Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the AmericanOriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian Author(s): Jared S. Klein Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1988), pp. 387-417Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/603862Accessed: 26-03-2015 10:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 95.183.210.70 on Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:28:31 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/603862

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


COORDIN-ATE CONJUNCTION IN OLD PERSIAN

JARED S. KLEIN

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

The phenomenon of coordinate conjunction in Old Persian is analyzed exhaustively both from a synchronic standpoint and with reference to the corresponding process in the Rigveda. The result reveals a remarkable degree of similarity both in the exponents of the process (uta, -ca, -va, apEy, *ada) and their patterns. Allowing for the different sizes of the corpora and the fact that the full evidence of Avestan has yet to be marshalled, we are nevertheless justified in reconstructing, on the basis of our investigation, the Proto-Indo-Iranian system of coordinate conjunction. This system is characterized by the existence of orthotonic and enclitic forms employed at both word- and phrase-level and sentential additive conjunction, adverbial forms used in temporal and logical seriation, a single enclitic alternative conjunction, the lack of a specific adversative form, and the absence or rarity of a syntagm 'NOT A AND NOT B'.

O. The literature on Old Persian, as is often the case with other ancient Indo-European languages, is characterized by an absence of in-depth studies dealing with syntax. In Klein 1985 I presented a detailed analysis of coordinate conjunction in the Rigveda. As an appendix to that work, I offer here a similar study of coordinate conjunction in the far more limited Old Persian corpus, leaving for the future the more am- bitious investigation of this phenomenon in Avestan.1 Among the results of this study will be a demonstra- tion of the almost total congruence between the system of coordinate conjunction in Old Persian and that of the Rigveda as well as of the identical syntax of Rigvedic uta and Old Persian uta. These are just two of the many factors that make the study of (transliterated) Old Persian initially tantamount to an exercise in sight-translation for the Vedicist.

1. Unlike the Rigveda, where uta and ca are compet- ing conjunctions, albeit with some degree of syntactic specialization, occurring 705 times and 1019 times, respectively, the leading exponent of coordinate conjunction by far in Old Persian is uta. The 131

l Our corpus is that of Kent (1953) supplemented by XP1 (Hinz, 1969:45-5If). We have incorporated the restorations of DB IV 88-92 by Lecoq (1974:77-84) and those of the Susa inscriptions by Steve (1974a,b; 1975). Other restorations affecting the passages studied here which I have found in the literature and which appear to represent advances over the state of our knowledge of the inscriptions as codified by Kent will be noted in the discussion.

occurrences of this particle outnumber by nearly a factor of ten the fourteen occurrences of -ca, several of which are moreover problematic or uncertain. Also rare in Old Persian is the alternative conjunction -va 'or', although the seven occurrences of this particle are comparable in frequency per lines of text to the 308 occurrences of its identically shaped Rigvedic counterpart. Other coordinate conjunctions which we shall consider here are patiy, apiy, *ada, (adataiy), and *aSa (aSaiy), all of which are properly adverbials: 'moreover', 'also', '(and) then' (the first functions also as a preposition and preverb), as well as pasava, literally, 'after that', which is the most important narrative concatenator in the Behistun inscription. Of these, apiy, *ada, and *aSa possess exact Rigvedic equivalents (api, adha, atha) in similar employment, whereas pasava is perhaps most closely paralleled by Rigvedic ad'(and) then, (and) thereupon'. Finally, we must take into account the role of iterative anaphora, an inherently conjunctive process which may occur either together with or independently of explicit conjunction (cf. Klein, 1987).

2. The 131 occurrences of uta2 include 78 instances of subclausal conjunction, divisible into five sub- groups (cf. Table 1, §16 below). Of these, the single

2 This figure does not include occurrences of uta within the following (near-)repetitious passages: AsH 12-13 ( DNa 52-53), DB III 29-30 (-DB II 81-82), DB IV 62-63 (-DB IV 60-61), DB IV 74-75 [two occurrences of uta] (= DB IV 55-56), DB IV 78-79 (= DB IV 58-59), DB V 34-36 [two

387



Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

most frequent construction is, as expected, X uta Y. The 34 passages of this sort can be further subdivided into several well-defined phraseological types which are in turn associated to a significant degree with indi- vidual inscriptions. Thus, the collocation Pdrsa- uta Mdda- is seen at DB II 18 kdra Pdrsa u[td M]dda,3 DB II 81-82 (= DB III 29-30) kdram Pdrsam uta Madam, and DB III 77 Pdrsai[y] u(t)d Mddaiy. Similarly, we find ParOava uta Varkdna at DB II 92-93. Character- istic of the Burgbau inscription DSf are enumerations of the various peoples of the empire who participated

occurrences of utd] (= DB V 18-20), DNb 45 (= DNb 43-

44), DH 7-8 (= DPh 9-10), XPc 13-15 [second occurrence of

utd] (= XPa 19-20 [second occurrence of utd]), XPd 17-19

[two occurrences of utd] (= XPb 27-30 XPa 18-19), XPf 45-48 [three occurrences of utd] (= XPa 18-20), XPh 57-59

[two occurrences of utd] (= DNa 51-53), XP1 55-56 ( XPc

12-13), and A2H6 (= A2Sd 3-4 = A2Sa 5 [two occurrences of the same collocation]). In addition, nine passages from XP1 [15 occurrences of utd] are repetitions of corresponding passages in DNb. Our figures also omit instances in which utd is restored in its entirety by Kent at DB II 13; DB V 13, 28;

DSj 6; DSn 2; DSs 7; XSc 5 [2x]; XV 26, 27; AIPa 23, 24; and A2Ha 5. On the other hand, we have counted two completely restored occurrences of utd at DSe 51 and DSt 9. Both are

parts of the mdm pdtuv formula in which another occurrence of utd is visible in part or in its entirety and where enough of the remaining parts of this formula are visible that the

restoration of utd may be considered certain. 3 Our transliterations of Old Persian are essentially those of

Kent, modified by utilizing space in lieu of word-dividers and

writing a word-internal syllable-final dental nasal with a

raised n. In addition, we have adopted Hoffmann's transcrip- tion a (1976) to designate an original *i following h unless i is

explicitly written in this position and, in conjunction with a

following r, to represent syllabic r. In addition, I have taken the liberty of writing viObis, vistdspa, MiOra, etc. in those

instances where i has been omitted following an i-inherent

consonant and Kent employs a raised i. Other deviations from

Kent (e.g., haya, taya- instead of hya [better, haya], tya- [cf.

Risch, 1954 = 1981:655-60]) represent my own view of the

most likely interpretation of the Old Persian forms in

question. In transliterating proper names I have generally preferred Old Persian to Greek forms (e.g., Vindafarnds instead of Intaphernes), except in such widely familiar cases

as Darius, Xerxes, Artaxerxes, Cambyses, and Nebucha-

drezzar. A few minor inconsistencies in this regard (e.g., Vahyazddta for Old Persian Vahayazddta) may, however, remain. When dealing with geographical names, on the other

hand, I have used predominantly nontransliterated forms

(e.g., Nile for Pirava).

in specific tasks associated with the building of the hadis. These show two variant formulaic structures: "The X-men (X = name of a profession) who made B, those (were) C's and D's," or "The men who Obj Verb, those (were) C's and D's," where C and D are ethnic designations, and the structure "C's and D's" is an X uta Y construction. We have the following passages:

DSf 47-49 martiyd karnuvakd ta[yaiy] aOangam akunavantd avaiy Yaund utd [S]pardiyd 'The stone- cutters who made the stone, those were Ionians and Sardians.'

DSf 49-51 [martiy]d d[d]raniyakard tayaiy daraniyam [ak]un[avasa avaiy] Mddd utd Mudrdyd 'The gold- smiths who made the gold, those were Medes and

Egyptians.'

DSf 51-52 martiyd [tayaiy ddr]uv akunavasa avaiy

S[pardi]yd uta Mudrdyd 'The men who made the

wood, those were Sardians and Egyptians.'

Earlier on, the Karkd uta Yaun[a] are said to have

transported the Oarmis haya naucaina from Babylon to Susa. Another collocation occurring within this

inscription is hacd X (...) uta hacd Y, with X and Y

representing places from which various materials were

brought. Thus, we find DSf 34-35 yakd hacd Ganddrd

a[bar]iya uta [hacd] Karmdnd 'Yaka was brought from Gandara and from Carmania' and DSf 35-36

daraniyam hacd [Spa]rdd uta hacd Bdxtriyd abariya 'Gold was brought from Sardis and from Bactria'.

A subtype approaching formulaic status within the

Behistun inscription is the collocation X utd martiyd

tayaiysaiy fratama anusiya4 dhata 'X and the men

4 The etymology of this form and, hence, its synchronic

shape, is unclear. Originally thought to represent a derivative

*anu-tya- formed like Skt. ni-tya-, apa-tya-, it has more

recently been related to Sogdian 'nwt 'support' (Henning,

apud Gershevitch, 1954:250). Cf. Brandenstein-Mayrhofer, 1964:103; Hinz, 1973:123. the Sogdian form is most easily derived from *anu-u-ta (cf. Szemer6nyi, 1967:201-2), built to

the root of Skt. dvati, uti- with prefix anu-. The Old Persian

form, if related, clearly requires an *anu-uti-o- or *anu-uit-

yo-, which, as Szemer6nyi notes, is ruled out for Sogdian, because of the absence of palatalization (*Inwc, cf. prch 'back' < *prsti-, xryc 'buying' < *xrTti-). There are also problems with *anu-ut-yo- from the point of view of Sievers-

Edgerton. Because of the unclear relationship between the

Old Persian and Sogdian forms, I prefer to keep open the

possibility of *anu-tya- and hence write anusiya-.

388



KLEIN: Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian 389

who were his foremost allies', employed in order to report the capturing, slaying, or impaling of various rebels by Darius or his generals. Examples are the following:

DB III 50-52 pasava adam avam Vah.ayazdatam uta martiya tayaiysaiy fratama anusEya ahanta . . . uzmayapatiy akunavam 'Afterwards I impaled Vahyazdata and the men who were his foremost allies . . .'

DB III 89-91 avaAa avam Arxam [haya Nab]ukudra- cara [duruxta]m agaubat[a] uta martiya tayaisaiy . . . [ahatta agarbaya] 'Then he (viz., Vindafarnas) captured Arkha who falsely called himself Nebucha- drezzar, and the men who were his . . .

DB III 91-92 ha[uv] A[r]xa [u]td [mart]iya tayai- sa[i]y. . . ahanta Babira[u]v [u]z(ma)yapatiy akari- yanta 'Arkha and the men who were his . . . were impaled in Babylon.

DB I 56-58 avaAa adam . . . avam Gaumatam tayam magum avajanam uta tayaisaiy fratama martiya anusiya ahanta 'Then I . . . slew Gaumata the Magus and the men who were his foremost allies' (a slight variant, with martiyd in a different position).

Similar in structure to the above passages and belonging to the same general part of DB III as the first three is the following, where the second of the conjoined members is once again expanded by a relative clause:

DB III 58-59 paraita Vivanam ja(7')ta uta a^am karam haya Darayavahaus xsayaHiyahaya gaubataiy 'Go forth! Smite Vivana and the army which says it belongs to Darius the King.'

An important formulaic construction not found in the Behistun inscription but widely represented elsewhere not only in the inscriptions of Darius I but also of Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, II, and III, Darius II, and 'Arsames' is the prayer for protection, mam patuv. In the version employed by Darius I and Xerxes only Ahuramazda is mentioned by name, with occasional unclear references to '(other) gods' (hada bagaibis), and mam is conjoined by uta with other things for which the god's protection is besought. By the time of Artaxerxes II, however, the Achaemenid pantheon had changed at least to the extent that Anahita and MiOra (under Artaxerxes III, MiOra alone) were implored for protection alongside Ahura- mazda. Most examples of this prayer show multiple occurrences of uta and therefore fall into other cate-

gories discussed below. For the type X uta Y, however, we have the following passages:

DPh 9-10 (=DH 7-8) mam Auramazda patuv utamaXy viAam 'Let Ahuramazda protect me and my royal house.'

XPc 12-13 (-XP1 SS-56)5 mam Auramazda patuv hada bagaibi uta tayamaiy kartam 'Let Ahuramazda together with the (other) gods protect me and what I have built.'

XPg 12-14 mam Auramazda patuv [had]a bagaibis utamaiy xsafam 'Let Ahuramazda together with the (other) gods protect me and my dominion.'

A2Sd 3-4 AM Anahita [u]ta Mitra mam pantuv haca vispa gasta utamaXy kartam 'Let Ahuramazda, Anahita, and MiOra protect me from all evil and what I have built.' (for the first occurrence of uta, cf. §7 below)

The remaining subclausal X utd Y passages show various collocations distributed widely among the inscriptions and not easily categorized. Several involve proper names, either of deities, persons, or ethnic groups. In the first instance, we find the following examples:

A3Pa 24-26 mam Auramazda uta MiAra baga pantuv...iLet Ahuramazda and god MiOra protect me . . s

DB IV 62-63 avaha[ya]ratdiy] Auramazda upastam abara uta anEyaha bagaha tayai[y hantiy] 'On account of that Ahuramazda and the other gods who exist brought aid.' (cf. DB IV 60-61 Auramazdamaiy upastam abara uta. . . )

DB IV 46-47 vasna Aura[mazdaha] utamaiy aniyasciy vasiy astiy kartam 'By the will of Ahuramazda and of me much else was done . . .'

Of the above passages, only the third requires com- ment from a syntactic perspective. According to Benveniste (1951:33), utd is here to be understood as an adverbial conjunction 'Par la faveur d'Ahuramazda, j'ai encore (utd) accompli beaucoup d'autres choses'.

S In comparing parallel passages I will use to indicate near

but not exact repetition, whereas = will designate exact repetition differing at most in spelling, dialectal variants, or grammatical variants (e.g., XPh 58 utamaiy vs. DNa 52-53 utamaiy, XP1 47-48 ahmiy vs. DNb 43 amiy, XPI 32 usEya vs. DNb 28 usly).



390 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

In support of this interpretation he adduces the passage DPd 9-10 vasna Auramazdaha manaca which, according to him, illustrates the way in which two genitives are joined in construction with vasna, so that the coordination 'of Ahuramazda and of me' by means of the "datif enclitique"-maiy is "impossible." Moreover, such an employment would leave the passive construction aniyasciy vasiy astiy kartam without an agent, "alors que la construction dite passive suppose toujours l'agent au datif." Benveniste then goes on to cite a passage from the Taittirlya Samhita uta yadltasur bhavati jlvaty eva 'even when his breath has ceased, he still lives', in which uta can have adverbial value at the beginning of a clause, and pronounces such an employment "un fait de syntaxe indo-iranienne." Finally, he sees the same construction, but with uta repeated, at DB II 3-4 [vasna Auramazd]aha uta Babirum agarbayam uta avam Nadintaba[iram agarbaya]m. In assessing Benveniste's argument, let us note first that surely the most important a priori objection to a conjoined syntagm vasna Aura[mazddha] utamaiy would be our doubt over whether the conjunction of Ahuramazda and "I" is even conceivable; and it is precisely the evidence of DPd 9-10 which allows an affirmative reply. Ben- veniste's view that this last passage shows us "com- ment se joignent, avec vasna, deux genitifs successifs" is surely overstated, as is his view that the conjunction Aura[mazdaha] utamaiy is impossible. In the first instance, -ca is of such rare occurrence in Old Persian that it offers us little if any instruction as to how things can be conjoined (cf. §§18-21 below). More- over, excluding the pEssage in question, there are two other instances, out of seven relatively clear occurrences of -ca, where one finds one or more terms elsewhere conjoined by uta: DB I 66-67 karam . . . Parsam[c]a Madam[c]a (cf. DB II 81-82 [=DB III 29-30] karam Parsam uta Madam) and DNb 32 (clearer at XP1 36) manasc[a] [us]lca (cf. DNb 28 [=XP1 32] usly u[t]a framana). To these then belong Auramazdaha manaca beside Aura[mazdaha] utamaiy. Surely Benveniste knew that the "datif enclitique" -maiy is also a "genitif enclitique," so that we have in Aura[mazdaha] utamaiy a simple case of conjoined genitives. Indeed, the relationship between the constructions manaca and utamaiy can be described in precise terms. In the former the orthotonic mana occurs with the enclitic -ca, whereas in the latter the orthotonic uta co-occurs with the enclitic -maiy. The co-occurrence alternation -ca uta and mana -maiy is exactly what we expect in the distributional syntax of orthotonics and enclitics. As for the objection that the passive construction always requires an agent, this

can be refuted on general grounds by the existence of agentless passives cross-linguistically, but also on the basis of Old Persian itself. Thus, to limit ourselves only to the construction involving a finite form of ah- 'be' plus the ta-participle of a transitive verb, we find the following cases of agentless passives in Old Persian:

DB I 61-62 xsafam taya haca amaxam taumaya para- bartam aha . . .'The dominion which had been taken away from our family (sc. by Gaumata) . . .'

DPe 22 yadiy kara Parsa pata ahatiy . . . 'If the Per- sian people will be protected . . .'

When no finite verb appears, we find the following agentless passives:

DNa 48-49 aita ta[ya] kartam ava visam vasna Aura- mazdaha akunavam 'That which was done, all that through the will of Ahuramazda did I do.'

DSf 37-38 sinkabrus haya ida karta 'Carnelian which was wrought here'

With these passages we may compare a passive cum agent such as the following:

XPa 18-19 mam Auramazda patuv utamaiy xsafam uta taya mana kartam uta tayamaiy pifa kartam 'Me let Ahuramazda protect, and my dominion, and what has been done by me, and what has been done by my father.'

It is clear, then, from the above, that the analytic passive of Old Persian may appear with or without the auxiliary ah- and with or without an agent. Benveniste's objections in the case of DB IV 46-47 thus fail in both instances. Moreover, his citation of DB II 3-4 is not cogent, since, as we shall see below, this passage represents a simple conjoined structure of the type uta Clausel uta Clause2 in which uta does not possess an adverbial conjunctive nuance. As a final point, we do not dispute Benveniste's assertion that the employment of uta as a sentential conjunction is "un fait de syntaxe indo-iranienne." Such an employment is indeed frequent in Old Persian, as we shall see. It is merely the adverbial nuance 'also, as well' which is unattested in this language. In fact, such a value is found in the Rigvedic employment of uta, e.g., V.77.2c utanyo asmad yajate vi cavah 'One other than we worships also, when it has dawned' and I.32.13cd indras ca yad yuyudhate ahis ca / utaparl- bhyo maghava vi jigye 'When Indra and the serpent fought, the liberal one was victorious also for later




I.94.8c tad a janltota pu.syata vacah 'Take note of that speech and bring it to prosperity'.

The final two passages to be considered here both occur within the difficult final section of DB IV. Both show ambiguities which can be resolved by close observation of their structures (restorations following Lecoq, 1974:77-84; cf. also Lazard, 1976:180-184):

DB IV 89-90 ima dipi[va]i[dam] taya adam akunavam patiswam arEya aha uta [pa]vastayd uta carma [ha]r[sVtam aha] 'This text which I made was affixed in Aryan, and it was disseminated on clay(?)6 and on skin.'

DB IV 90-91 [pat]isvamaXy [namana]fam akunavam [pat]i£a[m u]vada[tam akuna]va[m] uta niyapi[nS]i- [ya u]ta [pa]tiyaf[raSi]ya7 paisviya ma[m] 'I affixed my nameS I affixed my lineage, and it was written down and read before me.'

Although the first of these passages illustrates the uta Casex uta Casex syntagm so characteristic of the uta X uta Y construction (cf. §4 below), the total context seems rather to suggest that only the second occurrence of uta is a subclausal conjunction within the construction X uta Y, whereas the first occurrence of uta conjoins the two parallel clauses, each of which concludes with aha. Similarly, in the second passage, the pattern of stylistic anaphora ([pat]isam . . . akunavam [pat]isa[m]. . . akuna]va[m seems to segment oF the first clause from those which follow, whereas the first occurrence of uta conjoins these initial clauses as a group with the following groups consisting of two parallel verbs within the X uta Y construction.

3. The next syntagm which we shall consider is the type X uta Y uta Z. There are nine occurrences of this

6 According to Benveniste (1951:40-49), pavasta means a security envelope, made of clay, into which official documents were inserted and which provided a reproduction of the original.

7 Lecoq's restoration of [ pa]tiyaf Trasi]ya is incompre- hensible to me, given the clear attestation offraSiyaisw at DNb 21. It is maintained by Hinz (1973:149) with reference to Cowgill (1968:264). However, a rereading of the latter makes it clear that Cowgill was following Kent's text, which presents patiyaJfrasiya as though it were completely legible. On this basis, Cowgill considers this form to contain "non-Persian . . . s instead of t". But if the consonant in question is after all to be restored, surely we want a 0, yielding a passive stem fraSiya-. The real question to be asked, therefore, is why we have fraSiya- rather than the expected *frasViya-.

times' (for further examples, cf. Klein, 1985:442-453), and might be supposed to have existed in Old Persian as well, but to be by chance unrepresented in such a limited corpus.

Expanded structures showing relativization of both conjoined members are seen in the following instances involving proper names and ethnics:

DPe 12-14 Yauna tayaiy uskah.aya uta tayaiy draya- h.aya 'The Ionians who are of the mainland and who (dwell) on the sea.'

DSf 12-15 haya ma[na] pita Tzistaspa uta ArEama haya mana [n]iyaka 'My father ViNtaspa and ArNama, who was my grandfather, . .'

Relativization of one conjoined member, but not both, as here, is seen also in the analogous Rigvedic pas3ages IV.18.4d antar jate$uta ye janitvah 'among those who have been born and who are to be born' and VI.21.5c ye madhyamasa uta nutanasah 'the middle ones and the current ones'.

Other X uta Y passages present simple conjoined nouns (in one case, verbs) which, as might be expected, belong to similar semantic categories: personal attributes (DNb 3-4, 28), materials used in the construction of the palace at Susa (DSf 37-38, 40-41), a palace and its parts (A2Sc 4-6), and activities of the king (XPg 3-6):

DNb 3-4 (=XP1 3-4) xraSum (XP1 xratu[m]) uta aruvastam 'wisdom and activity'

DNb 28 (=XP1 32) usly u[t]a framana (XP1 usiya uta framana) sunderstanding and command'

DSf 37-38 kasaka haya kapautaka uta sinkabrus haya ida karta slapis lazuli and carnelian which was wrought here'

DSf 40-41 ardatam uta asa daruv 'gold and ebony'

A2Sc 4-6 [iSmam hadis uta imam [ustaScanam taya aSangainam 'this palace and this stone staircase'

XPg 3-6 vasiy taya naibam akunaus uta framayata Darayavau[s] xsayaSiya 'Much that was good did Darius the King build and command (to be built).'

The last of these passages is one of only two occurrences of the structure Vl uta V2 (for the second, cf. below). The rareness of this collocation in Old Persian is matched by the extremely limited occurrence of the corresponding Rigvedic construction (4 out of 243 instances of word and phrase-level X uta Y). Cf.




construction, comprising 17 instances of uta. Seven of these represent variations of the mdm pdtuv prayer discussed earlier. Since these variations are themselves of some interest, we list them here with cross reference to the X uta Y type, where appropriate. In two cases

(DSe 50-52, DSt 7-10) one of the utd's is completely restored, but its occurrence may be regarded as

certain, given the context:

DNa 51-53 (=XPh 57-59) [ma]m Auramazda pdtuv hacd ga[std] utdmaiy (XPh [u]tamaiy) viOam utd imam dahaydum (XPh dahqydvam) 'Let Ahuramazda

protect me from evil, and my royal house, and this

country.' (cf. DPh 9-10 [=DH 7-8] mdm Auramazda

pdtuv utdmaiy viOam)

XPb 27-30 (=XPd 17-19) mdm Auramazda pdtuv hadd bagaibis utdmaiy (XPd utamaiy) xsacam utd

tayamaiy kartam 'Let Ahuramazda protect me to-

gether with the (other) gods, and my dominion, and what I have made.' (cf. XPg 12-14 mdm Auramazda

pdtuv [had]d bagaibis utamaiy xgsaam and XPc 12- 13 [-XPI 55-56] mdm Auramazda patuv hadd

bagaibis uta tayamaiy kartam)

A2Hc 19-20 mdm Auramazda pdtuv utd xsacam tayamaiy frdbara utdmaiy viOam 'Let Ahuramazda

protect me, and the dominion which he has granted me, and my royal house.'

A3Pa 24-26 mdm Auramazda uta MiOra baga pdatuv uta imam DHyaum uta taya mam kartd 'Let Ahura- mazda and god MiOra protect me, and this country, and what I have done.' (cf. A2Sd 3-4 AM Anahita

[u]td Mitra mdm pdntuv hacd vispd gastd utamaiy

kartam)

DSf 57-58 mdm Auramazda pdtuv [u]td V[is]tdspam ha[ya] mandpitd utama[i]y DHum 'Let Ahuramazda

protect me and Vistaspa my father, and my country.'

DSe 50-52 [mdm AMpa]tuv hadd [bagaibis utamaiy] viOam uta [dipim ta]y[dm ni]pistam 'Let Ahuramazda

protect me together with the (other) gods, and my royal house, and (this) inscription which has been written.'

DSt 7-10 [mdm] Auramaz[dd pdtuv hadd] bagaibi[s utamaiy viOam u]td Ouv[dm kd XS haya aparam dhqy] 'Let Ahuramazda protect me together with the

8 In DPe 12-15 we have already treated the sub-sequence Yaund tayaiy ugkah.ay uta tayaiy drayahqyd as an X uta Y structure and therefore do not count this occurrence of uta in our statistics for X uta Y uta Z.

(other) gods, and my royal house, and thee, who shall hereafter be king.'

The remaining two instances of the construction X uta Y uta Z represent expansions of types or passages seen among the examples of X uta Y:

DSf 43-45 pirus [ha]ya idd karta hacd Kiusg uta hacd Hindauv uta hacd Harauvatiya abariya 'Ivory, which was fashioned here, was brought from Ethiopia, and from Sind, and from Arachosia.' (cf. DSf 34-35 yaka hacd Ganddrd a[bar]iya uta [hacd] Karmdna, DSf 35- 36 daraniyam hacd [Spa]rdd uta hacd Bdxtriyd abariya)

DPe 12-15 Yaund tayaiy uskahqyd uta tayaiy draya- h.yd uta dahayava tayd para draya 'The Ionians who are of the mainland and who (dwell) on the sea, and the countries which are beyond the sea.'

In the second of these passages there appears to be a hierarchical structure in which the two groups of

Ionians are taken as a unit and then conjoined with the (other) countries. The structure of this passage is therefore (X uta Y) uta Z, which could be interpreted as a complex case of X uta Y. We have compromised by considering the entire structure here and its first two members under X uta Y.

4. The next major structure represented in the syntax of uta is uta X uta Y. This pattern appears eight times, to which may be added four occurrences of the

expanded structure uta X uta Y uta Z. The conjoined members occurring within this construction show rigid parallelism of case, and all cases but the ablative and the vocative (plus the genitive qua dative) are represented. Examples for uta X uta Y are the following:

DNb 42-44 (=XP1 47-48) Oanuvaniya uOanuvaniya amiy (XPI ahmiy) uta pastis uta asabdra 'As a bowman I am a good bowman (both) on foot and on

horseback.' (cf. DNb 44-45 [-XPl 48-50] drst[i]ka [XP1 arstika] amiy [XP1 ahmiy] uvdrstika [i.e., uvaarstika, cf. XP1 uvarstika and see Hoffman, 1976:633] uta pastis uta asabdra [XP1 asabara])

XPf 19-24 uta Vistdspa uta Arsgma ubd afivatam

aciy Auramazddm avaOd kdma aha Ddrayavaum ...

xsiyaOiyam akunaus 'Vistaspa and Arsama were both

living when it was the desire of Ahuramazda (that) he

made Darius ... king.'

DB II 88-89 pasdvasaiy adam uta ndham uta gaus'a

frtjanam 'Afterwards I cut off his nose and ears.'

392




DB V 18-20 (=DB V 34-35) haya Auramazdam yad[atai]y ya[namswaiy datam]9 ahatiy uta Jlvahaya u[td] martah.aya 'Who(ever) shall worship Ahura- mazda, the prayer of him, alive and dead, shall be granted.'

DNb 37-38 (=XP1 41-43) uta u£lbiya uta famanaya adakaiy fratara (XP1 fraSara) maniyaiy afuvaya 'then with (my) understanding and command I consider myself to be above panic."°

DNb 40-4 1 (= XP 1 44 -46) yaumaini£ (X P 1 yaumanis) amiy (XP1 ahmiy) uta dastaibiya uta padaibiya 'I am perfectly controlled" with my hands and with my feet.'

DNb 28-31 (=XP1 32-35) yaSamaiy taya kartam vainah.ay (XP1 vainahEy) [ya]diva axgnavah.ay (XPI axsvnavahiy) uta vitEya uta (XP1 uta) spaRmaidaya 'When what has been done by me you shall see or hear of in the royal house and in the military camp . . .'

9 For this restoration, cf. Herrenschmidt, 1984:155-56. It has numerous advantages, both syntactic and epigraphic, over Kent's ya[nam avah.aya]. First, yanam means not 'divine favor', as it is translated by Kent, but 'prayer' and is built on the root ya- 'beseech' (Vedic yatil lmahe, Av. yasa-). Therefore, the collocation yanam avah.aya ahatiy in Old Persian would have to mean 'he will have a prayer' (cf. DB I 29-30 avah.aya Kanbujiyah.aya brat[a] . . . aha 'That Cambyses had a brother . . .'), which is not very satisfying, especially since, as noted by Herrenschmidt, the collocation yanam da- 'to grant the prayer of' is attested, partially restored, at DPd 23 ai[tamaiy] y[anam Au]ramazda dadatu[v] 'Let Ahuramazda grant this prayer to mel of mine'. Furthermore, Kent's restoration requires that yanam avah .aya be inverted to avah .aya yanam in line 35 where, despite Cameron's assertion (1951) that there is space for eleven signs, Kent provides only eight plus a word- divider. Herrenschmidt's restoration in 19 will also do service for 35, where final -ma is visible, and yanamCaXy datam provides exactly eleven signs (plus a word-divider). For the construction of ta-participle plus subjunctive of ah- serving as a future passive, cf. DPe 22 yadiy kara Parsa pata ahatiy 'If the Persian people will be protected' (cf. §2), a passage also cited by Herrenschmidt.

10 For this interpretation and, in particular, the understanding of afuva- as equivalent to Vedic apva- 'panic', cf. Hoffmann, 1955 (= 1975:52-57).

1l On yaumaniC see Duchesne-Guillemin, 1975. The literal meaning of this agentive VO compound is apparently 'holding firm the mindlspirit'.

In assessing the relationship between the types X uta Y and uta X uta Y we note first that the terms conjoined in the latter show for the most part a more universal semantic pairing than the former: uta jlva- h.aya uta martah.aya 'living and dead', uta dastaibiya uta padaibiya 'with hands and with feet', uta pastiX uta- asaba-ra 'infantryman and cavalryman'. The same can be said of uta- viSiya- uta- spaSmaidaya-, if this is understood more generally as 'at home and abroad', whereas uta- na-ham uta- gauKa-, while not representing perhaps a universal dichotomy, nevertheless can be understood as encompassing the two most prominent projecting organs of the head. Stated otherwise, the collocations seen in this construction represent to a large extent complementary pairs, and this more marked semantics corresponds to a more marked or hypercharacterized syntax. As opposed to these more universal syntagms, the pairs conjoined in the X uta- Y construction appear to represent for the most part accidental juxtapositions which belong together only under the limited circumstances of the conjoined structures in which they occur. This can be seen most clearly in the Burgbau inscription DSf, where, depending upon the circumstance, we find such juxtapositions as Yauna- uta- [S ] pardiya-, Ma-da- uta- Mudra-ya-, Karka- uta- Yaun[a-], haca- [Spa]rda- uta- haca- Ba-xtriya-, haca Ganda-ra- . . . uta- [haca-] Karma-na, kasaka haya kapautaka uta sinkabruK, ardatam uta- asa- da-ruv, etc. Cf. further, in other inscriptions, DB II 92-93 ParSava uta- Varka-na, A2Sc 4-6 [i]ma-m hadiC uta- ima-m [usta]cana-m, XPg 4-5 akunauK uta- fra-ma-yata-, and note that the Behistun type X (name) uta- martiya- tayaiCaiy fratama- anuCiya- ahanta and its variations, while formulaic, is nevertheless accidental and circumstantial. l2 Similarly, the mam patuv prayer is sufficiently variable (mam. . . utamaiy viSam, mam. . . utamaiy xCafam, mam . . . utamaiy kartam) to suggest

12 In arguing against the traditionally accepted interpretation of vasna as 'by the will', Szemerenyi (1975:325-43) cites as one of his major bits of internal Old Persian evidence DB IV 46 vasna Aura[mazdaha] utdmaiy, characterizing as "theoretically doubtful" the idea "that the will of the supreme god can be coupled with that of the king" (p. 329) According to Szemerenyi, the sense is rather'by the greatnesslmight of Ahuramazda'. However, the fact that the type X uta Y signals for the most part nonpermanent or circumstantial juxtapositions suggests that this passage focuses not on a general coupling of wills but rather on a fortuitous concurrence of the wills of Ahuramazda and Darius in this one instance. Viewed in this way, 'will' works much better than 'greatnesslmight', since it would be hubris for a mortal to couple his meager



power or greatness with that of the supreme deity under

any circumstances. Although I agree with Szemerenyi that

'through the will' does not always yield a felicitous translation

of vasna, I do not see that 'greatness/ might' yields in general

any better sense. On the other hand, the Akkadian rendering

ina silli sa durimizda 'in the shadow, protection of Ahura-

mazda' and the Elamite zaumin duramasdana 'by the aid of

Ahuramazda' (perhaps, according to Hinz, 1967 'through the

exertion ["durch die (schwere) Arbeit"] of Ahuramazda')

seem both to provide better sense; but they agree no more

with 'greatnesslmight' than they do with 'will'. The solution

probably lies in allowing Old Persian vasna to signal a broad

semantic continuum: 'by the will, through the favor', whence,

'by the favoring protection or care'. It is instructive to note

that Rigvedic vasa-, the etymological equivalent of Old

Persian va£na (anu vasan-vaKna), can mean 'force, power,

might' in addition to 'will' (cf. VIII.93.4c sarvam tad indra te

vase'all that is in thy power, O Indra'). Avestan vasna-, on the

other hand, appears to mean only 'will, wish'. If we assume

that OPers. vasns can also mean 'by the might, power', at

least in some of its usages (as a semantic nuance of 'by the will'

understood as 'irresistible resolve'), then it can represent

straightforwardly an instrumental to a stem *wek-no- built on

the widely occurring Indo-European root $wek- 'wish, desire';

and even if the Old Persian expression vasna Auramazdaha,

etc., is based on (more likely, inspired by) an Urartean

formula 'by the greatness/ might of Haldi', as alleged by

Szemerenyi, it is unnecessary to see in this anything other

than an imperfect fit between the lexica of two completely

unrelated languages, with OP vasna extending its range to

encompass the meaning of the Urartean expression. Alterna-

tively, of course, the Iranians might simply have misunder-

stood the meaning of the Urartean formula, interpreting

'greatness/ might' as 'will'.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988j 394

and beside DNb 37 (=XP1 41-42) uta uslbiya uta framanaya DNb 28 usly utt]a framana (cf. XP1 32 usbya uta framana). Moreover, the set uta uslbEya uta framanaya, representing attributes of Darlus, is seman- tically similar to the pair DNb 3-4 (=XP1 3-4) xraSum (XP1 xratu[m]) uta aruvastam 'wisdom and acitivity'.

5. The type uta X uta Y uta Z appears four times. In each instance it represents an extension by one term of a collocation seen elsewhere in the syntax of uta. Note the following pairs of passages:

1) a. DB I 40-41 abiy avam [a]swiyava uta Parsa uta Mada uta aniya dah.ayava 'Persia and Media

and the other countries went over to him.'

b. DB II 18 kara Parsa u[ta M]ada'the Persian

and Median army.'

2) a. DB I 46-47 Gaumata haya magusw adinal3 Kanbujiyam uta Parsam uta Madam uta aniya dah.ayava 'Gaumata the Magus deprived

Cambyses of Persia and Media and the other

countries.' b DB II 81-82 adam karam Parsam uta Madam

fraistayam 'I sent forth the Persian and Median

army.'

3) a. DB I 34-35 drauga dah.ayauva vasEy abava uta Parsaiy uta Madaiy ut[a an]iyauva dah.ayusuva 'Deceit arose in great measure in the country,

in Persia and in Media and in the other

provinces.' b. DB III 77 yata adam Parsai[y] u(t)a MadaXy

aham 'While I was in Persia and Media . . .'

Based on our discussion in the preceding section, we can say that the addition of uta anEya dah.ayava to uta Parsa uta Mada depicts the "universe" of the Achaeme- nid Empire. The triple use of uta thus contributes to the representation of a totality. Parsa uta Mada, on the other hand, represent a circumstantial, albeit his- torically significant, portion of the realm. (cf. §§7, 18 below).

The remaining uta X uta Y uta Z passage is 4a, to which may be compared the uta X uta Y variant of 4b:

13 As noted by Schmitt, 1972:143-44, this form must

represent adina rather than *adlna. Cf. Skt. jinati and Av.

zinat.

that we do not have here a universal, fixed set. Applying these considerations to the perplexing Aura- mazda. . . uta anEyaha bagaha (bis) of DB IV 60-63, we conclude that the Achaemenid pantheon was, aside from Ahuramazda, not yet fixed at the time of Darius I, which agrees well with the fact that the formulaic trinity of AM Anahata uta Mitra/MiSra does not appear until the inscriptions of Artaxerxes II more than a century later, at which point the reference to aniyaha bagaha no longer occurs.

While focusing on the semantic diSerence between the X uta Y and uta X llta Y collocations, we note that in several instances the same conjoined terms occur in both constructions. Thus, we find beside XPf 19-20 uta Visvtaspa uta ArJama DSf 12-13 haya ma[na] pita ViCtaspa uta Arsvama haya mana [n]iyaka




sets, e.g., I.27.3a durac casac ca 'from the distance and from nearby (cf. DNb 30-31 [=XP1 34-35] uta viAiya uta [XP 1 uta] spaAmaidaya), I.96.7b jatasya ca jayamanasya ca 'of the one (already) born and of the one being born', VI.15.8c devasas ca martasas ca 'the heavenly ones and the mortals' (cf. DB V 19-20 uta Jlvah.aya u[ta] martahaya), etc. As we noted in the case of ca, the semantic salience of these relationships has nothing to do with the conjunction itself, but rather with the repetition or iterative anaphora, an important marker of semantic cohesion.

7. Two residual passages involving the subclausal employment of 1lta require special consideration. The first of these, a straightforward sequence X Y uta Z, is the only cJear example of this type in the Old Persian corpus:

A2Sa S bis (=A2Sd 4, A2Ha 6) AM Anahita Nta

MiAra (A2Sd 4, A2Ha 6 Mitra)

This pattern is found also in the Rigveda, where it appears 17 times (cf. 14 occurrences of the expanded type Xl . . . Xn l uta Xn with more than three members), including, as here, several enumerations of deities. E.g., V.42.12c sarasvatl brhaddivota raka 'Sarasvatl, Brhaddiva, and Raka'. Unique among the occurrences of 1lta in Old Persian is the sequence X-ca Y-ca uta Z at DB I 66-67 adam karam gaSava avastayam Parsam[c]a Madam[c]a uta aniya da- h.ayava. This structure merely reinforces our contention (cf. §5 above) that Parsa and Mada were an important part of the Achaemenid Empire. The use of -cd here as an sinner conjunction' provides a hierarchical subgrouping of constituents: (X-ca Y-ca) uta Z. As such, this structure reduces to the type X uta Y. For further discussion of this sequence, cf. §18 below.

8. The second major category in the syntax of uta is sentential conjunction, which is represented in 53 of the particle's 131 occurrences or 40No of the time. This figure compares well with that of 54% for the sentential occurrence of Rigvedic uta, particularly when we consider that Old Persian uta subsumes the overwhelm- ingly subclausal role of Rigvedic ca. The passages fall into five groups, as seen in Table 1, §16 below. As in our treatment of coordinate conjunction in the Rigveda, we distinguish passages showing conjoined parallel clauses from those involving nonparallel structures. The distinction is significant, because syntactic parallelism strongly correlates with textual cohesion,

4) a. DB II 73-74 adamsaity] uta naham uta gausa uta hazanam frajanam 'I cut off his nose and ears and tongue.'

b. DB II 88-89 pasavasaiy adam uta naham uta gausa frajanam 'After that I cut off his nose and ears.'

Here one might argue that the triple usage of uta helps to designate the projecting/projectable organs of the head as a whole. It is probably these alone, apart from the head itself, that one can speak of 'cutting off' (cf. the discussion of the remainder of this passage in §9 below).

6. The passages of the type uta X ata Y (uta Z) have their analogues in the syntax of Rigvedic uta, with the exception that the 25 occurrences of ata in the ten Rigvedic passages of this sort comprise only about 3.5g0 of the particle's total Rigvedic occurrence, whereas the 26 appearances of Old Persian uta in this construction represent around 20No of the particle's occurrence. tIowever, this discrepancy loses its significance as soon as one realizes that the primary syntactic comparandum of Old Persian uta X l . . . uta Xn in the Rigveda is not uta Xl . . . uta Xn but rather Xl ca . . . Xn ca; for in Old Persian uta is the primary conjunction and has assumed the entire range of nexus signalled in the Rigveda by both uta and ca. In Klein 1985.1 (p. 354), I noted that the construction uta X uta Y was not at all characteristic of uta and that the few instances of this syntagm were, if not simply the result of stylistic anaphora, modeled muta- tis mutandis on the pattern X ca Y ca (i.e., pre- positional uta in X uta Y hypercharacterized as uta X uta Y, like postpositional ca in X Y ca as X ca Y ca). This statement must now in any event be modified on the basis of Old Persian uta, although it still could be true if displaced to the Indo-Iranian level. We may even compare the collocations DNb 40-41 (-XP1 45-46) uta dastaibiya uta padaibiya and DNb 37 (=XP1 41-42) uta uslbiya uta framanaya with RV VII.98.2c uta hrdota manasa 'with heart and with mind'. But once we equate Old Persian uta with both ca and uta in the Rigveda, the syntagm uta Xl . . . uta Xn finds its more natural analogue in Xl ca . . . Xn ca, a type represented 161 times- comprising just under oIle-third of the total occurrences of Rigvedic ca. Furthermore, when we observe the semantic structure of the conjoined sets, we find strong agreement with Xl ca . . . Xn ca collocations, about two-thirds of which show either antonymous or complementary



396 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988j

and the latter in turn relates to degree of nexus a substantive feature in assessing the inherent coordinat-

. . . . . ,

lng capabl ltles ot a conJunctlon.

9. The syntagm Clausel uta Clause2 involving parallel clauses is represented 24 times in the corpus. Char- acteristic among these are narrative reports seen in the Behistun inscription and occasionally elsewhere. Cf. the following:

DB III 54-57 hauv Vah.ayazdata haya Bardiya aga1lbata hauv karam fraisaya Harauvatim . . . utasam I martiyam maAiswtam akunausw 'That Vahyazdata who claimed to be Bardiya? he sent forth an army to Arachosia, . . . and he made one man the chief of them.'

DB III 88 Vinda[far]na Babiruvi[y]a aja uta [basta anaya] 'Vindafarnas smote the Babylonians and led (them) bound (to me).'

DB IV 6-7 adamswisw ajanam uta IX xs[ayaSiy]a agarbayam 'I smote them and took nine kings (prisoner).' (cf. XPh 33-35, 37-39)

Similar to the above is the following narrative sequence, where an additional clause is asyndetically appended:

DB II 87-88 kara haya mana avam karam tayam hamifiyam aja uta Cifantaxmam agarbaya anaya abEy mam 'The army which was mine smote that army which was rebellious and took Cicantakhma (prisoner) (and) led (him) to me.'

In several instances the conjoined structures represent expansions of subclausal syntagms which we have already seen:

DB II 76-78 pasavasim IIagmatanaiy uzmayapatiy akunavam uta ma[r]tiya tayaiswaiy fratama anuswiya ahanta avaXy Ilagmata[naXy anta]r didam frahanjam 'After that I impaled him in Ecbatana and the men who were his foremost allies, them did I hang in Ecbatana inside the fortress.' (cf. DB III 50-52 avam Vah.ayazdatam uta martiya tayaiswaiy. . . ahanta. . . uzmayapatiy akunavam, etc., §2 above)

AsH 11-14 mam Auramazda patuv utamaiy viSam uta imam dah.ayaum [taya] adam darayamiy hauv pat[uv] 'Me let Ahuramazda protect, and my royal house, and this country which I hold let him protect.' (cf. DNa 51-53 [=XPh 57-59] [ma]m. . . patuv. . . utamaiy viSam uta imam dahayaum, etc., §3 above)

XPa 18-20 (=XPf 45-48) mam Auramazda patuv utamaXy xswafam uta taya mana kartam uta tayamaiy pifa kartam avaswsEy Auramazda patuv 'Let Ahura- mazda protect me and my dominion, and what has been done by me; and what has been done by my father, that let Ahuramazda protect.' (cf. XPb 27-30 [=XPd 17-19] mam . . . patuv . . . utamaXy xswafam uta tayamaiy kartam, etc., §3 above)

DB II 73-75 adamstaiLy] uta naham uta gausa uta hazanam frajanam utaswaXy tI cas]ma avajam 'I cut off his nose and ears and tongue, and I put out one of his eyes.' (for a discussion of adamswaity] . . . frajanam, cf. §5 above)

In each of these instances a second full-clause following the final occurrence of uta specifies the structure at the outermost level of constituency as Clausel uta Clause2. In the second through fourth passages Clausel is itself a structure of the shape X uta Y, X uta Y uta Z, and uta X uta Y uta Z, respectively. Similar to these are DB III 74-75 (like DB II 76-78) DB II 88-89 (like DB II 73-75), and XPc 12-15 (like XPa 18-20). In the last two cases, Clausel contains one less term than in the passages cited above (uta X uta Y and X uta Y, respectively).

In another passage the presence of an identical verb in each of the conjoined members converts an elsewhere occurring nominal X uta Y structure into a sentential one:

XPh 23-25 Yauna taya drayahiya darayantiy uta tayaXy paradraya darayantEy 'The Ionians who dwell on the sea and those who dwell across the sea.' (cf. DPe 12-15 Yauna tayaiy uskah.aya uta tayaiy drayah.aya uta dah.ayava taya para draya, §§2, 3 above)

As an expansion and variation of the notion DB V 18-20 haya Auramazdam yad[atai]y ya[namsaiy datam] ahatiy uta fivah.aya u[ta] marta#.aya (§4 above) we find the following Clausel uta Clause2 structure with permuted parallel members (ABC uta CAB):

XPh 47-50 yadimaniyaiy (i.e., maniyahaiy) siyata ahaniy jlva uta marta artava ahaniy avana data parlddy taya Auramazda niyaswtaya 'If thou shalt think, "happy shall I be while alive and while dead shall I be blessed," behave'4 in accordance with that law which Ahuramazda commanded.'

'4 For the sense of pariy + ay- as 'behave', cf. Salomon, 1974.




Other, primarily narrative sequences belonging to the Clausel uta Clause2 syntagm with parallel members are XPg 9-12, XPh 51-53, XV 17-21, DB IV 89-90, and DB IV 90-91 (cf. discussion of these last two at the end of §2 above). A variation of the mam patuv prayer involving two different parallel verb forms is the following:

DPd 13-18 mana Auramazda upastam baratuv hada visaibis bagaibis uta imam dah.ayaum Auramazda patuv haca hainaya haca dusiyara haca drauga sLet Ahuramazda bring aid to me together with all the gods,lS and let Ahuramazda protect this country from a (hostile) army, from a bad harvest, from deceit.'

In all the passages presented so far uta has been clearly additive ('and'). In one passage, however, it appears to be adversative ('but'):

DB IV 72-74 yadiy imam di[pim] vainaha[y] imaiva patikara naiydis vikanahay utataiy yava tauma [ahatiy] paribarahadis sIf thou shalt see this inscription or these figures (and) thou shalt not destroy them but, as long as thou shalt have strength, thou shalt preserve them . . .'

The identical conjunctive relationship is seen in DB IV 77-78 where the positive/negative values of the conjoined clauses are inverted. Such an adversative value is seen several times in the syntax of Rigvedic uta, but limited to the late Tenth Mand. ala. E.g.,

X.86.9a-d avlram iva mam ayam / sararur abhi man- yate // utaham asmi vlrinl / indrapatnl marutsakha 'This evil one craves me as though I were one without a man. But I have a man! (I am) Indra's wife (and) a friend of the Maruts.'

X.117.lcd uto rayih prnato nopa dasyaty / utap.rnan mard taram na vindate '(And) the wealth of the one granting in abundance does not become exhausted, but the one granting in abundance does not find anyone to have mercy (on him).'

As we emphasized in our evaluation of passages such as these (Klein, 1985.1:459-460), the adversative value is a contextual realization of additive nexus in

'5 Cf. Mayrhofer, 1968 (non vidi), as reported in Eilers, 1972.

cases where the two conjoined clauses are inherently oppositional. 16

The single remaining passage to be considered here is the following:

XPf 38-40 tayamaiy pica kartam aha ava adam apayaiy uta aniya kartam ablVavayam 'What had been done by my father, that I protected; and I added on other construction.'

Because the correlative structure taya- . . . ava is limited to the first clause, while the second contains its own separate object, and in part because of the content of the conjoined clauses, the nexal relationship between them seems to be looser here than in the preceding passages discussed in this section. This passage therefore provides a transition to those which follow.

10. Among the nine Clausel uta Clause2 passages showing nonparallel clauses and, consequently, a looser degree of nexus, five represent narrative structures ranging in complexity from short, simple clauses (DB V 15-16 [-31-32], DB V 26-27) to more complex structures involving correlatives (DZc 10-12, XPh 39-43) to extremely long narrative periods (DB I 73-78:

DB V 15-16 (-31-32) avaiy [U]v[ j]iya (31 Sa[k]a) [arika aha]utaCam Auramazda [nai]y (31-32 uta naiy Auramazda[swam]) [aya]d [i]ya 'Those Elamites (Sakas) were faithless, and Ahuramazda was not worshipped by them.'

DB V 26-27 [hauv ba]sta [anayata] abEy mam utaC[im avajanam] 'He was led bound to me, and I smote him.'

16 That the translational equivalent of uta in a passage such as DB IV 72-74 is contextually determined may be demon- strated by a comparison of this passage with the following DB IV 77-78 yadiy im[a]m dipim imaiva patikara vainah.ay vikanahadiC utataiy yava tau[m]a ahati[y nai]ydiX paribara- h.ay. This last is identical to the earlier passage except for the place of the negative. In this instance, however, 'but' is not a felicitous translation ('If thou shalt see . . . [and] destroy them, but . . . thou shalt not preserve them . . .), because to destroy means not to preserve, and hence the two notions are not opposed. On the other hand, to not destroy does not mean to preserve (John didn't destroy the plants, he merely neglected them, and they died), so that but may be used to contrast the two.




DZc 10-12 pas[ava] iyam yauvEya [akanEya] ava[0a yaSa] adam niyastayam ut[a nava] ayanta hac[a Mudra]ya ta[ra ima]m yauvEyam abiy Par[sam] 'After that this canal was dug in the way in which I had prescribed, and ships went from Egypt across this canal to Persia.'

XPh 39-43 yadaya paruvam daiva ayadiya avada adam Auramazdam ayadaiy . . . uta aniyasca aha taya duskartam akarEya ava adam naibam akunavam 'Where previously the daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahuramazda. . . and whatever else was badly done that did I make (religiously) good.'

DB I 74-78 I martEya Afina nama. . . hauv udapa- ta[ta Uvjai]y. . . hauv x[sayaSiya] abava Uvjaiy uta I martiya Babiruviya Nadintabaira nama . . . hauv uda- patata Babirauv...'One man, Ac,ina by name.... he revolted in Elam . . . He became king in Elam. And one man, a Babylonian, Nadintabaira by name. . .. he revolted in Babylon.'

A special problem is presented by DNb 45-49 when compared to the corresponding part of its near-copy, XP1 50-55. Until the discovery of the latter in 1967 the opening word of this period had been generally taken to be uta, resulting in the anacolouthic syntax seen in Kent's translation (1953:140), which is without parallel in the Old Persian employment of uta. How- ever, XP 1 replaces this uta with ima, yielding an unimpeachable ima... taya structure conjoined by uta with a following clause. Our citation provides the entire structure of DNb 45-49 together with the XP1 variants:

DNb 45-49 (=XP1 50-55) uta (XP1 ima) uvnara (XP1 unara) taya Auramazda [upa]r[iy ma]m nlyasaya utadis atavayam barta[nai]y vasna Auramaz- daha (XP1 -daha) tayamaiy kartam imaibis uvnaraibis (XP1 imabis unarabis) akunavam taya (XP1 taya) mam Auramazda upariy nlyasaya 'These (are) the skills which Ahuramazda bestowed upon me, and I was strong enough to carry them. By the will of Ahuramazda, what was done by me I did with these skills which Ahuramazda bestowed upon me.' (rather than sAnd the skills which...-and I was strong enough to carry them-by the will. . . Ahuramazda bestowed upon me.')

The possibility that ima has over the years been misread as uta in DNb 45 is especially great, because ma and ta differ by only one small horizontal stroke on the left. According to Hinz (1969:51), -ma on DNb "noch deutlich erkennbar ist."

The final two passages in this group are DB IV 58- 59 (=78-79), which will be cited as part of the larger structure to which it belongs in §12 below, and the following, where, if the passage is correctly understood, uta signals only a very loose nexus between the clauses:

DB I 85-86 kara haya Nadintabairah.aya Tigram adaraya avada aistata uta abis navEya aha 'The army which belonged to Nadintabaira held the Tigris. There it took a stand. And the water was navigable(?).'

11. A distinctive subset of the Clausel uta Clause2 passages shows the shape taya- Clause l uta taya- Clause2 with relativized structures in each clause. Most characteristic are the following two passages, which are both of the type taya- . . . uta taya- . . . ava:

XPb 23-27 taya mana kartam ida uta tayamaiy apataram kartam ava visam vasna Auramazdaha akunavam 'What has been done by me here and what shall be done by me hereafter, all that I did by the will of Ahuramazda.'

XPf 40-43 tayapatiy adam akunavam utamaXy taya pita akunaus ava visam vasna Auramazdaha akunma 'Moreover, what I built and what my father built, all that did we build by the will of Ahuramazda.'

The remaining passage does not contain a correlative structure:

XPa 13-15 vasiy aniyascEy naibam kartam ana Parsa taya adam akunavam utamaiy taya pita akunaus '(There is) much other good construction work in this Persepolis which I built and which my father built.'

This passage is similar, except for its change of subject, to XPh 23-25 Yauna taya drayahiya darayantiy uta tayaiy paradraya darayantiy seen in §8 above.

12. The next major category in the sentential employment of uta is the type Clause 1 uta Clause2 uta Clause3 (6 times). Analogous to the corresponding subclausal structure X uta Y uta Z, several of these passages represent expansions of simpler Clause1 uta Clause2 sequences. Occasionally as well, various structural signals suggest a hierarchical arrangement among the clauses, or one of the clauses is itself a conjoined structure. In fact, the only instance of a 'flat' tripartite coordinate structure without any of these complica- tions is the following:




DNb 24-27 (-XP1 26-30) martEya taya kunautEy yadiva abaratiy anuv taumaniCaiy (XP1 tauma avana- gaiy) xgnuta amiy (XP1 bavamiy) uta mam (XP1 utamam) vasiy kama uta u[0and]uK (= XP1) amiy (XP1 ahmiy) 'What a man does, or if he brings in (sc., tribute: cf. Gershevitch, 1968:9) according to (his) abilities, I am satisfied with him, and (such) is very much my desire, and I am well pleased.'

In four other cases we find an expansion of a structure seen in the Clausel uta Clause2 category:

DB IV 55-56 (=74-75) Auramazda Suvam dauXta bEya uta[ta]iy tauma vasiy bEya uta dargam Jlva 'May Ahuramazda be a friend to thee, and mayest thou have a large family, and long do thou live.' (cf. 58-59 Auramazdatay janta biya utataiy tauma ma biya as well as the following passage)

DB IV 78-80 Auramazdataiy janta biya utataiy taum[a ma biya] uta taya kunavah.ay avataXy Auramazda nikantuv 'May Ahuramazda be a smiter of thee, and mayest thou not have a family, and what thou shalt do, that let Ahuramazda destroy.'

DB III 47-49 avaSagam hamaranam kartam uta avam Vah.ayazdatam agarbaya uta martEya tayai£aiy fratama anuCiya ahanta agarbaya sThen the battle was fought by them, and they took that Vahyazdata, and the men who were his foremost allies did they take.' (cf. DB III 74-75 avadaKim agarbaya u[t]a martiyd tayaigaiy fratama anuCiya ahanta avaja)

XPh 33-36 vaKna Auramazdaha ava dah.ayavam adam ajanam utaKim gaSava nlBadayam uta antar aita dah.ayava aha yadataya paruvam daiva ayadiya sBy the will of Ahuramazda I smote that country, and set it back in its place. And in these countries there was (a place) where previously the daivas were worshipped.'

The last of these passages shows a clear hierarchical structure, with the first two clauses showing close cohesion and the third representing an entirely new section. Accordingly, we have earlier treated the first two clauses as an instance of Clausel uta Clause2 (§9). Here we see better than anywhere else the weak discourse continuative value of uta (cf. in addition DB I 85-86, §10 above, and XP1 26-31 §13 below).

In the remaining passage of this type we find an internal expansion of the Clausel uta Clause2 structure in which the nearly synonymous vEyamarnda'7 is added

Iv To be equated with Gathic Avestan morandan 'they ruined' (i.e., *mrndan). Cf. Mayrhofer, 1964:82.

to avaja preceding the clause uta. . . agarbaya. Nar- rative sequences involving parallel forms of jan- 'smite' and garb- 'take (prisoner)' are common in the Behistun . . .

nscrlptlon:

DB V 10-12 pasava Ga[ubar]uva Uvjiya [av]aja uta vEyamarnda uta [tayamsa]m maS[iCtam] agarbaya 'After that Gaubaruva smote and crushed the Elamites and took their leader (captive).' (cf. DB IV 6-7 adamCiC ajanam uta IX xC[ayaSiy]a agarbayam)

13. In two passages the Clausel uta Clause2 uta Clause3 structure is expanded by the addition of uta plus a fourth clause. In both cases the final occurrence of uta conveys very loose nexus, and the preceding stretches have been treated in §12:

DB IV 74-76 Auramazda Suvam dausta biya utataiy tau[ma] vasiy bi[y]a uta dargam jlva uta taya kunavah.ay avataiy Auramazda ucaram kunautuv 'May Ahuramazda be a friend to thee, and mayest thou have a large family, and long do thou live. And what thou shalt do, that let Ahuramazda make successful for thee.l

XP1 26-31 martiya taya kunautiy yadiva abaratiy anuv tauma avanasaiy xsnuta bavamiy utamam vasiy kama uta uAanduK ahmiy uta vasiy dadamiy ag(a)ri- yanam martiyanam 'What a man does, or if he carries on here according to (his) abilities, I am satisfied with him, and (such) is very much my desire, and I am well pleased. And I give in large measure to loyal men.'

A measure of the loose juncture of the fourth clause relative to the first three is, in the first of these passages, its variant syntactic structure, replete with an internally cohesive correlative sequence (taya-... ava-) and, in the second instance, both its variant context as well as the fact that it is not present in the otherwise nearly identical DNb. In order to emphasize this apparent difference in nexal type or discourse level constituency ([Clausel uta Clause2 uta Clause3] uta Clause4), I have, in translating the above passages, treated the final clause as a separate sentence in each instance.

14. The second major category of sentential uta shows the structure uta Clausel uta Clause2. This construction, which is paralleled in the syntax of Rigvedic uta, appears three times, including one passage involving three conjoined clauses. The clauses are in all cases parallel. Examples are the following:



capable of signaling the full range of additive nexal values. It will be of interest to compare the overall syntax of uta with that of its Rigvedic counterpart uta. The latter is also a very general conjunction, operating at both the subclausal and the sentential level. In order to facilitate comparison, we present an overview of the syntax of both particles in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Categories of Employment of OP uta

I. Subclausal Conjunction: 78x A. X uta Y: 34x'9 B. X uta Y uta Z: 9x (17 occurrences of uta)20 C. X Y uta Z: lx D. uta X uta Y: 7x (14 occurrences of uta) E. uta X uta Y uta Z: 4x (12 occurrences of uta)

II. Sentential Conjunction: 53x A. Clausel uta Clause2: 33x

1. Parallel Clauses: 24x 2. Nonparallel Clauses: 9x

B. Clausel uta Clause2 uta Clause3: 6x (10 occurrences of uta)2'

C. Clausel uta Clause2 uta Clause3 uta Clause4: 2x (2 occurrences of uta)22

D. uta Clausel uta Clause2: 3x (7 occurrences of uta, including one passage of the type uta taya- Clause uta taya- Clause2 uta taya- Clause3)

E. Uncertain (probably type A): lx

Table 2 Categories of Employment of Rigvedic uta

I. Subclausal Conjunction: 321x A. X uta Y: 182x B. X uta Y uta Z: 2x (4 occurrences of uta) C. X Y uta Z: 31x (including Xl . . . Xn_I uta Xn: 14x) D. uta X uta Y: 7x (14 occurrences of uta) E. uta Xl uta Xz . . . uta Xn: 3x (1 1 occurrences of uta,

including one passage with three terms and two with four terms)

'9 Including DB I 66-67 X-ca Y-ca uta Z. 20 Cf. footnote 8. Seven of these passages are of the type

mam Auramazda patuv (. . .) uta Y uta Z. 21 Including DB IV 78-80 and XPh 33-36, both analyzable

as (Clause 1 uta Clause2) uta Clause3 for which the first part of the structure has already been counted in II A Cf. §§9, 10, 12.

22 DB IV 74-76 and XP 1 26-31, both of which are analyzable as (Clausel uta Clause2 uta Clause3) uta Clause4, for which the first part of the structure has already been counted in II B. Cf. §§12, 13.


DB II 3-4 [vasna Auramazd]aha uta Babirum agarbit- yam uta avam Nadintaba[iram agarbaya]m 'By the will of Ahuramazda I took Babylon and I captured that Nadintabaira.'

XPh 51-56 martiya haya avana data pariyaita . . uta Auramazdam yadataiy . . . hauv uta jlva Kiyata bavatiy uta marta artava bavatEy 'The man who behaves according to that law . . . and worships Ahuramazda . . ., he becomes happy while alive, and he becomes blessed while dead.' (cf. XPh 47-48 siyata ahaniy jlva uta marta artava ahanEy)

The remaining passage of this type shows the structure uta taya- Clausel uta taya- Clause2 uta taya- Clause3, in which the iteratively anaphoric employment of taya- defines the initial occurrence of uta as sequence-internal For the analogous construction involving two clauses, cf. §11 above:

DSf 27-30 upariy avam Sikam hadis frasaha[ya] uta taya BU akaniya fravata uta taya Sika avanEya uta taya istis ajaniya kara haya Ba[b]iruviya hauv akunaus sOver that rubble the palace was set down. (And) that the earth was dug down, and that the rubble was packed down, and that the brick was baked, the Babylonian people did (that).'

15. There remains only a single passage of uncertain structure involving uta. The uncertainty is based on the state of preservation of the inscription. Our own interpretation, which must of course remain con- jectural, follows that of Szemerenyi (1979[1980]:59-60):

A2Sa 5-6 AM Anahita uta miSra ma[m pantu]v [haca] vi[sp]a gasta uta imam taya akuna ma yatuma'8 ma kayada vi[+ +]itu+ sLet AM, Anahita, and MiOra protect me from all evil. And this which we have made, let not a sorcerer, not a kayada [destroy?].'

This interpretation brings the syntax of this passage more in line with that of AsH 12-14 and, to a lesser degree, XPa 18-20. As such, it takes uta to be a weak sentential conjunction within the structure Clausel uta Clause2.

16. Having now presented the complete syntax of Old Persian uta, we may characterize this particle as the basic conjunction in the language and one which is

18 For yatuma 'sorcerer'. Cf. Rigvedic yatumant-.



401 KLEIN: Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian

the existence of mixed sequences involving both UTA

and CA in each language. Thus, Old Persian shows

the structure X-ca Y-ca uta Z at DB I 66-67 Par-

sam[c]a Madam[c]a uta aniya dah.ayava, while Vedic

shows the structures X ca ya- uta Y, ya- ca X uta Y,

and X uta ya- ca Y at I.94.5b dvipac ca yad uta

catu.spat'the two-footed and four-footed', X.136.5d

yas ca purva utaparah 'the eastern and western

(ocean)', and VIII.80.10b . . . deva uta yas ca devlh 'O

gods and goddesses', respectively. Equally notable is

the relative balance in the frequency of UTA at both

the subclausal and sentential levels (OP 59.5%-40.5%,

Vedic 45.5%-54.5%, respectively). These figures indi-

cate that in both languages UTA is a general con-

catenator capable of joining members at all levels of

syntactic structure. Again, the frequencies of the most

common sentential employment of each particle

(Clausel UTA Clause2) are strikingly similar, repre-

senting, in the case of Old Persian, 25% of the

particle's total employment and 62'3zo of its total

sentential employment and, for the Rigveda, 34% of

the particle's total employment and 62% of the par-

ticle's sentential employment.28 As with its subclausal

employment, the basic categories of sentential UTA

are identical: Clause l UTA Clause2, Clause l UTA

Clause2 UTA Clause3 (uta Clause4), and UTA Clause

UTA Clause2. . . UTA Clausen.

From the facts just presented a single conclusion

may be drawn: Rigvedic uta and Old Persian uta are

in all respects the same particle with the same syntax.

Although the testimony of Avestan has yet to be

heard, we are nevertheless presently able to speak of

the syntax of Indo-Iranian *uta. Our categorical

statement of Klein 1985.1:294-95 that Rigvedic uta,

despite its concurrence with the more widely attested

ca (*kWe), shows no obvious syntactic traces of being

secondary or late is now confirmed as far back as the

Indo-Iranian level. But the question of Old Persian

28 Actually, the figures for Rigvedic uta are likely to be

higher than the 34g0 and 62No given here, since I have not

investigated in detail the category II.E to determine how

many of the passages in which uta possesses sentential

conjunctive values other than 'andt may belong here. A

cursory check of the relevant sections of Klein, 1985. 1:440-60

suggests that most do. Nevertheless, our figures still indicate

that where simple additive conjunction ('andt) of the sort

Clause l UTA Clause2 is involved, both particles show a high

degree of similarity in relative frequency. For an example in

which Old Persian uta is contextually translatable in a

sentential value other than 'andt, cf. §9, with Rigvedic

parallels.

Table 2 continued

F. Other: 79x 1. XutaYZ: 21x 2. Xl uta X2 / X3 uta X4 (/ X5 uta X6): 4x (9 occur-

rences of uta 3 X Y uta: 26X23 4. X Y Z uta: 17x (including Xl . . . Xn uta: 7x)24

5. utaXY(/Z):3x 6. XutaYuta: lx 7. Ambiguous (X uta Y or X uta Y Z): lx (VIII.94.4)

II. Sentential Conjunction: 384x

A. Clausel uta Clause2: 237x 1. Parallel Structures: 103x

2. Nonparallel Structures: 42x

3. More loosely-knit (interstanzaic) nexus: 92x

B. Clausel uta Clause2 uta Clause3: 2x (4 occurrences of

uta) C. uta Clausel uta Clause2: 34x (91 occurrences of uta,

including uta Clausel uta Clause2 . . . uta Clausen)

D. Other: 8x 1. Clausel Clause2 uta Clause3: 3x26

2. Clausel Clause2 uta: lx

3. uta Clausel Clause2: 2x

4. Clausel uta Clause2 Clause3 (Clause 4): 2X27

E. uta in sentential values other than 'andt: 40x

F. Ambiguous or Uncertain Passages: 3x

G. uta strictly formulaic: lx

17. A comparison of the above data reveals at a

glance the striking similarity in the syntax of both

Rigvedic uta and Old Persian uta. If we disregard for

Rigvedic uta the rich category I.F ("other"), we find,

in the category of subclausal conjunction, exactly the

same basic syntagms. Moreover, the basic subclausal

type X UTA Y represents 26(3zo of the total occurrences

of UTA in each language. Significant differences in

frequency between the Old Persian and Rigvedic

forms are seen in the remaining, less common patterns,

but surely the most important point is that these

patterns (X UTA Y UTA Z, X Y UTA Z, UTA X

UTA Y, and UTA Xl UTA X2.. . UTA Xn) appear

in both languages. A detail that is significant here is

23 Including X.61.9 sanita Obj 1 sanitota Obj2.

24 Including IX.96.5 janita Objl janita Obj2... janitota

Obj 7. 25 Including X.67.3 ata P1 V1 P2 ca V2.

26 Including two passages of the type Xl . . . Xn (. . .) uta,

where uta follows or is associated with one member of a set of

terms repeated at the head of each clause.

27 Both passages of the type X1 X2 uta X3 (X4), where uta

follows one member of a set of terms repeated at the head of

each clause.



-ca still remains, and it is to this particle that we now turn.

18. -ca has been read 14 different times in Old Persian.29 In all but one instance it conjoins words (rarely, phrases). These passages present more problems, however, than are encountered in the entire analysis of uta. The syntax of-ca is synopsized in Table 3:

Table 3 Categories of Employment of Old Persian -ca

I. XY-ca:2x II. X-ca Y-ca: 2x

III. Construction Uncertain: 3x (5 occurrences of-ca) IV. Sentential -ca: l x V. The reading of-ca is probably wrong: 2x

From the table it can be seen that the only esta- blished constructions in the syntax of -ca are X Y-ca, X-ca Y-ca, and possibly sentential -ca. The first two are also the most frequent syntagms in which Rig- vedic ca appears. The latter particle, however, occurs lOl9 times, making it the most common Rigvedic conjunction. Moreover, since *kWe is attested over the bulk of the Indo-European area and is the basic conjunction not only in early Indic, but in Avestan, early Greek (Mycenaean), early Latin, and parts of Continental Celtic, and appears with more limited frequency and/ or distribution in Hittite (-ku) and Gothic (-[u]h), we may infer that the infrequent occurrence of -ca in Old Persian represents a his- torical development in which the particle has been nearly lost under the encroachment of uta. Con- sequently, -ca can be considered an archaism, and we may suppose that the collocations in which it occurs are either archaic or otherwise linguistically marked.

The two occurrences of the type X Y-ca are the following:

DSs 5-6 [haya uvaspa] uraSaca [kunautiy] 'who (viz., Ahuramazda) makes good horses and good chariots.'

29 This number does not include exact repetitions of XPh 41 (artaca brazmaniya) at 50-51 and 53-54 and of DNb 32 (manaswc[a us]lca) at XP1 36. It also does not include Kent's restoration of -ca at DB V 3 (c[itamca]). Kent's entry under -ca (1953:183) should be corrected by reading DNb for DNa

402

in line 6 and by adding DSs 5.


DPd 9-10 vasna Auramazdaha manaca 'through the will of Ahuramazda and of me.'

The first of these passages belongs to a monolingual inscription which is almost completely restored, its right margin alone being legible. The form uraSaca is, according to Kent, clear in its entirety, but the collocation [uvaspa] uraSaca is speculative. Kent treats both uraSa and the restored uvaspa as accusative plural neuters used substantively, an employment found, in the case of uvaspa, nowhere else in Old Per- sian, where this word is in all its legible occurrences only an adjective appearing with umartEya- 'having good men' or (AsH 9-10) ukara- 'having good people'. uraSa is itself a hapax ([u]raSaram is restored by Kent, probably correctly, on DSp, an equally illegible monolingual inscription, in the phrase [xsafam]... [taya naibam taya u]raSaram [uvaspam umartiyam]). The collocation uvaspa uraSaca is therefore highly con- jectural, but shows the type of morphological and lexical parallelism associated with CA in both Rigvedic and Avestan. Cf. especially IV.35.2cd sukrtyaya... svapasyaya ca 'through artistic work . . . and through well-wrought work', with its conjoined compounds in su-. DPd 9-10 has been discussed in §2 above as a parallel to DB IV 46 vasna Aura[mazdaha] utamaiy. Here as well the Rigveda illustrates the employment of ca in the conjunction of man (ego) and deity in such passages as VII.88.3a a yad ruhava [aham] varunas ca navam 'when we two, [I] and Varuna, mount the ship' and VIII.62. 1 1 ab aham ca tvam ca vrtrahan / sam yudyava sanibhya a 'May I and thou, O smasher of the obstacle, unite for winnings'.

The syntagm X-ca Y-ca is seen in the following passages:

DB I 66-68 adam karam gaSava avastayam Parsam- [c]a Madam[c]a uta aniya dah.ayava 'I set the people back in its place: Persia, Media, and the other provinces.'

DNb 31-32 (=XP1 35-36) aitamaiy aruvastam upariy managc[a us]lca (XP1 manasca uslca) 'This is my activity over and above (my) mind and (my) understanding.'

The first of these has been discussed in §7 above. Parsam[c]a Madam[c]a appears to denote a part of the Achaemenid Empire to which is contrasted all other provinces. This passage therefore seems to suggest that -ca may function as a lower level or tighter conjunction than uta and be capable of signaling an internal constituency within a conjoined structure.



Gershevitch (1969:131), who assumes a perceptual ambiguity on the part of scribes who took down Darius' dictation in Elamite, in which the proclitic conjunction ak was used in a construction Xl ak X2 ak X3 ak X4 in order to capture Old Persian *Xl-ca X2-ca X3-ca X 4-bis 'pasture-lands, livestock, and servant-retinue together with the homes'. On recitation into Old Persian, ak was mistakenly read in each case as -ca taken with the following term. Hence, our Old Persian construction.32 Although Gershevitch's explanation crucially depends upon his theory that Darius' dictates were written down in Elamite and recited back to him in Old Persian, I find in it an elegant solution for the case in hand and tentatively accept both the theory, which is plausible, and the explanation it offers here. This of course means that there really is no Xl X2-ca X3-ca X4-ca sequence in Old Persian, a conclusion made all the more probable by the absence of such a sequence in the Rigveda.33 What was meant here was rather Xl-ca X2-ca X3-ca with an asyndetic comitative instrumental added on. The type is therefore an expanded subtype of X-ca Y-ca with instrumental accretion.

1975:75), a type reflected both in Young Avestan and in Old Persian, e.g., raucabisw, abis; and to do so yields the simplest explanation in that it requires no new machinery. Neverthe- less, I am hestitant to invoke such an instrumental within a conjoined series in which a true comitative instrumental can be motivated.

32 The reason that the first occurrence of ak was not taken with X1 is, according to Gershevitch, that ak, in addition to functioning as the equivalent of -ca, also served as a marker of loose sentential nexus, a type of interpunction or stop without an Old Persian equivalent. In this role ak was proclitic to the phrase, sentence, or paragraph it introduced. Because in the present instance such a stop would have made no sense following karahaya and before the first word (abicarls<) of the conjoined series, ak could only be understood as belonging to the second term (gaiSam) and so on. Put another way, where no stop preceded, Elamite scribes had difficulty distinguishing between OP A-ca B-ca C-ca with-D and A B-ca C-ca with-D. In this case, both the length of the construction and difficulty in fast non-native language processing conspired to cause the extra ak to be taken as an extra -ca following the instrumental.

33 The closest parallel is the type (W) X Y ca Z ca with no more than two occurrences of ca. E.g., VIII.31.1ab yo yajati yajata it / sunavac ca pacati ca 'which one shall worship (for others) (and) shall worship for himself, (who) shall press (soma) and shall cook (the sacrifical food) and X.15.3 aham pitrn suvidatran avitsi / napatam ca vikramanam ca visnoh 'I have found here the easily found fathers, the grandson, and the striding place of Vis.nut.


However, this conclusion should perhaps not be pushed too far. Cf. the following passage:

DB I 34-35 drauga dah.ayauva vasiy abava uta Parsaiy uta Madaiy ut[a an]iyauva dah.ayusuva 'Deceit arose in great measure in the country, in Persia and in Media and in the other provinces.'

The collocations uta Parsaiy uta Madaiy ut[a an]iyauva dah .ayusVuva and Parsam [c]a Madam[c]a uta aniya dah.ayava constitute a syntactic minimal pair. But to see a difference in meaning here, at least on a synchronic level, is probably to read too much into the data. For another approach, cf. §21 above. DNb 31-32 (=XP1 35-36) shows the type of semantic pairing which is associated with CA in both Vedic and Avestan. Cf. I.73.10b manase hrde ca 'to (thy) mind and heart' (but also, with uta, VII.98.2c uta hrdota manasa) and Y 31.12 ahiia zaradaca manayhaca 'with his heart and with his mind'.

19. The remaining passages containing -ca all present problems. The first of these has been the subject of much discussion.

DB I 64-66 adam niyacarayam karah.aya abicarls<30 gaiSamca maniyamca viSbiswca tayadiC Gaumata ha- [ya] maguK adina 'I restored to the people the pasture- lands, livestock, servant-retinue, and (lit., and together with) homes of which Gaumata the Magus had de- spoiled them.'

The difficulty with this passage is of course the final term, viSbisca, with its redundant instrumental plural cum -ca. The use of the comitative instrumental in virtual conjunctive value is of course well-known in both the Rigveda and the Avesta. For the former, cf. I.19.1(-9)c marudbhir agna a gahi 'Come hither with the Maruts, O Agni'; for the latter, cf. Y 34.6 yezl aSa sta haiSlm mazda asa vohu manayha 'If ye are truly so, O wise one, (together) with truth (and) good thinking'. It would appear, therefore, that viSbis is added on to the structure Xl X2-ca X3-ca by means of such an instrumental construction, and the -ca must represent an accretion of some sort. Perhaps the most interesting theory accounting for this -ca31 is that of

30 For the proper understanding of this form (acc. pl. of a vrddhi-derivative abicari- 'farmstead, land-property' built on *abicara- 'servant' like Skt. sautamgami- 'eine von Sutam- gama bewohnte oder geschaffene ortlichkeit' on sutamgama-, Wackernagel-Debrunner, 1954:303), cf. Schmitt, 1981:56-58.

31 Of course, it is possible to explain viSbiswca as an instrumental qua nominative (so Hoffmann, 1958:18 =



404 Journal oJ? the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

Another problematic passage is the following:

DB V 2-3 duvitlyamca ([itlyam(ca?)] Sar(a)dam sin the second and third year'

Kent read ([itamca] here, for which he has been justly criticized by Schmitt (1963). The Indo-Iranian form of the ordinal 'third' was *trtlya-, as reflected by Vedic trtlya- and (with secondary tri-) YAv. Sritiia-. Schmitt therefore restores ([itlyam], which, like Kent's restoration, contains six signs. If Schmitt is right, then we have here an example of the syntagm X-ca Y, a minor type occurring within both Vedic and Avestan: X.27. 10ab dvipac ca yac catu.spat 'the two-footed and the four-footed creature', Y 34.6 yaSa va yazamnasca uruuaidiia stauuas aiienl paitl 'so that I, worshipping and praising, shall very happily approach all of you'. On the other hand, the assumption of a -ca following such a fitlyam34 (with, once again, irregular final -a) requires only a single additional sign, and one which is rather narrow at that, in order to produce a much more satisfying X-ca Y-ca. The semantics of 'third and fourth' are exactly what one expects within an *X-kWe Y-kWe construction. Cf. Rigveda VIII.47.16c tritaya ca dvitaya ca 'to Trita and to Dvita' where, to be sure, we are dealing with proper names, but where these are clearly evocative of the numerals 'third' and 'second', respectively. That 'second' and 'third' represented a standing Indo-Iranian collocation is reflected not only in the Vedic passage just cited, but in such Avestan passages as Vldevdat 9.6-7 paoirlm upa mayam niS/arasois . . . bitlm upa mayam . . . Sritlm upa mayam 'Thou shouldst dig the first hole. . . the second hole . . . the third hole', etc. A type with -ca, although not an exact match, is Afrlnakan 3.7.8 paoiri- ieheca. . . miiazdahe. . . bitiieheca . . . miiazdahe 'Of the first sacrificial food offering . . . and of the second, etc.' which nevertheless shows the appropriateness of the double -ca construction with numerals in Avestan. The existence of an X-ca Y construction in the present instance is rendered even more doubtful by a consideration of the following passage:

XPh 39-41 yadaya paruvam daiva ayadiya avada adam Auramazdam ayadaiy artaca brazmaniya 'Where previously the daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahuramazda with Truth (and[?] . . .)'

34 The length of the i following the t of both duvitlyam and [itlyam is, in my opinion, uncertain. Similarly, Brandenstein-

Mayrhofer, 1964:113, 118.

The literature on this passage is substantial (cf. Mawet, 1978:1ff., n. 1) and will be mentioned only in passing here. For me the problem can be broken down into two parts; 1) What is the construction?; and 2) What is the form following -ca? Taken at face value, the construction is of the sort X-ca Y. But the form following -ca has been variously explained as a nominative (brazmanEya), a locative (brazmaniy), and an instrumental (brazmaniya). Ignoring for the moment the vexed question of what this word actually means, we can say categorically that the form must be an instrumental brazmaniya with -ya for -ya, just as, in the previous example, -ca appeared for -ca. That the rare X-ca Y construction should appear among at most fourteen occurrences of -ca in Old Persian is surprising enough;35 but that it should conjoin forms in different cases, against the evidence of both Vedic and Avestan, is incredible. We are therefore dealing with an apparent X-ca Y construction involving parallel conjoined instrumentals.

At this point, however, it is necessary to raise an issue that I have not seen discussed in the literature; viz.: the present passage, with exact repetitions of artaca brazmaniya in lines 50-51 and 53-54, represents the only occurrence of -ca in inscriptions other than those of Darius I. Now, if there is any compensation for the paucity of attestation of Old Persian in contrast to, say, Vedic and Avestan, it is that the Old Persian corpus can be dated, if not precisely, then at least relatively, with regard to the different kings. This means that a Xerxes inscription can, with a fair degree of certainty, be dated at least a generation (say, +30 years) after one of Darius I. We have previously noted that the infrequent occurrence of -ca in the inscriptions of the latter, together with the traditional

35 In the Rigveda this syntagm occurs 45 times in 1019 occurrences of ca, a frequency of 4.4% whereas I find only seven clear examples in Avestan out of 223 occurrences of ca, about 3g0. (The figure of 223 is taken from Dunkel, 1982:133. I arrived at 7 by taking the passages presented in Schmitt, 1963:440-42, subtracting identical repetitions, and checking the rest against the texts.) On the other hand, ignoring for the moment the possibility that DB V 2-3 could represent such a construction, and subtracting the two occurrences of -ca at DNb 50-52 (on which see further below), the inclusion of XPh 41 ,artaca brazmanEya would yield a frequency of 8.3% (1 out of 12) for inverse -ca in Old Persian. Adding in DB V 2-3 would make the figure even more aberrant (16.7%). It should be borne in mind, however, that the paucity of data in Old Persian lessens the significance of these percentage figures.




nature of the collocations in which it occurs (on which see further below, §21), strongly suggests that the particle was nearly moribund already in the language of the great and enlightened monarch. How much less, then, would it have formed a part of the linguistic competence of his epigone son?36 Moreover, it is not merely -ca that is peculiar here, but also arta and brazmaniya, both of which occur only in this collocation. In fact, the evidence of DB IV 44-45 [v]ratiyaiy yaSa ima hasiyam naiy duruxtam adam akuna[vam] 'I swear that this is true (the truth?), not false (a false thing?) (which) I did' suggests that the everyday word for 'truth' in Old Persian may have been hasiyam used substantively. The uncreative Xerxes is unlikely to have fashioned new linguistic collocations out of hoary archaisms. I therefore believe that the collocation artaca brazmaniya is no integral construction at all but has rather been extracted by Xerxes from some longer phrase where -ca was integral and proper, perhaps the Old Persian equivalent of Avestan vohu manayha asaca (Y 34.15) or the like. This theory ties in nicely with Mawet's explanation (1978) of artaca brazmaniya as meaning'with lofty truth'. I accept Mawet's interpretation of brazmaniya as an instrumental singular to an adjective brazmaniya-, itself built on an Iranian noun *braz-man- 'loftiness', a doublet of the baraziman- seen in Avestan and formed like Skt. brahman-, but to the Indo- Iranian root *brzh 'high'. The only weakness of this theory as set forth by Mawet is that it ignores -ca. If, however, -ca is not taken to be an integral element of the construction, then Mawet's explanation works nicely. The collocation brhat- rta- is widely attested in the Rigveda. Cf. especially I.75.5b yaja devan rtam brhat 'worship the heavenly ones (and) lofty truth'. Comparing this with XPh 39-41 yadaya. . . daiva ayadiya avada adam Auramazdam ayadaiy artaca brazmaniya, we find every lexical item of the Rigvedic passage to be paralleled in the Old Persian. I recon- struct the original collocation underlying artaca brazmaniya as *Auramazdam yad- Nouninstr artaca brazmaniya, whose object is 'Ahuramazda together with X and with lofty Truth'. The construction is of the type X Y-ca Y', with second member as in RV X.9.6bc visvani bhesaja / agnimca visvasambhuvam 'all the means of healing and Agni, who brings all fortune'. As for the larger reconstructed syntagm with its conjoined instrumental adjuncts, we may compare RV

36 On the nature and personality of Xerxes, as reflected in his inscriptions, cf. Mayrhofer, 1969 (=1979:167-80).

VIII.35. 1(-21)cd where, however, the instrumentals belong to the subject rather than the object: sajosasa usasa suryena ca / somam pibatam asvina 'Of like pleasure with the dawn and with the sun, drink soma, O Asvins'. On the Avestan side, barazant-, while absent from the Gathas and not appearing with a.sa-, nevertheless occurs as an epithet of a number of deities or apotheosized abstractions, e.g., Yt. 10.100 rasnus barazo 'lofty Justice', Y 57.30 sraosam . . . yo barazo 'lofty Obedience', Yt. 5.15 araduulm surqm anahitqm. . . barazaitlm, etc. This fact is relevant to our passage, for it seems likely that the arta- men- tioned by Xerxes is not simply truth, the abstract noun to true, but rather Truth, a quasi-deity like Avestan a.sa-. Once again, this all fits together with the view that Xerxes took an archaic Iranian notion belonging to the very foundations of Mazdaism and lifted it in ignorance out of its original context, perhaps as a way of showing that he knew something about the religion he was so zealously championing. Because, on the one hand, arta- was in Xerxes' day probably already an archaism limited to the phrase artaca brazmaniya,37 which was known to have occurred in the context of Ahuramazda, and because, on the other hand, -ca was no longer used or properly understood by Xerxes, the collocation was allowed to stand.38

Our interpretation of XPh 41, etc., and, in particular, our contention that for Xerxes -ca was no longer understandable is supported by a comparison of DNb 27-28 and its (near-) copy, XP1 31-32:

DNb 27-28 avakaramcamaiy (XP1 avakaramay) usly u[t]a framana (XPl usiya uta framana) 'And of such sort is my understanding and my command . . .'

This passage is preceded by the period DNb 24-27 martiya taya kunautiy yadiva abaratiy anuv taumani- saiy (XP1 tauma avanasaiy) xsnuta amiy (XP1 bavamiy) uta mam vasiy kama uta u[0and]us amiy (XP1 ahmiy) and introduces its own period of considerable

37 We must of course assume that the intervening X of our reconstructed instrumental X Y-ca syntagm was dropped, perhaps as part of a simplification in the form of the religion and its traditional formulae under the Achaemenids.

38 Indeed, it seems possible that the name of the quasi-deity linked with Ahuramazda was for Xerxes Artaca Brazmaniya. Auramazdam . . . artaca brazmaniya may therefore have been for him a well-formed comitative construction, tarnished only by an engraver's error (brazmanEya for *brazmaniya).



compromise between Sims-Williamss readings and interpreta-

tions, which he presents on separate lines, one above the

other, for each line of the inscription. 41 As Sims-Williams points out, DNb 50-60 is really a

distinct inscription that is separated from what precedes by an uninscribed line not only in the Old Persian version, but in the

Elamite and Akkadian as well. Gershevitch notes (op. cit.)

that here, just as in DB IV 88 (another instance of what

is really a distinct inscription) there is exceptionally no

paragraph-initial ak in the Elamite version, a fact which

correlates with the regular absence of ak in inscription-initial position. Finally, Xerxes' version of DNb omits this entire

section, the official copy of which must therefore have been

lost or filed elsewhere in the royal archive.

Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988) 406

length and complexity. In XP1 30-31, on the other hand, the clause uta vasEy dadamiy ag(a)rEyanam martiyanam is interposed following the above and before the passage in question. The presence of -ca in DNb 27 is peculiar in that the particle here signals loose sentential nexus and functions virtually as an introductory index of a new section. Such a value is seen nowhere else in the syntax of Old Persian -ca and is, indeed, difficult to square with the notion that -ca was for Darius an archaism limited to certain set collocations for sentential nexus is by its very nature circumstantial and creative in the sense that juxta- posed sentences are not set collocations and are not likely to recur. However, such a sentential value is seen in virtually every linguistic tradition in which the avatar of PIE *kWe appears and is therefore securely reconstructible for the Proto-language (cf. Klein, 1985.1:234-38). More important for us, however, is the absence of -ca in the Xerxes version. Perhaps it was omitted by him or his scribes because it was no longer understood by them. This omission, in contrast to the retention of -ca in the collocation Artaca Brazmaniya, adds further weight to our supposition (above) that the latter was construed by Xerxes as an integral name of a deity. Where its function could only be construed grammatically, -ca was dispensable.

The final occurrences of-ca, as presented by Kent, are the following:

DNb 50-52 marlka darsam azda kunsuva [ciy]akaram amti]y ciyakaramcamaiy (written as if ciyakarammacaiy) uvtnara c]iyakaramcamaiy (again, written as

if ciyakarammacaiy) pariyanam 'O subject, make very

much known of what sort I am and of what sort are

my abilities and of what sort my conduct.'

Taken at face value, the presence of -ca here is somewhat peculiar in that elsewhere in Old Persian there is a tendency for iterative anaphora to function asyndetically as a conjunctive process in its own right (cf. §25 below). However, the entire final section (lines 50-60) of DNb has recently been subjected to renewed scrutiny by Sims-Williams (1981), who was led to the task by his identification of a passage in an Aramaic inscription from Elephantine39 as a translation of this section. His reading of the lines that concern us, which differs substantially from that presented by Kent, is as follows:40

39 First published by E. Sachau in 1911.

40 Square brackets indicate restorations and parentheses

uncertain readings. The citation presented here is actually a

DNb 50-52 (mar)lka da(r)sam az(d)ta] (kunsu)tva]

tciya](ka)ram (ah.ay) ciyaka(ra)m(taiy uv)tnara ciy]- (aka)ra(mtai)y (par)lya(na)m 'O subject, very much

make known of what sort thou art, of what sort are

thy abilities, of what sort thy conduct.s41

Sims-Williams is quite categorical about these readings. For example, a-h-y (line 51) is for him"almost certain," while the ami[i]y presented by Kent "does not fit the traces and requires one to believe that the character i was inscribed despite the fault in the rock which prevented writing in the preceding and following lines." Regarding c-i-y-a-ka-ra-ma-ma -ta-i-y lines 51 and 51-52, he notes that the near identity of the signs ma and ta would have favored dittography here, points out that already Weissbach (191 1) had read ta (rather than ca) as the third character of line 52, and states that the photographs published by Schmidt and those taken for the Corpus lnscriptionum lranicarum by M. Rustami of the Iran-i Bastan Museum in Teheran show the reading ca in both instances to be "impossible." Although not an epigraphist, I can add here that on syntactic-stylistic grounds the absence of -ca in both places is less surprising than its presence would be. More problematic for me is why Darius' advice here should be addressed to the marlka rather than to tuvam ka xswayaSiya haya aparam ah.ay, as in DB IV passim. Apparently, the king felt that what was sound advice for himself was good for his subjects as well

20. Having presented the entire syntax of -ca, we are now in a position to discuss this particle both on its own terms and in its relationship to uta. We have seen that the paucity of occurrences of -ca in Old Persian relative to both Vedic and Avestan is without question the result of the particle's having lost the competition



with u (Nyberg, 1974:52). Elsewhere in Middle Persian andT Parthian it appears as an adverbial 'even, also' (MP -c/-yc,

Pth -yc, -yz, -s/ -y§, cf. Brunner, 1977: 176-77). These facts may be accounted for by assuming a different dialect base for the languages in question than for Old Persian. In Eastern Middle Iranian, on the other hand, I can locate no trace of -ea. Here we find u as the basic conjunction 'and' in Khotanese Saka (e.g., in The Book of Zambasta, cf. Emmerick, 1968, passim), whereas Khwarezmian shows 'awd (Henning- MacKenzie, 1971, passim). Buddhist Sogdian, on the other hand, appears to distinguish a word-level conjunction 't, derived from uta (cf. Gershevitch, 1954:307), from a sentential coordinator rty 'and, then' whose etymology is obscure to me (cf. MacKenzie, 1970:48, 49, 69, et passim; 1976, part II:88, 129; part I: passim).

407 KLEIN: Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian

with uta for the role of primary additive conjunction. The three ancient Indo-Iranian languages therefore show three different implementations of the two conjunctions (orthotonic UTA and enclitic CA), which they had inherited from Proto-Indo-Iranian and, prior to that, Proto-Indo-European.42 In the Rigveda both uta and ca are basic conjunctions with the latter predominating in overall frequency (1019x: 705x) and also at the level below the sentence (ca. 906x: 321x). In Avestan, on the other hand, -ca by far predominates (223x: 46x) and appears to the exclusion of uta in the Gathas, although uta does occur twice in the early Yasna Haptaehaiti. It is clear, then, that at an early stage of the language uta was rare or marginal and only later became more widely used. Old Persian presents us with a yet further advanced stage in which -ca has virtually fallen into desuetude.

These facts tally well with the later histories of CA and UTA in Indic and Iranian, respectively. In the former, ca retains its position as a basic conjunction throughout the entire history of Sanskrit, whereas uta becomes increasingly rare and is by the period of the classical language virtually a dead item limited in occurrence to a few set phrases. In Iranian the fortunes of these particles are reversed, with uta on the ascen- dency and -ca largely in eclipse.43 In the employment

42 That UTA is a conjunction of Indo-European antiquity cannot seriously be doubted now that it has surfaced on the Hispano-Celtic bronze of Botorrita, all the way on the other side of the Indo-European-speaking area. I now accept Hamp's suggestion (1982) that Latin ut in the sense 'so that' continues *ut4. Hamp insightfully points to the negation ut non, which is that of an independent adjoined clause. The identity of Indo-Iranian *utd and 'Italic/o-Celtic' *utd means of course that these cannot derive from *ute/o and must therefore be separated from Greek e(w)ute'as, like'. Cf. Szemerenyi, 1985:767 and correct Klein, 1985.1:294 accordingly.

43 In no Middle Iranian language, as far as I can tell, is -cd or its avatar the fundamental additive conjunction. In most this role is assumed by forms which continue ut4. Thus, for Western Middle Iranian we find ud in both inscriptional Pehlevi and inscriptional Parthian (cf. Gignoux, 1972:16 [s.v. 'P] and 66 [s.v. W]) as well as in Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian ('wd, 'wt, cf. Boyce, 1975, passim; 1977:16), while Book Pehlevi has u (Nyberg, 1974:197-98). uta is also continued in Modern Persian and Tadjik, which show, respectively, o and u (Oranskij, 1963 [=1977:74]). However, the avatars of -cd have not died out in Western Middle Iranian. In Book Pehlevi it survives as an enclitic -c or -ci which may occur in a range of additive nexal values as well as

of -ca, as in so many other features, Avestan (especially Gathic) provides us with a highly archaic form of Iranian, a stage of the language which we could otherwise have only inferred.

21. As our final point we return to the observation (§18) that because -ca is already an archaism in Old Persian, we may suppose as well the collocations in which it occurs to be archaic or otherwise linguistically marked. A study of the semantics of the conjoined pairs supports this notion with only a few exceptions. Particularly worth mentioning are DSs 5 [uvaspa] uraSaca (assuming the first term has been correctly restored), DNb 32 (=XP1 36) manasVc[a usJIca, DB V 2-3 duvitlyamca c[itlyam(ca?)], all of which represent salient semantic pairings which might well have been traditional; and the same could be true of DB I 64-65 abicarls gaiSamca maniyamca viSbiswca which, however we explain the syntax, looks like an old folk-taxonomy of wealth. Similarly, for a king who was in the process of consolidating a dominion, centered in Fars, which had not long before been wrested from Median hege- mony, the collocation Parsamca Madamca represented surely the crucial unit of his empire. I therefore understand the construction DB I 66-67 Parsam[c]a Madam[c]a uta aniya dah.ayava as possessing dia- chronic as well as constituent-level significance: uta aniya dah.ayava has simply been added on, via the living conjunction, to a conjoined syntagm whose members lay in the traditional past and had been brought together at an earlier time and joined by an earlier conjunction. Darius must here have been dictat- ing a phrase he had heard on his father's lips and expanding it to suit his own political circumstances. The difference between this construction and DB I 41 uta Parsa uta Mada uta aniya dah.ayava is therefore




perhaps one of perspective. In the former Darius speaks of restoring the kingdom to its integral position; but in the latter he speaks of rebellion and the potential dissolution of an integral whole piece by piece, as it were, in which every province rebelled separately. Hence, the less traditional, perhaps less tightly conjoining uta.

For the remaining collocations involving -ca the situation is less clear. Thus, if my explanation of XPh 41, 50-51, 53-54 artaca brazmaniya offered in §19 is correct, this collocation would have been extracted from some traditional conjoined phrase whose first member has been dropped. On the other hand, nothing can be said about DPd 9-10 vasna Auramazddha manaca and DB IV 46 vasnd Aura[mazdaha] utdmaiy beyond the obvious statement that Darius has employed two different constructions here. Perhaps the first represents a survival of an 'I and thou' collocation in a religious context (cf. RV VII.88.3a and VII.62.11ab, §18 above). If we accept Sims-Williams' restorations of DNb 50-52, then there is no -ca- construction here, and what would otherwise have been a problem for our view of -cd as a survival limited to traditional phrases vanishes. But I see no way of explaining sentential-ca at DNb 27-28 avakaramcamaiy . . . other than by simply hypothesizing the employment of archaic language for stylistic effect (solemnity, etc.).44

22. Next in frequency, following -ca, among the Old Persian additive conjunctions is patiy. This form is functionally more complex than either uta or -ca, in that it serves also as a pre-/postposition and as a preverb. In the latter employments it seems to possess a directional value 'toward' or convey a static sense of position or contiguity 'at, on', whether spatial or temporal, e.g., uzmayapatiy (4 times) 'on a pole', viSapatiy (twice) 'at the court', jiyamnam patiy (once) 'at the end', patiy martEyam (once) 'against a man', and xsapava raucapativa (once) 'by night or by day'. A temporal value is also seen in the set phrases patEy duvitlyam 'a second time', patiy f itlyam 'a third time', and patiy hayaparam 'again later'. Note also such verbal lexemes as patEy jan- 'fight against', patEy ay- 'come to', patEy xsay- 'rule over', patiy fraS- 'read' (lit.

44 Without belaboring the obvious, we should note that the Achaemenid inscriptions can hardly be considered to attest a colloquial form of Old Persian, and it is therefore likely that much of their language is archaic and stylistically marked to begin with. Hence, the actual occurrence of -cd in the spoken Old Persian of the time may have been nil.

'ask for back [in recitation]', cf. Gershevitch, 1969:1 19). As a conjunction patiy signals adverbial sentential nexus ('moreover') in five passages. In each case it appears in second position in its clause. Three of the passages show rather clear sequences accompanied, in the following instance, by the anaphoric structure

. .

naly. . . naly:

DNb 19-21 (=XP1 21-23) naimd kama taya martiya vindSayais naipatimd ava kama yadiy vindSayais naiy fraSiyais 'It is not my desire that a man should do harm, nor, moreover, is that my desire, if he should do harm, (that) he should not be punished.'

In this instance the translational equivalent 'moreover' seems to fit the context of patiy, whereas the anaphoric negative conveys the basic conjunctive value (cf. §25 below). A similar value appears in two additional passages:

XPa 13-17 vasEy anEyasciy naibam kartam and Parsa taya adam akunavam utamaiy taya pitd akunaus tayapatEy kartam vainataiy naibam ava visam vasnd Auramazddha akunmd '(There is) much other good construction work in this Persepolis which I built and which my father built. Moreover, what(ever) construction work appears good, all that did we build by the will of Ahuramazda.'

XPf 38-43 tayamaiy pi,ca kartam aha ava adam apayaiy uta aniya kartam ablyavayam tayapatiy adam akunavam utamaiy taya pitd akunaus ava visam vasnd Auramazdaha akunmd 'What had been done by my father, that I protected; and I added other construction. Moreover, what I built and what my father built, all that did we build by the will of Ahuramazda.'

In the remaining two passages patiy signals a weaker degree of nexus. In each case the particle appears to introduce a section of text which is more closely bound to what follows than to what precedes, and a translation such as 'now then' serves to capture the basic discourse relationship:

DNa 36-42 [taya]sam adam aSanham ava akunava ya[0a] mam kama aha yadipatEy mani[yahaiy ta]ya cEyakaram [4ha a]va dah.ayava tayd Daraya[va]us xsaya[0]iya addraya patikard dl-diy tayai[y] gaSum barantiy 'What I said to them, that did they do, as was my desire. Now then, if thou (shalt) think that "Of what sort were those lands which Darius the king held?", behold the figures which bear the throne.'




DNb 31-33 (=XP1 35-37) aitamaiy aruvastam upariy manasc[a uGllca (XP1 -ca us-) ima patimaiy aruvastam tayamaiy tanus tavayat[i]y (XP1 -tiy) 'This is my activity over and above (my) mind and (my) understanding. Now then, this is my activity: that my body is strong.'

From the preceding we conclude that patiy signals in Old Persian a loose adverbial nexus which is probably an implementation of its directional relationship in discourse contexts: 'to, toward' becoming 'thereto, thereupon, furthermore, moreover, what is more, etc.' An Avestan parallel cum word equation is found in Young Avestan Vldev. 15.48 ai,Bica aparam patica aparam translated by Bartholomae (1904:822) as 'ad(mittant)que alium iterumque alium'. Although Vedic prati shows no such conjunctive value, we may compare the employment of api in a few late Rigvedic passages, e.g., X.19.4d yo gopa api tam huve 'the one who is the shepherd, also that one do I call' (cf. Klein, 1985.2:210-213). Once again here a spatial sense, this time that of contiguity, has been implemented as a marker of additive nexus within the temporal unfold- ing of discourse ('upon, to' > 'thereupon, thereto' > 'in addition' > 'also'). Such a development is already evi- denced by Avestan aipi in the Gathas, cf. Y 32.3 at yus daeuud vlspayho akaI manayho Sta ciSram... sEiaomvm aipl daibitand 'But ye gods are all the offspring of evil thinking. . . Hateful also are your actions' (translation-Insler, 1975:45); together these facts lead us to accept Benveniste's restoration (1933) vasnd[pi]y (= vasnd apiy)45 (followed by Kent) at XPg 8:

XPg 2-10 vasna Auramazdaha vasiy taya naSbam akunaus uta framayata Darayavau[s] . . . vaKnatpi]y Auramazdaha ada[m] abiyajavayam abEy ava kartam 'By the will of Ahuramazda much that was good did Darius build and command (to be built) . . . and also by the will of Ahuramazda I added unto that construction.'

23. The identical employment of Rigvedic api and Old Persian apiy in XPg 8 once again reminds us of the parallelism and frequent etymological relationship between the conjunctions of Old Persian and of Vedic. We have already discussed uta and -ca with a side glance at their Rigvedic equivalents and will

45 Elsewhere in Old Persian only in the frequently-occurring phrase dura(i)y(-)apEy 'far and wide', lit. 'to the distance' (15x).

consider -va in §26. Leaving aside u, which has been lost as an independent particle in Iranian,46 the only Rigvedic conjunctive particles discussed in Klein 1985 for which we have not yet adduced Old Persian cognates or functional equivalents are ad, atha, and adha. The first of these will be mentioned in relation to OPers. pasava in §24. The Old Persian equivalent of the third is found in two consecutive clauses in DNa, where it has the sense '(and) then':

DNa 41-45 patikara dl-diy tayai[y] gaSum barantiy a[va]da xsnasah.ay adataiy azda bava[t]iy Par[sa]ha- [ya] martiyah.aya duraiy arst[i]s paragmata adataiy azda bavatiy Parsa martEya durayapEy [hac]a Parsa partaram patlyajanta'Behold the figures which bear the throne. Then thou shalt recognize, (and) then it shall become known to thee (that) the spear of a Persian man has gone forth into the distance; (and) then it shall become known to thee (that) a Persian man has waged battle far from Persia.'

The employment of *ada (adataiy) in the sense '(and) then' in this passage is exactly paralleled by Rigvedic adha. Cf.I. 156.1, in which adha te (=adataiy) is employed in temporal sequence following an im- perative clause in order to indicate a result (bhava . . . adha te . . . ardhya-dl-diy . . . adataiy azda bavatiy). Where the Old Persian shows a following subjunctive in future value (bavatiy), the Rigveda shows a ger- undive, functionally a future passive participle of necessity:

I. 156.1 bhava mitro na sevyo ghrtasutir / vibhutadyu- mna evaya u saprathah // adha te visno vidusa cid ardhya / stomo yajnas ca radhyo havismata 'Become friendly like Mitra, whose refreshment is ghee, O thou of outstanding heavenliness, swiftly going and having a wide extension. And then a praise is to be brought forth in abundance for thee, O Visnu, by the wise one, and a worship is to be successfully carried out by the one possessing the oblation.'

Although Old Persian presents us with just these two instances of *ada, Rigvedic adha occurs nearly 200 times in both temporal and logical nexus ('[and] then, [and] therefore, [and] so'), as well as in simple sentential conjunctive value, where it is equivalent to uta.47 Of the latter sort is the following passage, where

46 Although, to be sure, it has been incorporated into the Iranian hauv/ava- pronoun. Cf. Klein, 1978.

47 For complete details, cf. Klein, 1985.2:91-130.




the sequence ddha .. .idha parallels our Old Persian adataiy . . adataiy:

X.95.14 sudev6 adyi prapited dinvrt / pardvatam paramam gantava u /I ddhd syTita nirrter updsthe /

(a)dhainam virk rabhasaso adytuh '(What if) thy lover would today commit suicide, never to return, to go into the furthest distance; and he would lie in the lap of destruction, and rapacious wolves would eat him?'

The parallels just adduced strongly suggest that Old Persian *ada could function as a sentential conjunction just like Rigvedic ddha, and the same was true of Avestan ada (Gathic), a6a (YAv.), as illustrated by a

passage such as Yt. 19.56 ... a tat xvaranofrazga6ata, tat xvarano apatacat, tat xvaran6 apa.hi6at; a6a hau

apayzdro buuat zraiiayho vouru.kasahe . . . 'He swam

forth toward that glory, that glory flowed away, that

glory receded. And then that branch of the sea Vouru.Kasa came into existence ...'

In view of the parallelism of Rigvedic adha and OP

ada(-taiy), it is worth inquiring whether Old Persian attests the correspondent of Rigvedic atha. Here again the answer is affirmative. As was seen by Mayrhofer (1960:121-124 = 1979:116-19), the form a-0-i-y at DB I 91 can be interpreted as aOaiy = Rigvedic dtha + id. For the collocation, cf. OPers. naiy = Rigvedic ned. Such an interpretation makes excellent sense in the context:

DB I 91-94 pasdva a[da]m Babirum agiyavam aOaiy

Bdbiru[m ya0d naiy ulpayam ... [hauv Na]dinta-

baira... dis hadd kard patis [mdm hamarana]m

cartanaiy 'After that I set off for Babylon. (But) then, when I had not (yet) reached Babylon ... Nadin- tabaira came with an army against me to make war.'

Like ddha, Rigvedic dtha (96 times) is a conjunction signaling temporal or logical (also modal) nexus between clauses. Like adha, it often represents a simple sentential conjunction similar to uta.48 In eight pass-

ages, however, dtha appears in anaphoric temporal sequence with a preceding relative pronoun. Cf. the

following:

X.23.3a-c yada vdjram hiranyam id dtha rdtham ...

1/ a tisthati maghdva ... 'When the liberal one (takes) his golden cudgel, then he mounts the chariot . .'

48 For a complete discussion of Rigvedic dthd, cf. Klein, 1985.2:63-91.

Here, to be sure, the parallel between the Old Persian and Rigvedic passages is not exact. In the former

aOaiy precedes the relative, while in the latter it follows. Moreover, in the Rigvedic passage id precedes rather than follows athd. Nevertheless, the parallelism is sufficient, when taken together with the similarity in so many other aspects of the systems of coordinate

conjunction in Old Persian and the Rigveda, for us to

accept Mayrhofer's analysis in preference to that of

Nyberg (1970:343-48), which depends on the identification of OPers. a-0-i-y (= aOaiy or aOaiya) and

Middle Iranian Parthian has, hasenag, MIrPers. ahe, ahenak 'earlier' (Pr. I-Ir. *asai, *asai-na-, with no avatar surviving in Indic). Here as well as elsewhere I find the bridge from Old Iranian to Old Indic easier to cross than that from Old Iranian to Middle Iranian.49

24. Before leaving the topic of explicit additive con-

junction in Old Persian, we shall consider briefly the form pasava, lit. 'after that', which serves as the basic narrative discourse continuant in the language. Not

surprisingly, 74 of the 84 occurrences of this form

appear in the almost entirely narrative Behistun in-

scription. Unlike its closest Rigvedic counterpart, cd, pasava is never used to convey simple additive conjunction 'and'. Nevertheless, it is primarily employed to unite two successive actions in their proper narrative

sequence and as such comes close to a simple marker of seriation. Typical examples are the following:

DB II 87-89 kdra haya mand avam kdram tayam

hami(iyam aja utd Cicantaxmam agarbdya anaya

abiy mdm pasdvasaiy adam utd naham utd gausd

frdjanam 'My army smote that army which was rebellious and took Cicantaxma (and) led (him) to me. Afterwards I cut off his nose and ears.'

DZc 8-10 adam ni[yas]tdyam imam [yauviya]m

kantanaiy . . . pas[ava] iyam yauviyd [akaniya] 'I com-

manded this canal to be dug... Afterwards this canal was dug.'

A good example of the narrative style of the Behistun

inscription, with its interweaving of asyndeton and narrative progression marked by pasdva and utd, is seen in the following extended segment:

49 The alternative solution of Gershevitch (1959:170-71), whereby OP a-0-i-y would represent Odiyah (*dsTyas), an

adverbial neuter comparative built on the root of OP dgnaiy 'near' with preverb d, is ingenious, but fails to provide the best

possible sense in the passage in question ('Nearer to Babylon when I had not come').

410




DB V 4-14 [U]vja nam[a] dah.ayaus hauv ha[mifiy]a abava [I martiya A ]tamaita nama Uvjiya [avam ma]Sistam a[kunavan]ta pasava adam ka[ram fraisa]- yam [I mart]iya Gaubaruva nama P[arsa ma]na bandaka a[vamsam] maAistam akunavam pa[sava] Gaubaruva [hada] ka[r]a asiyava Uvjam [hamaranam] akunaus ha[d]a Uvyiyaibis pasava Ga[ubar]uva Uvyiya [av]aja uta viyamarnda uta [tayamsa]m maS[istam] agarbaya anaya abiy mam [utasi]m ada[m avalVanam pasava dahayaus man[a abava] 'Elam by name a province. It became rebellious. One man Atamaita by name, an Elamite. Him they made (their) leader. Afterwards I sent an army. One man, Gaubaruva by name, a Persian, my subject. Him I made its leader. Afterwards Gaubaruva set out with the army for Elam. He made war with the Elamites. Afterwards Gaubaruva smote and crushed the Elamites and took their leader (and) led (him) to me; and I killed him. Afterwards the province became mine.'

25. Having investigated the entire range of explicit additive conjunction in Old Persian, we turn now to nonexplicit conjunction, by which we mean conjunctive processes which do not involve conjunctions per

se (cf. Klein, 1980:214-17). Two such processes are richly illustrated in the Achaemenid inscriptions: asyndeton and anaphora. The former is particularly frequent in the narrative discourse of the Behistun inscription, as seen in DB V 4-14 cited above and in the following passage:

DB I 58-61 Sika[ya]uvatis nama dida Nisaya nama dah .ayaus Madaiy avadasim avajanam xsaf amsim adam adinam vasna Auramazdaha adam xsayaSiya abavam Auramazda x£afam manafrabara 'A fortress, Sikayahuvatis by name, a province, Nisaya by name, in Media. From there I smote him (i.e., Gaumata). I deprived him of (his) dominion. by the will of Ahura- mazda I became king. Ahuramazda granted (the) dominion to me.'

The above section provides, once again, a characteristic example of Old Persian narrative discourse. Aside from the naming construction (Sika[ya]uvatis... Madaiy), we have four simple independent clauses, each of which is demarcated by rigid verb-final structure. Because the intersentential relations here are strictly additive (i.e., unmarked), the verb functions as a sentential boundary signal and no explicit conjunc-

. . .

tlOn 1S reqUlred.

The uniform verb-final sentences of the passage just cited create a fixed, repeated structural pattern that

approaches the second major nonexplicit conjunctive process of Old Persian: anaphora repetition in the widest sense, whether of a pattern, a lexical item, or a reference. Each of these is illustrated in Old Persian inscriptions. Characteristic of genealogical statements is a type of iterative anaphora I have elsewhere termed concatenation (Klein, 1985.1:406): the employment of the same noun in variant case forms within successive clauses. Cf. the following:

DB I 4-6 mana pitd VisVtaspa VisVtaspa[h.ayd pit]a ArsV4ma ArsVamah.aya pitd Ariydramna ArEydramna- h.ayd pit[d Cispiswl cispais pitd Haxamanis 'My father (was) Vistaspa, the father of Vistaspa (was) Arsama, the father of Arsama (was) Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna (was) Cispis, the father of Cispis (was) Haxamanis.'

With repetition of a complete phrase at the head of successive clauses, we find the following:

DB 1 7-8 hacd paruv[iyata] amata amah.ay hacd paruviyata haya amaxam tauma xsvvya[Siya a]ha 'From of old we are noble, from of old our family has been kings.'

The most important instances of anaphora within the context of this study involve the repeated negatives naiy and ma;50 for in these the anaphora appears to be not merely stylistic, but nearly grammatical, in cases where adjacent negative structures (words, phrases, or clauses) are conjoined. In fact, there is only one instance in Old Persian in which conjoined negative structures employ explicit conjunction in order to signal their adjoinment. The English construction "not A and not B" does not exist. Examples, involving first the nonmodal negative naiy, are the following, in which we find conjoined nouns (DB I 48-50, DB IV 65), nouns and phrases (DB IV 64-65), verbs (DSe

50 Other cases of lexical anaphora which we shall briefly note involve the structures DPd 15-18 utd imam dahayaum Auramazdd patuv hacd haindyd hacd duswiydrd hacd drauga 'And let Ahuramazda protect this country from a (hostile) army, from a bad harvest, from deceit', DNb 35-37 (=XP1 39-41) yaciy va[i]ndmiy hamicEyam yaciy naiy vainamiy 'whether I sec a rebel (or) whether I do not see (one)', and DB IV 89-91 ima dipi[va]i[dam] taya adam akunavam... [pa]vastayd uta carmd [ha]r[swtam dha pat]iswamaiy [ndmand ] - fam akunavam [pat]ista[m u]vadd[tam akuna]va[m] 'This text which I made . . . was disseminated on clay(?) and on skin. I affixed my name, I affixed my lineage . . .'.




39-41), short ah- clauses (DB IV 63-64), and longer parallel clauses (DNb 8-11):

DB I 48-50 naiy aha martiya naiy P4rsa naiy M4da naiy amaxam taumayd kasciy haya avam Gaumatam tayam magum xsafam dltam caxriyd'There was not a man, neither a Persian nor a Mede, nor (any one) of our family who could deprive that Gaumata the Magus of (his) dominion.'

DB IV 65 naiy skaurim naiy t[u]nuvantam zura akunavam 'I wronged neither the weak man nor the strong man.'

DB IV 64-65 naiy adam naimaXy tauma upariy arstam upariyatya]m 'Neither I nor my family transgressed5' what was right.'

DSe 39-41 yaSa haya tAuviy452 tayam skauSim naiy jantiy nai[y] vimarndatiy ' . . . so that the stronger man neither smites nor destroys the weak man.'

DB IV 63-64 [yaS]a naiy ari[ka] aham naiy draudana dham naiy zurakara aham ' . . . because I was not faithless nor was I deceitful nor was I a wrongdoer.' DNb 8-11 (=XP1 9-12) na[ima] kama taya skauSis tunuvantah.ayd radiy miSa karEyais naimd ava kama taya t[u]nuva skauSais radiy miSa kariyais 'It is not my desire that a weak man should be wronged on account of a strong man, nor is that my desire that a strong man should be wronged on account of a weak man.'

The single instance in which such conjoined negatives show explicit conjunction in addition to anaphora is the following (cf. also §22 above):

DNb 19-21 (=XP1 21-23) naima kama taya martEya vindSayais naipatima ava kama yadiy vin4Sayais naXy fraSiyais 'It is not my desire that a man should do harm, nor, moreover, is that my desire, if he should do harm, (that) he should not be punished.'

In the case of the modal particle ma, we find the following examples of anaphora without explicit conjunction:

DPd 18-20 abiy imam dah.ayaum ma ajamiyd md ha[i]nd md dusEydram md drauga 'Over this land may

51 On uparEy + ay- as 'transgress', cf. Salomon, 1974. 52 For the short i (Kent: z), cf. the discussions of Kuiper (1965:304) and Schmitt (1967:58-59).

neither a (hostile) army nor a bad harvest nor deceit come.'

DNa 58-60 paSim tayam rastam ma avar(a)da53 ma stabava 'Abandon not the straight path. Do not rebel! '

As noted above, the anaphoric employment of negative particles goes beyond the stylistic level, ap-

53 Of the three a priori most reasonable interpretations of this form, ava-hradah seems least likely to me, because we already have avahar[da] 'abandoned' (most likely an engraver's error for *avahar[da], cf. Skt. ava + s.rVa- id.') at DB II 94, and it would be peculiar indeed if our exceedingly small Old Persian corpus contained either two separate present stems harda- and hrada- (on the nongenuine quality of Avestan har7za- beside h7r7za-, cf. Kellens, 1984:100ff., n. 6) or, even less likely, retained a thematic aorist injunctive hrada- in this verb. We are therefore left with a choice between ava-radah (cf. Skt. rah-'abandon') [so Kent and Brandenstein-Mayrhofer] and a-vardah (cf. Skt. a + v.rj-) [so Haebler, 1985]. Neither choice is without problems, however. Skt. rah- has no verbal form attested any earlier than the causative rahayati in the Sutras, and the Iranian derivatives are, once again, strictly nominal (cf. Mayrhofer, 1976:49). A connection with Skt. a + v.rj-, on the other hand, brings into play a rich system of verbs belonging to the oldest layer of Indic, but overlooks the fact that Skt. v.rj- (pres. vrnakti, aor. vark/av.rVan) ends in an old velar (a point not mentioned by Haebler). If we allow for a certain amount of confusion between *w.rg and *w.rg-, the latter reflected in Avestan var7z- 'exclude', Gk. e(i)rgo (*e-[w]ergo) 'I shut in/out', med. 'I abstain from', as proposed by Neisser, 1927:290, following Foy, 1897:245, it might still be possible to save the equation with the Old Persian form. Significant, for the meaning, is RV I.27.13d ma jyayasah sansam a vrk$i devah, which Hoffmann (1967:49) translates "lasst nicht zu, Gotter, dass ich mir den Machtspruch eines Starkeren zuziehe." However, the passage in question is a hymn-final pada following a proclamation of reverence to all the gods: I.27.13a-c namo mahadbhyo namo arbhakebhyo / namo yuvabhyo nama asinebhyah // yajama devan yadi saknavama 'Reverence to the great, reverence to the small, reverence to the young, reverence to the old. We shall worship the heavenly ones, if we are able'. It seems more likely, therefore, that the final pada means 'Let me not, O heavenly ones, withhold praise from (bzw., withhold the praise of) one who is higher (than I)'-a prayer that the gods not let the singer inadvertently omit one of them from his praise. This seems to fit the context much better than a sudden appeal to the gods to save the singer from falling under a curse, as supposed by Oldenberg (1909:23-24), or a gesture of politeness praying that the gods not let the singer preempt the



song of one greater or better than he (so Geldner, 1951.1:30). But if my interpretation is correct, then the sense of a vrk$i comes very close to 'refrain from some course of action, abandon some pursuit', a meaning very near to the sense 'deviate from, abandon' supposed for Old Persian '-v-r-d. Also, the similarity in meaning between a vrk$i and Gk. eirgomai 'I abstain from, keep myself from' lends further support to the possibility that *w.rg- and *w.rg- have become conflated in Indic. At the same time, the collocation v.rjina- path- 'crooked path' (VI.46. 13c v.rjine pathi) and the opposi- tion ryu- . . . v.rVina- (e.g. IV.1.17d .rju marte$u v.rjina ca pasyan 'beholding what is straight and what is crooked among mortals') suggest, when taken together with the present passage, traditional Indo-Iranian phraseology. The semantics of Indic v.rj- (and a + v.rj-) are sufficiently broad to allow the possibility that if the Old Persian form is really avardah (like the following stabava, a present injunctive. Cf. Kellens, 1985: 107), paSim tayam rastam ma avarda could well mean 'Do not deviate from (abandon, hold off from[?]) the path that is straight!'.

54 Translation after Gershevitch, 1959:84-85.


proaching a rule of grammar: in Old Persian if one wishes to conjoin two negative structures (words, phrases, or clauses), one must repeat the negative particle with each in the absence of explicit conjunction. In fact, the one exception to this formulation, DNb 19-21 (=XP1 21-23), may prove the rule, if we assign patiy to a category, say adverbial conjunction, other than uta and -ca, which are pure conjunctions. The rule then would stand as stated if we qualified Sexplicit conjunction' by 'nonadverbial', understanding this to refer to uta, -ca, and -va (§26 below). When so formulated, however, the rule is valid not only for Old Persian, but also, it would appear, with minor exceptions, for Indo-Iranian. Thus, a check of Bartholomae (op. cit.) reveals no instances so far as I can tellJ of a sequence noi A uta noi B and only a single example of the type noi A-ca noit B-ca noi C-ca: Vldev. 19.7 noi astaca noi uswtanamca noi baodasca 'neither material body nor life nor consciousness'. Bartholo- mae cites no examples with -va. On the other hand, sequences of anaphoric negatives sans conjunction are legion, both in the Gathas and in Young Avestan. With noi compare, for the former, Y 45.2 noi na mana noi sangha noi xratauuo 'neither our thoughts nor teachings nor intentions', for the latter, cf. Yt. 10.24 noit dim arswtoisw huxswnutaiia / noit iswaosw para.paS/3ato / auua.asnaoiti sanmaoiio SOne does not hit with thrusts of a well-sharpened spear nor of a far-flying arrow'.54 With ma, note Yt. 10.75 ma buiiama swoiSro.irico ma nmano.irico ma vlso.irico ma

zantu. irico ma- daiahu.irico 'May we become aban- doners of neither homestead nor house nor clan nor tribe nor country'.55 Turning now to the Rigveda, we find that our rule holds generally, but not without exception. Thus, na occurs frequently (in all mand. alas but IX) within anaphoric sequences of the type na . . . na in the absence of explicit conjunction. Some examples are the following:

I.25.14ab na yam dipsanti dipsavo I na druhvano jananam 'Whom neither those wanting to deceive nor the deceitful among men wish to deceive.'

II.4 1 .8ab na yat paro nantara / adadharsat . . . 'Which (path of yours) neither a distant (one) nor a near one can defy.'

III.56.1ab na ta- minanti mayino na dhlia I vrata devanam. . .'Neither the wily nor the wise diminish those laws of the heavenly ones . . .'

IV.25.5a na tam jinanti bahavo na dabhra 'Neither the many nor the few overpower him.'

VIII.96 2c na tad devo na martyas tuturyat 'Neither a heavenly one nor a mortal could outdo that.'

X.10.8a na tisthanti na ni misanty ete 'These do not stand still nor do they shut their eyes.'

Not as common (but again occurring in all mand. a- las but IX) are asyndetic sequences of the type ma. . . ma. r.g.,

I.84.20ab ma te radhansi ma ta utayo vaso I asman kada cana dabhan 'May neither thy grantings of success nor thy aids ever deceive us, O good one.'

55 Exceptions to the general pattern of anaphoric negation noted by Bartholomae are, for ma Y 31.18 ma cisV (for ma.cisV Insler [1975:40] reads naecisV) at v7- dr7guuato m0rqsca gusVta sasnasca 'Nobody at al} of the deceitful (faction) has listened to your precepts and instructions' and, for noit, Yt. 5.90 yas7 03a noi ai,Bi.druzVante azisVca araSnaisVca va,BzakaisVca var7nu- uaisVca var7nauua. vlsVaisvea 'in order that serpents and . . . and . . . and . . . and . . . do not deceive thee'. The first of these may not be a true exception, however, if we take macist (bzw., naecisV) as a separate lexical item 'nobody at all' rather than as an instance of ma (bzw., nae-). In any event, neither passage is an exception to the rule excluding the not A and not B construction, and the second suggests a nuanced distinction between not A not B (=neither A nor B) and notfA and B and C. . .), the latter being allowed.




II.42.2a ma tva syena ud vadhln ma suparnah 'May neither an eagle nor a vulture rip thee up.'

V.70.4 ma kasya-dbhutakratu / yak,sam bhujema ta- nubhih / ma stesasa ma tanasa 'May we not experience the deceitful working of anyone on our own bodies nor on our descendants nor on our own offspring, O ye of wondrous determination.

VI.61.14b mapa spharlh payasa ma na a dhak 'Do not deprive us of thy milk, do not harm us.'

VII.1.19c ma nah k$udhe ma raksasa rtavah '(Give us over) neither to hunger nor to an evil spirit, O true one.'

VIII.4.7ab ma bhema ma srami$ma I ugrasya sakhye tava 'May we neither fear nor become weary in the friendship of thee, the powerful one.'

Against these passages, I have located nine counter- examples with ma and nine with na. Among these are the following:56

I.114.7a-c ma no mahantam uta ma no arbhakam I ma na uk,santam uta ma na uksitam 1l ma no vadhlh pitaram mota mataram 'Mayest thou not kill our great one nor our small one, our growing one nor our grown one, our father nor our mother.'

III.S3.20ab ayam asman vanaspatir / ma ca ha ma ca rarisat 'May this tree neither abandon us nor injure us.'

IX.114.4cd aratlva ma nas tarln I mo ca nah kim canamamat'May a hostile one not overcome us, and may nothing do violence unto us.'

I.191.10cd so cin nu na marati I no (=na u) vayam marama 'That one will surely not die now, and we shall not die.'

II.30.7a na ma taman na sraman nota tandrat 'It will neither tire me out nor make me weary with toil nor vex me.'

VIII.47.12ab neha bhadram rak$asvine / na-vayai no- paya uta 'It is not auspicious here for the one possessed of evil spirits, neither (for him) to descend (to us) nor (for him) to approach (us).'

56 Other examples, in addition to those cited here are, for ma, I.139.8ab, I.183.4b, VI.48.17, VIII.48.14b, X.18.1d, X.95.15ab; and for na, I.S2.14a-c, I.151.9c, II.27.11, VI.52.1ab, VI II .78.4ab, and X.43 .5d.

On the basis of the above we can say that in the oldest Indic as well as in Old Iranian the normal (i.e., unmarked) negation of A B is Neg A Neg B, where Neg represents, depending on context, either na or ma. The overwhelming frequency of this construction relative to the type Neg A and Neg B suggests that we are dealing here not so much with a stylistic rule, but with a major rule of grammar which could, however, have exceptions (minor rule). Exceptions are naturally greater in number in the larger corpus of the Rigveda than in the Avesta and in Old Persian. That the latter shows no exceptions is hardly surprising. No doubt a larger corpus would show its share of cases of explicitly conjoined negations cum anaphora. The syntagm *Neg A Neg B is therefore to be reconstructed as the basic form of conjoined negation in Proto- Indo-Iranian. Whether it can be posited as basic for Proto-Indo-European is, however, a matter that awaits further study.

26. In order to complete our study, we must still consider the two remaining categories of coordinate conjunction: adversative and alternative. The first of these is not marked by any specific conjunction in Old Persian a situation paralleled by both Avestan and the oldest Indic, and therefore reconstructible for Proto-Indo-Iranian. Naturally, adversative contexts appear in our data, but these are handled either by asyndetic juxtaposition, or, occasionally by a marked employment of uta. A good example of the latter is DB IV 72-74 (cf. §9 above), while the former is seen in the following passage:

XPf 28-32 lOarayavaus pufa aniyaiciy ahantd Aura- mazdam avaSa kama aha Darayavaus haya mana pita pasa tanum mam maSistam akunaus sDarius had other sons, (but) thus was the desire of Ahuramazda, (that) Darius my father made me the greatest after himself. '

Alternative conjunction, on the other hand, is marked by -va, which appears seven different times in six passages.57 These passages tend to cluster, three of them (plus a repetition) appearing within the ten lines of DB IV 68-77 and two more occurring within seven lines at DNb 24-30 (=XP1 26-34). Four of the passages show structures of the type X Y-va (specific- allys X Y'-va Y with Y' representing an initial non- head element of its word group) where X and Y are

57 Not including the exact repetition (except for the positio of the verb) of DB IV 72-73 at DB IV 77.




nominal phrases (the first two examples below) or parallel verb forms (the last two examples):

DB IV 70-71 tuvam ka haya aparam imam dipim vainah.ay tayam adam niyapin[0a]m58 [i]maiva patikara mataya vikanahay 'Thou who hereafter shalt see this inscription which I have had inscribed or these figures, thou shalt not destroy (them).'

DB IV 72-73 yadiy imam di[pim] vainaha[y] imaiva patikara naiydisw vikanah.ay. . .;If thou shalt see this inscription or these figures (and) thou shalt not destroy them . . .'

DNb 24-26 (=XP 1 26-29) martiya taya kunautiy yadiva abaratiy anuv taumaniswaiy (XP1 tauma avan- aswaiy) xswnuta amiy (XP1 bavamiy) 'What a man does, or if he brings in (sc. tribute) according to his capabilities, I am satisfied with that.'59

DNb 28-30 (=XPI 32-34) yaAamaiy taya kartam vainah.ay (XP1 -hEy) [ya]diva axswnavah.ay (XP1 -hiy) 'When thou shalt see what was done by me or if thou shalt hear (it) . . .'

In an additional passage -va conjoins separate clauses which are more independently specified vis-a- vis each other than in the passages just cited. As usual, -va stands in second position within its clause:

DB IV 68-69 marti[ya haya] draudana ahatiy hayava [zu]rakara ahatiy avaiy ma dauswta [biy]a 'A man who shall be a deceiver or who shall be an evildoer, do not befriend them.'

58 For a discussion of this form, cf. Cowgill, 1968:265-66. 59 With an apparent contamination, owing to the differing

syntax and semantics of the two verbs, of the structures *taya . . . tayava and *yadi. . . yadiva.

REF]

Bartholomae, Christian. 1904. Altiranisches Worterbuch. Strassburg: Trubner.

Benveniste, Emile. 1933. Encore une nouvelle inscription perse de Xerxes. BSL 34:32-34.

1951. Etudes sur le vieux-perse. BSL 47:21 -51. Boyce, Mary. 1975. A Reader in Manichaean Middle Persian

and Parthian (Acta Iranica 9). Leiden: Brill.

The -va-passages cited so far all have parallels in the employment of vs in the Rigveda. Remarkable is the frequency of conjoined relative clauses involving VA in each language. Particularly striking in the Rigveda is the tendency for va to conjoin sentential relatives (as in DNb 28-30 [=XP1 32-34] and in part DNb 24-26 [=XP1 26-29]). Cf. the following passages:

VIII.9.12ab yad indrena saratham yatho asvina / yad va vayuna bhavathah samokasa 'When ye two drive on the same chariot with Indra, O Asvins, or when ye become joined with Vayu . . .'

X.161.2a yadi ksitayur yadi va paretah sWhether he is one whose lifetime has (just) been extinguished or whether he has (already) gone to the other (side).'

Similarly, the type hays V1 . . . hayavs V2 with con- cretely referential relative and subjunctive verb (DB IV 68-69) is matched by a Rigvedic passage such as I.68.3c[6a] yas tubhysm dasad yo vs te siksst 'Who- (ever) shall worship thee, or who shall exert himself for thee.'

The remaining occurrences of -va are seen at DB I 20 xsapava rsucapstiva'by night or by day', a subclausal X-vs Y-va construction with postpositional -pstEy governing the accusative rsucs. This type is once again matched by such Rigvedic passages as IX. I9.7c dure vs . . . snti vs 'in the distance or in (our) proximity', VI.48.20c devasys va. . . martyssys vs 'of the heavenly one . . . or of the mortal', and VIII.61.9ab svEpro vs. . . / vEpro vs 'the uninspired . . . or the inspired one'. Cf. further such Avestan passages as Y 3 l . I7 s.ssuus vs draguus vs 'the truthful man or the deceitful man' and Y 35.6 nd va nsirl vs 'man or woman'. Characteristic of all of these is the marked (i.e., complementary) semantic relationship between the conjoined terms a type that is reconstructible for Proto-Indo-Iranian.

ERENCES

. 1977. A Word-List °f Manichaean Middle Persian and Parthian (Acta Iranica 9a). Leiden: Brill.

Brandenstein, Wilhelm and Manfred Mayrhofer. 1964. Hand- buch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Brunner, Christopher J. 1977. A Syntax °f Western Middle Iranian. Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan Books.




Cameron, George G. 1951. The Old Persian Text of the Bisitun Inscriptions. JCS 5:47-54. (non vidi)

Cowgill, Warren. 1968. The aorists and perfects of Old Persian. KZ 82:259-68.

Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques. 1975. Encore vieux-perse yaumanis. In Melanges linguistiques offerts a Emile Benven-

iste, ed. M. Dj. Moinfar, et al. (Collection linguistique publiee par la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, 70), pp. 137-40. Paris: Soci&et de Linguistique.

Dunkel, George. 1982. The original syntax of conjunctive *-kWe. Die Sprache 28:129-43.

Eilers, Wilhelm. 1972. Review of M. Mayrhofer, 1968. ZDMG 122:383-85.

Emmerick, R. E., ed. 1968. The Book of Zambasta (London Oriental Series, vol. 21). London: Oxford University Press.

Foy, W. 1987. Vedische beitrage. KZ 34:224-83.

Geldner, Karl F. 1951. Der Rigveda... ubersetzt. 3 vols.

(Harvard Oriental Series, vols. 33-35). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Gershevitch, Ilya. 1959. The Avestan Hymn to Mithra.

Cambridge: University Press. .1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford:

University Press. .1968. Old Iranian Literature. Handbuch der Orienta-

listik. Erste Abteilung. Band IV: Iranistik. Zweiter Abschnitt. Literatur. Lieferung 1, pp. 1-30. Leiden- Koln: Brill.

.1969. The alloglottography of Old Persian. TPS 114-90.

Gignoux, Philippe. 1972. Glossaire des Inscriptions Pehlevies et Parthes (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum, Supple- mentary Series, Vol. 1). London: Lund Humphries.

Hamp, Eric. 1982. Latin ut/ne and ut (... non). Glotta 60:115-20.

Haebler, Claus. 1985. Altpers. 'vrd. Zur Schlusspassage der Darius-Inschrift Na. MSS 45:81-96 (Festgabe fur Karl

Hoffmann, Teil II). Henning, W. B. 1971. A Fragment of a Khwarezmian

Dictionary. Ed. by D. N. MacKenzie. London: Lund

Humphries. Herrenschmidt, Clarisse. 1984. Deux remarques sur les inscrip-

tions royales ach6emnides. Studia Iranica 13:151-56.

Hinz, Walther. 1967. Elamica II. Orientalia, nova series 36:323-33.

.1969. Altiranische Funde und Forschungen. Mit

Beitragen von Rykle Borger und Gerd Gropp. Berlin: de

Gruyter. 1973. Neue Wege im Altpersischen. (Gottinger Orient-

forschungen, III. Reihe: Iranica, Band 1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Hoffmann, Karl. 1955. Altpers. afuvayd. In Corolla Lin-

guistica. Festschrift Ferdinand Sommer ... Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz, pp. 80-85. (= Aufsatze, 1:52-57).

. 1958. Altiranisch. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste

Abteilung. Band IV: Iranistik. Erster Abschnitt. Linguis- tik. Pp. 1-19. Leiden-Koln: Brill. (= Aufsatze, 1:58-76),

. 1967. Der Injunktiv im Veda. Eine synchronische Funktionsuntersuchung. Heidelberg: Winter.

1975-1976. Aufsitze zur Indoiranistik, Band 1 (1975), 2 (1976). Herausgegeben von Johanna Narten. Wies- baden: Reichert.

Insler, Stanley. 1975. The Gathas of Zarathustra (Acta Iranica 8). Leiden: Brill.

Kellens, Jean. 1984. Le Verbe Avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert. . 1985. Le systeme modal du vieux-perse. MSS

45:105-21 (Festgabe fur Karl Hoffmann, Teil II). Kent, R. G. 1953. Old Persian. 2nd ed., rev. (American

Oriental Series, vol. 33). New Haven: American Oriental

Society. Klein, Jared S. 1978. The Indo-Iranian prehistory of the

Sanskrit astu/amum pronoun. JIES 5 [1977]:161-76. .1980. Atha, aidha, and a typology of Rigvedic con-

junction. IIJ 22:195-219. 1985. Toward a Discourse Grammar of the Rigveda.

Volume 1: Coordinate Conjunction. Parts 1 and 2.

Heidelberg: Winter. .1987. The two senses of the term 'anaphora' and their

functional unity: evidence from the Rigveda. Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald...., ed. G. Cardona and N. Zide, Tiibingen: Gunter Narr.

Kuiper, F. B. J. 1964-1965. Review of W. Brandenstein and M. Mayrhofer, 1964. IIJ 8:298-308.

Lazard, Gilbert. 1976. Notes de vieux-perse. BSL 71:175-92.

Lecoq, Pierre. 1974. Le probleme de l'criture cuneiforme

vieux-perse. In Commemoration Cyrus, vol. III, ed. J. Duchesne-Guillemin (Acta Iranica 3), pp. 25-107. Leiden: Brill.

MacKenzie, D. N., ed. 1970. The 'Sutra of the Causes and

Effects of Actions' in Sogdian (London Oriental Series, vol. 22). London: Oxford University Press.

, ed. 1976. The Buddhist Sogdian Texts of the British

Library (Acta Iranica 10). Leiden: Brill.

Mawet, Francine. 1978. Vieux-perse brazmaniy(a)- et les nouvelles donn6es de l'onomastique elamite. Studia Iranica 7:7-22.

Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1960. Behistun I 91. In Indogermanica. Festschriftfiir Wolfgang Krause .. , pp. 121-24. Heidel-

berg: Winter (= Kl.Schr., pp. 116-19). .1964. Altpersische Spane. Orientalia, nova series

33:72-87. .1968. Die Rekonstruktion des Medischen (Anzeiger

derphil. -hist. Klasse der Osterreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften, 105, pp. 1-22). Wien: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. (non vidi)

1969. Xerxes. Konig der Konige. Almanach der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 119

[1970]: 158-70 (= Kl. Schr., pp. 167-80).

416



KLEIN: Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian

. 1976. Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindischen. Band III: Y-H, Nachtrage und Berichti-

gungen. Heidelberg: Winter. . 1979. Ausgewdhlte kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben

von Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy und Rtidiger Schmitt. Wies- baden: Reichert.

Neisser, Walter. 1927. Vedica. ZII 5:281-92.

Nyberg, H. S. 1970. Middle Iranian has, hasenag. In W. B.

Henning Memorial Volume, ed. M. Boyce and I. Ger-

shevitch, pp. 343-48. London: Lund Humphries. .1974. A Manual of Pahlavi. Vol. II. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz.

Oldenberg, Hermann. 1909. Rgveda. Textkritische und exe-

getische Noten. Erstes bis sechstes Buch (Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gbt-

tingen, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, XI.5). Berlin: Weidmann.

Oranskij, Iosif M. 1963. Iranskie Jazyk. Moscow. Trans. by Joyce Blau as Les Langues Iraniennes. Paris: Klincksieck

(1977). Citation is from the French version.

Risch, Ernst. 1954. Zur lautlichen Strucktur des Altpersischen. Asiatische Studien 8:149-54 (= KI. Schr., pp. 655-60).

. 1981. Kleine Schriften.... Herausgegeben von Annemarie Etter und Marcel Looser. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter.

Sachau, E. 1911. Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer

judischen Militar-Kolonie Zu Elephantine... Leipzig (non vidi).

Salomon, Richard. 1974. A note on the use of preverbs in Old Persian. JAOS 94:212-13.

Schmitt, Riidiger. 1963. Ein altpersisches ghostword und das

sog. 'inverse ca'. Orientalia, nova series 32:437-48. .1972. Nugae Bagistanenses. MSS 30:139-54.

1981. Altpersische Minutien. KZ 81:54-62.

Sims-Williams, Nicholas. 1981. 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 44:1-7.

Steve, M. J. 1974a. Inscriptions des achemenides h Suse. Studia Iranica 3:7-28.

.1974b. Inscriptions des achemenides a Suse (suite). Studia Iranica 3:135-69.

.1975. Inscriptions des achemenides a Suse (fin). Studia Iranica 4:7-26.

Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1967. Iranica II. Die Sprache 12:190- 226.

. 1975. Iranica V. In Monumentum H. S. Nyberg, Vol. II, ed. J. Duchesne-Guillemin (Acta Iranica 5), pp. 313-94. Leiden: Brill.

.1979. Review of M. Mayrhofer, 1978: Supplement zur Sammlung der altpersischen Inschriften (Sitzungs- berichte der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissen-

schaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Bd. 338. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften). Kraty- los 24 [1980]:55-61.

.1985. Syntax, meaning, and origin of the Indo-

European particle kwe. In Collectanea Philologica. Fest-

schrift fur Helmut Gipper.... herausgebeben von G. Heintz und P. Schmitter, Band II, pp. 747-75. Baden-Baden: Koerner.

Wackernagel, Jacob and A. Debrunner. 1954. Altindische Grammatik. Band II, 2. Die Nominalsuffixe von Albert Debrunner. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Weissbach, F. H. 1911. Die Keilinschriften der Achimeniden. Leipzig. (non vidi)

417



Documents

Coordinate Conjunction in Old Persian