Читать книгу A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, 2 Volume Set - Группа авторов - Страница 44

1 Morphology: The system of the formation of personal names in the ancient Iranian languages is in principle the same as in the cognate languages, i.e. it is inherited from Proto‐Indo‐Iranian and Proto‐Indo‐European times. All of the various types of names (single‐stem names, two‐stem compound names, names shortened from compound names, and hypocoristics) are attested in Old Iranian and thus either in Old Persian itself or in the collateral tradition (cf. Schmitt 1995, 2005).

2 Dialectology: The numerous anthroponyms attested in the Elamite‐language corpus of the Persepolis tablets offer a cross‐section (even if not a representative one) of the population, as do in that late period those mentioned in the Babylonian‐language private documents, so that one may recognize people of quite different tribes and nations. But the forms of the names let us also make out features of different Iranian dialects, and rather clearly in cases where pairs of names reflect such divergent phonetic development. It is remarkable that Old Persian forms appear in the Babylonian and Aramaic versions of the royal inscriptions, usually in non‐Persian (probably Median) dialect forms.

Since in the formation of names not only the living and productive vocabulary of the time is used but, owing to the often traditionalist tendency of name‐giving, also archaic and foreign lexemes that in the past had become part of the “onomastic vocabulary,” hybrid formations were possible, too, in which elements of different linguistic (or at least dialectological) origin are joined together.