Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of 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 reason of this is that the sequence of the words in pure Pah- lavi is of great importance to the syntax and the resulting meaning, but the consecutive order of the words in these translations is for the most* part controlled by that of the Gatha of which it is largely a word for word rendering, and the order of words in the Gatha lines differs very widely from this order in an ordinary Pahlavi sentence, the degree in which the two languages are inflected being also widely different. How then can we treat such a fettered rendering as if it were ordinary Pahlavi, the meaning of which depends so largely on the order of the sequence of the words? Can we then abandon altogether the attempt at anything further than an indication of the roots present? This would indeed be more scientific than the foolish attempt to read these translations as ordinary Pahlavi. But here again we are headed off. The word for word sequence, while very largely that of the Gatha which it translates, is not wholly so. It is fitfully departed from to a greater or less extent in almost every strophe. We are also constrained to attempt a translation of the Pahlavi of the Gathas from the fact that the language as it stands offers a reasonable meaning, and that, when due allowance is made for the unusual circumstances, we can apply the laws which interpret the meanings of Pahlavi words from their positions in a sentence in a somewhat unusual manner. For instance, when a noun or pronoun stands at the beginning of a sentence in such a connection that we should naturally take it as a nominative while it yet translates a Gathic noun or pronoun in an oblique case, we are in such a case not entitled but obliged by critical laws to credit such a Pahlavi noun or pronoun with its priority in position, and accordingly we are both allowed and necessitated to render it as if in an oblique case to correspond to the original of which it is an attempted translation, or the relic of an attempted translation. So also I think we should at times credit a Pahlavi word with the case of its original even when it possesses no claims to such a declension from prepositions, postpositions, or from its position in the sequence of words (I will not say in the sentence). We should not XV forget that the last transcriber of the Pahlavi had just written the inflected Gathie word before its Pahlavi equivalent, and while this last transcriber was merely the reproducer of much more ancient materials in the Pahlavi translation which may haye translated a totally different Gathie text*, yet we cannot but suppose that the sight of the Gatha word written almost beside its supposed Pahlavi equivalent may have made
2d while this last transcriber was merely the reproducer of much more ancient materials in the Pahlavi translation which may haye translated a totally different Gathie text*, yet we cannot but suppose that the sight of the Gatha word written almost beside its supposed Pahlavi equivalent may have made the copyist less careful to reproduce the prepositions or postpositions which, beside the position of the Pahlavi word in the sentence, could alone determine its case. So also in treating the glosses. No expert will now doubt that they are often originally of different age from the text. The text grew out of the Gatha itself, and the glosses have been added and varied from generation to generation. The text should be considered apart from them, and no treatment is complete without an alternative presented in that sense, while even in the most superficial rendering of the Pahlavi translation these glosses should be so managed as not to interrupt the flow of the sentences. One further element of difficulty is the undoubted fact that the Pahl. trir. reproduces at times alternative translations. Very often two (or more (?)) distinct translations of the same word have descended to the last translator from different predecessors. Occasionally he formally introduces them with the words ‘some say’, ait mim yemaleliméd, again he simply observes ‘it may be’, yehevindd. But more frequently the last worker-over of the Pahl. trl. betrays his ignorance of the fact that an alternative translation is before him; and works two widely differing and distinct translations for the same word (!) inherited from predecessors into the body of his text, or introduces them, if original with himself, in such a way as to give the reader no notice that they are alternative expressions for the same word. Any competent philolog will acknowledge that we have here most harassing difficulties before us. I have accordingly first endeavoured to render the Pahlavi translation as being as closely faithful a repro- duction of its original as the facts will allow us to suppose. That is to say, I have pursued this course in the reprinted portions; formerly I was animated by a strong desire to make the Pahl. trl. appear as unlike its original as was possible; this from a mistaken conscientiousness. My first translation, even in my reprinted portions, I must offer of course % Sometimes the Pahlavi translation is presented entirely without any Zend text, as in the Munich MSS, of Haug’s collection, 12 a, b, XVI as made in the light of the glosses, but I add copiously other Suggestions made as if with the marring glosses omitted. I need hardly say that this treatment is properly exposition rather than translation, and as such I desire it to be considered. The same remarks apply with some modifications to the work of Neryosangh.
3f the glosses, but I add copiously other Suggestions made as if with the marring glosses omitted. I need hardly say that this treatment is properly exposition rather than translation, and as such I desire it to be considered. The same remarks apply with some modifications to the work of Neryosangh. Is it possible to translate his text? We must endeavour to explain it, if we cannot fully translate it, and we can only hope to do so by the exercise of unusual care. In the first place it is a great step in advance that no respectable scholar will ever again criticise Neryosangh’s work as an immediate translation of the Yasna. Nor, may I hope, will any one again, suppose the meaning of Neryosangh to coincide with a true translation of the Pahlavi which was chiefly his original, if for no other reason, then because we do not know exactly what his Pahlavi text was. The best Pahlavi text which we can now produce evidently differs sometimes from the Pahlavi texts which he used, and Neryosangh’s rendering of those parts of the Pahlavi which we know to have been actually before him, while a noble attempt at his early day, and of great importance since as affording invaluable hints, still leaves, as might be expected, very much to be desired. No man writing at that early period could fail to err both as to transliteration and translation. Had I offered Neryosangh’s text without translation, or explanations so full as to be equivalent to translations, I should have left students a wide scope for error, and surely it is no very scholarly proceeding to cite Neryosangh quite astray. I would here say that it is in no invidious or hypercritical spirit that I occasionally notice Haug’s slips in this particular in his energetic pioneer volumes on the Gathés. We must be grateful for the instruction and stimulus which he offered, even while we guard the student against his mistakes. They occurred in consequence of his not having become acquainted with the Pahlavi translation, and Neryosangh is inexplicable without that. Let any Sanskritist living, who is not at the same time acquainted with the Pahlavi translation of the Yasna, write a translation of Neryosangh, and then any master of the Pahlavi would be able to point out numerous errors. His use of Sanskrit was necessarily peculiar to himself. And in his mode of treating his subject he varies. At times he seems merely to reproduce his original in its general ideas, rendering XVII the Pahlavi or Gath& with little attempt at an exact reproduction of the syntax but for the most part indicating the roots present, again he offers a flash of keen and independent exegesis. Then again we find alternative translation, but of course awkwardly arranged, while the alternative translations of the same GAtha word in the Pahlavi are often reproduced by him as if they were the translations of separate words.
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.
1of 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 reason of this is that the sequence of the words in pure Pah- lavi is of great importance to the syntax and the resulting meaning, but the consecutive order of the words in these translations is for the most* part controlled by that of the Gatha of which it is largely a word for word rendering, and the order of words in the Gatha lines differs very widely from this order in an ordinary Pahlavi sentence, the degree in which the two languages are inflected being also widely different. How then can we treat such a fettered rendering as if it were ordinary Pahlavi, the meaning of which depends so largely on the order of the sequence of the words? Can we then abandon altogether the attempt at anything further than an indication of the roots present? This would indeed be more scientific than the foolish attempt to read these translations as ordinary Pahlavi. But here again we are headed off. The word for word sequence, while very largely that of the Gatha which it translates, is not wholly so. It is fitfully departed from to a greater or less extent in almost every strophe. We are also constrained to attempt a translation of the Pahlavi of the Gathas from the fact that the language as it stands offers a reasonable meaning, and that, when due allowance is made for the unusual circumstances, we can apply the laws which interpret the meanings of Pahlavi words from their positions in a sentence in a somewhat unusual manner. For instance, when a noun or pronoun stands at the beginning of a sentence in such a connection that we should naturally take it as a nominative while it yet translates a Gathic noun or pronoun in an oblique case, we are in such a case not entitled but obliged by critical laws to credit such a Pahlavi noun or pronoun with its priority in position, and accordingly we are both allowed and necessitated to render it as if in an oblique case to correspond to the original of which it is an attempted translation, or the relic of an attempted translation. So also I think we should at times credit a Pahlavi word with the case of its original even when it possesses no claims to such a declension from prepositions, postpositions, or from its position in the sequence of words (I will not say in the sentence). We should not XV forget that the last transcriber of the Pahlavi had just written the inflected Gathie word before its Pahlavi equivalent, and while this last transcriber was merely the reproducer of much more ancient materials in the Pahlavi translation which may haye translated a totally different Gathie text*, yet we cannot but suppose that the sight of the Gatha word written almost beside its supposed Pahlavi equivalent may have made
2d while this last transcriber was merely the reproducer of much more ancient materials in the Pahlavi translation which may haye translated a totally different Gathie text*, yet we cannot but suppose that the sight of the Gatha word written almost beside its supposed Pahlavi equivalent may have made the copyist less careful to reproduce the prepositions or postpositions which, beside the position of the Pahlavi word in the sentence, could alone determine its case. So also in treating the glosses. No expert will now doubt that they are often originally of different age from the text. The text grew out of the Gatha itself, and the glosses have been added and varied from generation to generation. The text should be considered apart from them, and no treatment is complete without an alternative presented in that sense, while even in the most superficial rendering of the Pahlavi translation these glosses should be so managed as not to interrupt the flow of the sentences. One further element of difficulty is the undoubted fact that the Pahl. trir. reproduces at times alternative translations. Very often two (or more (?)) distinct translations of the same word have descended to the last translator from different predecessors. Occasionally he formally introduces them with the words ‘some say’, ait mim yemaleliméd, again he simply observes ‘it may be’, yehevindd. But more frequently the last worker-over of the Pahl. trl. betrays his ignorance of the fact that an alternative translation is before him; and works two widely differing and distinct translations for the same word (!) inherited from predecessors into the body of his text, or introduces them, if original with himself, in such a way as to give the reader no notice that they are alternative expressions for the same word. Any competent philolog will acknowledge that we have here most harassing difficulties before us. I have accordingly first endeavoured to render the Pahlavi translation as being as closely faithful a repro- duction of its original as the facts will allow us to suppose. That is to say, I have pursued this course in the reprinted portions; formerly I was animated by a strong desire to make the Pahl. trl. appear as unlike its original as was possible; this from a mistaken conscientiousness. My first translation, even in my reprinted portions, I must offer of course % Sometimes the Pahlavi translation is presented entirely without any Zend text, as in the Munich MSS, of Haug’s collection, 12 a, b, XVI as made in the light of the glosses, but I add copiously other Suggestions made as if with the marring glosses omitted. I need hardly say that this treatment is properly exposition rather than translation, and as such I desire it to be considered. The same remarks apply with some modifications to the work of Neryosangh.
3f the glosses, but I add copiously other Suggestions made as if with the marring glosses omitted. I need hardly say that this treatment is properly exposition rather than translation, and as such I desire it to be considered. The same remarks apply with some modifications to the work of Neryosangh. Is it possible to translate his text? We must endeavour to explain it, if we cannot fully translate it, and we can only hope to do so by the exercise of unusual care. In the first place it is a great step in advance that no respectable scholar will ever again criticise Neryosangh’s work as an immediate translation of the Yasna. Nor, may I hope, will any one again, suppose the meaning of Neryosangh to coincide with a true translation of the Pahlavi which was chiefly his original, if for no other reason, then because we do not know exactly what his Pahlavi text was. The best Pahlavi text which we can now produce evidently differs sometimes from the Pahlavi texts which he used, and Neryosangh’s rendering of those parts of the Pahlavi which we know to have been actually before him, while a noble attempt at his early day, and of great importance since as affording invaluable hints, still leaves, as might be expected, very much to be desired. No man writing at that early period could fail to err both as to transliteration and translation. Had I offered Neryosangh’s text without translation, or explanations so full as to be equivalent to translations, I should have left students a wide scope for error, and surely it is no very scholarly proceeding to cite Neryosangh quite astray. I would here say that it is in no invidious or hypercritical spirit that I occasionally notice Haug’s slips in this particular in his energetic pioneer volumes on the Gathés. We must be grateful for the instruction and stimulus which he offered, even while we guard the student against his mistakes. They occurred in consequence of his not having become acquainted with the Pahlavi translation, and Neryosangh is inexplicable without that. Let any Sanskritist living, who is not at the same time acquainted with the Pahlavi translation of the Yasna, write a translation of Neryosangh, and then any master of the Pahlavi would be able to point out numerous errors. His use of Sanskrit was necessarily peculiar to himself. And in his mode of treating his subject he varies. At times he seems merely to reproduce his original in its general ideas, rendering XVII the Pahlavi or Gath& with little attempt at an exact reproduction of the syntax but for the most part indicating the roots present, again he offers a flash of keen and independent exegesis. Then again we find alternative translation, but of course awkwardly arranged, while the alternative translations of the same GAtha word in the Pahlavi are often reproduced by him as if they were the translations of separate words.
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.