Avestan and Old Persian Morphology, In: Alan S. Kaye, Ed., Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Vol. 2, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2007, P. 853-940
Avestan and Old Persian Morphology, In: Alan S. Kaye, Ed., Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Vol. 2, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2007, P. 853-940
Avestan and Old Persian Morphology, In: Alan S. Kaye, Ed., Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Vol. 2, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2007, P. 853-940
Electronic version
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/abstractairanica/39115
DOI: 10.4000/abstractairanica.39115
ISSN: 1961-960X
Publisher:
CNRS (UMR 7528 Mondes iraniens et indiens), Éditions de l’IFRI
Printed version
Date of publication: 15 May 2011
ISSN: 0240-8910
Electronic reference
Rüdiger Schmitt, « « Avestan and Old Persian Morphology », in : Alan S. Kaye, ed., Morphologies of Asia
and Africa. Vol. 2, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2007, p. 853-940. », Abstracta Iranica [Online], Volume 31 |
2011, document 17, Online since 15 February 2012, connection on 21 December 2020. URL : http://
journals.openedition.org/abstractairanica/39115 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/abstractairanica.
39115
« Avestan and Old Persian
Morphology », in : Alan S. Kaye, ed.,
Morphologies of Asia and Africa. Vol. 2,
Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 2007, p.
853-940.
Rüdiger Schmitt
1 In the introduction to this detailed overview the problem is discussed to what extent
the Avestan (and Old Persian) texts are reliable for a linguistic analysis. The three main
sections deal with (1) Avestan morpho(phono)logy in general (i.e., esp. vowel and
consonant alternations), (2) the verbal system (stems, endings, non-finite forms), and
(3) the nominal system (stems, endings, adjectives) together with the other parts of
speech. This sketch is supplemented by 55 tables (p. 910-940). To treat the two
languages together, has great historical models, but nevertheless it is somewhat
awkward at least for him who looks for information about Old Persian data. In general,
the author does not ignore problematic forms and sometimes even offers surprising
explanations of individual forms or words, although they are not always convincing.
Thus, e.g., the old interpretation taken up again by him that OPers. a-m-t “from there”
is “a-hm-atah” (p. 880, 897) and contains the typically pronominal formant (*-sm- >) -
hm-, fails because such formations are nowhere attested in Indo-Iranian for adverbs.
Apart from a remarkable number of slips and minor mistakes (partly in consequence of
not adequately regarding post-Kentian Old Persian studies) must be noticed: xšāyaϑiya-
“king” as an example for *t E8 83 > Med. ϑ 83 (p. 865; but cf. correctly p. 903); the impossible
E8
forms “kạriya-” (pass.) and “kạriyaiš” (opt., p. 871f, 913); tunuvant- “mighty” as a *- E8 86 ant-
stem adjective and not a participle (p. 897, 929f.); wrong and/or obsolete readings like
tauvīyah- “stronger” (p. 897, 932), “yāuhmani-” from the root “yauk ‘harness’ ” (p. 903),
rštika- “spearman” (p. 903) or “mạrtiya-” (p. 911), etc. Unfortunately, Avestan and Old
Persian are not treated on an equal level.
INDEX
Subjects: 2.1. Langues anciennes
AUTHORS
RÜDIGER SCHMITT
Laboe