Zend Avesta Part 03

SR No.: 007673
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: L H Mills
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1887
Total Pages: 2618
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 49 MB

Page 531

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
1xv
VII, 51, 1. adityanam (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 40) instead of adityanam (M. M. vol. iv, p. 103) is wrong.
VII, 64, 2. ilám (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 50) instead of llâm (M.M. vol. iv, p. 146) is wrong. In the same verse gopåh in the Pada should be changed in my edition to gopa.
VII, 66, 5. yó (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 51) instead of yé (M. M. vol. iv, p. 151) is indeed supported by S 3, but evidently untenable on account of atipiprati.
VII, 72, 3. In abudhran Professor Aufrecht has properly altered the wrong spelling abudhnan; and, as far as the authority of the best MSS. is concerned (S1, S2, S 3), he is also right in putting a final ñ, although Professor Bollensen prefers the dental n; (Zeitschrift der D.M.G., vol. xxii, p. 599.) The fact is that Vedic MSS. use the Anusvâra dot for final nasals before all class-letters, and leave it to us to interpret that dot according to the letter which follows. Before I felt quite certain on this point, I have in several cases retained the dot, as given by the MSS., instead of changing it, as I ought to have done according to my system of writing Devanagarî, into the corresponding nasal, provided it represents an original n. In I, 71, 1, S2, S 3 have the dot in agushran, but Si has dental n. In IX, 87, 5, asrigran has the dot; i.e. Si has the dot, and nkh, dental o joined to kh; S 2 has nkh without the dot before the n; S 3 has the dot, and then kh. In IV, 24, 6, the spelling of the Samhità ávivenam tám would leave it doubtful whether we ought to read ávivenan tám or ávivenam tám; S i and S 3 read ávivenam tám, but $ 2 has ávivenan tám; P 2 has ávi-venan tám, and P I had the same originally, though a later hand changed it to avi-venam tám. In IV, 25, 3, on the contrary, Si and S 3 write ávivenam; S 2, ávivenam; P 1 and P 2, ávi-venam. What is intended is clear enough, viz. ávivenan in IV, 24, 6; ávi-venam in IV, 25, 3. [In the new edition ávivenam has been left in both passages.]
VII, 73, 1. asvinâ (Aufr. vol. ii, p. 56) instead of asvínå (M. M. vol. iv, p. 176) is wrong. On the same page, dhíshnye, VII, 72, 3, should have the accent on the first syllable. VII, 77, 1. In this verse, which has been so often dis
[32]
Digitized by Google