It was also asserted that the Zend-Avesta was of comparatively recent date, possibly not earlier than the third century A.D.[1] One of the many arguments adduced by Bask to confute these theories was the similarity between the Zend and the language of the first Persepolitan column. He pointed out that, so far as it had been deciphered by Grotefend, it bore a strong resemblance to that of 'Father Zoroaster'; and he argued that where they differed to a marked degree in their cas-endings, the probability was that the divergence is due to an error in the values assigned to the letters by Grotefend. Thus, the genitive plural as given by Grotefend ends in e or α, ch (tsch) α, o, which bears no resemblance to anything to be found in Zend; and he casually threw out the suggestion that it should read α-n-α-m, which is a usual Zend form.[2] He farther showed, in support of this view, that the change of an o into m would go a long way to solve the difficulty of the word that follows 'stirps'; and he hazarded the improved transliteration 'aqamnosoh,' from which 'Achaemenian' might be derived. The change of tsch into n and o into m, which was at once accepted and ultimately proved to be correct, was of great importance; and both Burnouf and Lassen admit the extent of their obligations. Rask's own studies lay in an entirely different direction, and he made no attempt to follow up his success in decipherment; but he took occasion to point out that there must be some radical error in an alphabet that assigns two different sounds—e and α—to
the same sign, and two signs to the same sound, α; and
- ↑ In 1832 Schlegel asserted that the Zend and the Zend-Avesta were forgeries by the Guebres (or Parsees) of Guzerat(Heeren, Eng. ed., ii. 341). Rawlinson, in 1847, was still of opinion that Zend dates after Alexander, possibly some centuries (J. R. A. S. x. 50). He was also convinced of the late origin of the Zend-Avesta.
- ↑ Rask. p. 28.
