Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1i-vach. Otherwise compare the root of djas; rendering ‘using force against’. We should naturally render ‘in retaliation’ which obviously fits this connection, and also the common meaning of pait? = prdti. Yet see the four times repeated pati? in Yt. 8, 51. There ‘back’ does not apply in three cases. It is a pity indeed to lose the good meaning ‘reta- liation’, but was it expressed? The items of defensive aggression do not contain the word aé(é)nah here. Té must be neut. pl. with yd, poss. refer- ring to S(k)yaothandis. As to the form of paityaoged({) we have difficulty. Sansk. roots in similar consonants are not extended by ¢; d(f) in jzd(Z), fraored(t) (var (vri) +1), does not carry us through, as ¢ and 77 are often exten- ded by ¢ Aneut. of the pres. part. seems almost equally improbable. A 374 sg. would be superfluous beside jasdid(t), see also Yt. 8, 51. I hold the word to be an adverbial expression, whether retaliative, or not, cannot be said, nor whether the word is an extended root-form, or a neut. of the pres. part. Asar résh, although an intelligent rendering for dthris, is properly a transliteration accompanied with a translation. As shown above (p. 445), - x in Pahl. = ¢h in Zend here, and initial » may = 4@. Athar is an ap- proximate transliteration for dthris, and résh is good, although from ris. I render asar, ‘endless’, only under protest. The root as = ‘reach’ may have been recognized as in a causative and transitive sense in Srosyad(t), but I should say that réntnidar hdémanam could not have been intended for the needed sense ‘impelling toward me’. The trir., while elsewhere teach- ing us that pé@ may mean ‘to hold from good’ as well as ‘from evil’, is here thrown into syntactical error by rendering ‘protect’. In e he may have meant Adharmazd as a voc.: ‘He is not, OA., in any particular (damdno is gloss) a tormentor’. With glosses dropped, of course the trl. approaches nearer its original. Ner. means ‘always’ by his kaddchit = pavan kadarchat damané, so, everywhere with analogous forms. 9. Caesura at the 4%, yet see the difficulty in c. Some prefer ren- dering: ‘Who first, as a ready helper regarded me, as we first conceived Thee as the one to be invoked’. Another: ‘Who first believed me that we should reverence Thee as the mightiest’. I was very loath to abandon the ancient rendering for zevtstim; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 139, note 2, and I recur to my earlier view that jw is the root (in an Iranian sense (cp. dst). We have either a root vowel modified by ¢, or two suffixes 75 + tya, zevis- tyam = *javishtyam, so for form. Others prefer a superlat. in istya (sic); see p. 406. As to chid(t), it often means ‘indicate’, or the like,‘in Iranian (see Y.
2arlier view that jw is the root (in an Iranian sense (cp. dst). We have either a root vowel modified by ¢, or two suffixes 75 + tya, zevis- tyam = *javishtyam, so for form. Others prefer a superlat. in istya (sic); see p. 406. As to chid(t), it often means ‘indicate’, or the like,‘in Iranian (see Y. 33, 2), also probably at times in the Hirt, Line d might seem 556 to some decisive for the positive distinction between Ahura and the Géué tashan, others would regard it as a plain case of poetic iteration, alluding to Ahura obliquely, ya tdi - - - y@ are Ahura’s: His Tashan Geus, = Him- self, practically speaks for Him. If there is any distinction, it is such as prevails between Ahura, and His spénista mainyu, who is at times referred to as identical with Him, see above p. 457. Some would prefer reading the second ashd, ashdi. I do not however at all recoil from recognizing the poetic iteration. TI also recognize the pl. neutr. of ashem somewhat un- willingly as = ‘holy regulations’, Read however as alternative: ‘what ordinances of Thine, yea, what the Kine’s creator has uttered for the holy order’. In §. B. E. XXXI, p. 139, I take md as possessive and in an abl. sense, ‘They seek as mine’, or ‘trom me’. But I offer as alternative my long since printed; ‘these things are impelling me (md, acc.) toward Thee’. Another would suggest mé@ as = smd. It was probably owing to Ner.’s asvddayati that I formerly transliterated chadshédo. Chdashidé is nearer the Gatha. As to ddshishno for zevistim, see above. Notice that the glossist here saw the meaning hdvishto in Ashavahishto, either reading some of the characters differently, or else seeing the ‘disciple’ in Ashi(a), as the orthodox citizen is called Vohu Manah, because inspired by that divine attribute. See also the gloss (?) in Y. 43, 1, e. 10. Caesura at the 4, yet see b. We might well suspect ashktm to retain its original sense here as puram indolem. A reward even in the shape of a blessing seems rather out of place as coming from the ‘men or women’; and a recognition of his character seems the more probable idea, But on the other hand princely men and women who might give recompense, at least in the form of contributions, are alluded to in the Gathas, Ashtm ashdi is exactly parallel with ukem aki . ashim vanhavé(é) Y. 43, 5. His vahistd may be those elements of material aid for the ‘cause’, the absence of which he bewails in y. 1, 2. Hakhshdi is also somewhat too definitively rendered ‘convert’. I think that a past conversion is im- plied in ddydd(t) vahista. ‘Incite? is the more proper sense of hakhsh, an extension of hach expressing ‘incitation through example’, ‘encouragement’. For tarsakdsh Sp. (2) and D., tarsakdish (sic) DJ. and M1, we need.an abstract, as the Pers. seems to understand. I suggest tarsdkdsth written often in these MSS. tarsakdsth, Y. 28, 7, etc. It has been thought that ¢arsddt might be read.
3hach expressing ‘incitation through example’, ‘encouragement’. For tarsakdsh Sp. (2) and D., tarsakdish (sic) DJ. and M1, we need.an abstract, as the Pers. seems to understand. I suggest tarsdkdsth written often in these MSS. tarsakdsth, Y. 28, 7, etc. It has been thought that ¢arsddt might be read. This would be an abstract, and also valuable as containing the idea of ‘bestowal’ which inheres in ashi, but I am now doubtful as to the form. Hdjam (or hdcham (2), hakhcham (2) or khézam (?) (meaning only certain)) correctly renders hakhshdi. If pewan is irregularly a postposition, Jravdménd should be deciphered Sravamént (same signs) as literally . 7 5ST equalling frafrd, ‘I will go with them to the Ch.’. The closeness of the Pahl. trlr. to his original here (glosses aside) should lead no critical in- quirer to expect the same elsewhere. The trlr. is sometimes of most value wheu it contains some indispensable hint amidst chaotic debris. This remark should be constantly borne in mind. Bhaktyd (bhakid J+. cannot be read, see pavan tarsakdsth(?)) in its sense of ‘portion’ may indicate a closer conception of the true meaning of ashi. I should have claimed the meaning ‘they praise’ in my former printing for prabruvanti. Ner. misread n for v in deciphering fravdménd, hence his ‘they praise’, but see the Pers. Read na(a)maskritaye (J.8, J.4) as better than namastutaye (P.). Haug ought to have ‘known that prakrishtam means pra in Ney. 11. Disregard as usual my former informal divisions after the 6% syllable. Ydjén may seem suspicious in a reflexive sense, but see Y. 49, 9 hyad(t) daé(é)ndo vahisté(é) yijén mizhdé(é). Other verbs of gesture have reflexive sense in the active; vigvam asyd ndndma chdkshase, RY. 1, 48, 8. The 72 of mashtm is the old Pahlavi character » which has the force of ya at times; the word is, I think, marshyam = martyam. wy may be some- times, and perhaps wassoriginally, an 4% + ‘ cp. Asha = rita. As to pae(é)chd, we should properly read saydchd, cp. svaya(m). Vaélé) = 00H as yaé(é) = ydi (before chd), and 6 = @(@) as in khshathroi = °thré(é). But is in the present case mistransliterated. Vee) as nom. sg. fem. is senseless. here = yy, a lengthened 4 which is actually a united » + 9, written together in a-loop and = yd. The word without ch@ and in Pahl. char. would be yj , yw = iv with inherent a, as often, and 1% = yd, hvayd, n. s. £., see pp. 436, 457. Khraozhdad(t), so the oldest MSS. with the Pahl. trl., seems a vriddhied and extended form of khrus (Ved. kruc). I would therefore amend my former rendering se induret in the sense of the free trl., ‘utter cries’; cp. Yt. 22, where the soul’s own self confronts and affrights the wicked, and where evil spirits howl at him revilingly. Reading khraodad(t) we have; ‘whose soul will rage’. Demdndi. One scholar prefers demdnd; ‘the houses (astayd) of Satan become forever their abodes’. One writer prefers hadéma, dém, domus, as the related words, suffix @na.
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.
1i-vach. Otherwise compare the root of djas; rendering ‘using force against’. We should naturally render ‘in retaliation’ which obviously fits this connection, and also the common meaning of pait? = prdti. Yet see the four times repeated pati? in Yt. 8, 51. There ‘back’ does not apply in three cases. It is a pity indeed to lose the good meaning ‘reta- liation’, but was it expressed? The items of defensive aggression do not contain the word aé(é)nah here. Té must be neut. pl. with yd, poss. refer- ring to S(k)yaothandis. As to the form of paityaoged({) we have difficulty. Sansk. roots in similar consonants are not extended by ¢; d(f) in jzd(Z), fraored(t) (var (vri) +1), does not carry us through, as ¢ and 77 are often exten- ded by ¢ Aneut. of the pres. part. seems almost equally improbable. A 374 sg. would be superfluous beside jasdid(t), see also Yt. 8, 51. I hold the word to be an adverbial expression, whether retaliative, or not, cannot be said, nor whether the word is an extended root-form, or a neut. of the pres. part. Asar résh, although an intelligent rendering for dthris, is properly a transliteration accompanied with a translation. As shown above (p. 445), - x in Pahl. = ¢h in Zend here, and initial » may = 4@. Athar is an ap- proximate transliteration for dthris, and résh is good, although from ris. I render asar, ‘endless’, only under protest. The root as = ‘reach’ may have been recognized as in a causative and transitive sense in Srosyad(t), but I should say that réntnidar hdémanam could not have been intended for the needed sense ‘impelling toward me’. The trir., while elsewhere teach- ing us that pé@ may mean ‘to hold from good’ as well as ‘from evil’, is here thrown into syntactical error by rendering ‘protect’. In e he may have meant Adharmazd as a voc.: ‘He is not, OA., in any particular (damdno is gloss) a tormentor’. With glosses dropped, of course the trl. approaches nearer its original. Ner. means ‘always’ by his kaddchit = pavan kadarchat damané, so, everywhere with analogous forms. 9. Caesura at the 4%, yet see the difficulty in c. Some prefer ren- dering: ‘Who first, as a ready helper regarded me, as we first conceived Thee as the one to be invoked’. Another: ‘Who first believed me that we should reverence Thee as the mightiest’. I was very loath to abandon the ancient rendering for zevtstim; see S. B. E. XXXI, p. 139, note 2, and I recur to my earlier view that jw is the root (in an Iranian sense (cp. dst). We have either a root vowel modified by ¢, or two suffixes 75 + tya, zevis- tyam = *javishtyam, so for form. Others prefer a superlat. in istya (sic); see p. 406. As to chid(t), it often means ‘indicate’, or the like,‘in Iranian (see Y.
2arlier view that jw is the root (in an Iranian sense (cp. dst). We have either a root vowel modified by ¢, or two suffixes 75 + tya, zevis- tyam = *javishtyam, so for form. Others prefer a superlat. in istya (sic); see p. 406. As to chid(t), it often means ‘indicate’, or the like,‘in Iranian (see Y. 33, 2), also probably at times in the Hirt, Line d might seem 556 to some decisive for the positive distinction between Ahura and the Géué tashan, others would regard it as a plain case of poetic iteration, alluding to Ahura obliquely, ya tdi - - - y@ are Ahura’s: His Tashan Geus, = Him- self, practically speaks for Him. If there is any distinction, it is such as prevails between Ahura, and His spénista mainyu, who is at times referred to as identical with Him, see above p. 457. Some would prefer reading the second ashd, ashdi. I do not however at all recoil from recognizing the poetic iteration. TI also recognize the pl. neutr. of ashem somewhat un- willingly as = ‘holy regulations’, Read however as alternative: ‘what ordinances of Thine, yea, what the Kine’s creator has uttered for the holy order’. In §. B. E. XXXI, p. 139, I take md as possessive and in an abl. sense, ‘They seek as mine’, or ‘trom me’. But I offer as alternative my long since printed; ‘these things are impelling me (md, acc.) toward Thee’. Another would suggest mé@ as = smd. It was probably owing to Ner.’s asvddayati that I formerly transliterated chadshédo. Chdashidé is nearer the Gatha. As to ddshishno for zevistim, see above. Notice that the glossist here saw the meaning hdvishto in Ashavahishto, either reading some of the characters differently, or else seeing the ‘disciple’ in Ashi(a), as the orthodox citizen is called Vohu Manah, because inspired by that divine attribute. See also the gloss (?) in Y. 43, 1, e. 10. Caesura at the 4, yet see b. We might well suspect ashktm to retain its original sense here as puram indolem. A reward even in the shape of a blessing seems rather out of place as coming from the ‘men or women’; and a recognition of his character seems the more probable idea, But on the other hand princely men and women who might give recompense, at least in the form of contributions, are alluded to in the Gathas, Ashtm ashdi is exactly parallel with ukem aki . ashim vanhavé(é) Y. 43, 5. His vahistd may be those elements of material aid for the ‘cause’, the absence of which he bewails in y. 1, 2. Hakhshdi is also somewhat too definitively rendered ‘convert’. I think that a past conversion is im- plied in ddydd(t) vahista. ‘Incite? is the more proper sense of hakhsh, an extension of hach expressing ‘incitation through example’, ‘encouragement’. For tarsakdsh Sp. (2) and D., tarsakdish (sic) DJ. and M1, we need.an abstract, as the Pers. seems to understand. I suggest tarsdkdsth written often in these MSS. tarsakdsth, Y. 28, 7, etc. It has been thought that ¢arsddt might be read.
3hach expressing ‘incitation through example’, ‘encouragement’. For tarsakdsh Sp. (2) and D., tarsakdish (sic) DJ. and M1, we need.an abstract, as the Pers. seems to understand. I suggest tarsdkdsth written often in these MSS. tarsakdsth, Y. 28, 7, etc. It has been thought that ¢arsddt might be read. This would be an abstract, and also valuable as containing the idea of ‘bestowal’ which inheres in ashi, but I am now doubtful as to the form. Hdjam (or hdcham (2), hakhcham (2) or khézam (?) (meaning only certain)) correctly renders hakhshdi. If pewan is irregularly a postposition, Jravdménd should be deciphered Sravamént (same signs) as literally . 7 5ST equalling frafrd, ‘I will go with them to the Ch.’. The closeness of the Pahl. trlr. to his original here (glosses aside) should lead no critical in- quirer to expect the same elsewhere. The trlr. is sometimes of most value wheu it contains some indispensable hint amidst chaotic debris. This remark should be constantly borne in mind. Bhaktyd (bhakid J+. cannot be read, see pavan tarsakdsth(?)) in its sense of ‘portion’ may indicate a closer conception of the true meaning of ashi. I should have claimed the meaning ‘they praise’ in my former printing for prabruvanti. Ner. misread n for v in deciphering fravdménd, hence his ‘they praise’, but see the Pers. Read na(a)maskritaye (J.8, J.4) as better than namastutaye (P.). Haug ought to have ‘known that prakrishtam means pra in Ney. 11. Disregard as usual my former informal divisions after the 6% syllable. Ydjén may seem suspicious in a reflexive sense, but see Y. 49, 9 hyad(t) daé(é)ndo vahisté(é) yijén mizhdé(é). Other verbs of gesture have reflexive sense in the active; vigvam asyd ndndma chdkshase, RY. 1, 48, 8. The 72 of mashtm is the old Pahlavi character » which has the force of ya at times; the word is, I think, marshyam = martyam. wy may be some- times, and perhaps wassoriginally, an 4% + ‘ cp. Asha = rita. As to pae(é)chd, we should properly read saydchd, cp. svaya(m). Vaélé) = 00H as yaé(é) = ydi (before chd), and 6 = @(@) as in khshathroi = °thré(é). But is in the present case mistransliterated. Vee) as nom. sg. fem. is senseless. here = yy, a lengthened 4 which is actually a united » + 9, written together in a-loop and = yd. The word without ch@ and in Pahl. char. would be yj , yw = iv with inherent a, as often, and 1% = yd, hvayd, n. s. £., see pp. 436, 457. Khraozhdad(t), so the oldest MSS. with the Pahl. trl., seems a vriddhied and extended form of khrus (Ved. kruc). I would therefore amend my former rendering se induret in the sense of the free trl., ‘utter cries’; cp. Yt. 22, where the soul’s own self confronts and affrights the wicked, and where evil spirits howl at him revilingly. Reading khraodad(t) we have; ‘whose soul will rage’. Demdndi. One scholar prefers demdnd; ‘the houses (astayd) of Satan become forever their abodes’. One writer prefers hadéma, dém, domus, as the related words, suffix @na.
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.