“Pope for the Parsis”

As a fellow Parsi Zarthoshti I can empathize with Farrokh Vajifdar’s indignation at our "Avesta tongues” being described as dead languages ("Pope for the Parsis,” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, May 21, 2008), but from a linguistic point of view he is on slippery ground.

A dead language has two characteristics: it is no longer spoken by anyone as their main language and it has ceased to change. The ability to change is important. Take the case of English. English is alive and kicking because it is constantly adding to its vocabulary and the way it is used keeps changing.

I’m sorry the languages that Vajifdar so painstakingly mentions in his letter all fall in the category of "dead” ones.

ASPI DOCTOR

aspidoctor@hotmail.com

Aspi Doctor is to be warmly thanked for his ad hoc definitions of what is dead, and what for some is emphatically not. The fact that he has not at all addressed the problems of Gathic and Standard Avestan becomes understandable only if his arguments are accepted.

These languages, though ancient, would be "dead” or fallen into desuetude if attempted for, say, asking motoring directions, haggling over purchases and other such uplifting quests. Gathic Avestan, exclusively used in our daily prayers addressed to Mazda (for reasons I’d leave to Doctor and company), and by our priests in the course of our full Yasna ceremony, etc, are therefore very much alive through these very intentions. No one has claimed uses for it other than this piously restricted purpose. Similar remarks apply to Standard Avestan. Quite rightly, as Doctor points out, these have ceased to change — but what else could they have been possibly changed for?

These liturgical languages are alive to Zoroastrian worshippers (or should be!) as well as to outsiders for whom there is a constant flow of ideas and embedded riches. Linguists have exploited them for philological purposes, for teaching and for their own edification. Philosophers, culturo-religious historians and comparative religionists still enjoy field days through their refreshing spirit and bountifulness. All these categories have realized their amazing vitality: hardly exercises in moribund tongues as are, say, Akkadian or Elamite!

With reference to Doctor’s offerings for English — a language with which I have a lifelong struggle — he could have explained why, despite his headlong rush into definitions, old words, idioms and expressions constantly take on new meanings, having dispensed with the old simply to suit current demands (let us lay aside Lewis Carroll’s dictum of using a word simply to convey whatever one wanted it to mean!). English, good English, is in decline, just as Parsi Gujarati has been since the 1970s, hence its continuous borrowing from other languages simply to keep it alive. It is rightly now called New-speak!

For this objector, computer jargon is "dead” simply because he is dead to it, although alive and indeed vital to those whose lives apparently depend on it. Will this analogy now suffice for Doctor?

However deluded, I remain firmly on Zoroastrian ground with its linguistic fecundities, dissensions and pitfalls, all through its living Avestan tongues, and would advise the morticians, "Take care of the sense, and the sounds will take care of themselves!” May I request that I now be allowed to enjoy my slide down slippery slopes in peace?

FARROKH VAJIFDAR

London

f.vajifdar@btinternet.com