1.1 The begetting of existence and of its orchestrating principle

One of the very well-known pronouncements that portrays Ahura Mazdā being envisioned by Zaraϑuštra as the engenderer of existence itself can be found in the first two lines of Y 43.5 of the Gāϑās:Footnote ⁴

In addition to being the engenderer of existence itself, Ahura Mazdā is also envisioned by Zaraϑuštra as the engenderer of its orchestrating principle, aṣ̌a-. Central to the Zoroastrian spiritual vision, the nuanced metaphysical notion of aṣ̌a- is envisioned and understood as the inherent, underlying and orchestrating “Truth”Footnote ⁵ that pervades the spiritual and corporeal creations of Ahura Mazdā and thereby expresses itself as the “(divine) Orchestration”, which one participates in, on both a spiritual and corporeal level. It is also recognized as an offspring of Ahura Mazdā, as is directly implied in a rhetorical question posed by Zaraϑuštra in the Gāϑās, in the line Y 44.3b kasnā ząϑā ptā aṣ̌ahiiā pouruiiō “Who, through begetting, is the primordial father of the Truth?” Pervading the cosmos, aṣ̌a- is also further understood as a presence and quality inherent within righteous and virtuous beings (divine and human), who are therefore called aṣ̌auuan- “imbued with the Truth, righteous, virtuous”.Footnote ⁶

Similarly, the concept of vohu- manah- “Good Thought” is also imagined as a divinity whose father is Ahura Mazdā. Thus, Ahura Mazdā is addressed in line Y 31.8b of the Gāϑās as: vaŋhǝ̄uš ptarə̄m manaŋhō “father of Good Thought”. Likewise, the concept of ārmaiti- “Sound Mindedness”Footnote ⁷ is also imagined as a divinity who is the daughter of Ahura Mazdā, evidenced by line Y 45.4d of the Gāϑās: at̰ hōi dugədā … ārmaitiš “also, his daughter is Sound Mindedness”. Just like aṣ̌a- “Truth”, the concept of vohu- manah- “Good Thought” and of ārmaiti- “Sound Mindedness”, in addition to being envisioned as divinities who fully epitomize the concept their names describe, are also ideals and attributes that may be attained, possessed and embodied by virtuous beings.

Referring to these types of multivalent aspect-transecting qualities of the Old Avestan divinities, Boyce notes how the inherent natures of these divinities can merge with and enter into a being, and how they manifest through that being as “indwelling divinity”:Footnote ⁸

Along the same lines, Humbach comments:

1.2 Divinity imbuing living beings

In the Old Avestan texts, one of the more emphatic expressions of the desire to be imbued with divinity, as far as it pertains to Ahura Mazdā, is to be found in the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti. It is formulated by the use of the second person singular optative active verbal form x́iiā̊ “may you be” of the verbal root ah “to be”. The notion is expressed in the final clause of Y 41.3:

Calling upon Ahura Mazdā directly, as “most well providing of (all) that exists”, the worshippers are here literally asking him to be their “life and corporeality” in both spiritual and material existence. As noted by Hintze in her edition of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, the worshippers “wish that their view of Ahura Mazdā would affect their lives to the extent that the latter are entirely imbued with him – on both the material and spiritual planes”.Footnote ¹¹ In fact, fellowship and union with divinity is the paramount benefaction that the worshippers of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti seek to attain, and they declare this before and after they recite the lines from Y 41.3c–e quoted above: first in Y 40.2e–f: tauuacā haxəmā aṣ̌ax́iiācā vīspāi yauuē “fellowship with you and Truth for all time”, and second in Y 41.6e–f: tauuacā sarəm aṣ̌ax́iiācā vīspāi yauuē “union with you and Truth for all time”. The “you” is Ahura Mazdā.

The theme of longing for fellowship and communion with Ahura Mazdā is also encountered in Y 28.10–11 of the Gāϑās, which reveal the immediacy of the relationship between Ahura Mazdā and Zaraϑuštra:

In Y 28.10c Zaraϑuštra declares that he knows the brimming, resounding, lovable hymns of the divinities. In Y 28.11a we learn that it is through these hymns that Ahura Mazdā protects the Truth and Good Thought for eternity, while in Y 28.11c we discover that it is through these hymns that primordial existence itself came into being.Footnote ¹⁶ In Y 28.11 Zaraϑuštra asks Ahura Mazdā to teach him to speak forth these hymns ϑβahmāt̰ … mainiiǝ̄uš “from your spiritual force”, the ablative construction indicating that the source from which the poet desires to speak forth is nothing other than the spiritual force of Ahura Mazdā himself. So not only does Zaraϑuštra want to speak these hymns forth – thereby joining into their unique protective and generative purpose – but he further seeks to do so by channelling the very spiritual force of Ahura Mazdā. As if this is not already enough, the poet requests that this teaching be imparted to him by Ahura Mazdā himself, specifically through Ahura Mazdā’s own mouth.

While Y 28.10–11 convey the image of Ahura Mazdā’s own spiritual force being channelled through Zaraϑuštra, Y 44.11a–c evokes an image of all those from whom the daēnā- “spiritual vision” of Ahura Mazdā is welling forth, and of ārmaiti- “Sound Mindedness”, spreading through these individuals:

While in Y 44.11d, together with all those who are welling forth with the spiritual vision, Zaraϑuštra makes himself available as the foremost (one) of Ahura Mazdā, in Y 33.14 Zaraϑuštra makes himself available in a much more personal and comprehensive manner: by specifically offering the very aspects of his being and his agency to Ahura Mazdā and the Truth”:Footnote ¹⁷

This significant gesture of making his self available to divinity, and particularly his offering of “the vitality of his own body”, is a sentiment once again found in the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, Y 37.3c: tə̄m ahmākāiš azdəbīšcā uštānāišcā yazamaidē “We are worshipping him through our corporeality and vital forces”.

Let us briefly review the different variations in the notion of being pervaded by divinity that we have encountered so far. While Y 41.3c–e expresses a desire to be entirely pervaded by divinity, Y 28.11 expresses a desire of wanting to access and speak from, and thus be a conduit for, the spiritual force of divinity, and Y 44.11a–c imagines the spiritual vision of divinity welling forth from people and Sound Mindedness spreading across them. Y 40.2e–f and Y 41.6e–f express a desire for fellowship and union with divinity, while Y 44.11d, Y 33.14 and Y 37.3c depict the act of providing availability of the self to divinity. In addition to this, the stanza Y 31.11 (see below) provides an insight into how Zaraϑuštra imagines the aspects of the self as creations of Ahura Mazdā’s own thought, and as therefore proceeding from and comprising the very essence and intention of divinity itself:

Here we may also note that the Avestan divine name mazdā- “Wise One” is an agent noun and compound, ultimately deriving from the IE noun *mn̥s- “thought” (the double zero grade of the s-stem *menos- “thought”) and the IE verb *d^heh₁ “to set, to place”.Footnote ¹⁹ The name mazdā- (< IE *mn̥s-d^heh₁-) is a root noun (the root noun dā- is the second member of the compound),Footnote ²⁰ which etymologically means “one who places his thought, one who arrays his thought”. Interestingly, in Y 31.11, we find Zaraϑuštra describing the primordial generative activity of Ahura Mazdā (etymologically: “the lord who arrays his thought”), by imagining him enacting the very meaning of his name in order to fashion the aspects of our beings.

We have so far observed how the aspects or the entirety of self: 1) are desired to be pervaded by divinity, 2) can be developed as a conduit for the spiritual force of divinity, 3) can experience the welling forth of the spiritual vision of divinity and the spreading through of Sound Mindedness, 4) desire to experience union with divinity, 5) provide availability to divinity, and 6) how these aspects of the self are in turn creations emerging through the very thought of divinity itself. But what about the internal relationship between Ahura Mazdā and the divinities of the Old Avesta themselves?

1.3 Permeating the life-giving immortals

The divinities of the Old Avesta are collectively referred to as: 1) ahura-s in the Gāϑās, as is evidenced by the expression mazdā̊scā ahurā̊ŋhō “the Wise One and the (other) Divinities” in Y 30.9 (vocative function) and in Y 31.4 (nominative function), and as 2) spəṇta- aməṣ̌a-s “Life-giving Immortals” in the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti.Footnote ²¹ Throughout the stanzas of the Gāϑās these divinities are purposefully depicted interacting with each other and with Ahura Mazdā. Yet, the most beautiful and clear depiction of how all the spəṇta- aməṣ̌a-s are interwoven with each other – distinct yet combined – and how they are all continuously permeated by the soul of Ahura Mazdā is found in the poetry of the Young Avesta, in a remarkable sequence of stanzas that overlap significantly between and across Yašt 13 and Yašt 19. I have provided the entire sequence below. Notice: 1) how Ahura Mazdā’s soul is mixing into the forms of the Life-giving Immortals in Yt 13.81, 2) how the Life-giving Immortals, though individuated in aspect, are nonetheless spiritually interwoven with each other (Yt 13.83–84 = Yt 19.16–17), 3) how they are all depicted as the children of Ahura Mazdā who is their Father (Yt 13.83 = Yt 19.16), and 4) how they (into whose forms Ahura Mazdā’s soul is continuously mixing, and who are themselves fluidly interwoven with each other) are also appropriately described as “the creators … of the creations of Ahura Mazdā” (Yt 19.18), thus sharing a sort of nested attribution with him due to the existential inter-fluidity between them all:

In addition to being described as the life-giving mantra, Ahura Mazdā’s soul is also described using the adjectives aurušō raōxšnō frādərəsrō “white, luminous, perceiving from afar” in Yt 13.81. In the Bundahišn (Bdh 1.43), we learn that Ahura Mazdā brought forth the form of his own creations from his xwēš xwadīh “own selfness, own essence”, from light existence, in the form of fire: ī rōšn ī spēd ud gird ud frāz-paydāg “luminous, white, round, and visible from afar”.Footnote ²⁷ The use of the almost identical sequence of adjectives to describe Ahura Mazdā’s soul, as it is continuously mixing into the forms of his Life-giving Immortals (in Yt 13.81), and to describe the form of fire in which he brought forth his creations (in Bdh 1.43), seems to indicate that the creations being referred to in Bdh 1.43 are indeed the Life-giving Immortals. Both Yt 13.81 and Bdh 1.43 characterize the generative activity of Ahura Mazdā in terms of an emanation of essence that originates from him, either through the process of “the mixing of his soul” or by “the bringing forth from his own essence”. The Bundahisň goes on to speak of corporeal creation and how it was first nurtured by Ahura Mazdā in a spiritual state, then incrementally gestating, unfolding, articulating and individuating, much like an embryo within a mother’s womb (Bdh 1.57).Footnote ²⁸ Thus, in Bdh 1.58 Ahura Mazdā is identified as both: the mother and the father of his creations.Footnote ²⁹

In light of the description of Ahura Mazdā’s soul as the “life-giving mantra”, and the powerful imagery of it continuously mixing into the beautiful forms of the Life-giving Immortals, who in turn are called the creators of the creations of Ahura Mazdā, the Avestan adjective tanumąϑra- “incarnation of the mantra, embodiment of the mantra”, which can be used to describe both mortals and divinities, is pregnant with meaning. It is also translated very evocatively by Bartholomae as “mit dessen Leib das heilige Wort verbunden ist, der es in sich aufgenommen, mit ihm eins geworden ist” (“with whose body the holy word is intertwined, who has absorbed it, become one with it”).Footnote ³⁰ Thus, the emanation of Ahura Mazdā’s very soul, as the life-giving mantra, can pervade, interfuse and become one with the physical bodies of mortals as they chant these sacred poetic formulations. This is indeed the very activity in which Zaraϑuštra is engaged as he chants his Gāϑās, desiring to be imbued with the essence of divinity. Zaraϑuštra also specifically refers to himself as a mąϑrān- “repository of mantras, virtuoso of mantras”Footnote ³¹ in his Gāϑās (most prominently in Y 50.5–6), and the worshippers of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti also declare themselves to be praisers and mąϑrān-s of Ahura Mazdā (Y 41.5). The immediacy with which Zaraϑuštra seeks to channel the spiritual force of Ahura Mazdā by chanting the “brimming, resounding, lovable hymns” of the divinities has already been discussed earlier, in relation to Y 28.10–11 (complete text and translation in section 1.2), during which he chants: “O Wise Lord, with your mouth, teach me to speak forth from your spiritual force, (these hymns) through which primordial existence came into being!”

1.4 Spiritual kinship

The conceptual coherence of the notion of Ahura Mazdā bringing forth the good creations from his own essence remains consistent through millennia: from Old Avestan times, through to Young Avestan times, and well into the Middle Persian period as well.Footnote ³² By virtue of his own essence flowing through his children, the Life-giving Immortals, and into corporeal creation, of which he is described as both the mother and the father, all his good creations are related to him, and also to each other, through bonds of spiritual kinship. As pointed out by Hintze,Footnote ³³ the worshippers of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti clearly declare a sense of relationship in Y 39.5:

Hintze also points out that the expression xᵛaētǝ̄uš xᵛaētātā is a “stylistic figure of etymologising stem-repetition, or paronomasia”.Footnote ³⁵ Interestingly, we have just encountered another example of etymologizing stem-repetition in the Middle Persian expression xwēš xwadīh “own selfness, own essence” of Bdh 1.43. The semantic core of both expressions – xᵛaētǝ̄uš xᵛaētātā of Y 39.5 and xwēš xwadīh of Bdh 1.43 – goes back to IIr. *su̯ai̯- “own, one’s own”. In the context of Bdh 1.43, it is clear that the expression means “own selfness, own essence”, but in the case of OAv. xᵛaētu- and xᵛaētāt- the semantic sense of “one’s own” refers to the inherent belonging and sense of oneness within a family. Hintze notes:

1.5 Divinity imbuing aspects of the worship

In the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti we find a striking example of how an integral aspect of worship itself may also be permeated by divinity. As observed and discussed by Hintze in her edition of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, during the course of Yasna 36 the heavenly fire of Ahura Mazdā, upon being invoked by the worshippers, descends towards the ritual precinct and merges into the ritual fire – thus becoming incorporated into the very heart and centre of the worship. Hintze further points out that through this act of fusion, the ritual fire “assumes the characteristics of its heavenly counterpart”,Footnote ³⁷ and “from that moment on, the worshippers consider themselves to be in the presence of Ahura Mazdā, whose visible form is the light as embodied by the ritual fire”.Footnote ³⁸ The invocation is as follows:

In Yasna 38 of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti, during the worship of the waters, the worshippers specify that they are worshipping the waters with the names given to them by Ahura Mazdā at the time when he was making them into providers of goodness (Y 38.4).Footnote ⁴⁰ The 17 names through which the waters are worshipped are thus associated with the very moment of their creation and naming, beautifully encapsulating their nature and characteristics as “providers of goodness” and reminding the worshippers that it was indeed Ahura Mazdā who imbued the waters with these characteristics and named them as such.Footnote ⁴¹ Further, Hintze importantly notes that “there is an affinity between the waters and Ahura Mazdā, and this is implied by the same verbs being used in praise of both”.Footnote ⁴² Of the 17 names of the waters that are worshipped in Y 38, the final and most personal is mātarō jītaiiō “O living mothers”.

Beyond these two specific examples of the fire and the waters, the Old Avestan liturgy of the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti is itself composed as a concentrically designed progression of worship that includes Ahura Mazdā along with his good spiritual and material creations in an unfolding sequence.Footnote ⁴³ By Young Avestan times, the larger Yasna ceremony (itself incorporating the Yasna Haptaŋhāiti into its own centre, and using it as a prototype) already entailed an elaborately orchestrated use of the corporeal correlatives of various Zoroastrian divinities, as integral aspects of the worship and offering, thus literally incorporating the divinities into the worship.

By now we have considered various powerful and intimate expressions of how, through different modalities and to different degrees, Ahura Mazdā and other Zoroastrian divinities may imbue living beings and the positive aspects of creation with their essence and virtues, and thus manifest themselves through the good creations of Ahura Mazdā. Having evaluated some of the textual evidence that provides a conceptual frame that is pertinent to our understanding of the Old Avestan adjectives ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt-, let us now turn our focus onto the morphology and semantics of these adjectives, as well as that of the adjective mauuaṇt-. The morphological assessment carried out in Part 2 proceeds independently of the textual evidence presented in Part 1 and is focused on ascertaining the function of the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix in ϑβāuuaṇt-, xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- and mauuaṇt-. It is only after this function is ascertained that the evidence from Parts 1 and 2 are brought together in the concluding paragraphs of Part 2. Thereafter Part 3 of this article proceeds on the strength of this combined evidence.

2.1 Bender’s “class 16”

The meanings which Bender posits in his lists are based on Monier-Williams’ Reference Monier-Williams1899 Sanskrit-English Dictionary (second edition) and on Bartholomae’s Reference Bartholomae1904 Altiranisches Wörterbuch, and as such, with a few exceptions, he takes their translations as a given.Footnote ⁵¹ It is not the purpose of this article to critically evaluate the systematization of Bender’s 20 classes as a whole, nor to revise or update his comprehensive study of the Indo-Iranian *-mant- and *-u̯ant- suffixes. But for our analysis, the relevant semantic class from Bender’s categories of secondary significance is the one that he identifies as “class 16”, and which, he posits, comprises those occurrences in which the primary significance of “possession” of the suffix *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- has taken on a secondary significance of “similarity”.Footnote ⁵² This results in the difference between the realization of the primary meaning of “possessing (something)” and the realization of the secondary meaning of “similar to (something)”. According to Bender, “class 16” includes the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of pronominal stems, including those of the demonstrative, relative, interrogative and personal pronouns. Therefore, it is here that he places our Avestan adjectives ϑβāuuaṇt-, xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- and mauuaṇt-.

Evaluating the evidence from the Indo-Aryan examples belonging to “class 16”, Bender claims that “most of these words, especially those in use in the earlier language, are formed from pronominal stems”,Footnote ⁵³ and he provides Indo-Aryan examples formed from both pronominal and nominal stems.Footnote ⁵⁴ On the Avestan side he claims that except for a single instance, afsmainiuuaṇt-, every example of “class 16” is a derivative of a pronominal stem.Footnote ⁵⁵

Bender translates afsmainiuuaṇt- as “like lines of verse”. Interpreting it as an adjective, and as the single Avestan instance of a “class 16” derivative from a nominal stem, he cites Jackson who considers the attested form afsmaniuuąn (Y 57.8) to be the nominative/accusative/vocative plural of the posited adjective afsmainiuuaṇt-.Footnote ⁵⁶ With a different morphological analysis, Bartholomae identifies afsmaniuuąn in Y 57.8 as an adverb meaning “verszeilenweise” (“line by line”).Footnote ⁵⁷ In the context of Y 57.8, Kreyenbroek also analyses and renders afsmaniuuąn as denoting a specific manner of recitation, and interprets it so as to qualify the causative form frasrāuuaiiat̰ “caused to be heard forth, made heard”, thus translating them together as “to recite … in verse-lines”.Footnote ⁵⁸ Kreyenbroek discusses the proposals of various scholars who analyse the form differently.Footnote ⁵⁹ Regardless of which of these proposals may garner more credibility, none of them supports Bender’s translation implying a sense of “similarity”: “like lines of verse”. Bender’s proposal of afsmaniuuąn is not defensible and therefore, unlike in Indo-Aryan, there is actually no evidence of the secondary meaning of “similarity” for the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix found in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of nominal stems in Avestan.

What therefore remains to be evaluated for the presence of the secondary meaning of “similarity” for the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix in Avestan are the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of pronominal stems. Let us begin by evaluating the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the demonstrative, interrogative and relative pronominal stems in Avestan (see Table 1). These are all absent from Old Avestan, though the correlating adverbs auuat̰ “so much, so long” and yauuat̰ “as much, as long” are found in the Gāϑās.Footnote ⁶⁰

Table 1. The *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the demonstrative, interrogative and relative pronominal stems in Avestan.

Each of these*-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of Avestan pronominal stems either denote specifications of quantitative parameters possessed by an entity, or specifications pertaining to qualitative aspects possessed by an entity. For the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of demonstrative pronominal stems we get the sense of quantity from “having this” > “having this (quantity)” > “so much”, and the sense of quality from “having this” > “having this (quality)” > “of such quality”, and with further specification of an attribute implied by context: “having this” > “having this (much length, size, etc.)” > “so long, so big, so etc.”. Even in the case of hauuaṇt-, a sense of similarity does not arise from the suffix, but rather from the specifying function of the pronominal stem to which the suffix is added, and thus we get “having this” > “having this (much size, amount, value)” > “same size, same amount, same value”. With the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of interrogative pronominal stems we get “having how (much)?” > “how much?” and when specific attributes are implied by context then “having how (much length, distance, etc.)?” > “how long, how far, how etc.?”. With the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivate of the relative pronominal stem we get “having which” > “having which (size, amount, distance, etc.)” > “as large, as much, as far, as etc.” In each of these derivatives it is important to observe that the underlying sense is demonstrably one of “possession” of what the pronominal aspect of the derivative refers to and not one denoting similarity to the pronominal aspect of the derivative.

In English we find it cumbersome to write “having how (much size)?”, “having this (much size)”, “having which (size)”, so we may choose to write “how big?”, “so big, same size”, “as big”. But these simplifications in English must not obscure for us the fundamental sense of “possession” inherent in these derivatives. In addition to these considerations, we must note that any correlative sense that might arise in the syntactic coordination of the forms of these various derivatives in the context of certain clauses is not a realization of the meaning of the suffix, but is simply the manifestation of the inherent pronominal function of being referential. One is mistaken to attribute any such correlative sense, if and when it occurs, to the suffix. For the suffix here is functioning in its proper and primary manner by indicating “possession” of what the pronominal aspect of the derivative refers to. It is, therefore, once again highly doubtful whether any of these derivatives should belong to Bender’s “class 16” at all.Footnote ⁶¹ A parallel look at the meanings posited by Grassmann and by Monier-Williams for the Vedic *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the demonstrative, relative and interrogative pronominal stems ī́vat-, tā́vat-, etā́vat-, yā́vat-, and kī́vat- yields similar results.Footnote ⁶²

In summary, we have found no evidence supporting a secondary meaning of “similarity” for the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix either 1) in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of Avestan nominal stems, or 2) in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of Avestan demonstrative, relative and interrogative pronominal stems. This all agrees with an observation made by Debrunner – that other than the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of personal pronouns, the meaning of “similarity” is uncertain (“nicht gesichert”).Footnote ⁶³ So, even if a secondary meaning of “similarity” for the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix in Avestan was to somehow be uniquely present, solely in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of Avestan personal pronominal stems, what might explain its presence?

2.2 Lengthening of the pre-suffixal vowel

The stems ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- exhibit a long pre-suffixal vowel which requires justification. Such vowel lengthening is also exhibited in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of all the pronominal stems on the Vedic side.Footnote ⁶⁴ Yet, apart from ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt-, the only other Avestan *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivative of a pronominal stem that exhibits a long pre-suffixal vowel is ciiāuuaṇt-.Footnote ⁶⁵ Notably, a long pre-suffixal vowel is not found in the Avestan stem mauuaṇt-. Footnote ⁶⁶

Klingenschmitt offers a proposal, albeit briefly and without much discussion, attempting to explain the phenomenon of pre-suffixal vowel lengthening in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the interrogative, demonstrative and relative pronouns.Footnote ⁶⁷ He suggests that for a circumscribed group comprising *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of these pronominal stems, the suffix in question could be attached to an inflected form of the pronoun.Footnote ⁶⁸ He proposes that the long vowel -ā- arises before the suffix as a result of the following: 1) a pronominal stem + 2) the addition of the second laryngeal as the collective suffix (“das Kollektivsuffix”) + 3) the addition of the possessive *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix thereafter.Footnote ⁶⁹ In thematic neuter stems, it is by the addition of the second laryngeal of the collective suffix that the endings of the nominative plural and the accusative plural forms end in -ā.

However, we should keep in mind that unlike their Vedic cognates, the Avestan *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the demonstrative and relative pronouns exhibit no pre-suffixal vowel lengthening, and of the Avestan *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of interrogative pronouns, only ciiāuuaṇt- exhibits pre-suffixal vowel lengthening.Footnote ⁷⁰ Furthermore, Klingenschmitt’s explanation is difficult to apply to *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the personal pronouns, which he does not discuss, because the collective suffix plays no role in their inflection. This poses a significant limitation to his explanation. An alternate proposal could be to explain the long vowel -ā- before the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix as resulting from the addition of the first laryngeal marking the case of the instrumental singular. This explanation could theoretically apply to *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the personal pronouns, because the first laryngeal does play a role in their inflection. While an etymological meaning could be argued for on the basis of the sociative instrumental (ϑβāuuaṇt- “provided with you”, and so on for the other pronominal derivatives),Footnote ⁷¹ the specificity of such an explanation, and of its implications for semantic realization, fails to account for the fact that pre-suffixal vowel lengthening is ubiquitous in Indo-Aryan and occurs across many stems that have wide-ranging meanings and for which the pre-suffixal long vowel cannot be consistently explained by either the collective suffix (as proposed by Klingenschmitt) or the instrumental suffix (as proposed over here). Let us now consider the wider evidence.

Bender observes that within “class 16” the final vowel of the pronominal stems directly preceding the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix exhibits vowel lengthening in all Vedic instances, and in less than half of the Avestan instances.Footnote ⁷² However, in addition to its occurrence in “class 16”, lengthening of the vowel directly preceding the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix is widespread in Indo-Aryan. In Bender’s own estimation there are a total of 117 instances: “98 of -a- before *-u̯ant-, 18 of -i- before *-u̯ant-, and 1 of -u- before *-u̯ant-”.Footnote ⁷³ This phenomenon is clearly not unique to “class 16”, or to only the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of pronominal stems or to only the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of thematic stems, though its predominant occurrence is indeed in the case of the latter.Footnote ⁷⁴ In fact the phenomenon of pre-suffixal vowel lengthening is not even unique to the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix, but as Wackernagel observes, it can also be found in the Indo-Aryan suffixes -vala-, -vin-, -vana- and -van-. Footnote ⁷⁵ He adduces kr̥ṣīvala- “Ackerbauer” (“agriculturalist”) and dvayāvín- “doppelzüngig” (“duplicitous”), among others.Footnote ⁷⁶ Vowel lengthening in the final vowel of a preceding member of a compound can also be found, for which Whitney adduces vayunāvíd- “learned in rules”, sadanāsád- “sitting on a seat”, among others, and Wackernagel adduces sahásrāmagha- “having a thousand gifts”, rathāsáh- “managing the chariot”, among others.Footnote ⁷⁷

Most importantly, the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- examples provided by Bender reveal that the phenomenon of pre-suffixal vowel lengthening is not specifically or consistently associated with any particular secondary semantic meaning, such as “similarity”, for instance.Footnote ⁷⁸ This all fundamentally weakens the case for any morphological argument attempting to explain the development of the sense of “similarity” through the phenomenon of vowel lengthening. Discussing the widespread occurrences of vowel lengthening directly preceding the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix in Indo-Aryan, Bender summarizes the observations of Whitney, Wackernagel and Bloomfield, each of whom describe this 1) in terms of phonetic phenomena that may be observed when relevant conditions are met, but 2) not as the consequence of a grammatically and/or semantically transformative morphological modification.Footnote ⁷⁹ The pervasive phonetic phenomenon whereby the final vowel -a- is lengthened to -ā- before the addition of a morpheme beginning in *-u̯- is well summarized by Debrunner.Footnote ⁸⁰

Let us consider just a few examples that illustrate how final vowel lengthening preceding the suffix is not correlated with the semantic shift from the primary significance of “possession” to the secondary significance of “similarity” in derivatives of the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- suffix. On the Avestan side, Bender adduces Avestan zaraniiāuuaṇt-,Footnote ⁸¹ translated by Bartholomae as “Gold enthaltend, mit Goldstaub versetzt”Footnote ⁸² (“containing gold, enhanced with gold dust”).Footnote ⁸³ Though there is a lengthening of the final vowel preceding the suffix, there is clearly no sense of “similarity” in the meaning of the adjective. The same is the case with Avestan zairimiiāuuaṇt- “der ein festes Haus besitzt” (“owning a permanent house”) derived from zairimiia- “festes Haus” (“solid house, permanent house”), and with many Indo-Aryan examples, including vacanā́vat- “possessed of speech, eloquent”, sahā́vat- “possessing strength, powerful, mighty” and madā́vat- “intoxicated, drunk”.Footnote ⁸⁴ Interestingly while Monier-Williams posits the meaning of Indo-Aryan r̥ṣivát- (without vowel lengthening) as “like a R̥ṣi”, thus exhibiting a sense of similarity, he renders r̥ṣīvat- (with vowel lengthening) as “associated with the R̥ṣi’s”.Footnote ⁸⁵ There is no consistent correlation between the lengthening of the vowel preceding the suffix and a particular change in the meaning of the word.

While Bender notes 117 examples of final vowel lengthening directly preceding the *-u̯ant- suffix in Indo-Aryan, he notes only seven such examples of final vowel lengthening directly preceding the *-u̯ant- suffix in Avestan.Footnote ⁸⁶ Also, while all the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of pronominal stems on the Vedic side show vowel lengthening preceding the *-u̯ant- suffix, on the Avestan side, other than the examples of ϑβāuuaṇt-, xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- and ciiāuuaṇt-, all the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of pronominal stems do not show vowel lengthening preceding the *-u̯ant- suffix.Footnote ⁸⁷

Interestingly, the phenomenon of final vowel lengthening preceding the suffix does not appear in the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of non-pronominal stems on the Indo-Aryan side of Bender’s “class 16”, all of which nonetheless exhibit the sense of “similarity”.Footnote ⁸⁸ This even further disconnects the phenomenon of vowel lengthening from the semantic shift to “similarity”. For just as its presence does not indicate the semantic shift from “possession” to a sense of “similarity”, its absence does not rule out the semantic shift from “possession” to a sense of “similarity”.

Building on Whitney, Wackernagel and Debrunner, it would therefore seem that vowel lengthening preceding the suffix *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- in ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- is probably best understood as an instance of the more widespread phonetic phenomenon of the final vowel (in this case -a-) being lengthened (in this case to -ā-) before the addition of a morpheme beginning in *-u̯-.Footnote ⁸⁹ If a consistent grammatically or semantically transformative morphological modification, found in both Avestan and Vedic, is therefore not responsible for the sense of “similarity” in these words, then the attribution of this sense of “similarity” to Indo-Iranian times becomes a mere conjecture that needs to be substantiated and proven by an examination of the oldest attestations of Avestan and Indo-Aryan, namely the Gāϑās and the Rig Veda, and cannot be taken as a given. Evidence of a sense of “similarity” in the Vedic cognates mā́vat-, tvā́vat- and yuṣmā́vat- found in the Rig Veda, even if convincing based on internal context, should not be uncritically transferred to the Gāϑās, wherein the adjectives mauuaṇt-, ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- should much rather be understood without any presuppositions of the sense of “similarity”, and wherein the basic meaning of “possession” should be maintained unless convincingly proven otherwise by their own internal context. Yet, translations based on the sense of “similarity” are widespread, and even in his work specifically dedicated to the Old Avestan grammar of the Gāϑās, Beekes does not re-examine this presupposition of “similarity”, and he translates as follows: mauuaṇt- “like me”, ϑβāuuaṇt- “like you (sg.)” and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- “like you (pl.)”.Footnote ⁹⁰

When we look back to Bartholomae’s translations of mauuaṇt-, ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt-, a clear presupposition of “similarity” is evident in his (i) and (iii) options for all words:

1. 1. mauuaṇt- (i) “mir ähnlich” (“similar to me”), (ii) “mit solchen Eigenschaften, wie ich sie habe” (“with such qualities as I have”) and (iii) “einer wie ich” (“one like me”); nur im Sinn von “ich” (only in the sense of “I”).Footnote ⁹¹

2. 2. ϑβāuuaṇt- (i) “dir ähnlich” (“similar to you”), (ii) “mit solchen Eigenschaften, wie du sie hast” (“with such qualities as you have”) and (iii) “einer wie du” (“one like you”); 1) Y 31.16, Y 43.3: Gemeint ist der Prophet (Y 31.16, Y 43.3: what is meant is the Prophet); 2) Y 44.1, Y 44.9, Y 48.3: im Sinn von “du” (Y 44.1, Y 44.9, Y 48.3: in the sense of “you”).Footnote ⁹²

3. 3. xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- (i) “euch ähnlich” (“similar to you all”), (ii) “mit solchen Eigenschaften, wie ihr sie habt” (“with such qualities as you all have”) and (iii) “einer wie ihr” (“one like you all”); nur im Sinn von “ihr” und mit Beziehung auf die Götter gebraucht (used only in the sense of “you” and with reference to the gods).Footnote ⁹³

In addition to a presupposition of “similarity”, after providing his options for the translation of all three words, Bartholomae further states that these words are used in the sense of the pronouns from which they are derived (except in the case of Y 31.16 and Y 43.3, where he states that ϑβāuuąs indicates Zaraϑuštra). Bartholomae refers to his earlier work in Arische Forschungen Vol. 2, wherein he states that the adjective ϑβāuuąs, in Y 44.1 and Y 44.9, serves only to describe or indicate the second person, i.e. ϑβāuuąs stands for tuuə̄m, and further that mauuaitē, in Y 44.1, serves only to describe or indicate the first person, i.e. mauuaitē stands for maibiiā.Footnote ⁹⁴ This assertion reduces the adjectives mauuaṇt-, ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- to mere substitutes for the pronouns from which they are derived, and dismisses any other sense of their grammatical and semantic function (i.e. the initial presupposition of “similar to you/me” is further taken to simply stand for “you/me”). Bartholomae does not provide any reasoning to support his assertion, but also refers to Geldner, who in turn, commenting on the form ϑβāuuąs in Y 48.3, states “ϑβāuuąs ganz wie Ved. tvā́vat-: so wie du erscheinst, wie du ja bist” (“ϑβāuuąs quite like Ved. tvā́vat-: the way you appear, the way you are”).Footnote ⁹⁵ Bartholomae is in agreement with Geldner, who is himself drawing upon his understanding of the Vedic stem tvā́vat- in order to translate ϑβāuuaṇt-.

The translations and interpretations of mauuaṇt-, ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt-, based on presuppositions of the sense of “similarity” by the early Avestan scholars, thus seem to grow out of their understanding of the Vedic cognates. But, as demonstrated above, in the absence of a clear, consistent and common morphological explanation for the sense of “similarity” in both Vedic and Avestan, it is just conjecture to assume that a sense of “similarity”, or the use of these adjectives as substitutes in place of the pronouns from which they are derived, even if contextually defensible in Vedic, would necessarily apply to the Avestan cognates. In Avestan, the basic and primary meaning of “possession” should prevail and take precedence, unless convincingly proven otherwise by internal context. This basic meaning of “possession” would also be in accordance and conformity with what we find in all the *-u̯ant-/*-u̯at- derivatives of the Avestan demonstrative, relative and interrogative pronouns. It is only Bartholomae’s (ii) translations (“with such qualities as I/you/you-all have”) that somewhat adheres to this sense of “possession”.

Notably, as far as ϑβāuuaṇt- is concerned, while maintaining the translation “similar to you”, Kellens and Pirart nonetheless do make the observation that according to them, in all of its attestations the word seems to indicate that either the ritual fire or Zaraϑuštra participate in the qualities of Ahura Mazdā.Footnote ⁹⁶ This interpretation somewhat accords with Bartholomae’s (ii) translation. As for mauuaṇt-, Kellens understands the word to be used emphatically for the first person pronoun, but Pirart understands mauuaṇt- as “accompanied by me, one who is with me” with a sense of “accompaniment” rather than “similarity”.Footnote ⁹⁷ In their glossary Kellens and Pirart posit two translation options for xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- “one who is like you” (i.e. based on “similarity”), “one who is with you” (i.e. based on “accompaniment”), but they understand the attested forms of xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- in the Gāϑās to be used as pronouns and as genitive complements of nouns expressing a ritual act, and they translate these forms in situ as “(the ritual act) which is due to you”.Footnote ⁹⁸ While these translations and interpretations do not clearly anchor in the primary sense of “possession”, they nonetheless demonstrate a considered re-evaluation of the function of these words.

As argued in Part 1 of this article, the notion that living beings and the positive aspects of creation can literally be imbued with, and thus possess, the essence of divinities, has deep significance, and is familiar, consistent and prevalent throughout Zoroastrian thinking. The widespread evidence examined in Part 1 arises in stanzas or passages where ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- are themselves not used (therefore avoiding any tautological arguments). Taken together with the morphological assessment of ϑβāuuaṇt-, xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- and mauuaṇt- carried out in Part 2 of the article, we may now argue that the evidence jointly substantiates the case in favour of translations for ϑβāuuaṇt-, xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- and mauuaṇt- based on the sense of “possession”, and we may further conclude that there is insufficient justification for Bartholomae’s translations involving “similarity”. Given the arguments presented so far, it would seem that the burden of proof should be on those making the case for “similarity”, rather than on those making the case for the basic meaning of “possession”.

3.1 ϑβāuuaṇt- “imbued with you, imbued with your essence”

The translation proposed here for ϑβāuuaṇt- as “imbued with you, imbued with your essence” is meant to reflect the theological significance and semantic context outlined in Part 1 above, while remaining faithful to the fundamental morphological sense of “provided with you, possessing you” evaluated in Part 2 above. The adjective ϑβāuuaṇt- only occurs in the nominative singular form ϑβāuuąs and is found in the five Gāϑic passages Y 31.16, Y 43.3, Y 44.1, Y 44.9 and Y 48.3. In each of them it refers to an idealized individual whom the adjective describes as being imbued with Ahura Mazdā’s essence. As we have seen in Part 1 above, elsewhere in the Gāϑās, Zaraϑuštra himself aspires and emerges to be just such an individual. Let us now consider the themes of these stanzas sequentially (Y 44.1 which contains forms of ϑβāuuaṇt-, xšmāuuaṇt- and mauuaṇt- will be considered in sub-section 3.3.1):

3.2 xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- “imbued with you (all), imbued with the essence of you (all)”

As is the case with the translation proposed for ϑβāuuaṇt-, the translation proposed here for xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- as “imbued with you (all), imbued with the essence of you (all)” is meant to express the theological significance and semantic context outline in Part 1 above, while remaining faithful to the fundamental morphological sense of “provided with you (all), possessing you (all)” evaluated in Part 2 above. In contrast to the forms of ϑβāuuaṇt-, which are all found in the nominative singular, the forms of xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- are all found in the genitive singular or genitive plural, with the exception of the locative plural xšmāuuasū found in Y 34.3 (where it denotes the recipients of sauuō “flourishing vitality”). In Y 29.11 the genitive plural form yūšmāuuatąm denotes the agents, including Zaraϑuštra, who are gift-givers offering a rāiti- “gift” to Ahura Mazdā and the Old Avestan divinities as part of the ritual gift-exchange. In Y 46.10 the genitive plural form xšmāuuatąm denotes the subjects who shall perform a vahma- “prayer”, accompanied by Zaraϑuštra. In Y 33.8 the genitive singular form xšmāuuatō denotes the subject who shall perform a yasna- “worship”, most likely referring to Zaraϑuštra, and in Y 34.2 xšmāuuatō denotes the subject performing a vahma- “prayer”, also most likely referring to Zaraϑuštra. In Y 44.1 xšmāuuatō denotes a subject envisioned performing a nəmah- “veneration”, and in Y 49.6 xšmāuuatō denotes one to whom the daēnā- “spiritual vision” belongs.

3.3 mauuaṇt- “imbued with me, imbued with my essence”

The literal meaning of mauuaṇt- is “provided with me, possessing me”. In the Gāϑās this word is spoken only twice by Zaraϑuštra, in Y 44.1 and Y 46.7, and in both instances it occurs in the dative singular form mauuaitē. Frequently in the Gāϑās we find that Zaraϑuštra aspires and emerges to be imbued with the essence of divinity. He even seems to refer to himself as ϑβāuuąs in Y 48.3, and more clearly as xšmāuuatō in Y 33.8 and Y 34.2. But beyond this he also refers much more generally to those who are ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt-. Zaraϑuštra and these others, whoever they may be, therefore share in the essence of Ahura Mazdā and the Old Avestan divinities, and in that regard, possess the same essence. Furthermore, if one of the inherent qualities of divinity is that it can impart its essence to other beings, then once that essence is indeed imparted to a being, that being by virtue of this very essence will in turn have the capacity to impart its own essence along to another being. I therefore suggest that an updated translation of mauuaṇt- as “imbued with me, imbued with my essence” might work rather well, and still remain faithful to the literal meaning of the word.Footnote ¹¹¹ It would also be in keeping with the sense and the function of ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- in the Gāϑās, with Zaraϑuštra’s affinity to others who are also ϑβāuuaṇt- and xšmāuuaṇt-/yūšmāuuaṇt- like him, and with his hope that they step forth and help in furthering his virtuous purpose.