Inter-clausal connectives in Zand of Hormazd Yasht

 

Introduction

The Yashts are parts of the religious book Avesta and are in the Avestan language, one of the ancient Iranian languages. Some parts‌ of the translation, commentary, and interpretation of the written Sasanian Avesta in Middle Persian have survived, which are called Zand. Hormazdyasht is the first Yasht in the collection of Yashts. The aim of this research is to examine the method of connection between two clauses using connectives from a typological perspective, semantic criteria, and the source of connectives based on the typological model of Mauri and Van der Auwera (2012), with evidence presented from the Zand "Hormazdyasht".
 

Background of Research

Previous studies on Middle Persian have not independently investigated inter-sentential connectives and their sources. Rastorguyeva (1968) in A Grammar of Middle Persian listed Middle Persian conjunctions and examined their roles with examples from Middle persian. Christopher J. Brunner (1997) in Syntax of Western Middle Iranian Languages, in Chapter 8, discussed the role of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions with examples from Middle Persian and Parthian texts. Amouzgar and Tafazzoli (2008) in Pahlavi Language, Its Literature and Grammar briefly enumerated some Middle Persian conjunctions under the title of "link." Abolqasemi (2010: 377-384) in Historical Grammar of Persian examined conjunctions in three periods: Old Iranian, Western Middle Iranian, and Dari Persian. 
 

Research Method

In this research, a descriptive-analytical method was used, employing a library research approach and analyzing the data within the theoretical framework of the typological model of Mauri and Van der Auwera (2012). Dhabhar published the Hormazdyasht in Middle Persian script in 1927 in the book Zand Khordeh Avesta. This book is the basis for the text studied in this article. The transliteration of the Zand text is based on the Khordeh Avesta compiled by Dhabhar (Dhabhar) using the Mackenzie (Mackenzie) method. The description and analysis of connective, disjunctive, and adversative connectives as the three main connective systems in this research are based on the typological model of Mauri and Van der Auwera (2012).
 

Discussion

4.1. Inter-sentential Connectives 
In different languages, the semantic connection between clauses to form a sentence as the largest syntactic structure is expressed in various ways, and the choice of this method is highly context-dependent. According to Mauri and Van der Auwera, "In many languages, the most common way to join two clauses is simply to place them side by side" (2012: 384), i.e., without a conjunction or coordinating marker and only through semantic adjacency and alignment, the clauses are connected. Another method of semantic connection between clauses is the use of explicit connectives. In this article, the criterion for classifying connectives is the simultaneity or non-simultaneity of occurrence, and the classification of Naghzguy-Kohan (2013) has also been considered. 
 
4.2. Theoretical Considerations 
The description and analysis of connectives in this research are based on the typological model of Mauri and Van der Auwera (2012), which divides connectives into four major categories: 1. Connectives that indicate the simultaneity of two events; 2. Connectives that indicate the non-simultaneity of events; 3. Connectives that encode the potential simultaneity of events; 4. Connectives that indicate the contrast of simultaneous events. The connective conjunction (like "va" in Persian) encodes the simultaneity of two events. The disjunctive connective refers to connectives that encode the non-occurrence of two events at the same time, which "yā" in Persian can represent. In their absence, languages use the grammatical possibility of irrealis markers. Mauri (2008a: 170-182 and 2008b) states that the conditional connective indicates the potential simultaneity of two events. In their absence, conditionality is expressed through adjacency or specific constructions. Adversative connectives have markers that indicate prior information in the context. These connectives link two events together. 
 
4.3. Inter-clausal connectives in Zand Hormazdyasht
4.3.1. Connectives
Except for two cases, in all 33 clauses of this Yasht, the connective conjunction is created by the context resulting from the adjacency of clauses. The reason for this is the translator's adherence to the original Avestan text, which was part of the oral and narrative literature that was later written down. In addition to adjacency, the connective conjunction is also used to encode the simultaneity of two events and the sequence and semantic relationship of clauses in this text. 
 
4.3.1.1. ud  
The connective ud (from Old Iranian uta), equivalent to Persian "va" in clause 11, encodes the concept of a connective conjunction. The adjacency of clauses enriches the meaning of coordination, and a temporal meaning is also inferred. In clause 17, the connective ud encodes the sequence of events. In clause 32, ud and the adjacency of clauses both contribute to enriching the concept of the connective conjunction. 
 
4.3.2. Disjunctive Connectives
These connectives encode the non-occurrence of two events at the same time.  4.3.2.1. ayāb 
The disjunctive conjunction ayāb (from Avestan adā «after» + Old Persian vā «yā») equivalent to Persian "or" is observed. In clause 17, in the absence of irrealis elements, the burden of establishing the connection between clauses shifts from pragmatics to the connective, and the semantic connection between the two clauses is achieved through encoding. 
 
4.3.2.2. nē  
In Zand Hormazdyasht, the conjunction nē (from Avestan na «no») equivalent to Persian "na," is a connective that both creates disjunction between sentence components and indicates the temporal relationship of events, while also retaining its original meaning and role as a negative adverb. In clause 18, the semantic connection between the two clauses is achieved through encoding with the conjunction, and its structure is derived from the original meaning of negation. 
 
4.3.3. Adversative Connectives 
These are used to connect events where the second event contrasts with the assumption and information of the first event. 
 
4.3.3.1. bē  
In Zand Hormazdyasht, clause 26, the adversative connective bē from Old Persian: patiy (preposition) "against," equivalent to Persian "ammā, balke" is used, but it contradicts its usual role and is not a marker of incompatible events or contrast of simultaneous occurrences. Its structure is derived from the original source with an emphatic and locative meaning. 
 
4.3.4. Conditional Connectives
The use of adjacency to express condition is notable in this text. Clause 19 contains a description of two events that have a potential causal relationship. The concept of conditionality is conveyed only through adjacency. The presence of a modal verb or an irrealis marker in conditional relationships is important. It seems that the indicative present tense verb bē padīrēnd «they accept» in this clause is an irrealis marker and, in the absence of a conditional marker, helps infer the meaning of condition and its uncertainty. 
 
4.4.3.1. Agar 
The connective agar from Old Persian: hakaram «once,» equivalent to Persian "agar," marks the potential simultaneity of two events, where the occurrence of one is conditional on the occurrence of the other. In clause 10, in addition to adjacency and the context resulting from it, the conditional meaning is created through encoding by the word agar, which is derived from the original temporal source. We also observe the subjunctive verb after the conditional marker as an irrealis marker. 
 
4.4. Sources of Connectives in Zand Hormazd
The research of Ramat and Mauri (2012) shows that connectives in the world's languages are derived from a wide range of sources. Examining the sources of connective formation in Zand Hormazdyasht reveals that these connectives are mostly derived from functional words and have adopted the grammatical role of connection. In some cases, we observe two distinct roles, so it can be said that connectives in Zand Hormazdyasht, and more generally in Middle Persian, have expanded with polysemy. 
 

Conclusion

Zand Hormazdyasht is a literal translation devoid of Middle Persian syntax. The research data based on the typological model of Mauri and Van der Auwera (2012) show that the connectives in Zand Hormazdyasht, in terms of the structure of the concepts they encode, are similar to the typological model of Mauri and Van der Auwera (2012), the most important of which is the derivation of these connectives from functional sources. Connectives with original interrogative and temporal meanings play the largest role in encoding various types of inter-sentential connectives. Some connectives have more than one grammatical role and have expanded with polysemy. Another important feature of the text is the very limited use of connective conjunctions, relying on adjacency and clause sequence for the concept of connection and condition. Another feature is the translator's different use of the adversative connective bē «rather.» The use of the indicative present tense as an irrealis marker, in addition to the subjunctive and optative moods, to distinguish conditional from causal relationships and to indicate the uncertainty of the condition, is also a rare structure and one of the features of this translation, influenced by Persian. 
 
 
 
References

Abolqasemi, Mohsen (2000). Prayer Verb in Persian, Memorial of Dr. Ahmad Tafazzoli. Sadeqi, Ali Ashraf. Tehran: Sokhan. 61-66.
Abolqasemi, Mohsen. (2010). Historical Grammar of Persian. 8th Edition. Tehran: SAMT.
Amouzgar, Zhaleh, Tafazzoli, Ahmad (2008). Pahlavi Language, Its Literature and Grammar, 6th Edition, Tehran: Moin Publications.
Brunner, C. J. (1977). A syntax of western Middle Iranian. New York: Caravan Books.
Brunner, Christopher J. (1997). Syntax of Western Middle Iranian Languages translated and researched by Saeid Aryan, Tehran: Islamic Research Institute of Culture and Art.
Haiman, J. (1978). “Conditionals are topics”. Language 54: 512–40.
Heine, B. and Kuteva, T. (2004). World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Kortman, B. (1997). Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordination Based on European Languages. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mauri, C. (2008a). Coordination Relations in the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mauri, C. (2008a. 2008b). “The irreality of alternatives: towards a typology of disjunction”. Studies in Language 32: 22–55.
Mauri, C. and Van der Auwera, J. (2012). “Connectives”. In Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. 377-402 .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Noghzgooyan, Mehrdad (2013). “A Study of Persian Adversative Connectives and Their Formation”. Linguistic Inquiries Journal. Vol.4, No.4 (Serial No.16), 245-265.
Ramat, G. and Mauri, C. (2011). The grammaticalization of coordinating interclausal connectives. In Heiko Narrog e Bernd Heine (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 653-664.
Rastorguyeva, V.S. (1968). A Grammar of Middle Persian, translated by Valiollah Shadan, Tehran: Iran Culture Foundation Publications.
Tafazzoli, Ahmad (1999). History of Pre-Islamic Iranian Literature, 3rd Edition. Tehran: Sokhan.