Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Throughout this inscription, as in many of the other short inscriptions, xšāyaliya is indicated by the ideogram, which with Tolman we represent by XŠ. For the genitive plural we expect XŠyānām as in Dar. Suez c 5, or XŠānām as in Xerx. Pers. ca 6, cb 10. Cf. gen. sg. XŠyahyā and XŠhyā xšāyabiyahyā. Smith reads -yānām and that is doubtless the form intended. But the original text has XŠyanamo, the vowel sign after ye having been omitted, so that the only faithful transcription is -yanām.

=

In II. 1-2 Smith reads dahyunām, which is the proper transcription for every other occurrence of the form. But here the text has dahyuvnām (dah*y*uv^n^am"), paralleled by paruvnām in NR a 6 ff. and the four copies of Art. Pers. The spelling uv is taken over from the final position, just as in the compound paruvzanānām beside paruzanānām. Cf. Skt manobhis with sandhi treatment of -as before the case-ending.

1. 2. Vištāspahya. Smith gives the second sibilant as 8, but it is s as always. As noted above, the first syllable is written here v'i, not simply vi.

1. 4. Smith reads Sakibiš, remarking "elsewhere Sakā." The correct reading of sakaibaiša is of course Sakaibiš, like bagaibiš. The plural Sakā is usual in the enumeration of the provinces, as in NR a 25 ff, Dar. Pers. e 18, though the singular occurs once, Sakam Bh. 5. 21. Noteworthy is the instrumental form after hačā "from," with which the ablative is the natural construction and the usual one in both Avestan and Old Persian. At the same time one must bear in mind that in Old Persian the syncretism of ablative and instrumental is only somewhat less complete than in Latin. The forms are to a considerable extent identical, and the uses are indicated by the preposition, e.g. hačā Parsā "from Persia," but hadā karā, "with the army." Without preposition the ablative is unknown and the instrumental restricted. In the singular of a-stems, which are the most numerous, the two cases are merged in -ā, through the loss of final d of the ablative. In the pronouns the ending -na, corresponding to the Sanskrit instrumental ending -na, serves also for the ablative, and we have hača aniyana Dar. Pers. d 11, e 20. In the plural no form in -biya, answering to Sanskrit -bhyas is quotable, but hitherto there has been no occurrence of a plural with hača. The hača Sakaibiš is the first example, and in connection with the situation in the singular of a-stems it justifies the

but agrees with the Darius Persepolis inscriptions, as well as with the Naxš-iRustam inscription, so that there is no material help from this.

provisional assumption that here too the two cases were merged, the instrumental ending serving for both.

But the syncretism of ablative and instrumental has no bearing on the hačā Hi(n)dauv of 11. 5-6, which stands in contrast to the previously known hača Bābirauš with the regular genitive-ablative form. For Hi(n)dauv (wrongly transcribed in JRAS, as if the text had d"u instead of the actual dau) is a locative form like Bābirauv. One may recall the fact that the formally identical Vedic sacă "with" is used with the locative, or again that in Avestan the locative forms in -ō = OPers. -auv, and in -vō, and also other locative forms sometimes serve as ablatives, as hačā gātvō, hačā bar'smən (cf. Bartholomae, Grd. d. iran. Phil. I 222, 229). But the contrast between hačā Bābirauš and hačā Hi(n)dauv remains surprising.

11. 4-5. tyaiy para Sugdam. Smith remarks that we should expect tara, and Herzfeld that para is new. It has been customary in the corresponding phrase NR a 28-9 to read Sakā tyaily ta]radraya, with tara Av. tarō, Skt. tiras "across, beyond." But the t is a restoration, for which we should now substitute pa. For para = Skt. paras "beyond" (cf. Grk. πéρa, πépāv) gives the same sense.

=

As between Sugdam here and the previously known Suguda (suguda and suguda) it is the latter that is abnormal with its anaptyctic vowel between stops.

11. 5, 6. amata yātā ā Kušā (Spardā) = hinc usque ad. In all previously known passages yātā is a conjunction meaning "while" or "until." The ā was known only as a postpositive with the locative, but here is used like Skt. a with the ablative. The new word amata, for which neither editor offers any satisfactory explanation,3 is, I think,

'I believe in this formal identity, despite the skepticism of some (cf. Bartholomae, Altiran. Wtb. 1753) and the fact that Delbrück's explanation (Vergl. Syntax I 752) of the shift of meaning in Iranian is insufficient. The shift is no more violent than that which once took place in Eng. with, only that here we know better the particular context in which it started; nor is it more startling than the opposite poles reached by the group represented by Latin sub and super.

In JRAS; "Is it another derivative from the same root as āmātā (if the reading is correct) variously rendered in the Bīsitūn inscription Col. I, 3? In that case should amata yātā a be translated ‘extending up to'?" Herzfeld: "a-mata kann wohl nur von der Wurzel mad- 'zumessen,' im jungawestischen belegt, abgeleitet werden." Such a participle would have the form masta. His further remark "Im Elamischen ist das Altpers.āmata nur an erster Stelle durch das ebenfalls neue mittuma ausgedrückt" is due to a misunderstanding of the Elamite structure. For mittuma is a postpositive with Šukta, answering to the OP para before Sug

clearly an adverb formed with the ablatival -ta

=

Skt. -tas from a pro

nominal stem ama-, corresponding to the rare Skt. ama- "this" occurring in a formula of the Atharva Veda and the Brahmaņas, amo ‘ham asmi, sā tvam “he am I, she thou" (AV 14. 2. 71, with Whitney's translation), and further attested by the adverbs amā "at home" ("chez lui") in RV, AV, etc, and amāt "from this place, from here" RV 5. 53. 8.

11. 6, 8. Smith transcribes tyamiy but utāmaiy. The text has in both cases maiy, not m'iy. Herzfeld transcribes tyamiy, utamiy, the first incorrectly according to his system, since there is no a-sign after the ya.

1. 7. Smith omits bagānām in his transcription and even remarks that the Persian version has "the greatest" simply, in contrast to the other versions. But his own copy, confirmed by the photograph, shows bagānām. The phrase hya mališta bagānām is identical with that in Dar. Pers. d. 1, Xerx. Elv., Xerx. Van, and the Elamite and Babylonian versions conform to it. The corresponding Elamite phrase is the same as in Xerx. Elv. and Xerx. Van. That of the Babylonian version differs from that in Xerx. Elv. and Xerx. Van, and also from that in Dar. Pers. g 1, but is equivalent to them in meaning. Smith says that "the obscure word alla here seems to mean 'the other part, remainder."" On this my colleague Professor Luckenbill furnishes the following note:

ša rabû allā ilānip of 1. 7 is the equivalent of ša rabû eli ilāni”, "who (is) great above (i.e., greater than, or greatest of) the gods." alla is undoubtedly the cuneiform rendering of the Aramaic 'al. The use of eli in Assyrian for "over, more than" is well established. In Xerxes Elvend and Xerxes Van the same idea of the superlative is expressed by the more common rabû ša ilāni", the "great one of the gods," while in Darius Pers. g we have a phrase, which has the same force as eli. al-la occurs in the Babylonian version of the Behistun Inscription, 1.29 (§ XVI).-"Darius the king thus speaks: al-la sa anaku adūku ana Gumatu Magušu, after I had slain Gaumāta the Magian." Here alla sa is the Aramaic 'al še. See also Peiser, Babylonische Verträge 230 and Tallqvist, Die Sprache der Contracts Nabû-na'ids 42, for the use of alla in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian period contracts.

1. 8 mām auramazdā pātuv, as in many parallel passages, while others have mām Auramazdā pātuv hadā bagaibiš. In this inscription the Babylonian version agrees with the latter, the Elamite with the former.

dam, just like mittumanna in NR a 23. It is the kuiš, the regular equivalent of OP yātā, which here in both cases answers to the whole Persian phrase amata yātā ā.

CATELLUS, CANICULUS. A CASE OF SEMANTIC

INTERCHANGE

A. H. SCHUTZ

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

Of special interest in the Romance of Gaul and Spain are the descendants of catellus and caniculus. Within each group, as we shall see, there is considerable fluidity of sense, to such a degree that they come to be used interchangeably for 'kitten' and 'puppy.' Of this state of affairs, the grammarians and lexicographers seem to be unaware. At least as early as the third century A.D., catellus1 was a serious rival of catulus, if indeed it did not threaten the existence of the latter. Probus records catulus non catellus, though Baehrens at one point rather curiously puts both in brackets in his edition of the Appendix, p. 6.2 Judging by the subsequent fortunes of both, catellus seems to have won its battle, certainly in the territory we are considering, for the -ulus variant seems to have left no descendants. On the other hand, to list all the forms of catellus would require not a little space, as the sources referred to will readily show; a certain number of specimens are here cited: cael, chael, keel, chiau, chaon, chaillon for the Old French examples; among the patois of the northern regions, chaé, ché, chiau, chiaule, quiaule. We may add a few forms that occur in the South of France:

3

1 The problem of the single or double t in cat (t)us is discussed by García de Diego, Contribución al diccionario hispánico etimológico, §111.

2 A curious juxtaposition of the two is found in the following account (Osbertus de Miraculis Sancti Dunstani, cit. Du Cange) of an exorcism: 'et quod in modum parvuli Cati discurreret Francigena lingua dicentibus, ille contra, qui linguae ipsius omnimodis inscius erat, subridens, eadem lingua similiter verbo diminutivo consonanter respondebat dicens: Non ut catulus, sed ut catellus'. 3 As to the form in -ellus being the less classical, Baehrens says: "Unberichtigt ist die Zurückweisung von catellus" (Sprachlicher Komment. z. App. Probi, 121). The Thesaurus Ling. Lat. gives both, with catellus marked 'a catulus deminutive.' We have in Varro, LL 9. 74, both forms: 'ut est cista cistula cistella et canis catulus catellus' cit. LANGUAGE 2. 187 (Kent). See below for association of canis and catulus.

4 Mémoires de la Soc. de Ling. de Paris 14. 211 (Sainéan).

chadel, kàdel (in Pyrén. Orient.), kàdèu (in Bouches du Rhône), tchàdèl (in Lozère), kòdèl, kòdèo (Cantal). In Spain we find Old Cast. cadiello, Aragonese cadillo, Catalan cadell (and Spanish America has cadejo, related to these forms)."

All these are listed under the general sense 'little dog,' but the meaning of catellus and catulus as far back as classical Latin was much wider in scope, for it could signify the young of the wolf, lion or similar animal; extension of this idea even permitted application of the term to the young of the rabbit. These numerous interpretations lived on. Godefroy (Dict. Anc. Frçs.) speaks not only of the cayeau du lion and the chael of the fox (see also Renart 896-7, ed. Martin), but refers in this manner to children:

Par la bataille ez vos poignant Borrel

O lui estoient si XIII chael,

Tuit chevalier adoubé de novel. (Aleschans 6256)

as also La Curne de Ste. Palaye: 'De cibis delicatis pascebant catulos suos quos de turpibus concubinis, ipsi turpiores procreabant' (J. de Vitri). Catulaster is defined in the Codex Cassinensis as 'Iuvenis duodecim annorum'. In Old Provençal, cadelet means 'young dog' but also 'young lion cub'. Whether so great a diversity of meanings has been carried forward into modern dialects is difficult to say with our present facilities, but many things lead one to believe that it has indeed been the case. García de Diego (§109) defines Catalan cadell 'flores de algunos árboles' and Arag. cadillo as 'flor de olivo'; Mistral (Trésor) renders cadelas as 'jeune et gros chien' and 'grand jeune homme qui fait l'enfant' and gives cadeliero as 'vache portière qui porte chaque année comme les chiennes.'

Canis (aside from numerous metaphoric values11 that it may have,

'Boucoiran, Dict. des idiomes méridionaux.

Atlas Linguistique 1789.

'García de Diego, op. cit. §109: 'significa un animal fantástico que la gente supersticiosa se representa como un enorme perro negro'. Cadejo<*catic(u)lu(m), just as caneja<canic(u)la (Roman. Etym. Wbch. §1586).

* Varro, RR 3.4, speaking of rabbits and their prolific reproduction says: ‘etenim cum habent catulos recentes, alios in ventre habere reperiuntur.'

Corpus Gloss. Lat., 5.550 (Götz).

10 Levy, Supplement-Wörterbuch; see also Roman. Etym. Wbch. 1763.

11 E.g. Sainéan's list of terms derived from the idea 'dog' and applied to machinery (loc. cit.). In Spanish gato similarly takes on a number of meanings, being applied to 'pocketbook', 'iron hook', 'block and tackle' (Dicc. de la Real Acad. Española, 1925).

« ZurückWeiter »