri might well both be instr., or, taken together, they might well be a descriptive compositum with the adjective last, a form seldom or never found in Sanskrit. And ‘with wide apprehension’ should be no more considered an improbable meaning than wrugdnsa = ‘commanding afar’. I hardly like Haug’s possessa = vaédemna. Pahl. The concrete aredrdé is rendered by the abstract rddih. The trlr. was not ignorant that yé¢ = man. If hi-varishné were indeed figura- tively applied to raé(é)khndo, it would be a fine rendering, but it is difficult to believe that it was so intended. No a priv. is seen in aspénchid(t). It was read dspénchid(¢), probably affording an important emendation. Chakh- rayo was referred to its proper root (cp. chdkri). I had read ahardyindnd on account of vddindid, and Ner.’s gloss., but ahardyindn? is better in case we venture on the easy emendation vddindni. Without gloss read: ‘when I shall fulfil righteousness, do ye then bestow deliverance upon us’. 8. I formerly read dayanté(é) = bhdyante, rendering: ‘They are terrified by these our actions’; but see the connection, the apprehension expressed in v. 7, and the rest of v. 8. It is our duty in exegesis to render from the context, or else to deny that the context is original. ‘By these actions they terrify us’, reading dayaint? as having transitive sense, disturbs the analogy with dhdyante, but this cannot be helped. See Yt. 17, 12 Aé(é)shiim aspdonhd bayainti dsavé ravé-frathmané etc.; here bayainti cannot mean ‘take fright’; (or read bavainti (?)). Aé(é)sham ustrdonhd bayainte(?) v.15. In the Vedic the transitive sense has disappeared except in the cau- Sative. Y0¢ néid(t) ashem mainyantd is a varying expression for the dreg- vanits who were opposed to the ‘Holy Order’ of the cause. The absence of Asha from these has its parallelism in the next verse. Indian students should be on their guard against Haug’s affligas cognatum (inimicum) tut Sapiens! angore edicto, for asaojydo ndidydonhem thwahya Mazda asta _urvaitahyd, more freely; den nahverwandten Feind mégest du durch deinen Ausspruch, Weiser! dngstigen:,, die, etc. His suggestion that we have a citation is however well worth considering. His text voht asmand = a- lucente coelo is again misleading. The Pahl. trlr. is free, or erroneous in the difficult 6 with the word which I could only decipher in view of its original, as ‘néhddad’ (?) (Sp. n, h, 4, 7, tf). D.’s MS. might be read nihddino (sic). I formerly corrected to nihddo in accordance with Ner. and the Pers.: Sp. suggests nihan. But I think it more than probable that we have here a partial so-called transliteration rather than a translation.
2of its original, as ‘néhddad’ (?) (Sp. n, h, 4, 7, tf). D.’s MS. might be read nihddino (sic). I formerly corrected to nihddo in accordance with Ner. and the Pers.: Sp. suggests nihan. But I think it more than probable that we have here a partial so-called transliteration rather than a translation. The letters of D. might possibly be read n, @, h, d, y, 6, n, (?) 504 dahishn. Ner. understood a naga (?) in the sense of nihan, that is, as a word given up, the root being loosely indicated. Néd might well be a Pahl. word descended from the Zend. As more ordinary Pahl. read: ‘to whom yet in that which happens there is great destruction - - - (6 with nihadad) > + - the one who conceals the gifts which belong to Thy disciples, etc’, 9. Yi is curious in view of avazazad(t), but it is attested by aée(é)ibyo. Vidushé is not from vid = ‘to worship’, and this is proved by its antithesis evistt (which however some would render ‘behind the back’ (of the congre- gation, V. M.). If the long 7 of vidushé points toward the nasalized vid, we must answer that in the older language of the Avesta the distinction be- tween the two forms had not worked itself out as in the Vedic. Vaé(é)demné has the two senses being ‘known’, and found, ‘obtained’, also ‘knowing’, ‘possessing’. Avazazad(t) is irregularly the sg. with the pl. pronoun, not a neut. See v. 3 where the fem. pl. may possibly agree (?) with the sg. verb; see also Y. 32, 13 where marekhtard.. - Jigerezad(t) is found, appar- ently a pl. masc. with sg. verb, Perhaps a correction is here indicated to °an, °en. But is it critical to Suppose that no irregularities ever occurred in ancient grammar?; cp. Greek pl. fem. with sg. verb. The word is obviously from 2¢ = hd, as is proved by the varying expression syazdad(t). As to mas, it is an ace. sg. neut. adverbially used, meaning, as the Pahl. trlr. long since indicated, ‘much’. It stands related to mazdi as hoares (= huvares) is related to sraosha - vereza. Reading mash, we might compare maksh (cp. tash = taksh), and as possessing the meaning ‘suddenly’, moz. This would agree quite well enough with the kabed of the Pahl. The 0 of moshuchd = Y. 58, 8 is occasioned by an epenthetic w before wu of the termination, moshuchéd = mokshuché = maukshuchd (so moghu = maughu). The meaning ‘man’, a very old suggestion, is difficult here, as it is in Y. 32,3. As to an Aryan marts; there is at least no Vedic root in r extended by ¢or ¢s in the noun; ¢ is an extension of ?,u, and 7%. Ashé nom. pl. neut. is the sub- ject of syazdad(t). Y. 32, 3, and this line ¢ of vy. 9 constitute an obvious parallelism to verse 8. As ‘Vohu Manah’ remains aloof in the one verse, ‘Asha’s blessings’ depart in the other. Haug, avazazat = progignendo (?) - ahmad(t) = ex hoc (2), auruné = discurrentes (?).
3nom. pl. neut. is the sub- ject of syazdad(t). Y. 32, 3, and this line ¢ of vy. 9 constitute an obvious parallelism to verse 8. As ‘Vohu Manah’ remains aloof in the one verse, ‘Asha’s blessings’ depart in the other. Haug, avazazat = progignendo (?) - ahmad(t) = ex hoc (2), auruné = discurrentes (?). Some might render: ‘Who (yd) contemptuously injures (?) the holy faith which is highly prized by Thy devoted one, behind the back (in the ignorance) (2?) of the pious congregation, such a man must fly before us, as the wild beasts’. The first hémand in the Pahl. is difficult. I ventured to suggest that it might be used as a suffix afztinih-biindak-minishnd-homand; otherwise I should introduce an dkds understood. Perhaps hémand = ‘is’ should be read. ‘Theirs is the bountiful and perfect mind -..’. For the pl. sed- 505 kinyén we might emend valman to valmanshdén, but even in ordinary Pahl. nothing is more common than sg. for pl., especially after a pl. has been once expressed. In ¢ ahmad(t) was read as ahmdd(t), possibly an improve- ment, and khrafstrd is taken comitatively. In Ner. satdm is possibly meant as a gen. pl., but it is difficult. We should expect °kshepsyanti in view of the Pahl. 10. Haitham is an impossible reading. I do not see any gain from hitam, although Ner. seems to hint in that direction. Hdtam (Haug = substantiam (2)) is not so probable. But the correction haithyam is clearly indicated by haithim (haithyem) ashahyad damim (Y. 31,8). As to the difficult é voyathra, all are at a loss. One suggestion might be the reading and rendering dvoya athraé with sandhi dvéydthré = ‘here and there’, cp. dvdya, Yt. 19, 63. Haug suggested quae moventur (?) which I formerly followed as to root idea only. But I think in this confusion we may in the main accept the hint of the Pahl. trlr., who sees the element of retribution pointing to verses 9 and 8 (amidst otherwise genial allusion). I think that the word is bayathra from 02. The interchange of and » is too familiar to need defence (cp. vadh and badh, etc.) and 6 often displaces a. The word is baya + tra, nom. pl. neut. ‘All these things are the elements of terror (cp. bayaznti(é), y.8) within Thy kingdom’ for these (aé(¢)ihyd) whom Asha deserts (v. 9), and from whom Vohu Manah is afar (v. 8). See also the reference to defence against foes amidst the genial allusions of the next verse. The Pahl. seems to have seen the presence of the adverb ava = ‘down’. Some would render: ‘, .. the holy Obedience (Armaitim), the true originator (or dwelling (?)) of rectitude - - -. All these good gifts are in thy kingdom here and there’ (valuable suggestions). The Pahl. trlr. could not credit gerebam, or else he reports an earlier reading grabem. This he had rendered in Y. 31, 8 as here also (freely). Hi-khirad naturally means ‘the beneficently wise’, yet see the gloss, or alternative.
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.
1e Haug) 3°¢ pl. perf.; ‘. - who ag the instructed of the Good Mind have proclaimed blessings to us, producing the treasures of the Good Mind (recall the shtz) 503 in weal or woe’. Chakhrayé to chdkri (not 2"4 sg. with H.). I can see no valid reason at all for distorting the plain words wshi-uri. Ushi (sic) and uri might well both be instr., or, taken together, they might well be a descriptive compositum with the adjective last, a form seldom or never found in Sanskrit. And ‘with wide apprehension’ should be no more considered an improbable meaning than wrugdnsa = ‘commanding afar’. I hardly like Haug’s possessa = vaédemna. Pahl. The concrete aredrdé is rendered by the abstract rddih. The trlr. was not ignorant that yé¢ = man. If hi-varishné were indeed figura- tively applied to raé(é)khndo, it would be a fine rendering, but it is difficult to believe that it was so intended. No a priv. is seen in aspénchid(t). It was read dspénchid(¢), probably affording an important emendation. Chakh- rayo was referred to its proper root (cp. chdkri). I had read ahardyindnd on account of vddindid, and Ner.’s gloss., but ahardyindn? is better in case we venture on the easy emendation vddindni. Without gloss read: ‘when I shall fulfil righteousness, do ye then bestow deliverance upon us’. 8. I formerly read dayanté(é) = bhdyante, rendering: ‘They are terrified by these our actions’; but see the connection, the apprehension expressed in v. 7, and the rest of v. 8. It is our duty in exegesis to render from the context, or else to deny that the context is original. ‘By these actions they terrify us’, reading dayaint? as having transitive sense, disturbs the analogy with dhdyante, but this cannot be helped. See Yt. 17, 12 Aé(é)shiim aspdonhd bayainti dsavé ravé-frathmané etc.; here bayainti cannot mean ‘take fright’; (or read bavainti (?)). Aé(é)sham ustrdonhd bayainte(?) v.15. In the Vedic the transitive sense has disappeared except in the cau- Sative. Y0¢ néid(t) ashem mainyantd is a varying expression for the dreg- vanits who were opposed to the ‘Holy Order’ of the cause. The absence of Asha from these has its parallelism in the next verse. Indian students should be on their guard against Haug’s affligas cognatum (inimicum) tut Sapiens! angore edicto, for asaojydo ndidydonhem thwahya Mazda asta _urvaitahyd, more freely; den nahverwandten Feind mégest du durch deinen Ausspruch, Weiser! dngstigen:,, die, etc. His suggestion that we have a citation is however well worth considering. His text voht asmand = a- lucente coelo is again misleading. The Pahl. trlr. is free, or erroneous in the difficult 6 with the word which I could only decipher in view of its original, as ‘néhddad’ (?) (Sp. n, h, 4, 7, tf). D.’s MS. might be read nihddino (sic). I formerly corrected to nihddo in accordance with Ner. and the Pers.: Sp. suggests nihan. But I think it more than probable that we have here a partial so-called transliteration rather than a translation.
2of its original, as ‘néhddad’ (?) (Sp. n, h, 4, 7, tf). D.’s MS. might be read nihddino (sic). I formerly corrected to nihddo in accordance with Ner. and the Pers.: Sp. suggests nihan. But I think it more than probable that we have here a partial so-called transliteration rather than a translation. The letters of D. might possibly be read n, @, h, d, y, 6, n, (?) 504 dahishn. Ner. understood a naga (?) in the sense of nihan, that is, as a word given up, the root being loosely indicated. Néd might well be a Pahl. word descended from the Zend. As more ordinary Pahl. read: ‘to whom yet in that which happens there is great destruction - - - (6 with nihadad) > + - the one who conceals the gifts which belong to Thy disciples, etc’, 9. Yi is curious in view of avazazad(t), but it is attested by aée(é)ibyo. Vidushé is not from vid = ‘to worship’, and this is proved by its antithesis evistt (which however some would render ‘behind the back’ (of the congre- gation, V. M.). If the long 7 of vidushé points toward the nasalized vid, we must answer that in the older language of the Avesta the distinction be- tween the two forms had not worked itself out as in the Vedic. Vaé(é)demné has the two senses being ‘known’, and found, ‘obtained’, also ‘knowing’, ‘possessing’. Avazazad(t) is irregularly the sg. with the pl. pronoun, not a neut. See v. 3 where the fem. pl. may possibly agree (?) with the sg. verb; see also Y. 32, 13 where marekhtard.. - Jigerezad(t) is found, appar- ently a pl. masc. with sg. verb, Perhaps a correction is here indicated to °an, °en. But is it critical to Suppose that no irregularities ever occurred in ancient grammar?; cp. Greek pl. fem. with sg. verb. The word is obviously from 2¢ = hd, as is proved by the varying expression syazdad(t). As to mas, it is an ace. sg. neut. adverbially used, meaning, as the Pahl. trlr. long since indicated, ‘much’. It stands related to mazdi as hoares (= huvares) is related to sraosha - vereza. Reading mash, we might compare maksh (cp. tash = taksh), and as possessing the meaning ‘suddenly’, moz. This would agree quite well enough with the kabed of the Pahl. The 0 of moshuchd = Y. 58, 8 is occasioned by an epenthetic w before wu of the termination, moshuchéd = mokshuché = maukshuchd (so moghu = maughu). The meaning ‘man’, a very old suggestion, is difficult here, as it is in Y. 32,3. As to an Aryan marts; there is at least no Vedic root in r extended by ¢or ¢s in the noun; ¢ is an extension of ?,u, and 7%. Ashé nom. pl. neut. is the sub- ject of syazdad(t). Y. 32, 3, and this line ¢ of vy. 9 constitute an obvious parallelism to verse 8. As ‘Vohu Manah’ remains aloof in the one verse, ‘Asha’s blessings’ depart in the other. Haug, avazazat = progignendo (?) - ahmad(t) = ex hoc (2), auruné = discurrentes (?).
3nom. pl. neut. is the sub- ject of syazdad(t). Y. 32, 3, and this line ¢ of vy. 9 constitute an obvious parallelism to verse 8. As ‘Vohu Manah’ remains aloof in the one verse, ‘Asha’s blessings’ depart in the other. Haug, avazazat = progignendo (?) - ahmad(t) = ex hoc (2), auruné = discurrentes (?). Some might render: ‘Who (yd) contemptuously injures (?) the holy faith which is highly prized by Thy devoted one, behind the back (in the ignorance) (2?) of the pious congregation, such a man must fly before us, as the wild beasts’. The first hémand in the Pahl. is difficult. I ventured to suggest that it might be used as a suffix afztinih-biindak-minishnd-homand; otherwise I should introduce an dkds understood. Perhaps hémand = ‘is’ should be read. ‘Theirs is the bountiful and perfect mind -..’. For the pl. sed- 505 kinyén we might emend valman to valmanshdén, but even in ordinary Pahl. nothing is more common than sg. for pl., especially after a pl. has been once expressed. In ¢ ahmad(t) was read as ahmdd(t), possibly an improve- ment, and khrafstrd is taken comitatively. In Ner. satdm is possibly meant as a gen. pl., but it is difficult. We should expect °kshepsyanti in view of the Pahl. 10. Haitham is an impossible reading. I do not see any gain from hitam, although Ner. seems to hint in that direction. Hdtam (Haug = substantiam (2)) is not so probable. But the correction haithyam is clearly indicated by haithim (haithyem) ashahyad damim (Y. 31,8). As to the difficult é voyathra, all are at a loss. One suggestion might be the reading and rendering dvoya athraé with sandhi dvéydthré = ‘here and there’, cp. dvdya, Yt. 19, 63. Haug suggested quae moventur (?) which I formerly followed as to root idea only. But I think in this confusion we may in the main accept the hint of the Pahl. trlr., who sees the element of retribution pointing to verses 9 and 8 (amidst otherwise genial allusion). I think that the word is bayathra from 02. The interchange of and » is too familiar to need defence (cp. vadh and badh, etc.) and 6 often displaces a. The word is baya + tra, nom. pl. neut. ‘All these things are the elements of terror (cp. bayaznti(é), y.8) within Thy kingdom’ for these (aé(¢)ihyd) whom Asha deserts (v. 9), and from whom Vohu Manah is afar (v. 8). See also the reference to defence against foes amidst the genial allusions of the next verse. The Pahl. seems to have seen the presence of the adverb ava = ‘down’. Some would render: ‘, .. the holy Obedience (Armaitim), the true originator (or dwelling (?)) of rectitude - - -. All these good gifts are in thy kingdom here and there’ (valuable suggestions). The Pahl. trlr. could not credit gerebam, or else he reports an earlier reading grabem. This he had rendered in Y. 31, 8 as here also (freely). Hi-khirad naturally means ‘the beneficently wise’, yet see the gloss, or alternative.
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.