Full Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found athttpswwwtandfonlinecomactionjournalInformationjournalCode=ylhi20

Language amp History

ISSN 1759-7536 (Print) 1759-7544 (Online) Journal homepage httpswwwtandfonlinecomloiylhi20

Filip Vesdin and the comparison of Sanskrit withIranian and Germanic languages

Ivan Andrijanić amp Petra Matović

To cite this article Ivan Andrijanić amp Petra Matović (2019) Filip Vesdin and the comparisonof Sanskrit with Iranian and Germanic languages Language amp History 623 195-226 DOI1010801759753620191649855

To link to this article httpsdoiorg1010801759753620191649855

Published online 27 Aug 2019

Submit your article to this journal

Article views 13

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Filip Vesdin and the comparison of Sanskrit with Iranianand Germanic languagesIvan Andrijanića and Petra Matovićb

aDepartment of Indology and Far Eastern Studies Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of Zagreb Zagreb Croatia bDepartment of Classical Philology Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences University of Zagreb Zagreb Croatia

ABSTRACTFilip Vesdin known by his monastic name Paulinus a SanctoBartholomaeo (1748ndash1806) was a Carmelite missionary sta-tioned from 1776 to 1789 in Southwestern India Vesdinauthored an impressive opus of 32 books and smaller treatiseson Brahmanic religion and customs oriental manuscripts andantiques collections language comparison and missionaryhistory This article focuses on the field of language compar-ison principally on Vesdinrsquos book De antiquitate et affinitatelinguae Zendicae Samscrdamicae et Germanicae dissertatio(= Dissertation on the Antiquity and the Affinity of the ZendSanskrit and Germanic Languages) published in Rome in 1798In this rather short treatise (56 pages) the most important partconsists of three word-lists where a large number of wordsfrom Avestan Sanskrit and Germanic languages are comparedin order to prove that these languages are related The paperpresents Vesdinrsquos three word-lists together with a descriptionand evaluation of his views on the relationships between theselanguages in order to highlight his significance in the history ofcomparative and historical linguistics The paper also providesnew insights into the relationship of De antiquitate to Vesdinrsquoslater proto-linguistic treatise De Latini sermonis origine (1802)

AbbreviationsAv Avestan Guj Gujaratī IIr Indo-Iranian Lat Latin MalabMalabaricum (Vesdinrsquos term for Malayāḷam) Malay MalayāḷamMHG Middle High Germa NHG New High German NP NewPersian OAv Old Avestan OFris Old Frisian OHG Old HighGerman OSax Old Saxon Pahl Pahlavi PG Proto GermanicPIE Proto Indo-European Skt Sanskrit YAv Young Avestan

KEYWORDSAvestan Sanskritcomparative linguisticsmissionaries history oflinguistics

Introduction

Filip Vesdin (1748ndash1806) a Carmelite missionary of Croatian origin was borninHof amLeithaberge (Cimof in Croatian) in LowerAustria in 1748 In 1768 hewas ordained in the order of Discalced Carmelites and took the monastic name

CONTACT Ivan Andrijanić iandrijffzghr Petra Matović petrasostaric2011gmailcomThis article was originally published with errors which have now been corrected in the online version Pleasesee Correction (httpsdoiorg1010801759753620191664832)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY2019 VOL 62 NO 3 195ndash226httpsdoiorg1010801759753620191649855

copy 2019 Informa UK Limited trading as Taylor amp Francis Group

Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo under which he published all of his works Inthe year 1776 he arrived in India where he spent 13 years first as a vicar then asa rector of the Verapolitanean Seminar apostolic visitor and finally vicargeneral on the Malabar Coast in the present-day Indian state of Kerala Afterreturning to Rome in 1789 he taught oriental languages at the MissionarySeminary of St Pancratius Later he was appointed the head of theMissionary Seminary of St Pancratius and prefect of sciences in the CollegiumUrbanum de Propaganda Fide1

In the period from 1789 until his passing in 1806 Vesdin authored 32 booksand shorter treatises on Brahmanic religion and customs descriptions of orien-tal manuscripts and antiques collections language comparison missionaryhistory etc2 He published the first two European grammars of Sanskrit (in1790 and 1804) in Latin with Sanskrit words printed in South-Indian granthascript3

Thefield of language comparison is representedwith twobooks Thefirst onethe subject of this paper is De antiquitate et affinitate linguae ZendicaeSamscrdamicae et Germanicae dissertatio (= Dissertation on the Antiquity andthe Affinity of the Zend Sanskrit and German Language) published in Rome in17984 The second one is De Latini sermonis origine et cum orientalibus linguisconnexioneDissertatio (=Dissertation on the Origin of the Latin Language and itsRelation to Oriental Languages) published in Rome in 1802 wherein the historyof the Latin and its connection to the lsquoOrientalrsquo languages is discussed5 In bothbooks a largenumberofwords are compared inorder toprove that the languagesin question are related In this respectVesdinwas the first scholarwho publishedsuch a large-scale word comparison of genetically related languages6

1More details on Vesdinrsquos life are provided in Wetzl (1936) Slamnig (1991) Matišić (2007) and Jauk-Pinhak (1984)2For a complete bibliography of published works with brief summaries see Slamnig (1991 19ndash23) forunpublished works see ibid pp 23ndash28 See also Ambrosius AS Teresia (1941) Bio-Bibliographica MissionariaOrdinis Carmelitarum Discalceatorum Rome Curia Generalitia Ambrosius AS Teresia (1944) NomenclatorMissionariorum Ordinis Carmelitarum Discalceatorum Rome Curia Generalitia (Vesdin on pp 285ndash291) StreitRobert (1931) Bibliotheca Missionum Vol 6 (Vesdin on pp 187ndash191) (Rocher 1961 324 1977 ix)

3Vesdin was first to publish a Sanskrit grammar although manuscript grammars had already existed The firstEuropean to write a Sanskrit grammar was Heinrich Roth (1620ndash1668) His grammar was published as amanuscriptfacsimile in 1988 (Camps ampMuller 1988) Other authors of early unpublished Sanskrit grammars were Jean-FranccediloisPons (1688ndash1752) and Johann Ernst Hanxlenden (1681ndash1732) whose grammar was published in 2013 (Van Hal ampVielle 2013) For Sanskrit grammars written by missionaries in general see Milewska (2003)

4Rocher (1961 325) points out that although 1798 is the date given on the frontispiece the dedication toCardinal Stephanus Borgia is dated 5 June 1799 He also notes that Vesdin himself in his other works refers tothis treatise as being from 1799

5For a description De Latini sermonis origine see Rocher (1961 339ndash350) For a linguistic evaluation of Vesdinrsquosword-list in the same work see Andrijanić (2017)

6Vesdin was not the first one to compare words from different languages considered to be related In 1776 Jesuitmissionary Gaston-Laurent Cœurdoux remarked on Sanskritrsquos similarity to Latin andGreek He sent his observations toParis where hismaterials found their way to Anquetil-Duperron who apparently failed to recognize the importance ofCœurdouxrsquos findings His work was finally published in 1808 (Meacutemoires de lrsquoAcadeacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-LettresXLIX 1784ndash1793 pp 647ndash697) nine years after the release of Vesdinrsquos De Antiquitate For Cœurdouxrsquos discussion seeGodfrey (1967 57ndash59) Mayrhofer (1983) For the relationship of Cœurdoux and Vesdin see Van Hal 2005 [2004]330ndash332 who hypothesizes that Vesdin was indirectly exposed to some of Cœurdouxrsquos ideas through Anquetil-Duperron

196 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

The aim of this paper is to present Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate witha special focus on the three word-lists where he compared Iranian Sanskritand Germanic words in order to prove the linguistic affinity of theselanguages These lists are very important for Vesdin and it is significantto analyze them in order to evaluate Vesdinrsquos contribution to the field oflanguage comparison and to determine what is his place in the history ofcomparative and historical linguistics Vesdinrsquos methodology is derivedfrom an epistemological background that appears to be quite differentfrom modern linguistic setup and it is not appropriate to judge hisachievements by contemporary standards However Vesdinrsquos compari-sons based on phonetic and semantic correspondences appear to bequite successful as will be shown later7

Vesdin belongs to a group of 18th century scholars who explored anddeveloped the ideas of their predecessors but who did not yet employ anentirely modern scientific methodology and were not completely free ofreligious or other misconceptions The idea of a common linguistic originwas not uncommon among European thinkers of that time but few agreedwhich languages have the same linguistic ancestor and what is the parentlanguage Hebrew was often suggested as the predecessor of all languagesbut occasionally that position would be assigned to the mother tongue ofthe particular scholar (Van Driem 2001 1039) Among the first to observecertain similarities between Greek Latin and the Germanic languages were15th and 16th century scholars like Roelof Huisman Johannes TurmairAventinus Adriaen de Jonghe and Zigmund z Jeleniacute (Van Driem 20011042) The Age of Discovery brought new languages into considerationFrancis Xavier remarked on the similarities between Sanskrit andEuropean languages in a letter of 1544 Thomas Stephens in a letter of1583 (Swiggers 2017 159) and Filippo Sassetti in 1585 (Kapović 2017 3)Their contemporary Franciscus Raphelengius (Frans van Ravelingen) putforth the idea that Persian was close to the Germanic languages this wascorroborated by Bonaventura Vulcanius de Smet and Johann Elichman(Van Driem 2001 1042ndash1043) Although it is William Jones who iscommonly credited with establishing the discipline of Indo-Europeanlinguistics it was Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn (Van Driem 2001 10391047 Kapović 2017 2ndash3)8 following the footsteps of the famous HellenistClaude de Saumaise who proposed the Scythic as a common ancestor ofGreek Latin Germanic Celtic and the Slavic (Swiggers 2017 153) VanBoxhornrsquos theory was adopted by Andreas Jaumlger William Wotton and

7For a general overview of Vesdinrsquos principles of language comparison see Van Hal (2005[2004])8Van Driem offers an assessment of van Boxhornrsquos achievements and Jonesrsquo favourable position which helpedhim promulgate his theories together with lsquoa Sanskrit biasrsquo (Van Driem 2001 1039ndash1051 Jones is especiallydiscussed on p 1049)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 197

James Burnett who had a decisive influence on William Jones accordingto Van Driem (2001 1048ndash1049)

Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate can be considered as a contribution tothe line of pre-modern research started by Raphelengius Throughout histreatise Vesdin referred to both his predecessors and his contemporaries ndashsometimes admiring their achievements sometimes viciously deridingtheir ideas

Outline of the treatise

Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate et affinitate linguae ZendicaeSamscrdamicae et Germanicae dissertatio dedicated to Cardinal StefanoBorgia (dedication on pp IIIndashVI) comprises four chapters9

I A short description of Persia (VII-XI)

The first part of the treatise is a geographical description of Persia itsboundaries provinces and major cities Vesdinrsquos main source was Voyagede lrsquoInde agrave la Mekke by Abdoul-Keacuterym translated into French byL Langlegraves and published in Paris in 1797 Vesdin also mentions othercontemporary sources like Bernhard von Jenisch (1734ndash1807) and ancientwriters like Clement of Alexandria Cyril of Alexandria Joseph FlaviusDiogenes Laertius Origen Ptolemy Strabo Dionysius PeriegetesPlutarch Eusebius Justin and Pliny the Elder He considered Greek andRoman authors important and trustworthy sources on Indian and Persianhistory geography and religion First he describes the territory betweenIndia and Persia and the two ways leading out of India (one into Persia viathe Khorasan province and the other to the Afghans into Tataria) In thefinal paragraph he states that the first one lsquois the way the closeness ofSanskrit (Samscrdamica as Vesdin calls it) and Avestan (Zendica as Vesdincalls it)10 which existed already in the times of Herodotus as will beeloquently shown later came aboutrsquo11 (X-XI) Khorasan consists of the

9An overview of the treatise can be found in Rocher (1961) We cover the fourth part of the treatise in moredetail here than Rocher did while part three is treated more succinctly Rocher relies on more direct quotesfrom Vesdin thereby offering an insight into Vesdinrsquos style On the other hand Rocher admits he had to skipsome lsquominor points such as Anquetilrsquos remarks on the correspondences in Zend and Georgianrsquo which arementioned in this outline (Rocher 1961 331) Furthermore Rocher is less interested in naming the Greek andRoman authors Vesdin heavily relies upon and the contemporaries and near-contemporaries Vesdin dis-cusses Although it was not possible to include every reference made by Vesdin we believe that this summaryof his treatise helps show the breadth of his learning Therefore this outline can be seen as complementary toRocherrsquos

10Vesdin calls the Avestan language lsquoZendrsquo following Anquetil-Duperron This name is a misnomer that becamewidespread in the 19th century Iranistics (at the time the Avestan language was often termed lsquoZendrsquo) theword actually comes from Pahlavi zand and originally refers to the literature written in Middle Persian thattranslates and explicates the Avestan sacred corpus

11Hac igitur via quam descripsimus Zendicae et Samscrdamicae linguae affinitas nata est quam Herodoti aevojam exstitisse infra luculenter demonstrabimus (pp XndashXI) Translation by the authors

198 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

ancient provinces Parthia Aria Margiana and Bactria According toVesdin language development was brought about in this very area whichused to be culturally progressive prosperous and densely populatedVesdin stresses the close relationship between Indian philosophers andPersian Magi Ancient Persian books were therefore written in Zend(Avestan) a lsquodaughterrsquo of Sanskrit Vesdin refutes Langlegravesrsquo claim thatZaraθuštra (Vesdin calls him Zoroaster) was Assyrian (p X) In Vesdinrsquosopinion he can only be Persian as proven by amply cited ancient sources

II An examination of Avestan and Sanskrit (XI-XIX)

In the second part of the treatise Vesdin looks more closely into thepresumed affinity between Avestan and Sanskrit He remarks that studyinglanguage relationships helps to discover peoplesrsquo origins but advocatesa careful approach mentioning some useful and authoritative sources onthe one hand (Scaliger Casaubon de Saumaise etc) and lsquoinsane opinionsrsquoon the other (p XI)12 In his view there can be no doubt that Avestan andSanskrit are related and this idea is repeated throughout the treatise Hemakes a mention of Sylvester de Sacyrsquos study of Persian inscriptions animportant source of linguistic information in this regard13 Vesdin thenexamines the opinions of Anquetil-Duperron with great scepticismAnquetil-Duperron had stated that the use of Avestan reached thePersian provinces at the Caspian Sea and that the Georgian languageresembled Avestan especially in the nominal inflection A comparison ofthe paradigms for the word lsquokingrsquo in Georgian (mepe) and Sanskrit (rājan)follows14 Vesdin sees no similarities in this paradigm but concedes thatthere are some in the genitive and dative case of other nouns but they areonly to be expected because Georgia used to be a Persian provinceHistorical remarks are corroborated by Herodotusrsquo and Platorsquos authority

Vesdin furthermore claims that Avestan and Pahlavi became obsolete inPersia a long time ago and both exist only in the books commonlyattributed to Zaraθuštra For Vesdin this is a proof that Zaraθuštra wasof Persian origin although he is not the author of Zoroastrian booksVesdin advocates a misconception that Zoroastrian books showa mixture of Avestan and Sanskrit language and a confounding of theMagirsquos and the Brahmansrsquo learning He corroborates his claim that

12Vesdin was very often extremely aggressive towards his predecessors and contemporaries Such an attitudeprovoked sharp sometimes unjust criticism For the reception of Vesdinrsquos works see Rocher (1977 xii-xvi) VanHal (2004ndash2005 332) suggests that Vesdinrsquos attitude may have been responsible for poor reception of hiswork

13Vesdin makes a reference to Sylvester de Sacy Meacutemoires sur diverses antiquiteacutes de la Perse et sur les meacutedaillesdes rois de la dynastie des Sassacircnydes Paris 1793

14Vesdinrsquos forms are meppe and ragravegia or ragravedja

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 199

Zaraθuštra was of Bactrian origin by citing the historians AmmianusMarcellinus and Agathias

Thereon Vesdin proceeds to attack Anquetil-Duperronrsquos opinion thatwriting Avestan from right to left was an ancient custom in Persia Vesdinclaims this is due to Arab influence and moves on to William Jones whoargued that in the ancient times there were two mother tongues in PersiaChaldean and Sanskrit15 According to Jones the former is the motherlanguage of Pahlavi the latter is the mother language of Avestan Persian(Farsi) and various Indian dialects Vesdin agrees with Jones whoseopinion was corroborated by Kleuker16 and refutes Anquetil-Duperronrsquosclaim that Avestan is the mother language of Pahlavi and PersianAnquetil-Duperron was here closer to truth than Jones and Kleukerbecause we know now that Chaldean is a Semitic Neo-Aramaic languagethat is not genetically related to Iranian languages Avestan is a north-eastern Iranian language while Old-Persian from which Pahlavi developedbelongs to a south-western group of Iranian languages all these languagesare genetically related in sense that they all trace their common ancestorthe Proto-Iranian language Still Vesdin is not entirely in agreement withJones and Kleuker He puts forward the misconception that Pahlavi cameabout by mixing Avestan and Chaldean the language of the Persiansrsquowestern neighbours Although Pahlavi follows neither Avestan norChaldean in verbal and nominal inflection it is closer to the latter lan-guage lsquoas will be obvious to anyone who diligently examines the bookBun-deheschrsquo17 (p XV) On the other hand Vesdin continues Avestan is rich inwords and vowel signs as Sanskrit is Avestan shares the verbal endingswith Sanskrit but the declensions do not conform (XVndashXVI)18 ChapterTwo ends with a short description of Sanskrit which in Vesdinrsquos opinionhas more in common with Greek than with Latin and a list of Sanskritdialects

III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskrit (XX-XXXVI)

A list of 194 Avestan and Pahlavi words with their supposed Sanskrit andMalayāḷam (LinguaMalabarica as Vesdin calls it) cognates together with their

15Asiatick Researches II The Sixth Discourse on the Persians pp 35ndash53 Jones discusses the languages of Iran onpp 39ndash43

16Kleuker Johann Friedrich (1795) Abhandlungen uumlber die Geschichte und Alterthuumlmer die Kuumlnste Wissenschaftenund Literatur Asiens Band II Riga Hartknopf pp100ndash112

17Bundahišn or Zand-āgāhīh is a Middle Persian Pahlavi text that deals with cosmogony and cosmography ofthe Zoroastrian scriptures The treatise was composed at the time of the Arab contest and was expandedthrough a number of different redactions between that time and the 12th c (Boyce 1968 40)

18Avestan declensions are actually remarkably close to Sanskrit declensions Vesdin did not recognize thisbecause he relied mostly on Duperronrsquos book Zend-Avesta as a source of knowledge of Avestan and PahlaviDuperronrsquos transliteration distorted Avestan forms heavily and made them hard to recognize

200 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Latin translation is presented on pp XXndashXXXI followed by a list of 18 pairs ofwords related to Zoroastrian liturgy Vesdin states that the affinity betweenAvestan and Sanskrit is obvious and concludes that Indian philosophy andreligion alsomade their way to the Persians Egyptians andTatars or Scyths (pXXXIII) He corroborates his claims by once again citing various Greek andRoman authors Lucian Pausanias Clement of Alexandria Photius DiogenesLaertius Lactantius Ammianus Marcellinus Cicero and others as well asWilliam Jones accepting his opinion on the origins of Zoroastrianism It isdifficult to reach a conclusion on the origin of languages without any materialor written proof says Vesdin but he thinks it would be the safest to assumethat Sanskrit was a contemporary language of Hebrew and Chaldean anda common language in Persia Afterwards Sanskrit and Avestan ceased to bespoken and were preserved in books According to Vesdin Sanskrit is full ofGermanic Slavic Latin and Greek words denoting basic concepts and there-fore unlikely to be loanwords These words must have entered Sanskrit duringthe cohabitation in the field of Shinar (Hebrew Biblersquos term forMesopotamia)an assumption that seems to be corroborated by Diodorus Siculus and Plinythe Elder Still the number of these words is not large enough to make theclaim that all of these languages descended from Sanskrit

IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)

The fourth part provides the reader with a list of 40 Avestan and Sanskritwords culled from ancient writers (Herodotus Hesychius AeschylusCtesias Strabo Polybius Ptolemy Plutarch Menander AristophanesXenophon and others) p XXXVII19 These words are meant to provethe proximity of speakers of Sanskrit and Avestan in ancient times The listis followed by a discussion on the relationship between the two languagesVesdin once more comes to the conclusion that in ancient times Sanskritwas spoken in Media (north-western Iran) and Persia and that Avestandeveloped from Sanskrit This explains the extent of Indian and Sanskritinfluence on the Zoroastrian books Zaraθuštra might not be their authorbut he must have been Persian or Medo-Persian or Bactrian as EusebiusClement of Alexandria Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus all claim Vesdinmore than once refutes the hypothesis put forward by William Jonesnamely that the books of Zaraθuštra are not authentic but recent forgeriesthat came about as a result of the corruption of the Sanskrit language bythe Parsis20

19A similar list was produced by William Burton in his Graecae Linguae Historia 2 parts London 1657 whichincluded Veteris Linguae Persicae λείψανα

20This idea was put forward by Jones in his lecture On the Persians delivered on February the 10th 1789 andpublished in Volume II of the Asiatick Researches (p 41) Vesdin also mentions Richardson and Meiners asproponents of this theory and the more sober judgement of Kleuker and Tychsen

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 201

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

The aim of this paper is to present Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate witha special focus on the three word-lists where he compared Iranian Sanskritand Germanic words in order to prove the linguistic affinity of theselanguages These lists are very important for Vesdin and it is significantto analyze them in order to evaluate Vesdinrsquos contribution to the field oflanguage comparison and to determine what is his place in the history ofcomparative and historical linguistics Vesdinrsquos methodology is derivedfrom an epistemological background that appears to be quite differentfrom modern linguistic setup and it is not appropriate to judge hisachievements by contemporary standards However Vesdinrsquos compari-sons based on phonetic and semantic correspondences appear to bequite successful as will be shown later7

Vesdin belongs to a group of 18th century scholars who explored anddeveloped the ideas of their predecessors but who did not yet employ anentirely modern scientific methodology and were not completely free ofreligious or other misconceptions The idea of a common linguistic originwas not uncommon among European thinkers of that time but few agreedwhich languages have the same linguistic ancestor and what is the parentlanguage Hebrew was often suggested as the predecessor of all languagesbut occasionally that position would be assigned to the mother tongue ofthe particular scholar (Van Driem 2001 1039) Among the first to observecertain similarities between Greek Latin and the Germanic languages were15th and 16th century scholars like Roelof Huisman Johannes TurmairAventinus Adriaen de Jonghe and Zigmund z Jeleniacute (Van Driem 20011042) The Age of Discovery brought new languages into considerationFrancis Xavier remarked on the similarities between Sanskrit andEuropean languages in a letter of 1544 Thomas Stephens in a letter of1583 (Swiggers 2017 159) and Filippo Sassetti in 1585 (Kapović 2017 3)Their contemporary Franciscus Raphelengius (Frans van Ravelingen) putforth the idea that Persian was close to the Germanic languages this wascorroborated by Bonaventura Vulcanius de Smet and Johann Elichman(Van Driem 2001 1042ndash1043) Although it is William Jones who iscommonly credited with establishing the discipline of Indo-Europeanlinguistics it was Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn (Van Driem 2001 10391047 Kapović 2017 2ndash3)8 following the footsteps of the famous HellenistClaude de Saumaise who proposed the Scythic as a common ancestor ofGreek Latin Germanic Celtic and the Slavic (Swiggers 2017 153) VanBoxhornrsquos theory was adopted by Andreas Jaumlger William Wotton and

7For a general overview of Vesdinrsquos principles of language comparison see Van Hal (2005[2004])8Van Driem offers an assessment of van Boxhornrsquos achievements and Jonesrsquo favourable position which helpedhim promulgate his theories together with lsquoa Sanskrit biasrsquo (Van Driem 2001 1039ndash1051 Jones is especiallydiscussed on p 1049)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 197

James Burnett who had a decisive influence on William Jones accordingto Van Driem (2001 1048ndash1049)

Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate can be considered as a contribution tothe line of pre-modern research started by Raphelengius Throughout histreatise Vesdin referred to both his predecessors and his contemporaries ndashsometimes admiring their achievements sometimes viciously deridingtheir ideas

Outline of the treatise

Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate et affinitate linguae ZendicaeSamscrdamicae et Germanicae dissertatio dedicated to Cardinal StefanoBorgia (dedication on pp IIIndashVI) comprises four chapters9

I A short description of Persia (VII-XI)

The first part of the treatise is a geographical description of Persia itsboundaries provinces and major cities Vesdinrsquos main source was Voyagede lrsquoInde agrave la Mekke by Abdoul-Keacuterym translated into French byL Langlegraves and published in Paris in 1797 Vesdin also mentions othercontemporary sources like Bernhard von Jenisch (1734ndash1807) and ancientwriters like Clement of Alexandria Cyril of Alexandria Joseph FlaviusDiogenes Laertius Origen Ptolemy Strabo Dionysius PeriegetesPlutarch Eusebius Justin and Pliny the Elder He considered Greek andRoman authors important and trustworthy sources on Indian and Persianhistory geography and religion First he describes the territory betweenIndia and Persia and the two ways leading out of India (one into Persia viathe Khorasan province and the other to the Afghans into Tataria) In thefinal paragraph he states that the first one lsquois the way the closeness ofSanskrit (Samscrdamica as Vesdin calls it) and Avestan (Zendica as Vesdincalls it)10 which existed already in the times of Herodotus as will beeloquently shown later came aboutrsquo11 (X-XI) Khorasan consists of the

9An overview of the treatise can be found in Rocher (1961) We cover the fourth part of the treatise in moredetail here than Rocher did while part three is treated more succinctly Rocher relies on more direct quotesfrom Vesdin thereby offering an insight into Vesdinrsquos style On the other hand Rocher admits he had to skipsome lsquominor points such as Anquetilrsquos remarks on the correspondences in Zend and Georgianrsquo which arementioned in this outline (Rocher 1961 331) Furthermore Rocher is less interested in naming the Greek andRoman authors Vesdin heavily relies upon and the contemporaries and near-contemporaries Vesdin dis-cusses Although it was not possible to include every reference made by Vesdin we believe that this summaryof his treatise helps show the breadth of his learning Therefore this outline can be seen as complementary toRocherrsquos

10Vesdin calls the Avestan language lsquoZendrsquo following Anquetil-Duperron This name is a misnomer that becamewidespread in the 19th century Iranistics (at the time the Avestan language was often termed lsquoZendrsquo) theword actually comes from Pahlavi zand and originally refers to the literature written in Middle Persian thattranslates and explicates the Avestan sacred corpus

11Hac igitur via quam descripsimus Zendicae et Samscrdamicae linguae affinitas nata est quam Herodoti aevojam exstitisse infra luculenter demonstrabimus (pp XndashXI) Translation by the authors

198 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

ancient provinces Parthia Aria Margiana and Bactria According toVesdin language development was brought about in this very area whichused to be culturally progressive prosperous and densely populatedVesdin stresses the close relationship between Indian philosophers andPersian Magi Ancient Persian books were therefore written in Zend(Avestan) a lsquodaughterrsquo of Sanskrit Vesdin refutes Langlegravesrsquo claim thatZaraθuštra (Vesdin calls him Zoroaster) was Assyrian (p X) In Vesdinrsquosopinion he can only be Persian as proven by amply cited ancient sources

II An examination of Avestan and Sanskrit (XI-XIX)

In the second part of the treatise Vesdin looks more closely into thepresumed affinity between Avestan and Sanskrit He remarks that studyinglanguage relationships helps to discover peoplesrsquo origins but advocatesa careful approach mentioning some useful and authoritative sources onthe one hand (Scaliger Casaubon de Saumaise etc) and lsquoinsane opinionsrsquoon the other (p XI)12 In his view there can be no doubt that Avestan andSanskrit are related and this idea is repeated throughout the treatise Hemakes a mention of Sylvester de Sacyrsquos study of Persian inscriptions animportant source of linguistic information in this regard13 Vesdin thenexamines the opinions of Anquetil-Duperron with great scepticismAnquetil-Duperron had stated that the use of Avestan reached thePersian provinces at the Caspian Sea and that the Georgian languageresembled Avestan especially in the nominal inflection A comparison ofthe paradigms for the word lsquokingrsquo in Georgian (mepe) and Sanskrit (rājan)follows14 Vesdin sees no similarities in this paradigm but concedes thatthere are some in the genitive and dative case of other nouns but they areonly to be expected because Georgia used to be a Persian provinceHistorical remarks are corroborated by Herodotusrsquo and Platorsquos authority

Vesdin furthermore claims that Avestan and Pahlavi became obsolete inPersia a long time ago and both exist only in the books commonlyattributed to Zaraθuštra For Vesdin this is a proof that Zaraθuštra wasof Persian origin although he is not the author of Zoroastrian booksVesdin advocates a misconception that Zoroastrian books showa mixture of Avestan and Sanskrit language and a confounding of theMagirsquos and the Brahmansrsquo learning He corroborates his claim that

12Vesdin was very often extremely aggressive towards his predecessors and contemporaries Such an attitudeprovoked sharp sometimes unjust criticism For the reception of Vesdinrsquos works see Rocher (1977 xii-xvi) VanHal (2004ndash2005 332) suggests that Vesdinrsquos attitude may have been responsible for poor reception of hiswork

13Vesdin makes a reference to Sylvester de Sacy Meacutemoires sur diverses antiquiteacutes de la Perse et sur les meacutedaillesdes rois de la dynastie des Sassacircnydes Paris 1793

14Vesdinrsquos forms are meppe and ragravegia or ragravedja

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 199

Zaraθuštra was of Bactrian origin by citing the historians AmmianusMarcellinus and Agathias

Thereon Vesdin proceeds to attack Anquetil-Duperronrsquos opinion thatwriting Avestan from right to left was an ancient custom in Persia Vesdinclaims this is due to Arab influence and moves on to William Jones whoargued that in the ancient times there were two mother tongues in PersiaChaldean and Sanskrit15 According to Jones the former is the motherlanguage of Pahlavi the latter is the mother language of Avestan Persian(Farsi) and various Indian dialects Vesdin agrees with Jones whoseopinion was corroborated by Kleuker16 and refutes Anquetil-Duperronrsquosclaim that Avestan is the mother language of Pahlavi and PersianAnquetil-Duperron was here closer to truth than Jones and Kleukerbecause we know now that Chaldean is a Semitic Neo-Aramaic languagethat is not genetically related to Iranian languages Avestan is a north-eastern Iranian language while Old-Persian from which Pahlavi developedbelongs to a south-western group of Iranian languages all these languagesare genetically related in sense that they all trace their common ancestorthe Proto-Iranian language Still Vesdin is not entirely in agreement withJones and Kleuker He puts forward the misconception that Pahlavi cameabout by mixing Avestan and Chaldean the language of the Persiansrsquowestern neighbours Although Pahlavi follows neither Avestan norChaldean in verbal and nominal inflection it is closer to the latter lan-guage lsquoas will be obvious to anyone who diligently examines the bookBun-deheschrsquo17 (p XV) On the other hand Vesdin continues Avestan is rich inwords and vowel signs as Sanskrit is Avestan shares the verbal endingswith Sanskrit but the declensions do not conform (XVndashXVI)18 ChapterTwo ends with a short description of Sanskrit which in Vesdinrsquos opinionhas more in common with Greek than with Latin and a list of Sanskritdialects

III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskrit (XX-XXXVI)

A list of 194 Avestan and Pahlavi words with their supposed Sanskrit andMalayāḷam (LinguaMalabarica as Vesdin calls it) cognates together with their

15Asiatick Researches II The Sixth Discourse on the Persians pp 35ndash53 Jones discusses the languages of Iran onpp 39ndash43

16Kleuker Johann Friedrich (1795) Abhandlungen uumlber die Geschichte und Alterthuumlmer die Kuumlnste Wissenschaftenund Literatur Asiens Band II Riga Hartknopf pp100ndash112

17Bundahišn or Zand-āgāhīh is a Middle Persian Pahlavi text that deals with cosmogony and cosmography ofthe Zoroastrian scriptures The treatise was composed at the time of the Arab contest and was expandedthrough a number of different redactions between that time and the 12th c (Boyce 1968 40)

18Avestan declensions are actually remarkably close to Sanskrit declensions Vesdin did not recognize thisbecause he relied mostly on Duperronrsquos book Zend-Avesta as a source of knowledge of Avestan and PahlaviDuperronrsquos transliteration distorted Avestan forms heavily and made them hard to recognize

200 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Latin translation is presented on pp XXndashXXXI followed by a list of 18 pairs ofwords related to Zoroastrian liturgy Vesdin states that the affinity betweenAvestan and Sanskrit is obvious and concludes that Indian philosophy andreligion alsomade their way to the Persians Egyptians andTatars or Scyths (pXXXIII) He corroborates his claims by once again citing various Greek andRoman authors Lucian Pausanias Clement of Alexandria Photius DiogenesLaertius Lactantius Ammianus Marcellinus Cicero and others as well asWilliam Jones accepting his opinion on the origins of Zoroastrianism It isdifficult to reach a conclusion on the origin of languages without any materialor written proof says Vesdin but he thinks it would be the safest to assumethat Sanskrit was a contemporary language of Hebrew and Chaldean anda common language in Persia Afterwards Sanskrit and Avestan ceased to bespoken and were preserved in books According to Vesdin Sanskrit is full ofGermanic Slavic Latin and Greek words denoting basic concepts and there-fore unlikely to be loanwords These words must have entered Sanskrit duringthe cohabitation in the field of Shinar (Hebrew Biblersquos term forMesopotamia)an assumption that seems to be corroborated by Diodorus Siculus and Plinythe Elder Still the number of these words is not large enough to make theclaim that all of these languages descended from Sanskrit

IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)

The fourth part provides the reader with a list of 40 Avestan and Sanskritwords culled from ancient writers (Herodotus Hesychius AeschylusCtesias Strabo Polybius Ptolemy Plutarch Menander AristophanesXenophon and others) p XXXVII19 These words are meant to provethe proximity of speakers of Sanskrit and Avestan in ancient times The listis followed by a discussion on the relationship between the two languagesVesdin once more comes to the conclusion that in ancient times Sanskritwas spoken in Media (north-western Iran) and Persia and that Avestandeveloped from Sanskrit This explains the extent of Indian and Sanskritinfluence on the Zoroastrian books Zaraθuštra might not be their authorbut he must have been Persian or Medo-Persian or Bactrian as EusebiusClement of Alexandria Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus all claim Vesdinmore than once refutes the hypothesis put forward by William Jonesnamely that the books of Zaraθuštra are not authentic but recent forgeriesthat came about as a result of the corruption of the Sanskrit language bythe Parsis20

19A similar list was produced by William Burton in his Graecae Linguae Historia 2 parts London 1657 whichincluded Veteris Linguae Persicae λείψανα

20This idea was put forward by Jones in his lecture On the Persians delivered on February the 10th 1789 andpublished in Volume II of the Asiatick Researches (p 41) Vesdin also mentions Richardson and Meiners asproponents of this theory and the more sober judgement of Kleuker and Tychsen

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 201

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

James Burnett who had a decisive influence on William Jones accordingto Van Driem (2001 1048ndash1049)

Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate can be considered as a contribution tothe line of pre-modern research started by Raphelengius Throughout histreatise Vesdin referred to both his predecessors and his contemporaries ndashsometimes admiring their achievements sometimes viciously deridingtheir ideas

Outline of the treatise

Vesdinrsquos treatise De antiquitate et affinitate linguae ZendicaeSamscrdamicae et Germanicae dissertatio dedicated to Cardinal StefanoBorgia (dedication on pp IIIndashVI) comprises four chapters9

I A short description of Persia (VII-XI)

The first part of the treatise is a geographical description of Persia itsboundaries provinces and major cities Vesdinrsquos main source was Voyagede lrsquoInde agrave la Mekke by Abdoul-Keacuterym translated into French byL Langlegraves and published in Paris in 1797 Vesdin also mentions othercontemporary sources like Bernhard von Jenisch (1734ndash1807) and ancientwriters like Clement of Alexandria Cyril of Alexandria Joseph FlaviusDiogenes Laertius Origen Ptolemy Strabo Dionysius PeriegetesPlutarch Eusebius Justin and Pliny the Elder He considered Greek andRoman authors important and trustworthy sources on Indian and Persianhistory geography and religion First he describes the territory betweenIndia and Persia and the two ways leading out of India (one into Persia viathe Khorasan province and the other to the Afghans into Tataria) In thefinal paragraph he states that the first one lsquois the way the closeness ofSanskrit (Samscrdamica as Vesdin calls it) and Avestan (Zendica as Vesdincalls it)10 which existed already in the times of Herodotus as will beeloquently shown later came aboutrsquo11 (X-XI) Khorasan consists of the

9An overview of the treatise can be found in Rocher (1961) We cover the fourth part of the treatise in moredetail here than Rocher did while part three is treated more succinctly Rocher relies on more direct quotesfrom Vesdin thereby offering an insight into Vesdinrsquos style On the other hand Rocher admits he had to skipsome lsquominor points such as Anquetilrsquos remarks on the correspondences in Zend and Georgianrsquo which arementioned in this outline (Rocher 1961 331) Furthermore Rocher is less interested in naming the Greek andRoman authors Vesdin heavily relies upon and the contemporaries and near-contemporaries Vesdin dis-cusses Although it was not possible to include every reference made by Vesdin we believe that this summaryof his treatise helps show the breadth of his learning Therefore this outline can be seen as complementary toRocherrsquos

10Vesdin calls the Avestan language lsquoZendrsquo following Anquetil-Duperron This name is a misnomer that becamewidespread in the 19th century Iranistics (at the time the Avestan language was often termed lsquoZendrsquo) theword actually comes from Pahlavi zand and originally refers to the literature written in Middle Persian thattranslates and explicates the Avestan sacred corpus

11Hac igitur via quam descripsimus Zendicae et Samscrdamicae linguae affinitas nata est quam Herodoti aevojam exstitisse infra luculenter demonstrabimus (pp XndashXI) Translation by the authors

198 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

ancient provinces Parthia Aria Margiana and Bactria According toVesdin language development was brought about in this very area whichused to be culturally progressive prosperous and densely populatedVesdin stresses the close relationship between Indian philosophers andPersian Magi Ancient Persian books were therefore written in Zend(Avestan) a lsquodaughterrsquo of Sanskrit Vesdin refutes Langlegravesrsquo claim thatZaraθuštra (Vesdin calls him Zoroaster) was Assyrian (p X) In Vesdinrsquosopinion he can only be Persian as proven by amply cited ancient sources

II An examination of Avestan and Sanskrit (XI-XIX)

In the second part of the treatise Vesdin looks more closely into thepresumed affinity between Avestan and Sanskrit He remarks that studyinglanguage relationships helps to discover peoplesrsquo origins but advocatesa careful approach mentioning some useful and authoritative sources onthe one hand (Scaliger Casaubon de Saumaise etc) and lsquoinsane opinionsrsquoon the other (p XI)12 In his view there can be no doubt that Avestan andSanskrit are related and this idea is repeated throughout the treatise Hemakes a mention of Sylvester de Sacyrsquos study of Persian inscriptions animportant source of linguistic information in this regard13 Vesdin thenexamines the opinions of Anquetil-Duperron with great scepticismAnquetil-Duperron had stated that the use of Avestan reached thePersian provinces at the Caspian Sea and that the Georgian languageresembled Avestan especially in the nominal inflection A comparison ofthe paradigms for the word lsquokingrsquo in Georgian (mepe) and Sanskrit (rājan)follows14 Vesdin sees no similarities in this paradigm but concedes thatthere are some in the genitive and dative case of other nouns but they areonly to be expected because Georgia used to be a Persian provinceHistorical remarks are corroborated by Herodotusrsquo and Platorsquos authority

Vesdin furthermore claims that Avestan and Pahlavi became obsolete inPersia a long time ago and both exist only in the books commonlyattributed to Zaraθuštra For Vesdin this is a proof that Zaraθuštra wasof Persian origin although he is not the author of Zoroastrian booksVesdin advocates a misconception that Zoroastrian books showa mixture of Avestan and Sanskrit language and a confounding of theMagirsquos and the Brahmansrsquo learning He corroborates his claim that

12Vesdin was very often extremely aggressive towards his predecessors and contemporaries Such an attitudeprovoked sharp sometimes unjust criticism For the reception of Vesdinrsquos works see Rocher (1977 xii-xvi) VanHal (2004ndash2005 332) suggests that Vesdinrsquos attitude may have been responsible for poor reception of hiswork

13Vesdin makes a reference to Sylvester de Sacy Meacutemoires sur diverses antiquiteacutes de la Perse et sur les meacutedaillesdes rois de la dynastie des Sassacircnydes Paris 1793

14Vesdinrsquos forms are meppe and ragravegia or ragravedja

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 199

Zaraθuštra was of Bactrian origin by citing the historians AmmianusMarcellinus and Agathias

Thereon Vesdin proceeds to attack Anquetil-Duperronrsquos opinion thatwriting Avestan from right to left was an ancient custom in Persia Vesdinclaims this is due to Arab influence and moves on to William Jones whoargued that in the ancient times there were two mother tongues in PersiaChaldean and Sanskrit15 According to Jones the former is the motherlanguage of Pahlavi the latter is the mother language of Avestan Persian(Farsi) and various Indian dialects Vesdin agrees with Jones whoseopinion was corroborated by Kleuker16 and refutes Anquetil-Duperronrsquosclaim that Avestan is the mother language of Pahlavi and PersianAnquetil-Duperron was here closer to truth than Jones and Kleukerbecause we know now that Chaldean is a Semitic Neo-Aramaic languagethat is not genetically related to Iranian languages Avestan is a north-eastern Iranian language while Old-Persian from which Pahlavi developedbelongs to a south-western group of Iranian languages all these languagesare genetically related in sense that they all trace their common ancestorthe Proto-Iranian language Still Vesdin is not entirely in agreement withJones and Kleuker He puts forward the misconception that Pahlavi cameabout by mixing Avestan and Chaldean the language of the Persiansrsquowestern neighbours Although Pahlavi follows neither Avestan norChaldean in verbal and nominal inflection it is closer to the latter lan-guage lsquoas will be obvious to anyone who diligently examines the bookBun-deheschrsquo17 (p XV) On the other hand Vesdin continues Avestan is rich inwords and vowel signs as Sanskrit is Avestan shares the verbal endingswith Sanskrit but the declensions do not conform (XVndashXVI)18 ChapterTwo ends with a short description of Sanskrit which in Vesdinrsquos opinionhas more in common with Greek than with Latin and a list of Sanskritdialects

III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskrit (XX-XXXVI)

A list of 194 Avestan and Pahlavi words with their supposed Sanskrit andMalayāḷam (LinguaMalabarica as Vesdin calls it) cognates together with their

15Asiatick Researches II The Sixth Discourse on the Persians pp 35ndash53 Jones discusses the languages of Iran onpp 39ndash43

16Kleuker Johann Friedrich (1795) Abhandlungen uumlber die Geschichte und Alterthuumlmer die Kuumlnste Wissenschaftenund Literatur Asiens Band II Riga Hartknopf pp100ndash112

17Bundahišn or Zand-āgāhīh is a Middle Persian Pahlavi text that deals with cosmogony and cosmography ofthe Zoroastrian scriptures The treatise was composed at the time of the Arab contest and was expandedthrough a number of different redactions between that time and the 12th c (Boyce 1968 40)

18Avestan declensions are actually remarkably close to Sanskrit declensions Vesdin did not recognize thisbecause he relied mostly on Duperronrsquos book Zend-Avesta as a source of knowledge of Avestan and PahlaviDuperronrsquos transliteration distorted Avestan forms heavily and made them hard to recognize

200 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Latin translation is presented on pp XXndashXXXI followed by a list of 18 pairs ofwords related to Zoroastrian liturgy Vesdin states that the affinity betweenAvestan and Sanskrit is obvious and concludes that Indian philosophy andreligion alsomade their way to the Persians Egyptians andTatars or Scyths (pXXXIII) He corroborates his claims by once again citing various Greek andRoman authors Lucian Pausanias Clement of Alexandria Photius DiogenesLaertius Lactantius Ammianus Marcellinus Cicero and others as well asWilliam Jones accepting his opinion on the origins of Zoroastrianism It isdifficult to reach a conclusion on the origin of languages without any materialor written proof says Vesdin but he thinks it would be the safest to assumethat Sanskrit was a contemporary language of Hebrew and Chaldean anda common language in Persia Afterwards Sanskrit and Avestan ceased to bespoken and were preserved in books According to Vesdin Sanskrit is full ofGermanic Slavic Latin and Greek words denoting basic concepts and there-fore unlikely to be loanwords These words must have entered Sanskrit duringthe cohabitation in the field of Shinar (Hebrew Biblersquos term forMesopotamia)an assumption that seems to be corroborated by Diodorus Siculus and Plinythe Elder Still the number of these words is not large enough to make theclaim that all of these languages descended from Sanskrit

IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)

The fourth part provides the reader with a list of 40 Avestan and Sanskritwords culled from ancient writers (Herodotus Hesychius AeschylusCtesias Strabo Polybius Ptolemy Plutarch Menander AristophanesXenophon and others) p XXXVII19 These words are meant to provethe proximity of speakers of Sanskrit and Avestan in ancient times The listis followed by a discussion on the relationship between the two languagesVesdin once more comes to the conclusion that in ancient times Sanskritwas spoken in Media (north-western Iran) and Persia and that Avestandeveloped from Sanskrit This explains the extent of Indian and Sanskritinfluence on the Zoroastrian books Zaraθuštra might not be their authorbut he must have been Persian or Medo-Persian or Bactrian as EusebiusClement of Alexandria Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus all claim Vesdinmore than once refutes the hypothesis put forward by William Jonesnamely that the books of Zaraθuštra are not authentic but recent forgeriesthat came about as a result of the corruption of the Sanskrit language bythe Parsis20

19A similar list was produced by William Burton in his Graecae Linguae Historia 2 parts London 1657 whichincluded Veteris Linguae Persicae λείψανα

20This idea was put forward by Jones in his lecture On the Persians delivered on February the 10th 1789 andpublished in Volume II of the Asiatick Researches (p 41) Vesdin also mentions Richardson and Meiners asproponents of this theory and the more sober judgement of Kleuker and Tychsen

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 201

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

ancient provinces Parthia Aria Margiana and Bactria According toVesdin language development was brought about in this very area whichused to be culturally progressive prosperous and densely populatedVesdin stresses the close relationship between Indian philosophers andPersian Magi Ancient Persian books were therefore written in Zend(Avestan) a lsquodaughterrsquo of Sanskrit Vesdin refutes Langlegravesrsquo claim thatZaraθuštra (Vesdin calls him Zoroaster) was Assyrian (p X) In Vesdinrsquosopinion he can only be Persian as proven by amply cited ancient sources

II An examination of Avestan and Sanskrit (XI-XIX)

In the second part of the treatise Vesdin looks more closely into thepresumed affinity between Avestan and Sanskrit He remarks that studyinglanguage relationships helps to discover peoplesrsquo origins but advocatesa careful approach mentioning some useful and authoritative sources onthe one hand (Scaliger Casaubon de Saumaise etc) and lsquoinsane opinionsrsquoon the other (p XI)12 In his view there can be no doubt that Avestan andSanskrit are related and this idea is repeated throughout the treatise Hemakes a mention of Sylvester de Sacyrsquos study of Persian inscriptions animportant source of linguistic information in this regard13 Vesdin thenexamines the opinions of Anquetil-Duperron with great scepticismAnquetil-Duperron had stated that the use of Avestan reached thePersian provinces at the Caspian Sea and that the Georgian languageresembled Avestan especially in the nominal inflection A comparison ofthe paradigms for the word lsquokingrsquo in Georgian (mepe) and Sanskrit (rājan)follows14 Vesdin sees no similarities in this paradigm but concedes thatthere are some in the genitive and dative case of other nouns but they areonly to be expected because Georgia used to be a Persian provinceHistorical remarks are corroborated by Herodotusrsquo and Platorsquos authority

Vesdin furthermore claims that Avestan and Pahlavi became obsolete inPersia a long time ago and both exist only in the books commonlyattributed to Zaraθuštra For Vesdin this is a proof that Zaraθuštra wasof Persian origin although he is not the author of Zoroastrian booksVesdin advocates a misconception that Zoroastrian books showa mixture of Avestan and Sanskrit language and a confounding of theMagirsquos and the Brahmansrsquo learning He corroborates his claim that

12Vesdin was very often extremely aggressive towards his predecessors and contemporaries Such an attitudeprovoked sharp sometimes unjust criticism For the reception of Vesdinrsquos works see Rocher (1977 xii-xvi) VanHal (2004ndash2005 332) suggests that Vesdinrsquos attitude may have been responsible for poor reception of hiswork

13Vesdin makes a reference to Sylvester de Sacy Meacutemoires sur diverses antiquiteacutes de la Perse et sur les meacutedaillesdes rois de la dynastie des Sassacircnydes Paris 1793

14Vesdinrsquos forms are meppe and ragravegia or ragravedja

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 199

Zaraθuštra was of Bactrian origin by citing the historians AmmianusMarcellinus and Agathias

Thereon Vesdin proceeds to attack Anquetil-Duperronrsquos opinion thatwriting Avestan from right to left was an ancient custom in Persia Vesdinclaims this is due to Arab influence and moves on to William Jones whoargued that in the ancient times there were two mother tongues in PersiaChaldean and Sanskrit15 According to Jones the former is the motherlanguage of Pahlavi the latter is the mother language of Avestan Persian(Farsi) and various Indian dialects Vesdin agrees with Jones whoseopinion was corroborated by Kleuker16 and refutes Anquetil-Duperronrsquosclaim that Avestan is the mother language of Pahlavi and PersianAnquetil-Duperron was here closer to truth than Jones and Kleukerbecause we know now that Chaldean is a Semitic Neo-Aramaic languagethat is not genetically related to Iranian languages Avestan is a north-eastern Iranian language while Old-Persian from which Pahlavi developedbelongs to a south-western group of Iranian languages all these languagesare genetically related in sense that they all trace their common ancestorthe Proto-Iranian language Still Vesdin is not entirely in agreement withJones and Kleuker He puts forward the misconception that Pahlavi cameabout by mixing Avestan and Chaldean the language of the Persiansrsquowestern neighbours Although Pahlavi follows neither Avestan norChaldean in verbal and nominal inflection it is closer to the latter lan-guage lsquoas will be obvious to anyone who diligently examines the bookBun-deheschrsquo17 (p XV) On the other hand Vesdin continues Avestan is rich inwords and vowel signs as Sanskrit is Avestan shares the verbal endingswith Sanskrit but the declensions do not conform (XVndashXVI)18 ChapterTwo ends with a short description of Sanskrit which in Vesdinrsquos opinionhas more in common with Greek than with Latin and a list of Sanskritdialects

III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskrit (XX-XXXVI)

A list of 194 Avestan and Pahlavi words with their supposed Sanskrit andMalayāḷam (LinguaMalabarica as Vesdin calls it) cognates together with their

15Asiatick Researches II The Sixth Discourse on the Persians pp 35ndash53 Jones discusses the languages of Iran onpp 39ndash43

16Kleuker Johann Friedrich (1795) Abhandlungen uumlber die Geschichte und Alterthuumlmer die Kuumlnste Wissenschaftenund Literatur Asiens Band II Riga Hartknopf pp100ndash112

17Bundahišn or Zand-āgāhīh is a Middle Persian Pahlavi text that deals with cosmogony and cosmography ofthe Zoroastrian scriptures The treatise was composed at the time of the Arab contest and was expandedthrough a number of different redactions between that time and the 12th c (Boyce 1968 40)

18Avestan declensions are actually remarkably close to Sanskrit declensions Vesdin did not recognize thisbecause he relied mostly on Duperronrsquos book Zend-Avesta as a source of knowledge of Avestan and PahlaviDuperronrsquos transliteration distorted Avestan forms heavily and made them hard to recognize

200 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Latin translation is presented on pp XXndashXXXI followed by a list of 18 pairs ofwords related to Zoroastrian liturgy Vesdin states that the affinity betweenAvestan and Sanskrit is obvious and concludes that Indian philosophy andreligion alsomade their way to the Persians Egyptians andTatars or Scyths (pXXXIII) He corroborates his claims by once again citing various Greek andRoman authors Lucian Pausanias Clement of Alexandria Photius DiogenesLaertius Lactantius Ammianus Marcellinus Cicero and others as well asWilliam Jones accepting his opinion on the origins of Zoroastrianism It isdifficult to reach a conclusion on the origin of languages without any materialor written proof says Vesdin but he thinks it would be the safest to assumethat Sanskrit was a contemporary language of Hebrew and Chaldean anda common language in Persia Afterwards Sanskrit and Avestan ceased to bespoken and were preserved in books According to Vesdin Sanskrit is full ofGermanic Slavic Latin and Greek words denoting basic concepts and there-fore unlikely to be loanwords These words must have entered Sanskrit duringthe cohabitation in the field of Shinar (Hebrew Biblersquos term forMesopotamia)an assumption that seems to be corroborated by Diodorus Siculus and Plinythe Elder Still the number of these words is not large enough to make theclaim that all of these languages descended from Sanskrit

IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)

The fourth part provides the reader with a list of 40 Avestan and Sanskritwords culled from ancient writers (Herodotus Hesychius AeschylusCtesias Strabo Polybius Ptolemy Plutarch Menander AristophanesXenophon and others) p XXXVII19 These words are meant to provethe proximity of speakers of Sanskrit and Avestan in ancient times The listis followed by a discussion on the relationship between the two languagesVesdin once more comes to the conclusion that in ancient times Sanskritwas spoken in Media (north-western Iran) and Persia and that Avestandeveloped from Sanskrit This explains the extent of Indian and Sanskritinfluence on the Zoroastrian books Zaraθuštra might not be their authorbut he must have been Persian or Medo-Persian or Bactrian as EusebiusClement of Alexandria Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus all claim Vesdinmore than once refutes the hypothesis put forward by William Jonesnamely that the books of Zaraθuštra are not authentic but recent forgeriesthat came about as a result of the corruption of the Sanskrit language bythe Parsis20

19A similar list was produced by William Burton in his Graecae Linguae Historia 2 parts London 1657 whichincluded Veteris Linguae Persicae λείψανα

20This idea was put forward by Jones in his lecture On the Persians delivered on February the 10th 1789 andpublished in Volume II of the Asiatick Researches (p 41) Vesdin also mentions Richardson and Meiners asproponents of this theory and the more sober judgement of Kleuker and Tychsen

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 201

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

Zaraθuštra was of Bactrian origin by citing the historians AmmianusMarcellinus and Agathias

Thereon Vesdin proceeds to attack Anquetil-Duperronrsquos opinion thatwriting Avestan from right to left was an ancient custom in Persia Vesdinclaims this is due to Arab influence and moves on to William Jones whoargued that in the ancient times there were two mother tongues in PersiaChaldean and Sanskrit15 According to Jones the former is the motherlanguage of Pahlavi the latter is the mother language of Avestan Persian(Farsi) and various Indian dialects Vesdin agrees with Jones whoseopinion was corroborated by Kleuker16 and refutes Anquetil-Duperronrsquosclaim that Avestan is the mother language of Pahlavi and PersianAnquetil-Duperron was here closer to truth than Jones and Kleukerbecause we know now that Chaldean is a Semitic Neo-Aramaic languagethat is not genetically related to Iranian languages Avestan is a north-eastern Iranian language while Old-Persian from which Pahlavi developedbelongs to a south-western group of Iranian languages all these languagesare genetically related in sense that they all trace their common ancestorthe Proto-Iranian language Still Vesdin is not entirely in agreement withJones and Kleuker He puts forward the misconception that Pahlavi cameabout by mixing Avestan and Chaldean the language of the Persiansrsquowestern neighbours Although Pahlavi follows neither Avestan norChaldean in verbal and nominal inflection it is closer to the latter lan-guage lsquoas will be obvious to anyone who diligently examines the bookBun-deheschrsquo17 (p XV) On the other hand Vesdin continues Avestan is rich inwords and vowel signs as Sanskrit is Avestan shares the verbal endingswith Sanskrit but the declensions do not conform (XVndashXVI)18 ChapterTwo ends with a short description of Sanskrit which in Vesdinrsquos opinionhas more in common with Greek than with Latin and a list of Sanskritdialects

III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskrit (XX-XXXVI)

A list of 194 Avestan and Pahlavi words with their supposed Sanskrit andMalayāḷam (LinguaMalabarica as Vesdin calls it) cognates together with their

15Asiatick Researches II The Sixth Discourse on the Persians pp 35ndash53 Jones discusses the languages of Iran onpp 39ndash43

16Kleuker Johann Friedrich (1795) Abhandlungen uumlber die Geschichte und Alterthuumlmer die Kuumlnste Wissenschaftenund Literatur Asiens Band II Riga Hartknopf pp100ndash112

17Bundahišn or Zand-āgāhīh is a Middle Persian Pahlavi text that deals with cosmogony and cosmography ofthe Zoroastrian scriptures The treatise was composed at the time of the Arab contest and was expandedthrough a number of different redactions between that time and the 12th c (Boyce 1968 40)

18Avestan declensions are actually remarkably close to Sanskrit declensions Vesdin did not recognize thisbecause he relied mostly on Duperronrsquos book Zend-Avesta as a source of knowledge of Avestan and PahlaviDuperronrsquos transliteration distorted Avestan forms heavily and made them hard to recognize

200 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Latin translation is presented on pp XXndashXXXI followed by a list of 18 pairs ofwords related to Zoroastrian liturgy Vesdin states that the affinity betweenAvestan and Sanskrit is obvious and concludes that Indian philosophy andreligion alsomade their way to the Persians Egyptians andTatars or Scyths (pXXXIII) He corroborates his claims by once again citing various Greek andRoman authors Lucian Pausanias Clement of Alexandria Photius DiogenesLaertius Lactantius Ammianus Marcellinus Cicero and others as well asWilliam Jones accepting his opinion on the origins of Zoroastrianism It isdifficult to reach a conclusion on the origin of languages without any materialor written proof says Vesdin but he thinks it would be the safest to assumethat Sanskrit was a contemporary language of Hebrew and Chaldean anda common language in Persia Afterwards Sanskrit and Avestan ceased to bespoken and were preserved in books According to Vesdin Sanskrit is full ofGermanic Slavic Latin and Greek words denoting basic concepts and there-fore unlikely to be loanwords These words must have entered Sanskrit duringthe cohabitation in the field of Shinar (Hebrew Biblersquos term forMesopotamia)an assumption that seems to be corroborated by Diodorus Siculus and Plinythe Elder Still the number of these words is not large enough to make theclaim that all of these languages descended from Sanskrit

IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)

The fourth part provides the reader with a list of 40 Avestan and Sanskritwords culled from ancient writers (Herodotus Hesychius AeschylusCtesias Strabo Polybius Ptolemy Plutarch Menander AristophanesXenophon and others) p XXXVII19 These words are meant to provethe proximity of speakers of Sanskrit and Avestan in ancient times The listis followed by a discussion on the relationship between the two languagesVesdin once more comes to the conclusion that in ancient times Sanskritwas spoken in Media (north-western Iran) and Persia and that Avestandeveloped from Sanskrit This explains the extent of Indian and Sanskritinfluence on the Zoroastrian books Zaraθuštra might not be their authorbut he must have been Persian or Medo-Persian or Bactrian as EusebiusClement of Alexandria Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus all claim Vesdinmore than once refutes the hypothesis put forward by William Jonesnamely that the books of Zaraθuštra are not authentic but recent forgeriesthat came about as a result of the corruption of the Sanskrit language bythe Parsis20

19A similar list was produced by William Burton in his Graecae Linguae Historia 2 parts London 1657 whichincluded Veteris Linguae Persicae λείψανα

20This idea was put forward by Jones in his lecture On the Persians delivered on February the 10th 1789 andpublished in Volume II of the Asiatick Researches (p 41) Vesdin also mentions Richardson and Meiners asproponents of this theory and the more sober judgement of Kleuker and Tychsen

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 201

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

Latin translation is presented on pp XXndashXXXI followed by a list of 18 pairs ofwords related to Zoroastrian liturgy Vesdin states that the affinity betweenAvestan and Sanskrit is obvious and concludes that Indian philosophy andreligion alsomade their way to the Persians Egyptians andTatars or Scyths (pXXXIII) He corroborates his claims by once again citing various Greek andRoman authors Lucian Pausanias Clement of Alexandria Photius DiogenesLaertius Lactantius Ammianus Marcellinus Cicero and others as well asWilliam Jones accepting his opinion on the origins of Zoroastrianism It isdifficult to reach a conclusion on the origin of languages without any materialor written proof says Vesdin but he thinks it would be the safest to assumethat Sanskrit was a contemporary language of Hebrew and Chaldean anda common language in Persia Afterwards Sanskrit and Avestan ceased to bespoken and were preserved in books According to Vesdin Sanskrit is full ofGermanic Slavic Latin and Greek words denoting basic concepts and there-fore unlikely to be loanwords These words must have entered Sanskrit duringthe cohabitation in the field of Shinar (Hebrew Biblersquos term forMesopotamia)an assumption that seems to be corroborated by Diodorus Siculus and Plinythe Elder Still the number of these words is not large enough to make theclaim that all of these languages descended from Sanskrit

IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)

The fourth part provides the reader with a list of 40 Avestan and Sanskritwords culled from ancient writers (Herodotus Hesychius AeschylusCtesias Strabo Polybius Ptolemy Plutarch Menander AristophanesXenophon and others) p XXXVII19 These words are meant to provethe proximity of speakers of Sanskrit and Avestan in ancient times The listis followed by a discussion on the relationship between the two languagesVesdin once more comes to the conclusion that in ancient times Sanskritwas spoken in Media (north-western Iran) and Persia and that Avestandeveloped from Sanskrit This explains the extent of Indian and Sanskritinfluence on the Zoroastrian books Zaraθuštra might not be their authorbut he must have been Persian or Medo-Persian or Bactrian as EusebiusClement of Alexandria Pliny and Ammianus Marcellinus all claim Vesdinmore than once refutes the hypothesis put forward by William Jonesnamely that the books of Zaraθuštra are not authentic but recent forgeriesthat came about as a result of the corruption of the Sanskrit language bythe Parsis20

19A similar list was produced by William Burton in his Graecae Linguae Historia 2 parts London 1657 whichincluded Veteris Linguae Persicae λείψανα

20This idea was put forward by Jones in his lecture On the Persians delivered on February the 10th 1789 andpublished in Volume II of the Asiatick Researches (p 41) Vesdin also mentions Richardson and Meiners asproponents of this theory and the more sober judgement of Kleuker and Tychsen

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 201

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

A list of 60 supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates with meaningsgiven in Latin starts on page LIII

Vesdin believes that his treatise proves that Avestan is a Sanskrit dialectGermanic is related to Avestan ndash as demonstrated by Pfeiferius (AugustPfeiffer 1640ndash1698) Valtonius (Bryan Walton 1600ndash1661) Burtonius(William Burton 1609ndash1657) and Boxhornius (Marcus Zuerius vanBoxhorn 1612ndash1653) The following explanation is given by some scho-lars the Parthian and Germanic peoples are descendants of the Scyths andthey ruled over Persia for a long time Persian words entered their voca-bulary and were taken to the shores of the Danube and the Baltic Sea (hereVesdin makes a reference to Christianus Ludovicus Schediusrsquo preface toEccardrsquos De origine Germanorum) On the other hand Herodotus wrotethat the Germans are a Persian tribe21 Whatever the case there is anaffinity between Germanic and Old Persian language as well as withSanskrit Those who like Olaus (Olof) Rudbeckius and Carolus (Carl)Lundius believe that Germans come from Sweden or who like GeorgStiernhielm (1598ndash1672) Buffonius (Georges-Louis Leclerc count deBuffon 1707ndash1788)22 and Carlo Gastone Della Torre di Rezzonico(1742ndash1796) believe that almost all humankind originated in the Northare in Vesdinrsquos opinion ridiculous His final proof is the Indian kingMannu who must be the Mannus mentioned in the second chapter ofTacitusrsquo Germania Mannus is Noah the founder of the Indian empire andalso the father of Indians Persians and Germans who are all of Easterndescent while the origins of the German language lie in the East

General remarks on the word-lists

Vesdinrsquos first word-list (pp XXndashXXXI) contains a column with 192Sanskrit and three Malayāḷam words23 compared to Avestan words (some-times with its Pahlavi pair) in the second column The third column listsa Latin translation of Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo from the first twocolumns

It is important to note that in the third column with the Latin transla-tion of SanskritAvestan pairs 33 Latin words are printed in italics Itappears that these italicized words are not just translations but words thatVesdin regarded as related to their Sanskrit and Avestan pairs the wordsregularly correspond phonetically and semantically Almost all of these

21Herodotus actually mentions the Germanians (Γερμάνιοι) a Persian tribe (Her 1 125) The earliest reports onGermanic peoples would not be written until the first century BC by the Romans (Fortson 2010 338)

22Reported more precisely by Eddy Buffon in fact believed that the first civilisation developed lsquosix thousandyears ago in northwestern Asia between the fortieth and fifty-fifth degrees of latitudersquo but was subse-quently annihilated by lsquobarbarian hordes from the Northrsquo (Eddy 1994 658)

23Vesdin (1790 17 22) considered the Dravidian languages Malayāḷam and Tamil to be derived from Sanskritand on p 22 ft15 he even considers them to be dialects of Sanskrit

202 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

italicized Latin words together with the same Sanskrit pair are included inhis later treatise De Latini sermonis where he compared Sanskrit andLatin Therefore the list in De antiquitate most probably served as basisfor the list in De Latini sermonis24

The second list (pp XXXIndashXXXIII) contains 18 entries concerningZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary The third list (pp LIIIndashLV) has 60entries with supposed Sanskrit and Germanic cognates and a Latin transla-tion All lists with notes are presented in the Appendix to this paper

Vesdin states on p XXXIII that the source for Sanskrit words are theSanskrit glossary Amarakośa25 Hanxledenrsquos lsquodictionaryrsquo (actually two dic-tionaries a Sanskritized Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary26 anda Portugese-Malayāḷam dictionary expanded by Bernard Bischopinck andAntonio Pimentel27) Sanskrit grammar28 and Purāṇas On the other sidealmost all Avestan words are taken from one source Anquetil-DuperronrsquosZend-Avesta (= ZA)29 II pp 433ndash475 (Vocabulaire Zend Pelhvi etFranccedilois) All Avestan words on Anquetil-Duperronrsquos list came from anancient Avestan-Pahlavi glossary Frahang i oīm Germanic words in thethird list are taken from Johann Schilterrsquos Thesauro antiquitatumTeutonicarum (Ulm 1728) and to a lesser extent from BesselrsquosChronicon Gotwicense Tomus I (Tegernsee 1732)

The most serious issue with Anquetil-Duperronrsquos word-list is unsystematictransliteration of Avestan characters which makes many words difficult torecognize30 For instance four distinct characters in Avestan script (transliter-ated in Hoffmannrsquos scheme as a ǝ e i) are written by Anquetil-Duperron as eReichelt (1901) provides besides his edition of the Frahang i oīm (1900)31 an

24With the exception of Lat fēmina compared with Skt vāma statim compared to atha gera compared to ajaravivens compared to jīva īra compared to Skt irs

_ya dīxit to vaks

_yati It should be noted that except vivens and

jīva all other pairs are not related and Vesdin was right in excluding them from the list in De Latini sermonis25Vesdin (1790 13) mentions that he has three manuscripts in his possession one South Indian written onpalm-leaf one that Vesdin copied from an old codex and one copied from an Indian original byJ E Hanxleden

26According to Van Hal and Vielle (2013 7) this is the dictionary that was referred to as lsquoHanxledenrsquos dictionaryrsquoin Vesdinrsquos writing

27Bernard Bischopinck SJ (1642-c1754) Hanxledenrsquos disciple added Latin translations (Van Hal amp Vielle 20107) Antonio Pimentel SJ (-1752) was an archbishop of Cranganore (Kodungallur in Kerala India) Hecompleted Hanxledenrsquos Malayāḷam-Portuguese dictionary finished by Hanxleden up to the letter t andnamed the work Vocabulario de lingua Malavar (Rocher 1977 212)

28Most probably Hanxledenrsquos grammar For the transmission of this grammar see Van Hal and Vielle (201313ndash15) Hanxledenrsquos grammar was discovered by Toon Van Hal in the Carmelite monastery in MontecompatriLazio in Italy (Van Hal 2010)

29At the end of the paper one can find a list of all abbreviations30Destur Hoshaug Jamasp (Jamaspji amp Haug 1867 I) gives the following remarks about Anquetil-Duperronrsquosedition and translation lsquo the meaning and translation in Pahlavi and French are so incorrect that for allpractical purposes they are useless and the inaccuracies are such that it appears to me that the learnedFrenchman either misunderstood the meanings or his teacher Destur Dacircracircb of Surat was unable to explainto him the contents correctlyrsquo

31The first modern edition of the text was published in 1867 by H Jamaspji and M Haug together withtranslation and index After that the text was edited by Hans Reichelt (1900) G Klingenschmitt (1968) andfinally by Rahām Ashah (2009) For the purpose of identifying Avestan words in Vesdinrsquos treatise we foundReicheltrsquos index to his edition (Reichelt 1901) the most valuable and hence his edition is used in this paper

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 203

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

index of all Avestanwords in Frahang i oīm in Bartholomaersquos transliteration thatmakes it easier to identify the word Vesdin was also careless at times withcopying Anquetil-Duperronrsquos words For instance Anquetil-Duperronrsquos (p442) khschethrocirc Vesdin copied as khscetro (Reichelt 1901137xšaϑrō = ks

_atriya lsquowarriorrsquo) Vesdin also ignored many of Anquetil-

Duperronrsquos diacritics which are sometimes helpful For instance Vesdinrsquos (pXXIII) vakhsch represents Anquetil-Duperronrsquos vacircksch In ZA acirc stands for Av āand is thus closer to Reicheltrsquos vāxš lsquovoice speechrsquo (p 169) On the other handthe identification of Vesdinrsquos Sanskrit entries is occasionally challenging Thereason for this lies in Vesdinrsquos unsystematic transliteration Rocher (1977xxiv)defends Vesdinrsquos transliteration asserting that if one has in mind South Indianpronunciation and an Italian style of reading it is easy to reconstruct the Sanskritoriginal Despite that some rather serious inconsistencies should be notedVesdin did not indicate vowel length the IAST32 -ś- is sometimes representedas -sh- (shrudi = śruti lsquohearing revelationrsquo33) and sometimes as -sch-(schedeacute= śete lsquolies downrsquo) IAST -s

_- is sometimes represented as -s- (nasti= nas

_t_i

lsquolossrsquo) sometimes as -sh- (vakshyadi = vaks_yati lsquowill speakrsquo) sometimes as -sch-

(krschi = krs_i lsquoploughingrsquo) and even -sz- (amisza = āmis

_a lsquomeatrsquo) IAST -y- is

sometimes written as -j- (martja = martya lsquomortalrsquo) sometimes as -y-(yuacuteyam = yūyam) Aspiration is sometimes indicated sometimes not whilevoiceless aspirate (visarga) -h

_- is never represented Vocalic liquid -r- is also

a source of confusion as it can be rendered as -ra- -er- -e- or -r-(pratschadi = prcchati lsquoasksrsquo herda = hrd- lsquoheartrsquo geha = grha lsquohousersquo)

The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo

In the table we present IAST transliterations with Vesdinrsquos forms insquare brackets together with an etymological note taken fromMayrhoferrsquos Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen (= EWA) andother dictionaries In the second column we cite Vesdinrsquos Avestan wordand in the third column Reicheltrsquos rendering of the same Avestan wordin his edition of Frahang i oīm (Reichelt 1900 1901) We use anasterisk to mark 107 comparisons successful in the view of modernscholarship

(a) Some of the cognate pairs bear clear phonetic and semantic resem-blance and were easily identified by Vesdin (ie Skt putra = Av puϑraSkt pantildecadaśa = Av pančadasa lsquofifteenrsquo etc) Also Vesdin was able tocorrectly compare words for kinship terms ndash eg Sktmātr (maacutedr) withAvmāta (macircteacute) lsquomotherrsquo Some words such as Skt aṅgus

_t_ha lsquothumbrsquo

32Acronym for International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration the standard for transliteration of Indic scriptsinto Roman characters without the loss of any phonetic information

33Voiced dentals come from South Indian pronunciation

204 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

correctly identified by Vesdin as corresponding to the Pāzand34 wordtransliterated as arazān lsquothumbrsquo do not carry any phonetic resem-blance Vesdin here made a correct connection by relying on the Pahlword angust which also means lsquothumbrsquo For Skt stena lsquothiefrsquo and Avtaiio lsquothiefrsquo which are correctly associated Vesdin supposedly relied onsemantic correspondence as well Mostly because of the mobile -s theirattested forms appear quite different while the meaning remained thesame

(b) On the other hand 82 pairs can be rejected as not being cognateswhile five acceptable identifications appear twice Phonetic andsemantic correspondences on which Vesdin mostly relied some-times led him astray Some of these errors are due to Anquetil-Duperronrsquos mistranslations For instance Anquetil-Duperron mis-translated Av ahmāi (D sg of the demonstrative pronoun) aslsquograndrsquo leading Vesdin to compare the word with the Skt phraseayam mahā lsquothis one is bigrsquo35 Av tarasča lsquoacrossrsquo was mistranslatedby Anquetil-Duperron as lsquoil craintrsquo (lsquohe fearsrsquo) which misled Vesdinto compare the word with Skt dara lsquofearrsquo The real cognate oftarasča is Skt tiraśc-36 bearing both semantic and phonetic resem-blance Other notable instances of unacceptable identification thatcan be explained by overreliance on semantic correspondence arefor instance the wrong identification of Av xratuš lsquowisdom intellectrsquowith Skt dhrti lsquoholding resolution willrsquo It is striking that Sktcognate kratu did not cross Vesdinrsquos mind here In three instancesVesdin wrongly associated the Malayāḷam words of Dravidian originwith Avestan Malay nī നീ lsquoyoursquo with Av nǝ37 lsquowersquo Malay പഴയpaḻaya lsquooldrsquo with Av bāδa lsquoalwaysrsquo38 Malay അകം akaṁ lsquosinrsquo withAv aγa lsquobadness wickednessrsquo

The second list Vocabula Liturgica

This list containing 18 entries related mostly to Zoroastrian ritual wasquite difficult to analyse The identification of Sanskrit words presented thegreatest challenge On the other hand it was fairly easy to identify Iranianwords which Vesdin took from Anquetil-Duperronrsquos ZA II pp 529f(Usages Civils et Religieux des Parses) Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Iranianwords are upon closer inspection in fact Avestan Pahlavi and New Indo-Aryan loanwords from Sanskrit accepted by the Parsi community in India

34Pāzand is a writing system based on the Avestan alphabet used for writing Pahlavi especially for commen-taries (Zand) of the Avestan sacred corpus

35Interestingly enough Skt ayam (N sg) is actually related to Av ahmāi (D sg) mahā lsquobigrsquo is unrelated36The weak base of tiryantildec- lsquotransverse horizontalrsquo37OAv accdatgen pl of the pers pron38Anquetil-Duperron mistranslated bāδa (adv) lsquoalwaysrsquo as lsquovieuxrsquo (lsquooldrsquo)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 205

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

In this list Vesdin was less successful in identifying cognates only fourpairs can be accepted as related This is however not unexpected becausethe words mostly come from Zoroastrian ritual which does not have manycorrespondences in the Hindu ritual with which Vesdin was familiar

An example of Vesdinrsquos adherence to semantic correspondence is Pahlaiwayāhan (Av aiβiiaringŋhana) lsquosacred girdle cordrsquo39 that Vesdin comparedto Skt udvāhanī lsquocord ropersquo These words are unrelated becauseaiβiiaringŋhana is derived from the Av root yāh- lsquoto wrap around to girdlersquowhile udvāhanī is derived from the causative of the verb udradicvah lsquoto lead tocarryrsquo Many incorrectly paired words in Vesdinrsquos Vocabula liturgica arequite different both in sound and meaning eg Skt pat

_accara (padatschar

in Vesdin) lsquowoven cloth veilrsquo is mistakenly compared to Pahl padānlsquosacred veilrsquo40 (Av paitidāna = Skt prati-dhāna lsquoplaced in front [of themouth]rsquo) Also Skt svadhyāya lsquoVedic recitationrsquo prārthana lsquowish petitionrsquonamaskāra lsquoadoration homagersquo are all compared to Pahl nīrang(dīn)a name of Zoroastrian ceremony of consecrating the sacred bullrsquos urine(gōmēz)41

There are only four acceptable identifications in this list Sktaṅgulīya = Pahl angustarīg lsquoa finger-ringrsquo Skt kartari lsquoscissorsa knifersquo = Av karǝta lsquoknifersquo Mitra = Mithra It is worth noting a NewIndo-Aryan Gujaratī loanword tal lsquocymbalrsquo from Skt tāla lsquocymbalrsquo adoptedby Parsis from Gujarat

In the end it may be said that Vesdin might have been more successfulin comparing Indian and Iranian ritual language cognates if he had hadaccess to the oldest strata of Indian Vedic and Iranian Avestan liturgicalvocabulary that indeed share significant and strikingly well preservedforms that go back to Indo-Iranian prehistory We know that Vesdin didnot have access to Vedas and he did not even know that Vedas are textshe believed that Vedam is a religious law (lex) embedded in Hindureligious books42

The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates

Vesdinrsquos third list comprises 59 pairs of Sanskrit and Germanic wordsthat Vesdin considered to be related Vesdinrsquos Germanic words area mixture of different strata of historical development of Germanicvocabulary Vesdinrsquos care to provide the oldest variant of the word isnotable Again Vesdin was successful in comparing words for kinship

39Aiwayāhan is a sacred girdle wrapped around the waist by Zoroastrians it can also designate a date-palm leafstrip which is used to tie wires out of which the barsom twig is made See Kanga (1984) and Choksy andKotwal (2014)

40Ritually employed to prevent the breath from polluting the sacred fire (Modi 1922 116)41See Modi (1922 97f 255f)42Vesdin (1790 9 75)

206 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

terms such as Skt mātr = OFris moder Skt pitr = MHG faterbhrātr = MHG brouder sūnu = NHG SohnOSax sunu It is interestingto note the identification of Skt śāsita lsquopunishedrsquo with OHG chestigon lsquotochastise punishrsquo which is in fact a loanword in OHG from Lat castiga-tion which is in turn related to śāsita through the PIE root kes- lsquoto cutrsquoAn interesting acceptable identification is Skt majjan lsquomarrowrsquo withNHG Mark (lt PIE mosgh-) The two resemble each other semanticallybut are arguably quite different in form Mistaken comparisons areusually words that appear similar Skt lipsā lsquolongingrsquo and NHG Liebelsquoloversquo (the Skt word comes from PIE leip- lsquoto smear stickrsquo and Germanword from leubh- lsquoto care for loversquo) For Skt and German compoundsdvāravartin and torwartel lsquochamberlainrsquo Vesdin was right for the firstmember dvāra- and tor- (both stem from the PIE dhuer) while -vartinstems from PIE uert- lsquoto turnrsquo and -wart from uer- lsquoto observersquo Manymistaken identifications are admittedly close in both sound and meaningsuch as Skt gamana lsquomovingrsquo and OHGMHG gān (gt gehen) lsquogoingrsquowhich are not cognates Skt pur lsquofortress castlersquo is quite similar to OHGburg lsquocastlersquo (from Lat burgos lt Gr πύργος) but initial -p- (PIE plh1-)would give -f- [ɸ] in Germanic according to Grimmrsquos law Anothertypical misconception is comparison of Skt ānanda lsquoblissrsquo (radicnand lsquotorejoicersquo) to unende unendlich lsquounendingrsquo (in fact related to Skt antalsquoborder endrsquo [EWA I p 75])

Vesdinrsquos linguistic views

Aware of Jonesrsquo famous Third Anniversary Discourse delivered to TheAsiatic Society in 1786 and published in Asiatick Researches in 178843

Vesdin (1798 XVIII ft 15) criticized Jones for not substantiating hisclaims that Greek Latin Sanskrit Gothic Celtic and Old Persian havesprung from some common source44 This was the most probable reasonwhy Vesdin composed De antiquitate and four years later De Latinisermonis where exhaustive lists of lsquocognatersquo words serve to prove thatSanskrit Avestan and Germanic (De antiquitate) and Sanskrit Greek andLatin (De Latini sermonis) are related In De Latini sermonis Vesdinclaimed that ancient Latins and Indians were people of the samestock45 who spoke some kind of primordial rudimentary Sanskrit46

43Vesdin (1790 16) cites a part of Jonesrsquo famous speech44lsquo nulla suae assertionis produxisset documenta rsquo (Vesdin 1798 XVIII ft 15) S also van Driemrsquos criticalassessment of Jonesrsquo famous lecture (Van Driem 2001 1049)

45Swiggers (2017 138) lists mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographical ethnological theologicalphilosophical considerations as one of the principal features of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics

46Haec ratio et causa jam dudum me induxit ut crederem veteres Indos et Latinos in remota antiquitate uniusstirpis homines fuisse et ab uno stipite descendere in cujus familia rudis ille quidem sed unus primordialisSamscrdamicus sermo vigebat (Vesdin 1802 10)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 207

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

This implies that in De Latini sermonis Vesdin proposed some kind ofcommon source which is not Sanskrit as we know it although Sanskrit ismuch closer to that source than Greek and Latin However in De Latinisermonis Vesdin explains the kinship between the Greek Latin andIndian peoples and their languages in terms of biblical traditionVesdin traced the ancestors of the Greeks Romans and Indians toJavan the son of Japheth (Vesdin 1802 2f)47 He considered the similar-ity between the Sanskrit name for Greeks (yavana) and the name Javanas an important proof of this claim48

Vesdin was right that Sanskrit is related to Avestan but was wrong in hisview that Avestan developed from Sanskrit Anquetil-Duperronrsquos Pahlavimaterial in ZA that resembled Avestan led Vesdin to the misconceptionthat Avestan words came into Pahlavi by mixing (or in modern terminol-ogy by language contact)

Regarding sound change discussed extensively in 19th century compara-tive linguistics Vesdinrsquos notes are scarce but worth mentioning Soundchanges are discussed in footnotes 16 (p XXI) and 26 (p XXX) Infootnote 16 Vesdin notes correctly that Av changes the Skt -p- into -f-He cites two correct examples Skt pitr = Av fəδr lsquofatherrsquo and Sktpreman = Av frim lsquoloversquo Vesdin notes that lsquoZendrsquo also adds the elementh not attested in corresponding Sanskrit words and cites the example Sktputra = Av puϑra lsquosonrsquo49 Vesdin mentions the lsquouselessrsquo addition of an e inthe word mrete This is because of Anquetil-Duperronrsquos transliteration inthe modern transliteration based on Bartholomaersquos (and Hoffmannrsquos)system the word would be rendered as mǝrǝta lsquodead deceasedrsquo In AvPIE r (Skt r) becomes ǝrǝ Vesdin also considers the change from Skt i toe in Persian peder lsquoa corruptionrsquo Here the situation is more complicated aswe are dealing with a reflex of PIE laryngeal h2 that reflected as i in Sktthe same as in Av except before two consonants when it disappears(Beekes 1988 86f) Vesdin (1798 XXX ft 26) considers a general ruleto which Av is no exception that lsquothe first mutation starts with vowels Some necessary vowels are omitted others duplicatedrsquo Vesdin remarksthat consonants are more stable (lsquofirmerrsquo) and make the relationshipbetween languages clearer50

Furthermore Vesdin (1802 17f) claims that the Latin words wereformed out of Sanskrit through the addition subtraction and permutationof letters (litteras aliquas addendo detrahendo et permutando) Althoughhe does not mention it directly Vesdin was most probably an adherent of

47According to Rocher (1961 341f) Vesdin derived his explanation from Gerhard Johannes Vossius (1577ndash1649)48Javanis Graecorum meminere etiam Brahmanes Indi Hine Javanabhasha ipsis est lingua graeca (Vesdin 1802 3)49In Avestan PIE voiceless stops became fricatives before consonants PIE p gt Av f (Skt p) PIE t gt Av ϑ (Sktt) See Beekes (1988 73)

50(Van Hal 2005 [2004] 332) suggests that the idea of stability of consonants and exchangeability of vowelsshared with Cœurdoux is influenced by Semitic grammatical theory

208 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

the classical theory of arbitrary lettersound permutations (permutatiolitterarum) This theory was developed in the domains of grammar andrhetoric and was used since classical antiquity to explain linguistic changeas the operations of addition (adiectio) subtraction (detractio) permuta-tion (transmutatio) and substitution (immutatio) of soundsletters51

Concluding remarks

Swiggers (2017 138) enumerates four principal features that distinguishthe lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics from a satisfactory approach tolinguistic relationships (a) First is the geographical model of languagediversification Vesdin does not adopt such a model of distribution oflanguages However he discusses some geographical aspects ol languagedistribution Thus he assumes that the reason for the similarity of Sanskritwords with Germanic Slavic Latin and Greek words is cohabitation oftheir speakers in the field of Shinar where the Tower of Babel was builtLater when discussing the kinship of Sanskrit and Avestan Vesdinassumes that Sanskrit was spoken in Media (north-western Iran) andPersia (b) The second feature is the failure to elaborate a concept oflanguage-internal change Vesdin did not elaborate systematicallya system of language change even if still presented some interestingobservations (c) The third feature of the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparativelinguistics is mixing of linguistic aspects with historical geographicalethnological theological and philosophical considerations This feature isevident in Vesdinrsquos treatise in the sense that eg linguistic kinship isinterpreted in the frame of biblical tradition of the Tower of Babel whileZoroastrian liturgical vocabulary is (rather unsuccessfully) compared toHindu ritual vocabulary (d) The fourth feature is the incapability toinclude known Indo-European languages or the inclusion of non-Indo-European languages in the scheme This feature is also represented inVesdin as he considered Dravidian languages Tamil and Malayāḷam asrelated to Sanskrit in the sense that they are lsquodialectsrsquo of Sanskrit

On the other hand Swiggers (2017 140) enumerates four minimaldemands for the qualification of lsquolinguistic comparativismrsquo (a) First isa concept of explicitly labelled linguistic domains in a sense of the ideasof lsquofamilyrsquo lsquogrouprsquo lsquostockrsquo This feature in a way exists in Vesdinrsquos writingsas he speaks of lsquostockrsquo or lsquoracersquo (stirpis Vesdin 1802 10) although he doesnot identify them by name (eg lsquoIndo-Europeanrsquo lsquoRomancersquo which is

51The set of four operations appears for the first time in anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 429 (1st

c BC) it was Varro in De lingua Latina 516 and 612 who used them to describe the linguistic change as herelies on them to justify his etymologies Quintilian in Institutio oratoria 1538ndash41 calls this set of operationsquadripertita ratio For a thorough overview of quadripertita ratio see Lausberg (1990 250ndash254 [sect462]) For itsapplication to linguistic change see Denecker (2017 292ndash293) who also provides an extensive bibliographyfor permutatio litterarum

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 209

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

a part of Swiggerrsquos requirement) (b) A genetically based concept oflinguistic relatedness is the second requirement that is in a way fulfilledVesdin understands the relation between the languages in question geneti-cally as he considers Sanskrit a lsquomotherrsquo language of Avestan The problemis here that Sanskrit is not a parent language of Avestan but they bothdeveloped from a parent language the Proto-Indo-Iranian (c) The time-frame into which the related languages are chronologically situated is thethird demand that is not addressed by Vesdin in a satisfactory mannerbecause his theory is still formulated in the frame of biblical worldview (d)Swiggersrsquo fourth demand concerns a demonstrative technique based onlinguistic material that is used to prove linguistic relatedness This require-ment is fulfilled because Vesdin developed a demonstrative technique inthe form of systematic comparison of words

Therefore Vesdinrsquos work meets these requirements partially Howeverfrom all the material presented it is quite obvious that Vesdin still belongsto the lsquoprehistoryrsquo of comparative linguistics Some features such as biblicalexplanations of language diversification and the arbitrariness of permutatiolitterarum that prevented systematic research of sound change anchor himdeeply in prescientific linguistic developments However some featuressuch as awareness of genetic relationship between languages and quitesuccessful comparison of linguistic material might place him in the closingchapters of the prehistory of comparative linguistics and announce thelsquosatisfactory approach to linguistic relationshipsrsquo (Swiggers 2017 139) thatwill start to develop soon after Vesdin with Bopp the Schlegel brothersRask and others Because of that we see Vesdin as one of the lsquointermedi-ariesrsquo that stand as a link between pre-modern and fully developed modernlinguistics this only confirms that the development of what can be under-stood as a lsquosatisfactory approach to language comparisonrsquo did not appearabruptly

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

Notes on contributors

Ivan Andrijanić graduated from the Art Academy of Zagreb University in 1998 and fromIndology and Philosophy in 2002 In 2010 he completed his PhD with a thesis on theVedāntic commentaries of the White Yajur-Veda His main focus of research is Vedāntaand different aspects of the Mahābhārata studies His areas of interest include the relativechronology and authenticity of Śaṅkaras works and reconstruction of Bhartṛprapantildecaslost commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka-Upaniṣad on the basis of fragments in ŚaṅkaraSureśvara and Ānandagiri He has published a book on Vedānta and the first Sanskritgrammar in the Croatian language Currently he works as an Associate Professor and Head

210 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

of the Department of Indology and Far Eastern Studies in the Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences at Zagreb University

Petra Matović born in Brežice Slovenia received her doctoral degree at the University ofZagreb in 2015 Her thesis Types of Homeric formulae in the Latin translation of the Iliadby Rajmund Kunić discussed two 18th-century translations of Homer into Latin by Jesuitpoets She is currently a postdoc at the Department of Classical Philology at the Universityof Zagreb Croatia Her areas of interest are Greek to Latin translations and Latin in theAge of Discovery

Lexica

AW = Bartholomae Ch (1904) Altiranisches Woumlrterbuch Strassburg K J TruumlbnerEDGL = Kluge F (1891) An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language Translatedfrom the Fourth German Edition London George Bell amp Sons New York MacMillan amp CoEDLIL = de Vaan M (2008) Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other ItalicLanguages Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series Vol VII LeidenBoston BrillEWA = Mayrhofer M (1986ndash2001) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch des Altindischen Bd 1ndash3Heidelberg Carl Winter mdash UniversitaumltsverlagEWDS = Kluge F (1995) Etymologisches Woumlrterbuch der deutschen Sprache Bearbeitet vonElmar Seebold 23 erweiterte Auflage BerlinNew York Walter De GruyterDED = Burrow Th amp M B Emeneau (1984) A Dravidian Etymological DictionaryOxford Oxford University PressMW = A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged withSpecial Reference to Cognate Indo-European languages Monier Monier-Williams revisedby E Leumann C Cappeller et al 1899 Clarendon Press OxfordOPP = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1870) An Old Pahlavi-Pazand GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And CoWP = Walde A amp Pokorny J (1927ndash1932) Vergleichendes Woumlrterbuch der indogerma-nischen Sprachen Berlin Walter de GruyterZA = Anquetil-Duperron A H (1771) Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre 3 vols ParisZPG = Haug M amp Destur Hoshengji Jamaspji (1867) An Old Zand-Pahlavi GlossaryBombay Government Central Book Depot London Truumlbner And Co

References

Andrijanić I 2017 ldquoA List of Sanskrit and Latin Cognates in Vesdinrsquos Treatise De LatiniSermonis Originerdquo Journal of Indo-European Studies 45 (3) 195ndash234

Anquetil-Duperron A H 1771 Zend-Avesta ouvrage de Zoroastre Vol 3 Paris NMTillard

Ashah R 2009 Avesta Glossary A Glossary of Avesta Words and Their Pārsīg EquivalentsBased on the Zand the so-called Frahang ī ōīm ēk Mumbai K R Cama Oriental Institute

Bartholomae Ch 1900 ldquoArica XIIIrdquo Indogermanische Forschungen 11 112ndash44doi1015159783110242539112

Beekes R S P 1988 A Grammar of Gatha-Avestan LeidenNew York BrillBorissoff C L 2015 ldquoAntun Mihanović and His Contribution to Slavonic-Sanskrit

Comparative Studiesrdquo Filologija 64 1ndash36

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 211

Boyce M 1968 ldquoMiddle Persian Literaturerdquo In Iranian Studies Vol 1 LiteraturHandbuch der Orientalistik Abt1 Bd4 Abs2 Literature Lief1 31ndash66 Brill Leiden

Camps A amp Jean-Claude Muller eds 1988 The Sanskrit Grammar and Manuscripts ofFather Heinrich Roth SJ (1620ndash1668) Facsimile Edition of Biblioteca Nazionale RomeMss Or 171 and 172 Brill Leiden

Choksy J K amp F M Kotwal 2014 ldquoKustīg Encyclopaeligdia Iranica Online Edition 2014rdquoAccessed 26 Jul 2018 httpwwwiranicaonlineorgarticleskustig

Denecker T 2017 Ideas on Language in Early Latin Christianity LeidenBoston BrillEddy John H Jr 1994 ldquoBuffonrsquos Histoire Naturelle History A Critique of Recent

Interpretationsrdquo Isis 85 (4) 644ndash61 doi101086356982Fortson Benjamin W 2010 Indo-European Language and Culture An Introduction 2nd

ed Malden MAOxfordChichester Wiley-BlackwellGodfrey J J 1967 ldquoSir William Jones and Pegravere Coeurdoux A Philological Footnoterdquo

Journal of the American Oriental Society 87 (1) 57ndash59 doi102307596596Jauk-Pinhak M 1984 ldquoSome Notes on the Pioneer Indologist Filip Vesdin (Paulinus

a Sancto Bartholomaeo)rdquo Indologica Taurinensia 12 129ndash37Kanga M F 1984 ldquoAiwyǡŋhana Encyclopaeligdia Iranica I7 P 695rdquo Accessed 26 Jul 2018

httpwwwiranicaonlineorgarticlesaiwyanhana-avestan-term-wrapping-round-girdleKapović Mate 2017 ldquoIndo-European Languages ndash Introductionrdquo In The Indo-European

Languages 2nd ed edited by Mate Kapović 1ndash9 Routledge OxfordNew YorkKlingenschmitt G (1968) Frahang-ī ōīm Edition und Kommentar PhD diss University

of ErlangenKuiper F B J 1957 ldquoAvestan Mazdārdquo Indo-Iranian Journal 1 86ndash95Kuiper F B J 1976 ldquoAhura Mazdā ldquoLord Wisdomrdquordquo Indo-Iranian Journal 18 25ndash42

doi101163000000076790079465Lausberg H 1990 Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik Eine Grundlegung der

Literaturwissenschaft 3 Auflage 1st edStuttgart Franz Steiner Verlag (1960 MuumlnchenMax Hueber Verlag)

Martiacutenez J amp M de Vaan 2013 Introduction to Avestan LeidenBoston BrillMatišić Z 2007 Joy Fear Dedication Contribution to the Biography of Ivan Filip Vesdinndash

Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo Zagreb Sekcija za orijentalistiku Hrvatskogafilološkoga društva i Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu

Mayrhofer M 1983 Sanskrit und die Sprachen Alteuropas Zwei Jahrhunderte desWiderspiels von Entdeckungen und Irrtuumlmern Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht

Milewska I 2003 ldquoFirst Missionaries on Sanskrit Grammarrdquo In Christians andMissionaries in India Cross-Cultural Communication since 1500 edited by RobertEric Frykenberg Grand Rapids 62ndash69 MichiganCambridgeUK WilliamB Eerdmans Publishing Company London and New York Routledge

Modi JJ 1922 The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees Bombay BritishIndia Press

Reichelt H 1900 ldquoDer Frahang i oīmrdquo Wiener Zeitschrift fuumlr die Kunde des Morgenlandes14 177ndash213

Reichelt H 1901 ldquoDer Frahang i oīmrdquo Wiener Zeitschrift fuumlr die Kunde des Morgenlandes15 117ndash86

Rocher L 1961 ldquoPaulinus a S Bartholomaeo on the Kinship of the Language of India andEuroperdquo The Adyar Library Bulletin Brahmavidyā 25 321ndash52

Rocher L 1977 Dissertation on the Sanskrit language by Paulinus a S Bartholomaeo withan introductory article a complete English translation and an index of sourcesAmsterdam Benjamins

212 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Slamnig I 1991 ldquoIvan Filip Vezdin (1748ndash1806) pionir evropske indologijei komparativne filologije [Ivan Filip Vezdin Pioneer of European Indology andComparative Philology]rdquo Građa za povijest književnosti Hrvatske HAZU 33 1ndash28

Swiggers P 2017 ldquoIntuition Exploration and Assertion of the Indo-European LanguageRelationshiprdquo In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguisticsedited by Jarred Klein Brian Joseph amp Matthias Fritz 138ndash170 BerlinBoston Walterde Gruyter

Thieme P 1970 ldquoDie vedischen Āditya und die zarathustrischen Aməša Spəntardquo InZarathustra edited by B Schlerath 397ndash412 Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft

Van Driem George 2001 Languages of the Himalayas An Ethnolinguistic Handbook VolII Leiden Brill

Van Hal T 2005 [2004] ldquoLanguage Comparison in Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo (1748ndash-1806) Aims Methodological Principlesrdquo Bulletin drsquoeacutetudes indiennes 22ndash23 323ndash36

Van Hal T 2010 ldquoAgrave la recherche drsquoune grammaire perdue Johann Ernst HanxledenrsquosGrammatica Grandonica retrievedrdquo Historiographia Linguistica 37 (3) 445ndash57doi101075hl37317van

Van Hal T amp Christophe Vielle eds 2013 Grammatica Grandonica the SanskritGrammar of Johann Ernst Hanxleden SJ (1681ndash1732) Potsdam Universitaumltsverlag

Vesdin Filip 1790 (Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo) Sidharubam seu GrammaticaSamscrdamica Romae Ex Typographia Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide

Vesdin Filip 1798 (Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo) De antiquitate et affinitate linguaeZendicae Samscrdamicae et Germanicae dissertatio Padua Typis seminarii

Vesdin Filip 1802 (Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo) De Latini sermonis origine et cumorientalibus linguis connexione dissertatio Romae Apud Antonium Fulgonium

Vesdin Filip 1804 (Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo) Vyacaranam seu LocupletissimaSamscrdamicae Linguae Institutio Romae Ex Typographia Sacrae Congregationis dePropaganda Fide

Wetzl Leopold 1936 Der oumlsterreichische Karmelit Paulinus a S BartholomaeoPersoumlnlichkeit und Werk Wien Graphische Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 213

Table1

SanskritandAvestanGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

1

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAIIp

128ph 2teacuter

feacutedre

fəδr

2

mātrmātā[m

aacutedrmaacuteda]

EWA

IIp

345m

eh2teacuter-

maacuteteacute

māta

3

duhitā

[duhida]lsquosisterrsquoEWAIp

737

dʰugh

2ter

dochterdogdeacute

duγδa

4

putra[putra]lsquoso

nchildrsquoEWAII

p142putloacute

pothre

puϑra

5

bhrātr[bhraacuteder]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280b

hreacuteh₂ter-

Pahlb

erarP

ers

braderb

rab

urider1

brucircvar

(OPP

p8)

6bhagnīb

haginī

[bhaganiacute]

lsquosisterrsquo

khengeacute

xhuaŋha2

7

kṣatriya[kshetria]lsquowarrio

rrsquoEW

AIp

421

IIrkša-traacute

khscetro

xšaϑrō

8

pati[padi]lsquolordm

asterrsquoEW

AII

pp7

3fltpoacuteti

peted

petesch3

paiti

9

nrn

ara[nagrave

nara]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIp

19lth₂neacuter

nanā

10

narau[naraacute]

dulsquotwomenrsquo

h₂neacuterh₁(e)

nereacute

nara

11

narī[nari]flsquowom

anrsquoEWAIIp

19naacuteereacute

nāiri

12

nārika[naacuteriacute]

naacuteerekenan

nāirikanam

(gp

l)13

jīva[given]lsquoliving

sou

lrsquoEW

AIp

p594f

ltg

uih3-uo

-4gueiumle

gaya

(gaem)

ltg

u oih 3-o

14

prem

an[preacutema]

lsquoloversquoEWAII

pp1

89fltpriH

-oacute-

freacutem

frim

15

strī[stri]lsquowom

anrsquoEWAIIp

764

strim

stree

stri

strīm

16

mātrmātā[m

aacuteda]

lsquomotherrsquo

Pahlm

adeh

OPPp

157

lsquofemalersquo

17

martya[m

artja]lsquomortalrsquoEW

AIIp

328ltm

er5

merete

maratalsquomanrsquo

18

mrta[m

rda]

lsquodead

deceasedrsquo

EWAIIp

318ltm

er6

mrete

maratalsquomanrsquo

19

mantra[m

andra]

lsquosacrificialform

ularsquo

manthreacute

EWAIIp

311A

vmaϑra

720

madya

[madya]lsquointoxicatin

gdrinkrsquoEW

AIIp

299=Av

maδa

maiδiia)ltm

ad

medo

maδu8

21

mahā[m

aha]

EWAIIp

338=Avm

aziiahlsquogreatrsquo

maeacutem

acircomā lsquom

oonrsquo

22

nābha

nābhi[naacutebh

anaacutebh

i]EW

AIIp

13flth

3neb

hnaacutefo

nāfō

23

madhye[m

adye]lsquoin

themiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303=Av

maidiia

meiao

mayā

lsquocoh

abitatio

nrsquo24

mā[m

aacute]lsquonorsquo

EWAIIp

343lt

meh

1

macirc

mā

25

māna[m

aacutena]

9lsquomeasurersquoEWAIIp

342

meeteacute

maite10

26

vrkṣa[vrksha]

lsquotreersquoEWAIIp

572=Avvarǝša

verekscheacute(ZA

p457

[vereacutekheacute])

varǝkahe

lsquoleafrsquo11

27

vastra

[vastra]

lsquoclothrsquoEWAIIp

529

vastreacute

vastra

28

viśva[vish

va]lsquowho

leentirersquo

EWAIIp

562

vispeacute

vispa

29

gopya[gobja]lsquoprotectrsquoEWAIp

502

gozra

gūzra1

230

gotra[goacutetra]lsquocow

shedrsquoEWAI

p518

goschteacute

gaoš

lsquoearrsquo13

31

go[gaug

ocircgava]lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

478

ltg

uou

gueem

gavą

(gp

l)32

stotra

[stoacutetra]

lsquopraisersquoEW

AII

pp7

57fltsteu

shtoeteacute

štuiti

(Continued)

Appen

dix

214 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

33

stana[stana]lsquobreastrsquoEW

AIIp

752

fschtaacutene

fštāna

34

gueden

14(lt

guem

)gueteacuteen

gatǝelsquoreachedrsquo

(dato

fgati)

15

35

śruti[shrudi]lsquohearin

grsquoEW

AIIpp

666fltḱleu

sreueto

sruta

36

grhṇati[grehnaacutedi]lsquograbrsquo

EWAI

pp5

05fltgʰrebʰ-

guereacutevned

gǝrǝwnat

37

snāti[snaacutedi]lsquobathesrsquoEW

AIIp

770

gnaacuteto1

6snātō

38

karoti[karoacutedi]lsquodoesrsquoEW

AIIpp

307ff

kereteacute

kartārkǝrǝiϑino

lsquodoerrsquo1

7

39

krṣi[krschi]lsquoploug

hing

rsquoEWAIIp

319ltIIrkar-š

krschteacute

krštǝe

40

sūci[sutschi]lsquosigh

trsquo18EW

AIIp

739ltḱuH

degsoacutetscheacute

suča

41

śete

[schedeacute]

lsquolies

downrsquo

EWAIIp

614ltḱei(H)

scheete

šieiti

42

tara

[taram

]EW

AIIpp

755flt

h2steacuter

staacuteram

stārąm

43

śevadhi[schivadhi]lsquotreasurersquoEWAIIpp

654f

scheeacuteto

šaētōlsquoGeld

Verm

oumlgenrsquo19

44

śaurya

[shaurya]lsquovalourrsquoEWAII

p650ltḱuh

1ro-

zaacuteuere

zāvarǝ

45

tvam

[tvam]lsquoth

outheersquoEW

AIp

682

lttu

thvanm

ϑwąm

2046

yūyam

[yuacuteyam

]lsquoyou

rsquoEWAIIp

416ltiuH

sjuacuteyem

yūžǝm

47

mam

a[m

ama]

lsquominersquoEW

AIIp

285

manm

mąm

(Acc)2

148

tritrayas

[tri

traya]

lsquothreersquo

EWAIp

675

trei

threacute

ϑrayąm

lsquothreefoldrsquo

49

trtīya[tridia]lsquoth

irdrsquo

thretim

ϑritim

50

triṃśati[trim

shadi]lsquoth

irtyrsquo

threstem

ϑrisa

tǝm

51

ap[ap]

lsquowaterrsquoEWAIp

81lth

2ep

apem

āpǝm

52

naṣṭi[nasti]lsquolossrsquo

asteacute

astāto

(ZPG

p8

5lsquonon

-existentrsquo)

53

roman

[roacutem

a]lsquohairrsquoEW

AIIp

470

ame2

254

vakṣyati[vakshyadi]EW

AIIp

490ltuek

u

vakhsch

vāxš23

55

vāta

[vaacuteda]

lsquowindrsquo

EWAIIp

542lth

2ueh

1-nt-o-

vaacutetem

vātǝm

56

vahana

[vaacutehana]

lsquovehiclersquo24

voacutehone

vohuni

lsquoblood

rsquo57

vākya[vaacuteka

vaacutekyam

]lsquowhathasto

besaidspeechrsquo

vekio

vikayo

lsquowitn

essrsquo

58

vīrya[virya]

lsquovalou

rrsquoEW

AIIp

569vīra

[Nvīrō])ltuiHroacute-

veacutero

viro

59

varati[vaacuteradi]

veacutereacutede

varǝδa

2560

vedin[veacutedi]lsquokno

wingrsquo

deriv

radicvidltueid-

viedem

(ADp

459

veeacutedem

)26

vaiδim

lsquokno

wledg

ersquo27

61

sveda[sveacuteda]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798=YA

vxvaēδa

veacuteede

vaēdā

62

vakṣyati[vakshyadi]EW

AIIpp

489ff

ltuek

uvetsche

vača

28

63

sa[sa]

aā

64

kāma[kam

a]eekene

65

aṅguṣṭha

[angushta]

lsquothum

brsquoEW

AIp

49erezoPahla

ngscht

angust29

arazān

66

hrdaya

[hrdeyam

]lsquoheartrsquoEW

AII

p818ltḱrd-

erezeem

ǝrǝδaēm30

(Continued)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 215

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

67

eka[ekeacutega]

lsquoonersquo

oim

oīm31

68

ugra

[ughra]lsquopow

erfulrsquoEW

AI

p211

oghrem

uγrǝm

69

arūpin

[aruacutebi]lsquoform

lessrsquo

orueacute

urua

3270

udara[udara]lsquostom

achrsquo

orotvere

uruϑwarǝ

71

ukti[ukti]lsquosp

eechrsquoEWAIp

490

ltuek

u -

okdem

uxδǝm

72

śodhana[shoacutedhana]

lsquocleaningrsquo

oschta

ušta

lsquogoodrsquo33

73

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

etheacute

aϑa

74

pāṃsu

[pansu]lsquoso

ildu

strsquoEWA

IIpp

114f

pansenosch

pąsanuš

75

padap

adavī[paacuteda

padavi]lsquofootstepp

athrsquo

paacutete

pāδa

3476

pada

[paacutedam

]lsquofootlegrsquo

paacutedi

paδǝm

77

pathin

[pantha]

lsquopathrsquo

petho

paϑō

78

preraṇa[preacuterenam]lsquoincitin

grsquopeacuterenem

pǝrǝna

lsquobrid

gersquo35

79

[pidrumaacutem

sam]

petemom

3680

pantildecāṅga

[pantschangam]

lsquocon

sistingof

five

partsrsquo

penghetengom

paŋtaŋhum

lsquofifth

partrsquo

81

pantildecendriya[pantschcheacutendria]lsquofive

organsrsquo

pantscheseteacute

pančasata

82

pantildecadaśa[pantschadeshaacute]

lsquofifteenrsquoltpeacutenkue+deacuteḱmt

pantschedeseacute

pančadasa

83

yadi

[yadi]lsquoifrsquo(EW

AII397)

ltHio-

edeacute

jezi(ZPG

p1

14yecircdhi)

84

adhunā

[adhuna]

lsquonow

rsquoedenam

37

85

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquo(EWAIp

59)

edad

aδat

(aδa

+at)

lsquoafterwardsrsquo38

86

asti[asti]lsquoisrsquoEWAIp

144

lth

1es-

asteacute

asti

87

asthi[asthi]lsquobon

ersquoEW

AIp

150

lth

2ost-h

2asteacutem

astǝm

88

edhate

[edhadeacute]

lsquoprospers

grow

srsquoEW

AIp

267

=YA

vaēsm

alsquofirewoodrsquo

ezaacuteedeacute

āzātalsquonob

lersquo39

89

sāsti[sasti]

lsquoheisrsquo

astato

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquo40

90

aśva

[ashva]lsquoho

rsersquolth

1ekuo

-aspo

aspo

91

aṣṭā

[aschta]

lsquoeightrsquoh 3eḱtoh 1

aschteacute

ZPGp

12ašta

4192

aṣṭānga[aschtangam]

lsquocon

sistingof

eigh

tpartsrsquo

aschtengom

aštaŋhum

lsquoeighthrsquo42

93

[arsquoga(M

alab)]

അകംakaṁ

lsquosinrsquo

(Malay)

egheacute

aγa

94

ugra

[ugra]

lsquomightyrsquoEW

AIp

211

egreacute

uγrǝm

95

amara[amara]

lsquoimmortalrsquoEW

AIIp318ltderivmr-

to-

amerschan

amaršą

96

amātya

[amaacutedjeam

aacutedjen]

lsquoministercoun

sellorrsquoEW

AI

p95

amaacuteteacute

p123am

ātaZPG

p86

part

(nom

sg

f)lsquotriedrsquo

97

ayaṃ

mahā[ayammahaacute]

lsquothison

eisbigrsquo

ehmaacutee

ahmāi

lsquotothisrsquo43

98

ugratama[ugratam

a]lsquomightyestrsquo

egreiotemo

aγryotǝm

ōlsquomost

excellentrsquo44

(Continued)

216 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

99

śauca[shaushaacute]lsquopurityrsquo

escheheacute

ašǝm

čalsquoand

purityrsquo45

100

ajara[agera]lsquound

ecayingrsquo

derivradic

jarEW

AIpp

574flt

h1ger

ezereacutezo

azarǝsō

101

artha[artha]lsquoaimp

urpo

sersquoEWAIp

117

eretheheacute

arǝϑahe4

6102

vāri[vaacuteri]lsquowaterrsquo

avare

avarǝlsquodow

nwardrsquo

103

hara-m

ahadeva[haramaacutedeacuteva]a

nameof

thego

dŚiva

ehoromesdao

ahurōmazdā

47104

rākṣasa[rakschasa]lsquodem

onrsquo

raksche4

8

105

maheśvara

[maacuteheacuteshvara]

mahiser49

106

gharma[ghera]lsquoheatdayrsquo

eiumlreacute

ayarǝlsquodayrsquo

107

api[api]lsquoalso

furtherm

oreevenrsquoEWAIp

86

epeacute

apalsquowith

outrsquo5

0108

bodhati[bhoacutedhadi]lsquoto

wakersquo

EWAIIp

234(bheudh-)

apoueteacutee

apvatiea

pivatie

51

109

saptāṅga

[saptangam

]lsquocon

sistingof

sevenpartsrsquo

aptenghom

haptaŋhum

lsquoseventhrsquo52

110

avrddha[avrdhanaacuteyaga]

lsquonot-

oldrsquo

aperenaacuteeoko

apǝrǝnāiukōlsquochildrsquo

111

idam

[idam

]lsquoth

isrsquo

eacuteteacute

aēte53

lsquothisrsquo

112

ukta

[ukta]

lsquosaidrsquoEWAIIp

490

ltuek

u(ukutos)

eokhteacute

aoxte5

4

113

oṣṭha[oschtam

]lsquoliprsquo

EWAIp

p282f

eoschtreacute

aoštra

114

antar[andrandara]lsquowith

inrsquo

EWAIp

76lt(h 1)en-ter

(h1)n -ter

eantereacute

antarǝ

115

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

adaδa5

5116

idam

[ida]

EWAIp

62

adas

[ada]EW

Ap

103

eued

aēta

56lsquoth

isrsquo

117

rakṣati[rakshadi]lsquoprotectsrsquo

baksched

baxšat

lsquohemay

grantrsquo5

7118

bharati[bharadi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAII

pp2

46ffltb

her

bereteacute

baraite

119

bheṣaja[bheacuteshadja]lsquomedicinersquoEW

AIIp

264

bescheacute

bišiš

58120

bhiṣaj

[bischacr]lsquohealerrsquoEW

AII

p264

beschesch

baēšaza5

9

121

bhaga[bhaga]lsquowelfarep

rosperityrsquoEWAIIp

239lt

bhaacuteg-o-

beghe

baγa

122

bandha

[bendha]

lsquobon

drsquoEW

AII

p208ltb

hendh

beodo

bandā

123

dvaud

ve[dve]lsquotw

orsquoEW

AIp

761f

beacutee

baē6

0124

bhayaṅkara

[bhengara]

lsquoterriblersquobh

iacutema(bhīma)

lsquofearfulrsquoEW

AIIpp

245flt

bheiH

bhiengheacute

byaŋha

125

pasheacuteMalab(പ

ഴയ

paḻaya)lsquooldrsquo

baacutede

bāδa

lsquoalwaysrsquo6

1126

bhavatu[bhavadu]ltb

huh

2boiumlagraved

buyāt62

127

bhūm

i[bhum

i]lsquoearthrsquo

bamie

bāmya

lsquosplend

id

spaciousrsquo63

128

bhūm

inava[bhuminava

navabhum

i]bamaneuao

bāmanivālsquowidersquo64

129

taṭinī[tadini]lsquoriverrsquo

todjao

tača

lsquoflow

ingrsquo65

130

tadā

[tada]

lsquothanrsquolt

toacute-

ted

tatlsquoth

isrsquo66

(Continued)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 217

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

131

dara

[dera]

lsquofearrsquo

terestche

tarasčapraep

across67

132

dakṣa[daksha]

lsquoabilityfitnessrsquo

tasched

tašatlsquohe

form

edrsquo68

133

stena[steacutena]lsquoth

iefrsquo)

EWAIIp

795lt(s)teh 2

teio

taya

134

tanu

[tanu]rsquobod

yrsquoEW

AIp

621

tenon

tanum

135

yāt-yānt-[yaacuten]lsquogoing

rsquo(partp

raes)

taacuteto

tātō

69136

jīvinjīvita

[giacutevigividen]

lsquolifersquo

EWAIp

594

ltg

uih3-ue-

djem

j um

lsquoliving

rsquo70

137

kanyā-

()[kanikanyaga]

kengheacute

xhuaŋha7

1138

sveda[sveacutedam]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798ltsueid-

kheacutedem

xvaēδǝm

139

abhyānta

[abhyanda]

lsquodeceased

sickrsquo

beaacutentao

bantālsquosickrsquo72

140

jīhva

[giacutehvarafana]

lsquotong

uersquo

gefreacute

j afralsquodeeprsquo73

141

dant-[dendam]lsquoto

othrsquo

EWApp

693flth₃doacuten

tsdentano

dantānō7

4142

netra[netra]lsquoeyersquo)cakṣus

[tschaksu]

lsquoeyersquoEWAIp524)

deothrePahl

tschaschm

dōiϑraP

ahl

čašm

75

143

duhitā

[duhida]

=3

144

dadāti[dadati]EW

AIp

713

ltdeh

3

(Pahl)

dād

[dadd

acirct]76

145

rameṇa[ram

ena]

lsquopleasurablersquo

rafneacute

rafnǝlsquopleasurersquo

146

hasta[hasta]lsquohandrsquo

EWAII812

ltg

heacutes-to-

zesteacute

zasta

147

gm

ājmā

kṣmā[gem

ma]

lsquoearthrsquoEWApp

424flt

dheg

h-d

hgh-

zemo

zǝmō

148

roṣa

[roacutesha]lsquoang

erragersquo

zoschtegrave

zušta7

7

149

rasa

[rasa]

lsquosap

essencersquo

zazā

lsquoearthrsquo78

150

hima[hima]

lsquowinterrsquoEW

AIIp

815ltg

hiem-ghim-

zianm

zyąm

151

jāmātr[giamaacuteda]

lsquoson-in-lawrsquoEWAIp

586

zameoeo

zāmaoiō

152

krūra[karuda]

lsquoharshcruelrsquo

kroiumld

xružda

79lsquoharshrsquo

153

kṣīra

[kschir]lsquoth

ickenedmilkrsquo

kschem

xšim

lsquolamentatio

nrsquo154

gacchati[ghetschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

kschatat

xštāt80

155

dīrgha

[dirchen]

lsquolong

rsquoEWAIp

728

ltdlh1g

hoacute-

deren

darǝγǝm

156

dhana[dhanam]lsquowealth

rsquodehm

odaxm

ōlsquoto

wer

ofscilencersquo81

157

daśama[deshami]lsquotenthrsquo

EWAIp

709

ltdek m-o-

desm

eheacute

dasm

ahe8

2158

dadāti[dadati]lsquogivesrsquoEWAp

713ltdeh

3

dedaetedesde

daδāiti

159

mrtyu

[mrtyu]lsquodeathrsquo

mret

marata8

3160

darśayati[dershadi]lsquosh

owsrsquo

EWApp

704ff

deacuterued

darǝvat84

161

dhrti[dhrdidhrdam

]lsquoholding

seizingrsquo

EWAp

778

khreacutetosch

xratuš

lsquowisdo

m

intellectrsquo85

162

dhrtimat

[dhrdimaacuten]lsquosteadfast

calmrsquo

kretam

aoxratum

ā86

163

kṣapā[ksheba]

lsquonightrsquoEWAIp

424

ltk

usep-

khschefeacute

xšafa

164

yatra[yatra]lsquowherersquoEWAIIp

396

jethra

yaϑra

165

gāpayati[gebayadi]lsquoto

causeto

sing

rsquojezaeacute

yazāilsquoIp

rayrsquo87

166

perigueacute

()

perueacute

paurva

88

167

śuddhavat[shudhavaacuten]

jeojdeiumlan8

9168

yathā[yathaacute]lsquoin

which

mannerlikersquoEW

AIIp

397

jetheacute

yaϑa

(Continued)

218 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

169

gacchati[getschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

jetosch

yaētuš

170

pradiṣṭa

[pradishta]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petische9

0

171

para

[peacutere]

lsquodistanto

therrsquo

peereacute

pairi

lsquoabo

utrsquo91

172

catvar-[tschatvaacuter]lsquofourrsquoEWAI

pp5

26fltk

uetu o

r-es

tschetvereacute

čaϑw

arǝ

173

ya-[yaacute]

lsquowho

whichrsquoEWAp

390ltHio-

jeacuteyāyǝyo

92174

hāyana

[haryana]lsquoyearrsquoEW

AII

p8149

3jacircre

yārǝ

(-drājo)

lsquoduringa

season

rsquo175

sapta[sapta]EW

AIIp

700ltseptm

hapta

hapta

176

jīhva

[gihva]lsquoto

nguersquoEWAIp

591

hesoneacute

hizva

177

sūrya[surya]lsquosu

nrsquoEW

AIIp

742

huereacute

hvarǝ9

4178

paśca[pashva]

95EW

AIIp

110

pestcheacute

pasča

179

prcchati[pratschadi]lsquoquestionsrsquoEWApp

183flt

prek

perateacute

parāta

180

pradiṣṭa

[pradishte]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petestograve

paitiastō

lsquowords

ofassentrsquo

181

Kaacute

quis

kaaquaeligkiacutem

quodkegravequidq

uaeligquod

neutrum

(kaḥkā

kimke)

interrog

ativepron

oun

ka-EW

App

284f

koko

182

nema[neacutem

am]lsquohalfrsquoEW

Ap

II56

ltIIrnai-m

aneeacutem

annaēm

ą

183

nīന

ീ(M

alay)[niacuteM

alab]lsquoyou

rsquoneacute

nǝ96

lsquowersquo

184

vrṣa-[ursha]lsquorainrsquoEWApp

522f

ltHuers

vere

vāraiti

185

vakṣyati[vakschadi]97

veonekhdeacute

vaohxte9

8186

valareacute99

venereacute

vanarǝ100

187

vīrya[viryam

]=58

188

yaacute

=172

189

puras[pura]

lsquobeforersquoEW

App

146fltprH-eacutes-oacutes

perocirc

parō

190

pantha

=77

191

ubhau[ubhau]lsquobothrsquo

EWAIp

224ltIIrub

haacuteoveacute

uva

192

yadi

[yadi]EW

AII397=yeδi)

lsquoifrsquo

aad

āatlsquoth

usthenrsquo101

193

tvam

[tvam]=45

194

sangheacutedam

sengheacutem

saŋxǝm

lsquowordrsquo102

195

āśleṣa

[aschleacutesha]lsquocon

tactembracersquo

aschteacutesch

aštiš

lsquoarrivalrsquo

1 Thisworddo

esno

tcomefrom

Frahangio

īmb

utfrom

thePahlavi-P

āzandglossary

(Frahang

iPahlawīg)editedandtranslated

byAn

quetil-Dup

erronin

ZAIIpp

485ndash525InOPP

onp

8brucircvar

2 Avxhuaŋhaisacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)SeeEW

AIIp

796

3 Nsg

paitiš

4 EWAIp

594

jīv-isaldquoSekun

daumlrwurzelaus

einem

Praumlsensrdquo

developedfrom

theverb

guih3gtSktradicgay

5 Sktm

artyaisrelatedto

Avm

aratathroug

hthePIEroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmartyawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

artiya

6 Sktm

rtaisalso

relatedto

Avm

aratathroug

htheroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmrtawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

ǝrǝta

7 Wewereun

able

tofind

thewordin

edition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

inAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquos

8 PIE

med

huacute(gtSktmadhu)

9 The

words

mātaandmīta

areactuallycogn

ates

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 219

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

33

stana[stana]lsquobreastrsquoEW

AIIp

752

fschtaacutene

fštāna

34

gueden

14(lt

guem

)gueteacuteen

gatǝelsquoreachedrsquo

(dato

fgati)

15

35

śruti[shrudi]lsquohearin

grsquoEW

AIIpp

666fltḱleu

sreueto

sruta

36

grhṇati[grehnaacutedi]lsquograbrsquo

EWAI

pp5

05fltgʰrebʰ-

guereacutevned

gǝrǝwnat

37

snāti[snaacutedi]lsquobathesrsquoEW

AIIp

770

gnaacuteto1

6snātō

38

karoti[karoacutedi]lsquodoesrsquoEW

AIIpp

307ff

kereteacute

kartārkǝrǝiϑino

lsquodoerrsquo1

7

39

krṣi[krschi]lsquoploug

hing

rsquoEWAIIp

319ltIIrkar-š

krschteacute

krštǝe

40

sūci[sutschi]lsquosigh

trsquo18EW

AIIp

739ltḱuH

degsoacutetscheacute

suča

41

śete

[schedeacute]

lsquolies

downrsquo

EWAIIp

614ltḱei(H)

scheete

šieiti

42

tara

[taram

]EW

AIIpp

755flt

h2steacuter

staacuteram

stārąm

43

śevadhi[schivadhi]lsquotreasurersquoEWAIIpp

654f

scheeacuteto

šaētōlsquoGeld

Verm

oumlgenrsquo19

44

śaurya

[shaurya]lsquovalourrsquoEWAII

p650ltḱuh

1ro-

zaacuteuere

zāvarǝ

45

tvam

[tvam]lsquoth

outheersquoEW

AIp

682

lttu

thvanm

ϑwąm

2046

yūyam

[yuacuteyam

]lsquoyou

rsquoEWAIIp

416ltiuH

sjuacuteyem

yūžǝm

47

mam

a[m

ama]

lsquominersquoEW

AIIp

285

manm

mąm

(Acc)2

148

tritrayas

[tri

traya]

lsquothreersquo

EWAIp

675

trei

threacute

ϑrayąm

lsquothreefoldrsquo

49

trtīya[tridia]lsquoth

irdrsquo

thretim

ϑritim

50

triṃśati[trim

shadi]lsquoth

irtyrsquo

threstem

ϑrisa

tǝm

51

ap[ap]

lsquowaterrsquoEWAIp

81lth

2ep

apem

āpǝm

52

naṣṭi[nasti]lsquolossrsquo

asteacute

astāto

(ZPG

p8

5lsquonon

-existentrsquo)

53

roman

[roacutem

a]lsquohairrsquoEW

AIIp

470

ame2

254

vakṣyati[vakshyadi]EW

AIIp

490ltuek

u

vakhsch

vāxš23

55

vāta

[vaacuteda]

lsquowindrsquo

EWAIIp

542lth

2ueh

1-nt-o-

vaacutetem

vātǝm

56

vahana

[vaacutehana]

lsquovehiclersquo24

voacutehone

vohuni

lsquoblood

rsquo57

vākya[vaacuteka

vaacutekyam

]lsquowhathasto

besaidspeechrsquo

vekio

vikayo

lsquowitn

essrsquo

58

vīrya[virya]

lsquovalou

rrsquoEW

AIIp

569vīra

[Nvīrō])ltuiHroacute-

veacutero

viro

59

varati[vaacuteradi]

veacutereacutede

varǝδa

2560

vedin[veacutedi]lsquokno

wingrsquo

deriv

radicvidltueid-

viedem

(ADp

459

veeacutedem

)26

vaiδim

lsquokno

wledg

ersquo27

61

sveda[sveacuteda]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798=YA

vxvaēδa

veacuteede

vaēdā

62

vakṣyati[vakshyadi]EW

AIIpp

489ff

ltuek

uvetsche

vača

28

63

sa[sa]

aā

64

kāma[kam

a]eekene

65

aṅguṣṭha

[angushta]

lsquothum

brsquoEW

AIp

49erezoPahla

ngscht

angust29

arazān

66

hrdaya

[hrdeyam

]lsquoheartrsquoEW

AII

p818ltḱrd-

erezeem

ǝrǝδaēm30

(Continued)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 215

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

67

eka[ekeacutega]

lsquoonersquo

oim

oīm31

68

ugra

[ughra]lsquopow

erfulrsquoEW

AI

p211

oghrem

uγrǝm

69

arūpin

[aruacutebi]lsquoform

lessrsquo

orueacute

urua

3270

udara[udara]lsquostom

achrsquo

orotvere

uruϑwarǝ

71

ukti[ukti]lsquosp

eechrsquoEWAIp

490

ltuek

u -

okdem

uxδǝm

72

śodhana[shoacutedhana]

lsquocleaningrsquo

oschta

ušta

lsquogoodrsquo33

73

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

etheacute

aϑa

74

pāṃsu

[pansu]lsquoso

ildu

strsquoEWA

IIpp

114f

pansenosch

pąsanuš

75

padap

adavī[paacuteda

padavi]lsquofootstepp

athrsquo

paacutete

pāδa

3476

pada

[paacutedam

]lsquofootlegrsquo

paacutedi

paδǝm

77

pathin

[pantha]

lsquopathrsquo

petho

paϑō

78

preraṇa[preacuterenam]lsquoincitin

grsquopeacuterenem

pǝrǝna

lsquobrid

gersquo35

79

[pidrumaacutem

sam]

petemom

3680

pantildecāṅga

[pantschangam]

lsquocon

sistingof

five

partsrsquo

penghetengom

paŋtaŋhum

lsquofifth

partrsquo

81

pantildecendriya[pantschcheacutendria]lsquofive

organsrsquo

pantscheseteacute

pančasata

82

pantildecadaśa[pantschadeshaacute]

lsquofifteenrsquoltpeacutenkue+deacuteḱmt

pantschedeseacute

pančadasa

83

yadi

[yadi]lsquoifrsquo(EW

AII397)

ltHio-

edeacute

jezi(ZPG

p1

14yecircdhi)

84

adhunā

[adhuna]

lsquonow

rsquoedenam

37

85

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquo(EWAIp

59)

edad

aδat

(aδa

+at)

lsquoafterwardsrsquo38

86

asti[asti]lsquoisrsquoEWAIp

144

lth

1es-

asteacute

asti

87

asthi[asthi]lsquobon

ersquoEW

AIp

150

lth

2ost-h

2asteacutem

astǝm

88

edhate

[edhadeacute]

lsquoprospers

grow

srsquoEW

AIp

267

=YA

vaēsm

alsquofirewoodrsquo

ezaacuteedeacute

āzātalsquonob

lersquo39

89

sāsti[sasti]

lsquoheisrsquo

astato

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquo40

90

aśva

[ashva]lsquoho

rsersquolth

1ekuo

-aspo

aspo

91

aṣṭā

[aschta]

lsquoeightrsquoh 3eḱtoh 1

aschteacute

ZPGp

12ašta

4192

aṣṭānga[aschtangam]

lsquocon

sistingof

eigh

tpartsrsquo

aschtengom

aštaŋhum

lsquoeighthrsquo42

93

[arsquoga(M

alab)]

അകംakaṁ

lsquosinrsquo

(Malay)

egheacute

aγa

94

ugra

[ugra]

lsquomightyrsquoEW

AIp

211

egreacute

uγrǝm

95

amara[amara]

lsquoimmortalrsquoEW

AIIp318ltderivmr-

to-

amerschan

amaršą

96

amātya

[amaacutedjeam

aacutedjen]

lsquoministercoun

sellorrsquoEW

AI

p95

amaacuteteacute

p123am

ātaZPG

p86

part

(nom

sg

f)lsquotriedrsquo

97

ayaṃ

mahā[ayammahaacute]

lsquothison

eisbigrsquo

ehmaacutee

ahmāi

lsquotothisrsquo43

98

ugratama[ugratam

a]lsquomightyestrsquo

egreiotemo

aγryotǝm

ōlsquomost

excellentrsquo44

(Continued)

216 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

99

śauca[shaushaacute]lsquopurityrsquo

escheheacute

ašǝm

čalsquoand

purityrsquo45

100

ajara[agera]lsquound

ecayingrsquo

derivradic

jarEW

AIpp

574flt

h1ger

ezereacutezo

azarǝsō

101

artha[artha]lsquoaimp

urpo

sersquoEWAIp

117

eretheheacute

arǝϑahe4

6102

vāri[vaacuteri]lsquowaterrsquo

avare

avarǝlsquodow

nwardrsquo

103

hara-m

ahadeva[haramaacutedeacuteva]a

nameof

thego

dŚiva

ehoromesdao

ahurōmazdā

47104

rākṣasa[rakschasa]lsquodem

onrsquo

raksche4

8

105

maheśvara

[maacuteheacuteshvara]

mahiser49

106

gharma[ghera]lsquoheatdayrsquo

eiumlreacute

ayarǝlsquodayrsquo

107

api[api]lsquoalso

furtherm

oreevenrsquoEWAIp

86

epeacute

apalsquowith

outrsquo5

0108

bodhati[bhoacutedhadi]lsquoto

wakersquo

EWAIIp

234(bheudh-)

apoueteacutee

apvatiea

pivatie

51

109

saptāṅga

[saptangam

]lsquocon

sistingof

sevenpartsrsquo

aptenghom

haptaŋhum

lsquoseventhrsquo52

110

avrddha[avrdhanaacuteyaga]

lsquonot-

oldrsquo

aperenaacuteeoko

apǝrǝnāiukōlsquochildrsquo

111

idam

[idam

]lsquoth

isrsquo

eacuteteacute

aēte53

lsquothisrsquo

112

ukta

[ukta]

lsquosaidrsquoEWAIIp

490

ltuek

u(ukutos)

eokhteacute

aoxte5

4

113

oṣṭha[oschtam

]lsquoliprsquo

EWAIp

p282f

eoschtreacute

aoštra

114

antar[andrandara]lsquowith

inrsquo

EWAIp

76lt(h 1)en-ter

(h1)n -ter

eantereacute

antarǝ

115

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

adaδa5

5116

idam

[ida]

EWAIp

62

adas

[ada]EW

Ap

103

eued

aēta

56lsquoth

isrsquo

117

rakṣati[rakshadi]lsquoprotectsrsquo

baksched

baxšat

lsquohemay

grantrsquo5

7118

bharati[bharadi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAII

pp2

46ffltb

her

bereteacute

baraite

119

bheṣaja[bheacuteshadja]lsquomedicinersquoEW

AIIp

264

bescheacute

bišiš

58120

bhiṣaj

[bischacr]lsquohealerrsquoEW

AII

p264

beschesch

baēšaza5

9

121

bhaga[bhaga]lsquowelfarep

rosperityrsquoEWAIIp

239lt

bhaacuteg-o-

beghe

baγa

122

bandha

[bendha]

lsquobon

drsquoEW

AII

p208ltb

hendh

beodo

bandā

123

dvaud

ve[dve]lsquotw

orsquoEW

AIp

761f

beacutee

baē6

0124

bhayaṅkara

[bhengara]

lsquoterriblersquobh

iacutema(bhīma)

lsquofearfulrsquoEW

AIIpp

245flt

bheiH

bhiengheacute

byaŋha

125

pasheacuteMalab(പ

ഴയ

paḻaya)lsquooldrsquo

baacutede

bāδa

lsquoalwaysrsquo6

1126

bhavatu[bhavadu]ltb

huh

2boiumlagraved

buyāt62

127

bhūm

i[bhum

i]lsquoearthrsquo

bamie

bāmya

lsquosplend

id

spaciousrsquo63

128

bhūm

inava[bhuminava

navabhum

i]bamaneuao

bāmanivālsquowidersquo64

129

taṭinī[tadini]lsquoriverrsquo

todjao

tača

lsquoflow

ingrsquo65

130

tadā

[tada]

lsquothanrsquolt

toacute-

ted

tatlsquoth

isrsquo66

(Continued)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 217

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

131

dara

[dera]

lsquofearrsquo

terestche

tarasčapraep

across67

132

dakṣa[daksha]

lsquoabilityfitnessrsquo

tasched

tašatlsquohe

form

edrsquo68

133

stena[steacutena]lsquoth

iefrsquo)

EWAIIp

795lt(s)teh 2

teio

taya

134

tanu

[tanu]rsquobod

yrsquoEW

AIp

621

tenon

tanum

135

yāt-yānt-[yaacuten]lsquogoing

rsquo(partp

raes)

taacuteto

tātō

69136

jīvinjīvita

[giacutevigividen]

lsquolifersquo

EWAIp

594

ltg

uih3-ue-

djem

j um

lsquoliving

rsquo70

137

kanyā-

()[kanikanyaga]

kengheacute

xhuaŋha7

1138

sveda[sveacutedam]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798ltsueid-

kheacutedem

xvaēδǝm

139

abhyānta

[abhyanda]

lsquodeceased

sickrsquo

beaacutentao

bantālsquosickrsquo72

140

jīhva

[giacutehvarafana]

lsquotong

uersquo

gefreacute

j afralsquodeeprsquo73

141

dant-[dendam]lsquoto

othrsquo

EWApp

693flth₃doacuten

tsdentano

dantānō7

4142

netra[netra]lsquoeyersquo)cakṣus

[tschaksu]

lsquoeyersquoEWAIp524)

deothrePahl

tschaschm

dōiϑraP

ahl

čašm

75

143

duhitā

[duhida]

=3

144

dadāti[dadati]EW

AIp

713

ltdeh

3

(Pahl)

dād

[dadd

acirct]76

145

rameṇa[ram

ena]

lsquopleasurablersquo

rafneacute

rafnǝlsquopleasurersquo

146

hasta[hasta]lsquohandrsquo

EWAII812

ltg

heacutes-to-

zesteacute

zasta

147

gm

ājmā

kṣmā[gem

ma]

lsquoearthrsquoEWApp

424flt

dheg

h-d

hgh-

zemo

zǝmō

148

roṣa

[roacutesha]lsquoang

erragersquo

zoschtegrave

zušta7

7

149

rasa

[rasa]

lsquosap

essencersquo

zazā

lsquoearthrsquo78

150

hima[hima]

lsquowinterrsquoEW

AIIp

815ltg

hiem-ghim-

zianm

zyąm

151

jāmātr[giamaacuteda]

lsquoson-in-lawrsquoEWAIp

586

zameoeo

zāmaoiō

152

krūra[karuda]

lsquoharshcruelrsquo

kroiumld

xružda

79lsquoharshrsquo

153

kṣīra

[kschir]lsquoth

ickenedmilkrsquo

kschem

xšim

lsquolamentatio

nrsquo154

gacchati[ghetschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

kschatat

xštāt80

155

dīrgha

[dirchen]

lsquolong

rsquoEWAIp

728

ltdlh1g

hoacute-

deren

darǝγǝm

156

dhana[dhanam]lsquowealth

rsquodehm

odaxm

ōlsquoto

wer

ofscilencersquo81

157

daśama[deshami]lsquotenthrsquo

EWAIp

709

ltdek m-o-

desm

eheacute

dasm

ahe8

2158

dadāti[dadati]lsquogivesrsquoEWAp

713ltdeh

3

dedaetedesde

daδāiti

159

mrtyu

[mrtyu]lsquodeathrsquo

mret

marata8

3160

darśayati[dershadi]lsquosh

owsrsquo

EWApp

704ff

deacuterued

darǝvat84

161

dhrti[dhrdidhrdam

]lsquoholding

seizingrsquo

EWAp

778

khreacutetosch

xratuš

lsquowisdo

m

intellectrsquo85

162

dhrtimat

[dhrdimaacuten]lsquosteadfast

calmrsquo

kretam

aoxratum

ā86

163

kṣapā[ksheba]

lsquonightrsquoEWAIp

424

ltk

usep-

khschefeacute

xšafa

164

yatra[yatra]lsquowherersquoEWAIIp

396

jethra

yaϑra

165

gāpayati[gebayadi]lsquoto

causeto

sing

rsquojezaeacute

yazāilsquoIp

rayrsquo87

166

perigueacute

()

perueacute

paurva

88

167

śuddhavat[shudhavaacuten]

jeojdeiumlan8

9168

yathā[yathaacute]lsquoin

which

mannerlikersquoEW

AIIp

397

jetheacute

yaϑa

(Continued)

218 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

169

gacchati[getschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

jetosch

yaētuš

170

pradiṣṭa

[pradishta]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petische9

0

171

para

[peacutere]

lsquodistanto

therrsquo

peereacute

pairi

lsquoabo

utrsquo91

172

catvar-[tschatvaacuter]lsquofourrsquoEWAI

pp5

26fltk

uetu o

r-es

tschetvereacute

čaϑw

arǝ

173

ya-[yaacute]

lsquowho

whichrsquoEWAp

390ltHio-

jeacuteyāyǝyo

92174

hāyana

[haryana]lsquoyearrsquoEW

AII

p8149

3jacircre

yārǝ

(-drājo)

lsquoduringa

season

rsquo175

sapta[sapta]EW

AIIp

700ltseptm

hapta

hapta

176

jīhva

[gihva]lsquoto

nguersquoEWAIp

591

hesoneacute

hizva

177

sūrya[surya]lsquosu

nrsquoEW

AIIp

742

huereacute

hvarǝ9

4178

paśca[pashva]

95EW

AIIp

110

pestcheacute

pasča

179

prcchati[pratschadi]lsquoquestionsrsquoEWApp

183flt

prek

perateacute

parāta

180

pradiṣṭa

[pradishte]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petestograve

paitiastō

lsquowords

ofassentrsquo

181

Kaacute

quis

kaaquaeligkiacutem

quodkegravequidq

uaeligquod

neutrum

(kaḥkā

kimke)

interrog

ativepron

oun

ka-EW

App

284f

koko

182

nema[neacutem

am]lsquohalfrsquoEW

Ap

II56

ltIIrnai-m

aneeacutem

annaēm

ą

183

nīന

ീ(M

alay)[niacuteM

alab]lsquoyou

rsquoneacute

nǝ96

lsquowersquo

184

vrṣa-[ursha]lsquorainrsquoEWApp

522f

ltHuers

vere

vāraiti

185

vakṣyati[vakschadi]97

veonekhdeacute

vaohxte9

8186

valareacute99

venereacute

vanarǝ100

187

vīrya[viryam

]=58

188

yaacute

=172

189

puras[pura]

lsquobeforersquoEW

App

146fltprH-eacutes-oacutes

perocirc

parō

190

pantha

=77

191

ubhau[ubhau]lsquobothrsquo

EWAIp

224ltIIrub

haacuteoveacute

uva

192

yadi

[yadi]EW

AII397=yeδi)

lsquoifrsquo

aad

āatlsquoth

usthenrsquo101

193

tvam

[tvam]=45

194

sangheacutedam

sengheacutem

saŋxǝm

lsquowordrsquo102

195

āśleṣa

[aschleacutesha]lsquocon

tactembracersquo

aschteacutesch

aštiš

lsquoarrivalrsquo

1 Thisworddo

esno

tcomefrom

Frahangio

īmb

utfrom

thePahlavi-P

āzandglossary

(Frahang

iPahlawīg)editedandtranslated

byAn

quetil-Dup

erronin

ZAIIpp

485ndash525InOPP

onp

8brucircvar

2 Avxhuaŋhaisacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)SeeEW

AIIp

796

3 Nsg

paitiš

4 EWAIp

594

jīv-isaldquoSekun

daumlrwurzelaus

einem

Praumlsensrdquo

developedfrom

theverb

guih3gtSktradicgay

5 Sktm

artyaisrelatedto

Avm

aratathroug

hthePIEroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmartyawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

artiya

6 Sktm

rtaisalso

relatedto

Avm

aratathroug

htheroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmrtawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

ǝrǝta

7 Wewereun

able

tofind

thewordin

edition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

inAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquos

8 PIE

med

huacute(gtSktmadhu)

9 The

words

mātaandmīta

areactuallycogn

ates

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 219

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

67

eka[ekeacutega]

lsquoonersquo

oim

oīm31

68

ugra

[ughra]lsquopow

erfulrsquoEW

AI

p211

oghrem

uγrǝm

69

arūpin

[aruacutebi]lsquoform

lessrsquo

orueacute

urua

3270

udara[udara]lsquostom

achrsquo

orotvere

uruϑwarǝ

71

ukti[ukti]lsquosp

eechrsquoEWAIp

490

ltuek

u -

okdem

uxδǝm

72

śodhana[shoacutedhana]

lsquocleaningrsquo

oschta

ušta

lsquogoodrsquo33

73

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

etheacute

aϑa

74

pāṃsu

[pansu]lsquoso

ildu

strsquoEWA

IIpp

114f

pansenosch

pąsanuš

75

padap

adavī[paacuteda

padavi]lsquofootstepp

athrsquo

paacutete

pāδa

3476

pada

[paacutedam

]lsquofootlegrsquo

paacutedi

paδǝm

77

pathin

[pantha]

lsquopathrsquo

petho

paϑō

78

preraṇa[preacuterenam]lsquoincitin

grsquopeacuterenem

pǝrǝna

lsquobrid

gersquo35

79

[pidrumaacutem

sam]

petemom

3680

pantildecāṅga

[pantschangam]

lsquocon

sistingof

five

partsrsquo

penghetengom

paŋtaŋhum

lsquofifth

partrsquo

81

pantildecendriya[pantschcheacutendria]lsquofive

organsrsquo

pantscheseteacute

pančasata

82

pantildecadaśa[pantschadeshaacute]

lsquofifteenrsquoltpeacutenkue+deacuteḱmt

pantschedeseacute

pančadasa

83

yadi

[yadi]lsquoifrsquo(EW

AII397)

ltHio-

edeacute

jezi(ZPG

p1

14yecircdhi)

84

adhunā

[adhuna]

lsquonow

rsquoedenam

37

85

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquo(EWAIp

59)

edad

aδat

(aδa

+at)

lsquoafterwardsrsquo38

86

asti[asti]lsquoisrsquoEWAIp

144

lth

1es-

asteacute

asti

87

asthi[asthi]lsquobon

ersquoEW

AIp

150

lth

2ost-h

2asteacutem

astǝm

88

edhate

[edhadeacute]

lsquoprospers

grow

srsquoEW

AIp

267

=YA

vaēsm

alsquofirewoodrsquo

ezaacuteedeacute

āzātalsquonob

lersquo39

89

sāsti[sasti]

lsquoheisrsquo

astato

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquo40

90

aśva

[ashva]lsquoho

rsersquolth

1ekuo

-aspo

aspo

91

aṣṭā

[aschta]

lsquoeightrsquoh 3eḱtoh 1

aschteacute

ZPGp

12ašta

4192

aṣṭānga[aschtangam]

lsquocon

sistingof

eigh

tpartsrsquo

aschtengom

aštaŋhum

lsquoeighthrsquo42

93

[arsquoga(M

alab)]

അകംakaṁ

lsquosinrsquo

(Malay)

egheacute

aγa

94

ugra

[ugra]

lsquomightyrsquoEW

AIp

211

egreacute

uγrǝm

95

amara[amara]

lsquoimmortalrsquoEW

AIIp318ltderivmr-

to-

amerschan

amaršą

96

amātya

[amaacutedjeam

aacutedjen]

lsquoministercoun

sellorrsquoEW

AI

p95

amaacuteteacute

p123am

ātaZPG

p86

part

(nom

sg

f)lsquotriedrsquo

97

ayaṃ

mahā[ayammahaacute]

lsquothison

eisbigrsquo

ehmaacutee

ahmāi

lsquotothisrsquo43

98

ugratama[ugratam

a]lsquomightyestrsquo

egreiotemo

aγryotǝm

ōlsquomost

excellentrsquo44

(Continued)

216 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

99

śauca[shaushaacute]lsquopurityrsquo

escheheacute

ašǝm

čalsquoand

purityrsquo45

100

ajara[agera]lsquound

ecayingrsquo

derivradic

jarEW

AIpp

574flt

h1ger

ezereacutezo

azarǝsō

101

artha[artha]lsquoaimp

urpo

sersquoEWAIp

117

eretheheacute

arǝϑahe4

6102

vāri[vaacuteri]lsquowaterrsquo

avare

avarǝlsquodow

nwardrsquo

103

hara-m

ahadeva[haramaacutedeacuteva]a

nameof

thego

dŚiva

ehoromesdao

ahurōmazdā

47104

rākṣasa[rakschasa]lsquodem

onrsquo

raksche4

8

105

maheśvara

[maacuteheacuteshvara]

mahiser49

106

gharma[ghera]lsquoheatdayrsquo

eiumlreacute

ayarǝlsquodayrsquo

107

api[api]lsquoalso

furtherm

oreevenrsquoEWAIp

86

epeacute

apalsquowith

outrsquo5

0108

bodhati[bhoacutedhadi]lsquoto

wakersquo

EWAIIp

234(bheudh-)

apoueteacutee

apvatiea

pivatie

51

109

saptāṅga

[saptangam

]lsquocon

sistingof

sevenpartsrsquo

aptenghom

haptaŋhum

lsquoseventhrsquo52

110

avrddha[avrdhanaacuteyaga]

lsquonot-

oldrsquo

aperenaacuteeoko

apǝrǝnāiukōlsquochildrsquo

111

idam

[idam

]lsquoth

isrsquo

eacuteteacute

aēte53

lsquothisrsquo

112

ukta

[ukta]

lsquosaidrsquoEWAIIp

490

ltuek

u(ukutos)

eokhteacute

aoxte5

4

113

oṣṭha[oschtam

]lsquoliprsquo

EWAIp

p282f

eoschtreacute

aoštra

114

antar[andrandara]lsquowith

inrsquo

EWAIp

76lt(h 1)en-ter

(h1)n -ter

eantereacute

antarǝ

115

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

adaδa5

5116

idam

[ida]

EWAIp

62

adas

[ada]EW

Ap

103

eued

aēta

56lsquoth

isrsquo

117

rakṣati[rakshadi]lsquoprotectsrsquo

baksched

baxšat

lsquohemay

grantrsquo5

7118

bharati[bharadi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAII

pp2

46ffltb

her

bereteacute

baraite

119

bheṣaja[bheacuteshadja]lsquomedicinersquoEW

AIIp

264

bescheacute

bišiš

58120

bhiṣaj

[bischacr]lsquohealerrsquoEW

AII

p264

beschesch

baēšaza5

9

121

bhaga[bhaga]lsquowelfarep

rosperityrsquoEWAIIp

239lt

bhaacuteg-o-

beghe

baγa

122

bandha

[bendha]

lsquobon

drsquoEW

AII

p208ltb

hendh

beodo

bandā

123

dvaud

ve[dve]lsquotw

orsquoEW

AIp

761f

beacutee

baē6

0124

bhayaṅkara

[bhengara]

lsquoterriblersquobh

iacutema(bhīma)

lsquofearfulrsquoEW

AIIpp

245flt

bheiH

bhiengheacute

byaŋha

125

pasheacuteMalab(പ

ഴയ

paḻaya)lsquooldrsquo

baacutede

bāδa

lsquoalwaysrsquo6

1126

bhavatu[bhavadu]ltb

huh

2boiumlagraved

buyāt62

127

bhūm

i[bhum

i]lsquoearthrsquo

bamie

bāmya

lsquosplend

id

spaciousrsquo63

128

bhūm

inava[bhuminava

navabhum

i]bamaneuao

bāmanivālsquowidersquo64

129

taṭinī[tadini]lsquoriverrsquo

todjao

tača

lsquoflow

ingrsquo65

130

tadā

[tada]

lsquothanrsquolt

toacute-

ted

tatlsquoth

isrsquo66

(Continued)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 217

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

131

dara

[dera]

lsquofearrsquo

terestche

tarasčapraep

across67

132

dakṣa[daksha]

lsquoabilityfitnessrsquo

tasched

tašatlsquohe

form

edrsquo68

133

stena[steacutena]lsquoth

iefrsquo)

EWAIIp

795lt(s)teh 2

teio

taya

134

tanu

[tanu]rsquobod

yrsquoEW

AIp

621

tenon

tanum

135

yāt-yānt-[yaacuten]lsquogoing

rsquo(partp

raes)

taacuteto

tātō

69136

jīvinjīvita

[giacutevigividen]

lsquolifersquo

EWAIp

594

ltg

uih3-ue-

djem

j um

lsquoliving

rsquo70

137

kanyā-

()[kanikanyaga]

kengheacute

xhuaŋha7

1138

sveda[sveacutedam]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798ltsueid-

kheacutedem

xvaēδǝm

139

abhyānta

[abhyanda]

lsquodeceased

sickrsquo

beaacutentao

bantālsquosickrsquo72

140

jīhva

[giacutehvarafana]

lsquotong

uersquo

gefreacute

j afralsquodeeprsquo73

141

dant-[dendam]lsquoto

othrsquo

EWApp

693flth₃doacuten

tsdentano

dantānō7

4142

netra[netra]lsquoeyersquo)cakṣus

[tschaksu]

lsquoeyersquoEWAIp524)

deothrePahl

tschaschm

dōiϑraP

ahl

čašm

75

143

duhitā

[duhida]

=3

144

dadāti[dadati]EW

AIp

713

ltdeh

3

(Pahl)

dād

[dadd

acirct]76

145

rameṇa[ram

ena]

lsquopleasurablersquo

rafneacute

rafnǝlsquopleasurersquo

146

hasta[hasta]lsquohandrsquo

EWAII812

ltg

heacutes-to-

zesteacute

zasta

147

gm

ājmā

kṣmā[gem

ma]

lsquoearthrsquoEWApp

424flt

dheg

h-d

hgh-

zemo

zǝmō

148

roṣa

[roacutesha]lsquoang

erragersquo

zoschtegrave

zušta7

7

149

rasa

[rasa]

lsquosap

essencersquo

zazā

lsquoearthrsquo78

150

hima[hima]

lsquowinterrsquoEW

AIIp

815ltg

hiem-ghim-

zianm

zyąm

151

jāmātr[giamaacuteda]

lsquoson-in-lawrsquoEWAIp

586

zameoeo

zāmaoiō

152

krūra[karuda]

lsquoharshcruelrsquo

kroiumld

xružda

79lsquoharshrsquo

153

kṣīra

[kschir]lsquoth

ickenedmilkrsquo

kschem

xšim

lsquolamentatio

nrsquo154

gacchati[ghetschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

kschatat

xštāt80

155

dīrgha

[dirchen]

lsquolong

rsquoEWAIp

728

ltdlh1g

hoacute-

deren

darǝγǝm

156

dhana[dhanam]lsquowealth

rsquodehm

odaxm

ōlsquoto

wer

ofscilencersquo81

157

daśama[deshami]lsquotenthrsquo

EWAIp

709

ltdek m-o-

desm

eheacute

dasm

ahe8

2158

dadāti[dadati]lsquogivesrsquoEWAp

713ltdeh

3

dedaetedesde

daδāiti

159

mrtyu

[mrtyu]lsquodeathrsquo

mret

marata8

3160

darśayati[dershadi]lsquosh

owsrsquo

EWApp

704ff

deacuterued

darǝvat84

161

dhrti[dhrdidhrdam

]lsquoholding

seizingrsquo

EWAp

778

khreacutetosch

xratuš

lsquowisdo

m

intellectrsquo85

162

dhrtimat

[dhrdimaacuten]lsquosteadfast

calmrsquo

kretam

aoxratum

ā86

163

kṣapā[ksheba]

lsquonightrsquoEWAIp

424

ltk

usep-

khschefeacute

xšafa

164

yatra[yatra]lsquowherersquoEWAIIp

396

jethra

yaϑra

165

gāpayati[gebayadi]lsquoto

causeto

sing

rsquojezaeacute

yazāilsquoIp

rayrsquo87

166

perigueacute

()

perueacute

paurva

88

167

śuddhavat[shudhavaacuten]

jeojdeiumlan8

9168

yathā[yathaacute]lsquoin

which

mannerlikersquoEW

AIIp

397

jetheacute

yaϑa

(Continued)

218 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

169

gacchati[getschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

jetosch

yaētuš

170

pradiṣṭa

[pradishta]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petische9

0

171

para

[peacutere]

lsquodistanto

therrsquo

peereacute

pairi

lsquoabo

utrsquo91

172

catvar-[tschatvaacuter]lsquofourrsquoEWAI

pp5

26fltk

uetu o

r-es

tschetvereacute

čaϑw

arǝ

173

ya-[yaacute]

lsquowho

whichrsquoEWAp

390ltHio-

jeacuteyāyǝyo

92174

hāyana

[haryana]lsquoyearrsquoEW

AII

p8149

3jacircre

yārǝ

(-drājo)

lsquoduringa

season

rsquo175

sapta[sapta]EW

AIIp

700ltseptm

hapta

hapta

176

jīhva

[gihva]lsquoto

nguersquoEWAIp

591

hesoneacute

hizva

177

sūrya[surya]lsquosu

nrsquoEW

AIIp

742

huereacute

hvarǝ9

4178

paśca[pashva]

95EW

AIIp

110

pestcheacute

pasča

179

prcchati[pratschadi]lsquoquestionsrsquoEWApp

183flt

prek

perateacute

parāta

180

pradiṣṭa

[pradishte]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petestograve

paitiastō

lsquowords

ofassentrsquo

181

Kaacute

quis

kaaquaeligkiacutem

quodkegravequidq

uaeligquod

neutrum

(kaḥkā

kimke)

interrog

ativepron

oun

ka-EW

App

284f

koko

182

nema[neacutem

am]lsquohalfrsquoEW

Ap

II56

ltIIrnai-m

aneeacutem

annaēm

ą

183

nīന

ീ(M

alay)[niacuteM

alab]lsquoyou

rsquoneacute

nǝ96

lsquowersquo

184

vrṣa-[ursha]lsquorainrsquoEWApp

522f

ltHuers

vere

vāraiti

185

vakṣyati[vakschadi]97

veonekhdeacute

vaohxte9

8186

valareacute99

venereacute

vanarǝ100

187

vīrya[viryam

]=58

188

yaacute

=172

189

puras[pura]

lsquobeforersquoEW

App

146fltprH-eacutes-oacutes

perocirc

parō

190

pantha

=77

191

ubhau[ubhau]lsquobothrsquo

EWAIp

224ltIIrub

haacuteoveacute

uva

192

yadi

[yadi]EW

AII397=yeδi)

lsquoifrsquo

aad

āatlsquoth

usthenrsquo101

193

tvam

[tvam]=45

194

sangheacutedam

sengheacutem

saŋxǝm

lsquowordrsquo102

195

āśleṣa

[aschleacutesha]lsquocon

tactembracersquo

aschteacutesch

aštiš

lsquoarrivalrsquo

1 Thisworddo

esno

tcomefrom

Frahangio

īmb

utfrom

thePahlavi-P

āzandglossary

(Frahang

iPahlawīg)editedandtranslated

byAn

quetil-Dup

erronin

ZAIIpp

485ndash525InOPP

onp

8brucircvar

2 Avxhuaŋhaisacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)SeeEW

AIIp

796

3 Nsg

paitiš

4 EWAIp

594

jīv-isaldquoSekun

daumlrwurzelaus

einem

Praumlsensrdquo

developedfrom

theverb

guih3gtSktradicgay

5 Sktm

artyaisrelatedto

Avm

aratathroug

hthePIEroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmartyawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

artiya

6 Sktm

rtaisalso

relatedto

Avm

aratathroug

htheroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmrtawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

ǝrǝta

7 Wewereun

able

tofind

thewordin

edition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

inAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquos

8 PIE

med

huacute(gtSktmadhu)

9 The

words

mātaandmīta

areactuallycogn

ates

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 219

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

99

śauca[shaushaacute]lsquopurityrsquo

escheheacute

ašǝm

čalsquoand

purityrsquo45

100

ajara[agera]lsquound

ecayingrsquo

derivradic

jarEW

AIpp

574flt

h1ger

ezereacutezo

azarǝsō

101

artha[artha]lsquoaimp

urpo

sersquoEWAIp

117

eretheheacute

arǝϑahe4

6102

vāri[vaacuteri]lsquowaterrsquo

avare

avarǝlsquodow

nwardrsquo

103

hara-m

ahadeva[haramaacutedeacuteva]a

nameof

thego

dŚiva

ehoromesdao

ahurōmazdā

47104

rākṣasa[rakschasa]lsquodem

onrsquo

raksche4

8

105

maheśvara

[maacuteheacuteshvara]

mahiser49

106

gharma[ghera]lsquoheatdayrsquo

eiumlreacute

ayarǝlsquodayrsquo

107

api[api]lsquoalso

furtherm

oreevenrsquoEWAIp

86

epeacute

apalsquowith

outrsquo5

0108

bodhati[bhoacutedhadi]lsquoto

wakersquo

EWAIIp

234(bheudh-)

apoueteacutee

apvatiea

pivatie

51

109

saptāṅga

[saptangam

]lsquocon

sistingof

sevenpartsrsquo

aptenghom

haptaŋhum

lsquoseventhrsquo52

110

avrddha[avrdhanaacuteyaga]

lsquonot-

oldrsquo

aperenaacuteeoko

apǝrǝnāiukōlsquochildrsquo

111

idam

[idam

]lsquoth

isrsquo

eacuteteacute

aēte53

lsquothisrsquo

112

ukta

[ukta]

lsquosaidrsquoEWAIIp

490

ltuek

u(ukutos)

eokhteacute

aoxte5

4

113

oṣṭha[oschtam

]lsquoliprsquo

EWAIp

p282f

eoschtreacute

aoštra

114

antar[andrandara]lsquowith

inrsquo

EWAIp

76lt(h 1)en-ter

(h1)n -ter

eantereacute

antarǝ

115

atha

[atha]

lsquothenm

oreoverrsquoEW

AIp

59

adaδa5

5116

idam

[ida]

EWAIp

62

adas

[ada]EW

Ap

103

eued

aēta

56lsquoth

isrsquo

117

rakṣati[rakshadi]lsquoprotectsrsquo

baksched

baxšat

lsquohemay

grantrsquo5

7118

bharati[bharadi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAII

pp2

46ffltb

her

bereteacute

baraite

119

bheṣaja[bheacuteshadja]lsquomedicinersquoEW

AIIp

264

bescheacute

bišiš

58120

bhiṣaj

[bischacr]lsquohealerrsquoEW

AII

p264

beschesch

baēšaza5

9

121

bhaga[bhaga]lsquowelfarep

rosperityrsquoEWAIIp

239lt

bhaacuteg-o-

beghe

baγa

122

bandha

[bendha]

lsquobon

drsquoEW

AII

p208ltb

hendh

beodo

bandā

123

dvaud

ve[dve]lsquotw

orsquoEW

AIp

761f

beacutee

baē6

0124

bhayaṅkara

[bhengara]

lsquoterriblersquobh

iacutema(bhīma)

lsquofearfulrsquoEW

AIIpp

245flt

bheiH

bhiengheacute

byaŋha

125

pasheacuteMalab(പ

ഴയ

paḻaya)lsquooldrsquo

baacutede

bāδa

lsquoalwaysrsquo6

1126

bhavatu[bhavadu]ltb

huh

2boiumlagraved

buyāt62

127

bhūm

i[bhum

i]lsquoearthrsquo

bamie

bāmya

lsquosplend

id

spaciousrsquo63

128

bhūm

inava[bhuminava

navabhum

i]bamaneuao

bāmanivālsquowidersquo64

129

taṭinī[tadini]lsquoriverrsquo

todjao

tača

lsquoflow

ingrsquo65

130

tadā

[tada]

lsquothanrsquolt

toacute-

ted

tatlsquoth

isrsquo66

(Continued)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 217

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

131

dara

[dera]

lsquofearrsquo

terestche

tarasčapraep

across67

132

dakṣa[daksha]

lsquoabilityfitnessrsquo

tasched

tašatlsquohe

form

edrsquo68

133

stena[steacutena]lsquoth

iefrsquo)

EWAIIp

795lt(s)teh 2

teio

taya

134

tanu

[tanu]rsquobod

yrsquoEW

AIp

621

tenon

tanum

135

yāt-yānt-[yaacuten]lsquogoing

rsquo(partp

raes)

taacuteto

tātō

69136

jīvinjīvita

[giacutevigividen]

lsquolifersquo

EWAIp

594

ltg

uih3-ue-

djem

j um

lsquoliving

rsquo70

137

kanyā-

()[kanikanyaga]

kengheacute

xhuaŋha7

1138

sveda[sveacutedam]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798ltsueid-

kheacutedem

xvaēδǝm

139

abhyānta

[abhyanda]

lsquodeceased

sickrsquo

beaacutentao

bantālsquosickrsquo72

140

jīhva

[giacutehvarafana]

lsquotong

uersquo

gefreacute

j afralsquodeeprsquo73

141

dant-[dendam]lsquoto

othrsquo

EWApp

693flth₃doacuten

tsdentano

dantānō7

4142

netra[netra]lsquoeyersquo)cakṣus

[tschaksu]

lsquoeyersquoEWAIp524)

deothrePahl

tschaschm

dōiϑraP

ahl

čašm

75

143

duhitā

[duhida]

=3

144

dadāti[dadati]EW

AIp

713

ltdeh

3

(Pahl)

dād

[dadd

acirct]76

145

rameṇa[ram

ena]

lsquopleasurablersquo

rafneacute

rafnǝlsquopleasurersquo

146

hasta[hasta]lsquohandrsquo

EWAII812

ltg

heacutes-to-

zesteacute

zasta

147

gm

ājmā

kṣmā[gem

ma]

lsquoearthrsquoEWApp

424flt

dheg

h-d

hgh-

zemo

zǝmō

148

roṣa

[roacutesha]lsquoang

erragersquo

zoschtegrave

zušta7

7

149

rasa

[rasa]

lsquosap

essencersquo

zazā

lsquoearthrsquo78

150

hima[hima]

lsquowinterrsquoEW

AIIp

815ltg

hiem-ghim-

zianm

zyąm

151

jāmātr[giamaacuteda]

lsquoson-in-lawrsquoEWAIp

586

zameoeo

zāmaoiō

152

krūra[karuda]

lsquoharshcruelrsquo

kroiumld

xružda

79lsquoharshrsquo

153

kṣīra

[kschir]lsquoth

ickenedmilkrsquo

kschem

xšim

lsquolamentatio

nrsquo154

gacchati[ghetschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

kschatat

xštāt80

155

dīrgha

[dirchen]

lsquolong

rsquoEWAIp

728

ltdlh1g

hoacute-

deren

darǝγǝm

156

dhana[dhanam]lsquowealth

rsquodehm

odaxm

ōlsquoto

wer

ofscilencersquo81

157

daśama[deshami]lsquotenthrsquo

EWAIp

709

ltdek m-o-

desm

eheacute

dasm

ahe8

2158

dadāti[dadati]lsquogivesrsquoEWAp

713ltdeh

3

dedaetedesde

daδāiti

159

mrtyu

[mrtyu]lsquodeathrsquo

mret

marata8

3160

darśayati[dershadi]lsquosh

owsrsquo

EWApp

704ff

deacuterued

darǝvat84

161

dhrti[dhrdidhrdam

]lsquoholding

seizingrsquo

EWAp

778

khreacutetosch

xratuš

lsquowisdo

m

intellectrsquo85

162

dhrtimat

[dhrdimaacuten]lsquosteadfast

calmrsquo

kretam

aoxratum

ā86

163

kṣapā[ksheba]

lsquonightrsquoEWAIp

424

ltk

usep-

khschefeacute

xšafa

164

yatra[yatra]lsquowherersquoEWAIIp

396

jethra

yaϑra

165

gāpayati[gebayadi]lsquoto

causeto

sing

rsquojezaeacute

yazāilsquoIp

rayrsquo87

166

perigueacute

()

perueacute

paurva

88

167

śuddhavat[shudhavaacuten]

jeojdeiumlan8

9168

yathā[yathaacute]lsquoin

which

mannerlikersquoEW

AIIp

397

jetheacute

yaϑa

(Continued)

218 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

169

gacchati[getschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

jetosch

yaētuš

170

pradiṣṭa

[pradishta]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petische9

0

171

para

[peacutere]

lsquodistanto

therrsquo

peereacute

pairi

lsquoabo

utrsquo91

172

catvar-[tschatvaacuter]lsquofourrsquoEWAI

pp5

26fltk

uetu o

r-es

tschetvereacute

čaϑw

arǝ

173

ya-[yaacute]

lsquowho

whichrsquoEWAp

390ltHio-

jeacuteyāyǝyo

92174

hāyana

[haryana]lsquoyearrsquoEW

AII

p8149

3jacircre

yārǝ

(-drājo)

lsquoduringa

season

rsquo175

sapta[sapta]EW

AIIp

700ltseptm

hapta

hapta

176

jīhva

[gihva]lsquoto

nguersquoEWAIp

591

hesoneacute

hizva

177

sūrya[surya]lsquosu

nrsquoEW

AIIp

742

huereacute

hvarǝ9

4178

paśca[pashva]

95EW

AIIp

110

pestcheacute

pasča

179

prcchati[pratschadi]lsquoquestionsrsquoEWApp

183flt

prek

perateacute

parāta

180

pradiṣṭa

[pradishte]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petestograve

paitiastō

lsquowords

ofassentrsquo

181

Kaacute

quis

kaaquaeligkiacutem

quodkegravequidq

uaeligquod

neutrum

(kaḥkā

kimke)

interrog

ativepron

oun

ka-EW

App

284f

koko

182

nema[neacutem

am]lsquohalfrsquoEW

Ap

II56

ltIIrnai-m

aneeacutem

annaēm

ą

183

nīന

ീ(M

alay)[niacuteM

alab]lsquoyou

rsquoneacute

nǝ96

lsquowersquo

184

vrṣa-[ursha]lsquorainrsquoEWApp

522f

ltHuers

vere

vāraiti

185

vakṣyati[vakschadi]97

veonekhdeacute

vaohxte9

8186

valareacute99

venereacute

vanarǝ100

187

vīrya[viryam

]=58

188

yaacute

=172

189

puras[pura]

lsquobeforersquoEW

App

146fltprH-eacutes-oacutes

perocirc

parō

190

pantha

=77

191

ubhau[ubhau]lsquobothrsquo

EWAIp

224ltIIrub

haacuteoveacute

uva

192

yadi

[yadi]EW

AII397=yeδi)

lsquoifrsquo

aad

āatlsquoth

usthenrsquo101

193

tvam

[tvam]=45

194

sangheacutedam

sengheacutem

saŋxǝm

lsquowordrsquo102

195

āśleṣa

[aschleacutesha]lsquocon

tactembracersquo

aschteacutesch

aštiš

lsquoarrivalrsquo

1 Thisworddo

esno

tcomefrom

Frahangio

īmb

utfrom

thePahlavi-P

āzandglossary

(Frahang

iPahlawīg)editedandtranslated

byAn

quetil-Dup

erronin

ZAIIpp

485ndash525InOPP

onp

8brucircvar

2 Avxhuaŋhaisacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)SeeEW

AIIp

796

3 Nsg

paitiš

4 EWAIp

594

jīv-isaldquoSekun

daumlrwurzelaus

einem

Praumlsensrdquo

developedfrom

theverb

guih3gtSktradicgay

5 Sktm

artyaisrelatedto

Avm

aratathroug

hthePIEroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmartyawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

artiya

6 Sktm

rtaisalso

relatedto

Avm

aratathroug

htheroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmrtawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

ǝrǝta

7 Wewereun

able

tofind

thewordin

edition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

inAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquos

8 PIE

med

huacute(gtSktmadhu)

9 The

words

mātaandmīta

areactuallycogn

ates

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 219

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

131

dara

[dera]

lsquofearrsquo

terestche

tarasčapraep

across67

132

dakṣa[daksha]

lsquoabilityfitnessrsquo

tasched

tašatlsquohe

form

edrsquo68

133

stena[steacutena]lsquoth

iefrsquo)

EWAIIp

795lt(s)teh 2

teio

taya

134

tanu

[tanu]rsquobod

yrsquoEW

AIp

621

tenon

tanum

135

yāt-yānt-[yaacuten]lsquogoing

rsquo(partp

raes)

taacuteto

tātō

69136

jīvinjīvita

[giacutevigividen]

lsquolifersquo

EWAIp

594

ltg

uih3-ue-

djem

j um

lsquoliving

rsquo70

137

kanyā-

()[kanikanyaga]

kengheacute

xhuaŋha7

1138

sveda[sveacutedam]lsquosw

eatin

grsquoEW

AIIp

798ltsueid-

kheacutedem

xvaēδǝm

139

abhyānta

[abhyanda]

lsquodeceased

sickrsquo

beaacutentao

bantālsquosickrsquo72

140

jīhva

[giacutehvarafana]

lsquotong

uersquo

gefreacute

j afralsquodeeprsquo73

141

dant-[dendam]lsquoto

othrsquo

EWApp

693flth₃doacuten

tsdentano

dantānō7

4142

netra[netra]lsquoeyersquo)cakṣus

[tschaksu]

lsquoeyersquoEWAIp524)

deothrePahl

tschaschm

dōiϑraP

ahl

čašm

75

143

duhitā

[duhida]

=3

144

dadāti[dadati]EW

AIp

713

ltdeh

3

(Pahl)

dād

[dadd

acirct]76

145

rameṇa[ram

ena]

lsquopleasurablersquo

rafneacute

rafnǝlsquopleasurersquo

146

hasta[hasta]lsquohandrsquo

EWAII812

ltg

heacutes-to-

zesteacute

zasta

147

gm

ājmā

kṣmā[gem

ma]

lsquoearthrsquoEWApp

424flt

dheg

h-d

hgh-

zemo

zǝmō

148

roṣa

[roacutesha]lsquoang

erragersquo

zoschtegrave

zušta7

7

149

rasa

[rasa]

lsquosap

essencersquo

zazā

lsquoearthrsquo78

150

hima[hima]

lsquowinterrsquoEW

AIIp

815ltg

hiem-ghim-

zianm

zyąm

151

jāmātr[giamaacuteda]

lsquoson-in-lawrsquoEWAIp

586

zameoeo

zāmaoiō

152

krūra[karuda]

lsquoharshcruelrsquo

kroiumld

xružda

79lsquoharshrsquo

153

kṣīra

[kschir]lsquoth

ickenedmilkrsquo

kschem

xšim

lsquolamentatio

nrsquo154

gacchati[ghetschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

kschatat

xštāt80

155

dīrgha

[dirchen]

lsquolong

rsquoEWAIp

728

ltdlh1g

hoacute-

deren

darǝγǝm

156

dhana[dhanam]lsquowealth

rsquodehm

odaxm

ōlsquoto

wer

ofscilencersquo81

157

daśama[deshami]lsquotenthrsquo

EWAIp

709

ltdek m-o-

desm

eheacute

dasm

ahe8

2158

dadāti[dadati]lsquogivesrsquoEWAp

713ltdeh

3

dedaetedesde

daδāiti

159

mrtyu

[mrtyu]lsquodeathrsquo

mret

marata8

3160

darśayati[dershadi]lsquosh

owsrsquo

EWApp

704ff

deacuterued

darǝvat84

161

dhrti[dhrdidhrdam

]lsquoholding

seizingrsquo

EWAp

778

khreacutetosch

xratuš

lsquowisdo

m

intellectrsquo85

162

dhrtimat

[dhrdimaacuten]lsquosteadfast

calmrsquo

kretam

aoxratum

ā86

163

kṣapā[ksheba]

lsquonightrsquoEWAIp

424

ltk

usep-

khschefeacute

xšafa

164

yatra[yatra]lsquowherersquoEWAIIp

396

jethra

yaϑra

165

gāpayati[gebayadi]lsquoto

causeto

sing

rsquojezaeacute

yazāilsquoIp

rayrsquo87

166

perigueacute

()

perueacute

paurva

88

167

śuddhavat[shudhavaacuten]

jeojdeiumlan8

9168

yathā[yathaacute]lsquoin

which

mannerlikersquoEW

AIIp

397

jetheacute

yaϑa

(Continued)

218 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

169

gacchati[getschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

jetosch

yaētuš

170

pradiṣṭa

[pradishta]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petische9

0

171

para

[peacutere]

lsquodistanto

therrsquo

peereacute

pairi

lsquoabo

utrsquo91

172

catvar-[tschatvaacuter]lsquofourrsquoEWAI

pp5

26fltk

uetu o

r-es

tschetvereacute

čaϑw

arǝ

173

ya-[yaacute]

lsquowho

whichrsquoEWAp

390ltHio-

jeacuteyāyǝyo

92174

hāyana

[haryana]lsquoyearrsquoEW

AII

p8149

3jacircre

yārǝ

(-drājo)

lsquoduringa

season

rsquo175

sapta[sapta]EW

AIIp

700ltseptm

hapta

hapta

176

jīhva

[gihva]lsquoto

nguersquoEWAIp

591

hesoneacute

hizva

177

sūrya[surya]lsquosu

nrsquoEW

AIIp

742

huereacute

hvarǝ9

4178

paśca[pashva]

95EW

AIIp

110

pestcheacute

pasča

179

prcchati[pratschadi]lsquoquestionsrsquoEWApp

183flt

prek

perateacute

parāta

180

pradiṣṭa

[pradishte]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petestograve

paitiastō

lsquowords

ofassentrsquo

181

Kaacute

quis

kaaquaeligkiacutem

quodkegravequidq

uaeligquod

neutrum

(kaḥkā

kimke)

interrog

ativepron

oun

ka-EW

App

284f

koko

182

nema[neacutem

am]lsquohalfrsquoEW

Ap

II56

ltIIrnai-m

aneeacutem

annaēm

ą

183

nīന

ീ(M

alay)[niacuteM

alab]lsquoyou

rsquoneacute

nǝ96

lsquowersquo

184

vrṣa-[ursha]lsquorainrsquoEWApp

522f

ltHuers

vere

vāraiti

185

vakṣyati[vakschadi]97

veonekhdeacute

vaohxte9

8186

valareacute99

venereacute

vanarǝ100

187

vīrya[viryam

]=58

188

yaacute

=172

189

puras[pura]

lsquobeforersquoEW

App

146fltprH-eacutes-oacutes

perocirc

parō

190

pantha

=77

191

ubhau[ubhau]lsquobothrsquo

EWAIp

224ltIIrub

haacuteoveacute

uva

192

yadi

[yadi]EW

AII397=yeδi)

lsquoifrsquo

aad

āatlsquoth

usthenrsquo101

193

tvam

[tvam]=45

194

sangheacutedam

sengheacutem

saŋxǝm

lsquowordrsquo102

195

āśleṣa

[aschleacutesha]lsquocon

tactembracersquo

aschteacutesch

aštiš

lsquoarrivalrsquo

1 Thisworddo

esno

tcomefrom

Frahangio

īmb

utfrom

thePahlavi-P

āzandglossary

(Frahang

iPahlawīg)editedandtranslated

byAn

quetil-Dup

erronin

ZAIIpp

485ndash525InOPP

onp

8brucircvar

2 Avxhuaŋhaisacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)SeeEW

AIIp

796

3 Nsg

paitiš

4 EWAIp

594

jīv-isaldquoSekun

daumlrwurzelaus

einem

Praumlsensrdquo

developedfrom

theverb

guih3gtSktradicgay

5 Sktm

artyaisrelatedto

Avm

aratathroug

hthePIEroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmartyawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

artiya

6 Sktm

rtaisalso

relatedto

Avm

aratathroug

htheroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmrtawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

ǝrǝta

7 Wewereun

able

tofind

thewordin

edition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

inAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquos

8 PIE

med

huacute(gtSktmadhu)

9 The

words

mātaandmīta

areactuallycogn

ates

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 219

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table1

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Frahangio

īm(Reichelt1901)

169

gacchati[getschadi]lsquohego

esrsquo

jetosch

yaētuš

170

pradiṣṭa

[pradishta]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petische9

0

171

para

[peacutere]

lsquodistanto

therrsquo

peereacute

pairi

lsquoabo

utrsquo91

172

catvar-[tschatvaacuter]lsquofourrsquoEWAI

pp5

26fltk

uetu o

r-es

tschetvereacute

čaϑw

arǝ

173

ya-[yaacute]

lsquowho

whichrsquoEWAp

390ltHio-

jeacuteyāyǝyo

92174

hāyana

[haryana]lsquoyearrsquoEW

AII

p8149

3jacircre

yārǝ

(-drājo)

lsquoduringa

season

rsquo175

sapta[sapta]EW

AIIp

700ltseptm

hapta

hapta

176

jīhva

[gihva]lsquoto

nguersquoEWAIp

591

hesoneacute

hizva

177

sūrya[surya]lsquosu

nrsquoEW

AIIp

742

huereacute

hvarǝ9

4178

paśca[pashva]

95EW

AIIp

110

pestcheacute

pasča

179

prcchati[pratschadi]lsquoquestionsrsquoEWApp

183flt

prek

perateacute

parāta

180

pradiṣṭa

[pradishte]lsquopointed

outindicatedrsquo

petestograve

paitiastō

lsquowords

ofassentrsquo

181

Kaacute

quis

kaaquaeligkiacutem

quodkegravequidq

uaeligquod

neutrum

(kaḥkā

kimke)

interrog

ativepron

oun

ka-EW

App

284f

koko

182

nema[neacutem

am]lsquohalfrsquoEW

Ap

II56

ltIIrnai-m

aneeacutem

annaēm

ą

183

nīന

ീ(M

alay)[niacuteM

alab]lsquoyou

rsquoneacute

nǝ96

lsquowersquo

184

vrṣa-[ursha]lsquorainrsquoEWApp

522f

ltHuers

vere

vāraiti

185

vakṣyati[vakschadi]97

veonekhdeacute

vaohxte9

8186

valareacute99

venereacute

vanarǝ100

187

vīrya[viryam

]=58

188

yaacute

=172

189

puras[pura]

lsquobeforersquoEW

App

146fltprH-eacutes-oacutes

perocirc

parō

190

pantha

=77

191

ubhau[ubhau]lsquobothrsquo

EWAIp

224ltIIrub

haacuteoveacute

uva

192

yadi

[yadi]EW

AII397=yeδi)

lsquoifrsquo

aad

āatlsquoth

usthenrsquo101

193

tvam

[tvam]=45

194

sangheacutedam

sengheacutem

saŋxǝm

lsquowordrsquo102

195

āśleṣa

[aschleacutesha]lsquocon

tactembracersquo

aschteacutesch

aštiš

lsquoarrivalrsquo

1 Thisworddo

esno

tcomefrom

Frahangio

īmb

utfrom

thePahlavi-P

āzandglossary

(Frahang

iPahlawīg)editedandtranslated

byAn

quetil-Dup

erronin

ZAIIpp

485ndash525InOPP

onp

8brucircvar

2 Avxhuaŋhaisacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)SeeEW

AIIp

796

3 Nsg

paitiš

4 EWAIp

594

jīv-isaldquoSekun

daumlrwurzelaus

einem

Praumlsensrdquo

developedfrom

theverb

guih3gtSktradicgay

5 Sktm

artyaisrelatedto

Avm

aratathroug

hthePIEroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmartyawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

artiya

6 Sktm

rtaisalso

relatedto

Avm

aratathroug

htheroot

mer

lsquotodiersquoFullcog

nate

toSktmrtawou

ldh

owever

beAvm

ǝrǝta

7 Wewereun

able

tofind

thewordin

edition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

inAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquos

8 PIE

med

huacute(gtSktmadhu)

9 The

words

mātaandmīta

areactuallycogn

ates

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 219

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

10Accordingto

AWp

1113maite

isno

tareal

word

butapartseparatedfrom

vohumainteAvvohum

ane=Pahlvēh

patm

ān

11Sktcogn

ateisvalka(EWAIIpp

525f)

12Relatedto

Sktradicguhlsquohidersquon

otradicguplsquoprotectrsquo

13Relatedto

Sktradicghuṣ

lsquotosoun

drsquo

14Thiswordisno

tidentifi

edby

authorsbu

titisappearsto

bederived

from

theSktverbalroot

radicgam

andisthus

relatedto

Avg

atǝe

15Explanationin

ZPGp

91

16Mostprob

ablyamisprintin

Anqu

etil-Dup

erron

InFahrangio

īmsnātō

appears

17Sktkarotiis3

sgactiveof

radickrw

hile

Avkartārisnomen

agentis

derived

from

thesameroot

18Sktsūcialso

means

lsquoneedlersquob

utalso

lsquosigh

tseeing

rsquoaccording

toAm

arakośa(M

Wp

1241)Thisisan

indicatio

nthat

Vesdin

used

Amarakośaas

asource

forthisword

19Bo

thwords

correspo

ndinsoun

dandmeaning

butmostprob

ablyareun

relatedAccordingto

EWAp655(see

also

forfurtherliterature)

Sktśeva

might

berelatedto

PIEḱey(H)gtradicśaylsquolie

downrsquo

20Accsglsquotheersquo

21Vesdin

comparedSktGm

amawith

AvestanAccmąm

that

isacogn

ateof

Sktmām

Being

relatedby

theirroottheycanbe

considered

cogn

ates

22Not

foun

din

otheredition

sof

Fahrangio

īmexcept

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos

23Vesdin

comparedaverb

infuture

tenseto

ano

unfrom

asamerootV

esdinhadago

odintuition

asthesewords

both

comefrom

PIEuek

u

24Vesdin

(p2

3)wrong

lyconn

ectedSktvahana

lsquovehiclersquow

ithAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosvocirchoneacute

(vohuni)lsquoblood

rsquowhich

canbe

conn

ectedto

Sktvasā

lsquofatmarrowrsquo(EW

Ap

533)

25Vesdin

confused

rootsradicv(varati)andradicvdh(vardhati)which

isacogn

ateof

Avvarǝδ-EW

AIIp

521varǝdaitī

(infvarǝdǝe)

26Mostprob

ablyVesdinrsquoslapsus

calamio

ramisprint(-ie-insteadof

-eeacute-

inZA

)27Foun

din

Reichelt(1900

p199)

28Thisistheexactpassagefrom

which

Anqu

etil-Dup

errontook

thewordas

itisglossedwith

gobashna

(gobeschneacute)Vesdinmadeamistake

becausehe

comparedtheSktverb

vakṣyatiinthe

future

tensewith

theAvn

ounvacaThe

root

ish

owever

thesame

29HereVesdin

was

right

forthePahlw

ordangustwhich

isindeed

relatedto

aṅguṣṭha

(Avangušta)a

razānisaPāzand

word

mostprob

ablycorrup

t30Thecorrectform

wou

ldbe

zǝrǝδaēm

31Explanationin

Martiacuten

ezampde

Vaan

201366

32Reichelt(1901174)

urua

=urva

lsquosoulrsquo

33Relatedto

Sktvaślsquoto

wishrsquo

34Relatedto

Sktpantha

lsquopathrsquo

35Pǝrǝna

isrelatedto

Sktpūraṇa

lsquobrid

gersquo

36An

quetil-Dup

erron(p4

70)translates

itas

ldquochairdu

pererdquoSktcompo

undpitṛmāṃ

sameans

lsquofatherrsquosfleshrsquo

butsuch

acompo

undisno

tknow

nto

beused

inSanskritliterature

37Not

identifi

edin

edition

sotherthan

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos(p4

33)

38Ava

δaisacogn

ateof

Sktadha

39In

AWp

343no

Sktcogn

ates

arementio

ned

40Vesdinrsquosasti(lth 1es)isno

tconn

ectedto

Avastāto

(ltsteh 2)Thereason

forthisconfusionmight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

astāto

lsquonon

-existentrsquoas

celui-lagraveestVesdin

accordinglytranslated

astāto

asilleest

41Leftou

tfrom

Richeltrsquos

edition

42Relatedon

lythroug

haṣṭhāandašta

lsquoeightrsquo

43Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquograndrsquoAyam

isrelatedto

ahmāi

althou

ghahmāi

isdativeayam

isno

minativeSktasmai

correspo

ndsto

Ava

hmāi

44Avestanaγra

isrelatedto

Sktagran

otto

ugra

45Sktśaucalt

PIEkeukAva

šǝmča

(aśa

+ca

conjlsquoandrsquo)isrelatedto

Sktrta

220 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

46Gsg

ofarǝϑa

47Sktharalthr

(EWAIIp803)m

ahat

(EWAIIp337f

meg-h

2-)+

deva

(EWAIp

742fdeiuoacute)A

hura

(=SktasuraEW

AIp

147fh 2ns-u[ro]-)Mazdā

(ltIIrmns+dh

ā)See

Kuiper

19571976

Thieme1970

48Sktrakṣasrākṣasa

lsquodem

onrsquoisrelatedto

OAvraš-lsquoto

damagersquo(EWAIIp423AW

p1516)Frahang

ioīm

does

notlistanywordconn

ectedto

theroot

raš-Itisno

tclear

from

where

Vesdin

took

theword

49Wordno

tfoun

din

anyedition

sof

Frahangio

īmItisno

tclearwhatAvestanwordVesdin

hadin

mind

50Relatedto

Sktapa(lth

2epo

)51Accordingto

ZPGitispavatilsquoputrefactionrsquo

with

anegativeprefixaccordingto

Reichelt1901121

itmight

bean

infinitiveapivatieInanycaseitisun

relatedto

Sktradicbudh

52SktsaptaandAvh

apta

arerelated(EWAIIp

700ltseptm

)Sktaṅga

lsquolimbrsquo

hasno

Avcog

nate

53Dem

onstrativepron

ounrelatedto

Sktetad

(AWp

17)Sktidam

isrelatedto

OAva

iiǝmY

Ava

ēmīm

(EWAIp

103)

54Vesdin

here

comparedSktpartu

ktawith

Av3

presmiddleof

arelatedroot

(ltuek

u)

55Realcogn

ates

wou

ldbe

atha

andaϑā(OAv)aϑa(YAv)See73

56Np

lmSee

111

573

impfb

axš-lsquosh

aregiversquoAvb

axš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(ltb

hag-EW

AIIp

241)

58Old

Persianwordforlsquohealerrsquorelatedto

AvbaēšazaA

second

possibility

isthat

Vesdinrsquos(and

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquos)bescheacute

might

standforbašilsquocucum

berrsquo

Inthat

casethe

words

areno

trelated

59Thiswou

ldfitbetter

with

bheṣaja

butisstillrelated

60Bartho

lomae

1900133

61Thesewords

areun

related

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronmistranslated

bāδa

(lsquoalwaysrsquo)as

lsquovieuxrsquo

623

sgo

ptlsquomay

hebersquoVesdin

comparedSktimperativewith

Avo

ptative

63Avb

hāmya

isrelatedto

Sktradicbhālsquoto

shinersquob

hāmalsquoligh

trsquo(EWAIIp

259b

heh

2p

261YA

vbham

iia)

64SeeZPGp

p57ndash58andReichelt(1901166)A

lsorelatedto

Sktradicbhā

bhām

a65Relatedto

Sktradictak(EWAIp

610

lttek

u)

66Thesewords

areno

tfullcogn

atesb

utthey

arerelatedthroug

htheroot

ofthedemon

strativepron

ountoacute-The

direct

cogn

ateof

Skttadā

wou

ldho

wever

beAvtaδa(EWAIp

618)

67Sktcogn

atetiraśc-

(AW6

40f)

Thereason

Vesdin

comparedthiswordto

dara

lsquofearrsquom

ight

beAn

quetil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquoilcraintrsquo

683sgimpfo

ftaš-lsquoto

cutrsquo

Theverb

taš-isacogn

ateof

Sktradictakṣ

(EWAIp

162)

69Accordingto

ZPGp

96tātō

ispastpartoftheverb

tan-

lsquotostretchrsquo(Sktcog

nate

radictan)A

ccording

toReichelt(1901141)

itisprob

ablyaseparatedsuffixIn

anycase

itisun

relatedto

the

Sktpartp

raesyānt-yāt-

70Accsco

fj va(EWAI594YA

vj uua)

71Avxhuaŋha

isacogn

ateof

Sktsvasrlsquosisterrsquo(ltsueacutesor-)(EWAIIp

796)

72Derived

from

theverb

ban-

lsquotobe

sickrsquoUnrelated

totheSktabhyānta

(ltabhiradicam

)73Vesdin

was

here

misledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationof

j afraas

lsquobou

chersquo

74Nom

pldantan-lsquoto

othrsquo

75Pahlčašm

(Avčašm

an)isrelatedto

Sktcakṣusb

utnetraanddōiϑra

areun

related

76Itisno

tclearfrom

where

Vesdin

took

theword

Mostprob

ablyitisPahld

ādthat

isrelatedto

Sktradicdā

77UncertainSee

ZPGp

95

Reichelt1901p

180

78Avzāisrelatedto

Sktkṣam

-79Accordingto

EWAIp

415the

Avw

ordisrelatedto

Sktradickroḍ

lsquotobe

orbecomethickrsquoThe

Avestancogn

ateof

krūra(ltkruh 2-roacute-)isxrūra

80EW

AIIp

765Avxšta-

isacogn

ateof

Sktradicsthā

(ltsteh 2)

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 221

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

81Vesdin

was

prob

ablymisledby

Anqu

etil-Dup

erronrsquosmistranslationlsquopeopleprod

uctio

nrsquo

82Gsg

ofdasǝmalsquotenthrsquo

83Prob

ablyamistake

inFrahangio

īmSee

ZPGp

91

84Accordingto

ZPGmiswrittendarǝsat

85Relatedto

Sktkratu(EWAIp

407)

86Ibid

871

subjradic

yazlsquoto

sacrificersquoR

elated

toSktradicyajyajati

iṣṭa-

88Co

gnateof

SktpūrvalsquoforefirstrsquoVesdinrsquosSktentryisno

trecogn

izableto

usbut

itdo

esno

tlook

likepūrvaAccordingto

semantic

correspo

ndence

itmight

bepuruhapuruhulsquomuchmanyrsquo

orparikaralsquomultitud

ersquo

89Thewordisno

tfoun

din

Frahangio

īm

90Mostprob

ablyamistakethe

wordisno

tto

befoun

din

ZA

91Sktcogn

ateof

Avp

airiispari(EWAIIp

91ltpeacuteri)

92AvyāNd

uf

OAvyǝNsg

myo

Nsg

myav

93Accordingto

EWAIIp

814relatedto

Avzaiiana

lsquowinterrsquo

94Relatedto

Sktsvar-(ltsuh

2el-)

lsquosunrsquo

EWAIIpp

793f

95Vesdinrsquoslsquopashvarsquo

ismostprob

ablyamisprintforpaścabecausehe

translated

itas

lsquoposterio

rsequ

enspo

strsquo

96OAvaccd

atg

enp

lpersp

ron

97Vesdinrsquosform

isno

tclearHow

everregarding

histranslationandtheform

heprovides

itmustbe

something

derived

from

theroot

radicvacandthisisrelatedto

vaohxte(aohxte)

983

sgm

iddlevačlsquoto

speakrsquo

99Wewereun

able

toidentifytheSktword

Vesdin

translates

itas

lsquomultumrsquo

100 ZPG

p117lsquowell-informedrsquolsquoaparticular

animal

dragging

dead

bodiesrsquo

101 Related

toSktāt

(EWAIp

163)

102 Related

toSktśaṃsa

(AW

p1576)sangheacutedam

isno

tidentifi

ed

222 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table2

Vocabu

laliturgica

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Av

1[tschatura]caturacaturgaṇalsquoupp

ergarm

entdied

with

4strin

gsrsquo

setehrP

ahlsadere

(sedralsquosacred

tunicarsquo)1

032

udvāhanī

[udanghenad

eacutebanghena]

lsquocord

ropersquo

eviumlanghene

(Pahlaiwayāhan

ltAva

iβiiaringŋhana-

rsquoholy

cordrsquo

3paṭa

[padam

]karpaṭa[karpadam]

paṭaccara[padatschar]lsquowoven

cloth

veilrsquo

peacuteteacute

daacutene

Pahlp

adom

Avp

aitidāna

Pahlp

adān

lsquosacred

veilrsquo104

4svādhyāya[svadjaacuteya]

lsquovedicrecitatio

nrsquop

rārthana

[praacuterthna]

lsquowish

petitionrsquon

amaskāra

[nam

askar]

lsquoado

ratio

nho

magersquo[geba]()

nereng

(pahlnīrang

nīrangdīn)n

ameof

aceremon

y105

5avahan

(avahan)b

haacutendam

(bhandana)

amatram

(amatra)bhageacutenam

(bhagin)

havan(hāvani)lsquotimeof

(haoma)

pressing

rsquoPahlh

āwan

lsquopestle

mortarforpressing

haom

arsquo106

6undanad

haacuteru

(dāru)kaacuteschta

beraga

(veraka

lsquocam

phorrsquo

beresm

e(Avbarəsm

an)107

7ādaravat

[adarava]lsquosh

owingrespectrsquo

ātar

(Av)ādar

(Pahl)

[aderan]

lsquoholy

firersquo108

8mahārūpa[m

ahaacuteruacuteba]

lsquomightyin

form

rsquomah-ru(m

āh-rūylsquoacresent-

likestandforbarsom

twigrsquo)

Avm

ā)lsquoMoonrsquo109

9

aṅguli[anguli]lsquoafing

errsquoaṅgulīya

[anguliam]lsquoafing

er-ringrsquoa

ṅguṣṭha

[anguschta]lsquoathum

brsquoEW

AIp

49

anguscheterin

(Avanguštalsquoto

ersquoP

ahl

angustarīg

lsquoafing

er-ringrsquo)

10

kartari[kartari]lsquoscissorsknifersquoEWAI316

kardeacuteAvkarǝta

Pahlkārd

lsquoknifersquo

11

tālika[taacuteliga]

lsquopalm

ofthehand

rsquotala

[taacutelam

]lsquosu

rfacersquo

taacuteli(ltSktsthālī)

lsquodishrsquo

12

taacuteschtanava

tuacutera

()

taschteno

surak(sūrāḵdār

tašta)

lsquosaucer

with

nine

holeshaom

afilterrsquo

13

āvapana[avaban]

lsquovesselrsquo

avand(NPavandlsquovesselrsquo)

14

kindiM

alabcandy

(Malaykiṇṭirsquogob

letwater-vesselrsquo

DED

p1

42)

konri(Gujkuṇḍilsquowater-vesselrsquo

ltSktkuṇḍa)

110

15

āmiṣa[amisza]

lsquomeatrsquoEW

AIp

170

miiazda[m

iezd]lsquosa

crificialfood

rsquoEWA

IIp

356

16

tāla

[taacuteltaacutelatala]lsquoacymbalrsquo

taacutellsquoacymbalrsquo1

11

17

mitra(m

itra)

lsquocon

tractrsquoEW

AIIpp

354f

mithra

18

taṣṭa

lsquoparedh

ewnrsquo

[taschata]

taacuteschteacute(Avtašta)

lsquosaucer

containing

ritualcake

drōnrsquo112

103 BothSktandAvformsremaindu

biou

s104 Ritu

allyem

ployed

topreventthebreath

from

pollutin

gthesacred

fire

(Mod

i1922116)Sktp

ratidhāna

ldquowhatisplaced

infron

t(ofthemou

th)rdquo

105 See

Mod

i1922255f4

46

106 EWAIIp

713cogn

atewith

Sktradicsu

lsquopressrsquo

107 A

twig

used

inyasnaceremon

yAccordingto

EWAIIpp

415fprob

ablyrelatedto

Sktbarhiṣ

108 Sktcog

nate

isatharvan

(EWAIp

60)

109 Related

toSktmās-(ltm

eh1-ns-EW

AIIp

352)

110 Gujkuṇḍi

isderived

from

Sktkuṇḍa

which

isno

tconn

ectedto

Malaykiṇṭiof

Dravidian

origin

111 Gujaratīloanwordfrom

Sanskrit

112 From

taš-related

toSktradictakṣ

(AW

p645)V

esdinrsquos[taschata]

remains

unidentifi

ed

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 223

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table3

Sanskrit-GermanicGlossary

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

1purpurī[purp

uri]lsquofortresscastlersquo

EWA

IIp

145plh1-

[burg]

EWDSpp

145f113

2ānanda

[ananda]

lsquoblissrsquo

[unendeunendlich]

EWDSpp

220f114

3

anta

[anda]

lsquoend

rsquoEWAIp

75[ende]

EWDSpp

220f

4

vidhavā[vidhava]lsquowidow

rsquoEWAIIp

556

Huidheueh

2

[wittib]EW

DSpp

895f(ldquoregion

ale

Lautform

rdquo=Witw

e)5

manu

[maacuten]

[man]EW

DSp

5381

156

mātr[m

adr]lsquomotherrsquoEW

AIIp

345

meh

2teacuter-

[moder](OFrism

oder)EW

DSp

577

7

pitrp

itā[pidrpida]lsquofatherrsquoEWAII

p128ph 2teacuter

[faterfather]EW

DSp

853pǝtē

r8

bhrātr[bhrader]lsquobrotherrsquoEWAIIp

280

bhreacuteh₂ter-

[bruder]EW

DSpp

138f

9madhyam

a[m

adjama]

lsquomiddlersquoEW

AIIp

303m

edhio-

[magd

magatinm

aid

madhen

madi]EW

DSp

5311

1610

godāna

[godam

a]lsquogift

(dāna)

ofacow(go)

[godan](Lango

bardian)[Wodan](OSax

Wōdan)WP

p216uat-ldquogeistig

angeregt

seinrdquo

11

sūnu

[maacutenusza

sugravenu]lsquosonrsquoEW

AIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[mannessuna]EW

DSp

769suǝ

nugt

OSaxsunu

12

sūnu

[sugravenu]

lsquosonrsquo

EWAIIp

741suH

-nuacute-

[sohn

son

sun][sunu](OSax)EW

DSp

769suǝ

nu13

duhitr[duhida]

lsquodaugh

terrsquoEW

Ap

737f

dhug

h 2teacuter

[dochter]EW

DSp

826

14

hrd-

[herda]lsquoheartrsquoEWAp

818kerdkrd-

[hertz]EW

DSp

372

15

nas-[nasinagravesig

a]lsquonosersquoEW

AIIpp

30f(H)nas-

[nasen]EW

DSpp

582f

16

nakha[nagravegha]lsquonailrsquoEW

AIIp

4h

3Eng

h

h3nEg

h[nagel]EW

DSpp

580W

PIp

180

17

[chieser](persicum)117

[kayser]EW

DSp

417ltLatCaesar

18

hima[himala]

lsquocold

frostrsquog

him-o

[himel]EW

DSpp

347f

19

deva

[degraveva

degravevada](EWAIp

742f

deiuo

)[teufel]EW

DSp

823

20

tritrayas

[tritria]lsquoth

reersquoEW

AIp

p675ff

trei

[treydrey]EW

DSp

193

21

staraṇa[stagraverana]lsquosp

readingrsquo

EWAII

p756radicstar

ltsterh

3

[sternsterron](OSaxsterro)EW

DSp

794

hstēr

118

22

mānuṣa[m

agravenusha]lsquomanrsquoEWAIIpp

309f

meacutenos

[menisco]

EWDSp

553

23

majjan[m

agravercca]

lsquomarrowrsquoEWAII

pp2

91fm

osgh-

[mark]

EWDSp

541m

ozgho-

24

śāsita[shasig

a]lsquopun

ishedrsquo

EWAIIp

626

kaskes

[chestiga]

(ltLatcastigatio)ED

LILp

97castro-āreltk es

25

kuṭumba

[cudum

ba]lsquohou

seho

ld

familyrsquoEWAIp

262ldquoaus

dravidischer

Quellerdquo

[chumbera]EW

DSp

442ltgenǝ-

26

vitata

[vidi]lsquobroadw

idersquo

[wit]

(weit)EW

DSp8841

19

27

go[go

gau]

lsquocow

rsquoEWAIp

p478f

guou

[kuh]EW

DSp

491ltg

wōu

-28

antara

[andara]

lsquointerio

rotherrsquoEW

AIp

76h

1en-terh

1n-ter

[andera

ndera]

EWDSp

38

29

[curiada]()

[kurtzekurtz]EW

DSp

495ltker

30

prīta

[prida]

lsquopleasedd

elightedrsquoEWAIIpp

181f

priH

-toacute

[fried]

EWDSp

286

31

śālā

[shagravela]lsquohallrsquoEW

Ap

631ltkel

[Saal]EW

DSp

6981

2032

āśleṣa

[ashlegravesha]

lsquocon

tactrsquoEWAIIpp

671f

radicśliṣ-con

nected

toklei

[shliessen](schlieszligen)

EWDSp

727

(Continued)

224 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

Table3

(Con

tinued)

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

Vesdin

Skt

Vesdin

Ger

33

bhikṣā

[bhiksha]lsquobegging

rsquoEWAII

pp2

63fradicbhikṣltradicbhajltb

hag

[bitte]

EWDSp

114(b-ltg

wh-)

34

sama[sam

]EW

Ap

703lsquosa

mersquoltsom

H-oacute

[sam

]EW

DSp

702

35

puras[pugraver]lsquoinfron

trsquoEW

AIIpp

146f

ltprH-eacutesoacutes

[vor]EW

DSp

867

36

pūrva[pugraverva]lsquoform

errsquoEWAp

157ltprh

3-uo

-[fo

rman]EW

DSp

291

37

vasavāsa[vagravesa]

lsquodwelling

housersquo

EWAp

531ltradicvaslsquoto

dwellrsquolt

h2ues-

[haus]EW

DSp

360ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

38

cāṇḍāla[tschand

agravela]

lsquooutcastw

orst

amon

grsquoEW

AIp

5391

21[shandlich]

(schaumlndlich)

EWDSp

711

39

caṇḍa[tschanda]

lsquoviolentcruelrsquo

EWAIp

525

122

[shand](Schande)EW

DSp

7111

2340

pālya[pagravelya]lsquowhathasto

begu

ardedrsquoradicpā

ltpeh

3EW

AIIp

112

[phala](Pfahl)

41

patha

pathin

[padp

agraveda]

lsquopathrsquo

ltpeacutent-oh

2-sEW

AIIpp

81ff

[fad

phato

tsrid](pfad)

EWDSp

623

ldquounklarrdquo

42

manmatha

[mam

onti

mam

mendi]()

43

varṇa[vagraverta]lsquoso

und

syllabew

ordrsquo

[word

worto](wortOSaxword)

EWDSp

897ltw

erdho-

124

44

bharati[bhagraveradi]lsquobearsrsquoEWAIIpp

246fflt

bher-

[baren](gebaumlren)EW

DSp

303ltb

her-

45

bhājana[bhagena]lsquosh

aringrsquo

deriv

radicbhaj

lsquodistributersquo(bhag-EW

AII

p241)

[bach

bacch

bake](bechen)

EWDSp

88125

46

druta[drda]

lsquoswiftq

uickrsquoEWAIpp

755ff

derivdreu-

[dradod

ratothrato]

EWDSp

835(treten

lsquotreadrsquo)

47

vihāra

[vihar]lsquomon

asteryrsquo

[pfar](M

HGpfarre)[phare][fa

rru]

(Pfarrei

lsquoparishrsquo)EW

DSp

624ldquoHerrkun

ftum

strittenrdquo

48

gamana[gam

ana]

EWAIpp

465flsquogoing

movingrsquo

radicgam

ltg

u em

[gan](OHGgān)g

eheng

anne

EWDSp

307PG

gai

49

lipsā

[lipsa]

lsquolong

ingforrsquoEW

AIIp

460derivleip

[lieb]EW

DSp

518ltleubh

126

50

nabhas

[nagravebha]lsquomistvapo

urskyrsquoEWAII

p13

neacutebh-es-

[nabel]EW

DSp

579ltneb

h-

51

guda

[guda]

lsquointestinerectum

rsquoEWA

Ip

490gud

-oacute-(ltgeu-d-)

[gossagosse](gosselsquogutterrsquo)

EWDSp332

52

grha

[geha]

EWAIp

495g

hrd

hoacute-

dhām

an[dhama]

EWAIp

697doacutem

-deacutem

-lsquohou

sersquo

[gegadam

e]EW

DSp294ldquoHerkunftun

klarrdquo

53

prem

an[pregravema]

lsquoloversquoEWAIIpp

181f1

89f

[freund]EW

DSpp

285fWPIIp

8654

gacchati[getschadi]EWAIIpp

465fguem

[gehetg

eht]EW

DSp

307PG

gai

55

bandha

[bendha

bendhana]lsquobon

drsquoEW

AIIp

208derivradic

bandh

bhendh-

[band

binde]

EWDSp

7756

dant-[dend]

lsquotoothrsquo

EWAIp

693

[zend]

(OHGzand)lsquoZahnrsquo

EWDSpp

902f

don

-

57

jahran

()

[jahr]EW

DSpp

408f

58

dvār

[duar]lsquodoorrsquoEW

AIpp

764fd

huer

dhu o

rd

hur

[dor](OFrisd

ore)

(Tuumlr)EW

DSp

841

dhwer-

59

dvāravartin

[duaravagraverti]

lsquochamberlainrsquo

[dorwartel]ED

GLp

3851

27

113 From

PGburg

114 EWAIp

75Ende

might

berelatedto

Sktanta

lsquoend

rsquobu

tānanda

isderived

from

theroot

radicnand

lsquotorejoicersquo

115 From

PGm

anōn

-

LANGUAGE amp HISTORY 225

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix

116 From

PGm

agathorni-

117 The

wordisno

tidentifi

edA

sthereareno

know

nIranian

cogn

ates

ofLatCaesarthe

comparison

cann

otbe

correct

118 ldquoHerleitu

ngausster-lsquoausbreitenrsquo

istdenkbaraber

kaum

wahrscheinlichrdquo

(EWDSp

794)

119 From

PGw

eida

120 From

PGsalisalaz-

121 ldquoWoh

lein

vorarischer

Stam

mesnamerdquo

(EWAIp

539)

122 Dispu

tedetym

olog

y123 From

PGskam-dō

124 Sktvrata

lsquocom

mand

willrsquoisacogn

ateto

GermanicWord(ltPG

wurda-)bu

tin

Sktthemeaning

isso

differentthat

Vesdin

couldno

thave

guessedthecorrectrelatio

n125 Loanw

ordfrom

Lower

Latin

andRomance

bacchīnum

(EDGLp

23)

126 Sktcog

nate

isluacutebhyati

Vesdin

confused

words

derived

from

Sktrootsleip-

(lsquotosm

earstickrsquo)andleubh-(lsquotocare

forloversquo)

127 The

firstpartsof

compo

und(dvāra-Tor-)arerelated

butthesecond

partsarederived

from

differentPIEroots(-wartisderived

from

PIEw

erǝ(EWDSp

871)

lsquotoob

serversquoSkt-vartin

is

however

conn

ectedto

thePIEroot

uert-lsquoto

turnrsquo)

226 I ANDRIJANIĆ AND P MATOVIĆ

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Outline of the treatise
• • IAshort description of Persia (VII-XI)
  • II An examination of Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XI-XIX)
  • III The relationship between Avestan and Sanskriteuro(XX-XXXVI)
  • IV Avestan and Sanskrit words culled from ancient writers (XXXVII-LVI)
  • • General remarks on the word-lists
    • The first word list Sanskrit and Avestan lsquocognatesrsquo
    • Thesecond list ltitalicgtVocabula Liturgicaltitalicgt
    • The third list Sanskrit and Germanic cognates
    • Vesdinrsquos linguistic views
    • Concluding remarks
    • Disclosure statement
    • Notes on contributors
    • Lexica
    • References
    • Appendix