Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1phered — for want of better, read ¢arsakdsth (cp. v. 9, d). Strictly tarsdahih (sic for tarsakdsih) should be gen. = ashéi$. ‘Of the generous’ was forced by the gloss; read ‘for’. Yakshenunidérih is certainly very free, or shows another text. Forms of jiv (jtvard) were easily recognized by the trir. Read khvahishn’, and yakshenuniddréh in my old text. Ner. seems to render £ freely as kéna rather than kadar. J.3, J.4, J.* read yat for ye; ‘when do I seek Jor Thy devotees; that is, as mine?’ (?). Manonyén (see v. 7) I had referred to manikéno, see maibyd; but, reading manonyan = *manenydn, man may have been seen in smantkdéno, see the short a in man® (manas + nya (2) — is not probable, ményonydn (J.*) gives no relief). After prasddam J3, J.*, and perhaps J.4, read te = ‘Thy reward’. Tvam induced me to write the monster dakshinayatvam (CO. sic), and certainly tvam is only explicable as in a parenthesis from which I recoiled. But I would now read: Yat dakshina(h) (sic) ayam (so J.3, J.4, J.%, P.) [tvam (see avd Lak)\ prakatah = ‘when this bountiful one [thou] (?) shall be manifest’. °yamtoam (J.4) as a compos. with yam is not impossible. Suvydpdrend with most MSS., but J.6 may have sad°. Pers. mdydn, so, plainly, = ‘mine (?)’, manikéno. 9. Read Saos(k)yas in my former printing. J.3, J* have yé(e)nhé(é) chahyad = ‘over whatsoever’. I had once set chahy@ in types as beginning another question, but I concluded against it, and am still of this opinion. One might say that yé(¢)hyd was governed by khshayathd (in view of chahyé) 575 = ‘over that thing which is - - -’. Otherwise it is syntactically connected with dithis . - = ‘whose is’. It may refer to chahyd: ‘If ye have power over any one from whom’, etc. As? is understood. Yé(e)hyd to Mazddé, or ashé is not objectionable, cp. Y. 32, 16, also as to dithis dvaé(é)thd. Ucham, to the root of dkas, uch, uchyati. Vafus, see on Y. 29, 5. Ashis, better as ‘beatitude’, ‘sacred reward’, ‘attainment of holy ambition’, never as merely secular ‘good fortune’ in the Gathdas. The superfluous dahishn is again harmless; see atmat = kadé. Chigdmchdi may more closely equal chahyé. Aithi§ dvaé(é)tha may find here its only correct explanation, so vafus, see p. 423. Uchdim seems referred to dkas in the sense of ‘amenity’, see 2¢vishnith. D. has tarsakdsth in d; we may correct the tentative tars- dahih after this. Read wishtpishno, vishiftan. One lexicographer has Zzad, and zzaddén as pl. of it, citing yaeddn (or yazaddn) as a separate word; others treat yazddn as pl. of tzad. (Chodzké writes etzid). Persian usage often varies according to time and place, like that of all other languages. Read pddishah, har kas, dgh, ziyam (so better). 10. I would correct my former printing by dahyunam, and read final 9. Mdan(a)réis (sic; see the metre), man + ri. This suffix indeed occurs with « in Ved., or in words which show a preceding w.
2ng to time and place, like that of all other languages. Read pddishah, har kas, dgh, ziyam (so better). 10. I would correct my former printing by dahyunam, and read final 9. Mdan(a)réis (sic; see the metre), man + ri. This suffix indeed occurs with « in Ved., or in words which show a preceding w. It is also possible that two suffixes are present, a and 77, the line being a twelve- syllabled one. Ajén; is it possibly a sg. from jan = han, cp. (uz) jen, Y. 46, 12? Irreg. sg. for pl. should be avoided where poss. (J@ = hd) + @ has been suggested in the sense ‘leave off’. I think that orig. 7 holds here, or that an Aryan orig. 2 has fallen away, while an orig. 7 has held contrary to the rule. 4j = Sk. a7 = ‘drive away’, see the Pahl. We might suspect in (w)ripayée)intt a causative of ruh ropayant:; ‘by which the K. have aroused (their hosts)’. This is to be considered; but wrupi, as the name of a hunting dog, points to the predatory idea, ropayanti (rup) may be the analogon. The Pahl. trlr. had ma . naréis before him, or was at a loss for an etymology, and so divided purposely as mé naré. The form of visenté(é), as need hardly be said, was not mistaken for that of padirishn which renders it; ‘conciliating approach’ was expressed. D. has atmat, so the Pers. in 6, and magth in a form, which (without diacritical dots (often misplaced)) might be read madih = madahya = ‘intoxication’. ‘Unalloyed wickedness’ has a parallel in the Shikand Giimanik Vijér. Kar va kor refer to kar in karap®. Uripayé(e)int? seems to have been seen as uru = ‘wide’, ‘afar’, and a form of pd@ = ‘to protect’ = ‘they protect only afar’ (sic) = ‘they expel protectors’. But see on Y. 44, 20. The word may be trans- lated, first as rdninénd freely, and then also inaccurately, but alternatively 576 panakth, as merely noting a possible root idea. D. has °@d, written with the sign of a long @; no types are available to show this interesting varia- tion. Pratikarapatd in ordinary Sansk. would naturally convey the idea of ‘opposition’ here absent; form abstract nom. fem. = ‘helping (party)’, or adj. in ata (cp. dargatd, etc.) nom. pl. Can it be meant for a formation from karna? It probably is an imitation of padérishn = ‘a friendly coming to’. Haug’s bhavati in 6 would be simpler, avoiding a question as to a pl. in nikrishtatard, see however a. Read [yat nihantérah santi]. Kimchit hani- kartérah (so J.3, J) adarcakéh santi is gloss, rdninénd is not rendered. Yazadén was not recognized, perhaps nihén was read, render as altern., ‘workers of injury in the matter’, kimchit = mindavam. Agh is written in the MS. for dgh sometimes, but it is better corrected. That khwahan, (so, plainly) was meant to express ‘pouring out as through a funnel’ is hardly probable. Jisinénd might be meant for jishinénd, sense ‘boil’, ‘agitate’; it is the trad. translit. for jund®. D. has gandk in e. 11. As to caesural division, see ¢ and d. Read final . Dreg- vodebis khrirdi§, a quasi soc.
3so, plainly) was meant to express ‘pouring out as through a funnel’ is hardly probable. Jisinénd might be meant for jishinénd, sense ‘boil’, ‘agitate’; it is the trad. translit. for jund®. D. has gandk in e. 11. As to caesural division, see ¢ and d. Read final . Dreg- vodebis khrirdi§, a quasi soc. instr., has its approximate parallel in the English, ‘when shall we be done with these cruel sinners’? The instr. used as abl. must of course be understood as an emphatic alternative: ‘Who shall give us rest from these bloodthirsty infidels’? See also hukh- shathrais + - - ramamchd di§ daddta Y. 53, 8. If the instr. is used for the dat., the sense is ‘cessation (rest in this sense) to them’. Pahl. See dahishns = °dé once more harmless, and not disturbing the full rendering of kadé by atmat. Kér should = ‘agricultural labour’, cp. vdstryd and vastravaitt. D. might have guikhrinth, except that yw stands for p- I strongly suspect résh to render the detached syllable °rdi§, while arméshtth (so D. with the Pers.) and akérth = rémam = ‘(enforced) rest’. Read as altern.: “who imposes lameness, or impotence, upon the wound of the cruelty of the wicked’ (om. va). Ashavahishtd = prakatam;: Sp.’s emendation karye looks interesting. J.3 seems kéryakartré or °karttd; °kartra ‘materials used in magic’ is not in harmony. The ¢ must, as often, be erroneously doubled. The sense ‘priest’ (kartd) would not be so well adapted here as ‘agri- culturalist’ which is however not an ordinary Sansk. meaning; so read as altern. 12, As to caesura see 5 which is awkward. Read dahyunim for the antiquated spelling, also saos(k)°, S(k)yaoth®, and final , in the small — print aéshemem for aéshem, and actionibus [suzs per] in my former printing. — Some would apply khshniim to the distant sénhahyd, but khshnim 517 Mazdéo, Y. 53, 2 relieves us from such a risk. My decipherment shnds- inidérih was an instance of what, I hope, I may without immodesty call my former excessive caution in rendering the Pahl. as being far from the Gatha. I considered Ner. and the Pers., and perhaps they are right; but shndyin- iddrth is a simpler transliteration, and in Y.49, 12 ¢ DJ. reads shndyinidarih as an equivalent variation for stdyiddrih (see also Ner. there). Read here shniyinidarih = ‘worship’, ‘propitiating reverence’, so read shnd@yinénd; ‘that is, men render reverent worship with piety’. Forms of hach are else- where expressed by the corresponding prep. There is intelligent freedom, and no error, in levatman = hachdonté(é). D. has haméstdr = ‘ opposer(s)’ (so better). DJ.’s avd is perhaps better. Anydyinah must be error for nydyinah. Kopanam (Haug) would afford an object for dadantah, but see the cases of 7 Khéshmé (Aéshmé) and Aé(é)shmahyd. Ristakéz is of course better than the prevailing pronunciation, rast®. The letters which I rendered khushndst = for hii + shndst look most like khésh-mahdll.
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.
1phered — for want of better, read ¢arsakdsth (cp. v. 9, d). Strictly tarsdahih (sic for tarsakdsih) should be gen. = ashéi$. ‘Of the generous’ was forced by the gloss; read ‘for’. Yakshenunidérih is certainly very free, or shows another text. Forms of jiv (jtvard) were easily recognized by the trir. Read khvahishn’, and yakshenuniddréh in my old text. Ner. seems to render £ freely as kéna rather than kadar. J.3, J.4, J.* read yat for ye; ‘when do I seek Jor Thy devotees; that is, as mine?’ (?). Manonyén (see v. 7) I had referred to manikéno, see maibyd; but, reading manonyan = *manenydn, man may have been seen in smantkdéno, see the short a in man® (manas + nya (2) — is not probable, ményonydn (J.*) gives no relief). After prasddam J3, J.*, and perhaps J.4, read te = ‘Thy reward’. Tvam induced me to write the monster dakshinayatvam (CO. sic), and certainly tvam is only explicable as in a parenthesis from which I recoiled. But I would now read: Yat dakshina(h) (sic) ayam (so J.3, J.4, J.%, P.) [tvam (see avd Lak)\ prakatah = ‘when this bountiful one [thou] (?) shall be manifest’. °yamtoam (J.4) as a compos. with yam is not impossible. Suvydpdrend with most MSS., but J.6 may have sad°. Pers. mdydn, so, plainly, = ‘mine (?)’, manikéno. 9. Read Saos(k)yas in my former printing. J.3, J* have yé(e)nhé(é) chahyad = ‘over whatsoever’. I had once set chahy@ in types as beginning another question, but I concluded against it, and am still of this opinion. One might say that yé(¢)hyd was governed by khshayathd (in view of chahyé) 575 = ‘over that thing which is - - -’. Otherwise it is syntactically connected with dithis . - = ‘whose is’. It may refer to chahyd: ‘If ye have power over any one from whom’, etc. As? is understood. Yé(e)hyd to Mazddé, or ashé is not objectionable, cp. Y. 32, 16, also as to dithis dvaé(é)thd. Ucham, to the root of dkas, uch, uchyati. Vafus, see on Y. 29, 5. Ashis, better as ‘beatitude’, ‘sacred reward’, ‘attainment of holy ambition’, never as merely secular ‘good fortune’ in the Gathdas. The superfluous dahishn is again harmless; see atmat = kadé. Chigdmchdi may more closely equal chahyé. Aithi§ dvaé(é)tha may find here its only correct explanation, so vafus, see p. 423. Uchdim seems referred to dkas in the sense of ‘amenity’, see 2¢vishnith. D. has tarsakdsth in d; we may correct the tentative tars- dahih after this. Read wishtpishno, vishiftan. One lexicographer has Zzad, and zzaddén as pl. of it, citing yaeddn (or yazaddn) as a separate word; others treat yazddn as pl. of tzad. (Chodzké writes etzid). Persian usage often varies according to time and place, like that of all other languages. Read pddishah, har kas, dgh, ziyam (so better). 10. I would correct my former printing by dahyunam, and read final 9. Mdan(a)réis (sic; see the metre), man + ri. This suffix indeed occurs with « in Ved., or in words which show a preceding w.
2ng to time and place, like that of all other languages. Read pddishah, har kas, dgh, ziyam (so better). 10. I would correct my former printing by dahyunam, and read final 9. Mdan(a)réis (sic; see the metre), man + ri. This suffix indeed occurs with « in Ved., or in words which show a preceding w. It is also possible that two suffixes are present, a and 77, the line being a twelve- syllabled one. Ajén; is it possibly a sg. from jan = han, cp. (uz) jen, Y. 46, 12? Irreg. sg. for pl. should be avoided where poss. (J@ = hd) + @ has been suggested in the sense ‘leave off’. I think that orig. 7 holds here, or that an Aryan orig. 2 has fallen away, while an orig. 7 has held contrary to the rule. 4j = Sk. a7 = ‘drive away’, see the Pahl. We might suspect in (w)ripayée)intt a causative of ruh ropayant:; ‘by which the K. have aroused (their hosts)’. This is to be considered; but wrupi, as the name of a hunting dog, points to the predatory idea, ropayanti (rup) may be the analogon. The Pahl. trlr. had ma . naréis before him, or was at a loss for an etymology, and so divided purposely as mé naré. The form of visenté(é), as need hardly be said, was not mistaken for that of padirishn which renders it; ‘conciliating approach’ was expressed. D. has atmat, so the Pers. in 6, and magth in a form, which (without diacritical dots (often misplaced)) might be read madih = madahya = ‘intoxication’. ‘Unalloyed wickedness’ has a parallel in the Shikand Giimanik Vijér. Kar va kor refer to kar in karap®. Uripayé(e)int? seems to have been seen as uru = ‘wide’, ‘afar’, and a form of pd@ = ‘to protect’ = ‘they protect only afar’ (sic) = ‘they expel protectors’. But see on Y. 44, 20. The word may be trans- lated, first as rdninénd freely, and then also inaccurately, but alternatively 576 panakth, as merely noting a possible root idea. D. has °@d, written with the sign of a long @; no types are available to show this interesting varia- tion. Pratikarapatd in ordinary Sansk. would naturally convey the idea of ‘opposition’ here absent; form abstract nom. fem. = ‘helping (party)’, or adj. in ata (cp. dargatd, etc.) nom. pl. Can it be meant for a formation from karna? It probably is an imitation of padérishn = ‘a friendly coming to’. Haug’s bhavati in 6 would be simpler, avoiding a question as to a pl. in nikrishtatard, see however a. Read [yat nihantérah santi]. Kimchit hani- kartérah (so J.3, J) adarcakéh santi is gloss, rdninénd is not rendered. Yazadén was not recognized, perhaps nihén was read, render as altern., ‘workers of injury in the matter’, kimchit = mindavam. Agh is written in the MS. for dgh sometimes, but it is better corrected. That khwahan, (so, plainly) was meant to express ‘pouring out as through a funnel’ is hardly probable. Jisinénd might be meant for jishinénd, sense ‘boil’, ‘agitate’; it is the trad. translit. for jund®. D. has gandk in e. 11. As to caesural division, see ¢ and d. Read final . Dreg- vodebis khrirdi§, a quasi soc.
3so, plainly) was meant to express ‘pouring out as through a funnel’ is hardly probable. Jisinénd might be meant for jishinénd, sense ‘boil’, ‘agitate’; it is the trad. translit. for jund®. D. has gandk in e. 11. As to caesural division, see ¢ and d. Read final . Dreg- vodebis khrirdi§, a quasi soc. instr., has its approximate parallel in the English, ‘when shall we be done with these cruel sinners’? The instr. used as abl. must of course be understood as an emphatic alternative: ‘Who shall give us rest from these bloodthirsty infidels’? See also hukh- shathrais + - - ramamchd di§ daddta Y. 53, 8. If the instr. is used for the dat., the sense is ‘cessation (rest in this sense) to them’. Pahl. See dahishns = °dé once more harmless, and not disturbing the full rendering of kadé by atmat. Kér should = ‘agricultural labour’, cp. vdstryd and vastravaitt. D. might have guikhrinth, except that yw stands for p- I strongly suspect résh to render the detached syllable °rdi§, while arméshtth (so D. with the Pers.) and akérth = rémam = ‘(enforced) rest’. Read as altern.: “who imposes lameness, or impotence, upon the wound of the cruelty of the wicked’ (om. va). Ashavahishtd = prakatam;: Sp.’s emendation karye looks interesting. J.3 seems kéryakartré or °karttd; °kartra ‘materials used in magic’ is not in harmony. The ¢ must, as often, be erroneously doubled. The sense ‘priest’ (kartd) would not be so well adapted here as ‘agri- culturalist’ which is however not an ordinary Sansk. meaning; so read as altern. 12, As to caesura see 5 which is awkward. Read dahyunim for the antiquated spelling, also saos(k)°, S(k)yaoth®, and final , in the small — print aéshemem for aéshem, and actionibus [suzs per] in my former printing. — Some would apply khshniim to the distant sénhahyd, but khshnim 517 Mazdéo, Y. 53, 2 relieves us from such a risk. My decipherment shnds- inidérih was an instance of what, I hope, I may without immodesty call my former excessive caution in rendering the Pahl. as being far from the Gatha. I considered Ner. and the Pers., and perhaps they are right; but shndyin- iddrth is a simpler transliteration, and in Y.49, 12 ¢ DJ. reads shndyinidarih as an equivalent variation for stdyiddrih (see also Ner. there). Read here shniyinidarih = ‘worship’, ‘propitiating reverence’, so read shnd@yinénd; ‘that is, men render reverent worship with piety’. Forms of hach are else- where expressed by the corresponding prep. There is intelligent freedom, and no error, in levatman = hachdonté(é). D. has haméstdr = ‘ opposer(s)’ (so better). DJ.’s avd is perhaps better. Anydyinah must be error for nydyinah. Kopanam (Haug) would afford an object for dadantah, but see the cases of 7 Khéshmé (Aéshmé) and Aé(é)shmahyd. Ristakéz is of course better than the prevailing pronunciation, rast®. The letters which I rendered khushndst = for hii + shndst look most like khésh-mahdll.
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.