Achtung! Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe des Aufsatzes „How to kill a cow in Avestan“ von Jost Gippert (1996). Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe in Mír curad. Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins, ed
Yüklə 167,53 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
How to kill a cow in Avestan 171
From the Vispered manuscript tradition, no further information as to this question is deducible at first glance: Besides ast e r e taca as represented by K7a, K7b, M4, M6, J15, Kh1, J8, Pt3, Jm5, L1, L2, Os, Br1, B2, Dh1 and in the repetition of Vr 7 in Mf2, Jp1 and Kh1 20 , G
ELDNER notes astar e taca for Jp1, K4, Fl1 1 and Fl1
2 , H1
1 and
H1 2 , P14, and S2; astr e taca in Mf2; and astartaca in L27. For amuiiamna as appear- ing in K7b, K4, Mf2, Jp1, Fl1, Pt3, L1 and L2, a variant amuiiamn e m is noted for K7a, M6, J15, and P14 21 . It is worth while considering the following observations, though. First, amuiiamna-, best interpreted as a negated participle pertaining to the passive present stem *m˘¯ u- ˘iá-, from a root √m¯u equivalent to Vedic √m¯ıv/m¯u “to move, to seduce” 22
Yt. 17,17, it is combined with razištan ˛ am, gen.pl. of razišta- ≈ Ved. ráji ˙s ˙tha- “the straightest”, normally used as an attribute of pant˚¯a ≈ Ved. pánth¯a ˙h “way”. If we admit that the gen. is used instead of an abl. here, amuiiamna- means “not to be lead astray (from the straightest paths)”, talking about the Fravaˇ˙sis of the righteous and Aˇ˙si, respectively. The third occurrence is in Yt. 13,133 where a gen.sg.fem. amuiiamnaii˚¯a appears as an attribute of sa o
o
23 , alongside with hu- sastaii˚¯a “well proclaimed” 24 and auuan e mnaii˚¯a, med.pres.part. from √van “to con- quer”. This reminds of the parallelism between amuiiamna- and h ˛ amvai ˙nt¯ım in Vr. 7,1. Second, ast e r e ta-, although being a hapax in Avestan, is well supported by its Vedic counterpart, ást ˙rta-, which appears several times in the RV with the meaning “insup- erable”. The non-negated stem of the participle, st e r e ta- “slain down”, is attested two times in YAv. texts, viz. in Vd. 19,2 (druxš) and Yt. 19,34 (yim¯o). The interpretation of the sequence consisting of ast e r e ta- and amuiiamna- as “insuperable and unmove- able” is based on solid ground like this. We have to consider then that the forms as attested in Vr. 7,1 represent objects to yazamaide so that we expect them to be accus- atives. We can leave the variant amruiiamn e m (K7a, M6, J15, and P14) as a lectio facilior aside, all the more since it is not confirmed by any one of the mss. of the F1- group in Yt. 11,15. Accordingly, we have to choose between a neutre (nom.-)acc.pl. and a masc. or neutre (nom.-)acc.dual. Third, we have to take into account that for ¯axšt¯ım in Yt. 11,15, a variant reading
TD23). This was noted by J. K ELLENS (1974, 46) as an indication of an underlying dual syntagm joining ¯axšti- and h ˛ amvai ˙nti- in a similar way as in Vr. 11,16 where we read ¯axštibii¯aca h ˛ am.vai ˙ntibii¯a; in this case, the latter word would have to be inter- preted as a fem. verbal abstract in -ti-, not a participle in -nt¯ı-. This analysis would fit 20 Cf. G
ELDNER ’ S edition, preliminary note to Vr. 7, according to whom Vr. 7 is repeated within the text of Y. 25 in the V(en)d(idad-)s(¯ade) mss. 21 From the mss. edited in the “Pahlavi Codices and Iranian Researches” series (ed. J AMASP A SA / N AWABI
), the following readings may be added: astar e taca. amuiiamna. TD4a (vol. 52, 1978, 632); ast e r e taca. amuiiaman e m. MU 35 (vol. 38, 1976h, 75); astarataca. amuiiaman e m. “J2” (vol. 16, 1976d, 220). 22 Cf. B
ARTHOLOMAE 1904, 147 who refers to Ved. k´¯amam¯uta- (RV 10,10,11c). 23 Thus according to B ARTHOLOMAE 1904, 1558: “Gebot, Befehl”; the word occurs only here. 24 This reading is preferred to hutastaii˚¯a because it implies a figura etymologica with sa o h¯u. 172 Jost Gippert well with the fact that in Yt. 11,16 the dual form haxaiia follows which can be understood as resuming ¯axšti plus h ˛ amvai ˙nt¯ı as a dual dvandva 25 . Lastly we have to consider that in the tradition of Yt. 11,15 as represented by the F1 group, there is no trace of either yazamaide (as present in Vr. 7,1) nor of hama¯e- st¯ara. As it stands, the text rather suggests that ast e r e ta- plus amuiiamna- are apposi- tions to ¯axšti- plus h ˛ am.vai ˙nti- — or attributes joint to the following haxaiia. The latter possibility is preferable because it explains the change of gender: haxay- ≈ Ved. sákhi- “friend” is a masc. throughout 26 .
in the F1 tradition might not be reliable as it is. Furthermore, it becomes conceivable that the wording of the K20-branch of tradition might be due to a corruption of ast e - r e taca amuiiamna as the prototype reading. The similarities of the written forms are indeed striking, and the testimony of K22 reading patar e tasca amauiia. might indicate an intermediate step. In this case, m(a)r(a)uu(a)ii˚¯asca would have to be regarded as a ghost word. But as long as the manuscript tradition for such texts as the Sr¯oš Yašt Had¯oxt has not been established with certainty, this remains conjectural of course. Unfortunately, the Pahlavi translations of the passages in question do not give any further hints. In Vr. 7,1, it reads 〈 c stltkyh w c mwtkyh mynwg Y c wšyd
c lyh ycwm
〉 27 , thus adopting the Avestan words in question as abstract nouns in Middle Persian disguise: astardag¯ıh renders ast e r e ta-, and am¯udag¯ıh, amuiiamna-, just as ¯ašt¯ıh renders ¯axšti-, and am¯awand¯ıh, h ˛
28 . The Pahlavi translation of Yt. 11,15, styled as “undeutlich” by B ARTHOLOMAE (1904, 891 s.v. p e r e t- and 1197 s.v. mrv¯ı-) runs quite different from that. H UMBACH (1991, 89) notes the reading ašt¯ıh am¯awand¯ıh, wt c n c h ud nk¯yl c ¯y, leaving the interpretation of the two words in question open. These may well represent MPers. wad-xw¯ah (to be transliterated as 〈wtxw c
〉 29 ) and nak- k¯ır¯a, both met with as juridical terms in the M¯adig¯an-i Haz¯ar D¯adest¯an with the meanings “malevolent” and “denying” 30 ; the latter also appears in religious Pahlav¯ı and P¯azend texts as the denotation of a sin 31 . But within the given passage (the 25 Cp. Y. 16,8 where the dual dvandva consisting of xšuu¯ıda and ¯az¯uiti, “milk and fat”, is resumed by the dual ham¯oistri “the two destroyers”. 26 Note that in RV 1,15,5c, ást ˙rtam is used as an epithet of sakhyám “friendship”. In RV 1,4,4 and 1,41,6-7 ást ˙rta- and sakhí- occur side by side, but with no narrow relationship between them. 27 Cf. D HABHAR 1949, 304 sq.; the same reading appears in K7a, cf. the facsimile edition by B ARR
(1944), fol. 125r. 28 In “J2” and MU35, we read 〈xwyšk c lyh 〉 xw¯ešk¯ar¯ıh “sense of duty” instead of ¯ošy¯ar¯ıh; TD4a has
〈 c st c lynyh
c m c wkyh 〉 (ast¯ar¯en¯ıh *am¯awand¯ıh?) instead of astardag¯ıh am¯udag¯ıh. 29 This reading seems first to have been suggested by D HABHAR 1963, 204 n. 15 (non vidi); it was accepted by K REYENBROEK 1985, 66 and 103 n. 15. 4 . 30 Cf. MHD 83,11 in the new edition by M ACUCH (1993, 539) where both words occur side by side: MN psym c r p ¯t ZK y nkyr c y bw
˘ ht’ pyšym c r wt
˘ hw c h, i.e. az pas¯em¯al-i pad ¯an-i nakk¯ır¯a b¯oxt p¯eš¯em¯al wadxw¯ah “as against a defendant who has been cleared of what he had denied, the plaintiff (is declared) malevolent”. Cf. M ACUCH , o.c. 63 sq. for a detailed analysis of nakk¯ır¯a. 31 Cf., e.g., M¯en¯og-i xrad, Pahl.-Vs., 36,13 (ed. S ANJANA 1895, 53): dahom k¯e tis ¯ı-š pad nig¯ahd¯ar¯ıh pad¯ırift b¯e x v ar¯ed ud *nakk¯ır¯a baw¯ed “the tenth (sin), if (he) consumes a thing he has taken charge of and (if he) denies (this)”. Yüklə 167,53 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|