As usual, the original texts can be found in the downloadable Abstract below.
In the last lesson, we began to look at the syntax of this stanza: the indication provided by the enclitic hī and the rendering of vaxšiiā "I will say" in the first hemistiche of the first stanza. Let's continue our syntactic investigation:
- The enclitic hī, occupying the second sentence position, clearly indicates that the word preceding it is the first in the sentence, i.e. š́iiaoθanōi. Here, manahicā vacahicā š́iiaoθanōi (locative of time) can be considered to form a unitary group, since it is the famous triad of "thought, speech and action". As a result, each verse constitutes a whole.
- The dual enclitic hī indicates that there are two ways of thinking, speaking and acting: vahiiō "the best" or akǝm "the bad", an adjective in the neuter tense that cannot refer to mainiiu.
- ås°, an undifferentiated gender duel, is ambiguous in that it can refer to the triad or to both mainiius.
From a syntactic point of view, the translation would therefore be: "(I'm going to say) the two ancient mainiius which, during sleep, were considered twins, (but) when it comes to thinking, saying (and) doing, there's the right and wrong way to think, say and do. Between the two, the generous immediately differentiate, not the stingy".
In this verse, the problems are of different orders and extremely irregular severity:
- hudāh-, cf. sudā́s ved. means "generous, one who gives fine gifts" thus opposing duždāh "one who gives bad gifts, stingy".
- The "thought-speech-action" triad: to be understood ethically or ritually? To answer this question, we need to look at the context.
- pauruiia "first", but in importance? in order of appearance?
- yǝ̄mā "twin", often associated with a mythological meaning, but is this really the case here?
-xvafǝnā "sleep", cf. skt. svapna-, an interpretation that has always posed problems for various translators, here to be translated rather as a time complement "during sleep".
