Frahang i Pahlavik.
The book is extremely complex to work on, and its layout as printed does not make its use any easier. The text bristles with problems of reading and interpretation, in addition to problems of manuscript transmission. It might have been a useful service to indicate which ideograms are actually encountered in epigraphic texts or in Book Pahlavi, and which figure only in the Frahang i Pahlavik. It must, however, be obvious that the occurrence of ideograms in the extant literature is not the only yardstick for deciding whether they are genuine. Ideograms that correspond to known Aramaic words are undoubtedly also part of the repertory, even though they are still unattested in Pahlavi outside the Frahang; and others may still turn up in Aramaic literature, and should not all be dismissed as spurious.(1) It does not seem plausible that recent scribes could or would invent Aramaic forms at the time in which the book was compiled. The store of ideograms listed here, with all their numerous corruptions and incongruities, must have largely come down in school traditions from an earlier date, when they were still in use. They were most probably diligently memorized by students over many centuries.
There is a problem with the history of the FrPhl. It exists only in very late manuscripts, from the seventeenth century onwards, with a great many errors of transmission and many variants, which make it almost as fluid as oral transmission. The book may have been treated to some extent as an open-ended notebook, in which copyists and users could make additional remarks, or introduce their own lists. This would account for the lack of homogeneity in its composition, for the fact that genuine ideograms are listed side by side with variant spellings of the same Iranian word, and other similar features.
Another problem that besets the exploration of the ideograms is that of the existence of several variant letters used to convey certain identical sounds, and of the frequent interchange of letters.(2) Here is a list of the most prominent categories of corruption attested in ideograms:
/T/ and /D/ interchange in the Aramaic words used as ideograms, as they sometimes do in Middle Persian words. Some clear examples are: 7:21 GLLTA(3) = pwst 'skin', for Aramaic gld ; 7.6 KWTYNA(4) = stl 'mule', for Aramaic kwdn; 23.3 SDRWNtn': STRWNtn' = plyst tn' 'to send'.
/P/ and /B/ also interchange in some cases. Examples: 1:16 KWKBA : KWKPA = st lk', for Aramaic kwkb ; 11.2 PLBAY, PLBA = zywndk 'living being', the Aramaic word that underlies the ideogram being perhaps (if Geiger 1912:305 is right) bry, bryt. Similarly, 11:19 LP(YD)A: LPYA = lytk' 'boy', for Aramaic rby (cf. Geiger 1912:305); 7:20 GWBTA: GWPTA(5) = pnyl 'cheese'. 10:31 A CTPH(6) = ngwst' 'finger', for Aramaic sb t, where transpositions of letters also occur.(7)
/M/ turns up for /N/ in 19:2 SWMAHL = gwlbk 'cat', for Aramaic swnr, and /N/ seems to turn up for /M/ in 1:17 TTLWNtn' = w lytn' 'to rain', where Nyberg is probably right in assuming the ideogram is a graphic distortion of YNTLWN--from the Aramaic root mtr.
/S/ occurs instead of /S/ in some ideograms; cf. 1:11 SMSYA |"corrected" by Nyberg to SMSA~ = xwl 'sun', for Aramaic sms ; 2:11 STRA = l k' 'side', for Aramaic str ; 17:3 XWBSYA = zynd n 'prison', for Aramaic hbws. /S/ occurs instead of /S/ in 10:36 KLZDH (an error for KLSH): GRSH = skmb' 'belly', for Aramaic krs or krsh.
/N/ is sometimes changed to /L/, since the other value of /n/ is /r/, and it is then identical to the usual phonetic value of /1/. This is attested in the word 7:7 KLYA(8) : KYNA: gwspnd' 'sheep'.
It is possible that on one or two occasions an assimilation of /D/ took place before /N/, unless they are matters of simple graphic corruption. One example is 10:10 AWNYA = gws 'ear', from Aramaic wdn.
The writings discussed above, in which phonetic hypercorrection is involved, i.e., /P/ : /B/ ; /T/ : /D/, operate in the same way as they do in the Iranian words in the Pahlavi script. This fact points to a mode of transmission of the ideograms that must have been partly oral. The spelling of the ideograms thus became influenced by a scribal tradition of pronunciation. This is also supported by the substitution of /N/ and /M/, and of /N/ and /L/, in addition to the fact that in a word such as 19:13 SGDH = nm c 'adoration', the first letter shows a prothetic vowel probably added by the Iranian scribes to a word beginning with two consonants. If the interchange of /S/ for /S/ came, as suggested by several scholars, under the influence of Arabic, there are a number of words where Arabic cannot explain this substitution. The graphic similarity of /S/ and /S/ may account for this change, or perhaps the phonetic similarity between the sounds.
These types of change should be kept separate from the many cases of purely graphic, or orthographic, corruption. A short list of such phenomena may be given:
Reduplication of letters is fairly common, as in 7:21 GLLTA.(9) Another group of typical reduplications is the intrusion of an /M/ before final /H/, these two letters being graphically very similar: 10:35 LBBMH = dl 'heart', for Aramaic lb or lbh; 10:33 GBMH = pwst 'back', for Aramaic gb or gbh.
The inversion of the order of letters is attested in KLYA : KYNA 'sheep' (cf. below); 7:16 TYBA = xwk' 'gazelle', for Aramaic tby ; 17:3 XWBSYA = zynd n 'prison', for Aramaic hbws ; 4:9 KXMA = lt' 'flour', for Aramaic qmh ;(10) 7:10 XLLN = mes 'sheep, ewe', for the plural of Aramaic rhl.(11)
The change of /B/ to what looks like /G/, /D/, or /Y/ can be explained as a graphic contraction, by the fact that /B/ was often joined to the following letter. E.g., 21:11 YNSBWNtn': YNSDWNtn' = ysttn' 'to take'; 20:21 YDLWNtn' (i.e., YBLWNtn') = bwltn' 'to carry'; 7:18 XLYA = syl 'milk', for Aramaic hlb (this could also serve as an illustration for the generalized spurious ending -YA, discussed below). This type of confusion is not unknown in Middle Persian words, too; cf. 11:24 ywd n (for ywb n): yw n = pwln k: pwln 'young man' (with Iranian juwan treated as 'ideogram' for the Iranian aburnay).
The change of /K/ to /G/, /D/, or /Y/ is quite well attested. Example: 10:36 KLZDH (an error for KLSH): GRSH = 'skmb' 'belly'.
The change of /Z/ to what looks like /D/ is not uncommon. This is the case in the "phonetic" spelling of the divine name wxrmzd, written wxrmdd, identical in shape with wxrm ; or ydd n for yzd n. In ideograms this phenomenon is clearly present in 20:14 XDYTWNtn' = dytn' 'to see', for the Aramaic root hzy. An example in the opposite direction is: 10:36 KLZDH (an error for KLSH, the /S/ being composed of /DD/) : GRSH = skmb' 'belly'.
The change of /W/ to what looks like /Y/ (or one of its homographs) is somewhat more doubtful. My example is 1:19 NYLYA: NWLA = ts 'fire', where, if my interpretation is correct, there occurs, besides this change, also the addition of the generalized ending -YA, discussed presently.
Original /YN/ was sometimes corrupted into /T/, as in XT = agar 'if', from Aramaic hyn. Somewhat more speculative is XTTWN, if the suggestion in appendix 2, below, is accepted.
The introduction of spurious endings, like -YA in substantives, is another type of common development of some ideograms in Pahlavi. For example, cf. 1:11 SMSYA (discussed above); 7:22 ZKYA = xyk 'wine' or 'water skin', for Aramaic zyq ; 17:3 XWBSYA = zynd n 'prison', for Aramaic hbws ; 4:12 DKRYA(12) = mwg 'date palm'; 10:10 AWNYA = gws 'ear'. This ending could have been generalized from a word such as 1:9 SMYA = sm n 'sky', where the Aramaic plural ending must have been original. It is no use speculating about the possibility of the dual form being preserved in some of these forms.
In verbs -WN has been made to be a standard ending, with no reference to the Aramaic etymology of the words, and often a prefix Y- occurs at the beginning of the verbal ideograms.(13) It is typical of several verbal ideograms that they contain non-original -x-.(14)
There is not much hard evidence for the presence of Arabic ideograms in Pahlavi. There are, to my mind, only two rather problematic cases which cannot as yet be explained in terms of Aramaic. In 6:1 YLKA: BKLA = tlk' 'vegetable', the proper ideogram is presumably the first word, Aramaic yrq, while the second word may be taken to be the New Persian word, of Arabic origin, baqla(t), introduced as a gloss in order to elucidate the meaning of the lemma.(15) And in 9:3 ASDL (or the like) = sgl 'lion', several scholars have suggested a derivation from Arabic asad + the phonetic complement -ar, as in ABYtl - ptl 'father'.(16) This explanation is difficult. The phonetic complement in ABYtl is not -ar but -tar,(17) and in view of the fact that the number of such phonetic complements in nouns is very limited,(18) one fails to see the purpose of it here. The vocabulary of Aramaic is still imperfectly known, and the discovery of new material may make the Arabic hypothesis redundant. As an alternative explanation, one may suggest that the transmission of this word may have been corrupted to such an extent that its reconstruction is no longer possible. The other supposed Arabic words among the Pahlavi ideograms have proved to be no more than phantoms. The lists of such words drawn up by Melzer (1927: 318f., 332), in his attempt to prove that Pahlavi contains not Aramaic ideograms but actual loan-words, have failed to prove his point.(19) It is surprising that Toll (1990: 29 n. 12) should cite Melzer's discussion with approval. I do not know which of the two occurrences of MSNA in the FrPhl Melzer (1927: 318) considers(20) to mean 'Schleifstein'. One is clearly the Aramaic word for 'shoe' (7:23); the other, which has caused problems, I would suggest be interpreted as follows: 14:9 MSNA = myxgl (variant: myxk'l) 'harm, damage', from the Aramaic root sny, which has among its meanings (in pe al and pa el) the sense of 'to change for the worse; corrupt'. This is quite a prominent sense of the word, although it is not clearly expressed in the dictionaries. (It does get some recognition in the recent dictionary of Sokoloff.(21)) The form msn could be an infinitive of the pe al or af el form, or a participial form. If this is accepted, we have here another instance of /S/ representing original /S/. There is no justification for positing Arabic misann as the background reading of this word. The idea that AWLA = pltwm 'first' (not in the FrPhl) is derived from Arabic(22) is incorrect.(23)
Here are notes on some further points of detail, picked almost at random. To save space, I have not taken the trouble of noting every suggestion in the book with which I disagree:
1:10 RXYAn' = bg n' 'gods; lords'. The fact that the plural form is used is unusual, unless there is a special stress implied. Since the word is ambiguous, and can refer either to a divine entity or to a ruler, the use of the plural may imply, on the analogy of yazdan, more specifically, the gods (unless preceded by a pronoun like im, awe, asmah). If this is so, the use of the expression o bayan gab sud should perhaps mean 'he went to the abode of the gods' rather than 'he went to the (allotted) place of the lords'.(24)
1:14. The suggestion that what is written CDH, denoting baxt 'fate', should be emended to read Aramaic sdqh advocates the substitution of one unsatisfactory reading by another, and has little to commend it.
1:19. That NKLYA, an uncertain reading aligned to NWLA = ataxs 'fire', should be interpreted as the Aramaic word for 'alien', and that it should therefore denote 'holy', is quite eccentric. This sense of the Aramaic word is only approximated by Mandaic, for theological reasons that have to do with the gnostic character of the Mandaean religion, but can hardly be imputed to ordinary users of Aramaic. As suggested above, I propose to read NYLYA.
2:2. Readings like damik (for zamig), a supposed southwest Iranian form of the word for 'earth', or damistan (27:13) 'winter' (for zamistan) are unwarranted. The divine name Ohrmazd is also written with a spelling that looks like wxrmdd, and the word for 'time', zaman, is written dm n (27:9). In these cases even Nyberg does not claim that they should be read with a d.
2:19. The readings offered under this heading are rather adventurous. The only safe word in this group is kosk.
3:4. It seems reasonable to suppose, as Nyberg does, that Syriac |q.sup.e~thatha 'covered watercourse, conduit, moat', has some connection with MP kahas (Phl. kts, i.e., kathas or *kathath, which undergoes a process of dissimilation?). It is, however, unlikely that the Middle Persian word is borrowed from the Syriac, rather than the other way round. The Syriac word has no cognates in Semitic, as far as I know, while the Middle Persian word is to all appearances derived from the Iranian root kan- 'to dig', with several other forms that corroborate it (i.e., NP kat, kariz 'subterranean canal'). The Persian connections of the word were already partly seen by Geiger 1912: 299.
5:8. It is a pity that Nyberg (or the editors of the book) ignores the detailed discussion of this group of words by Geiger (1912: 303), whose solutions seem more convincing than those suggested here by Nyberg.
6:6. Nyberg seems to have missed here the ideogram for 'grass' or 'straw', Aramaic gbb, written here like GBXA. Cf. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Jastrow 1903: 204) where the word is defined 'rakings, small stubble, straw, etc. used as fuel', or 'rakings of wool, a ball of wool'. The MP equivalent is giyah.
7:4 LMKA presents an interesting case of what seems to be an old Iranian borrowing into Aramaic, which in turn is used as an Aramaic ideogram for the corresponding Middle Persian word. The Aramaic word in question is rmk( ), which has a good chance of deriving from Old Persian *ramaka- 'a herd' (cf. MP and NP ram, NP rame). The corresponding Middle Persian word is madiyan 'mare'. Other cases of Iranian loan-words into Semitic turning up as ideograms are 4:14 WLTA = gwl 'rose'; 15:10 AZDH: AZH = zd 'known'.
7:6 astar 'mule'. For the etymology of this word, cf. also Steblin-Kamenskij 1982: 30, where further material is given.
7:7. Geiger (1912: 303) is probably right, against Nyberg's opinion, in assuming that KLYA and KYNA are two ways of writing the same word, but he is probably wrong in taking that word to be Syriac nqy 'sheep' rather than Aramaic qn 'sheep' (cf. Herzfeld 1932: 148). To account for the first spelling, Nyberg makes an ingenious, but not quite compelling, attempt at reconstructing a hypothetical Aramaic word *qirba-, on the basis of Syriac erba.(25)
7:8. The idea that the pair of apparent Aramaic words BLXN BLLN make up an Aramaic expression meaning 'wild ram' is derived apparently from Ebeling 1941: 17, but should be discarded. I would rather tend to regard both words as variant ways of writing the same Aramaic word, namely brh 'ram'--the second being a corruption of the first.
7:13 ZZLA, or ZCLA,(26) Cannot be the Aramaic word meaning 'stinking', if the word is an ideogram for 'buck, kid'. It is just possible that we have here a corruption from an Aramaic word such as gl, which has the required meaning.
7:14. For kblyt' see Perikhanian 1983.
10:4 LKTA = stk 'bone'. Nyberg here typically invents a form lqt, which should be the hypothetical Aramaic form for 'rib', as against the attested Imperial Aramaic form l . Besides the fact that the form does not exist, semantically the word is not a good Aramaic correspondence to the Middle Persian 'bone'. rqt 'strap, band' is also unsatisfactory. Ebeling 1941: 22 suggests (although unnecessarily on the basis of Akkadian) that this is the common word for 'long (f.)', perhaps a shorthand designation for 'long bones'; faute de mieux, this may be the most acceptable solution.
10:8 SBSBA, MZYA = mwd 'hair'. The first word has caused considerable trouble, and even Nyberg admits that he does not know what to do with it. It is just possible that we have here a rare case of two Aramaic ideograms referring to two different meanings of one Iranian equivalent. If this is accepted, the first word indicates 'fibre' and the second 'hair'. SBSBA suggests a whole range of words in Aramaic in the sense of 'branch, twig, plait, fibre'; cf. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic syb 'fibre, fibrous substance'; sbs 'ramification, branch'; sbsbh 'branch, shoot'; sbst 'shoot, twig', etc.
10:15 STYNA = xnd 'laughter'. Nyberg's interpretation of the Aramaic word ('silly') is unconvincing. Ebeling 1941:23 reads *DXKYNA, which is more acceptable.
10:17 TLH = wynyk 'nose'. The explanation of the Aramaic ideogram as derived from Aramaic tel(l) 'hill' borders on the ridiculous. It is most likely, if the variant TXLH is taken into account, that we have here some corruption of Aramaic NXLH, i.e., nhyr 'nostril'.
10:37 AYLH, ABL = kir 'penis'. Schaeder may be right in suggesting (see Ebeling 1941: 26) that the first word is related to Arabic ayr 'penis', but if this is true, it may possibly indicate that the origin of the Arabic word is Aramaic. It is however more likely, as Nyberg suggests, that the second letter of AYLH is a dwarfed bet, and that the word should be read ABLH for Aramaic br.
11:23 byt nk, byk nk 'outsider'. The first word is in all likelihood a corruption of the second. Nyberg tries (unconvincingly) to explain it as a genuine Middle Persian word (thus already Nyberg 1931: 35, 19).
13:7 LKYTA = hasagird 'disciple'. Nyberg's attempted emendation of the ideogram to LKYANA for Aramaic r yn is one of the least successful ideas in the book. Neither phonology nor semantics favor such a reading. I wonder if it would not be too fanciful to suggest that the Aramaic word is lqyt, or perhaps rather lqwt, 'gatherer, gleaner'. This could conceivably be a metaphorical expression for 'disciple', perhaps through the meaning 'one who takes in', although I can find no proof that it was actually used in this sense. What appears to be another form of the same ideogram, spelled LKWTA, occurs under no. 13:11, where the Middle Persian equivalent is hosyar 'intelligent'.
13:9 AMWTYA = knsk |or kwsk~ plst l 'slave, servant (fem.?)'. The Aramaic ideogram is probably connected to Aramaic mt 'handmaid', rather than to (w)mn 'artisan, skilled worker', as suggested by Nyberg. Schaeder's interpretation (apud Ebeling 1941: 31) of the Middle Persian word as knsk = kanizag is preferable to Nyberg's kosk 'palace'.
13:10 SLLA = ostigan 'reliable, trustworthy'. Schaeder (apud Ebeling 1941: 32) is right that the Aramaic word should properly be read srira.
14:5 GWBRA (?) = Spsyl 'sword'. The Aramaic word looks somewhat like gira- 'arrow'. Nyberg's explanation of it as an Iranian word is unconvincing.
14:7 XTWT'= tyc 'sharp'. The Aramaic word behind the ideogram is no doubt hdwd, hydwd 'sharp prong, sharp edge' (cf. Jastrow 1903: 451). Schaeder's (apud Ebeling 1941: 33) and Nyberg's suggestions are unacceptable.
14:8. Nyberg's ingenious readings are quite impossible. We seem to have two separate lemmata: LPN' = spl 'shield', where the ideogram is conceivably connected to *dpn 'board, plank' (?); LSNYK = nyck' 'spear, lance', the Aramaic of which is unclear. One could think of a form like rsq, which is attested in Syriac (Payne-Smith 1879/1901, I:3991) with the sense of 'hurling, throwing', especially of arrows; or of Syriac dsng (itself of Iranian origin) 'a double-edged blade'.
15:5 KTA = n mk' 'book'. Nyberg reads the ideogram KTYB, but there is no evidence for such a spelling of the Aramaic word for 'book, document'. The most acceptable reading is to assume that KTA reflects Aramaic gt. This is essentially the explanation given by Ebeling 1941: 34f.
15:12 twp = y mk 'garment'. The first word is perhaps in this case not an Aramaic word, but a Middle Persian one. Nyberg suggests tanpa 'body protector', which is not directly attested. One could think of the somewhat enigmatic New Persian word tubban, tuban 'breeches, short trousers', for which an etymology like that suggested here by Nyberg has been offered.(27)
16:1 NKSYA = xw stk' 'property'. In between the ideogram and its interpretation we have KXB and RKA, which Nyberg is probably right in explaining as the two types of property, by reading the first word as Aramaic dhb = 'gold', followed by rq / r 'land'.
17:3 XWBSYA = zynd n, dstglwb' 'prison; imprisonment, captivity'. One heterogram seems to serve here for two different Iranian words of related meaning.
18:15 ZLYTWNtn = kystn' 'to sow'. It is hard to understand why Nyberg prefers to take the spelling of the ideogram so seriously as to assume that the Aramaic root for the Iranian verb 'to sow' should be zry 'to scatter', rather than the obvious zr 'to sow'.
18:16 KDXWNtn = rustan 'to grow'. Nyberg's suggestion to identify in this ideogram the Aramaic root qdh makes good sense.
18:19 NSXWNtn' = wyxtn' 'to sift, winnow, separate'. The Aramaic word here is not easy to determine. The accepted reading of the ideogram has been NSXWN-, but this seems to be wrong. Nyberg suggests an unlikely NDY-X-WNtn'. The obvious Aramaic verb for the Iranian equivalent is npy, nph, and although this would be an emendation that requires a bold change from the form of the transmitted ideogram, I would suggest that we have a corruption of *NPXWN-.
19:9 APPWNtn' = pwxtn' 'to cook', with redundant reduplication. Nyberg's new reading XPPWN- is unconvincing.
19:17 YXBXWNtn' = xndytn' 'to laugh'. The most reasonable assumption would be to emend the ideogram to *GXKXWN-, from the common Aramaic root 'to laugh', ghk. The second -x- might have been introduced by analogy to other ideograms such as B YXWN, NSXWN-(cf. above, 18:19), KDXWN-, SKBXWN-, etc.
19:20 SLYTWNtn' = g tn' 'to copulate'. Perhaps from the Aramaic root sr 'to lie, stretch oneself'.
21:5. For the present stem of skstn', skyn- 'to break', one may note the Judaeo-Persian form of the passive skyh-, skh-.(28) This suggests that beside the regular form of the present stem, skan(d)-, which is of course etymological, there exists a second form sk(y)-. In this case -n- after sky-, resulting in skyn-, can be regarded as a hiatus consonant.
23:4 YXMTWNtn' = lsytn' 'to arrive'. To assume, as Nyberg does, that the form of the Aramaic verb here is af el, makes no sense. The -x- should be regarded as intrusive.
Appendix 2 XTTWNtn' = twxtn' 'to pay back, to atone'. It is inconceivable that the ideogram for toxtan should be 'to sin', as Nyberg would have us believe. This is all the more unlikely since it involves an emendation of the spelling of the ideogram to obtain a form relating to the Aramaic root hty. If we assume that /T/ is an error for /YN/, we may reconstruct XYNTN-, from the root hnn 'to grant favour, grace; supplicate'.
25:18 XT = gl 'if'. Nyberg explains the ideogram from an (invented) Aramaic word for 'once'. The accepted explanation seems more plausible, viz., that XT is a corruption of XYN, Aramaic hen 'if'.
25:31. The Middle Persian word nihang can hardly be explained etymologically as 'without weight'.
25:43. Here Nyberg combines what are clearly three different lemmata to make of them a phrase. Nyberg 1974: 38 vigorously attacked the idea first expressed by Geiger 1933: 107, according to which the first word in the sequence here is AWBDN, an Aramaic ideogram for 'destruction'. It corresponds here to Middle Persian xycyn' or xycgwn, i.e., hecen or hecgon; in regular Book Pahlavi usage it appears to correspond to wane.(29) Although this reading is not free from difficulties, it seems at this stage more convincing than other possibilities. A detailed discussion is in Shaked 1974: 245ff.
P. 111. Nyberg's explanation of the pronoun for the first person singular an as derived from an expression such as man an(e) 'I another' is quite far-fetched.
1 This, I believe, is the tendency of MacKenzie 1991: 69f. As to the question of Arabic ideograms, see below.
2 I prefer to transliterate in Iranian words and ideograms heth with x; sade with c; ideographic alef with A; and ideographic he with H. I am quoting the lemmata of FrPhl according to Nyberg's division, although in some cases I find these divisions somewhat eccentric. A colon separates two correlated words in the text; a mark of equation separates the ideogram from its Iranian interpretation in the text.
3 Nyberg reads, following one manuscript, GLTA.
4 "Corrected" by Nyberg to read KWDNTA.
5 Corrupted from GWBYNA, GWPYNA, respectively.
6 Nyberg gives a different reading, against most manuscripts.
7 Cf. Henning 1958: 31, n. 1.
8 "Corrected" by Nyberg to KLBA.
9 Other examples in Ebeling 1941: 109; MacKenzie 1966: 153f.
10 MacKenzie 1966: 154.
11 Cf. MacKenzie 1966; 1971: 55.
12 Nyberg writes DKRA, without listing variants, but Junker 1912, Jamaspji Asa and Haug 1870, and Salemann 1879: 559, all have the spelling given here.
13 A recent and quite reasonable interpretation of the forms of the verbal ideograms is in Toll 1990. I do not believe however in the theory of the "Mischformen".
14 Cf. below, notes on 19:17.
15 BQLA might however be a genuine Aramaic word, hitherto only faintly attested by the Syriac bwql, 'the germ before the seed has sprouted'. |Editor's note: It is surely Aramaic--attested at 5th cent. B.C.E. Elephantine in the ostracon C1 Gan 14; cf. Akkadian buqlu. (S.A.K.)~
16 Thus already Jamaspji Asa and Haug 1870: 72; this is repeated by MacKenzie 1991: 69, who states: "and there are other examples." The existence of other examples is unknown to me.
17 A better analogy might be 25: 37 LCT' (Book Pahlavi LCDr) = tar 'beyond, through, across'. MacKenzie may have refrained from using this analogy because it would not support the hypothesis that ASDl was invented on the analogy of an Arabic-looking from like ABYtl.
18 This is a point made by Toll 1990: 30. I tend to agree with him that the final /K/ in BDK is likely to be part of the original Aramaic ideogram rather than a phonetic complement indicating the ending of bndk, for two reasons: it makes sense that a word that was used in Aramaic, Middle Persian and New Persian as a term of humility in addressing a higher-ranking person would have the suffix of the second person singular, literally 'your servant', just as the ideograms for a series of terms denoting family relationship typically carry the suffix of the first person singular, literally 'my father', 'my mother', etc. There is, besides, little functional sense to this phonetic complement here. This is not analogous to 7:12 AZK = buzag 'young goat' (reconstructed by Nyberg) or SMK = n mk 'book' (attested outside the FrPhl), where an indication of the phonetic complement, or of the suffix complement, is essential.
19 I have been unable to locate some of the words discussed by Melzer, e.g., b lk for 'lightning' and nsl for 'race'. Melzer cites what he transcribes kmry as evidence for the presence of Arabic qamar, 'moon' in the language. However the sequence 1:12-13 kwk m x kmlyx dsm is quite obscure. Nyberg's attempts to endow it with meaning fail to convince. There are two familiar words here: mah 'moon' and dsm. The latter occurs in the Pahlavi Psalter (Andreas and Barr 1933: 117, s.v.), and clearly means 'moon' by its correspondence to Syriac shr. In this company kmlyx may well be another reference to the moon, this time as a New Persian gloss (from Arabic) qamar, although the shape of the word, with its ending in -yx or y, is puzzling. kwk looks like the Aramaic word for 'star', but that word occurs further on under two spellings, KWKBA and KWKPA. It would be rash to conclude that KMLYA is an ideogram for 'moon', or that it is evidence for Arabic ideograms in Pahlavi.
20 With the consent of Toll, loc.cit.
21 Sokoloff 1990: 560. Nyberg's interpretation of this lemma seems to me unacceptable.
22 MacKenzie 1967: 27; 1971: 32.
23 Shaked 1988: 157.
24 As suggested by Skjaervo 1985: 602. An attempt to put some order into the ambiguity of the title bay is made in Grenet 1990: 89.
25 MacKenzie 1971: 37 should be corrected.
26 Compare Junker 1912; Nyberg reads ZPLA.
27 See Shaked, forthcoming.
28 This is attested in the Tafsir of Ezekiel from St. Petersburg; also in the Qissa-i Daniel (e.g., Zotenberg 1869: 406 line 8).
29 Or wany, as the word is read by MacKenzie 1967: 27.
Andreas, F.C., and Kaj Barr. 1933. Bruchstucke einer Pehlevi-Ubersetzung der Psalmen. SBAW, phil.-hist. Kl. Pp. 91-152. Berlin.
Ebeling, Erich. 1941. Das aramaisch-mittelpersische Glossar Frahang-i-Pahlavik im Lichte der assyriologischen Forschung. Mitteilungen der altorientalischen Gesellschaft, XIV. 1. Leipzig.
Geiger, Bernhard. 1912. Anmerkungen zum "Frahang i Pahlavik." WZKM 26:294-306.
-----. 1933. Indo-Iranica: Kritische Bemerkungen zu E. Abegg, "Der Messiasglaube in Indien und Iran," WZKM 40:95-122.
Grenet, Frantz. 1990. Observations sur les titres de Kirdir, StIr 19:87-94.
Henning, W. B. 1958. Mitteliranisch. Handbuch der Orientalistik I, IV, 1. Pp. 20-129. Leiden: Brill.
Herzfeld, Ernst. 1932. Postsasanidische Inschriften. Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 4: 140-56.
Jamaspji Asa, Destur Hoshangji, and Martin Haug. 1870. An old Pahlavi-Pazand glossary, edited with an alphabetical index by Destur Hoshangji Jamaspji Asa, revised and enlarged, with an introductory essay on the Pahlavi language by Martin Haug. Bombay and London |reprint, Osnabruck: Biblio, 1973~.
Jastrow, Marcus. 1903. A dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 vols. New York |reprint: New York 1950~.
Junker, Heinrich F. J. 1912. The Frahang i Pahlavik. Heidelberg |partly reprinted in: Mashkour 1968~.
MacKenzie, D. N. 1966. 'Sheep' and 'show': Two Pahlavi ideograms. Acta Orientalia 30:151-57.
-----. 1967. Notes on the transcription of Pahlavi. BSOAS 30:17-29.
-----. 1971. A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Mashkour, Muhammad Javad. 1968. Farhang-e hozvaresha-ye pahlavi. Entesarat-e Bonyad-e Farhang-e Iran, 29; Vazename-ha-ye pahlavi, 4. Tehran.
Melzer, Uto. 1927. Zur Aussprache der aramaischen Worter im Mittelpersischen. Zeitschrift fur Semitistik 5:312-38.
Nyberg, H. S. 1931. Hilfsbuch des Pehlevi II. Uppsala.
Payne Smith, R. 1879/1901. Thesaurus syriacus. Oxford.
Perikhanian, Anahit G. 1983. Moyen-perse kblyt. Studia Iranica 12:23-25.
Salemann, Carl. 1879. Uber eine Parsenhandschrift des kaiserlichen offentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Travaux de la troisieme session du Congres International des Orientalistes, St. Petersbouorg 1876, II, ed. V. de Rosen. St. Petersburg and Leiden. Pp. 493-592.
Shaked, Shaul. 1974. Ambiguous words in Pahlavi. Israel Oriental Studies 4:227-57.
-----. 1988. Review of W. Shalmowski and A. van Tongerloo, eds., Middle Iranian studies, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 16 (Leuven, 1984). Bibliotheca Orientalis 45:155-62.
-----. (Forthcoming). Dressing items and other objects of common use: Iranian loanwords in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. In Irano-Judaica III. Jerusalem.
Skjaervo, Prods Oktor. 1985. Thematic and linguistic parallels in the Achaemenian and Sassanian inscriptions. Acta Iranica 25:593-603.
Sokoloff, Michael. 1990. A dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine period. Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum, II. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
Steblin-Kamenskij, I. M. 1982. Ocerki po istorii leksiki pamirskix jazykov: Nazvanija kul'turnyx rastenij. Akademija Nauk SSSR, Institut Vostokovedenija. Moscow: Nauka.
Toll, Christopher. 1990. Die aramaischen Ideogramme im Mittelpersischen. XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, vom 26. bis 30. September 1988. Pp. 25-45.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||The Journal of the American Oriental Society|
|Article Type:||Book Review|
|Date:||Jan 1, 1993|
|Previous Article:||A dictionary of Aramaic ideograms in Pahlavi.|
|Next Article:||Cuneiform alphabets from Syria and Palestine.|