Estudios Iranios y Turanios Editores Alberto Cantera Juanjo Ferrer-Losilla Número 5 Año 2023 Edita SOCIEDAD DE ESTUDIOS IRANIOS Y TURANIOS (SEIT) Girona Estudios Iranios y Turanios Director: Alberto Cantera Secretario: Juanjo Ferrer-Losilla Comité de redacción: Miguel Ángel Andrés-Toledo Agustí Alemany-Vilamajó Alberto Cantera Juanjo Ferrer-Losilla Götz König Jaime Martínez-Porro Éric Pirart Depósito Legal: S-327-2020 ISSN: 2386-7833 Imprimida por: Printcolor Ctra. de Mollet a Sabadell Km. 4,3 – Pol. Ind. Can Vinyals, Nave 18 08130 Santa Perpètua de Mogoda (Barcelona) © Queda prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos de este Boletín sin permiso expreso de la Sociedad de Estudios Iranios y Turanios. Envío de originales a: Alberto Cantera, Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften, Institut für Iranistik, Fabeckstr. 23-25, Raum 1.1024, 14195 Berlin (Deutschland). Correo-e: alberto.cantera@fu-berlin.de. Juanjo Ferrer, Département des Sciences de l’Antiquité, Langues et religions du monde indo-iranien ancien, Bâtiment A1, Place du 20 Août 7, 4000 Liège (Belgique). Correo-e: jjferrer@ulg.ac.be. Índice de contenidos Alberto CANTERA The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi: The Case of YTYBWN- “To Sit Down, to Dwell and to Set” and Some Related Problems ...................................................................... 7 Götz KÖNIG Nicht-avestische Texte im Xorde Avesta: die Texte des Danksagens ............................................................................ 23 Jaime MARTÍNEZ PORRO 7H[WDQG&RQWH[WRIWKH<DVQDƯ5DSL‫ׇ‬ȕLQ ................................................ 47 Paolo OGNIBENE About Some Kabardian Loanwords in Ossetic ............................................ 59 Éric PIRART La vejez avéstica࣠ ...................................................................................... 65 The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi: The Case of YTYBWN- “To Sit Down, to Dwell and to Set” and Some Related Problems Alberto Cantera Freie Universität Berlin Chapters 18–23 on the verbal heterograms in the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ࣠1 and the OLVWRIYHUEDOKHWHURJUDPVLQWKH7XUIƗQIUDJPHQW2 provide only one Iranian equivalent for each heterogram. This is true even when in Book Pahlavi the same heterogram is used for two homonymous verbs. In these cases, the Frahang provides only one Iranian verb as a meaning, the one that agrees with the meaning of the heterogram: NTLWN- (cf. Aram. 1ܑ5 “to guard”) for SƗGDQSƗ\“to protect” and “to stand, to wait”; LHTWN- (cf. Aram. 5‫ۉ‬7 “to run”) for GDZƯGDQ dawistan, daw- “to run” and “to speak” (daevic) (Nyberg/Utas 1988: 93). SimilarO\ZKHQWKHVDPHYHUEDSSHDUVZLWKGLIIHUHQWSDVWVWHPVHJâ঍5:1WQ'> for IUƝVWƗGDQâ঍5:1\WQ'> for IUƝVWƯGDQ HJ:=â'5:1\W' IUƝVWƯG) RU.7/:1WQ'> for PƗQGDQ.7/:1VWQ !IRUPƗQLVWDQ3 (e.g., PY4.11c, 23.3 .7/:1VW !PƗQLVW), the Frahang )Ư3 UHFRUGVDJDLQRQO\RQH — the non-marked one, that is, the past stem with the phonetic complement -t(n)-. This is also the surviving form in New Persian (PƗQGDQ IUHVWƗGDQ). The only exception to this rule of the one-to-one relationship between heterogram and LQWHUSUHWDWLRLUDQLFD is the well-known case of . In Book Pahlavi, two different heterograms still distinguished in Epigraphical Middle Persian (EMP) fall WRJHWKHU 2অ<':1 (03 2%<':1  kardan, kun- ³WR GR´ DQG 2+':1 (03 2+':1  JULIWDQ JƯU “to take”. Interestingly, the )UDKDQJ Ư 3DKODZƯJ OLVWVWKHPWZLFH,Q)Ư3ZHILQGWKHKHWHURJUDPIRUJULIWDQJƯU2+':1WQ  JOSWQ  2+':1\W  J\O\W  2+':1\P J\O\P 7KH VDPH VKDSH LV DOVR IRXQG for kardan, kun-, however, strikingly, two different heterograms are listed here )Ư3  2%<':1WQ  %ে<:1WQ  NUWQ  2%<':1\W  %ে<:1\W  NZQ\W  2%<':1\P%ে<:1\PNZQ\P$V1\EHUJQRWLFHVWKHVHFRQGRQHZKLFK he interprets as Aramaic EQ\ “to build”, is never used in the known Iranian texts (NYBERG/UTAS 1988: 49, 88). This tendency within the Frahang has been continued in the modern standard lexicographical works for Book Pahlavi. Thus, MACKENZIE (1971) and NYBERG (1974) regularly indicate just one LQWHUSUHWDWLRLUDQLFD for each verbal heterogram. 1ௐ On the Frahang s. (Heinrich F. J. JUNKER 1912; Heinrich Franz Josef JUNKER 1955; H. S. NY1988; MACKENZIE 2000; SHAKED 1993; KÖNIG 2022). 2ௐ Fragment published by GELDNER and facsimiled by BARR (Karl Friedrich GELDNER 1904; BARR 1936). 3ௐ Again in this case, the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODYL attests only one of the two possible LQWHUSUHWDWLRQHV iranicae. ,WUHFRUGVRQO\ )Ư3 .7/:1WQ P‫ގ‬QWQ PƗQGDQDQG )Ư3â'5:1WQ  SO\VW‫ގ‬WQ  IUƝVWƗGDQ/. The Frahang always choses, interestingly, the standard form in New Persian. BER/UTAS Estudios Iranios y Turanios Nevertheless, in this paper I will demonstrate that this one-to-one relationship between heterogram and LQWHUSUHWDWLRLUDQLFD is less universal than assumed. Some heterograms can be read in different ways, despite the Frahang’s choice of one reading. There are three main reasons for the possibility of multiple readings for one heterogram. Firstly, sometimes the verb represented by the heterogram appears in different phonetic variations that might be either dialectal or chronological. Secondly, sometimes a heterogram covers different present stems of the same root. They may or may not have a different value. The most famous example of the former is the heterogram YTYBWN-, used for the intransitive verb nišastan, QLãƯQ “to sit down,” as well as for the transitive verb QLãƗVWDQQLãƗQ “to set, to establish”)4. Thirdly, different (partial) synonyms can be used for reading one verbal heterogram. Examples of this third exception are not recorded in the available lexicographical works, but, as I will show in this paper, the heterogram YTYBWN“to sit (down), to dwell, to set” illustrates this possibility, since it may be read not only as nišastan, QLãƯQ-, QLãƗVWDQQLãƗQ-, but also as ƗKLVWDQ, ƗK-. Before I move on to the problems posed specifically by the heterogram YTYBWN-, I will provide additional examples of the first two types of multiple readings for a heterogram (different present stems and phonetic variants of the same stem). The phenomenon of multiple present stems for one verb is well-known in Old Iranian. In Middle Persian it is less frequent, but certainly not unknown. Thus, in Manichaean Middle Persian, the verb ZLãƗGDQ “to untie” has two different present stems: ZLãƗK (ZLãƗKƝGZ\ã‫ގ‬K\G!FI3DUWKZLãƗK) (DURKIN-MEISTERERNST 2004: 359a; JOHNNY CHEUNG 2007: 136) and wiš- (ZLãƝG <wyyšyd>). In Book Pahlavi the heterogram â/<7:1 is most often used. MACKENZIE reads the present stem as *ZLãƗ\ led by NP JXãƗGDQJXãƗ\. Nevertheless, NYBERG (1974: 215) records both present stems for Book Pahlavi as well: ZLãƗ\ and wiš-. The )Ư3UHFRUGVIRUWKHKHWHURJUDPâ/<7:1WKHSUHVHQWIRUPVZã\WZã\P for ZLãƝGand ZLãƝP, but, according to NYBERG (1974: 215), the codices U2, U4 show ZãҴ\W ZãҴ\P5, probably for ZLãƗ\ƝG ZLãƗ\ƝP. Both present stems are also atWHVWHGLQ3Ɨ]DQG,Q=:<ANTIA (1909: 344) has YƗãƗLWIRUâ/<7:1\W! in the Pahlavi version, cf. ms. J3 YƗãƗƝW. These forms represent ZLãƗ\ƝGZLãƗҴƝG. 7KH)Ư3WUXHWRWKHLQWHQGHGRQHWRRQHFRUUHVSRQGHQFHUHFRUGVRQO\WKHHWHRJUDSKLFDO spelling of the intransitive one: QLãDVWDQ QLãƯQƝG QLãƯQƝP Nonetheless, the double use of the same heterogram already appears in Inscriptional Middle Persian, though with a difIHUHQWLDWLRQIRUWKHSDVWVWHPWKDWZHGRQRWILQGLQ%RRN3DKODYL<7<%:1VWIRUnišast DQG <7<%:1W IRU QLãƗVW (GIGNOUX 1972: 1:38). Nyberg (and Utas) are of the opinion that the same heterographic spelling could represent two originally different heterograms: <7<%:1 IRU WKH LQWUDQVLWLYH QLãDVWDQ QLãƯQ would continue a participle passive \eWթƯEࡃ, whereas the transitive form could be interpreted as \H‫ܒ‬D\\HEEթnjQLPSHUIHFWRI৫<%³WRPDNH ready, to prepare” (NYBERG/UTAS 1988: 92). Dubious is the case of ških- “to be split, shattered”. B. PESCHEL RUDOO\ SRLQWVRXWWRPHWKHIRUP7%/:1\K\W!LQ<,WLVGXELRXV as to whether it must be read as a new passive present stem ãNLQQLKƝG or rather as the original and well-attested present stem ških- (<*šNDGL֒ D see below). In the latter, more likely case, the heterogram TBLWN- was used for the transitive stem škenn- and the passive intransitive ških-. It would follow the model of other verbal heterograms used for the passive with the phonetic complement -ih-. Alternatively, we could read it as ãNLQQLKƝG. It would be a secondary passive stem beside the old ških-. 5ௐ However, these variants are not recorded in the edition (NYBERG/UTAS 1988: 21–22). 4ௐ 8 A. Cantera, The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi Nonetheless, in $\ƗGJDUƯ-ƗPƗVSƯJ, Annexe A, AGOSTINI edits the correspondence RI â/<7:1\W! LQ WKH 3DKODYL YHUVLRQ DV YDVΩթW (proposing to correct it into ZLãƗ\ƝG) (AGOSTINI 2013: 169). However, the ms. 5-19219 has the correct form YDãΩթW, certainly for ZLãƝG࣠6. Thus, there is little doubt that even in the later phases of transmission, Book Pahlavi knew both present stems. The present stem wiš- continues the old present X֒Lã+L֒ Dwith cognates in Avestan (Av. 3rd S௘SOVXEMKLLąQ “they will bind” Yt8.55) and Vedic (YL«V\iWL). However, the stem ZLãƗ\ZLãƗK ( X֒LãD+L֒ D) does not have any correlates in the other Indo-European languages7. The same verb also offers interesting examples of phonetic variants we might HQFRXQWHU)LUVWO\WKH)UDKDQJWKH3Ɨ]DQGIRUPVDQG1HZ3HUVLDQVKRZWKHSUHVHQW stem ZLãƗ\, but the MMP equivalent isZLãƗK. Both variants likely show different ways to treat the glide for *wišƗҴƝPZLãƗҴƝd, HWF VHHWKH3Ɨ]DQGIRUPVYƗãƗLW֓࣠ , YƗãƗƝW). The tendency is for the disappearance of the \, but the morphological boundary prevented the regular treatment. For preserving the hiatus, either the \ was preserved (against the expected evolution) or an h was introduced instead. This phenomenon is also well-known in other Pahlavi words, although the exact rules for its distribution (chronological or dialectal) remain obscure8:HILQGWKHYHU\VDPH alternance in other verbs ending in either i֒ or d, etymological or going back to jғ. Accordingly, we might find an alternation between h and \ or l  į 910111213 i࡬ uz-i࡬ “to go out” y (l) Phl. X] L\ ƝG࣠9 ‫ގ‬Z]\W! := , X]L\ƝQG‫ގ‬Z]\G\QG! := MMP DGLKƝG‫ގ‬G\K\G! ati-i֒- “to enter, to approach”10 Ɨ-i࡬ “to come” *þDL֒D“to mourn” *u֒ LNƗL֒ am “witness” 11 h MMP X]LKƝG‫ގ‬Z]\K\G! X]LKƝQG‫ގ‬Z]\K\QG! Phl., MMP, NP Ɨ\- ‫!\ ގ ގ‬ MMP þH\- <cy-> Phl. þHK- <cyh-> MMP JXJƗ\JZJ‫!\ގ‬ Psalter KXJƗ\ƯKJZN‫ގ‬G\K\! 3Ɨ]JXȖƗƯ, Arm. (loan) YND\, Phl. JXJƗ\JZN‫!\ގ‬12 Phl. JXJƗKJZJ‫ގ‬V!13, Parth. ZLJƗKZ\J‫ގ‬K! NP gugƗK d *ãNDGL֒D“to be broken” MMP ških- <škyh->, Judeo-Persian ãN\K-, škh- 6ௐ Confusions between š and s are frequent in the Indian manuscripts and should not surprise us. It could perhaps be explained as analogical to SƗGDQSƗ\ “to protect” (< SƗL֒ D) or ]ƗGDQ ]Ɨ\ “bear offspring, be born” (<*]ƗL֒ D) or even the pair QLãL\“to sit” and QLãƗ\ (see below). 8ௐ Notice that most of the verbs with present stems in ƒƗ\- do not show this alternance between h and \ (e.g., IUDPƗ\SƗ\, etc.). 9ௐ For this form, see below. 10ௐ See OP DWL\ƗLã (JOHNY CHEUNg 2007: 155). 11ௐ Kind indication by B. PESCHL. 12ௐ In Phl. we find two different spellings: 1. JZN‫!\ގ‬DQGJZN‫ގ‬V!7KHODWWHULVXVXDOO\ WUDQVOLWHUDWHGDVJZN‫ގ‬G\!DQGFRQVLGHUHGDSXUHO\JUDSKLFDOYDULDQWRIJZN‫!\ގ‬+RZHYHU the existence of two different variants JXJƗ\ and JXJƗK is more likely. 13ௐ See previous note. 7ௐ 9 Estudios Iranios y Turanios *sid-i֒ a“to be destroyed” Gଏғ *hu֒ ƗGDL֒ a- < *hu֒ Ɨ࠵̗ai֒ a-15 Dk abes-(L\); NP gusil-14 < *wi-siį X֒i-sid-i֒ a- Phl. abesih-‫ގ‬SࡃVK!‫ގ‬Sࡃsh>, MMP ‫ގ‬E\V\K! [ZƗ\LãQKZ‫ގ‬GãQ !16 Phl. [ZƗK17, MMP [ZƗK- [Z‫ގ‬K! NP ‫ࢷې‬ƗK- This evolution allows a satisfactory explanation for the passive suffix used for the passive and denominative (CANTERA 2023). 14151617 The regular evolution of the group \ before endings with -Ɲ if the morphological boundary is not respected seems to have been Ɲ. Thus, the present wiš“untie” (see above) goes back to ZLãL\ƝG < *X֒Lã+L֒ D. Usually, the evolution does not appear regularly through the whole flexion, but only in some forms of the conjugation, mostly in the 3rd p.sg.: e.g., Phl. X]ƝG ‫ގ‬Z]\W! ³KH JRHV RXW´ < *X]L\ƝG (if this is not derived from the original athematic form *X]DL֒ WL); Phl. QLãƝG “he sits” (see below) < *QLãL\ƝG. Beside the variation between ZLãƗ\ZLãƗK, the witnesses of this verb show a further phonetic variant concerning the initial consonant. In late Pahlavi, mainly in the ritual instructions of liturgical manuscripts, we frequently find JXãƗGDQ JZã‫ގ‬WQ  NZã‫ގ‬WQ ! HJ 1HU< 9DU E JZãҴWQ  in mss. 6, 15, 40, 2106, but PV   â/<7:1WQ  EHVLGH Zã‫ގ‬WQ ! VHH ZãҴWQ  ms. 5020 [year 1723] in NerY59.29). The oldest known manuscript, ms. 2000 (K7) (1278, Rostam 0LKUƗEƗQ DOUHDG\VKRZVkwšҴWQ (NerVrS15.1 Var a). Nonetheless, this variant is certainly quite modern and due to the influence of New Persian. The change of wito gu- is regular in Pahlavi only before m (see MMP, Phl. JZPҴQ “doubt”, MMP JZP\[WQ, Phl. JZP\KWQ HWF ,QWKH3Ɨ]DQGKRZHYHUWKLVFKDQJHLVUHJXODULQ all positions. The Pahlavi of the ritual instructions shows both possibilities. Accordingly, a dictionary of Pahlavi should include at least the infinitives ZLãƗGDQ JXãƗGDQ and the present stems ZLãZLãƗ\(perhaps also ZLãƗK) and JXãƗ\, all of them covered by the heterogram ŠLYTWN-. Evidence of (partial) synonyms hidden behind a heterogram is far more difficult to find. The )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ, as we have already mentioned, listed only one Iranian verb for each heterogram. Accordingly, the only chance of identifying further alternative readings of manuscripts is the variation in spellings between manuscripts. If in one passage one or more manuscripts show an eteographical spelling different from the one recorded in the Frahang and the other manuscripts show a heterogram, this indicates that the heterogram was not only read as listed in the Frahang, but knew alternative readings as well. A systematic study will only be possible when complete transcriptions of the most important Pahlavi manuscripts are available and searchable, a goal we pursue in the Middle Persian 14ௐ It is used transitively (“to break off”), like the present stem wisinn-. KX֒ƗGDL֒ D KX֒ƗMDL֒ ғ D-. 16ௐ MACKENZIE reads iWDV[ZƗKLãQ. 17ௐ ,Q)Ư3WKHKHWHURJUDPBOYHWN- is read as KZҴVWQ KZҴK\W and KZҴK\P for [ZƗVWDQ [ZƗKƝGand[ZƗKƝP. 15ௐ* 10 A. Cantera, The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi Corpus and Dictionary. Even then, it is unlikely that we will find many examples of this type of variation. The Frahang’s rule of indicating only one LQWHUSUHWDWLR iranica for each heterogram seems to be the consequence of a normative reading of the Pahlavi that encompassed homogeneous readings for all heterograms, so old alternative readings were annulled in favour of the normative ones. Nonetheless, the example of the LQWHUSUHWDWLR LUDQLFD of the heterogram YTYBWN- “to sit (down), to set” shows that such alternative readings existed and that some of them had survived until the time of the manuscripts’ production. In the following, I will analyse the LQWHUSUHWDWLRQHVLUDQLFDHpossible for this heterogram. It displays some special features that make its analysis particularly attractive. Firstly, we have already seen that it might be used for the transitive and intransitive present stems. Secondly, this is one of the verbs that has a different present stem in Manichaean Middle Persian (QLãƯ\QLãƗQ) and New Persian (QLãƯQQLãƗQ). $FFRUGLQJ WR )Ư3 DQG VRPH HWHRJUDSKLFDO VSHOOLQJV 3DKODYL ZRXOG PDWFK 1HZ Persian and the present stem should be QLãƯQ. However, a systematic check of all attestations has revealed spellings indicating the existence of an additional present stem, QLãƯ\ beside QLãƯQ. Furthermore, a passage of the Pahlavi Yasna repeated several times consistently shows an alternative reading, revealing that this heterogram could also be read as a different verb than nišastan orQLãƗVWDQ Avestan uses two different verbal roots for expressing the notion of “to sit”, both with well-established Indo-European etymologies: 1. had-: Pres.-stem: KLįD- < *KƯGD- < *si-sd-e-. It is frequently used with the preverb ni-, and the resulting present stem is QLãKLįD-18 2. ƗK-: root present ƗK-: ƗVWH (3rd p.sg.), ƗծƾKƗLUH, ƗƾKΩ۬WH (3rd p.pl.), ƗKƯãƗ (2nd p.sg. opt.), ƗծƾKƗQD- (part.pres.med.), stative: “to be sitting, to dwell” (:$LD, PIRART attempts to explain all forms of the present stem KLįD as belonging to the root hid- “to reject”, Ved. sidh- (Pirart 1992: 2:80). The only attestation of the root had- would be Y10.15 QLãKDįDLWL and the present stem would be QLãKDįD and not QLãKLįD. Av. QLãKDįDLWL is, indeed, the best attested reading, but the Sanskrit transmission has QLãKLįDLWL and °KLį is also attested in other Indian manuscripts (QLãKLįΩWL: ms. 110; QLãKLįLWL: ms. 234 or the oldest Indian 9ƯGƝYGƗG manuscripts 4200, 4210, 4220, 4240). Furthermore, the equivalent of the Vedic present stem VƯGiWL is the only form continued in Middle and New Iranian. MMP QLãƯ\- <nšyy>, Parth QLãƯO <nšyl-> (JOHNY CHEUNG 2007: 125) indicates an original QLãƯGD. The quantity is, indeed, confirmed by NP QHãƯQ (see below). Accordingly, the Avestan present stem KLįD shows a shortening from KƯįD and we must reconstruct an I-Ir. present stem VƯGD despite the difficulties posed by this form. Notice, furthermore, that a similar alternation between QLãKLįD and QLãKDįD is also found in other attestations that, according to PIRART, belong to the root hid: 18ௐ nišKLįDƝWD 4000, 4050, 4161; 4200, 4210; 4610 4040, 4161; 4200, 4230, 4240 4040, 4161; 4200, 4210, 4240 4040, 4161; 4200, 4210, 4240 nišKLįƗW֓ V16.1 4000, 4010, 4025, 4040, 4050; 4600 V8.11 V9.33 V9.34 V9.35 nišKDįDƝWD 4010, 4025, 4040; 4230, 4240; 4600a 4000, 4010, 4025, 4050; 4210; 4600, 4610 4000, 4010, 4025, 4050; 4230; 4600, 4610 4000, 4010, 4025, 4050; 4230; 4600, 4610 niš.KDįƗW 4200, 4210, 4230, 4240; 4610 11 Estudios Iranios y Turanios $FFRUGLQJWRWKHVWDQGDUGZRUNVLQ:HVWHUQ0LGGOH,UDQLDQRQO\WKHILUVWURRW has survived, and there are no traces of the second. Forms of this root are found only in Old Khotanese ƗK- (EMMERICK 1968: 20:13; JOHNY CHEUNG 2007: 154). Furthermore, the present stem QLãƯGDwith preverb ni- is regularly continued in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian. The heterogram YTYBWN- is used in Book Pahlavi as intransitive as well as transitive, and the reader must choose how to read it depending on his understanding of the passage. Inscriptional Middle Persian still distinguishes between both, at least in the past stem, using the phonetic complement °st(n) for the intransitive stem and °t(n) for the transitive. The present stems are usually read in Book Pahlavi as QLãƯQ andQLãƗQ (MACK ENZIE 1971: 60; NYBERG 1974: 142), exactly as in New Persian, whereas MMP shows QLãƯ\- and QLãƗ\. The shape of the present stem postulated for Pahlavi is identical to the standard form in New Persian: nišastan, nišin-. Such a stem is also attestHGLQRWKHUPRGHUQ:HVWHUQ,UDQLDQODQJXDJHVHJ*LO 5VKW ništœn, nišin-, Shamerz. °ništ-am / näšniP, Sist. UãƯQ19, Siv. UãƯQQƯի ãW. The origin of the present stem QLãƯQ is obscure. HÜBSCHMANN (1895: 101) derived NP nešin- from ni-šidQƗ. N. SIMS WILLIAMS (1981: 166) considers instead a phonetical modification of the present stem QLãƯG D  (see below) through an assimilation of the nasal in distance. He compares it with other similar assimilations of the nasality in distance like those in the personal pronoun of the 1st S௘VJ003an < **anam, Old Persian adam; Parth. QE\Q “cunning” beside GE\Q, NP SDQƗP “face mask” beside Phl. SDGƗP (cf. Av. SDLWLGƗQD), etc., thus combining evidence from very different chronologies. Accordingly, he also explains the transitive form QLãƗQ (present of QLãƗVWDQ) < *QLãƗGDL֒ D, Av. QLãƗįDLLDOP QL\DãƗGD\DP, MMP QLãƗ\Qã‫!\ގ‬+RZHYHUWKHFKURQRORJLFDODQGGLDOHFWRORJical distribution between QLãƯQand QLãƯG (that is, QLãƯ\ or QLãƯį) and the date postulates for the assimilation are not completely clear. The present stem QLãƯGD is also preserved in most variants of Middle Persian and in Parthian. The stem niãƯQ- DSSHDUV RQO\ LQ VRPH 1HZ :HVWHUQ ,UDQLDQ ODQJXDJHV DQG 3DKODYL 7KH latter is the only Middle Iranian language attesting it. Yet, we cannot exclude the possibility that in Pahlavi, this form is influenced by New Persian. If QLãƯQ is a modern form, we could look for its origins only in Northwestern areas in which the intervocalic d was preserved asį, but not in the dialects with the stem QLãƯ\. In Pahlavi, we would expect QLãƯ\ (as attested in Manichaean Middle Persian) or *QLãƯK(cf. the variants X]L\ƝQG and X]LKƝQG, see above). )XUWKHUPRUHLQ%DORþLWKLVYHUEDSSHDUVDVQLãWQLVWQLQG whose present stem seems to go back to a similar form, QLã Ư QG that could also perhaps explain NP QLãƯQ and other forms (KORN 2005: 127). The relation between QLVWQLãWand nind- seems comparable to that of sist, sind- “to break”, where the nasal stem is inherited (Oind. FKLQiWWL, lat. scindo, etc.). In fact, it is not to be excluded that the verbs °sistan, °sinn- and škastan, šken(n)- might have provided a model for the creation of nišƯQ- beside QLãƯ\. As we have seen above, the verb škastan knows two different present stems: 19ௐ :LWKGLVVLPLODWLRQRIn..n to r..n (JOHNY CHEUNG 2007: 126). 12 A. Cantera, The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi šken(n)- (<*škand(a)-) and škeh- (< *škDGL֒ D), in a transitive/intransitive distribution. Similarly, we know that beside the present °sinn- (< *üLQG(a)-, cf.; Phl. wisistan, wisinn-), a present °sih- (Phl. abesih-) and °sil- (<*üLGL֒ D-, Gr. ıȤȓȗȦ; NP gusistan, gusil- “to shatter , to break”) (JOHNY CHEUNG  ௘I  H[LVWV that let us also suppose the existence of °VL\. The latter is originally intransitive/ passive, but it is used as transitive in New Persian (and also in Greek). In this case, both present stems find cognates in other branches: *üind-a- (Lat. VFLQGǀ) and VLGL֒ D(OInd. FKLG\iWH³WREHEURNHQ´*UıȤȓȗȦ 7KHVHSDLUV°sin(n)- VL\ sih- (abesih-) and škenn-, *ãNH\, might have served as a model for the creation of QLãƯQ beside QLãL\ (/*QLãƯK) and for QLãƗQ beside QLãƗ\.20 škastan “to break, to be broken” (škH\)škeh- “to be broken” škenn- “to break” wisistan “to split” *ZLVL\20(wisih-) wisinn- “to split” nišastan “to sit” QLãƯ\(QLãƯK) “to sit” >>> QLãƯQQ“to sit down” QLãƗVWDQ “to set” QLãƗ\/(QLãƗK) “to set” >>> QLãƗQQ“to set” Admittedly, this parallelism works well only at the formal level, but not at the semantic level. The “original” form alternating between °L\ and °inn- are in a transitive/ intransitive distribution (although ZLVL\ in NP gusil- is used as transitive). By contrast, for QLãDVWDQQLãƗVWDQ, the \ and the –n- present are used as either transitive or intransitive depending on the root degree, and not on the final consonant of the stem. Nonetheless, the inherited21 pattern of the intransitive °L֒ Dpresent beside the transitive nasal present might have triggered the form QLãƗQ instead of the older QLãƗ\ then the creation of QLãƯQ beside QLãƯ\. In any case, this analogical model seems more likely than an unlikely change from d to n that should have occurred before the change from d > \. The witnesses, however, are all modern, except for Book Pahlavi, but here the influence of New Persian cannot be excluded. Let us have a look at the distribution of the forms in the variants of Middle Persian. The forms attested in MMP are exclusively QLã\\ and QLãҴ\. This is also the present stem attested in the Middle Persian of the Psalter, where, beside the expected ideographical spelling YTYBWN-, at least twice we find the eteographical spelling QLãƯ\22: QLãƯ\ƗQ Qã\G‫ގ‬Q! ³, VKDOO VLW´ 3V  QLãƯ\ƗQ DEDULW JƗKǀJ “I shall sit upon your throne” QLãƯ\ƗQGQã\G‫ގ‬QG\!³WKH\VKDOOVLW´ 3V ƝJLãƗQIUD]DQGL]QLãƯ\ƗQG SDVWǀDEDUJƗKǀJƯWǀЋƗ\ƝGƗQƯЋƗ\ƝGƗQ “their children shall also sit after you upon your throne forever and ever” GIGNOUX also assumes this reading for the heterogram in the Middle Persian inVFULSWLRQV<7<%:1G!QLãƯ\ƝQG ..=.15P  GIGNOUX 1972: 1:38). The reading could, of course, also be QLãƯQƝQG, if we rely on the 20ௐ See NP °sil- “to split” < °VLį. This form is originally intransitive, but also used as transitive. The Vedic verbs in \i also produce secondary nasal stems such as ĞLQi‫ܒ܈‬L, ĞLۨ‫܈‬DWL (Br +) from ĞL‫\܈‬i- (KULIKOV 2011: 195). 22ௐ :HDOVRILQGWKHIROORZLQJKHWHURJUDSKLFDOVSHOOLQJ<7<%:1W!nišast (99.1). 21ௐ 13 Estudios Iranios y Turanios comparison with the supposed Pahlavi QLãƯQ rather than with MMP and Psalter nišƯ\. Pahlavi would agree with New Persian and disagree with Manichaean Middle Persian and Psalter: Parth QLãƯį<nšyd-> MMP QLãƯ\- <nšyy-> QLãƗ\QLã‫!\ގ‬ Psalter Phl NP QLãƯ\- <nšyd-/ QLãƯQ <nšyn- / QLãƯQ <7<%:1! <7<%:1! 23 QLãƗOQã‫ގ‬O! QLãƗQQ\ã‫ގ‬Q QLãƗQ <7<%:1! The evidence in Book Pahlavi for reading the present stem represented by YTYBWN- as QLãƯQ and QLãƗQ and not as QLãƯ\ and QLãƗ\ is from a late dating: the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJVFDUFHHWHRJUDSKLFDOVSHOOLQJV3Ɨ]DQGDQG3ƗUVƯJ The greatest weight is likely attributed to the )UDKDQJ Ư 3DKODZƯJ )  Ư3  <7<%:1WQ nšstn<7<%:1\WQã\Q\W<7<%:1\PQã\Q\P. This reading seems to be confirmed by the very rare cases in which some manuscripts shows the eteographical spelling. I have been able to find following further rare eteographic spellings among the overwhelming majority of heterographical ones:23 Qã\Q\W /QLãƯQƝG39 PVV *U%G 4ࡃ'0Qã\Q\W7'7'24) Qã\QP /QLãƯQDP/ GrBd4.8 (mss. DH, TD1, TD2) For the transitive form, we also found some eteographical spellings, such as: QãҴQ\W /QLãƗQƝG/ Y9.24 (400, 500, 510) QãҴQQG /QLãƗQƝQG*U%G 7'Qã‫ގ‬QQG7'Qã‫ގ‬QG )XUWKHUPRUHWKLVLVWKHVWDQGDUGUHDGLQJZHILQGLQ3Ɨ]DQGDQG3ƗUVƯJ$IHZ examples will suffice: 3ƗUVƯJQLãƯQƝG $Ư- QLãƯQDQG $Ư- 3Ɨ]DQG =:< QLãƯQΩ۬W (Antia 347), QLãnjQΩ۬G (ms. J3, p. 112), QLãƯQΩթW௘ QLãƯQDQGD7KH3ƗUVƯJYHUVLRQRIWKH$\ƗGJDUƯ-ƗPƗVSƯJ shows the forms of QLãƗVWDQ, QLãƯQDOUHDG\LQWKHLU1HZ3HUVLDQIRUP:HILQGnišast, nišastand, QLãDVWƝG, QLãƯQDP, QLãƯQƝGQLãƯQDG (AGOSTINI 2013: 223). However, we cannot exclude the possibility that this evidence just reflects the influence of New Persian at the time of the manuscripts’ production. A few deviating spellings indicate the existence of the present stem QLãƯ\- beside QLãƯQ. In four passages (double as many as those containing the eteographical spellings of QLãƯQ), we find spellings that suggest a reading as QLãƯ\, but as we will see, two may perhaps be explained another way. In GrBd9.21, it is affirmed that the fire %XU]ƝQPLKUVLWV <7<%:1\W! RQWKHPRXQWDLQ5ƝZDQG7KHYHUELVXVHGDV the intransitive form of QLãƗVWDQQLãƗQ“to enthrone” a fire: Ɨ QNXVWDJUƝZDQGNǀISDG[ZDUƗVƗQNƝãƗGXUƯEXU]ƝQPLKUSDGLãQLãƯQƝGQLãƯ\ƝG ³7KHPRXQWDLQ5ƝZDQGLQ;ZDUƗVƗQRQZKLFKVLWVWKHILUH%XU]ƝQPLKUEHORQJ to this region.” 23ௐ 24ௐ Only in Ps131.7 QLãƗOLãQ, cf. NP gusil- but3KOZLVL\-. ,QWKHVDPHOLQH<7<%:1GLVXVHGIRUQLãƗQƝQG (TD2 65v). 14 A. Cantera, The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi The manuscripts of the Iranian Great Bundahišn have the heterogram <7<%:1\W!%\FRQWUDVWWKHPDQXVFULSWVRIWKH,QGLDQYHUVLRQKDYHDQHWHRgraphical form: (K20 ; M51 . This is the standard spelling of the past form nišast. But why should the Indian Bundahišn contain the verb in the past that appears in the present in the Iranian Bundahišn? It is more likely that this spelling represents also a present. In the Pahlavi commentary to PV7.1225 we may also find an instance of a similar spelling. The passage runs as follows: ZDVWDUDJ DNƗU ƝQ … ƗQ NƝ ]DQ Ư GDãWƗQ SDG PHKPƗQƯK GƗUƝG Xã DQGDU EƝ QLãƯ\ƝGD\ƗEDãQDVƗDEDUUDVƝG The following clothes are useless … the ones which a menstruating woman has with her in isolation and sits on them or the ones a corpse reaches26. MOAZZAMI reads the verb as “QLãƯQƝG QLKƝG” and offers no comment or expla, 4610 nation. The manuscripts show the following spellings: ms. 4000 and its 4615 , 4700 (copy of ms. 4600) . None of these attested spellings can be read as QLKƝG. A similar form is found twice (PY1.3, 2.3) in ms. 400. There, we read QLãƝQG Q\ã\QG!ZKHUHRWKHUPDQXVFULSWVVKRZ<7<%:1G!,Q3<WKHIRUPIROORZV<7<%:1G!DQGIXQFWLRQVDVLWVJORVVLQGLFDWLQJLWVLQWHUSUHWDWLRLUDQLFD These two passages deserve a deep analysis, which I will offer later, but for the PRPHQWLWVKRXOGVXIILFHWRQRWHWKDWWKHFRS\LVWRIPVUHDG<7<%:1G! as Q\ã\QGThis can hardly be read differently than QLãƝQG(and not as QLãƯQƝQG, since this scribe is completely systematic in the distribution of the ending of the 3UG௘S௘SO\QG in eteograms and -d in heterograms). The form in GrBd9.21 could be interpreted as QLãƯ\ƝGQã\\W!:HZRXOGH[pect °<ydyt> (cf. Phl. JUL\ƝG <glydyt> < *JUֈGD L֒ D WL), but the graphical reduction is comparable to spellings such as ãƗ\ƝGã‫\ގ‬W!DEƗ\ƝG‫ގ‬Sࡃ‫\ގ‬W !%\FRQWUDVW 25ௐ MOAZZAMI numbers this passage V7.13 because she adds after VS7.2 a Pahlavi translation missing in the manuscripts. According to her, the Avestan text would correspond to VS8.16 and consequently, she adds the Pahlavi translation that she finds there. The liturgical manuscripts do, indeed, complete a text that does not appear in the Pahlavi translation. However, this text is not identical to VS8.16, but the following text: YƯVSΩPƗDѩƗW֓VSƗYƗDLȕLYDƝQDLWL IUƗ YƗ [ࢷDUDLWL YDLLǀ YƗ KƯ NΩUΩIã[ࢷDUǀ DǀXL X]XXD]DLWHƗDW֓ DƝãD GUX[ã \Ɨ QDVXã XSD GXXąVDLWL DSƗ[ΩįUDƝLELLǀ QDƝPDƝLELLǀ PD[ãL NΩKUSD ΩUΩȖDLWLLD IUDãQDǀã DSD]DįDƾKǀ DNDUDQΩPGULȕLLƗծ. \D‫ׇ‬D]ǀLåGLãWƗLã[UDIVWUƗLã This passage is unknown elsewhere and was omitted from the Pahlavi translation due to a transmission error: a typical saut de même u même*HOGQHUDQQRXQFHVLQKLVHGLWLRQWKDWWKLV DQGRWKHUWH[WV DYDLODEOHLQWKH6ƗGH manuscripts, but missing in the Pahlavi translation, will be edited in an appendix: “For the additional passage of the Vd. sâdes, see the Appendix” (GELDNER 1886: 3.48). WESTERGAARD includes the passage, but in brackets, and indicates that it is omitted in K1, 2, Bvd. (WESTERGAARD 1852: 387). 26ௐ MOAZZAMI translates this passage as follows: “That with which a menstruating woman has contact (= in her use), through her sitting on it.” She fails to translate SDGPHKPƗQƯK. This expression is frequently used in the Pahlavi version of 9ƯGƝYGƗG for the place of isolation, far from fire and water, e.g., PV5.56G DQGDUVƝšabagNƗUSDGPHKPƗQƯKQƝSƗGL[ãƗNDUGDQ “For three days she (the menstruating woman) is not allowed to do any work in isolation”. The same usage is also found in ŠnŠ2.96 ƗQNƝ]DQƯGDãWƗQSDGPHKPƗQƯKGƗUƝGSDGKDPNƗU be hilišn “The clothes that a menstruating woman has with her in isolation should be left exclusively for this use.” 15 Estudios Iranios y Turanios PV7.12 could be read as QLãƝG and PY1.3 and 2.3 as QLãƝQG࣠27. They apparently show the same reduction that we also find in the present stem wiš- of ZLãƗGDQ )Ư3Zã\WZã\P for ZLãƝGand ZLãƝP and MMP ZLãƝG <wyyšyd>; see above). These forms go back °X֒Lã+L֒ D so we would expect *ZLãL\ƝGƝP. Comparable is the 3UG௘S௘VJX]ƝG‫ގ‬Z]\W!IRU X]L\ƝG FI003‫ގ‬Z]\K\G!‫ގ‬Z]\K\QG!X]ƯKƝG X]ƯKƝQG (the same form, but with a different glide; see above). It is unclear whether this is just a graphical reduction for QLãƯ\ƝG X]L\ƝG (cf. ]D\ƝG “he asks for” ]\W !39)Ư2 RUDUHDORQH nƯãƝGX]ƝG), but MMP ZLãƝG <wyyšyd> seems to indicate a real reduction. PY1.3 and 2.3 are just two of many instances in a frequently-attested comPHQWDU\RQ0LࢡUD¶VHSLWKHWVZKHQKHLVPHQWLRQHGDVWKHSDWURQRIKƗXXDQL, the PRUQLQJ RIWKHGD\ LQWKH=RURDVWULDQOLWXUJLFDOFDOHQGDU7KLVVHFWLRQLVUHFLWHG in the Yasna in all mentions of the fiveJƗKs, that is, at least one time in each litany: Y1.3, 2.3, 4.8, 7.6, 22.6, 24.13 and 66.3. In many cases, the text is not abbreviated, and the Pahlavi translation and gloss are written in extenso in some manuscripts. ,QWKH3DKODYLWUDQVODWLRQDJORVVH[SODLQVWKHHSLWKHWVRI0LࢡUDKD]DƾUǀJDRãD “with a thousand ears” and EDƝXXDUΩFDãPDQ-, “with ten thousand eyes”. ApparHQWO\WKH\GLVWXUEHGH[HJHWHVZKRNQHZUHSUHVHQWDWLRQVRI0LࢡUDWKDWGLGQRWILW the Avestan description. Consequently, they emphasize that this is not a physical IHDWXUHRI0LࢡUDEXWPXVWEHXQGHUVWRRGPHWDSKRULFDOO\7KH³HDUV´ZRXOG simply mean that 500 PƝQǀ\³VSLULWV´VLWLQ0LࢡUD¶VKHDGIRUWKHIXQFWLRQRIKHDUing and, accordingly, the “10,000 eyes” belong to the 5,000 spirits that are there for seeing. The text runs as follows (the verb “to sit, to dwell in” is left unread for the moment, and appears as XXX): $3࡮ãJZã\K+1$$<঳ã'ࡃP\QZ\‫ގ‬Z' LOYŠE XXX$3࡮ãN‫ގ‬O<JZã\K 2অ<':1[$<঳਍1(QJZKã:=.QJZKã$3࡮ãE\ZOFãP\K+1$$<঳ã P\QZ\‫ގ‬Z' LOYŠE XXX$3࡮ãN‫ގ‬O<FãP\K2অ<':1[$<঳਍1( +਍<7:1:=.+਍<7:1 XãKD]ƗUJǀãƯKƝGNnjãSDQЋVDGPƝQǀ\ǀVDU;;;XãNƗUƯJǀãƯKNXQƝQGNnjƝQ QL\ǀ[ãXGƗQQL\ǀ[ãXãEƝZDUþDãPƯKƝGNnjãSDQЋKD]ƗUPƝQǀ\ǀVDU;;;Xã NƗUƯþDãPƯKNXQƝQG KD]ƗUJǀãƯK (means) the following: five-hundred PƝQǀ\ dwell in his head and do the function proper of the ear: “hear this, hear that”. And EƝZDUþDãPƯK (means) that five-thousand PƝQǀ\ dwell in his head and do the function proper of the eye: “See this, see that” As for the verb “to be sitting, to dwell”, two different spellings alternate in the PDQXVFULSWV%HVLGHWKHKHWHURJUDP<7<%:1G!ZHDOVRILQGDQHWHRJUDSKLFDOVSHOOLQJ‫ގ‬K\QG! The presence or absence of \ in the preverb is less problematic than it may appear. The preverb can, indeed, be written with (nidom “smallest” <nytwm>, QLKƗQ³VHFUHF\´Q\K‫ގ‬Q ! etc.) or without \(nibištanQSãWQ !³WRZULWH´nifridag³DFFXUVHG´QSO\WN !nihuftan “hide” QKZSWQ !QLãƝP “seat” <nšdm>, etc.). 27ௐ 16 A. Cantera, The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi 1st attestation Y1.3 Y2.3 Y4.8 <7<%:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG <7<%:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG 400: <7<%:1G <7<%:1GQ\ã\QQG28 415: n\ã‫ގ‬Q G ‫ގ‬KQ  VHFP<7<%:1G  <7<%:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG <7<%:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG <7<%:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG <7<%:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG <7<%:1G <7<%:1G <7<%:1G 510’‫ގ‬K\QG <7<%:1G <7<%:1G <7<%:1\W <7<%:1G Y7.629 500: Y[...]B[.]Nd Y22.6 2nd attestation <7<%:1G >«@7>@:1G ‫ގ‬K\QG Y24.13 <7<%:1G <7<%:1G <7<%:1G <7<%:1G Y66.3 The distributional pattern corresponds to the standard behaviour of heterograms and eteograms:2829 a. in the same passage, the same manuscript has the heterogram once and the eteogram once (500 in Y1.3, 2.3 and ms. 400 in Y22.6 and 66.13) b. in the same passage, a manuscript has the heterogram while another one or other ones has/have the eteogram (e.g., the 2nd attestation of Y4.8 in ms. 500). ,QWHUHVWLQJO\0LKUƗEƗQWKRXJKOLNHO\FRS\LQJWZLFHIURPWKHVDPHRULJLQDODOVR alternates between both spellings: in the second attestation of Y4.8, he writes <7<%:1G!LQWKHPVDQGODWHU‫ގ‬K\QG!LQ$SSDUHQWO\LWZDVVWLOO FOHDUIRU0LKUDEƗQWKDW‫ގ‬K\QG!LVWKHHWHRJUDSKLFVSHOOLQJRI<7<%:1G! 7KHVFULEHRIPVVRPHWLPHVDWWHPSWHGWRDVVLPLODWHWKHVSHOOLQJ‫ގ‬K\QG! with the spelling of QLãƯQƝQG, as he clearly does in Y1.3, where he added this gloss after the heterogram. For that purpose, the final stroke of <LOYŠE> is taken as the initial n and -ҴK- is understood as \ã. However, for an eteogram, the ending of the 3rd S௘VJLVLQPV DVLQPRVWPDQXVFULSWV DOZD\V\QG, whereas the ending -d is reserved for the heterograms. Thus, the reading in ms. 400 could just be read as QLãƝQG. Accordingly, ҴK\QG could be understood as a misreading of QLãƝQG, 3rdS௘VJ of a present stem niš- (see above). However, the manuscripts (except ms. 400) 28ௐ 29ௐ Also 420, 450, 456, 457. Abbreviated in most manuscripts. 17 Estudios Iranios y Turanios FOHDUO\ZULWH‫ގ‬K\QG!DQGQRWQ\ã\QG!ZKLFKLVDOVRWKHlectio difficilior. The attested spelling is most likely to be read as ƗKƝQG, 3rd S௘SORIWKHYHUEƗK-. The verb ƗK- “to sit” is well-attested in Avestan (see above), but apparently it survives in Middle Iranian only in Old Khotanese ƗK- “to sit, to remain” (EMMERICK 1968: 20:13; JOHNY CHEUNG 2007: 154) and in Bactrian ĮȡȝĮĮȣ“to be present, to stay” (SIMS-WILLIAMS௘DJOHNY CHEUNG 2007: 154). This gloss would also attest it in Pahlavi. Its presence in the gloss is indeed well-justified: the main semantic difference between the present QLãƯGD and ƗK- seems to be that the first one is telic and alludes to the action of “sitting down”, whereas the root present stem ƗK- is stative and means “to be seated, to dwell”. Although in Avestan the present stem QLãKLįDmight already be used with a stative value, the verb ƗK- inherently posesses the stative value and can never be used as telic (“to sit down”), see N19.6 *DLLǀYƗWDFDYƗ KLãWΩPQǀYƗƗծƾKƗQǀYƗ SD‫ׇ‬ƗQǀYƗ EDUΩPQǀYƗYD]ΩPQǀYƗDLȕLLƗVWǀD‫ׇ‬DUDWXIULã “whether walking, running, standing, sitting, lying down, riding, or driving, as long as he wears the girdle, he satisfies the ratus”; Yt10.45 \Hƾ̗KH DãWD UƗWDLLǀ YƯVSƗKX SDLWL EDUΩ]ƗKX YƯVSƗKX YDƝįDLLDQƗKX VSDVǀ ƗծƾKƗLUH “whose eight assistants stay on all hillocks, on all watchtowers as spies”. In our passage, the verb is clearly stative and indicates WKDWRUVSLULWV³DUHGZHOOLQJ´LQ0LࢡUD¶VKHDG:KHWKHUWKH\DUHVHDWing or standing is certainly irrelevant, and the passage certainly does not indicate that the spirits are now sitting down. Hence, we might conclude that behind the heterogram YTYBWN- is hidden not only the Iranian intransitive verb QLãƯQ “to sit down” and the transitive QLãƗQ “to set down, to establish” (frequently used regarding fire), but also the stative verb ƗK-. The past stem ƗKLVW is also attested in the zand, as already acknowledged by BARTHOLOMAE  ,Q9=DUDࢡXãWUDLVSUHVHQWHGDVDVNLQJDTXHVWLRQ ZKLOHVLWWLQJQH[WWRWKHPHDQGHURIWKH'DUԥ‫ۥ‬Ư SΩUΩVDW࡭ ]DUD‫ׇ‬XãWUǀGDUϷMLLDSDLWL ]EDUDKHDKXUƗLPD]GƗLYDƾKDXXHYRKXPDLWHƗծƾKDQǀ). The zand interprets DKXUƗL PD]GƗLYDƾKDXXHYRKXPDLWHas the subject of the verb “to sit”: SDGGUƗML]EƗUNnjǀKUPD]GXGZDKPDQƯZHKƯZHKSD\PƗQƗKLVW KƝQG ašawahišt [ãDKUHZDUXGVSDQGDUPDG 2QWKHPHDQGHURIWKH'UƗMLZKHUH2KUPD]GDQGWKHJRRG:DKPDQRIJRRG PHDVXUH$ãDZDKLãW;ãDKUHZDUDQG6SDQGDUPDGZHUHVLWWLQJ The past participle is written in Avestan characters in mss. 4600 ( ) and 4610 ( ). Despite the scarcity of eteographical spellings, the existence of the Pahlavi verb ƗKLVWDQ, ƗK- is certain, as it is also certain that the heterogram YTYBWN- was used not only for QLãDVWDQQLãƯQ, but also for ƗKLVWDQ, ƗK-. Thus, it is likely that some of the attestations of YTYBWN- that we traditionally interpret as witnesses of QLãDVWDQQLãƯQ were indeed read as ƗKLVWDQ, ƗK-, at least at some point. Unfortunately, it is impossible to decide upon the distribution. In all eteographic attestations, ƗKLVWDQ, ƗK- clearly has a stative value “to be seated, to dwell”. However, QRRWKHU:HVWHUQ0LGGOH,UDQLDQODQJXDJHNQRZVƗK-, and these others use QLãƯ\ QLãƯį for the stative as well. Thus, a widespread use of ƗK- in Pahlavi is unlikely. 18 A. Cantera, The interpretatio iranica of Heterograms in Book Pahlavi Rather, the attestations seem to be an archaism of the zand. An archaism is, indeed, expected in the zand of the 9ƯGƝYGƗG, but not so much in the zand of the litanies of the Yasna, since this is the part of the Yasna that was OLNHO\QRWLQFOXGHGLQWKH6WǀG<DVQDQGZKRVHWUDQVODWLRQZDVSHUKDSVUHGDFWHG at a later stage. Nonetheless, it is very likely that there was also an old zand of the dedications, since they contain the official names and epithets of the gods. In any case, the knowledge of the zand RI0LࢡUD¶VGHGLFDWLRQZDVZLGHVSUHDG:HDOVR find it in the Great Bundahišn (GrBd26.71–3), although unfortunately, the verb “to dwell” is not used there: þL\ǀQJǀZƝGNnjPLKUƯIUƗ[Jǀ\ǀGƯƝZKD]ƗUJǀãƯEƝZDUþDãPXãIUƗ[Jǀ\ǀGƯK ƝGNnjNDSDGDãWDEƝEƯPƯKƗEƝãƗ\ƝG madan ud šudanSDGUƗKƯPLKUXãKD]ƗU JǀãƯKƝGNnjãSDQЋVDGPƝQǀ\NƗUƯJǀãƯKKDPƝNXQƝGXãEƝZDUþDãPƯKƝQNnjã SDQЋKD]ƗUPƝQǀ\NƗUƯþDãPƯKNXQƝQGNnjPLKUƝQL]QL\ǀãXGƗQL]QL\ǀãƝQL] ZƝQXGƗQL]ZƝQ As it says: “Mihr of wide pastures who has one thousand ears and ten thousand eyes.” ‘Having wide pastures’ (IUƗ[Jǀ\ǀG) means that one can go without fear in the dessert on the path of Mihr. ‘Having a thousand ears’ (KD]ƗUJǀãƯK) means that five-hundred spirits play for him the role of the ears. ‘Having ten thousand eyes’ (EƝZDUþDãPƯK) means that five thousand spirits play for him the role of the eyes. This analysis of the different possible LQWHUSUHWDWLRQHVLUDQLFDH of the heterogram YTYBWN- shows that, against the impression transmitted by the lexicographical works and even by the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ, one heterogram could be read in different ways. These different readings could be simply phonetic variants (dialectal or chronological), different stems of the same verb or even different verbs. The one-to-one relation between heterogram and eteogram in the Frahang is artificial, didactic and normative. The selection of the verbal form was likely even influenced by New Persian. It seems that New Persian had notably influenced the way to read Pahlavi by the time of the manuscripts’ production and they (as ZHOODV3Ɨ]DQGDQG3ƗUVƯJ UHYHDOLWLQWKHLURFFDVLRQDOQRQKLVWRULFDOVSHOOLQJV NYBERG’s transcription system (following BARTHOLOMAE’s proposal) simply relied upon the Pahlavi historical orthography and did not attempt to modernize it. HENNING’s claim of liberating the transcriptions from the burden of the historical orthography (HENNING 1958: 122) was then followed by MACK ENZIE’s successful transcription system. He pretended to transcribe “the Middle Persian koine of the HDUO\ 6DVDQLDQ HPSLUH WKH SHULRG RI .DUGƝU DQG WKH =RURDVWULDQ 5HIRUPDWLRQ´ (MACK ENZIE 1967: 18). The documents in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian provide us with the necessary tools for reconstructing this état de langue. This assumes, firstly, that the Pahlavi language did not fundamentally change from this date until the moment of production of most Pahlavi texts in the 9th century — a rather unlikely assumption. Manichaean Middle Persian would be (as already postulated by TEDESCO௘I MXVWWKH³SXUHU´FRXUWODQJXDJH whereas Pahlavi as a “national” language displays more influences from other dialects (such as Parthian), as also occurs with New Persian. However, the way 19 Estudios Iranios y Turanios to read Pahlavi during the time of the manuscripts’ production (and also of the 3Ɨ]DQGDQG3ƗUVƯJYHUVLRQV ZDVOLNHO\LQIOXHQFHGE\1HZ3HUVLDQVRWKDWWKH New Persian reading might have substituted for other older Pahlavi forms in the manuscripts as well as in other tools at our disposal for the transcription of Pahlavi30. The historical orthography of Pahlavi creates a gap between the script and phonetic realization that facilitates the modernization of the pronunciation without affecting the way to write, or at the very least, only slightly and occasionally. This is certainly true for the reading of the heterograms, but it also affects the eteographical spellings. The same also applies for the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ. The latter certainly continues a long-lasting tradition, but it was changed and adapted until a very late date. Firstly, the Frahang Ư 3DKODZƯJ FRQWDLQV KHWHURJUDPV WKDW DUH QR ORQJHU XVHG LQ %RRN 3DKODYL OLNH â:0$/+ (aram. ãXQQƗUƗ) for Phl. gurbag “cat” (NYBERG/UTAS 1988: 73; MACKENZIE 2000: 125). SecRQGO\WKH7XUIƗQIUDJPHQWKDVDUHVSHFWDEOHDQWLTXLW\DVLWLQFOXGHVVXEMXQFWLYHIRUPVWKDW were no longer in use in the classical Pahlavi of the 9th century (KÖNIG 2022: 98). Thirdly, the JORVVDU\PHQWLRQHGE\,EQ0XTDIID‫ޏ‬DVFRQWDLQLQJDWKRXVDQGKHWHURJUDPVZLWKWKHLU,UDQLDQ equivalents is most likely a composition similar to our )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ(JAMASPJI-ASA/ HAUG 1870: 37; KÖNIG 2022: 194). Nonetheless, the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ includes pseudo-heterograms “coined by later scribes from Arabic words” (like ASD-l for ãƝU “lion”, cf- Ar. asad) (MACKENZIE 2000: 125) and New Persian words such as the late (New Persian) loanword DPãƗVIDQG (Av. DPΩ‫܈‬հDVSΩ۬WD) instead of Phl. (a)PKUDVSDQG (KÖNIG 2022: 188). In fact, we have to understand the )UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ, as noted by SHAKED, as “an open-ended notebook” with a fluid transmission (SHAKED 1993: 75). Since the extant manuscripts used in all editions go back to the 17th or 18th century (NYBERG/UTAS;,±;9 ZHFDQQRWH[FOXGH the possibility that modernization of the readings has occurred and again, and of influences from New Persian, as happens in the famous case of the demonstrative pronoun (h)ƗQ: )Ư3UHDGVƗQ (cf. NP ƗQ), but MMP KƗQK‫ގ‬Q!  30ௐ 20 E. PIRART Pour de nouveaux fragments avestiquesODJpQpDORJLHGH=DUD‫ׇ‬XãWUD Bibliography Agostini, D. (2013). $\ƗGJƗUƯ-ƗPƗVSƯJXQWH[WHHVFKDWRORJLTXH]RURDVWULHQ (Biblica et orientalia 50). Roma. $QWLD(௘.  Pâzend texts. Bombay. %DUU.  ³5HPDUNVRQWKH3DKODYL/LJDWXUHV;DQG;´LQBulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 8: 391–403. Bartholomae, Chr. (1904). Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Straßburg. &DQWHUD$  ³7KH3DVVLYH6XIIL[Ʈࡅ KLQ0LGGOH3HUVLDQ´LQIranica 33. Cheung, J. (2007). (W\PRORJLFDO'LFWLRQDU\RIWKH,UDQLDQ9HUE (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 2). Leiden-Boston. Cheung, J. (2007). (W\PRORJLFDO'LFWLRQDU\RIWKH,UDQLDQ9HUE(Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series). Leiden. Durkin-Meisterernst, D. (2004). 'LFWLRQDU\RI0DQLFKHDQ0LGGOH3HUVLDQDQG3DUWKLDQ 'LFWLRQDU\RI0DQLFKDHDQ7H[WVVol. III. Texts from Central Asia and China, Part 1). Turnhout. Emmerick, R. (1968). Saka Grammatical Studies. Vol. 20 (London Oriental Series). London. *HOGQHU.௘)  Avesta. The Sacred Books of the Parsis. Stuttgart. Geldner, .௘)   ³%UXFKVWFN (LQHV 3DDKODYL*ORVVDUV $XV 7XUIƗQ &KLQHVFKLFK 7XUNHVWƗQ´LQSitzungsberichte Der Königlich Preussischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften: 1136–37. Gignoux, Ph. (1972). *ORVVDLUH 'HV ,QVFULSWLRQV 3HKOHYLHV HW 3DUWKHV. Vol. 1 (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Suplementary Series). London. +HQQLQJ :௘%   “Mitteliranisch”, in: Handbuch Der Orientalistik IV. Iranistik. Linguistik: 20–130. Hübschmann, H. (1895). Persische Studien. Straßburg. -XQNHU+௘)௘-(1912). The Farhang-i Pahlavik. 1 vols. Prolegomena. Heidelberg. -XQNHU+௘)௘-  'DV)UDKDQJL3DKODYƯNLQ]HLFKHQJHPl‰HU$QRUGQXQJ:LHVEDGHQ .|QLJ *   ³)URP :ULWWHQ WR 2UDO" 7KH (QFRGHG 3DKODYL LQ WKH )UDKDQJ Ư 3DKODZƯJ´LQ$6KD\HVWH'RXVW HG 'ƗGHVWƗQƯ'ƝQƯJ)HVWVFKULIWIRU0DKHPRXG-DDIDUL'HKDJKL: 183–202. Tehran. Korn, A. (2005). Towards a Historical Grammar of Balochi. Studies in Historical PhoQRORJ\DQG9RFDEXODU\ (%HLWUlJH=XU,UDQLVWLN :LHVEDGHQ Kulikov, L. (2011). “Drifting between Passive and Anticausative. True and Alleged Accent Shifts in the History of Vedic-Ya-Presents”, in: -RXUQDORI/DQJXDJH5HODWLRQVKLS. Piscataways. Available Online: https://www.degruyter.com/document/ doi/10.31826/9781463234119-013/html. 0DF.HQ]LH '௘1   ³1RWHV RQ WKH 7UDQVFULSWLRQ RI 3DKODYL´ LQ Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 30: 17–29. 0DF.HQ]LH'௘1  $&RQFLVH3DKODYL'LFWLRQDU\. London. 0DF.HQ]LH'௘1  ³)UDKDQJƯ3DKODZƯJ´LQ(QF\FORSDHGLD,UDQLFD;± 1\EHUJ+௘6  $0DQXDORI3DKODYLPart II:*ORVVDU\:LHVEDGHQ 1\EHUJ+௘6 %8WDV  )UDKDQJL3DKODYƯN(GLWHGZLWK7UDQVOLWHUDWLRQ7UDQVFULSWLRQDQG&RPPHQWDU\IURPWKH3RVWKXPRXV3DSHUVRI+HQULN6DPXHO1\EHUJE\%R8WDVZLWKWKH&ROODERUDWLRQRI&KULVWRSKHU7ROO:LHVEDGHQ 21 Estudios Iranios y Turanios 1\EHUJ+௘6  $0DQXDORI3DKODYLPart II.*ORVVDU\:LHVEDGHQ Pirart, E. (1992). .D\kQ<DVQ <DVKW /¶RULJLQH$YHVWLTXH'HV'\QDVWLHV0\WKLTXHVG¶,UDQ. Vol. 2 (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa). Sabadell (Barcelona). 6KDNHG6  ³$'LFWLRQDU\RI$UDPDLF,GHRJUDPVLQ3DKODYL5HYLHZRIǥ)UDKDQJL 3DKODYƯN¶E\%R8WDVDQG+HQULN6DPXHO1\EHUJ´LQ-RXUQDORIWKH$PHULFDQ 2ULHQWDO6RFLHW\ 113 (1): 75–81. 6LPV:LOOLDPV 1   ³1RWHV RQ 0DQLFKDHDQ 0LGGOH 3HUVLDQ 0RUSKRORJ\´ LQ Studia Iranica 10: 165–76. 6LPV:LOOLDPV 1   Bactrian documents from northern Afghanistan (Studies in the Khalili collection v. 3, pt 2, 6). Oxford-New York. 7HGHVFR3  ³'LDOHNWRORJLH'HU:HVWLUDQLVFKHQ7XUIDQWH[WH´LQ0RQGH2ULHQWDOH 15: 184–258. :HVWHUJDDUG1௘/  Zendavesta, or The Religious Books of the Zoroastrians. Copenhagen. 22