Avestan Ainita- “Unharmed”

in Indo-Iranian Journal
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Bartholomae explains Av. ainita- “nicht vergewaltigt, - gekränkt” (Yt. 13.34; 51; 63) and ainiti- “milde Behandlung, Milde” from an-inita-, resp. *an-initi- (owing to haplology, see Altiran. Wörterb. 125 f.). This theory is the inevitable consequence of his positing an Avestan word [initi-] “Vergewaltigung, Kränkung”, supposed to be attested in the Instr. Sg. inti- Vend. 18.61 and in nitī. Y. 30.11b. If however [initio] had really been in use both in Gāthic and in Later Avestan, it would be hard to conceive how its opposite *an-initi- could have become [aniti-], since the Avestan speaker, in that case, must always have been aware of its origin as a mere negation of [initi-]. Besides, a participle *inita- would be anomalous in several respects. In the first place the present inaoiti [inauti], corresponding to Ved. inóti, must be referred to a root i-, as there is no indication to show that from the stem i-nau- a secondary root in- had been created in Indo-Iranian. The participle -inita-, only twice attested in a comparatively late Vedic text (úpenita- Šat. Br. III) is certainly an occasional new formation of Sanskrit. The Indo-Ir. noun Ved. énas-, Av. aēnah- “act of violence, crime, sin” contains the IE. suffix *-nes- and is derived direct from the root (cf. Ved. rékllas-,Av. raēxinah- from the root *raik-). As for Ved. iná- “strong, mighty, fierce”, there is no reason why it should rather be analysed as in-á- (e.g. Lindner, Altindische Nominalbildung, p. 33) than as i-ná-:. the nominal stem derived from the present stem is, indeed, -invá- (Wackernagel, Altind. Gramm., II, 1, p. 181). Secondly Bartholomae disregarded the fact that, while in Sanskrit participles in -ta- with an analogical “connecting -i-” are quite common, they are completely unknown in Old Iranian. This is apparently due to the circumstance that the IE. formation in *-H-tó- contained a consonantal laryngeal, which vanished in Iranian while being secondarily vocalized in the Indian branch. Thus to Ved. gbhītá- (with a specific Indian lengthening of i<H after a labial sonant) corresponds grpta- in Avestan. The mutilated Old Persian form agrbi ( … ) in Dar. Beh. 2.73, for which Bartholomae, Tolman, and Kent read āgarbīta “seized” (p. p., with a long i!), is more likely to stand for āgrbi<ya> (: Ved. aghyata). Accordingly Fravrtiš agrbi<ya> anayatā abiy mām means “F. was seized (and) led to me” (cf. 2.88). As far as the noun [initio] is concerned, the fact should be stressed that even in Sanskrit the “connecting -i-” is confined to the participles but does not, as a rule, occur in the verbal nouns in -ti-.

Avestan Ainita- “Unharmed”

in Indo-Iranian Journal


Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 116 116 4
Full Text Views 2 2 2
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0