Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1enlightened supplications will seek for Thee, O M.’; ep. déishé mot ya ve abifré; Ashd kad(t) thwd daresdnt. One scholar regards usén as aneut. pl. from usan; see on Y. 45, 9 (a very old suggestion). As some writers justly hold to a shifting caesura, there should be no objection to an enclitic thwd. Some would refer daidyad(t) to dhyd, or dha (?): ‘He should with hig action rightly consider the words - - he who is striving after (@st¢$ nom. Sg. masc.) thy (thwd acc. pl. neut.) commands (usén ace. pl. neut.)’. Others (long previously) have given the following colour: ‘That doctrine, the best of existing ones, when it is correctly followed, blesses my people; through the commands of obedience it correctly brings actions to pass; from thee I desire (#st/§ nom. sg. masc. (?)) the guidance (usen n. pl. nt.) of my mind’, No one should object to the easy freedom of the Pahl. trlr. in inter- changing the forms of Sradoid(t) hachémna. Rendering one bya noun and the other by a verb, he shows that he could not have been ignorant of — the forms, and was free with both. Possibly vddiinyén may have been meant as the 24 sg. imper.; so possibly in the next gloss. The trlr. had great difficulty with 7s¢é(7)s usen, aS do all, and with no contemptible decision he separated the words, beginning a new phrase with use. In this he may well have shown us the correct solution. Ner.’s datte ig undoubtedly meant as an equivalent of yehabimed, and in the sense ‘produces’, not in the sense ‘receives’. Of course, if tubhyam refers to the Deity, it must be rendered ‘for Thee’. The reward could not be given to the Deity. Read my former text, Dinir iyam. 11. A type had broken in my former su) 99. Read caesura at the — 4h, and paouruyé, correcting a misprint in my old transliteration. Read — enuntiabitur for my former careless enuntiatur. Paouruyd = paourvyd recalls paowrvatétem Y. 38, 14 and paourutemais Y. 34, 1. The leadership, and the leaders, were an element of the last importance in the holy struggle. No vanity or egoism attached to the ‘priority in the cause’. The leaders | were the true representatives of the people; and without them Gathic life was nothing. Some render paouruyé(é) ‘at first’. Thwdi — thwé = ( we) ous = thwayd; %y = 45 = y4, uF has inherent a, n. Sg. fem. = ‘Thy’. I prefer my former alternative prior-cognitus-sum to my former translation, but the mid. often occurs in active sense. Dvaé(é)shanhda is, as one would naturally ; 531 Suppose, an instr. sg. It is however taken by one writer as an acc. pl. neut.: ‘I regard all others as opposers’(?). Another suggested: ‘Do Thou behold all the others with the hate of Thy spirit’. Mian, too rigidly rendered in c, should equal yaé(é)ibyé in the sense of ‘to whom’ they announce, and with the change of d to d, yemalelind would be passive. Whether the trlr. really intended to represent what he had before him in the place of fravdividé(é) as an imper. is a question.
2Thy spirit’. Mian, too rigidly rendered in c, should equal yaé(é)ibyé in the sense of ‘to whom’ they announce, and with the change of d to d, yemalelind would be passive. Whether the trlr. really intended to represent what he had before him in the place of fravdividé(é) as an imper. is a question. He was able to render the perf. form, as is shown in v. 20, a. At the same time his freedom here, while reproducing the roots present, entirely turns the point of the sense. Many another might propose an alteration of text from mainyéus to the acc. pl., as the trlr. does here. In Y. 28, 1 he recognizes the word as a sg., in Y! 82, 9 probably as a gen. sg. freely rendered by a gen. pl., so in Y. 47, 4. Ignorance as to sg., or pl. is here absolutely impossible. And any who would seriously crititize the trlr. as to this particular would show his own want of knowledge. And after all the men may very possibly apply to mainyeus, affording an exactly literal rendering. Certain it is that the Pahl. trir. did not mistake the véspang anyéng for abl. gen. As to 7 déshiddr, it would not be in place to satirize the trir., since dvaé(é)shanhé has been rendered even by a modern occidental as an acc. pl. neut. As alternative read: ‘ Of (against) the spirit of all others, as ‘their hater, I keep my guard’. I have been formerly unnecessarily hostile a eS to Ner. in not accepting his prayatnaydmi in the sense of Spiegel, as against Haug’s less experienced remark, who finds the word auffallend (probably and naturally because the Pahlavi was then practically unknown to him). Read with Spiegel ‘I take care’, or at least ‘I make effort’ rather than ‘I resist’; cp. prayatna. 12. Improvements to my former texts; caesura after the 42, yet see e; disregard the informal divisions in the lines; omit e¢, and read tua for te de; read se opponit. Ydis peresdi may = ‘of those with whom I am now questioning, debating’, better as adverbial. Mé is used with thwd savd, the latter being taken like a Greek adverbial: ‘Who, as the enemy of the Faith, is opposing me in the matter of Thy blessed provisions of grace for Thy people’. It might also = sma, but see peresd. Chyanhad(t) is com- pletely in order as ché instr. of chi (chi$) and anhad(f) (or possibly cht = chit) = qui fit, an idiomatic expression like the colloquial ‘may be’. ‘How, by what means, does it happen?’ Some would render; ‘- - - Which is the righteous, he with whom I have intercourse, or the evil? Which of the two avails? -- Am I the evil, or is the faithless the evil, who hinders me in Thy cause? ++ -, Others, partly following: ‘Which of them with whom I here speak, is a friend of the truth, which of the lie?’ 532 I have been rigidly impartial in line 6, but hampdérsids may represent the 15* person as well as the 34, and that the trlr. was not ignorant that peresd was a first person is proved by the preceding line, and the first lines throughout.
3ere speak, is a friend of the truth, which of the lie?’ 532 I have been rigidly impartial in line 6, but hampdérsids may represent the 15* person as well as the 34, and that the trlr. was not ignorant that peresd was a first person is proved by the preceding line, and the first lines throughout. Gandk will not of course at present be questioned as a regular form and proper name. Line e contains the original exegesis of chyanhad(#) which all have followed, but which I have first explained; see S. B. E. XXX], p. 117. AZ is here, as so constantly, understood, from whence ds At, =) cht + anhad(t). In e pavan ydtinishni is apparently an alternative translation for what of ayém may have stood in the MS. used by the earlier Pabl. trlr. He first rendered correctly but freely valmanshén, and then he (or more pro- bably some successor) inserted the pavan ydtdnishnd, suspecting the presence of some form of 7 = ‘to go’. Mainyé(e)té(é) was not mistaken for a first person. The 3*4 pers., with the passive, freely expresses 15t, 224 or 3rd, It js also not impossible that m of ayém, being detached from the other letters, gave the suggestion which accidently led to the free use of the first person. 13. Caesura after the 4th, yet see the awkwardness in d and e; dis- regard my former informal divisions of the lines; read °yéint?. Read nobis rather than follow the less accredited reading ahméd(t), and perhaps illustrant is more exact. Ndshdmd, 1 pl. s aor. conj. of nas; addivyé(e)inti, to div, divya; cp. sudivas. The Pahl. trlr. seems also to have seen the word in a similar sense. Others see the root dé as in duvdsas, and render ‘do not strive after’, One reads hachénd as an acc. pl. in agreement with Ashi. Hachemné might be the middle participle from a thematic stem. Some would give the following cast: ‘How shall we drive from hence the evil one (Satan) hence to those who, full of opposition, do not zealously strive after the right, and will know nothing of intercourse with the faithful’? The Pahl. with a natural blunder refers perendonhé to par = ‘to battle’. The second J¢may be an echo from the first, and may therefore not indicate that the trlr. read an a priv. in ddivyé(e)int?. Ner. does not notice the second /@. The idea of mental illumination is conveyed by mnikézénd, and by Ner.’s pratipddayanto (so better than Haug’s °nte(?) as the part. expresses amat). Amatshan is difficult; ‘when in them they observe’, ‘when to them they speak it’. Chékhnare is freely but correctly rendered. 14, Notice the highly developed tone of the language ‘to slay the Druj-party with the Mathras’; ‘to kill the Lie with holy words’, Sa(i)nam, to sa (s?) = ‘to cut’, see the Pahl, Ands(sh)é(é) might seem a negative infin. from the aor. stem of nas, or with nds — nas; a suff. sé(¢) would produce anas(sh)é = ‘to the non-attaining’ a sort of acc. infin., ‘that the dvafsha should not attain’; we are reminded of the Latin gerundives. For a neg. infin. 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.
1enlightened supplications will seek for Thee, O M.’; ep. déishé mot ya ve abifré; Ashd kad(t) thwd daresdnt. One scholar regards usén as aneut. pl. from usan; see on Y. 45, 9 (a very old suggestion). As some writers justly hold to a shifting caesura, there should be no objection to an enclitic thwd. Some would refer daidyad(t) to dhyd, or dha (?): ‘He should with hig action rightly consider the words - - he who is striving after (@st¢$ nom. Sg. masc.) thy (thwd acc. pl. neut.) commands (usén ace. pl. neut.)’. Others (long previously) have given the following colour: ‘That doctrine, the best of existing ones, when it is correctly followed, blesses my people; through the commands of obedience it correctly brings actions to pass; from thee I desire (#st/§ nom. sg. masc. (?)) the guidance (usen n. pl. nt.) of my mind’, No one should object to the easy freedom of the Pahl. trlr. in inter- changing the forms of Sradoid(t) hachémna. Rendering one bya noun and the other by a verb, he shows that he could not have been ignorant of — the forms, and was free with both. Possibly vddiinyén may have been meant as the 24 sg. imper.; so possibly in the next gloss. The trlr. had great difficulty with 7s¢é(7)s usen, aS do all, and with no contemptible decision he separated the words, beginning a new phrase with use. In this he may well have shown us the correct solution. Ner.’s datte ig undoubtedly meant as an equivalent of yehabimed, and in the sense ‘produces’, not in the sense ‘receives’. Of course, if tubhyam refers to the Deity, it must be rendered ‘for Thee’. The reward could not be given to the Deity. Read my former text, Dinir iyam. 11. A type had broken in my former su) 99. Read caesura at the — 4h, and paouruyé, correcting a misprint in my old transliteration. Read — enuntiabitur for my former careless enuntiatur. Paouruyd = paourvyd recalls paowrvatétem Y. 38, 14 and paourutemais Y. 34, 1. The leadership, and the leaders, were an element of the last importance in the holy struggle. No vanity or egoism attached to the ‘priority in the cause’. The leaders | were the true representatives of the people; and without them Gathic life was nothing. Some render paouruyé(é) ‘at first’. Thwdi — thwé = ( we) ous = thwayd; %y = 45 = y4, uF has inherent a, n. Sg. fem. = ‘Thy’. I prefer my former alternative prior-cognitus-sum to my former translation, but the mid. often occurs in active sense. Dvaé(é)shanhda is, as one would naturally ; 531 Suppose, an instr. sg. It is however taken by one writer as an acc. pl. neut.: ‘I regard all others as opposers’(?). Another suggested: ‘Do Thou behold all the others with the hate of Thy spirit’. Mian, too rigidly rendered in c, should equal yaé(é)ibyé in the sense of ‘to whom’ they announce, and with the change of d to d, yemalelind would be passive. Whether the trlr. really intended to represent what he had before him in the place of fravdividé(é) as an imper. is a question.
2Thy spirit’. Mian, too rigidly rendered in c, should equal yaé(é)ibyé in the sense of ‘to whom’ they announce, and with the change of d to d, yemalelind would be passive. Whether the trlr. really intended to represent what he had before him in the place of fravdividé(é) as an imper. is a question. He was able to render the perf. form, as is shown in v. 20, a. At the same time his freedom here, while reproducing the roots present, entirely turns the point of the sense. Many another might propose an alteration of text from mainyéus to the acc. pl., as the trlr. does here. In Y. 28, 1 he recognizes the word as a sg., in Y! 82, 9 probably as a gen. sg. freely rendered by a gen. pl., so in Y. 47, 4. Ignorance as to sg., or pl. is here absolutely impossible. And any who would seriously crititize the trlr. as to this particular would show his own want of knowledge. And after all the men may very possibly apply to mainyeus, affording an exactly literal rendering. Certain it is that the Pahl. trir. did not mistake the véspang anyéng for abl. gen. As to 7 déshiddr, it would not be in place to satirize the trir., since dvaé(é)shanhé has been rendered even by a modern occidental as an acc. pl. neut. As alternative read: ‘ Of (against) the spirit of all others, as ‘their hater, I keep my guard’. I have been formerly unnecessarily hostile a eS to Ner. in not accepting his prayatnaydmi in the sense of Spiegel, as against Haug’s less experienced remark, who finds the word auffallend (probably and naturally because the Pahlavi was then practically unknown to him). Read with Spiegel ‘I take care’, or at least ‘I make effort’ rather than ‘I resist’; cp. prayatna. 12. Improvements to my former texts; caesura after the 42, yet see e; disregard the informal divisions in the lines; omit e¢, and read tua for te de; read se opponit. Ydis peresdi may = ‘of those with whom I am now questioning, debating’, better as adverbial. Mé is used with thwd savd, the latter being taken like a Greek adverbial: ‘Who, as the enemy of the Faith, is opposing me in the matter of Thy blessed provisions of grace for Thy people’. It might also = sma, but see peresd. Chyanhad(t) is com- pletely in order as ché instr. of chi (chi$) and anhad(f) (or possibly cht = chit) = qui fit, an idiomatic expression like the colloquial ‘may be’. ‘How, by what means, does it happen?’ Some would render; ‘- - - Which is the righteous, he with whom I have intercourse, or the evil? Which of the two avails? -- Am I the evil, or is the faithless the evil, who hinders me in Thy cause? ++ -, Others, partly following: ‘Which of them with whom I here speak, is a friend of the truth, which of the lie?’ 532 I have been rigidly impartial in line 6, but hampdérsids may represent the 15* person as well as the 34, and that the trlr. was not ignorant that peresd was a first person is proved by the preceding line, and the first lines throughout.
3ere speak, is a friend of the truth, which of the lie?’ 532 I have been rigidly impartial in line 6, but hampdérsids may represent the 15* person as well as the 34, and that the trlr. was not ignorant that peresd was a first person is proved by the preceding line, and the first lines throughout. Gandk will not of course at present be questioned as a regular form and proper name. Line e contains the original exegesis of chyanhad(#) which all have followed, but which I have first explained; see S. B. E. XXX], p. 117. AZ is here, as so constantly, understood, from whence ds At, =) cht + anhad(t). In e pavan ydtinishni is apparently an alternative translation for what of ayém may have stood in the MS. used by the earlier Pabl. trlr. He first rendered correctly but freely valmanshén, and then he (or more pro- bably some successor) inserted the pavan ydtdnishnd, suspecting the presence of some form of 7 = ‘to go’. Mainyé(e)té(é) was not mistaken for a first person. The 3*4 pers., with the passive, freely expresses 15t, 224 or 3rd, It js also not impossible that m of ayém, being detached from the other letters, gave the suggestion which accidently led to the free use of the first person. 13. Caesura after the 4th, yet see the awkwardness in d and e; dis- regard my former informal divisions of the lines; read °yéint?. Read nobis rather than follow the less accredited reading ahméd(t), and perhaps illustrant is more exact. Ndshdmd, 1 pl. s aor. conj. of nas; addivyé(e)inti, to div, divya; cp. sudivas. The Pahl. trlr. seems also to have seen the word in a similar sense. Others see the root dé as in duvdsas, and render ‘do not strive after’, One reads hachénd as an acc. pl. in agreement with Ashi. Hachemné might be the middle participle from a thematic stem. Some would give the following cast: ‘How shall we drive from hence the evil one (Satan) hence to those who, full of opposition, do not zealously strive after the right, and will know nothing of intercourse with the faithful’? The Pahl. with a natural blunder refers perendonhé to par = ‘to battle’. The second J¢may be an echo from the first, and may therefore not indicate that the trlr. read an a priv. in ddivyé(e)int?. Ner. does not notice the second /@. The idea of mental illumination is conveyed by mnikézénd, and by Ner.’s pratipddayanto (so better than Haug’s °nte(?) as the part. expresses amat). Amatshan is difficult; ‘when in them they observe’, ‘when to them they speak it’. Chékhnare is freely but correctly rendered. 14, Notice the highly developed tone of the language ‘to slay the Druj-party with the Mathras’; ‘to kill the Lie with holy words’, Sa(i)nam, to sa (s?) = ‘to cut’, see the Pahl, Ands(sh)é(é) might seem a negative infin. from the aor. stem of nas, or with nds — nas; a suff. sé(¢) would produce anas(sh)é = ‘to the non-attaining’ a sort of acc. infin., ‘that the dvafsha should not attain’; we are reminded of the Latin gerundives. For a neg. infin. 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.