Key words: Iranian languages, Scythians, Saks, Avesta.

As early as the century before last, it was noticed that there are words in the Avesta that, being Iranian, show a phonetic development different from the Avestan proper (like midisms in Old Persian or Old Slavonic in Russian) [Jackson, 1892, p. 29; GiPh I, p. 166].

Thus, Kersaspa is called that (Y. 9, 10), that (Yt. 13, 61; 136), along with "strong, mighty" (cf. ) meets "mighty" (Yt. 10, 6; 78; 13, 40; 75; Y. 1, 18; 4, 6; 65, 12). In Videvdat (15, 8), for the same word with the meaning "whose term has not yet come", the participle from the root sak- "to pass (about time)", part of the manuscripts gives the regular Avestan form anasaxta -, and part - anaθaxta-. In Yasna (32.15), the root nas is found-with a prefix that Bartolome translated as "to be doomed to perish", and later researchers (Insler, Gumbach, Kellens and Pirard) - as lost, depourvues de pouvoir, etc. We see the exact correspondence in the ancient Indian "to perish, to disappear". In his Junior Avesta, there is a doublet that in the causative (Bartolome believed that this is an iterative, but the form with "enhanced vocalism" (the term of T. Ya. Elizarenkova), i.e. with a long vowel and the suffix-aua-, with no less reason can be considered a causative) means something like " skin off; scalp")1. It would be possible to give other examples, but I think the ones already mentioned are enough. The reflexes we are interested in go back to Indo-Iranian (< Indo-European *k'I deliberately do not draw attention to dubious cases where the formation of similar doublets is probably due to other reasons, such as the lexemes "hostility" (Y. 28, 6; 44, 11) and "hostile" (Y. 32, 16; 48, 9) recorded in the Gatas. the same audio correspondence as in the above examples: avest. s is a borrowed θ, but in this case avest. s, which has passed by the so-called RUKI rule (i.e., in the position after r, k, u, i) to š, goes back to Indo-Iranian *s. It is unlikely that š < *s turned into θ in the same way as < *k', rather θ in the word goes back to the Indo-Iranian *th. True, adjectives are usually not formed with the suffix * - tha, but the meaning of the adjective for is reconstructed only hypothetically. Apparently, some Avestan lexemes, which at first glance demonstrate the transition of common Iranian to d/δ instead of regular z, are also not related to the different reflexion of proto-Iranian phonemes: "joy" (?) occurs in the Ghats2 and (cf. gender) 'id' (?) or known from the Younger Avesta "lair" (about the dwelling of divers) - cf.Ancient Indian "house". In the latter case, comparative data (Gothic gards "house", Lithuanian "paddock", Old Slavonic grad) show that in ancient Indian there was an irregular development from (EWAia I: 495)3. The situation with the ratio and is more complicated, especially since it is relative to them

1 Cf., for example, (Vd. 3, 20): "... let them scalp his head as far as the skin extends."

2 Bartholomew [AiW: 1544] believed that - is i-'Erweiterung' aus S. Insler [Inslcr, 1975: 1631 treats this form as a locative of 'joy'. Kellens and Pirart [Kellens et Pirart, 1990, p.313] consider it a verb and translate it as je regale, "I regale".

3 We see the same irregular phonetic development in the Old Indian ihá "here" (cf. Old Estonian idā 'id'). It is possible that in ancient Indian this irregularity is related to accentuation, since in both of the above cases the transition *dh > h occurs in the pre-stressed position.

page 18
there is no consensus on the form and meaning. Kellens and Pirar prefer to take these words to different roots, comparing the latter with the ancient Indian "directed upward; straightened" and translating it accordingly as "station (position) debout"," standing position " [Kellern et Pirart 1988, p. 143; Kellens et Pirart, 1990, p. 312]. However, in the text (Y. 43, 2) it is said that this state contributes to longevity, so the traditional translation of "joy" seems to be more in line with the context. On mutually exclusive interpretations of the word, see above, note 2. In short, it is better to refrain from drawing any far-reaching conclusions on such unreliable material.

In the Avest. (Y. 9, 18; Yt 13, 135) "ruler", first of all in relation to rulers hostile to the Mazdayasnian faith, we can assume the transition > s in anlaut, if we build this lexeme to-the name of the figure formed using the suffix tar - from the root. An alternative explanation suggests the loss of s in the cluster - st -, thus connecting with the well-attested "ruler "(cf. 'id'), but keep in mind that there are no parallel examples of such cluster simplification in ancient Iranian languages.

Of the attested ancient Iranian languages, the development of *s > θ is characteristic of Old Persian and Scythian. For the latter, it is attested by the names of Scythian kings (from Iranian - "Like a flower" or "Blooming kind", cf. Vakhan "flower", "blossom" and Avestan "decoration", ancient Indian "form; appearance; color"; see also above) and "Aryan appearance") (Hdt. IV 76, 78). The first name corresponds (with a more common reflexion) to the name of Massaget given by Herodotus in another place of his work (I, 211, 213). Below we will give arguments in favor of the Scythian, and not the ancient Persian origin of the lexemes considered.

Another feature of the Scythian language is the transition of the common Iranian *xs - in anlaut, i.e. at the beginning of a word, to hissing or whistling (it is impossible to say for sure, since this transition is reliably recorded in the Greek transmission through the only Greek sibilant, sigma). This feature was already pointed out by Harmatta [Harmatta, 1951, pp. 308-309], who, however, did not connect it specifically with Scythian. It can be illustrated by such examples as "ruler, king", an ethnonym mentioned in the Olvian decree in honor of Protogenes [IOSPE I 2, N 32, A, stk. 34], which tells about the events of the end of the III century BC (in the text, the form of the genitive and, possibly, as V. Tomashek noted). [Tomaschek, 1888, p. 721], which was the self-designation of Herodotus ' "royal Scythians" in the text in the genitive case, - Hdt. IV, 20); "[Possessing] a resplendent (or" royal") pharn", the name of the king of the barbarians (possibly the same Saiyas, although this is not explicitly mentioned in the text) from the same decree, as well as the name of the king of the Asian Scythians in Arrian (Anab. IV, 4, 8) - A. I. Ivanchik asserts, however, that "there is no reason to doubt the almost generally accepted classification of the Sais as Sarmatians; among other things, this is evidenced by the fact that the Scythians are mentioned in the same decree [Olviysky decree in honor of Protogenes - S. K.] (B 9) separately from the Sais and in a context that excludes their identification"[Ivanchik, 2009, p. 83]. A. I. Ivanchik's arguments are also vulnerable from a historical point of view: the Scythians mentioned in the decree cannot really be identified with the Saiyas mentioned in the decree, since they are talking about different events at different times, but this in no way means that the Saiyas cannot be one of the Scythian tribes (most likely, judging by the ethnonym, - the royal Scythians). After all, no one will think to doubt that the "Mede" mentioned by Herodotus (V. 77; IX. 82) is a Persian king, and the "Medes" (VI. 109, 112), with whose army the Greeks will fight at Marathon, are Persians (not without reason in the Russian translation). Stratanovsky [VI. 111] rendered as "the Hellenic line of battle was equal to the Persian"), although in neighboring passages the Persians are mentioned, which Herodotus clearly distinguishes from the Medes. But the main argument against attributing Sayyas to

page 19
Sarmatians - that in all Greek - written late Sarmatian names, the Iranian initial Xsh-is invariably rendered as [Ks]. In fact, it is impossible to assume that in the Sarmatian region, cluster x-in anlaut was first transferred to Sibilant and then restored. A. I. Ivanchik rejects the possibility of using the phonetic features of the name of the Asian Scythian Satrak in the study of the Scythian language on the grounds that the Asian Scythians should not be considered Scythians, but Saks, in whose close kinship with the Herodotus Scythians he does not believe [Ivanchik, 2009, p.82]. But the proximity of Asian and European Scythians is evidenced by both historical and linguistic data. According to Herodotus, the Saks are Scythians: since the Persians call all Scythians Saks (VII. 64), which is fully confirmed by the usus of ancient Persian inscriptions: Sakā tayai paradraya (DNa 28-29)," Saks/Scythians who are overseas", are mentioned between Greece [Yauna] and Thrace [Skudra] , and Sakā tayai para Sugdam (DPh, 5-6 = DH; in the text, the instrumental form in the meaning of the ablative Sakaibis), "Saks/Scythians who are beyond Sogd". The name of the ruler of the Asian Scythians given by Arrian also indicates that the same transition *xš > š/s occurred in their language as in the language of the European Scythians. In short, there is reason to believe that the language of the Central Asian Scythians, or Saks, was characterized by the same features as the language of their European counterparts.

A. I. Ivanchik objects to the hypothesis of the Scythian transition *xsh > š/s in anlaut and from a quasi-linguistic point of view. He recalls that the names of Targitai's sons in inlaut reflect the Iranian *xshaya -, where *xs after a short vowel, as in Middle Persian, does not go into sibilant, and states that "here *xshaya - is not part of the present composite name... This is, in fact, a title added to a personal name... Naturally, the word "tsar", if it was pronounced at that time as * šaya - or under., should have retained its form in this position, and not restore the lost *xš-" [Ivanchik, 2009, p. 86]. In ancient languages, both Indo-Aryan and Iranian, the situation was exactly the opposite: in ancient Indian and Avestan, at the junctions of words (in Avestan, first of all, at the junctions with enclitics, but not only), phonemes that had long passed into other sounds in other positions (for example, * - s, which had already passed into * in Proto-Iranian-h) preserved 4-cf. avest. "who is yours/yours" (Y 29.7; 46.14), "who is yours" (Y 9. 3), "who is it" (Y 44. 3, 4), " dawns... and twilight" (Y 44. 5) (instead of [kah -], etc. In fact, this alone would be enough to deflect Ivanchik's objections, but he gets even deeper, giving an additional argument: in Middle Persian, in personal names with a second component, unlike ordinary words, the cluster-xš-was not preserved after the vowel. At the same time, he cites examples of "ordinary words" from Middle - Russian, and personal names that supposedly confirm his thesis-from New Persian (?!) [Ivanchik 2009, p.86]. With the same success, one could argue, for example, that in folk Latin, stressed vowels disappeared, citing relevant examples from the French language. In the case of his name, he was misled by the littering (pehl.) in Justi's book [Justi, 1895, p. 139], but it is a question of writing in Middle Persian the New Persian name of one of the scribes of the manuscript Dadestan-i menog-i hrad ("Judgments of the Spirit of Reason"), which could easily be established by referring to the publication referred to by Yusty (or at least to the Russian translation of the monument- [Zoroastrian texts..., p. 121]. In the case of the name, this was not necessary either: it would be enough to pay attention to the mark of Yusty a [pp]about 1478 [ibid., p. 155], indicating that the bearer of the name, an Indian Parsi, lived in the XV century AD.

4 "The s... is retained unchanged only when followed by [Whitney, 1955 [1889], p. 58, § 170, a-b];" The final s [in ancient Indian. - S. K.] is retained only before t, th, and before c, ch it exists in a modified form [Barrow, 1976, p. 96]; " Deux mots [vicil-avestiques. - S. K.] peuvent etre reunis par la conservation d'un sandhi original: e.g. 44.3, 4 46.4, 6 41.2 [Kellens et Pirart, 1988, p. 64]. It is inaccurate (as "restoration"), but again contrary to the statement of A. I. Ivanchik [Sokolov 1979, p. 159]: "Only the restoration of historical s before enclitics is regular... Less often, the same case occurs when you meet independent words...".

page 20
The Avestan examples of irregular reflexion of Proto - Iranian *s in the *sr cluster in anlaut are also interesting: avest. srotas 'id', an Avestan lexeme preserved in compound words and" flowing", more often in the feminine gender and in the plural, since it refers to waters, ap-5. Perhaps, in the language from which these words were borrowed, sr-regularly gave θr-at the beginning of the word. This was not typical of Old Persian, where the reflex of the same etymon that gave the Avestanraraotah-shows the development of * sr - > * hr - > r - - rautah-. The same development is demonstrated by Avest. raraxti-along with sraxti- "angle, side", cf. but here, apparently, we are also dealing with hypercorrection: since the Iranian sr cannot correspond to the ancient Indian sr, the form sraxti - was probably formed by analogy with doublets, etc.

Stig Vikander once noted that Bartholomew rightly explained the existence of the doublets described above by mixing dialects (Dialektmischung), but he drew attention to the fact that this confusion is of a special kind, when the same word in different phonetic design occurs, including in the same text, in the same meaning (unlike the Medisms and Old Slavisms already mentioned, the Median-Persian doublets do not occur in the same text, and Old Slavisms and native words that co-exist in Russian usually have different meanings-sky and sky, dust and gunpowder, etc., although there are exceptions like temper and temper, enemy and enemy). In this connection, Vikander suggested that we are dealing with well-established cult formulas borrowed entirely from a certain dialect. He connected the words in which the common Iranian gives θ with the Turanians, that is, with the other languages.e. with the steppe nomads [Wikander, 1938, p. 37], without, however, giving linguistic arguments in favor of such identification, which I tried to do. As to why I think these borrowings are more Scythian than ancient Persian. First, the Avesta does not record any other phonetic features characteristic of Old Persian, except for the transition to, and the presence of other features that are impossible in Old Persian, but either characteristic or not excluded for Scythian, can be assumed (cf.above). Secondly, some of the realities indicated by the words we are interested in are really more related to steppe cultures than to Persia (for example, Herodotus IV, 64 wrote about the Scythian custom of scalping). In this connection, we can recall the name of Parthia-Parhava (this circumstance was drawn to my attention by the Joint Venture. Vinogradov). It can, of course, be traced back to the Indo-Iranian *Parthu - and compared with the corresponding Indian ethnonyms. But, taking into account that in the Iranian ethnonymy, names that go back to Indo-Iranian are common these are, in particular, the self-names of the Persians and Pashtuns, it can be assumed that the name of the Parthians goes back to the Iranian language, where it gave θ, i.e., given the location of Parthia on the border with the nomadic world, it is possible that to the Scythian, resp. to Saki.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

VDI-Bulletin of Ancient History.

AiW - Christian Bartholomae. Altiranishes Worterbuch. Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trubner, 1904.

EWAia - Manfred Mayrhofer. Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindoarischcn. Bd. 1-3, Heidelberg: Carl Winter verlag, 1992-2001.

GiPh- Grundriß der iranischen Philologie. 1 (Abteilung 1-2; Anhang)-II. Strassburg 1895-1901, 1898-1901, 1903, 1896-1904.

IOSPE I2- Inscriptioncs Antiquac Orac Septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graccac et Latinac iussu et impensis Socictatis Archacologicae Imperii Russici. Herum edidit Basilius Latyschev. Volumen primum. Inscriptioncs Tyrae,

5 ("through which [the earth] runs flowing navigable waters" - Yt 13, 10); [yazamaide...] ("[we honor as a sacrifice] all the waters that are in springs and streams" - Y. 71, 9.

page 21
Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae, aliorum locorum a Danubio usque ad regnum Bosporanum continens. Ed. alt., Petropoli MCMXVI.

list of literature

Barrow T. Sanskrit. Translated from English by N. Larina, ed. and comm. Elizarenkova T. Ya., Moscow: Progress Publ., 1976.

Zoroastrian texts. Judgments of the Spirit of Reason (Dadestan-i menog-i hrad). Creation of the basis (Bunda-hishn) and other texts. Comp. by O. M. Chunakova, Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura Publ., 1997.

Ivanchik A. I. K voprosu o skifskom yazyke [On the question of the Scythian language].
Sokolov S. N. Yazyk Avesta [The Avesta Language]. // Fundamentals of Iranian Linguistics. Drevneiranskiye yazyki [Ancient Iranian Languages], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1979.
Insler St. The Gathas of Zarathustra. Teheran Liege: Bibliotheque Pahlavi, 1975.

Jackson A.V. Williams. An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit. Pt 1. Phonology, Inflection, Word-Eormation with an introduction on the Avesta. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammcr, 1892.

Justi F. Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895: Elwcrt; phototypic reprint. Hildesheim: Cicorg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1963.

Kellens J. et Pirart E. Les textes vieil-avestiques. Vol. I, 1988; vol. II, 1990; vol. III, 1991. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

Tomaschek W. Kritik der altesten Nachrichten uber den Skytischcn Norden // Sitzungsberichte der plilosophisch-historischen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bd. 116. Wien, 1888.

Whitney W.D. Sanskrit Grammar Including both the Classical Language, and the older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Eighth issue of the second edition. Cambridge, Massachusets: Harward University Press. L.: Geoffrey Cumberlege, Oxford University Press. 1955 (1889).

Wikander St. Der arische Mannerbund. Studien zur indo-iranischen Sprach- und Religionsgeschichte. Lund: Hakan Ohlssons Buchdruckcrci. 1938.

page 22

Permanent link to this publication: