Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:09:00.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sogdian Loan-words in New Persian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

W. B. Henning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known what an extraordinary power of absorbing foreign words Persian possesses. In addition to the innumerable Arabic words which since the creation of the New Persian literary language have formed an integral part of Persian speech, we have a fair number of Aramaic words 1 on the one hand, and of Eastern Iranian words on the other; in later times, there is also considerable borrowing from Turkish. It is, I think, proper to regard Eastern Iranian words in Persian as “loan-words” in the same way as, say, Arabic or Aramaic words; for no Eastern Iranian language is amongst the constituent dialects of Modern Persian, which can perhaps best be defined as the descendant of the current language of culture and commerce which developed in Persia during the Sasanian era. So far, little attention has been paid to the Eastern Iranian words in Persian. Horn, in his excellent paper on the New Persian literary language, quoted examples such as Balaχšān, Hilmand, fiš “mane”, fay, fuy “idol”, malaχ “locust”, bilist “span”, lōγḻdan “to milk”, etc., words whose phonetic habitus does not agree with the normal Persian development. To-day we are in a much more fortunate position since the Sogdian language has gradually become known to us: seen from Persia, Sogdian was by far the most important Eastern Iranian language, a language of culture, literature, and commerce, whose territory bordered on the area of Persian speech and extended towards the frontiers of China.

Type
Papers Contributed
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 1940 , pp. 93 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 93 note 1 See Nöldeke, Pecs. Stud., ii, pp. 34 seqq.Google Scholar Several additions to his collection are possible now, e.g. “natura”, Asadi, p. 5, Fakhrḻ, Šams-i, p. 7Google Scholar (i, 40; ibid., p. 4 = i, 10, is of course wrong), from Syriac kyānā; “square”, from Syr. = γwvia, etc.

page 93 note 2 Die Neupersische Schriftspmche (Phil., Grdr. Ir.), pp. 8, 14 seq., 57, 69Google Scholar.

page 94 note 1 See Gauthiot, , JA., 1911, ii, p. 58.Google Scholar

page 94 note 2 See Gauthiot, ibid., p. 53. Originally Sogdian βaγpūr was taken from Parthian baypuhr (Manich. Parth. bgpwhr), with the usual replacement of short vowel + hr by long vowel + τ, cf. BBB. (= Manich. Bet- und Beichtbuch), p. 73, cf. also mḻr from mihr, ibid., p. 85, šāristān from šahristān, ibid., p. 93, etc. Schaeder's, assumption that the Sogdian word was borrowed from Saka (OLZ., 1938, p. 598)Google Scholar is not in accord with our present knowledge of Saka phonology; bagapuθra- would result in Saka *baavirä (or still shorter), cf. baravirñä from bara-puθra- (Bailey, , BSOS., IX, p. 77;Google Scholar cf. Sogd. βrpš-, Parth. brbwhr).

page 94 note 3 See Gauthiot, ibid., p. 58; Bailey, , BSOS., VI, pp. 279 sqqGoogle Scholar.

page 94 note 4 See Gauthiot, ibid., pp. 53 seqq. On the insertion of r see BBB., p. 88, BSOS., IX, p. 570; it is frequent in Saka. I do not see any difficulty in deriving Sogd. βrγ'r directly from vihāra. I reject, therefore, the derivation from Av. pouru.xvāθra which has been proposed by Benveniste, , BSL., xxviii (1928), pp. 7 seq.Google Scholar; one would expect Sogdian *purχwāš or *puruχāš.

page 94 note 5 See Müller, F. W. K., S.T., i, p. 104 n.Google Scholar; Müller-Lentz, , S.T., ii, p. 524, n. 2Google Scholar. Müller referred to the passage in Yaqut, , Geogr. Diet., i, p. 909Google Scholar, quoted by Salemann, Šams-I Fakhrḻ, p. 160Google Scholar, cf. ibid., p. 93. Cf. Asadi, , p. 94Google Scholar. There is also a diminutive, tḻmče, see Vullers, , i, pp. 493 seqGoogle Scholar.

page 94 note 6 Ed. Salemann; abbr. ŠF.

page 94 note 7 Shahname Glossary, ed. Salemann; abbr. AQ

page 95 note 1 Chinese: “without losing (from memory),” see Weller, F., Asia Major, x, pp. 319 seqGoogle Scholar.

page 96 note 1 Asadi at least clearly understood čuγū as “owl”, although he gives the same verse with čukuk or čuguk ‘a bird’ (p. 70), elsewhere explained as “sparrow” (cf. ŠF., p. 76). Again, AQ., nr. 765, explains čuγū in the same verse as “sparrow”. Ace. to dictionaries čuyū, čuγūk, čuyuk, čukuk, čuguk, čukūk, čugūk are “sparrow” (whilst čakūk, čakūk, čakāv, čakāvak, čakāve are “lark”).

page 97 note 1 Texte Mazd. Kal., p. 76. In the passage in question Nyberg inadvertently translates angūr (“grapes”) as “figs” and razān (“vineyards”) as “orchards” (p. 51).

page 97 note 2 A Persian word for “vulture” of possibly Eastern Iranian origin is zayan (for *zyan): Saka uysgana “vulture” (cf. Bailey, , BSOS., IX, p. 71Google Scholar; Konow, NTS., xi, p. 42).

page 97 note 3 This should be regarded as an intentional simplification of the very complicated problem.

page 97 note 4 See BBB., pp. 52 seq. VOL. X. PART 1. 7

page 98 note 1 Thus in an Uyyur manuscript from Qočo, see LeCoq, von, Türk. Man., iii, p. 22Google Scholar. Cf. also Rahmeti, Uygur alfabesi, in Muallim M. Cevdetin Hayati, Eserleri ve kütüphanesi, Istanbul, 1937.

page 98 note 2 Cf. also Pashto pal, Morgenstierne, EVP., p. 56. For another explanation of Persian pil see Horn, op. cit., p. 171.

page 98 note 3 For the umlaut cf. e.g. Choresm. wuδ “wife” from Sogd. waδu, miθ “here” from Sogd. maθi, the above-mentioned Pers. pil from Sogd. paδi. Sogd. muδ- may help to explain the first vowel of Chinese p'u-t'ao, see Laufer, , Sino-Iranica, p. 225;Google Scholar cf. also Oss. mud.

page 99 note 1 Cf. Morgenstierne, , IIFL., ii, pp. 232, 531Google Scholar, on Yidgha nəl, and Wakhi nālčik. Kabuli Pers. nal “tube, pipe” is borr. from Hind. (Skt. nala, nada, cf. nāli, etc.), according to Bogdanov, , Stray Notes, p. 97Google Scholar. Cf. also Morge

page 99 note 2 Cf. Morgenstierne's, explanation of Pashto abl, EVP., p. 56Google Scholar.

page 100 note 1 An interesting Persian word of Eastern Ir. origin is faryōl “delay” (Asadi, , p. 87; ŠF., p. 86 = xvi, 35Google Scholar), c f. Parthian frgwš-, frayōš- “to delay”, Mir. Man., iii, p. 899. For -š- > -l-, besides Sariqoli, etc., cf. Parthian ‘zgwl-, izyōl- “exaudire”, see Ghilain, , Langue Parthe, p. 66Google Scholar, and Persian ispayōl, Morgenstierne, NTS., v, p. 54.

page 101 note 1 Cf. Weller, F., Mon. Serica, iii, p. 80.Google Scholar

page 101 note 2 Benveniste, , BSOS., IX, p. 515, n. 1Google Scholar, overlooks that Pers. turund∫ḻan had been referred to, BBB., p. 60, by quoting Tomaschek's paper.

page 101 note 3 MPers. and Parth. ‘ndrxt, nydrxt, etc. (Parth. pres.’ ndrynj-, etc.), also belong here rather than to drang (ef. ZII., ix, p. 217; Ghilain, , Langue Parthe, pp. 51, 79Google Scholar). It is, however, difficult to explain MPers. ēring, ērixt, ēranz- (see ZII., ix, p. 199) as ātṛnka-,āiryta, ātṛnč-. There may have been confusion of the bases drang and tr(n)k. Herzfeld, , Altpers. Inschr., pp. 188 seqqGoogle Scholar., on ‘ndrxt, etc., is not convincing.

page 102 note 1 faž-āgḻn is, of course, Persian composition. (etc.), at least with the meaning “filthy”, might be due to misreading of (etc.).

page 102 note 2 Saka, basdaṃggāre (B, xiv, 70)Google Scholar is hardly a verb, as suggested by Leumann, , but ompares with Sogdian, βəžangāre “sinner” (cf. BBB., p. 63)Google Scholar.

page 102 note 3 Possibly connected with y'β- “to drive” or “to travel” (Vim., 85; cf. eller, F., Asia Major, x, p. 358)Google Scholar, which, however, could also be taken as yāj- or yāf- from yam-, cf. Parthian waf- “to spit” from wam-.

page 102 note 4 s.v. nmy'q; the following word should be read nm'čq'n “veneration”, cf.Balgasun, Kara, 21, 22.Google Scholar

page 103 note 1 I must apologize for dragging in an explanation of Persian bḻdār “awake” which, I believe, has not yet been considered: bidar (with unusual metathesis) from *bḻrād = MPers. wiyrād (wiyrāt).

page 103 note 2 Vowels ace. to dictionaries; has long been recognized as a misspelling.

page 103 note 3 It seems hard to separate Sogd. “y'βs-, Dhyāna, 241 (L' ”y'βst L' ZY ”ywžt = “sans erreur sans confusion”), “y'βtk, R., ii, 69, 22, and Dhyāna, 158, 234, “false, wrong”, corresponding to Skt. mithyā, see Benveniste, , JA., 1933, i. pp. 226 seq.; Weller, F., Mon. Ser., iii, pp. 82, 98Google Scholar. Perhaps ”y'np- “to pervert”, ”y'βs- “to be perverted, to be wrong”, “y'βtk “perverted, perverse, wrong”.

page 103 note 4 I feel that my interpretation of Sogdian ”r'γs- (Dhyāna, 186, etc.) as “to desire” is corroborated by the analysis of the Chinese text given by Weller, F., Hon. Ser., iii, pp. 88 seq. Saka rrauta, E, xxiii, 163Google Scholar, if “desire” (Leumann), might be connected with Sogd. āruyd- (or with MPers. ruzd?).

page 104 note 1 See BBB., p. 104. Benveniste's explanation of Chr. χs-d'r-, JA., 1936, i, p. 224,Google Scholar is based on the wrong reading xšṯ which F. W. K. Müller gave in his first transcription for Matthew, 10, 17. Immediately afterwards he corrected his initial error in the publication of the text (S.T., i, 6, 9, pyšṯ, = δ⋯).

page 105 note 1 Probably an adaptation of zandvāf, so as to mean “weaving the Zend”.

page 105 note 2 By mistake these words have hitherto been read nnt-.

page 105 note 3 The translation offered by Gauthiot, (on the passages) and Benveniste, , Gramm., ii, p. 200,Google Scholar is incorrect. δβaχš possibly from Av. θwaxš-, cf. especially the meaning of Av. θwaxšah-. For Sogd. -δβ- from Av. θw, cf. e.g. Sogd. pδβ'r, pδβyr: Avestan θwāša-, see BBB., pp. 59 seq. To the examples for Olran. *niθvāra- (cf. also Ghilain, , Langue Parthe, p. 74Google Scholar), Pahlavi nswb'l- = niθvār- “to hurry” (frequent) and Parthian Inscr. nytpr- (Paikuli, nr. 682, p. 221; ibid.,ny'plc-: nyw'pk- = Man. ny'bg, BSOS., IX, p. 86) should be added. Man. MPers. niχwār- is, of course, a developed form of niθvār-.