Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:15:47.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Art. XVII.—Additional Notes upon the Zend Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

Extract

It is alleged that the invention of a language of so much character and grammatical peculiarity as the Zend is an impossibility, as may be proved by reference to the fictitious Formosan language, and that of the Ásmání Zabán of the Desátír. But the analogy does not hold. These pseudo tongues are the products of pure imagination; both unscrupulous inventions; the execution of the last, clumsy and open to instant detection. But the artificial construction of Zend out of Sanskrit materials (allowing for the deception of the act) proceeded on, and was effected in, a very different manner. A real language, with which the operators were well acquainted (see what Burnouf says of the mobed Neriosingh), was to be taken in hand; the work was facilitated by using an alphabet—that of old Persian—corresponding, in its employment of distinct characters for the short vowels, with that of Sanskrit; the business was skilfully performed, and the knowledge of Sanskrit is so successfully applied, as to complete the fabrication of a language in which Sir William Jones, to his surprise, found six words of pure Sanskrit out of ten of the Zend text, with some of its inflexions formed by the rules of the “Vyákaran.” Dr. Wilson observes that Zend shows an approach to Gujarátí idiom and Gujarátí corruption of Sanskrit, which awakened his suspicion. Nevertheless he thinks that none of the exiled and depressed Pársí priests in India could be supposed to have had the ability to invent that language, abounding as it does in analogies with other tongues, but overlooking the fact of Sanskrit being well known among them and used for translations (though the Sanskrit of these translations cannot be called classical) more than three hundred years ago.

Type
Original Communications
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1856

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page note 313 1 Journal of Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. v., p. 95Google Scholar, subsequently printed in a separate form.

page note 313 2 Burnouf is puzzled at finding a Pársí mobed called by the name of a Hindu divicity, and decides for its being Zend. He would have arrived at the right solution of his difficulty, had he known that the Pársís freely adopt Hindu proper names, mixing them incongruously with those of old Persian heroes and kings; e.g.Jamshedjí Manikjí, Rustamjí Ratanjí, &c.

page 314 note 1 The word is modern; if not,, let the use of it by Firdausi or his cotemporaries, or any old authority, be shown, or that it will be found in the Tárikh-i-Tabarí or its Persian version, made fifty years before the Sháh Námeh.

page 315 note 1 Zend could never be made intelligible by Pehleví, because not one dastur or mobed of ten who read and understand the Zend, can make anything of Pehleví, from its wanting distinct letters to represent the short vowels.

page 315 note 2 For specimens of this language, see Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. iv., pp. 352, 355, 356, 358, 361, and 362Google Scholar.