Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1n by the sight of familiar letters, and I may also owe some important subscriptions indirectly to this otherwise so useless feature, but none the less at present I regret it. More objectionable however are various dubious uses, which are, or were, some of them, unfortunately common to all Zendists. The most serious of these is the use of the German w = English: » in a work otherwise written in English for Zend yg and again the XI use of German ¢ (properly /) for a letter which is for the most part our English w (half vowel). Avesta ») ought never to have been written » in Germany, nor doI think that Avesta us = English » should have been transcribed by me as w while otherwise using the English language, but it must be remembered that this work was written mainly in Ger- many, and that it has been most used by German scholars; moreover I followed Haug’s example, who wrote thwé in_ his English Essays. Zendists have been too careless in these littler matters. Read English » everywhere for this really erroneous German w. Then again formerly no distinction was noticed between yw and M, as many MSS. use both for the same letter, and so at the time when I was first committed to by, as equalling hv (>) and /. Later it was noticed by Sallemann that bs corresponded more to # (some think to “h(?)), while yw oftener stood for dv or alone. I signify this distinction now at every occurrence of the letter in the notes. Then ro and were at first, and have been since my first printing represented by others by the same letter, ¢. It is of course better to distinguish between yo and by ¢ and ¢, or by some similar device. In the Commentary I write ¢, adding the distinction, thus 2 (e), and é (@), and this notwithstanding the unsightliness. Then scholars formerly preferred to render by d, approximating it to the Persian, now we rather prefer to leave it in the more ancient form ; is probably a spirant (or a spirate), and we may have itg survival in our English third personal th, as in ‘doth’, ‘hath’ ete. I now write both ¢ and ¢, d(f). Then the letter written 545 in the very ancient and important Zend-Pahlavi MS. J.? is transcribed by me s(t) solely to show its shape. Tt should be pronounced simply sh. In the Commentary and in the reprinted parts I put the & in parentheses to guard the beginner, thus 5(h). The difficulty in meddling with transliterations is very great when one is preparing an extended work. The mechanical labour of producing the book cannot be completed before the fashions change. Some able scholars have changed their modes of transliteration even from year to year. XI I shall not therefore reprint my entire work to replace é@ by e or é, w= yf by v, and v= »y by w.
2n extended work. The mechanical labour of producing the book cannot be completed before the fashions change. Some able scholars have changed their modes of transliteration even from year to year. XI I shall not therefore reprint my entire work to replace é@ by e or é, w= yf by v, and v= »y by w. (This last is still somewhat du- bious in certain connections), nor shall I, on the other hand, in reprinting a large portion of the work now badly antiquated, for the sake of uniformity between the old and the new printing, use the antiquated characters, for wherever they are still left they were printed by me with great reluctance and aversion long after I had disapproved of © their use, and solely with the mistaken purpose of making the two parts of the book exactly correspond even as to this trifling mechanical peculiarity. If this humble production were intended as a parade exposition without interior discussions, I might be tempted to reprint the very few antiquated transliterations which occur in a small portion of it, as it is, I rely on the ample notes to warn the beginner. As to the Pahlavi, I have used Haug’s transliteration not because it is not susceptible of improvement, for I have slightly altered it at West’s suggestion, but because the glossaries for the most part cor- respond to it. For Sanskrit, I have adopted the simplest possible modes, some- times at the sacrifice of pleasing effect. I have written ch because English ¢ suggests a different sound, and I have therefore necessarily written the clumsy chh, also m everywhere, correcting however its occurrence in the MSS. in such places as the third pl. °am#i for °anti, As to my transliteration of the Parsi-persian, there is little that I would change at present, for no scholar will be at all likely to mistake it for an exercise in the latest dialect. Perhaps if I were not committed to w for 4, 1 might write v everywhere now, but as I have used Ger- man w = English v for Zend yg this is only a further transgression. Then I may also recall the somewhat dubious use of some Persian transliterators who considef the Persian v to be a sound verging upon w. This also induced me to adopt w in this mixed dialect. In a purely Persian text I should now prefer ». Then I was perplexed at the Pazand w = Pahl. va, as occurring not in the middle of a sentence where it is unobjectionable, but at the beginning of a sentence, while the Persian has always wa (properly va) at the beginning and w in the interior, whereas we suppose the Pahlavi ) to be better transliterated as va throughout. In the chaos of usage I for- XII merly wrote wa throughout after the Pahlavi, but in the reprinted portions I will adopt the Persian custom. I have written this Parsi-persian hitherto well-nigh as unlike the latest Persian as possible, and intending to lead scholars to connect the words at once with their Zend, or Pahlavi originals (that is, where they are not Arabic). For instance I wrote ruwdn (ep.
3ons I will adopt the Persian custom. I have written this Parsi-persian hitherto well-nigh as unlike the latest Persian as possible, and intending to lead scholars to connect the words at once with their Zend, or Pahlavi originals (that is, where they are not Arabic). For instance I wrote ruwdn (ep. rubdn, urvan), “and not as usually in Persian rawan, jihin (ep. géhané) and not jahdn, and in my earlier treatment I even ventured upon wrand as more original than barand. For the differing letters I use h for xay © (Greek x), s, or th, for say Cs 2 for zal O, zh for jay (French j) fs § for sad US, z for zad US, x for zay i ‘for ‘ain & gh for ghain & k for kaf U9: As to my alternative method in dealing with the translation of the Gatha, Imake no apology whatsoever. Some scholars in other branches of oriental study have been praised for the assurance of their statements as calculated to carry conviction home to their readers. This tone, while highly desirable for popular reproduction and short treatises, is in my opinion entirely to be discarded in exegetical works which go to the depths of a subject. The Zend Avesta, while fully made out for all the purposes of com- parative religion, and history, yet presents in its ultimate detail diffi- culties so great, that more than one differing suggestion is a necessity in discussing with serious scholars. New light, of what we hope to be new light, is sometimes got in these studies within a few months, not to say years, and I therefore present as much alternative opinion as is practicable, and naturally on those portions which have been the longest printed. And I do not always reprint for the simple reason that the older views are alternatively pos- sible, and may be (some of them) after all the best. So likewise with the Pahlavi translation. Scholars in other depart- ments of oriental research may be surprised to hear of a translation of a translation, but Zendists will smile in their turn at such a feeling. As is the case in other important instances, the accompanying translation in a difficult, language helps indeed when partially deciphered and translated, but the full translation and explanation of this translation presents very much more difficulty than the now several times attempted translation of its original. The first task is of course the decipherment of the Pahlavi charac- XIV ters which are at times so utterly indefinite that such words as a and nafsh°, for instance, are spelt with the same signs. The next effort is to know how to begin to handle the question of its translation. No simple rendering of it as ordinary Pahlavi is at all safe.
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.
1n by the sight of familiar letters, and I may also owe some important subscriptions indirectly to this otherwise so useless feature, but none the less at present I regret it. More objectionable however are various dubious uses, which are, or were, some of them, unfortunately common to all Zendists. The most serious of these is the use of the German w = English: » in a work otherwise written in English for Zend yg and again the XI use of German ¢ (properly /) for a letter which is for the most part our English w (half vowel). Avesta ») ought never to have been written » in Germany, nor doI think that Avesta us = English » should have been transcribed by me as w while otherwise using the English language, but it must be remembered that this work was written mainly in Ger- many, and that it has been most used by German scholars; moreover I followed Haug’s example, who wrote thwé in_ his English Essays. Zendists have been too careless in these littler matters. Read English » everywhere for this really erroneous German w. Then again formerly no distinction was noticed between yw and M, as many MSS. use both for the same letter, and so at the time when I was first committed to by, as equalling hv (>) and /. Later it was noticed by Sallemann that bs corresponded more to # (some think to “h(?)), while yw oftener stood for dv or alone. I signify this distinction now at every occurrence of the letter in the notes. Then ro and were at first, and have been since my first printing represented by others by the same letter, ¢. It is of course better to distinguish between yo and by ¢ and ¢, or by some similar device. In the Commentary I write ¢, adding the distinction, thus 2 (e), and é (@), and this notwithstanding the unsightliness. Then scholars formerly preferred to render by d, approximating it to the Persian, now we rather prefer to leave it in the more ancient form ; is probably a spirant (or a spirate), and we may have itg survival in our English third personal th, as in ‘doth’, ‘hath’ ete. I now write both ¢ and ¢, d(f). Then the letter written 545 in the very ancient and important Zend-Pahlavi MS. J.? is transcribed by me s(t) solely to show its shape. Tt should be pronounced simply sh. In the Commentary and in the reprinted parts I put the & in parentheses to guard the beginner, thus 5(h). The difficulty in meddling with transliterations is very great when one is preparing an extended work. The mechanical labour of producing the book cannot be completed before the fashions change. Some able scholars have changed their modes of transliteration even from year to year. XI I shall not therefore reprint my entire work to replace é@ by e or é, w= yf by v, and v= »y by w.
2n extended work. The mechanical labour of producing the book cannot be completed before the fashions change. Some able scholars have changed their modes of transliteration even from year to year. XI I shall not therefore reprint my entire work to replace é@ by e or é, w= yf by v, and v= »y by w. (This last is still somewhat du- bious in certain connections), nor shall I, on the other hand, in reprinting a large portion of the work now badly antiquated, for the sake of uniformity between the old and the new printing, use the antiquated characters, for wherever they are still left they were printed by me with great reluctance and aversion long after I had disapproved of © their use, and solely with the mistaken purpose of making the two parts of the book exactly correspond even as to this trifling mechanical peculiarity. If this humble production were intended as a parade exposition without interior discussions, I might be tempted to reprint the very few antiquated transliterations which occur in a small portion of it, as it is, I rely on the ample notes to warn the beginner. As to the Pahlavi, I have used Haug’s transliteration not because it is not susceptible of improvement, for I have slightly altered it at West’s suggestion, but because the glossaries for the most part cor- respond to it. For Sanskrit, I have adopted the simplest possible modes, some- times at the sacrifice of pleasing effect. I have written ch because English ¢ suggests a different sound, and I have therefore necessarily written the clumsy chh, also m everywhere, correcting however its occurrence in the MSS. in such places as the third pl. °am#i for °anti, As to my transliteration of the Parsi-persian, there is little that I would change at present, for no scholar will be at all likely to mistake it for an exercise in the latest dialect. Perhaps if I were not committed to w for 4, 1 might write v everywhere now, but as I have used Ger- man w = English v for Zend yg this is only a further transgression. Then I may also recall the somewhat dubious use of some Persian transliterators who considef the Persian v to be a sound verging upon w. This also induced me to adopt w in this mixed dialect. In a purely Persian text I should now prefer ». Then I was perplexed at the Pazand w = Pahl. va, as occurring not in the middle of a sentence where it is unobjectionable, but at the beginning of a sentence, while the Persian has always wa (properly va) at the beginning and w in the interior, whereas we suppose the Pahlavi ) to be better transliterated as va throughout. In the chaos of usage I for- XII merly wrote wa throughout after the Pahlavi, but in the reprinted portions I will adopt the Persian custom. I have written this Parsi-persian hitherto well-nigh as unlike the latest Persian as possible, and intending to lead scholars to connect the words at once with their Zend, or Pahlavi originals (that is, where they are not Arabic). For instance I wrote ruwdn (ep.
3ons I will adopt the Persian custom. I have written this Parsi-persian hitherto well-nigh as unlike the latest Persian as possible, and intending to lead scholars to connect the words at once with their Zend, or Pahlavi originals (that is, where they are not Arabic). For instance I wrote ruwdn (ep. rubdn, urvan), “and not as usually in Persian rawan, jihin (ep. géhané) and not jahdn, and in my earlier treatment I even ventured upon wrand as more original than barand. For the differing letters I use h for xay © (Greek x), s, or th, for say Cs 2 for zal O, zh for jay (French j) fs § for sad US, z for zad US, x for zay i ‘for ‘ain & gh for ghain & k for kaf U9: As to my alternative method in dealing with the translation of the Gatha, Imake no apology whatsoever. Some scholars in other branches of oriental study have been praised for the assurance of their statements as calculated to carry conviction home to their readers. This tone, while highly desirable for popular reproduction and short treatises, is in my opinion entirely to be discarded in exegetical works which go to the depths of a subject. The Zend Avesta, while fully made out for all the purposes of com- parative religion, and history, yet presents in its ultimate detail diffi- culties so great, that more than one differing suggestion is a necessity in discussing with serious scholars. New light, of what we hope to be new light, is sometimes got in these studies within a few months, not to say years, and I therefore present as much alternative opinion as is practicable, and naturally on those portions which have been the longest printed. And I do not always reprint for the simple reason that the older views are alternatively pos- sible, and may be (some of them) after all the best. So likewise with the Pahlavi translation. Scholars in other depart- ments of oriental research may be surprised to hear of a translation of a translation, but Zendists will smile in their turn at such a feeling. As is the case in other important instances, the accompanying translation in a difficult, language helps indeed when partially deciphered and translated, but the full translation and explanation of this translation presents very much more difficulty than the now several times attempted translation of its original. The first task is of course the decipherment of the Pahlavi charac- XIV ters which are at times so utterly indefinite that such words as a and nafsh°, for instance, are spelt with the same signs. The next effort is to know how to begin to handle the question of its translation. No simple rendering of it as ordinary Pahlavi is at all safe.
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.