No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On the Three Parchments from Avroman in Kurdistanpage 125 note 1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
The Gr. documents in questions are, apart from their historical interest, very valuable from the point of Iran, philology. They contain many Iran, names, whose forms truly represent the changes which their Av. or AP. forerunners went through in the early Parthian Pahl. language. Fortunately many of the names occurring in these documents are met with in the ancient Arm. literature. During the Parthian period of the history of Persia, about 250 B.C. to A.D. 226, Armenia was the apple of discord between the Parthians and the Romans, and it formed according to the fortunes of war a part of the Roman or Persian territory, or a kingdom under the suzerainty of Rome or Parthia. In consequence the Armenians came much in touch with the Parthians, from whom they borrowed a considerable number of Persian words for their language and a large number of Persian pr. names as well. Thus it is that in Arm. the intermediate forms of Iran. words, those between the A P. and the MidPers. of the Sasanian period, are to be found fossilized. Again, with an equal amount of certainty the MidPers. words of the Sasanian period are met with in Arm., viz., those which were borrowed during the Sasanian period of the history of Persia, about A.D. 226 to 631. We are thus able to trace all the changes, which the original Iran, vowels and consonants went through, from the very early A v. times down to the dawn of NP. period. Nearly all these pr. names treated in the notes are found in the works of one or more of the following Arm.]
- Type
- Papers Contributed
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 1920 , pp. 125 - 144
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1920
References
page 137 note 1 It seems that the redundant stroke in PahlB. (cf.
) must have represented some particular sound, though it is difficult to ascertain which. Andreas thinks, that it represented ē, the suff. of the abl. case; cf. Bthl. IF. 38, 26. (Bartholomae, in a letter). Kirste considers it as the intermediate form between AP. (tan)ay and NP. (tan), i.e. long ē or ī. Cf. WZKM. 3, 322.Google Scholar
page 137 note 2 J. Kirste has written a very interesting article on the ideogramatic 
°man (s. 
) in WZKM. 3, 313 seq. The stages, through which 
was developed out of 
, are well described by him, s. ibid. p. 315.
page 139 note 1 In a MS. of the Av. Yasna of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (class-mark 3, 2, 6), the letters 
and 
are written 
and 
respectively, and the letter 
is even separated, one 
being at the end of a line and the other 
in the beginning of the next following. There is also another peculiarity in this MS., viz. the gaps at the end of a line are filled up by redundant strokes (cf. 
), sometimes even in the body of a word, e.g. 
a corruPt form for 
page 139 note 2 Words like PahlB. 
duzd [gannabā] (Aram. 
, Syr. 
). “thief,” FrP. 13, 5, and 
[yiktalūntan], PahlPazGl. 238, (also 
FrP. 22, 3), from Aram. 
, imperf. 3rd pl. masc. from 
with 
tan, the Iran, infin. suffi.), “to kill,” are proofs of a peculiar habit of some copyists, viz. of hovering over the MS. page with their pen, making thereby some slanting flourishes in the air from right to left, till they actually touch the page with the pen and begin to write. Ifc is, therefore, most probable that one such stroke like got into the beginning of words, like those mentioned above (s. PahlPazGl. pp. 239 and 243), and the words so written were afterwards looked upon by subsequent scribes as variants of the original words with the correct orthography. This is the only cause of “the frequent interchange of d and z in Pahl.” as Haug calls it; cf. PahlPazGl. 243. There is no philological reason for this interchange whatsoever that can be brought forward in the support of this statement.
page 141 note 1 
(Aram. 
or 
Syr. 
) “to be, to become”, s. FrP. 31, 7. The final 
clearly represents here the final 
of the Aram, root, i.e. the form which the final radical 
takes in the perf. 3rd sing. masc. For the same reason 
in 
. 1, 10 should be read havā- and not hûman as in PahlPazGl. 128 (cf. WZKM. 3, 321).
page 141 note 2 Kirste sees in the final -man in qadmatman (according to Hang's reading), HājInscr. 2, 5, the suff. of 3rd sing. masc in Aram. He reads qedmeteh “before him, in his presence”. But later on through usage this became unseparable from the prep. st. constr and came to mean only “before, in the presence of”, especially when used with a subst. in the plur., just as in the inscriptions in question. Such pleonasms are very common in Syr. (cf. WZKM. 3, 318, 19).
page 144 note 1 Taking 
for 
, PahlB. 
dāt, “gave.”
page 144 note 2 s. above.