^{page 465 note 1} See especially W., Bang, Le Muséon, xliv, 1–36Google Scholar; cf. also ZDMG., 90, 1 sqq., BSOAS., XI, 52 sqq.

^{page 465 note 2} Copenhagen, 1940. It is greatly to be regretted that M. Benveniste's edition of these MSS., which I understand was published in Paris in 1940, has not so far become available in this country. We have still to be content with the facsimile of the MSS. In his preface to the facsimile edition, p. xii, M. Benveniste said that les deux morceaux (of the Tale of Sustain) ne se raccordent pas. It seems to me that P 13 precedes the British Museum fragment without break, in this way: c'n'kw’ yw rwstmy MN δ[w]r ZKw Zyw'sp'Ϥ wyn ZKn rγŮy m'yδ w'β”r βZY βγ' ['PZY] kβnw trs [w're'to] wn'ym ktγw δywt kw mrγ’. Half of the word ”βr is on P 13, the other half on the Br. Mus. fragment. —Of great interest is P 3 and its continuation, Br. Mus. fragm. iii. It becomes clear now that this text deals with the “rain-stone”, Sogd. ζδ-(previously wrongly compared with Pers. crossādī and Skt. jala, see Sogdica, 5) = Turk.-Mong.-Pers. ƴy-kr'y = (cf. Quatremére, Hist.- Mong. Perse, 428 sqq.; Juwaini, i, 152 note). In γrγ'γh (cf. Benveniste, JRAS., 1933, 50) we can now recognize Pers. xargāh “tent”; mntšyr, Frg. iii, 17, beside “sulphur”, is Skt. manaḥśilā“ realgar”. —P 14 and P 15 contain a different version of the Padmacintāmaidhāranī (P 14, 1–15 = Padm. 40–52'; P 15, 18 = Padm. 52 sqq.; P 15, 1–17, end of text on mudrās which begins in P 14, 16, but P 14 and P 15 did not belong to the same manuscript). No doubt these points have been made by M. Benveniste in his edition.

^{page 465 note 3} [restored], (damaged or uncertain) letters, see BSOAS., XI, 56

^{page 468 note 1} Of M. Variants in S will be found in the annotations. At the end, both versions of the allegorical explanation are translated separately.

^{page 468 note 2} Cf. BBB., p. 98. Probably farašt- from fra + raz-

^{page 468 note 3} xty'k, 'xty'k, ‘xty'q (BBB., p. 104; Sogdica, p. 53 and Errata) “trial, judgment” is derived from xţw ('γtw) “judge”. It would be tempting to connect this word with Av. ratu-2, but it is difficult to account for the cross(ratù >rtù γtu xtu ? For uvular τ in the place of lingual τ see Gershevitch, Gramm. Man. Sogd., para. 469. Cf. also the ubiquitous k'γδ “paper”, which some scholars [Löw, Aram. Pfianzennamen, p. 55] derive from χàρτης). Av. τatu¹ is τt(t)w in Sogdian. Differentiation ?

^{page 468 note 4} Other words for “pearl” in Sogd, ian are: mwž'kk Dhyāna 45 (cf. Benveniste, , JA., 1933, i, 218)Google Scholar and mwrpnt (P 2, 981, rtny ZY mwτβηt). The latter, which also occurs in Uigur Turkish (e.g. Mŭller, Uigurica, iii, 15), may be a Western Iranian word, with mŭr- from muhr-. Hence, mwẓkk probably from muδr-. Cf. Parthian “muhτγōn” (? = mwhrg'n) Bang-Gabain, Türk. Turfan-texte, ii, 423 = yincićüIüg “pearl-”. Also Persian muhre “glass-bead” (etc.) may belong here (Pahl. muhrak, Man. MPers. mwhτg). So also Sakamrāha “pearl”, which Bailey has explained differently (BSOS., IX, 73.)Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 5} = Arab, ƒujτlah. Cf. S.T., ii, 592a, and Persian baτχaī (not baτχī, cf. Bustan, ed. Graf, iii, 99), see Benveniste, , BSOS., IX, 515, n. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 468 note 6} Or “hireling”. In Arabic ṣāni' and aχīr. Cf. Orientalia, viii, 89, n. 2Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 7} Cf. Gershevitch, loc. cit., paras. 311, 429. In the Arabic version the possessor of the pearls is a “merchant” (tāχiχ).

^{page 468 note 8} In Arabic sanχ

^{page 468 note 9} Lit. “you hired this man as a workman”. The translation of this passage in BBB., p. 67, is incorrect; mr'z does not mean “work”. Also Chr. mτz šw- literally “to go as a labourer”.

^{page 468 note 10} In S: “order to bore your.”

^{page 469 note 1} These words are omitted in S. The meaning of ptvskfty seems to approach that of Persian ηāčāτ. Cf. BBB., p. 83.

^{page 469 note 2} In the Arabic version: ώa-baqiya χauharuhu γaira maθqŭbīn

^{page 469 note 3} УxnУУ =Persian and Turkish Уaχnī. The proper meaning of Уaχnī, as the Sogdian passage clearly shows, is “left over and put aside” (cf. Kanz ul-luτah under bi'rah: Уaχnīya'nī Ąīzī ke ānrā pas-afgan karde bāšī va-χā'īi nihāde). In Persian (and Turkish) the word is then restricted to the meaning of “left-overs ”of food, and finally to that of “ boiled meat”. — If Уaχnī is originally Sogdian, it may provide an explanation for the name of the twelfth Old Persian month, Viyaxna. (vya- may become ya- in Sogdian). By the way, Persian gunχīldan, with gunχpresumably from winĆ-, may belong to Skt. vyac- (although there is no nasal class present in Skt.). The meaning of vyac-, as given by Bohtlingk and Roth (in sich fassen, aufnehmen), is precisely that of gunχīdan.

^{page 469 note 4} Cf. BBB., pp. 69 sq. On Vim. 123 see now Weller, Soghd. Vim., 46 (γn- = Skt. ζilpa; krnw'nc = Skt. kalā).

^{page 470 note 1} kāτpaδ, the true Sogdian -representative of кaλоνòδiоν, confused by Reichelt with Sogd. (')кyδϒpw(h), SCE., 60; Vim., 108, in both passages = “contour, form, shape”. Benveniste, BS0S., IX, 506 sqq., while pointing out Reichelt's error, proposed another explanation which is still less likely to be correct: ')кyδϒp- should equal Avestan кəhrp-. There are two obstacles to the suggested derivation. Firstly, Sogdian -δϒ- (when not = actual θr or δr) is historical (or inverse) spelling for spoken š (or ž); кyδγ-, therefore, was pronounced kisp- (or kisb, or kišb). Secondly, the Avestan -hr- groups with unetymological h appear in Sogdian always as -r- (see Gershevitch, Gramm., paras. 139, 141); hence, Avestan кəhrp- should be kirp- in Sogdian (cf. BSOAS., XI, 68, n. 6). It would, thus be better to derive kyδrp- = kišp- or kišb- from Olr. kršν- and compare Sogd. -kišp- from kršvar/n- (Gershevitch, loc. cit., para. 147), and 'kyšpy P 2, 636 = = sarnbhava (Parth. kišfān). The assumed semantic development (line, circle > contour > form, shape) is supported by Sogd. kršn “form, beautiful form”, which belongs to the same base (karၡ “to draw furrows, lines, circles”).

^{page 470 note 2} 'βzn- is “garlic” (P 2, 600, 608, 665, 889; cf. Yidgha wεžnr, Pashto ŭžza, Parachi bān, from brzn- ?). νznw is “shame”. But what is 'βznw; ? One would expect a word meaning something like χερоτкνīα'a, cf. Kephaiaia, 37 sqq. Possibly əβzn- βrzna- from the root of 'nβrz- [see now Trans. Phil. Soc, 1944, 117 sq.].

^{page 470 note 3} I.e. auditor. Cf. BBB., p. 77, n. 3, and Turkish üzütingā amraq (TÏrk. Man., iii, 41, 42).

^{page 470 note 4} Contrary to my suggestion in BSOS., VIII, 585, n. 2Google Scholar, 'xwĆndyy may belong to the base xĆnŭ- “to satisfy” (xšnŭtaka- > əxšŭnte > əŭnde > šxŭšnde). It thus would be the past participle to ‘xšn’w-.

^{page 470 note 5} Differently BBB., pp. 67 sq.

^{page 470 note 6} Cf. BBB., p. 71; BSOS., IX, p. 84.

^{page 470 note 7} The third part of the day, of course, was to be devoted to the care of the Manichaean monks!

^{page 471 note 1} Mistake for kpyy.

^{page 471 note 2} Or “lake”. See Sogdica, p. 51, and Addenda (with reference to Minorsky, Hudud, 56, 195). Cf. also “w'zh“lake” P 9, 30.

^{page 471 note 3} The meaning of wšp't (clearly containing -p't “casus”) is not known. For an explanation from Av. оiθra see Gershevitch, loc. cit., para. 299. Note that the Avestan word is spelt oiθra in the Frahang-i Oém (and not ŏiθra), and that the Pahlavi rendering is yutākīhā apāk (and not merely yutākīhā). —I take this opportunity to correct the reading of Frahang-i Oīm, iii, g, 5, where (ĉiqkazauatō should be replaced by ciąkaδauatą (cf. Reichelt's preface, p. 3, on the letters -z- and -δ-); this is a bad spelling of *āąqkaδavatō “of that which has an elbow, or forearm ”. The Pahlavi translation gives 'Išnyĉwnd (M 6) or and 'lšnn(k 20) = “as much as an ell (elbow)” possibly the original spelling was *lšnyČwnd = arašnīČwand (cf. B. Geiger, WZKM., 42, 119). From Av. Čakasa- we have Pashto cangal “elbow, forearm”, cf. also Saka tcamgalai (Bailey, BSOAS., XI, 5) and Brahui Čangulī “below”.

^{page 471 note 4} Lit. “fish-catching hunter” (cf. kpny's'sk mrty in O¹ and Frg. iia). w'ywk= Mpers. and Parth. w'ywg “hunter” (cf. BSOAS., XI, 68, n. 2). Cf. M. 523a, 9 sqq. 'yw w' ywg bw[d] ws mwrg'n '[d] d' m[g] [g]ryft 'hynd o' wš ws zng [d]'mg 'wd wbndg dyrd o u xwj ['n]xšdyg 'wd bzkr bwd. “There was a hunter, he had caught many birds in his nets. He possessed many kinds of nets and snares (ef. Sogd. wb'ntk ‘snare’ p 2, 273, ‘web’ DN., 24). He was very merciless and wicked’. M 572, 25 ⃜ w' ywg 'wš gwrg 'yw gryft “ ⃜ the hunter, he had caught a wolf”. Cf. also Saka byaha, etc. Bailey, BSOAS., X 573). Yidgha waīna (Morgenstierne, IIFL., ii, 262), Osset. vain (Hübschmann, Etym, Oss., p. 30), beside Av. vā(y).

^{page 472 note 1} nwy[ possibly from nwyδ., and wyδβz from Av. θwaz-?

^{page 472 note 2} I have restored ]wšy to [p]wšy = Uyur Turkish pušī “alms, offering”. However, this originally Chinese word has not been noticed in any Sogdian text so far.

^{page 473 note 1} I.e. after his death

^{page 474 note 1} Cf. below, p. 484, n. 3.

^{page 474 note 2} Or “for a drive”? Cf. BSOS, X, 102, n. 3.

^{page 474 note 3} See BBB., p. 60 (on 510).

^{page 474 note 4} The translationis conjectural.

^{page 474 note 5} Lit. “one”. Cf. Mpers,pd yk'wx M 731 V 9 (HR., ii, 33).

^{page 474 note 6} Hardly = “upwards” here.

^{page 474 note 7} See BSOS., VIII, 584 sq. On 'xšwndyy/'xwšndyy see above, p. 470, n. 4. For notes a b c p. 475.

^{page 475 note 1} farm- is freely used in Sogdian texts as a polite form of address, especially to dignitaries of the Manichaean church.

^{page 475 note 2} Cf. Gershevitch, loc. cit., para. 1018.

^{page 475 note 3} The meaning of ptšt'n is unfortunately not known. It is connected with ptšty- “to prop, lean” (Dhyāna 25, cf, Weller), cf. also ptst't- “to withstand” (BBB., p. 104 and p 8, 136). I am asuming that the trap itself is meant here, but the possiblity that the world refers to the piece of meat in the trap cannot be excluded. In that case ptšt'n may have the same meaning as Av. paitištāna (“leg”).

^{page 475 note 4} Cf. S.T.., i, 50, 5; 87,20; p 7, 66; Anc. Letters pcp'y- “to be ready for” (the preceding word in Reichelt's glossary, pcks-is “ to wait, expect” cf. S.T., i, 39, 3; “if I shall lead you, then wait for me”. The simple verb many occur in Anc. Lett., i, 12, šyr'kk ks'n “I shall have a good time”, where Reichelt has kwn'n; Av. kasa-, etc.).

^{page 475 note 5} γwβwy' may be a “predicative instrumental”, see Gershevitch, loc., paras. 1182, 1223.

^{page 475 note 6} This sentence is not clear. Literaly “on this account that you now make or shall make (imp. or subj. sg. 2) hardness”. For šγy'k see BBB., p. 103; Sogdica, p. 20, and particularly šxy'q wn S.T., ii, 6,33: “Through these great (? xw'n) efforts they earned the paradise. So we, too, when we hear of such great (xw'n) forbearance, should take much trouble, etc”. See also below text I, line 5.

^{page 475 note 7} cpγ' possibly fromhaČā paδ(t), Persian az pai.

^{page 477 note 1} kwn'k'r: the context of VJ., 1258 sq., shows conclusively that kwn'k'r is a seat that is movable ('wy … kwn'k'r nysty šw'y-'skwn “he went along sitting in his kwn'k'r”), cf. also VJ., 1421. In Dhyāna, and 285, kwn'k'r is, on the other hand, a fixed seat, or a “socle” (see Weller on the passage). I do not see why Kwn'k'r should be translated as “pavillion” (Rosenberg, Izv., 1927, 1385; Benveniste, J. A., 1933, i, 235); neither its meaning nor its form agrees with Skt. kūtāgāra. [Cf. also Uigurica, iii, 71 line 8, and E. Sieg, Sb. P. A. W. 1937, 137 n. 2.]

^{page 477 note 2} Or “and his own action, a wondrous … virgin”.

^{page 477 note 3} r'δt'k = rāθtāk- “setting on the way, sending along the road” (see above, text B, line 9) corresponds with Arabic (al-hakīm) al-hādī in the k. al-fihrist, 335, II.

^{page 478 note 1} Or (t)r = cyntr?].

^{page 478 note 2} Cf. Sogdica, p. 40.

^{page 478 note 3} mδδk'mync.

^{page 478 note 4} Some letters from the preceding page seem to have imprinted themselves on (n').

^{page 478 note 5} Or 'nλ(wn)[.] which could be 'nλwny or 'nλwnc, or 'nλ(t)[, or ‟y(t)] (meaning respectively “such”, “fight”, “whole”, “came”).

^{page 478 note 6} Reading doubtful. One or two letterfe are lost between p'(š)[ and ]y. The y, however, is uncertain, and may be connected with the following word. The p- of prn was possibly connected to the right side. Thus one may have to read ]tpn' instead of ]y prn although the r seems to be fairly well marked.

^{page 478 note 7} The margin is cut off after about three-quarters of the letter -t. There hardly was left any space for the ending -yt which may be represented by 'ktw at the beginning of line 13.

^{page 478 note 8} This would fit the gap nicely, but it does not make sense. Perhaps 'p['ym], instead of ‟p'ym ? I feel dissatisfied with the restoration of the lines 11–13.

^{page 478 note 9} Cf. Reichelt, ii, 69, 11.

^{page 478 note 10} Or ”βλ], or ”λ]. Possibly a mode of address, ā (interjection ?) + enclitic -βαγ (“my Lord ”).

^{page 478 note 11} A piece of papar is folded over the last letters; they could be read on the original. At first I read t'[β͝('), but this is not satisfactory.

^{page 478 note 12} The damaged fifth letter looks rather like (r) or ('), but mwšk [.͝ch can hardly be anything but mwšk[y]ch.

^{page 478 note 13} '('z)λnt ?

^{page 479 note 1} This sentence is not clear, owing to several gaps in the manuscript.

^{page 479 note 2} ρrβ'rcy from ρrβ'r “chariot”. But see BSOAS., XI, 68, n. 3. Possibly there were two words ρrβ'r, (1) “chariot”, (2) “explanation, pronouncement”.

^{page 479 note 3} Implying: “This is not a coffin as you suggest, but merely a water-chest” ? But conceivably the sentence could mean: he has put water [and food] inside (the coffin, namely for the cat).

^{page 480 note 1} Or kirrōgīh, cf. OLZ., 1934, 755; BBB., 70; Messina, Žāmāspīk, 51, n. 8, 138. I still do not see why the word should be read sometimes as kērōk and sometimes as karrōk (Bailey, BSOS., IX, 231; Zor. Problems, 84, n, 2). Old Persian krnuvaka would regularly result in MPers. kirrōg (or kerrōg), which could be spelt either kyrwk/g or krwk/g. Armenian kṙogpet (Bailey, JRAS., 1934, 512 sqq.) disproves karrōk (= Arm. *kaṙok-) as well as kērōk (= Arm. *kiṙok-). There is no need for assuming a case of special treatment. The Old Iranian form karnya postulated by Bailey does not seem very plausible to me; it should, however, result in *karr- (not in *kerr-), to judge by MPers. zarr from zarnya-. śAdd Pers. karōgar, Lexx. g and k, “one of God's names,” presumably = arlifex, Dīvān-i 'Unṣurī, Tehran 1298, fol. 29a; Dīvān-i Nāsir-i Khusrau, 173, 4; Dīvān-i Khāqanī, 226, I; Garšāp-nāme Gl.ŝ.

^{page 481 note 1} Reichelt, ii, 68, 10, wyspw w'tδ'rty sλ'ntcyk 't λmy βwt “ he becomes an object of ridicule and abhorrence (or disgust) to all living beings”. In S.T., ii, 3, 14, Lentz translated “wealth”. The corresponding Syriac word (ibid., p. 560, line 17) is only partially preserved; Polotsky read mwm[ which could be completed to mwm['] =mūmā “macula, vitium ”, or mwm[y']

^{page 481 note 2} Or “soul”, or “self”.

^{page 481 note 3} See above, p. 475, note 6.

^{page 481 note 4} Or “trouble”, cf. BBB., 82 sq.; P 6, 15, 144, 168; P 12, 59.

^{page 481 note 5} I cannot construe this sentence; the first ky seems superfluous.

^{page 481 note 6} The meaning of 'žn'ptnym is not clear to me. See P 2, 1155; P 12, 70; Man. jn'-ptnym, BBB., 64 (where the translation is wrong).

^{page 482 note 1} Cf. yr”s, SGE., 446, and Pers. xarēšīdan, cf. Benvenīste, BSOS., IX, 514 sq.

^{page 482 note 2} psλw'n from apa.saxvan- ?

^{page 482 note 3} λntrw- = Av. gandarƏDwa-, cf. wp'p-yntrw, P 3, 131 = Av. upāpō gandantэwō. This is the genuine Sogdian form; Skt. gandharva- is transliterated as knt'rβ (e.g. P 8, 55). Sogd. and Skt. show final -va, but Av. and Šiλni žindīrv (Sköld, Pamirspr., 312) have final -ba.

^{page 482 note 4} Cf. the Pahlavi text Yōšt-i Fryān, iii, 22–29 (“ lie and falsehood ”).

^{page 482 note 5} ryncwk-, P 6, 185; P 12, 55; Wakhi rānjk. From ranj;u, cf. Av. raλu-, rэnj-.

^{page 482 note 6} The answer is “a dog”, cf. Yōšt-i Fryān, ii, 17–18.

^{page 482 note 7} The construction of this sentence is not clear, but there is no doubt about its meaning.

^{page 482 note 8} rytr is opposite to prtr (on which see Gershevitcb, loc. cit., para. 437), cf. below line 54. The abstract rytry' (rytryh) occurs in P 6, 192 (beside prtry'kh); P 12, 33; and above, text D, line 12. [On royal “aporiai” see now W. Tarn, Greeks in Bactria, 427–36.]

^{page 482 note 9} trβγt- “untimely, too early, unseasonable, premature” from Av. tarō.baxta- “against (normal) fate”, see P 2, 32, 450; P 6, 178, 183, 189, etc.

^{page 483 note 1} ?p'γsyn-. Chinese ? First part possibly the same as in baχšī (cf. Bailey, , BSOAS, XI, 48, n. 6Google Scholar).

^{page 484 note 1} trp'rky from *tarō.pāraka-, cf. AV. pārəntara-.

^{page 484 note 2} Or Kula, Gul, Gula, Kūlā, Kōlā, etc. Or Kulan, Gulan, etc.

^{page 484 note 3} žnw = žyn'kh (S.T., ii)? Cf. above E 15.

^{page 484 note 4} The whole of this sentence is not clear to me. —m'zych m'th also in in SCE., 242 (where the wrong reading m'nych). Not apparently connected with Pashto maira mōr (from *mātṛuiā- = μητρυιά, Arm. mauru).

^{page 484 note 5} Benveniste, , BSOS., IX, 507Google Scholar, derives myδry from AV. maša = Old Iranian mṛta- or marta- (the spelling 'myδry, given by Benveniste, is not attested in the published texts; it is agreed that 'myδry in VJ., 1206, is not “death”; possibly “Mithra”). However, Old Iranian mṛta- becomes murt- in Sogdian, while OIr. mart- is Sogd. mart-. A further obstacle to the proposed derivation is the difference in meaning (“dead”: “death”). It seems that Sogd. myδry continues OIr. mṛθyu-, see Gershevitch, loc. cit., paras. 185, 507. —The equivalent of AV. aməša- in Sogdian is mrδ['spnd], mrd['spnt]-.

^{page 484 note 6} Perhaps rather: “He returned to his palace, the whole people entered, he dismissed them with words of comfort. On the next day he ordered”. Or: “the whole people with words of comfort accompanied him” βš'm is not too clear here (cf. VJ., 356, 1343).

^{page 485 note 1} I.e. rāst-wičir.

^{page 485 note 2} Cf. Reichelt, i, 68, line 10 (see also Benveniste, , BSOS, IX, 498Google Scholar).

^{page 485 note 3} See above p. 468, n. 3.

^{page 485 note 4} Or nwβ-; this may be an older from of zwstmbyy, -bky'ẖ (Kawān, E 8, I 2).

^{page 485 note 5} MPers. 'wdrnz- “to condemn” also in M 28 i V i 8, previously wrongly separated ('wdrnz-), see ZII., ix, 199, line 8, ōzate from ōzām-.

^{page 485 note 6} It is not possible to control the reading now.

^{page 485 note 7} Mahrnāmag, 367. Also M 137, ii, 7: 'xšďg 'ym rwc wx'nyft yzďn 'ng'm bg'n 'wṯfryštg'n (cf. Mahrn., 343) “Full of mercy this day of confession, time of assembly (?) for deities and angels”. Cf. the meaning of Sogdian āγām “feast-time”. By the way, in Beruni's list of the Sogdian feasts (Chron., 235¹) should be corrected:read = mrγund-χwāre “(the feast of) eating dumplings”.

^{page 485 note 8} 'ndrbyd occurs also in M 678, 27 (no context). Cf. also Sogdica, p. 50.

^{page 485 note 9} At first sight I read “cγ'ntyt; but “wγ'n'yt (=Man. “wx'nyy, Gershevitch, loc. cit, para. 351) was probably intended.

^{page 486 note 1} βγ'n'yšp-[']krty = Chr. bγ'npšqṯy, S.T., i, 39, 4 = Syriac bēθ meštūθā, Luke xii, 36. The Middle Persian verse: [drwd] 'br tw ďm'f oo qyt pwsryn [r]'[y] (wd)wdg'[n] qyrd “Welcome, bridegroom who hast made a marriage-feast for the young men (sons)” (M 85, 8) is translated into Sogdian in this way: zwkyh β't ZKn tw' p(y)š'k (?pγš'k?)o ky ZY wsn Mn”z-wnty pyδ'r ZKw βγ'ny pškt'kw 'krtwδ'ry (T ii D, G). One cannot, apparently, read wywdg'[n], cf. kawān, A 57, ahl. Psalter wydwtky, Gr.Bd. 51, 10, wydwtk'n = wayōdagān (cf. Pers. bayōgānī). The Sogdian word does not seem to contain -kate “house”, in spite of the spelling -kt'kw in one case and the Syriac equivalent; probably -kte from -krtaka-. The centre part of the Sogd, compound, -pš-, -šp-, could be explained with the help of p(y)š'k = dāmād in the above passage, but the reading is very uncertain (from puθraka?).

^{page 487 note 2} Or “honour”, or “praise”, see line 23 and V.J., 1012 (cf. also ZDMG., 90, 198 n.). Gauthiot, Gramm., i, 148, recognized that βrγs- belonged to Av. barƏg- “ to welcome”; (Pahlavi burzīdan also “congratulate”, e.g. Šnš., vi, 5, cf. also the passages given by Nyberg, Hilfsbuch, s.v.). In composition with the preposition ā- the meaning of barƏg is “to like to possess, to desire”: Sogd. āβraχse, “desire, lust” from *a.bγxsaka-, Saka orsa, aursa “desire” from *ā.bγxsa- (> āβrƏxsa > āβrisa > aurisa > aursa cf. -ris- from -rxs- in e.g. haṃgrīs- and -rs from -ris after a vowel in e.g. pars-), Parthian āwaržōg, Middle Pers. āwarzōg, Persian ārzū “desire”from ā.bar u-.

^{page 487 note 3} Cf. S.T., ii, 576b.

^{page 487 note 4} This passage is not very clear. On yw'r see JBAS., 1944, p. 140, n. 2.