Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1, and cp. the Devdsas sukshatrisas). Kam = kam; — (irregularly spelt) placed after the dat. for emphasis; otherwise, if in order, — it might refer to a gam understood, ‘what cow’ (have they possessed)? Haug’s existentiam is not desirable, Ddté 3r4 pl. aor. mid. = ‘they have taken’, or poss. ‘given’. Anmainé(é) , correctly rendered by the Pahl., root an = im (but even nam + a is not so impossible; see p. 442) is dat. for — instr. or loc. adv. Uridéyatd is 34 sg. pret. caus. mid. of rud, or also possibly — irreg. 3°4 pl. with Kavd in a collective Sense, and as feeling the influence — of the subjects preceding, the K. and U.; see also the pl. mézen. Some would — render: ‘Have the infidels ever been good agriculturalists? Ask those only — who observe them (seeing a form of pag = spag in pes(k)yé(e)intt (?)) how — (ydis) the stupid, passionate, and abandoned to wrath, cause the Cow to groan (rud = ‘to weep’). Never do they favour her aright . . »’, Chigiin = chithend. ‘How’ is often merely a sign of a question in English and in other languages. Are the trlrs. right in seeing a form of pd in pes(k)® (pa= — padirarinénd Y. 32,13). Yemalelind aigh is gloss, see Ner., the evil party saw _ something laudatory in the transcribed word usikhshchd. The dative is I think expressed in Khéshmé (or Aésh°) avich-+ +. Astibd is very valuable. Rdndkih daddr may be intended to convey a correct idea of wridéyatd. The ever- recurring form of dédand for a Zend syllable with a d, should be condoned as harmless, the trirs, fearing to omit the smallest particle on which to hang a meaning. Searching for misunderstandings, see again uriidédyata; ru (= sru) = ‘to go’ may have caught the trir.’s attention, hence rdnakih. | Many might be scandalized at mozd for mézen, but the two words may be 539 radically connected. J.3 has kdydm (2), others °yam (?), but J.4 is reported as kdyanti; see Burnouf, Dict. Sans. J.4 seems nirvitmdna (?), nir-+-vid+man(?); J. nirvidtman (a2); see anirvinne = astibd. Line c is added from later hands. Pradadanti, reported by Haug, is an improvement. Haug persistently writes sadh® for sadv°; whether he, or his MS., was to blame, remains a question. Yasna 45. See for summary and additional translation and comment S. B.E. KX pp. 122—130. Changes in opinion arrived at. since its composition are not always noted here. 1. Chitré = chithrani with vispd; @ = é from yg (which was miswritten f) = gi = dm (cp. in ameshe = ameshdn); the 7 has disappeared as from mizhdavin = mizhdavéni. Otherwise @ may = am, or even am (fem.) with @m (?). Im (only a particle in the RV.) has retained life as a pron. in the Av., (cp. 75), and may refer to daé(énd@ understood (see v. 3), it is also possibly a particle, while elsewhere a living pronoun. Mazddonhidim (valuable correction of Roth’s long privately circulated) = madh + dda, 2p. sa. aor. mid. *madh+dha+sa(s)+dhvam, or mad°. Avereté active sense, as hievd is more than soc. instr.
2ay refer to daé(énd@ understood (see v. 3), it is also possibly a particle, while elsewhere a living pronoun. Mazddonhidim (valuable correction of Roth’s long privately circulated) = madh + dda, 2p. sa. aor. mid. *madh+dha+sa(s)+dhvam, or mad°. Avereté active sense, as hievd is more than soc. instr. (‘hemmed in with his tongue’) ‘confessing’ seems the better sense; the*word is a sort of deponent, not impossibly part. perf., otherwise dvaretd from °tar = ‘confessor’. My former free trl. de- pended on the old reading which was universally current at the time of printing, read it: ‘Now therefore all things well do ye ponder’. Asa slightly different cast read; ‘for ye can now mark all things, for it is to be under- stood that the false teacher will not for the second time - -’. The Pahl. trir., glosses aside, may be considered as proceeding with substantial correctness. Ishathd is taken in its sense of ‘wish’ (see the gloss), and freely as a 34 sg., but bavihinéd is also a Qna pl, The trlr. had fre- quently rendered the term. °‘id, and could not have departed from his other renderings from pure ignorance. Read 0 alternatively ; ‘and ye who are desiring if from near and from afar’. The divided mazddonhédum misled the trir. as it did all his successors till a recent period, and this should afford an explanation of many similar errors. In mazddonhé (sic) he sees the clumsy meaning necessary to that text. Péddk = prakatam = chitre. The conj. in meras(k)yad(#) was recognized in marenchindd, and dveretd was reproduced as active and transitive in the word hémnunéd. Haug, not aware of the Pahl. free forms, declared Ner. to have rendered géshédim as a noun in the dual. Ner. was rendering gésh dén in the gl. = nydkshishno in the text. The Pahl. renders infin. for imper. Ner. is more graphic with his 540 noun in the text, while the Pahl. trlr. places gosh dén in the gloss. Read my former misprint °kyiyate; dushtagishydyita@ seems in order as a denom. not needing alteration, although °ydpitd is in analogy with an arthdpayati, cp. Max Miiller’s Sansk. Gram. German. trl. s. 319. Is durgatiyam meant for & comparative with primary suffix, for °“¢yah?; see the Pahl. comparative form; or it is a needless variation ? 2. Paouruyé(é) = paourvyé ace. du. masc., see p. 436; we = Wine will proclaim the two spirits ‘at first’? is weak and improbable. Some would render ‘earlier than the world’. See Y. 30, 4 vahistem mand, and Y. 30, 6 achistem mano. Spanydo - - angrem corresponds to vahyd, akemchd in Y. 30, 3. Disregard the divisions of the lines at the 6t syllable which were formerly printed to guide non-experts in catching the supposed rhythm. Read my former text wrvand, J.? has advydpara®, J.* (2) the same, or adhy®, but the same characters represent adv in yadvayam (sic) v.6, c. One MS., which is properly J.4 not J.*, is reported by a friend to have asadvydpdrt in 2 d. Either read avydpar° throughout with Sp.’s MSS. ©.
3supposed rhythm. Read my former text wrvand, J.? has advydpara®, J.* (2) the same, or adhy®, but the same characters represent adv in yadvayam (sic) v.6, c. One MS., which is properly J.4 not J.*, is reported by a friend to have asadvydpdrt in 2 d. Either read avydpar° throughout with Sp.’s MSS. ©. and P., or correct to asadvydpar° where needed. This latter is of course the better reading, if it were really genuine. Read antar bhu®, ndchd tmdnah, In the Parsi-pers. the wa in the interior after mén had better be u, and this notwithstanding the curious, and one would say positively erroneous, Pazarfa “, which intrudes every where, even at the beginnings of sentences, while the Pahl. va, its original — holds, as we suppose, throughout, and not only at the beginnings of sen- tences. For this latter reason I had formerly preferred reading wa (= va) throughout in this mixed Parsi and Persian. But with some ~ is orig. uta. 3. Caesura after the 4th syllable, yet see lines c, d, e. Read in my old free trl 6; ‘Which unto - ’; e ‘Theirs’, All the divisions of the lines are wholly informal. Avdé is loc.; Is it purely adverbial, or = in miseria? Read my former text pavan shan in e. In Ner. ddau = Jratim. Read my former printing antar bhuvane. 4. Formal caesura after the fourth, yet see c. My former volens in e Should be supplemented with aspiciens. Great obscurity is here present. Some scholars, chiefly anxious to differ from predecessors, do not hesitate at a first-personal vaé(é)dé of course thoroughly possible, but see vidvdo in v. 3 referring to Ahuréd. A voc, Mazda is also not so probable just here; see Mazddo A. in the 3r4 pers. nom. in y. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. The nom. is characteristic, and the formal address is to the people; see the voc. only in v. 11. But who is the ‘father of the Good Mind’, ‘the father of the Saints’, possibly the saintly monarch whose daughter is ‘Piety’. Then comes 541 line e with the mention of A. as ‘undeceivable’, a repetition of the idea in line 6., vaé(é)dd. The Monarch could only be referred to as priestly, and representing all virtues in his person; possibly Zarathustra is meant; hence he is referred to immediately after the mention of the Mdathra which he delivered. We might be tempted to regard @ of Mazdd (so) as having lost its nasalization, Mazda = Mazddim: ‘I know Mazda, who appointed him - -’. Finally have we here oblique diction, ‘the Father of the Good Mind and of Piety’ strongly suggests Ahura. Shall we render: ‘I know M. the Father, etc’. Or finally, can the meaning be: ‘M. A. knows, who appointed = ‘constituted Himself’ by His gracious revelation the Father, (‘begetting them again by the living word’). Véspd-hishas might be taken as a compositum, or not. Hishas seems a reduplicated root noun from shas; i. e. unless we can correct to d@ ishas, gy stood as Pahl. s = h% or 4, to ish, ishasd, Y. 31, 4; ishasdtd(t), Y. 50, 2.
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.
1, and cp. the Devdsas sukshatrisas). Kam = kam; — (irregularly spelt) placed after the dat. for emphasis; otherwise, if in order, — it might refer to a gam understood, ‘what cow’ (have they possessed)? Haug’s existentiam is not desirable, Ddté 3r4 pl. aor. mid. = ‘they have taken’, or poss. ‘given’. Anmainé(é) , correctly rendered by the Pahl., root an = im (but even nam + a is not so impossible; see p. 442) is dat. for — instr. or loc. adv. Uridéyatd is 34 sg. pret. caus. mid. of rud, or also possibly — irreg. 3°4 pl. with Kavd in a collective Sense, and as feeling the influence — of the subjects preceding, the K. and U.; see also the pl. mézen. Some would — render: ‘Have the infidels ever been good agriculturalists? Ask those only — who observe them (seeing a form of pag = spag in pes(k)yé(e)intt (?)) how — (ydis) the stupid, passionate, and abandoned to wrath, cause the Cow to groan (rud = ‘to weep’). Never do they favour her aright . . »’, Chigiin = chithend. ‘How’ is often merely a sign of a question in English and in other languages. Are the trlrs. right in seeing a form of pd in pes(k)® (pa= — padirarinénd Y. 32,13). Yemalelind aigh is gloss, see Ner., the evil party saw _ something laudatory in the transcribed word usikhshchd. The dative is I think expressed in Khéshmé (or Aésh°) avich-+ +. Astibd is very valuable. Rdndkih daddr may be intended to convey a correct idea of wridéyatd. The ever- recurring form of dédand for a Zend syllable with a d, should be condoned as harmless, the trirs, fearing to omit the smallest particle on which to hang a meaning. Searching for misunderstandings, see again uriidédyata; ru (= sru) = ‘to go’ may have caught the trir.’s attention, hence rdnakih. | Many might be scandalized at mozd for mézen, but the two words may be 539 radically connected. J.3 has kdydm (2), others °yam (?), but J.4 is reported as kdyanti; see Burnouf, Dict. Sans. J.4 seems nirvitmdna (?), nir-+-vid+man(?); J. nirvidtman (a2); see anirvinne = astibd. Line c is added from later hands. Pradadanti, reported by Haug, is an improvement. Haug persistently writes sadh® for sadv°; whether he, or his MS., was to blame, remains a question. Yasna 45. See for summary and additional translation and comment S. B.E. KX pp. 122—130. Changes in opinion arrived at. since its composition are not always noted here. 1. Chitré = chithrani with vispd; @ = é from yg (which was miswritten f) = gi = dm (cp. in ameshe = ameshdn); the 7 has disappeared as from mizhdavin = mizhdavéni. Otherwise @ may = am, or even am (fem.) with @m (?). Im (only a particle in the RV.) has retained life as a pron. in the Av., (cp. 75), and may refer to daé(énd@ understood (see v. 3), it is also possibly a particle, while elsewhere a living pronoun. Mazddonhidim (valuable correction of Roth’s long privately circulated) = madh + dda, 2p. sa. aor. mid. *madh+dha+sa(s)+dhvam, or mad°. Avereté active sense, as hievd is more than soc. instr.
2ay refer to daé(énd@ understood (see v. 3), it is also possibly a particle, while elsewhere a living pronoun. Mazddonhidim (valuable correction of Roth’s long privately circulated) = madh + dda, 2p. sa. aor. mid. *madh+dha+sa(s)+dhvam, or mad°. Avereté active sense, as hievd is more than soc. instr. (‘hemmed in with his tongue’) ‘confessing’ seems the better sense; the*word is a sort of deponent, not impossibly part. perf., otherwise dvaretd from °tar = ‘confessor’. My former free trl. de- pended on the old reading which was universally current at the time of printing, read it: ‘Now therefore all things well do ye ponder’. Asa slightly different cast read; ‘for ye can now mark all things, for it is to be under- stood that the false teacher will not for the second time - -’. The Pahl. trir., glosses aside, may be considered as proceeding with substantial correctness. Ishathd is taken in its sense of ‘wish’ (see the gloss), and freely as a 34 sg., but bavihinéd is also a Qna pl, The trlr. had fre- quently rendered the term. °‘id, and could not have departed from his other renderings from pure ignorance. Read 0 alternatively ; ‘and ye who are desiring if from near and from afar’. The divided mazddonhédum misled the trir. as it did all his successors till a recent period, and this should afford an explanation of many similar errors. In mazddonhé (sic) he sees the clumsy meaning necessary to that text. Péddk = prakatam = chitre. The conj. in meras(k)yad(#) was recognized in marenchindd, and dveretd was reproduced as active and transitive in the word hémnunéd. Haug, not aware of the Pahl. free forms, declared Ner. to have rendered géshédim as a noun in the dual. Ner. was rendering gésh dén in the gl. = nydkshishno in the text. The Pahl. renders infin. for imper. Ner. is more graphic with his 540 noun in the text, while the Pahl. trlr. places gosh dén in the gloss. Read my former misprint °kyiyate; dushtagishydyita@ seems in order as a denom. not needing alteration, although °ydpitd is in analogy with an arthdpayati, cp. Max Miiller’s Sansk. Gram. German. trl. s. 319. Is durgatiyam meant for & comparative with primary suffix, for °“¢yah?; see the Pahl. comparative form; or it is a needless variation ? 2. Paouruyé(é) = paourvyé ace. du. masc., see p. 436; we = Wine will proclaim the two spirits ‘at first’? is weak and improbable. Some would render ‘earlier than the world’. See Y. 30, 4 vahistem mand, and Y. 30, 6 achistem mano. Spanydo - - angrem corresponds to vahyd, akemchd in Y. 30, 3. Disregard the divisions of the lines at the 6t syllable which were formerly printed to guide non-experts in catching the supposed rhythm. Read my former text wrvand, J.? has advydpara®, J.* (2) the same, or adhy®, but the same characters represent adv in yadvayam (sic) v.6, c. One MS., which is properly J.4 not J.*, is reported by a friend to have asadvydpdrt in 2 d. Either read avydpar° throughout with Sp.’s MSS. ©.
3supposed rhythm. Read my former text wrvand, J.? has advydpara®, J.* (2) the same, or adhy®, but the same characters represent adv in yadvayam (sic) v.6, c. One MS., which is properly J.4 not J.*, is reported by a friend to have asadvydpdrt in 2 d. Either read avydpar° throughout with Sp.’s MSS. ©. and P., or correct to asadvydpar° where needed. This latter is of course the better reading, if it were really genuine. Read antar bhu®, ndchd tmdnah, In the Parsi-pers. the wa in the interior after mén had better be u, and this notwithstanding the curious, and one would say positively erroneous, Pazarfa “, which intrudes every where, even at the beginnings of sentences, while the Pahl. va, its original — holds, as we suppose, throughout, and not only at the beginnings of sen- tences. For this latter reason I had formerly preferred reading wa (= va) throughout in this mixed Parsi and Persian. But with some ~ is orig. uta. 3. Caesura after the 4th syllable, yet see lines c, d, e. Read in my old free trl 6; ‘Which unto - ’; e ‘Theirs’, All the divisions of the lines are wholly informal. Avdé is loc.; Is it purely adverbial, or = in miseria? Read my former text pavan shan in e. In Ner. ddau = Jratim. Read my former printing antar bhuvane. 4. Formal caesura after the fourth, yet see c. My former volens in e Should be supplemented with aspiciens. Great obscurity is here present. Some scholars, chiefly anxious to differ from predecessors, do not hesitate at a first-personal vaé(é)dé of course thoroughly possible, but see vidvdo in v. 3 referring to Ahuréd. A voc, Mazda is also not so probable just here; see Mazddo A. in the 3r4 pers. nom. in y. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10. The nom. is characteristic, and the formal address is to the people; see the voc. only in v. 11. But who is the ‘father of the Good Mind’, ‘the father of the Saints’, possibly the saintly monarch whose daughter is ‘Piety’. Then comes 541 line e with the mention of A. as ‘undeceivable’, a repetition of the idea in line 6., vaé(é)dd. The Monarch could only be referred to as priestly, and representing all virtues in his person; possibly Zarathustra is meant; hence he is referred to immediately after the mention of the Mdathra which he delivered. We might be tempted to regard @ of Mazdd (so) as having lost its nasalization, Mazda = Mazddim: ‘I know Mazda, who appointed him - -’. Finally have we here oblique diction, ‘the Father of the Good Mind and of Piety’ strongly suggests Ahura. Shall we render: ‘I know M. the Father, etc’. Or finally, can the meaning be: ‘M. A. knows, who appointed = ‘constituted Himself’ by His gracious revelation the Father, (‘begetting them again by the living word’). Véspd-hishas might be taken as a compositum, or not. Hishas seems a reduplicated root noun from shas; i. e. unless we can correct to d@ ishas, gy stood as Pahl. s = h% or 4, to ish, ishasd, Y. 31, 4; ishasdtd(t), Y. 50, 2.
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.