Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Aramaic in Iran

Aramaic in Iran

ARAM, 7 (1995) 283-318 283

ARAMAIC IN

PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVØ

INTRODUCTION This article has a dual purpose. First, I wish to remind Aramaists of a relatively important corpus of texts on Iranian ground which has so far received but little and scattered attention. A comprehensive study of this corpus is a desideratum for both Aramaic and for . Second, I need to respond to a recent article by an Aramaist (Toll, “Die aramäischen Ideogramme”, 1990), in which a theory of the origin of the so-called Aramaic heterograms or (see below) in Iranian is proposed which departs from all previous theories. In my opinion the theory has a deficient material basis and therefore leads to erroneous conclusions. It is, however, the only such study by an Aramaist, and one of prominent academic lineage at that, and miscellaneous doubtful (if not wrong) forms deduced from the heterograms have now found their way into Hoftijzer-Jongeling.1 I was encouraged by the author some time ago (letter of 9 September 1990) to (re)publish my arguments in favor of a modified “standard” theory. This is the first and best opportunity I have had to do so.

IRANIAN LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS Languages belonging to the Iranian were spoken in from the 2nd millennium B.C.E. and on the Iranian plateau probably from no later than the beginning of the 1st millennium B.C.E. The first direct evidence for Iranians on the plateau comes from the Assyrian sources, in which the Parsuwas are first mentioned. For instance, on one campaign in 835 B.C.E.. Shalmaneser is said to have received tributes from 27 kings of Parsuwa. Tiglath-Pileser refers to the “mighty ” or the “distant Medes".

1 For instance, the forms in -TWN (late Sasanian period) are cited beside those in -TN, early Sasanian period, e.g., sgytwn ~ sgytn, quoted in Hoftijzer-Jongeling, vol. II, 776. 284 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

His campaigns against them took him as far as Mount Bikni, which is probably to be identified with Mount Alvand, south of modern (ancient Ec- batana). Finally, at the battle of Halule on the in 691, the Assyrian king Sennacherib (704-681 B.C.E.) faced an army of troops from , Parsumas, Anzan, and others, and in the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (680-669 B.C.E.) and elsewhere numerous “kings” of the Medes are men- tioned. The earliest direct evidence for is the corpus of inscriptions from the Achaemenid period, the first of which was probably the great inscription of Darius I at Bisotun dating from 520-519 B.C.E. and for the of which a was invented by the king’s scribes at his order. Old Persian (the ancestor of Middle and modern Persian) was apparently not used as an administrative language, however, which remained Elamite in the royal administration of and , written on permanent mater- ial, and Aramaic presumably for letters and other documents, written mostly on perishable materials. It was therefore during the Achaemenid period that Aramaic started spreading throughout the Iranian territories as scribal lan- guage and the Aramaic became the primary means of writing. The Achaemenid of Asia Minor inscribed their coins using Aramaic, and so did the Seleucid (after the death of Alexander in 323 B.C.E., with an inter- lude of Greek) and Parthian kings. It reached (Afghanistan) no later than the 2nd century B.C.E., when we find it used for Iranian translations of Asoka’s rock edicts. In these inscriptions it is also, exceptionally, used for writing Middle-Indic languages (Prakrit). The successors of the Seleucids, the Parthians (Arsacids) used Aramaic script for all writing: coins, letters, inscriptions, etc., and a typical Parthian ductus appears in royal inscriptions from the 2nd century C.E. Further away in Central Asia the Aramaic script was used for writing Sogdian (in the area of modern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) no later than the 3rd century C.E., as well as for Chorasmian (in the area of modern Turkmenistan). The Sogdian variant of the Aramaic script, the earliest version of which is seen in some letters dating from the 3rd century C.E., later developed into several cursive variants, referred to as the Sogdian and (most cursive) Uigur scripts, as it was also used to write Old Turkish. The farthest extension of the Aramaic script was into the , modern Chinese Turkestan or Xinjiang, where, in the first centuries of our era, it formed the basis for the development of the KharoÒ†hi script used to write the local Middle-Indic (Prakrit) language. The innovation of the PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 285

KharoÒ†hi script was to express vowels by modification of the basic letter, e.g., by subscripts, a method adopted from the Indian scripts. The only Iranian languages that did not, apparently, use the Aramaic script, were Bactrian and Khotanese and its relatives. Bactrian was the language spoken in Bactria, which was settled by Alexander’s soldiers in the 3rd century B.C.E., who introduced the use of Greek script. Whether the Bactrians used Aramaic before this time is not known. Khotanese and related languages were spoken in the Tarim Basin, in Khotan on the southern Silk Route and in Kucha and Agni on the northern Silk Route. The populations of these areas early on became Bud- dhist and adopted variants of the Indic for writing their scriptures. On the Iranian plateau the Aramaic script continued to be used in the Sasanian period for writing Parthian and , the descendant of Old Persian and ancestor of modern Persian. The earliest monuments, from the 2nd-3rd century C.E., are in a lapidary ductus, but, parallel to it, there must have existed ductuses more adapted to writing on parchment and papyrus and, later, paper. We may note that the transition from the “classical” Aramaic ductus to the Middle Persian ductus took place ca. 300 C.E., as can be seen from the coins. The earliest non-lapidary ductus is seen in a manuscript containing a part of the Psalms of David (the Psalter) discovered in Chinese Turkestan. This ductus soon developed into a highly cursive one, the Book Pahlavi script, which is the standard script used in the literature of the Zoroastrians, as well as on seals and coins from the later Sasanian period. The latest and most cursive variant of this script is seen on papyri and parchments from the end of the Sasanian period. As an official script, Pahlavi was by then replaced by , how- ever. It was also in the Sasanian period (ca. 500 C.E.?) that an alphabet based on the Psalter and Book was invented for the writing down of the , the ancient holy scriptures of the Zoroastrians, composed in , an Old Iranian language spoken in two different chronological stages, Old and Young Avestan, in Central Asia and (north)eastern Iran around the middle of the 2nd millennium and in the first half of the 1st millennium B.C.E., respectively. The inventors of the combined the forms of the letters (ultimately derived from Aramaic) with the principle of phonetic spelling of the Greek script, adding vowels, to produce a phonetically exact script, by which one could record the minutest phonetic details of the liturgical pronunciation of the holy texts. 286 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

From the early Sasanian period on two varieties of Syriac script were used to write Iranian languages, as well: the Manichean script, a variant of Estrangelo the invention of which is ascribed to , the founder of Manicheism himself, and the Nestorian script. The Manichean script was especially adapted to Iranian needs and was used to write Parthian, Middle Persian, Bactrian, Sogdian, and even Tokharian (a non-Iranian Indo-European language spoken in several dialects on the northern Silk Route in the areas of Kucha and Agni/Qarashahr) and Old Turkish. The Nestorian script was used in Chinese Turkestan by the Sogdian Christians. In the early Islamic period, Hebrew was used extensively by the Jewish population of Iran to write mostly modern Persian (Judeo-Persian), but also local dialects, for instance, that of Hamadan (ancient ). Among modern Iranian languages Persian has a literature written in reaching back to the beginnning of the Islamic period. Other literary languages, such as , Kurdish, and Baluchi, also use (or have used) the , with numerous modifications. For a survey of the Iranian variants of the Aramaic and Syriac scripts see Skjærvø, “Iranian ".

ARAMAIC AND ARAMEO-IRANIAN TEXTS FROM IRAN AND THE USE OF ARAMAIC HETEROGRAMS The earliest extant Aramaic texts written by Iranians, or scribes in the service of Iranians, are the Aramaic texts from the Achaemenid period. These comprise the Aramaic texts from Persepolis from the early 5th(?) century B.C.E., mostly short inscriptions on ritual utensils,2 and the Aramaic version of the Bisotun inscription found among the papyri from Elephantine (5th century). The Aramaic texts from are also heavily influenced by Old Persian official and religious terminology. An Aramaic inscription on the tomb of Darius at Naqs-e may be from the Seleucid period (3rd-2nd centuries B.C.E.), if Henning’s reading of the name slwk in it is correct (“Mitteliranisch”, 24). Unfortunately, Henning did not specify where in the inscription he saw this name, and nobody has seen it since. No other Aramaic text from Seleucid Iran other than on coins survives. From the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.E. we have the Aramaic versions of the rock edicts of Asoka found in Afghanistan. The Aramaic versions are accompanied by Greek versions or Indic versions in Aramaic script.

2 Ed. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts; among reviews, see Levine. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 287

From the Parthian period on the question arises whether the texts we have are Aramaic or Iranian written with Aramaic ideograms/heterograms (see below). The documents in question are a land sale document found at Awroman in modern Kurdistan and potsherds inscribed with wine receipts from Nisa, the northern capital of the , both dating from the 1st cent. B.C.E., and a couple of Parthian royal inscriptions and some inscriptions found in northwestern Iran, all from the 1st to 3rd cents. C.E.3 The following examples of texts are divided into three groups: The first groups contains texts that are indisputably in Aramaic language and the third texts that are as clearly in Iranian languages (Middle Persian and Parthian). In the texts of this third group we see numerous Aramaic words, in increasingly less “correct” form as time goes on. From several circumstances it has long been known that these Aramaic words were merely a scribal devise to write the corresponding Iranian words (see, e.g., Westergaard, Zendavesta, 20 fn. 2; Sale- mann, “Mittelpersisch”, 250; Schaeder, Iranische Beiträge, 206-209). On one hand, in different copies of the same text, the Aramaic words vary with Iranian words (e.g., Mid. Pers. bay “god(s)” is sometimes written “phonetically” as bgy, sometimes “heterographically” as ORHYA, literally ¨rÌyˆ < Aram. ˆlhyˆ “the gods”). On the other hand, the Aramaic words frequently receive “end- ings” that properly belong to the Iranian words (e.g., BRE < b¢reh, literally “his son", written for pus “son", but BRE-r written for pusar “of the son, sons” with Persian ending -ar). For this reason these Aramaic words are now com- monly referred to as “heterograms” or (increasingly less commonly) “ideo- grams". This kind of scribal practice is, of course, well known from Me- sopotamia, although a historical connection between the two is uncertain.4 The second group contains texts from the early-mid Parthian period. The nature of the language of these texts is debated. Some regard it as heterographic Iranian (Parthian) others as Aramaic, although written in faulty . The main argument in favor of the first hypothesis is the faulty orthography and the occurrence of Parthian words. Against this hypothesis and in favor of the second is the fact that the Aramaic elements in these inscriptions do not quite conform to the heterographic system of the later Parthian inscriptions. My own inclination is to regard these texts as written in the kind of unskilled Aramaic that was soon to give way to heterographic Iranian (see also below).

3 Among Aramaic texts written by Aramaic-speaking communities in Sasanian Iran, we may mention the Palmyran texts. 4 All the languages written in the “classical” Aramaic script use heterograms, though only Parthian and Middle Persian to a greater extent. Texts in the Syriac “Manichean” script have no heterograms. 288 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

It is customary to transliterate heterograms using capital letters (roman or italic), but there are several current systems. I will be using that first employed by D. N. MacKenzie, who dispenses with diacritical signs by assigning the capital letters A, E, O to ˆalep, he, and ¨ayin, leaving H for Ìe†; C is used for Òa∂e and Q for †e†. This system has the advantage of dissociating the hetero- graphic spellings from the original Aramaic ones. Gignoux’s Glossaire fol- lows a more traditional system, using ˆ, ¨, H, Î, and ™ (but C, not ∑), for in- stance: ¨RÎYˆ (see above), ÎTYˆ/Parthian ΙYˆ “arrow” (< Aram. ̆yˆ “the arrows”) and YCBH “to wish” (< Aram. yÒbh “he wishes”), as opposed to ORHYA, HTYA/Parthian HQYA, and YCBE, used here. Note also that, while the Parthian heterograms are faithful to the Aramaic orthography, in Middle Persian the letters Q and Q (™) have been replaced by K and T5; example: Parthian QQL “kill", Middle Persian YKTLWN. Not infrequently we find O for A, as in ORHYA, Parthian ALHA (< Aram. ˆlhˆ). H (< Ì) is normally used in non-final position and E (< h) in final position for either Ì or h in both Parthian and Middle Persian; example: Middle Persian YKOYMWN, cf. Parthian HQAYM-, literally Ìqˆym- for hqym(?).

I. ARAMAIC TEXTS

Aramaic texts from Persepolis Most of the Persepolis inscriptions published by Bowman are of the fol- lowing type: bprkn byrtˆ lyd NN1 sgnˆ (rbˆ) In the parkan (precinct?) of the fortress, for NN1, the (grand) segan, 6 NN2 ¨bd/¨bdw ˆbswn znh NN2 made (is the maker of?) this abson (pestle).

The language of these texts is clearly Aramaic, not Old Persian in Ara- maic disguise. In Old Persian the genitive normally precedes the noun it qualifies, as does the demonstrative pronoun; cf. the similar Old Persian inscriptions from A3Pa: imam ustasanam aqaganam mam upa mam kærta, literally: “this staircase of stone by me under me (= during my reign) was made".

5 Exceptions: Middle Persian QB, later TB new “good”; QDM written MDM (with Q = M) abar “on”, cf. Parthian QDMTE parwan “before”. 6 Iranian words in the text are in italics here. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 289

The form ¨bdw I assume contains the personal pronoun -(h)u, added either to the perfect or to the present participle: *¨¢ßa∂-u7 or ¨aße∂-u.8

An Aramaic version of the edict of Asoka: Kandahar 1 The following Aramaic inscription is accompanied by a Greek version; see the latest edition by Pugliese Carratelli and Garbini. The awkward syntax is as likely to have been caused by the Indic original as by the influence of an Iranian scribe. 1 snn 10 ptytw ¨byd zy mrˆn (For?) 10 years expiation (has been) made (or: prydrs mlkˆ qsy†ˆ mhqs† is making?) (he) who (is) Our Lord, Priyadarsa, the king, the promoter of truth, 2 mn ˆdyn z¨yr mr¨ˆ lklhm ˆnsn Since then evil (is) less for all people, and all wklhm ˆdwsyˆ hwbd hostilities he has eliminated. 3 wbkl ˆrqˆ rˆm sty wˆp zy znh And in all the earth (is) peace and happiness. bmˆklˆ lmrˆn mlkˆ z¨yr And *in addition, for eating (= food) for Our Lord the king (there are) less (people) 4q†ln znh lmÌzh klhm ˆnsn who kill. This is for all people to see. They have ˆthÌsynn wzy nwnyˆˆÌdn held themselves back also (those) who catch fish 5 ˆlk ˆnsn ptyzbt knm zy prbst those people declared (against it?); similarly, hwyn ˆlk ˆthÌsynn mn those who were *trappers, those have held them- selves back from 6 prbsty whwptysty lˆmwhy *trapping. And (they are) obedient to his mother wlˆbwhy wlmzystyˆˆnsn and to his father and the elders, people (are), 7 ˆyk ˆsrhy Ìlqwtˆ wlˆˆyty dynˆ as destiny has laid it down. And there is no klhm ˆnsyˆ Ìsyn judgment for all men pious. 8 znh hwtyr lklhm ˆnsn wˆwsp This has benefited all men and over and over yhwtr will benefit (them).

The uncertainties about the exact meaning of the Iranian word ptytw and the function of zy make it impossible to be certain about the forms of the verbs in the first line; if ¨byd and mhqs† are parallel, then ¨byd will be ¨aße∂ (cf. ˆthÌsynn = e†haÌsen- and hwtyr = hawter). The 3rd plur. forms in -n agree with ˆnsn “people” and are presumably for -in (Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik, 184 §5.2.3.4.3).

7 Cf. the enclitic emphatic (h)u in Syriac, Nöldeke, Syrische Grammatik, 167 §221? It is not clear from the handbooks to what extent this was a “genuine” Aramaic practice; it may be (if my interpretation is correct) just an Iranian practice. 8 Differently Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts, 40. 290 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

II. ARAMAIC OR IRANIAN (PARTHIAN)?

The land sales document from Awroman in Kurdistan 1 snt 300 yr̈ ˆrwtt mzbnw ptspk Year 300, month (H)arwatat. The seller is Ptspk, bry tyryn son of Tiren, who (is) from Brkn, (of) the vine- 2 zy mn brkn (?) krmˆ ˆsmk mh yard (of) Asmak, which is half a share (yat) of ˆbykskn plg yˆt 9 Abikasakan. 3 wzbnw ˆwyl bry bsnyn kzy ˆÌy And the buyer is Awyl, son of Bsnyn, as long as klˆ zwzn 20 20 20 11111 I live(?),11 for a total of 65 drahms, 4 mh mn bwmÌwtw (?) ˆt. Ì(r)w10 which… from the *land-lord (bum-xwataw). Ìmy ˆklw qdmth These *swore before him 5-6 sÌdyn [names] (as) witnesses: [names] 7 […..] krmˆ ˆsmkn krmˆ zbnt ˆwyl […] the vineyard (of) Asmakan (!). The vine- mn yard, I Awyl have bought from 8 ptspk klˆ zwzn 20 20 20 11111 Ptspk for a total of 65 drahms.

On this text see Henning, “Mitteliranisch”, 28-30. Only the orthography would seem to speak against this document being Aramaic, such as Ì for h, while the position of the verbs at the beginning of clauses, although found in the Parthian and Middle Persian inscriptions, would be unusual(?) in a Parthian document. The use of the verb “eat” for “swear” has been recognized as an Iranian calque: sogand xwardan “eat > swear an oath".

Nisa, Wine receipt, document no. 411 See Diakonoff and Livshits, Parthian Economic Documents, 43. 1bÌwtˆ znh mn krmˆ In this jar from the vineyard 2 ˆwzbry zyb brzmytn uzbariy which (is) in Brzmytn 3 nwk qry Ìm 10 1111 1111 1 new (wine) *called, 19 mari. 4hn¨lt ¨lsnt 200 1111 111 I (?) [as producer] delivered (it) for (?) the year 207 5 hyty ˆwgtnwk Ugtanuk brought (it) 6 mdwbr zymn the wine-deliverer who (is) from 7 brzmytn Brzmytn.

9 Cf. Cowley (Aramaic Papyri, 1-2) Papyrus no. 1 lines 2-3 yhbn lky plg mn[t]ˆ zy yhbw ln… “we have given to you half the share which was granted to us…” 10 Letter following t small letter, second last letter d, r, k. Either Aramaic or Iranian. 11 Cf. kdy Ìyˆ “as long as (there is) life”, Hoftijzer-Jongeling, Dictionary, Vol. I, 317, 4- 5th lines from bottom. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 291

The use of the masc. form znh with a fem. noun in bÌwtˆ znh is un- Aramaic.12 The combination of a preposition plus a noun, as in ¨lsnt, is not otherwise found among the known Parthian and Middle Persian heterograms. The forms and meanings of hn¨l-t (beside hn¨l-w) as opposed to hyty are not clear; hn¨l-t may be a , as suggested by other pairs such as YNTN-t ~ YNTNW. On the other hand, the Nisa documents do not yet show the confusion of h and Ì typical of Iranian texts.

The inscription from McÌeta (Armazi) On this text see Altheim and Stiehl, Supplementum, 74-85 1 ˆnh s¨rpy† brty zy I, Serapeitis, daughter of 2 zwyÌ qlyl b†Ìs zy prsmn Zeouakhes the younger, bitaxs of Porasman 3mlkˆˆntt zy ywdmngn wnÒyÌ the King, wife of Yodmangan. And he was vic- torious 4 wkbyr ˆrwst ¨byd(w)ˆ rb and performed great deeds, master of 5 trbÒ zy hsyprnwg mlk bry court (procedures) of King Ksefarnoug, son 6 zy ˆgryp rb trbÒ zy of Agrippa, master of court (procedures) of 7 prsmn mlk Ìbl Ìblyk mˆ King Porasman. Woe upon thee! that 8 zy prnws lˆ gmyr whkyn the full age (*p¢rnaˆus) was not completed. And so 9 †b wspyr yhwh hyk zy br good and beautiful is she that a son 10 ˆyns lˆ dm¨ yhwh mn of men is no equal with respect to 11 †bwtˆ wmˆytyn bsnt 10 10 1 goodness. And I(?) died in (my) year 21. Notes: On nÒyÌ … ¨byd(w)ˆ as naÒeÌ… ¨aße∂-(h)wa see Altheim and Stiehl (Aramäische Sprache, 303). As for mˆytyn = *maˆe†-en “I am dying” (cf. myytnˆ Dalman, §65, p. 289), which as suggested by Altheim and Stiehl (ibid., 47) has masc. instead of fem. participle, compare the same practice in from Asia Minor and Egypt according to Segert (Alt- aramäische Grammatik, 330-332 §6.3.1.3.56).

III. IRANIAN INSCRIPTIONS

Inscriptions of the standard 3rd-century type are known from the 2nd century on. In these heterograms are common, but restricted to a relatively limited set of words and forms. The exact pronunciation of the Iranian words can be deduced from the Manichean texts and etymology.

12 See Henning, “Mitteliranisch”, 27-28. 292 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

Parthian royal inscriptions

• Reign of Arsak Walgas, son of Mihrdad (Miqrdat), 151 C.E., see Morano, “Contributi",, and Skjærvø, review of Gnoli and Panaino, (eds.), and review of Skalmowski and Tongerloo, (eds.). 1… ˆrsk wlgsy MLKYN MLKA13 [In the year…] Arsaces Vologases, , … Arsak Walgasi sahan sah 2 BRY mtrdt ML[KA] son of King Mitradates, puhr Mihrdad sah 3 [KT]SW OL mysn BRA mtrdt fought in Mesene against King Mitradates, son of MLKA BRY *kosed o Mesan *abar Mihrdad sah puhr 4 pkwr MLKYN MLKA Pacorus, King of Kings. Pakor sahan sah 5 mtrdt MLKA MN TME MRDPW He chased King Mitradates from there, Mihrdad sah az od … 6 hmk mysn AHDW he took all of Mesene. hamag Mesan girwed 7 ZNE ptkr wrtrgn ALHA14 ME This image of the god Warhagn (Herakles), which MN mysn HYT-t15 was brought from Mesene, im padkar Warh(r)agn bag ce az Mesan awurd 8 nygndn B tyry bgny HQAYMW he placed as *trophy in the temple of Tir. *nigandan andar Tiribaginiawested

• Reign of Artaban, 215 C.E. (see Henning, “Mitteliranisch”, 40 41; Altheim and Stiehl, Supplementum, 98). 1 SNT 400 20 20 20 11 YRHA Year 462, month Spandarmat, day Mihr, spndrmty YWMA mtry16 sard 462 mah Spandarmad roz mihr

13 Thus also in the later Parthian inscriptions, from Aramaic mlkyn mlkˆ. Middle Persian, however, uses MLKA-n MLKA, with -n as phonetic complement for the ending -an. 14 Parthian ALHA < ˆlhˆ = bag, Middle Persian ORHYA = bay, literally means “god”, but is mostly found in the plural in the sense of “majesty”. 15 Parthian HYT-t is an alternate spelling for HYTY-t. On the final -t in this type of heterogram (also BNY-t in the next inscription, see the discussion below). 16 The dating formulas differ in all the languages using heterograms: Parthian SNT… YRHA… YWM… = Middle Persian SNT… BYRH… YWM… = Sogdian SNT… YRHA… YWMA… = Choresmian BSNT… YRHA… BYWM…. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 293

2 ˆrtbnw MLKYN MLKA (reign of?) Artabanos, king of kings, Ardban sahan sah 3 BRY wlgsy MLKYN MLKA son of Vologeses, king of kings. puhr Walgassahan sah 4 BNY-t cy[t]k ZNE LY hwsk *Husak, of Susa, built this stele.17 sws hstrp *dist cidag im man Husag Sussahrab

Sasanian royal inscriptions • Reign of Ardaxsahr I (224-239/40; see Herzfeld, Paikuli, 85). Parthian ptkr ZNE mzdyzn [ALH]A ˆrthstr MLKYN MLKA ˆryˆn MNW [syh]r MN yˆztn padkar im mazdezn bag Ardaxsahr sahan sah ke sihr az yazdan Middle Persian ptkly ZNE mzdysn bgy ˆrthstr MLKAn MLKA ˆyrˆn MNW ctry MN yztˆn pahikar en mazdesn bay Ardaxsahr sahan sah Eran ud an-Eran ke cihr az yazdan “This picture is of the Mazdayasnian Lord Ardaxsahr, King of Kings, whose seed is from the gods” Parthian BRY ALHA pˆp[k] [M]LKA puhr bag Pabag sah Middle Persian BRE bgy pˆpky MLKA pus bay Pabag sah “son of the Lord King Pabag".

• From the inscription of Sapur (Sabuhr) I at Naqs-e Rostam: Parthian W LH-w18 ME ZNH-n19 ˆtrwn YNTN-t20 W ME ˆbdyn HQAYMW-t ud ho ce imin aduran dad ud ce abden awestad

17 For this type of “colophon”, cf. also Middle Persian nibist Boxtag dibir “Boxtag the scribe wrote (this inscription)” (inscription of Kerdir at Naqs-e Rajab). 18 Parthian LH-w = ho can also be read as LHW < lehu (less likely as L-hw). 19 Parthian ZNH-n: note that ZNE (< znh) before the phonetic complement of the plural ending becomes ZNH- (literally znÌ-) according to the rule that E is used only in final position (thus also LH-, literally lÌ-< lh). Note that in this inscription ZNH-nimin “these” corresponds to Middle Persian LZNE-sn = imesan, whereas in the next inscription Parthian ZNE = im cor- responds to Middle Persian ZNE = en “this”. See toward the end of this article on the pronominal heterograms. 20 On the final -t of Parthian YNTN-t and HQAYMW-t see below. 294 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

Middle Persian W ZK ZY LZNE-sn ˆtwrˆn YHBWN W ZY-sn PWN ˆdwyn HNHTWN ud an i imesan aduran dad ud i-san pad ewen nihad “and that which to these fires (was) given and which for them (was) as custom established”

• From the inscription of Sapur (Sabuhr) I at Hajjiabad: See Nyberg, Manual I, 122-123. Pa W AMT LN ZNE HQYA SDY-t QDMTE hstrdryn BRBYTA-n RBA-n W ˆzˆtn SDY-t ud kad amah im tigr wist parwan sahrdaran wispuhran wazurgan ud azadan wist MP AP-n21 AMT ZNE HTYA SDYTN ADYN-n LOYNY strdrˆn W BRBYTA-n W wclkˆn W ˆzˆtn SDYTN u-n ka en tir wist eg-in pessahriyaran ud wispuhran ud wazurgan ud azadan wist “And when this arrow (We) shot, then before the landholders, princes, grandees, and nobles (We) shot” Pa NGRYN22 pty ZK wym HQAYMW-t W HQYA LCD LH-w syty LBRA RMY-t pad pad ed wem awestad ud tigr tar ho cid o beh abgand MP AP-n LGLE PWN ZNE drky HNHTWN AP-n HTYA LCD-r ZK cytˆk BLA LMYTN u-n pay pad en darrag nihad u-n tir tar an cidag be abgand “and foot on this stone/crack (We) placed, and (We) the arrow beyond that cairn away (We) shot".

DEVELOPMENT OF THE VERBAL HETEROGRAMS The best description of the origin of the use of heterograms to write Iran- ian languages is, in my opinion, that of Henning (“Mitteliranisch”, 31-32), which deserves to be quoted in full (my translation): Already in Achaemenid times it had become the habit to sprinkle the Aramaic text with Iranian words, at first, titles, technical terms, and the like. In this way they learnt how to write indigenous words with Aramaic letters. In the course of time, the number of Iranian words grew, at the same

21 In AP-n… ADYN-n… AP-n… AP-n, -n is the enclitic agential pronoun 1st plur. (of majesty) attached to the conjunction/particle AP- u(d) “and”, not a phonetic complement. Note that only in the Middle Persian is the agent expressed repeatedly, while in the cor- responding Parthian sentences the tonic pronoun LN “We, Us” is used once and is not repeated. On the agential construction of the transitive “simple past” see below. 22 Note Parthian NGRYN < *ngryn < riglayin (dual) = Middle Persian LGLE < rigleh. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 295

time that Aramaic was increasingly neglected: It must have been difficult al- ready in the 3rd century B.C.E. to find enough trained people to write it. Grad- ually, we must assume, the word order yielded to that of the scribe’s own lan- guage, while the individual words maintained their Aramaic inflectional forms. When this stage was reached, it is hard to whether we should call the language bad Aramaic or heterographic Iranian. Subsequently, the Ara- maic inflections are gradually given up and are only used in a few fixed forms. The idea of fixed Aramaic inflectional forms or “frozen” forms, as I shall refer to them here, was also adopted by Nyberg (e.g., Manual, II, 1) and Rosenthal (“Aramaic”, 256). According to Henning (“Mitteliranisch”, 25) heterograms are first attested on a coin dating from the end of the 2nd century B.C.E., where we have the form BRE, literally “his son” for regular BR “son of". Whether this isolated example proves that an official heterographic system of writing had been established by this time, I doubt, as the 1st-century B.C.E. texts still appear to have more Aramaic in them than the later ones. I think perhaps the final system, the one we see in the earliest Sasanian inscriptions, was established in the 1st-2nd centuries C.E., when the typical ductuses of Parthian and Middle Persian were introduced. My own research in this matter stems from my work on the Old Persian verbal system (Undersøkelser, 1974). Here I for the first time remarked that the Middle Persian heterogram OBYDWN- only represents Middle Persian present tense forms. Later I noticed that a similar conclusion had already been reached by Herzfeld (Paikuli, 57). I continued investigating the use of the verbal heterograms in the Sasanian inscriptions (Parthian and Middle Persian) and outlined my preliminary results in Humbach and Skjærvø, Paikuli, Part 3.2 (1983) together with a syntactic analysis of the Parthian and Middle Persian case system published in “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian” (1983). I elaborated and refined the “frozen forms” theory in “Verbs in Parthian” (1986) and presented a detailed study of the use of the verbal heterograms in “Verbal Ideograms” (1989). Following is a summary of the main results of these studies. The verbal systems of Parthian and Middle Persian were based on a fundamental opposition between (1) present-imperfect: forms from the present stem with a narrative-descriptive function used for the present and imperfect tenses and the moods of the present tense (indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative)23 and (2) simple past: forms from the past stem (historically =

23 The future was expressed by the present indicative or subjunctive. 296 ARAMAIC IN IRAN past participle), originally used to denote the result of a past action, process, or state, but in the course of time, as the imperfect was lost, became the general past tense. Examples: Present Imperfect Simple past sawem “I go” *sawen “I went” sud hem (lit. “I am gone” > “I have gone, I went”) nibesem “I write” *nibesen “I wrote” u-m nibist (lit. “by me written” > “I have written, I wrote”)24

The heterograms as we see them in the Parthian and earliest Middle Persian text corpus reflect this fundamental division as follows: In Parthian, heterograms denoting forms of the present stem end in -W or -E, while those denoting forms from the past stem end in -T/-t25 (on which see below), e.g., “take” “come” “write” “give” “bring” “place” Present AHD-W ATY-E ? YNTN-W HYTY-W HQAYM-W girw- as- dah- awar- ist- Simple past AHD-T/t ATY-T/t KTYB-t YNTN-t HYT(Y)-T/t HQAYM(-W)-t grift agad nibistdad awurd istad

In Middle Persian, the verbal heterograms are used for forms from both stems, except that some verbs reserve the heterograms for forms from the present stem only, while the past tense is written “phonetically",26 e.g.: “take” “kill” “do, make” Present OHDWN YKTLWN OBYDWN gir- ozan- kun- Simple past OHDWN YKTLWN klty grift ozad kerd

Seeing that many of the heterograms, at least superficially, were formally imperfects in Y-, participles in M-, and, apparently, perfects, I made the assumption that the heterograms originally corresponded to the function of the Iranian form they represented, that is, an Iranian present stem form would be represented by an imperfect or an active participle, and a past stem form

24 Like Syriac k†iß-li. 25 Thus already Herzfeld, Paikuli, 54. 26 Thus already Herzfeld, Paikuli, 57. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 297 would be represented by a perfect or a passive participle. Thus, I proceeded to assign each of the actually attested types of heterograms to one of these categories. This procedure led to the realization that forms such as Parthian OBD-W and Middle Persian OBYD-WN, which were restricted to representing present tense forms, most likely are from active present participles with the addition of the “enclitic” subject 3 sing. personal pronoun -(h)u: ¨aße∂-(h)u, as first suggested by Altheim and Stiehl (Aramäische Sprache, 303). This implies two assumptions: (1) plene spelling of short i/e and (2) spelling of the en- clitic 3rd sing. masc. pronoun without h as -w. (1) The plene spelling of the short i/e in the present participle is well known in Aramaic (Dalman, Grammatik, 284-285), although it is not registered for Imperial Aramaic in Segert (Altaramäische Grammatik, 266). Nevertheless, there are several instances in the Aramaic texts from Iran in which short i/e is written plene. The earliest example may be the form ¨byd, found twice in the Aramaic Bisotun inscription; in both instances the editors assume it is the past participle ¨¢ßi∂ “done” (Greenfield and Porten, The Bisutun Inscription, 31, 47). Such an interpretation is not without problems, however. In line 66 we read […] hwd¨ˆyk zy ¨byd ˆnt wˆyk hlktk, which corresponds to Old Persian azda kusuva ciyakaram ahi “make known of what sort you are!” Thus, the Aramaic ex- pression ˆyk zy ¨byd ˆnt corresponds to OPers. ciyakaram ahi, which literally means “what-doing you are". Sims-Williams (“The Final Paragraph”, 4) fol- lowed by Greenfield and Porten (The Bisutun Inscription, 47) suggested that ¨byd ˆnt is the Aramaic rendering of the Old Persian “ergative” construction seen in mana kærtam “I have done", literally, “my/by me done".27 This phrase, however, is expressed in various Aramaic dialects as ¨¢ßi∂ li, not ¨¢ßi∂ *ana, which could only mean “I (was) made". It is therefore much more probable that ¨byd ˆnt is for ¨aße∂ ant “you are doing". In line 17 we read ˆÌr ddrs mn[d¨m l]ˆ¨byd mkt[r ly…] “Afterward, Dadarsi did nothing (but) waited for me…” Here, as well, the interpretation as present participle is preferable in view of the following participle mktr, which can hardly be other than a present participle itself. (2) As for the assumed spelling of the enclitic 3rd sing. masc. pronoun without h, this is, as far as I can see, not found in standard Aramaic anywhere

27 Note that this is not a case of the passive participle being used in an active sense, as Sims-Williams and Greenfield and Porten have it; it is not the participle that has active sense, it is the whole construction that has active function. 298 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

(except in mnw “who”); in most Aramaic dialects the h of the enclitic 3rd sing. pronouns -hu and -hi had become silent from the beginning of the literary era, however, so a phonetic spelling can easily be imagined. Here again the earliest example is, perhaps, found in the Achaemenid Persepolis texts (see above), in which ¨bd alternates with ¨bdw without, apparently, any change to plural subject. From the Parthian period, the forms zbnw and mzbnw of the Awroman document (see above) are most easily explained as present participles + the enclitic pronoun: zaßen-u and m¢zabben-u. In addition I assumed that Parthian OBD-T and HZY-T were actually the old 1st sing. perfect = Aram. ¨bdt, Ìzyt (with Altheim and Stiehl, e.g., Die aramäische Sprache, 298), but that the -T was in the course of time reinter- preted as a phonetic complement (-t) and so could be added to arbitrary forms. In the same way, I assumed that Middle Persian HZY-T-N was Ìzyt with the addition of the “enclitic” subject 1st sing. personal pronoun in re- duced form -en: < Ìzyt-nˆ.28 As the reduced form -en of the 1st sing. personal pronoun in Syriac is only attested with participles, we can assume that its use with finite verbs was an Iranian practice. The main types of verbal heterograms were thus:29 Aramaic Parthian Middle Persian Type I active participle: AHD-W “take” OHD-WN“take” (OBYD- WN “do, make”) HZYE “see” BOYH-WN ”seek MQBL-W “receive” MKBL-WN “receive” Type II imperfect: YNTN-W “give” YKTL-WN “kill” (YKTYB-WN “write”) Type III perfect: AHD-T/t “taken” OHD-WN HZY-T/t “seen” HZY-T-N30 HQAYM-t “placed” HNHT-WN “place” Type IV passive participle: KTYB-t “written” (YLYD-WN “be born", etc.?)

28 This is not, as far as I can see, explicitly stated by Altheim and Stiehl, but follows logically from their other suggestions, that BNY-T is 1st sing. b¢ne† and that mˆytyn contains the re- duced form of the 1st sing. pronoun. 29 These various types were described in some detail by Herzfeld (Paikuli, 52-59) and Henning (“Mitteliranisch”, 35-36). As far as I can tell, Henning ignored the work of Herzfeld, whose book on Zarathustra he had just demolished in his Zoroaster. Politician or Witchdoctor? (London, 1951). 30 In Book Pahlavi (from ca. 6th century C.E.), in which the shape of the letters w and n (Psalter and ) had merged into , this type was eventually read as HZYTWN-. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 299

Several forms still need individual explanations of details, of course. Thus, the Parthian verbs with weak third radical had the form HZYE for the present, which may be a conflation of Ìzy/Ìzh = Ìaze, from Ìaze-h(u)(?), or simply HZY with the -E of Ìzh, etc. The Middle Persian verbal heterograms, being reduced to one form for both present and past stems, are a priori more likely to incorporate analogical forms and conflations of original differentiated forms. The fact that almost all Middle Persian verbal heterograms end in -N indicates that the -N in some of them is analogical.31 Thus, the final -N in the type OBYD-W-N, MKBL-W- N is probably analogical from the 3rd plural forms of the type YKTLWN < yq†lwn. One possible scenario is the following. (1) Forms of the type *OHD-W “take” < ˆÌdw present participle + pronoun or 3 plur. perfect acquired the -N of the imperfect yˆÌdwn. (2) With two types ending in -WN (OHDWN and YKTLWN) this ending would have started spreading to other forms, such as *BOYE “seek” < ba¨e (or. sim.), which became BOYHWN “seek". So many prototypes are possible that I refrain from reconstructing an imaginary proto-system. Parthian forms of the type HZY-T, if analyzed as HZY-t, can be either Type I or IV. For simplicity’s sake I prefer to interpret them the same way as OBD-T (or OBD-t), which cannot be Type IV (*OBYD). Middle Persian forms of the type YLYD-WN “be born” can be either Type I or IV. The form YKTYB-WN can be a conflation of *YKTB-WN and *KTYB, but also be from yiÈteßun written plene like ˆthÌsynn = e†haÌsen- in the Asoka inscription (see above). It is, finally, also possible that the -N in HZYTN is the result of the same analogy, rather than an original Aramaic 1st sing. pronoun.32 On this basis we can set up the following basic system of correspondences between the verbal heterograms and the Iranian forms they represent (I give only one example of forms other than the 3rd sing.):

31 Indeed, the attested Middle Persian verbal heterograms without -N stand out like sore thumbs in the system, and some of these acquire -N before our eyes, e.g., OSTE “eat” (SPs I) > OSTE-N (Paikuli), YCBE “wish” (Paikuli) > Book Pahlavi YCBE-N. 32 My recent discovery that the 1st singular imperfect is attested in Middle Persian inscriptions with the ending -en (“L’inscription d’Abnun”), opens the possibility of a reinter- pretation of the phonetic complement as part of the heterogram: HZYT-n > HZYT-N, as in Parthian OBD-T > OBD-t, etc. 300 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

Present (and imperfect) Simple past PARTHIAN Intransitive: AZLW = sawed “he goes/is going” AZL-t (AZLT) = sud “(he is) gone” AZLW-m = sawam “I go/am going” AZL-t (AZLT) HWY-m = sud hem “I am gone” ATYE = ased “he comes” ATY-t (ATYT) = agad “(he is) come” Transitive: OBDW = kared “he does/is doing” W-s OBD-t (OBDT) = u-s kerd (lit.) “by him done” = “he did”33 OBDW-m = karam “I do/am doing” W-m OBD-t (OBDT) = u-m kerd (lit.) “by me done” = “I did” HZYE = wened “he sees” W-s HZY-t = u-s did “he saw” HQAYMW = awested “he places” W-s HQAYM-t (HQAYMW-t) = u-s awestad “he placed” YNTNW = dahed “he gives” W-s YNTN-t = u-s dad “he gave” KTYB-t = nibist “written”

MIDDLE PERSIAN Intransitive: OZLWN = sawed “he goes/is going” OZLWN = sud “(he is) gone” OZLWNm = sawem “I go/am going” OZLWN HWEm = sud hem “I am gone” YATWN = ayed “he comes” YATWN = amad “(he is) come” Transitive: OBYDWN = kuned “he does/is doing” AP-s obydwn = u-s kerd “he did” OBYDWN-m = kunem “I do/am doing” AP-m klty = u-m kerd “I did” HZYTN = wened “he sees” AP-s HZYTN = u-s did “he saw” YKTLWN = ozaned “he kills” AP-s YKTLWN= u-s ozad “he killed”

33 Note that in the Parthian inscriptions the agent is less often expressed than in the Mid- dle Persian ones, cf. Sapur Hajjiabad above. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 301

In the inscriptions the phonetic complement -t is optional in the 3rd sing. present (indicative, subjunctive), while the 3rd sing. simple past hardly ever has a phonetic complement. In the Psalter and in Book Pahlavi the 3rd sing. present takes -yt and the 3rd sing. simple past -t: Mid. Pers. inscriptions Psalter, Book Pahlavi 3rd sing. present sawed OZLWN or OZLWN-t OZLWN-yt 3rd sing. past sud OZLWN OZLWN-t

Note that all the simple past forms can also be used in passive (agent-less) constructions, in which case they must be rendered as passives, e.g., Parthian ME OBD-t = ce kerd “which (was) done", MNW QQL-t HWYN = keozad hend “who were killed". In view of the requirement that one Aramaic form must do duty for all three persons in both numbers, we see that the Parthian heterograms as inter- preted above are a nearly “perfect” fit for the Iranian forms and that many of the Middle Persian heterograms can be interpreted as containing appropriate Aramaic forms. What is perhaps most surprising is that the Aramaic hetero- grams for the simple past normally render the meaning of the Iranian con- struction, which is active, not the form of the construction, which is passive (see Skjærvø, “Remarks”, 221-223). With the above theory, by considering the correspondences between both form and function in both the Aramaic and the Iranian systems, I was able to explain in a relatively simple manner both the forms the verbal heterograms took in Iranian and their function there: (1) Function: The system is based only upon the correspondence between the functions of the verbal categories of the Aramaic verbal system: the im- perfect, perfect, and participle, and the functions of the Iranian verbal cate- gories: present-imperfect and simple past. Aramaic imperfects and active (present) participles represent the Iranian present-imperfect, while perfects and (rarely?) passive (perfect) participles represent the Iranian simple past. (2) Form: The heterograms can to a great extent be explained as actual “frozen” Aramaic forms corresponding to their functions. (3) The development of such a system can be fitted into a plausible theory of who made it, why did they make it, and how did they make it? (see the Conclusion).

C. TOLL'S THEORY A different explanation of the origin of the Aramaic heterograms in Iranian was outlined recently by C. Toll, a student of Nyberg’s, in a presentation at 302 ARAMAIC IN IRAN the XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag, September 1988 in Cologne, published 1990 (Toll, “Die aramäischen Ideogramme”). In a letter to me he says that he wanted to replace the old method, which con- sisted in taking various forms “imperfect or perfect, 1st or 3rd sing. or 3rd plur., active or passive participles in inexplicable mixture and helping out with anal- ogy", with “an explanation that is less arbitrary and a more systematic theory". This is alluded to in his article (p. 28), where he criticizes the “frozen form” explanations of the verbal heterograms by questioning the rationale34 behind the choice of a 3rd plur. imperfect, such as YKTLWN- “kill",35 a 2nd plur. perfect or participle + pronoun, such as HZYTWN-36 “see", or hybrids of imperfects and participles with imperfect pre- and suffixes, such as YKTYBWN “write” and Y-KOYM-WN37 “stand", to express all the forms of the Middle . Similarly, he argues (p. 33) that, because a verbal heterogram (in the Middle Persian inscriptions) can express both the past participle and the imper- ative [also, but unknown to Toll, the 3rd sing. present], we must conclude that the heterogram is not to be “understood” as perfect, imperfect, or participle. We see here how the question of the origin and function of the heterograms in the Iranian text is confused with that of their function in the Aramaic text.38

34 “Es ist schon schwer zu verstehen… noch schwieriger zu verstehen… Und noch schwie- riger … Ein solches „System“ scheint recht unbegreiflich–ja, man fragt sich, ob man hier überhaupt von einem System sprechen kann” (p. 28). 35 On p. 34, he dismisses the possibility of reading the form as Aramaic meaning “one kills, they kill” on the grounds that “there is no reason to do so, because [according to his theory] -KTL- is the perfect or root and Y- and -WN determinators” (“dazu gibt es keinen Anlaß, sondern… -KTL- ist die Perfektform oder die Wurzel als Ideogramm, und Y- und -WN sind die Verbaldeterminative”). On p. 32 he asks what the function of a YKTLWN “man tötet” would have in the Persian text, to him, no doubt, a rhetorical question implying, I suppose, that it would have none. In fact, the 3rd plural is regularly used in Persian and other Iranian languages to express agent-less statements like “one kills”. 36 Actually, this form is a late analogical deformation of HZYTN, which is unlikely to be a 2nd plur. form. We should also note that in Book Pahlavi, w and n merged into one sign and that in many old manuscripts one has the impression that this type of verbs is to be read actually as HZYTN-, rather than as HZYTWN-, which may therefore be entirely non-existent. A statistical investigation of the forms in the best manuscripts is necessary to settle this question. The pattern KKY-T-WN (p. 42) is therefore just a late variant of KKY-T-N. 37 The reason for transliterating this word with ¨ayn, rather than, e.g., with W (*YKWYMWN), is that the Parthian form is HQAYM-, which has A instead, and a corre- spondence Parthian A ~ Middle Persian O is seen also elsewhere, notably in Parthian ALHA “god, lord” ~ Middle Persian ORHYA (< ˆlhyˆ). 38 Note also on p. 33: “Der Umstand, daß Ideogramme ohne persisches Komplement sowohl für persisches Partizip Prät. und persischen Imperativ (vom Präsensstamm) stehen PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 303

Obviously, the Middle Persian heterograms are no longer, in the Middle Persian text, to be understood as Aramaic 3rd plur. imperfect forms or participles with attached 2nd plur. pronouns, but this does not mean that they cannot be derived from such forms.39 Toll wants to explain the form taken by the Aramaic heterograms in Middle Persian40 by a proposed “theoretical” derivation, assuming that they originated as “ur-ideograms” but were provided with various suffixes and prefixes in- dicating more explicitly their grammatical function. He goes on to state his theory, which is “functional". This term as used by Toll does not refer to the syntactic function of the heterograms (if I understand correctly), but the lexical categories of “noun” and “verb” and the morphological categories of “strong” and “weak” verbs. According to him the forms were assigned to the hetero- grams by the scribes specifically to distinguish clearly between these “functions",41 and he is investigating how the heterograms express these “functions” and trying to explain them on this basis.42 Thus, also in his conclusion, he states that his theory is based upon the “functions” of the heterograms in the Persian text43 and that the heterograms represent a logical, although not quite consistent, system designed to distinguish between categories können, zeigt… daß das Ideogramm, die aramäische Verbalform [my italics], tempusneutral ist, weshalb es kein Grund gibt, die Ideogramme als Perfect, Imperfect oder Partizip zu ver- stehen”. 39 Note also, on the same page, “… man kann zur Not die meisten Ideogramme aus Formen des Mandäischen oder Neusyrischen erklären, aber das Ergebnis sind Formen, die für den Gebrauch der Ideogramme völlig belanglos sind [my italics], und zuletzt bleiben immer noch Formen… die auf keinen Fall mit irgendeiner bekannten aramäischen Verbalform identifiziert werden können… [oder] die ebenfalls nicht aramäisch gelesen werden können [my italics]”. 40 “Der Zweck des Aufsatzes ist, die Formen zu erklären, welche die aramäischen Ideogramme im Mittelpersischen haben” (p. 28). 41 “Demgegenüber möchte ich behaupten, daß die Ideogramme überhaupt nich auf Aramäisch gelesen werden sollen oder können, weil sie keine aramäischen Formen darstellen, weder reichsaramäische noch ostaramäische, sondern sämtlich von den Schreibern fabriziert worden sind, und zwar nicht aus mangelnder Kenntnis des Aramäischen, sondern zu eben dem Zweck, zu dem man überhaupt Ideogramme benutzte, nämlich der größeren Deutlichkeit und Verständlichkeit halber. Meine Theorie geht von der Funktion der verschiedenen Formen der Ideogramme aus. Diese Funktion is nicht, Tempora und Personen anzugeben… [sondern] vielmehr, Nomina und Verben, Stammformen und schwache Verben zu identifizieren” (p. 28, bottom; my italics). 42 “Ich will nun untersuchen, wie die Ideogramme die von mir vorausgesetzte Funktion wahrnehmen, und die Formen von dieser Funktion her erklären” (pp. 28-29). 43 “… eine Theorie… die von der Funktion der Ideogramme im persischen Text ausgeht” (p. 40). 304 ARAMAIC IN IRAN of words and between verbs from different stems and with different meanings in order to ease the reading and understanding of the text.44 My criticism of Toll’s theory addresses the following three issues: (1) the choice of material, (2) the omission of references to several publications on the subject, and (3) his theory itself. Toll’s decision to study the Middle Persian heterograms on the basis of Nyberg’s Manual II and the Frahang i pahlawig,45 which encode late Book Pahlavi usage (ca. 7th-9th centuries C.E.), instead of choosing as his basis the oldest texts, that is, the inscriptions and the Pahlavi Psalter (3rd- ca. 6th centuries C.E.), is surprising. One of the disadvantages of using the late material is that the Book Pahlavi script is extremely ambiguous, as opposed to the early Parthian and Middle Persian lapidary and Psalter scripts, which contain very few ambiguities. The systems of phonetic complements in these various corpora also differ to a great extent (see Skjærvø, “Verbal Ideograms”). The Book Pahlavi evidence therefore gives a rather different picture from that of the inscriptions and the Psalter.46 Toll ignores some crucial secondary literature, including Herzfeld, Paikuli (1924), Gignoux, “Étude des variantes textuelles” (1973), Brunner A Syntax (1977), Humbach-Skjærvø, Paikuli (1983), and Skjærvø, “Case” (1983) and “Verbs in Parthian” (1986), which leaves him unaware of important points about the syntactical functions of the heterograms, especially their correlation with the Iranian tenses (see above). His question, “how often and by what principles ideographic or phonetic spellings were chosen” (p. 27)47 had in fact already been answered in part by Herzfeld and myself.

44 “… ein logisches, wenn auch nicht konsequent durchgeführtes System dar, um die ver- schiedenen Wortarten zu kennzeichnen, um Verben verschiedener Stammformen und damit verschiedener Bedeutung zu unterscheiden und um die Lesung und das Verständnis eines Textes auch sonst zu erleichtern” (p. 40). 45 “Ich gehe dabei von dem System aus, wie es im Buchpahlavi vorliegt, mit NYBERGS Manual. 2. Glossary und Frahang als Quellen” (p. 28). 46 Thus several statements on p. 37 are based on insufficient material: It is not true that in the Middle Persian inscriptions the heterogram without phonetic complement is mostly used for “the participle in the preterite”, nor is it true that there is only one heterogram without phonetic com- plement used for the imperative. The statement that only in Book Pahlavi does the heterogram without phonetic complement used for the imperative become more frequent is meaningless, as the Book Pahlavi texts cover a much wider range of prose than the inscriptions. 47 “Es gibt in diesem Zusammenhang noch ein Problem, das ich nicht näher beachtet ge- sehen habe: Wörter, die mit Ideogrammen geschrieben werden, können daneben auch phonetisch geschrieben werden. Es dürfte interessant sein zu wissen, wie oft und nach welchen Gründen ideographische oder phonetische Schreibung gewählt wurde”. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 305

Toll elaborates his theory by discussing consecutively nominal, verbal, and pronominal heterograms. The discussion of the verbal heterograms is sub- divided into that of strong and weak verbs. His conclusions about the verbal heterograms are set out in table form at the end of the article. My critique follows this outline, except that I give my remarks on the table in my discussion of the verbal heterograms.

Nominal heterograms Toll first discusses the nominal heterograms, many of which have the ending -A. This he interprets as invented by the scribes to distinguish nouns from the verbs: because mlk could mean both “king” and “rule", MLKA was chosen as the heterogram to designate “king". The nominal heterograms in -E he interprets as an alternate spelling for the determinate state, that is YDE “hand” for Aramaic ydh = ydˆ.48 The ideograms for family terms: ABY “father", etc., he interprets, traditionally, as original vocatives containing the Aramaic possessive pronoun -i which became normal forms.49 This theory does not explain why nouns for body parts tend to take the ending -E rather than -A in Middle Persian (as opposed to Parthian!), why the nouns for family terms end in -Y, and why some nominal heterograms have no ending at all. It also does not explain why the Iranian languages that used the heterographic system of writing differed in their use of forms with no ending, -A, or -E. We see that to explain the forms in -Y and those without ending, Toll has recourse to the “frozen forms” theory, which he is criticizing, and explains them by their function in Aramaic. But why should the inventors have used vocative forms to express forms that in the administrative documents most often functioned as anything but vocative or have been concerned about a statistical preponderance of construct forms50 in a small set of nouns?51

48 Support for the interpretation of the final -H as a spelling variant of -A can be found in Parthian scribal practice. In fact, Mid. Pers. YDE = Parth. YDA, Mid. Pers. LOYSE “head” = Parth. RYSA, a fact of which Toll seems to have been unaware. 49 “… alle diese Wörter können als ursprüngliche „Vokative“ betrachtet werden, die zur Normalform des Wortes geworden sind” (p. 29, bottom). 50 “… einige Nomina, die im Aramäischen meist im St. cstr. stehen” (p. 31). This ex- planation also breaks down: “Warum die folgenden Wörter kein Determinative haben, ist aber schwer zu erklären…” (p. 31). 51 On pp. 30-31, Toll discusses the heterogram OBDk/OBDK = bandag, which Toll, pos- sibly correctly, derives from Aram ¨aßdaÈ “your servant”. The only attestations in the inscrip- 306 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

Finally, the theory does not explain forms such as Parthian MLKYN MLKA “king of kings", with an Aramaic plural form mlkyn. Why there was a need to distinguish nominal from verbal heterograms is not made clear. As a matter of fact, very rarely (if at all) do we find Aramaic roots used for both noun and verb, as vaguely implied by Toll. Thus, there is no verbal heterogram from mlk, either in Parthian or Middle Persian, and no “couple” MLKA ~ *MLKWN, *YMLKWN, both differentiated from an undifferentiated ur- *MLK meaning both “king” and “rule". The number of Iranian nouns (written with heterograms) derived from verbs is probably close to nil (or non-existent). Normal verbal nouns if written with heterograms rather than phonetically are indicated by phonetic complements, for instance, HZYTN-sn = wenisn “seeing, sight", HZYTN-tˆl = didar52 “visible”; there is no “couple” *HZYA, *HZYE ~ HZYTN. Finally, even if there were a substantial number of such “couples", the normal syntax of the Iranian sentence (SUBJECT/AGENT… VERB) would distinguish more than clearly enough between nouns and verbs. This fact, too, would seem to obviate the scribes’ need for inventing a way of distinguishing between nouns and verbs. On the other hand, adjectives, which frequently do occupy the same position in the sentence as verbs, are not distinguished in any way, and the adjectives of the form KKYK (SPYL, KBYR, etc.) thus coincide completely with Toll’s verbal pattern KKYK (p. 41).

Verbal heterograms To explain the verbal heterograms, Toll basically assumes that it would have been natural for the scribes to chose the 3rd sing. perfect, the “fundamental” form of the Semitic verb, the one which in the script coincided with the root, as verbal heterogram;53 these verbal ur-ideograms then received determinators that characterized them as verbs, and, since two of the characteristic features of Aramaic verbs were the 3rd plur. endings -u and -un and the 3rd pers. imperfect prefix y-, these were consequently the determinators chosen to tions actually do support this meaning for Middle Persian, as well. For the passage (SPs II 7-11) see, e.g., Skjærvø, “Verbal Ideograms”, 343). As for his query p. 30 whether bandag is attested in such a function, actually, OBDK/k is attested in this meaning in SPs II line 16. The “hetero- gram” AZk quoted in this context is probably not a heterogram, however, but an obsolete Iranian word: Avestan aza-, see Skjærvø, review of Nyberg, Frahang i pahlavik, 97. 52 The word seems to have been analyzed, logically, as did + ending -ar (HZYTN-t-ˆl). 53 “Die Grundform des semitischen Verbs, diejenige, welche in der Schrift mit der Wurzel zusammenfällt, is bekanntlich die 3. P. M. Sg. Pf. Es wäre natürlich gewesen, wenn die Schreiber diese Form für das Verbalideogramm gewählt hätten” (p. 32). PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 307 characterize the forms as verbal ideograms. This does not mean, according to Toll, that the ideograms actually represent the corresponding Aramaic forms: the similarity is a coincidence, and the ideogram expresses only the idea of the action.54 This is true at the time of our inscriptions and later, but was it also true when the forms first were chosen or became fixed? The notion of an ur-ideogram developing into the attested forms by ac- cretions is not new; it is nothing but Henning’s “onion” simile in a more elaborate form: “one must peel a form like HZYTWN like an onion in order to recognize the Aramaic ur-ideogram HZY".55 On the basis of these assumptions, Toll suggests the following stages of development: 1. Ur-ideogram: KKK, only in Parthian.56 2. Addition of the element -W to distinguish them from nouns [my italics], in Parthian.57 3. Expansion of KKK-W to KKK-WN58 for greater clarity [my italics]. 4. Addition of Y- to the form in -WN, for maximum clarity [my italics]. In the case of Pa¨¨el forms, the 3rd sing. masc. of which is not distinguished from the Qal, the prefix M- from the participle was chosen rather than Y- to distinguish the two forms (p. 38).

54 “Wenn es auch die Form yiq†elun auf Aramäisch gibt, so ist das nur ein Zufall, und als Ideogramm drückt das Wort nur die Idee der Handlung aus” (p. 32). From this point of view the aspect of the action expressed by the heterogram is of course irrelevant, as stressed reapeatedly throughout the article. Nevertheless, occasionally Toll invokes “punctual” versus “durative” aspect to explain the forms, e.g., p. 35 (bottom), 36 (middle). It may be pointed out that Parthian and early Middle Persian do not distinguish between these “aspects” of the action, see Skjærvø, “Remarks”, 222-225. 55 “… eine Schreibung wie ÎZYTWN muss man zwiebelgleich auswickeln, um das wirk- lich aramäische Urideogramm ÎZY erkennen zu können” (Henning, “Mitteliranisch”, 36). 56 That is, if we accept that the forms of the pattern KKK-T are originally KKK-t with Iranian phonetic complement, rather than Aramaic 1st sing. perf., later reinterpreted as con- taining a phonetic complement (see above). An ur-ideogram KKK alone is thus not attested in Parthian (or Middle Persian). 57 Toll adds, perhaps also in the Middle Persian inscription, referring to his suggestion that the final -N in Middle Persian verbal ideograms is a misreading for -W (see below). As a matter of fact, there were Middle Persian verbal ideograms ending in -W: the one attested is YHY- TYW, which Toll does not mention. – The corresponding Parthian Hap¨el pattern H-WKK is represented by hwsr-t in some Arameo-Parthian documents, while, H-WKK-W is Gignoux’s “[Î]WD¨N[t]”, for which we must read [H]WDOY[W]. 58 There are no Parthian forms of this pattern, as “AZLWN” in Gignoux, Glossaire, is a mistake for AZLt. 308 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

The various forms representing the ur-ideograms of the strong and weak verbs and their subsequent modifications are set out at the end of the article in a table of patterns of heterograms in the Parthian and Middle Persian inscriptions and the Frahang i pahlawig, together with the number of hetero- grams attested for each pattern.59 The inscriptional forms are cited from Gignoux’s Glossaire, which leads to numerous mistakes, especially since Humbach-Skjærvø, Paikuli, was not consulted. Evaluating this table is difficult, since the forms themselves are not quoted and so have to be hunted down in Gignoux’s Glossaire. Many of the patterns are limited to single and/or doubtful occurrences or to late Book Pahlavi forms more developed than the corre- sponding forms in the inscriptions or the Psalter (see the notes above and below). The table therefore presents many pitfalls for the unwary Aramaist. Following are comments on some details of general interest. Toll’s suggestion that the final -N without preceding -W- (-WN) in Middle Persian ideograms is actually -W (pp. 34-35), implies that this -W has been misread as -N by a century of Iranian scholars. It is obviously free fantasy, as even a cursory glance at any inscription (Middle Persian = -WN) or a page of the Psalter will show (Ps. = -WN).60 The suggestion that the ending -WN is an expansion of -W must be based upon the assumption (not expressed by Toll) that the Middle Persian system represents a development of the Parthian system. The Middle Persian system as a whole, however, cannot be derived from the Parthian one, and there is therefore no reason to assume–on the basis of the attested forms–that -WN is from -W with the addition of a clarifying -N.61

59 The Psalter forms are not included. 60 Similarly, the suggestion that Book Pahlavi heterograms with only -N following -E- or another -N- show a reduction of -WN to -N while leaving the heterogram ending in two vertical strokes (BP - = -EN = -MNN and - = -NN) ignores the fact that the heterograms in question in the Middle Persian inscriptions originally ended in -E only and -NN, respec- tively: OSTE “eat” (later OSTEN) and YHSNN “hold, have” (not *YHSNWN). The latter form is the only example of the pattern Y-KKK-N (p. 41); neither the old theory nor Toll’s new one can explain this form well, which does not agree with any known Aramaic form (speculatively: perhaps conflation of *YHSN < *y(¢h)aÌsen “he holds” and *MHSNN < *m(¢h)aÌsen-en “I am holding”). KKK-n refers to THNN- “grind”, only(?) attested in Fra- hang i pahlawig, chap. 19, which tells us nothing about what its original (intended) form may have been. 61 Toll’s suggestion that the ending -WN ( -) in Book Pahlavi was no longer understood as such, only as two final strokes, is rendered unlikely by the fact that the traditional pro- nunciation of these forms as recorded in the 18th century by Anquetil-duperron was still with -un, see below. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 309

The addition of Y- to the form in -WN for maximum clarity is justified by reference to nouns and adjectives ending in -WN or beginning with Y- (pp. 34-35).62 Such nouns are so rare, however, that they can hardly have exerted enough pressure on the, according to Toll, already differentiated verbal ideograms for them to be further differentiated. (It would have been much easier to change the few nouns and adjectives in question.) Toll’s explanation of the heterograms in M- as intentional differentiation of the Pa¨¨el forms from those of the Qal, is subject to the same criticism as his explanation of the distinction between nominal and verbal heterograms. There are very few (if any) couplets that are distinguished only by the pre- fixes Y- ~ M-. Indeed, the attested couplets are distinguished differently, e.g., ZBNWN (not *YZBNWN) “buy” ~ MZBNWN “sell".63 To explain the forms that do not conform to these patterns, for instance, Parthian KKYK and YKKYKW,64 Middle Persian KKYKWN and YKKYKWN, Toll constantly has recourse to the “frozen forms” theory he disparages and intends to replace.65 Toll does not mention the forms of the copula, which are clearly derived from individual Aramaic forms: Parthian HWY- < hawe for the present stem (HWY-m “I/we are”), HWE < hwa for the imperfect (Skjærvø, “On the Middle Persian Imperfect”, forthcoming), AYTY for the existential verb “there is",

62 Nominal heterograms in -WN include PKDWN paymar “appointment, assignment” and HWBDWN wani/wany “destruction”, both used in verbal constructions with kardan “do, make” and budan “be, become”, meaning “appoint/be appointed” and “destroy/be destroyed”; they may be original verbal heterograms, cf. Parthian HWBDW-t “destroyed”. The form “magun” cited p. 35 1st line with a query is the oblique plural of “magu” “Magian”; I do not understand why it is mentioned here. – Heterograms in Y- quoted by Toll (p. 35 top) are YDE “hand”, YMA “sea”, YRHA “month”, and YWM “day”! 63 My own explanation of this couple is as derived from present participles zaßen-(h)u and m¢zabben-(h)u, see above. 64 KKYK is found in Parthian KTYB- “written” (only with phonetic complements: KTYB-t, KTYB-tn). Parthian Y-KKYK-W refers to Gignoux’s “Y¨RYBW-” and “YDRYKW-”, which are the same verb, but whose reading and meaning are quite uncertain, see Humbach- Skjærvø, Paikuli, Part 3.2, 65-66. The bracketed pattern KKYK-A (p. 41) is Armazi ¨bydˆ, which Altheim (Die aramäische Sprache, 42) proposed to read as ¨byd(w)ˆ, with -w- inserted above the line. 65 He invokes “interference” (that is, analogy) also in other instances, as in the case of the one verb of the pattern KKK-L-WN, which is tentatively explained as “vielleicht Inter- ferenz” of the many [Aramaic!] verbs that have L as third radical. The verb in question is Pahl. HCDLWN- = drun- “to reap (corn)”, where the interference is clearly from the Pahlavi verb itself (see Skjærvø, review of Nyberg, Frahang i pahlavik, 98). 310 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

HWYN for the 3rd plur. present; Middle Persian HWE < hawe for the present stem (HWE-m, etc.), HWYTN for the imperfect stem, AYTY for the exis- tential verb, negated LOYTY.

Strong and weak verbs According to Toll, the inventors of the heterograms decided to make a distinction between strong and weak verbs, using a different selection principle of which basic forms to adopt in the two cases. Thus, for the strong verbs they “chose", as we have seen, the 3rd sing. perfect = the root. Coming to the weak verbs, however, they(?) noticed a problem,66 namely that the 3rd sing. perfect ≠ the root: they no longer had three radical consonants, only two, the weak radical having been replaced by a long vowel. Why this should have been a “problem” to the inventors, we are not told. The problem is rather that of Toll, since he has postulated that the ur-ideogram is the 3rd sing. perfect, not the root. The inventors of the heterograms could have just taken the 3rd sing. perfect and modified it the way they did the strong verb, making forms of the type *KKW, *KKWN or *YKKW, *YKKWN, which would have been easy to recognize and read, for instance, Parthian *QMW/Middle Persian *KMWN and *YQMW/*YKMWN or *HZW/*HZWN and *YHZW/*YHZWN. It is true that the ur-ideogram of verbs like Ìzy would end in -A or -E (*HZA, *HZE), which (by Toll’s theory) would make them indistinguishable from nouns in -A or -E,67 but surely, if there was such an ur-ideogram, it would have been easier and more consistent just to add Y- and -W/-WN, giving *(Y)HZEW, *(Y)HZEWN (or *(Y)HZHW, *(Y)HZHWN), forms that were perfectly recognizable and unambiguous, rather than replacing them with forms in -YT: HZYT, HZYT-N. Since the actual forms are not those required by Toll’s basic assumptions, his theory again breaks down, and, once more, he has to have recourse to other, sometimes quite complicated, explanations, the same as the “frozen form” theory he wants to replace. The complicated explanations he has to provide are in themselves proof that his theory is not up to the task. Note, for instance, that the form YATWN “come” according to Toll has nothing to do with Aramaic yˆtwn, but is from an

66 “Wenn das Ideogram ein schwaches Verb wiedergeben soll, ergibt sich das Problem, daß das Pf. der med. und tert. w/y nur zwei der drei Radikale wiedergibt” (p. 36, top). 67 They did not mind Middle Persian HWE, copula, however. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 311 ur-ideogram -AT-, with “curious” loss of the third radical (present in Book Pahlavi Y-HYTY-WN “bring”) and the standard additions Y- and -WN.68 As an example of a form needing serious work to explain we may take Y- KOYM-WN “stand",69 which Toll first derives from the present participle qaˆim or qayim, with the addition of the “ideogram-markers". The reason why this could happen is according to Toll that the meaning of Aramaic qam is punctual: “stand up", while Persian estadan is durative: “stand", and could be denoted by the Aramaic present participle.70 As his basic assumption, however, is that the scribes made a conscious choice to use the 3rd sing. perfect, such considerations should not enter their discussion.71 As an alternate ex- planation he suggests that -KAYM- is for *-KYM- and that, as *YKYMWN would be ambiguous in Aramaic (Qal or Pa¨¨el), an -A- was added before the -Y- in order to show that the heterogram stood for the Qal qam rather than the Pa¨¨el qayyim, although, as the form was to be used in Iranian, not Aramaic, such concerns would be irrelevant.72 As a matter of fact, in Middle Persian

68 The Parthian form ATYE, pattern KKY-E, is characterized as “mixed form” (“Misch- form”, p. 43, see also p. 37), which does not explain what was in the minds of the inventors. Other examples of weak verbs with prefix Y- include Parthian forms of the pattern Y-KK and Y-KK-E (p. 42) represented by YBO-t, YBO-E “seek” (rhyming with YDO-t, YDO-E “know”) and YHW-t, YHW-E “be(come)”. The Parthian pattern Y-KKA-, Y-KKA-E is re- presented only by YMQA-t, YMQA-E “arrive”. The Middle Persian pattern Y-KK-E(-N/- WN) (p. 42) is represented by YCB-E “wish”, for which Book Pahlavi has forms that can be read as YCB-E-N or YCB-E-WN. Forms from the Hap¨el of weak verbs are the patterns H- KK, H-KKY, H-KKY-W, represented by Parthian HYT-t = HYTY-t “bring” and Parthian and Middle Persian HYTY-W. The Middle Persian pattern H-KK-WN is represented in the Frahang i pahlawig, chap. 21, by HCGWN, which (if correct), is probably a graphic variant of YHYTYWN-. The pattern Middle Persian Y-H-KK-WN is represented only by YHMTWN “arrive” (intransitive!) = Parthian YMQA-. The Middle Persian patterns H-KKY-WN and Y-H-KKY-WN are represented by Book Pahlavi HYTYWN “bring” for inscr. HYTYW and Book Pahlavi YHYTYWN. 69 Not *YKAYMWN, as it is consistently cited by Toll. YKOYMWN is the traditional tran- scription of this form, based on the relationship with Parthian HQAYM- and assuming Parthian A ~ Middle Persian O (as in Parth. ALHA ~ Mid. Pers. ORHYA, Mid. Pers. AYTY ~ LOYTY, etc.), but the form can of course also be read as YQWYMWN, for instance, which could be a conflation of the Imperial Aramaic imperfect yqwmwn and the present participle qym. 70 As a matter of fact, estadan means both “be standing” (Germ. “stehen”), durative, and “ go and stand somewhere” (Germ. “sich (hin)stellen”), punctual. 71 Toll also invokes aspect in his explanation of heterograms of the pattern -KKYK- to explain them as being from the perfect passive participle, another break with his theory. 72 Other forms of the Parthian patterns KAYK and KAYK-W (p. 41) include QAYL-t and QAYL-W, QAYM-W (mistake for HQAYM-W?), and SAYL-W, all in the Nisa documents; the bracketed pattern KAYK-YN is Armazi mˆytyn, on which see the text of the inscription, 312 ARAMAIC IN IRAN there was no problem, as the normal verb for “place” is HNHTWN- = nih-ad, while the (rare) causative esten- “make stand > place” of est-ad is expressed by adding the causative suffix to the heterogram: YKOYMWN-yn-.73

Pronouns Toll ends his exposition of the Aramaic heterograms in Iranian with a brief discussion of the pronominal heterograms, LY “I, me", and LK “you". Instead of interpreting these forms as the actual Aramaic forms, Toll again prefers to see the initial L- as a determiner that characterizes these words as pronouns. The case of the pronouns is different from that of the nouns, how- ever, since BYTA without -A is still a word, while LY and LK without L- are not words. His arguments are also unclear. He first says that the reason for this choice could be that the corresponding Persian pronouns man “me” is oblique case, and to oblique (as well as direct) case. He then goes on to state that this does not explain why the Aramaic oblique case forms were chosen and that the L- does not denote the oblique case, which would have been pointless in the Persian text.74 Since the direct and oblique cases of the pronouns were distinguished in Persian (as implicitly admitted by Toll, too), however, why should not the scribes chose Aramaic forms accordingly? Toll’s theory does not account for the direct form of the 1st sing. personal pronoun ANE, which he does not mention. Clearly, with a system ANE = an “I” (direct case) versus LY = man (oblique case), it is hard not to conclude that the forms were chosen because of their functions in Aramaic.75 Toll does mention that there are instances of above. The Parthian patterns H-KAYK and H-KAYK-W are represented by HQAYM- and HQAYM-W. Note that in the Nisa documents Hap¨el forms are spelled with initial he, but in the inscriptions with Ìe†; Toll appears to have counted individually hqˆym- (with he) and HQAYM- (with Ìe†). The Parthian pattern H-KYK (p. 43) is represented only by Gignoux’s “HRYMt”, Nisa, of uncertain meaning, and Y-T-KYK (p. 43) by Nisa YTKYN-t and YTKYN-W. We have to wait for the publication of more of the Nisa corpus to evaluate the Aramaic elements in these documents, however. 73 On these verbs see also Humbach-Skjærvø, Paikuli, Part 3.2, 22-23. 74 “Das erklärt aber nicht, warum für die Pronomina… die Form im cas. obl. gewählt wurde, d.h. warum die aramäischen Pronominalideogramme mit L- eingeleitet werden. Die Erklärung ist wahrscheinlich ähnlich wie bei den Nominal- und Verbalideogrammen: L- be- zeichnet nich den cas. obl., was im persischen Text zwecklos wäre” (p. 39; my italics). 75 The 2nd sing. LK stands for both the direct and oblique cases, but that is because the two forms merged in Persian. In Parthian LK (oblique case) is still distinguished from ANT (direct case). For the use of case forms of pronouns in Parthian and Middle Persian see Skjærvø, “Case”. PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 313 pronouns without L-, for instance ZNE and LZNE; what he does not say is that these two forms represent different Persian pronouns: ZNE = en, LZNE = im, both “this". A much simpler interpretation of the attested forms would therefore be that, as the heterographic system was materializing, the scribes took forms that were available and assigned them to the Persian words closest in meaning. Note that Persian ed, also “this", was originally expressed apparently by either HNA or LHNA, leading to the disappearance of LHNA as redundant. We may finally note that in the case of the demonstrative pronouns, the different Iranian languages went different ways, e.g., in Parthian ZNE = im and ZK = ed, both “this” (Mid. Pers. ZK = an “that”), LH-w (or LHW) = ho “he, that” (Sogdian ZK = xo “he, that”), etc., see Henning, “Mitteliranisch”, 32-33.

Conclusion As the reason for any alternative to an existing theory must be that the alternative theory provides a better description and explanation of the facts, we may ask whether Toll’s theory does so. The answer is clearly that it does not. It does not, for instance, explain the distribution of the Parthian forms in -T (or -t) and -W/-E between the past and present stems and the restriction of Middle Persian forms like OBYDWN to the present stem, facts the author is not aware of, but which were described by Herzfeld in 1924. The theory that the forms of the heterograms were chosen to distinguish between nouns and verbs and strong and weak verbs breaks down over the fact that there was no need for such a formal distinction. The theory of the “onion-like” accretion process itself, in Toll’s opinion consciously invented by the scribes, breaks down in that aberrant heterograms cannot be explained by it without recourse to a variety of ad hoc explanations (like the old theory). It is not obvious (no sarcasm intended) how the “old” method of “taking perfects, imperfects, and participles and helping out with analogy” is less adequate than the method of taking perfects (which are not perfects), adding the grammatical elements of the imperfects (without thereby making the forms imperfects), and helping out with analogy from participles. Finally, the basis of the theory, that the heterograms were consciously invented by the scribes, brings up the question of how exactly the hetero- grams were “invented". We know that the scribes were an important part of the central and local administrations, as they are frequently mentioned in the oldest Sasanian inscriptions, and the homogeneous and consistent writing 314 ARAMAIC IN IRAN system we can observe in both the Parthian and Middle Persian texts must clearly be the result of conscious policy-making. The step to assuming that they based their scribal policy on an abstract grammatical analysis of Aramaic, as assumed by Toll when he posits that the scribes chose the 3rd sing. perfect because it is the basic form of the Semitic verb, coinciding with the stem, is very doubtful, however, as we do not seem to have any evidence from this time (2nd-1st cents. B.C.E.) for the kind of grammatical science needed for making such an analysis. Thinking in terms of grammatical abstracts comes naturally to us, but to somebody without the kind of training we get, “grammar” consists of actual forms, not roots and stems. It is an experience any dialect researcher will have had that when you ask for basic forms of the verbal paradigm, to us perhaps the infinitives, you will only get personal forms. Even the concepts of noun and verb may not have been familiar to them. On the contrary, if asked, they would just as likely say that mlk “he ruled” and “king” were the same kind of words, deducing from the basic meaning of the words, a response language teachers are well familiar with from students without grammatical schooling. Imagining the scribal college of the Parthian administration, well versed in Aramaic grammar, sitting together and deciding on the forms by taking the root of the verb and then debating which prefixes or suffixes to add to it to make it a heterogram implies a situation that clearly did not obtain at the time. On the contrary, imagining the same college consisting of Parthians by now fairly illiterate in Aramaic choosing from the forms most commonly used in the actual documents at their disposal and the sample texts they must have learned from their teachers, makes perfect sense, at least to me. The fact that the scribes no longer felt strongly that Ìzyt was a 1st sing. form and so used it for all persons, brings to mind a famous Iranian archeologist (a European), whom I heard speak Persian with only one verbal form in his grammatical repertoire, namely the 1st plural (using it with all the personal pronouns), which was, because of its common use in a group of people, presumably the one he noticed most often. Even if we admit, for the sake of argument, that an Aramaic scribal college did possess this kind of knowledge of its own language, how can we assume that a Parthian or Persian college of scribes no longer sufficiently familiar with Aramaic orthography to distinguish between h and Ì did so?

LEARNING HOW TO SPELL WITH HETEROGRAMS How, then, did the scribes learn how to write with heterograms, we may finally ask? Clearly, once they ceased intentionally writing Aramaic and their PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 315 knowledge of Aramaic faded, they could no longer call upon the actual Aramaic forms to help them. At a guess, I suggest they did what we did in school when we began learning foreign languages: they memorized the forms, probably in lists such as: “to write X, write Y". This method was extended to cover in- digenous words with “strange” spellings, as well. The earliest such list pre- served is the Frahang i pahlawig, which is in precisely this form: BYTA: xanag (“house”), etc. Later versions of the lists are found in early publications of Zoroastrian material. The following list of Pahlavi words in traditional Gujerati Parsi pronunciation is from Anquetil-Duperron’s -Avesta (III, 476-522). Anquetil-Duperron gives the Persian equivalents, which correspond to my transcription, and a French translation. In the far left column I have given the standard modern transliteration and in the second column the alter- nate reading of the Pahlavi graph which gave rise to the traditional “school” pronunciation. Note that pronouncing the Aramaic words as such in the learning process does not, of course, make these words loanwords and part of the lexicon. It is just a learning devise. modern “looks like” traditional Gujerati modern meaning transliteration school pronunciation transcription ˆwhrmzd ˆnhwmˆ anhuma Ohrmazd Ohrmazd AYMT ˆdmt admat kay when? ÅNE76 ynh anâ en this AB ab pid father ABYtl abider pidar father (obl. case) HLKWNtn ˆlkwntn alkunatan baxtan to distribute, give HLKWNyt alkuned baxsed he distributes/ gives BRE bwmn boman pusar son BRTE bntmn bonteman duxtar daughter BOYHWNstn bwyhwnstn bavihunastan xwastan to seek BKYWNstn bhwnstn bahunastan gristan to weep YNS∫WNtn ywsgntn josgonatan stadan to take YCBENstn dcbmnstn dajbamunestan kamistan to wish MNYTWNtn mwytwntn mavitunatan osmurdan to remember OBLWNtn nblwntn nabrunatan widardan to pass away O∫YDWNtn wˆgwntn vagunatan kardan to do

76 The underscoring of single letters means that they are here written like another letter, e.g., B, K, or Z like Y and ZD, BY, and KY like A. 316 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

REFERENCES

ALTHEIM, F. and R. Stiehl, Die aramäische Sprache unter den Achaimeniden, Vol. I, (Frankfurt am Main, 1963). ANDREAS, F. C., and K. Barr, “Bruchstücke einer Pehlevi-Übersetzung der Psalmen”, SPAW, (1933), 91-152. ANQUETIL-DUPERRON, A. H., Zend-Avesta, ouvrage de Zoroastre, Vols. I-III, (Paris, 1771; repr. New York and London, 1984). BOWMAN, R. A., Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications XCI, Chicago, 1970). BRUNNER, C. J., A Syntax of Western Middle Iranian, (Delmar, NY, 1977). COWLEY, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., (Oxford, 1923; repr. Osnabrück, 1967). DALMAN, G., Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, (Leipzig, 1905; repr. Darmstadt, 1960). GIGNOUX, Ph., “Étude des variantes textuelles des inscriptions de Kirdir. Genèse et datation”, Le Muséon, 86, (1973), 193-216. GIGNOUX, Ph., Glossaire des inscription pehlevies et parthes, (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Supplementary Series, Vol. 1, London, 1978). HENNING, W. B., “Das Verbum des Mittelpersischen der Turfanfragmente”, Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik, 9, (1933), 158-253 (= Selected Papers, vol. 1, 65-160). HENNING, W. B., “Mitteliranisch”, in Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, IV, 1, (Leiden- Cologne, 1958). HERZFELD, E., Paikuli. Monument and Inscription of the Early History of the Sassanian Empire, Vols. I-II, (Berlin, 1924). HOFTIJZER, J. and Jongeling, K., Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, (Leiden, etc., 1995). HUMBACH, H., and Skjærvø, P. O., The Sassanian Inscription of Paikuli, Part 3.1, Restored Text and Translation and Part 3.2, Commentary, by P. O. Skjærvø, (Wiesbaden, 1983). LAZARD, G., “Notes de vieux-perse”, BSL, 71, (1976), 175-192. LEVINE, B. A., review of Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts, in JAOS, 92, (1972), 70-79. MORANO, E., “Contributi all’interpretazione della bilingue greco-partica dell’Eracle di Seleucia”, in Gnoli, G., and A. Panaino, (eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies held in Turin, September 7th-11th, 1987 by the Societas Iranologica Europaea. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Part 2: Middle and New Iranian Studies, (Serie Orientale Roma. Vol. 67,1. Rome, 1990), 229-238. NYBERG, H. S., A Manual of Pahalvi, Vol. I, (Wiesbaden, 1964); Vol. II, (Wies- baden, 1974) NYBERG, H.S., Frahang i pahlavik, ed. B. Utas with the collaboration of C. Toll, (Wiesbaden, 1988) PRODS OKTOR SKJÆRVO 317

Pugliese Carratelli, G., and G. Garbini with foreword by G. Tucci and introd. by U. Scerrato, A Bilingual Graeco-Aramaic Edict by Asoka. The First Greek In- scription Discovered in Afghanistan, (Serie Orientale Roma, XXIX, Rome, 1964). ROSENTHAL, F., “Aramaic. 1. General”, in Yarshater, E., (ed.) Encyclopaedia Iranica, II/3, (London, etc., 1986), 251-256. SALEMANN, C., “Mittelpersisch”, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, ed. W. Geiger and E. Kuhn, Vol. 1/1, (Strassburg, 1895-1901; repr. Berlin and New York, 1974), 249-332. SCHAEDER, H. H., Iranische Beiträge, Vol. I, (Schriften der Königsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswiss. Kl. 6, 5, Halle-Saale, 1930). SEGERT, S., Altaramäische Grammatik, (Leipzig, 1983). SIMS-WILLIAMS, N., “The Final Paragraph of the Tomb-Inscription of Darius I (DNb, 50-60: the Old Persian Text in the Light of an Aramaic Version”, BSOAS, 44, (1981, 1-7). SIMS-WILLIAMS, N., “A Sogdian Greeting”, in Emmerick, R. E., and D. Weber (eds.), Papers in Honour of Prof. D. N. MacKenzie on the occasion of his 65th birthday on April 8th, 1991, (Frankfurt, etc., 1991), 176-187. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., Undersøkelser til verbalsystemet i gammelpersisk og vestlig middel- iransk (Investigations into the verbal systems of Old Persian and western Middle Persian), M.A. thesis, Oslo and Copenhagen, 1974. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, and the Pahlavi Psalter”, Studia Iranica, 12, (1983), 69-94, 151-181. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “Remarks on the Old Persian Verbal System”, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 45, (1985), 211-227 (= Festgabe für K. Hoffmann). SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “Verbs in Parthian and Middle Persian Inscriptions”, in Schmitt, R., and P. O. Skjærvø, eds., Studia Grammatica Iranica. Festschrift für Helmut Humbach, (Munich, 1986), 425-439. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “Verbal Ideograms and the Imperfect in Middle Persian and Parthian”, in Études irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, (Studia Iranica, cahier 7, 1989), 333-54. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., review of Nyberg, H. S., Frahang i pahlavik, (Wiesbaden, 1988), in Kratylos, 35, (1990), 95-99. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “L’inscription d’Abnun et l’imparfait en moyen-perse”, Studia Iranica, 21, (1992), 153-60. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., review of Gnoli, G., and A. Panaino, (eds.), Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies held in Turin, September 7th-11th, 1987 by the Societas Iranologica Europaea. Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian Studies. Part 2: Middle and New Iranian Studies, (Serie Orientale Roma. Vol. 67,1. Rome, 1990), in Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8 (1994 [1996]), 319-323. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “Aramaic Scripts for Iranian Languages”, in The World’s Writing Systems, (Oxford, 1996), 515-535. 318 ARAMAIC IN IRAN

SKJÆRVØ, P. O., review of Skalmowski, W., and A. van Tongerloo, (eds.), Me- dioiranica. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 21st to the 23rd of May 1990, (Leuven, 1993), in Kratylos, 41, (1996), 107-113. SKJÆRVØ, P. O., “On the Middle Persian Imperfect”, in the acts of the Coloquio Internacional “Syntaxis de las lenguas indo-iranias antiguas". Sitges (Barcelona) 4-6 May 1993, forthcoming. TOLL, C., “Die aramäischen Ideogramme im Mittelpersischen”, in Diem, W., and A. Falaturi (eds.), XXIV. Deutscher Orientalistentag: vom 26. bis 30. September 1988 in Köln. Ausgewählte Vorträge, (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Supplement 8, Stuttgart, 1990), 25-45. UTAS, B., “Verbal Forms and Ideograms in the Middle Persian Inscriptions”, Acta Orientalia, 36, (1974), 83-112. N. L. WESTERGAARD, Zendavesta or the Religious Books of the I, (Copenhagen, 1852-54, repr. Wiesbaden, 1994).

Top View