Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1iibdk-dahishnih, so zarazdéo in Y. 31, 1. First we must show from zeredachd = libbemman in Y. 31, 12 that the trlr. was perfectly aware of the proper word for ‘heart’ in Zend- Pahl. Then we must acknowledge that his réibadk dahishnih seems strangely free. Ribak is a corrupted translation, or text. Leb = ) = ‘heart’ is the Semitic original of libbemman, and it is possible that ) was reproduced in the r and & of ribék; but I have little doubt that ribanik-dahishnih = ‘devotion of the soul’ was the original. In Y.53, 7 we have sdtinédo (same element of ‘ progress’) = Zarazdistd; the idea of ribdk had become firmly implanted in the ancient exegesis. Verezeidydi (?) was divided verezei (cp. varezi.ndo (MSS.), Y. 45, 9) and dydz, hence the mischievous yehabiinam which spoils the smoothness of the rendering; but mark well that the trir. saw a first sg. pres.( =imper.-fut.) in the infin. for he could only have rendered sg. pres. after seeing infin. for imper. Haug has prarohinapraropita = lasst - + hervor- wachsen (2). Ropita (or °¢@) would seem part. of the causative conjugation. But a 3*4 pers. seems needed; see Pahl. and Gatha; I therefore had thought of two corrections. If yuydm is left (but see khshmd, and didainhé(é)), °prdropita would need mending to praropayata, imper., or °ropayitd = ‘elevator’. Haug 517 read pishmdcha for vishamdimcha against the other MSS.; and possibly mis- reading Sansk. p for v. 12. I agree alternatively with the Pahl. (here followed by Spiegel and Geldner) which introduces jasd frdkhshnené(é) as the thing said, mraos: ‘Weil du mir befohlen hast: ,komme zum Reinen--“, but see v.10. Ad(t) ta moi dais ashem hyad(t) mé zaozaomi, with no break; see also frdkhshnenem in no citation in v. 14. Frdakhshnené(é) to khshna@ (jnd) with Haug. As to the agreeable rendering asrustd = ‘(not) in my disobedience’, i. e. ‘not without my obeying’, it needs more language. Then as to the rendering: ‘Arise before my Sraosha will appear’, why ‘before’? The meaning cannot be: ‘Thou did’st (?) not call me in my disobedience; ‘arise’, before. my obedience, or my obedient one, came, or will come, to me’. A fault would also lie in referring asrustd to the speaker, with the following Syaoshé in view, meaning ‘I was obedient at first, obedience came to me before thou (?) didst (?) declare’. Such a cumbrous and twisted diction is excessively improbable, and the imperative pairyaoghzhd makes it impossible. The meaning is that obedient followers stood ready before he was ordered to march. The infin. for imper. presents no difficulty, as it exists in many languages: ‘Do not declare to me unheard-of things, to go forth to-- - (= ‘go thou forth’. ‘You told me to go’ = ‘you told me, ‘go’’). <Asrustd (with Spiegel and Geldner loc. of asrust’) is more naturally acc. pl. nt., another word for agustd, Y. 31, 1. It may well mean ‘not gladly, or obediently, heard’. Pairyaoghzhd, 284 sg. imper. sa aor.
2things, to go forth to-- - (= ‘go thou forth’. ‘You told me to go’ = ‘you told me, ‘go’’). <Asrustd (with Spiegel and Geldner loc. of asrust’) is more naturally acc. pl. nt., another word for agustd, Y. 31, 1. It may well mean ‘not gladly, or obediently, heard’. Pairyaoghzhd, 284 sg. imper. sa aor. of aog = vach; some would render ‘Thou did’st call’(?). For uzireidydi, externally only like irddhydi, cp. for sense, Vedic ar, or trate, trayddhydi; ‘arise’, or, ‘go forth’, possibly ‘arouse’. Sraoshd indicates the missing subject in v. 7, 9, 11, 13, 15. Ash? (here hardly per- sonified) means ‘with a blessing as a recompense’. Mazdrayd is now again read by some, and rendered ‘wealthy’; better as ‘glorious’; cp. ddathrdva, or divided mazd rayd ‘with great splendour’. ‘Bribing the chiefs through the wealthy Ashi’ is not indicated, nor could maz@ ray@ mean ‘with much money’. dndibyd (so with most MSS., not in the dual) is, together with the absence of the Fire, adverse to Haug’s brilliant comparison with the arani; one scholar prefers ‘with the associated ones’, see on Y. 31, 1, 2. Compare the dsaydo of Y. 31, 2. In Y. 31, 8; 51, 9 it is khshniitem ‘satis- faction’, ‘settling of the dispute? to the two sides, khshniitem being used, in spite of the evil character of one of the disputing parties, on account of the holy character of the other. So here ash#s, the sacred blessings as reward, are used because one of the réna was the holy party in the struggle. See also the striking y@o ddo ashi dregvdité(é) ashdunaé(é)cha; cp. also Y. 31, 12 where Ar(a)maiti questions the two spirits, one of them the mithah- roger 2 tO 518 vachdo, in their abode, maé(é)thd, an expression elsewhere used in a good sense, and described by éathré. So also the dat. inf. savdéi is used in view of the righteous element in rdndibyd. As to Geldner’s welcome, but hardly tenable, suggestion with regard to rdndibyé, see on Y. 31, 2. Yamtinishni, strictly a fut. pass. part., but here as infin. for imper. is better; see jasd. DJ.’s min-- li should not be inserted in line 4, but Zi is essential, see however the Parsi-pers. which has the entire insertion, almost enforcing a text in that sense, Spiegel having no word for méi (so also M1). I take li from DJ.’s text. With DJ.’s full text min zak i li (see also Ner. and the Parsi-pers.) we have the inferior, (b) ‘it was from no refusal on my part to hear Thee that it was declared by Thee’; see also the gloss. Yehabiéntand in the gloss points to varzishnd yehabiinam in e v.11. ‘The lifting up’ henjishn(th), infin. for imper. = uzireidyd@i. Rdst = ashé (insufficiently). The gloss [va Vishtdsp] forces the translation of ménash - - ratit--. Ratt so, according to authority, I should suggest radé (so tand for tani). Or read réd6 (diff. word) see Ner., and the Parsi-pers. (which would would render a rad) ‘with whom is the great liberal one’, less foreign to the original which, with some, might = ‘with great gift’ (?).
3ménash - - ratit--. Ratt so, according to authority, I should suggest radé (so tand for tani). Or read réd6 (diff. word) see Ner., and the Parsi-pers. (which would would render a rad) ‘with whom is the great liberal one’, less foreign to the original which, with some, might = ‘with great gift’ (?). The gloss however carries us wide. Raté elsewhere (not here) = guruh (Ner.) (rad in the Parsi-pers.), not °ddird as here, and that in spite of the gloss. In Y. 33, 7 radé = Sk. dakshinéh = Parsi-pers. — rad = rdtayd. In Y.33, 14 pavan rédih renders ratam, Sansk. dakshinaya = — Parsi-pers. pah radi: in v.9 rdtam is rendered rad6, Sansk. dakshin?, Parsi- pers. sakhdw(v)at; I think therefore that the Sansk. and Parsi-pers. indicate — an emendation of rddé for rat (radd) here. Levatman well renders the idea of . hachimné, so elsewhere. The trir., as ever, sees the ‘strivers’ in ranoibyd, | whether offering the relics of a rendering which recognized the ‘rubbing sticks’, — I will not say.. Without glosses: ‘When also Ye said to me; ‘by thee (there 7 should be) an abundant coming to righteousness; (6) thus by Thee not-hearing (the not-obeyed-thing) was not declared to me; ‘(let there be) an arousing’ (lift up’); this was not said by You before Srésh (obedience) the righteous | comes to me, the holy thing whose is, in accompaniment, the great liberal one (rdgo(?)), whereby he will give justice for the advantage of the strivers’. Haug’s text was unfortunate in line a of Ner. “Einen-- voratiglichen Mann” is not Ner.’s rendering for frakhshnené, hardly even according to Haug’s text of Ner. Ner. read the text of DJ.-- Zi in line &. Did he see the very MS.? Of course Ner. rendering the Pahl., as his chief, if not only, text, repeats its syntactical error, but reproduces nevertheless its correct indications as to the roots present, or else he improves (?) upon it, as in the case of mahd- datra (see above): so, of the Parsi-pers. 13. Haug e: ‘lasst mir die Dinge werden (?) die ich erwiinscht’. Spiegel: ‘damit ich lehre die richtige Lenkung TT a ee a ee 519 des Willens’. Geldner: ‘als er.» « erschien, um die ziele meines wiinsches 2u erfahren’. All the other emphatic infinitives with expression of desire (see v.9, 3) refer to the human subject. Arethd... kdmahyé are, 1 think, far more than ‘the objects of my desire’. (Ayad(t) méi, ete. is mere recur- ring formula, and is separated from vdizhdydi. Aretha ig sanctified and definite, quasi technical, and so defined in Y. 33, 8 (see also véczhdim there) yasnem, M. ++. staomyd, vachdo.+ - Ameret? --~ H°. Arethé does not express desire only, but the holy offices. Véczhddm and voiehdydi = ‘know’, or ‘reveal’. The Divine Being did not need to ‘know’ these, that know- ledge was the tem (kdmem (Spiegel), yanem (Justi) prayed-for. Dar sta ité, so Haug detineat itione (hint of Ner. from Pahl.). Geld. ddareS¢ ite in das einzu- gehen niemand euch abnothigen kann; to dar, cp.
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.
1iibdk-dahishnih, so zarazdéo in Y. 31, 1. First we must show from zeredachd = libbemman in Y. 31, 12 that the trlr. was perfectly aware of the proper word for ‘heart’ in Zend- Pahl. Then we must acknowledge that his réibadk dahishnih seems strangely free. Ribak is a corrupted translation, or text. Leb = ) = ‘heart’ is the Semitic original of libbemman, and it is possible that ) was reproduced in the r and & of ribék; but I have little doubt that ribanik-dahishnih = ‘devotion of the soul’ was the original. In Y.53, 7 we have sdtinédo (same element of ‘ progress’) = Zarazdistd; the idea of ribdk had become firmly implanted in the ancient exegesis. Verezeidydi (?) was divided verezei (cp. varezi.ndo (MSS.), Y. 45, 9) and dydz, hence the mischievous yehabiinam which spoils the smoothness of the rendering; but mark well that the trir. saw a first sg. pres.( =imper.-fut.) in the infin. for he could only have rendered sg. pres. after seeing infin. for imper. Haug has prarohinapraropita = lasst - + hervor- wachsen (2). Ropita (or °¢@) would seem part. of the causative conjugation. But a 3*4 pers. seems needed; see Pahl. and Gatha; I therefore had thought of two corrections. If yuydm is left (but see khshmd, and didainhé(é)), °prdropita would need mending to praropayata, imper., or °ropayitd = ‘elevator’. Haug 517 read pishmdcha for vishamdimcha against the other MSS.; and possibly mis- reading Sansk. p for v. 12. I agree alternatively with the Pahl. (here followed by Spiegel and Geldner) which introduces jasd frdkhshnené(é) as the thing said, mraos: ‘Weil du mir befohlen hast: ,komme zum Reinen--“, but see v.10. Ad(t) ta moi dais ashem hyad(t) mé zaozaomi, with no break; see also frdkhshnenem in no citation in v. 14. Frdakhshnené(é) to khshna@ (jnd) with Haug. As to the agreeable rendering asrustd = ‘(not) in my disobedience’, i. e. ‘not without my obeying’, it needs more language. Then as to the rendering: ‘Arise before my Sraosha will appear’, why ‘before’? The meaning cannot be: ‘Thou did’st (?) not call me in my disobedience; ‘arise’, before. my obedience, or my obedient one, came, or will come, to me’. A fault would also lie in referring asrustd to the speaker, with the following Syaoshé in view, meaning ‘I was obedient at first, obedience came to me before thou (?) didst (?) declare’. Such a cumbrous and twisted diction is excessively improbable, and the imperative pairyaoghzhd makes it impossible. The meaning is that obedient followers stood ready before he was ordered to march. The infin. for imper. presents no difficulty, as it exists in many languages: ‘Do not declare to me unheard-of things, to go forth to-- - (= ‘go thou forth’. ‘You told me to go’ = ‘you told me, ‘go’’). <Asrustd (with Spiegel and Geldner loc. of asrust’) is more naturally acc. pl. nt., another word for agustd, Y. 31, 1. It may well mean ‘not gladly, or obediently, heard’. Pairyaoghzhd, 284 sg. imper. sa aor.
2things, to go forth to-- - (= ‘go thou forth’. ‘You told me to go’ = ‘you told me, ‘go’’). <Asrustd (with Spiegel and Geldner loc. of asrust’) is more naturally acc. pl. nt., another word for agustd, Y. 31, 1. It may well mean ‘not gladly, or obediently, heard’. Pairyaoghzhd, 284 sg. imper. sa aor. of aog = vach; some would render ‘Thou did’st call’(?). For uzireidydi, externally only like irddhydi, cp. for sense, Vedic ar, or trate, trayddhydi; ‘arise’, or, ‘go forth’, possibly ‘arouse’. Sraoshd indicates the missing subject in v. 7, 9, 11, 13, 15. Ash? (here hardly per- sonified) means ‘with a blessing as a recompense’. Mazdrayd is now again read by some, and rendered ‘wealthy’; better as ‘glorious’; cp. ddathrdva, or divided mazd rayd ‘with great splendour’. ‘Bribing the chiefs through the wealthy Ashi’ is not indicated, nor could maz@ ray@ mean ‘with much money’. dndibyd (so with most MSS., not in the dual) is, together with the absence of the Fire, adverse to Haug’s brilliant comparison with the arani; one scholar prefers ‘with the associated ones’, see on Y. 31, 1, 2. Compare the dsaydo of Y. 31, 2. In Y. 31, 8; 51, 9 it is khshniitem ‘satis- faction’, ‘settling of the dispute? to the two sides, khshniitem being used, in spite of the evil character of one of the disputing parties, on account of the holy character of the other. So here ash#s, the sacred blessings as reward, are used because one of the réna was the holy party in the struggle. See also the striking y@o ddo ashi dregvdité(é) ashdunaé(é)cha; cp. also Y. 31, 12 where Ar(a)maiti questions the two spirits, one of them the mithah- roger 2 tO 518 vachdo, in their abode, maé(é)thd, an expression elsewhere used in a good sense, and described by éathré. So also the dat. inf. savdéi is used in view of the righteous element in rdndibyd. As to Geldner’s welcome, but hardly tenable, suggestion with regard to rdndibyé, see on Y. 31, 2. Yamtinishni, strictly a fut. pass. part., but here as infin. for imper. is better; see jasd. DJ.’s min-- li should not be inserted in line 4, but Zi is essential, see however the Parsi-pers. which has the entire insertion, almost enforcing a text in that sense, Spiegel having no word for méi (so also M1). I take li from DJ.’s text. With DJ.’s full text min zak i li (see also Ner. and the Parsi-pers.) we have the inferior, (b) ‘it was from no refusal on my part to hear Thee that it was declared by Thee’; see also the gloss. Yehabiéntand in the gloss points to varzishnd yehabiinam in e v.11. ‘The lifting up’ henjishn(th), infin. for imper. = uzireidyd@i. Rdst = ashé (insufficiently). The gloss [va Vishtdsp] forces the translation of ménash - - ratit--. Ratt so, according to authority, I should suggest radé (so tand for tani). Or read réd6 (diff. word) see Ner., and the Parsi-pers. (which would would render a rad) ‘with whom is the great liberal one’, less foreign to the original which, with some, might = ‘with great gift’ (?).
3ménash - - ratit--. Ratt so, according to authority, I should suggest radé (so tand for tani). Or read réd6 (diff. word) see Ner., and the Parsi-pers. (which would would render a rad) ‘with whom is the great liberal one’, less foreign to the original which, with some, might = ‘with great gift’ (?). The gloss however carries us wide. Raté elsewhere (not here) = guruh (Ner.) (rad in the Parsi-pers.), not °ddird as here, and that in spite of the gloss. In Y. 33, 7 radé = Sk. dakshinéh = Parsi-pers. — rad = rdtayd. In Y.33, 14 pavan rédih renders ratam, Sansk. dakshinaya = — Parsi-pers. pah radi: in v.9 rdtam is rendered rad6, Sansk. dakshin?, Parsi- pers. sakhdw(v)at; I think therefore that the Sansk. and Parsi-pers. indicate — an emendation of rddé for rat (radd) here. Levatman well renders the idea of . hachimné, so elsewhere. The trir., as ever, sees the ‘strivers’ in ranoibyd, | whether offering the relics of a rendering which recognized the ‘rubbing sticks’, — I will not say.. Without glosses: ‘When also Ye said to me; ‘by thee (there 7 should be) an abundant coming to righteousness; (6) thus by Thee not-hearing (the not-obeyed-thing) was not declared to me; ‘(let there be) an arousing’ (lift up’); this was not said by You before Srésh (obedience) the righteous | comes to me, the holy thing whose is, in accompaniment, the great liberal one (rdgo(?)), whereby he will give justice for the advantage of the strivers’. Haug’s text was unfortunate in line a of Ner. “Einen-- voratiglichen Mann” is not Ner.’s rendering for frakhshnené, hardly even according to Haug’s text of Ner. Ner. read the text of DJ.-- Zi in line &. Did he see the very MS.? Of course Ner. rendering the Pahl., as his chief, if not only, text, repeats its syntactical error, but reproduces nevertheless its correct indications as to the roots present, or else he improves (?) upon it, as in the case of mahd- datra (see above): so, of the Parsi-pers. 13. Haug e: ‘lasst mir die Dinge werden (?) die ich erwiinscht’. Spiegel: ‘damit ich lehre die richtige Lenkung TT a ee a ee 519 des Willens’. Geldner: ‘als er.» « erschien, um die ziele meines wiinsches 2u erfahren’. All the other emphatic infinitives with expression of desire (see v.9, 3) refer to the human subject. Arethd... kdmahyé are, 1 think, far more than ‘the objects of my desire’. (Ayad(t) méi, ete. is mere recur- ring formula, and is separated from vdizhdydi. Aretha ig sanctified and definite, quasi technical, and so defined in Y. 33, 8 (see also véczhdim there) yasnem, M. ++. staomyd, vachdo.+ - Ameret? --~ H°. Arethé does not express desire only, but the holy offices. Véczhddm and voiehdydi = ‘know’, or ‘reveal’. The Divine Being did not need to ‘know’ these, that know- ledge was the tem (kdmem (Spiegel), yanem (Justi) prayed-for. Dar sta ité, so Haug detineat itione (hint of Ner. from Pahl.). Geld. ddareS¢ ite in das einzu- gehen niemand euch abnothigen kann; to dar, cp.
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.