Dies ist eine Internet-Sonderausgabe des Aufsatzes „Towards an automatical analysis of a translated text and its original“ von Jost Gippert (1993).
Sie sollte nicht zitiert werden. Zitate sind der Originalausgabe in "SIMA" 1, 1994 [1995], 21-59 zu entnehmen.

This is a special internet edition of the article “Towards an automatical analysis of a translated text and its original” by Jost Gippert (1993).
It should not be quoted as such. For quotations, please refer to the original edition in "SIMA" 1, 1994 [1995], 21-59.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten / All rights reserved:
Jost Gippert, Frankfurt 1998

Towards an automatical analysis

of a translated text and its original:

The Persian epic of Vīs u Rāmīn and the Georgian Visramiani

Jost Gippert

0. In the field of Oriental studies, computers have not yet been as widely accepted as in other disciplines as a means of linguistic and literary analysis. In the present paper1, I shall discuss the facilities the computer offers when applied for the special purpose of comparing two texts that have an internal relationship with each other in that one of them is a translation of the other. As I intend to show, this relationship cannot be established "automatically" by just entering the two texts; instead, it requires a lot of additional information that can only be handled manually.
1. The romance of Vīs and Rāmīn as versified by the 11th century writer Gurgānī is regarded as one of the most important literary products of Persia. The text has hitherto seen four scholarly editions, the first of which appeared in Calcutta 18652. Only the latest of these editions which was prepared by Magali Todua and Alexander Gwakharia from the Georgian Academy in Tbilisi3 has taken into account the fact that there exists a Georgian version of the text dating back as early as the end of the 12th century. This is the so called Visramiani which was introduced to the European scholarly world through the English translation from 1914 by Oliver Wardrop4. Of its four Georgian editions, only the one prepared by Alexander Gwakharia and Magali Todua5 considers the relationship between the Visramiani and its Persian model.

1.1. What then can a thorough comparison of the two texts aim at? In my view, such a comparison can have at least six aims. The first one consists in establishing the actual relationship between the two texts, viz. whether the Georgian text is indeed a translation of the Persian original (as most scholars believe today) or whether it is only a free adaptation (as has sometimes been claimed). The second aim lies in establishing the wording of the Persian text as present when it was translated into Georgian; it must have been still very close to the original wording at that time because the Persian text is believed to have been written only two centuries earlier (between 1040 and 1054). This aim was kept in mind by Gwakharia / Todua when they prepared their edition, and only by a new comparison can this edition be evaluated (and, eventually, improved). The third aim would consist in establishing the original wording of the Georgian version as one of the most important literary monuments preserved in this language. This, too, may be done with respect to criticizing the existing editions. As a fourth aim of a comparison, I think of analyzing the translation method as used by the translator, esp. with respect to consistency in rendering key words. As a fifth aim, I expect it to reveal the information the Persian original offers as to the Old Georgian language, esp. with respect to words otherwise unknown and to the etymology of words, and as the sixth and perhaps most important aim I hope it to bring out new information as to the sound system of New Persian at the time of the translation.
1.2. A short depiction of the phenomena involved may be necessary here to show why I consider the effort of a comparison worth undertaking.
1.2.1. As was said before, most scholars nowadays believe that the Georgian Visramiani is a close translation of Gurgānī's Vīs u Rāmīn epic although it is in prose, not a metrical text like its Persian model. The close relationship becomes obvious just by comparing the sequence of chapters and confronting their names as in the synoptical table given as appendix 1 at the end of this paper: although the partitioning disagrees to a certain extent and although some chapter titles have no equivalents, the plot of the story is visibly maintained without changes6. And within chapters it can easily be demonstrated as well that the translator intended to keep as close to the original as possible, just by arranging the Georgian text according to the metrical units of the Persian; cp. the synoptical presentation of the beginning of chapter 24 given as appendix 2 below. Maia Mamacašvili who devoted a whole monograph to the question of the relationship between the Georgian and the Persian text7 came to the same conclusion; she drew our attention to the fact that some of the manuscripts preserving the Visramiani contain otherwise unknown punctuation marks which coincide with bayt or half-bayt boundaries in the Persian text.
1.2.2. What information the Georgian text offers with respect to the original wording of Gurgānī's epic can be illustrated with some passages where Todua / Gwakharia's edition differs from Mahǧūb's. E.g., in his chapter 40, Mahǧūb reads the following bayt (40, 37)8:
      tu gōyē šīr-i man rūbāhə gašt-ast
      w-az-īn saxtī rux-am
čūn kāhə gašt-ast
This is translated by Morr. (77-78) in the following way:
      "It is as if the lion of my soul is become a fox
      and my cheeks become like straw from this suffering."
In TG, we read instead (25, 107):
      tu gōyē šīr-i man rūbāhə gašt-ast
      az-īn saxtī u kōh-am
kāhə gašt-ast
With the usage of kōh-am "my mountain" instead of rux-am "my cheek(s)" this is nearer to the Georgian version (GT 16: 75, 17-19):
      lomisa msgavsi ʒali čemi gamelebula
      da šeč̣irvebisagan mta čemi
This was rendered by Ward. in the following way (66):
      "From the strength of a lion I am reduced to that of a fox,
      and by sorrow my mountain is become a valley".
A word-by-word translation would run as follows:
"My strength, equal to (that) of a lion, has become (like the one of) a fox,
      and from grief, my mountain (i.e. the mountain which is me)
      has become a valley."
An opposite case is TG 25, 42, where we read
      hanūz-aš būdə pušt-i lab ču mulḥam
čūn angabīn u bāda dar ham
      "Yet was the `back' of his lip like silk cloth,
      his lip like honey and wine (mixed) in one".
as against Mahǧūb's wording (40,8)
      hanūz-aš būdə rux čūn lāla xurram
čūn angabīn u bāda dar ham
which was rendered by Morr. (75):
      ".. his cheek was as yet splendid as the tulip,
      his lip like honey and wine mixed".
Here, the Georgian seems to support Mahǧūb's text (GT 16: 73,15-16):
bageni lalsa ugvandes.

".. his lips were like ruby" (Ward. 64)

Although we have only one sentence as an equivalent to the two half-bayts in question here, we may assume that the translator chose the word lal- "ruby" because it sounded similar to the Persian lāla "tulip".
1.2.3. The way in which the Persian text can be used for establishing the original wording of the Georgian version, can be demonstrated in an equal manner.
In the 1938 edition (BIḲ), we find the following clause (8: 24,7-8):
      guloansa ṗiri broc̣eulisa q̇uavilsa uguandis
      da ǯabansa siq̇uitlita — ġrianḳalsa
This wording is in accordance with all manuscripts and is easily understandable, as Wardrop's translation shows (28):
      "The face of the brave was like the flower of a pomegranate;
      of the cowardly, like a scorpion with yellowness."
With Gwakharia/Todua, however, we have to conject a different reading (GT 8: 49, 27-28)
      guloansa ṗiri broc̣eulisa q̇uavilsa uguandis
      da ǯabansa siq̇uitlita — drahḳansa
which would mean

"Of (lit. to) a brave (man), the face looks equal to the blossom of a pomegranate, and of (lit. to) the coward, (it looks equal) to the drahḳani (-coin) by (its) yellowness."

For only this wording would agree with the Persian text (TG 16,29):
      yak-ē-rā gūna šud hamrang-i dīnār
      yak-ē-rā čihra šud mānand-i gul-nār

      "The cheek of the one was the color of a dīnār;

the face of the other like the pomegranate blossom." (Morr. 43)

A litteral translation would run as follows:
      "Of the one, the cheek became equal in colour to a dīnār (coin),
      of the (other) one, the face became similar
      to the pomegranate blossom."
The restitution of the Georgian text with the name of the coin drahḳan-i instead of ġrianḳal-i "scorpion" is unproblematical from a palaeographical point of view; cp. the two words დრაჰკანი and ღრიანკალი in (modern) Mxedruli script. And that Georg. drahḳan-i would be the normal equivalent of Persian dīnār can be seen in TG 24, 56 ≈ GT 15: 71,12-13 where both words are confronted. Besides, we may compare Lk. 20,24 where Georgian drahḳan-i renders Greek δηνάριον, the immediate etymon of Persian dīnār.
From a plentiful list of similar cases we may quote, e.g., BIḲ 13: 42,13 with Georgian ნიშანი nišani "sign" (in accordance with all mss.) which would have to be expected as the equivalent of Persian نشان nišān only as in GT 23: 65,13 ≈ TG 23,16, whereas GT (13: 63,39) have the correct ნიშატი nišaṭi as the counterpart of Persian نشاط nišāṭ "merriment" (TG 22,10); and BIḲ 16: 52,15 has Georgian დასწავლებული dasc̣avlebuli "learned, instructed" (in accordance with a majority of mss.) as against GT 16: 72,6 with დასაწყლებული dasac̣q̇lebuli "pitiful, deplorable" which is the correct equivalent of Persian مهجور mahjūr "lost, forlorn". For the case of GT 15: 70,18 ≈ TG 24,32 cp. below.

1.2.4. As to the translation method as used by the Georgian translator, we have already stated that his general outline must have been to keep as close to the original as possible. For deviations from this rule, we may suggest the following reasons: One main reason may be styled as "ideological": The translator had to "convert" the text from Gurgānī's Islamic background to the Christian background prevailing in Georgia. As a main effect, this conversion resulted in the omitment of the first two chapters as well as the last one, all of which are devoted to the praise of Allāh and Muḥammad in the original, and in a radical shortening of the introduction (chapters 3-7), which deals with the proper Islamic-Persian environment in which Gurgānī's opus was accomplished. Within the "conversion" phenomena, we may note the interesting substitution of Persian darwēš by Georgian glaxa- meaning "poor man, beggar" (e.g. TG 23,79 ≈ GT 14: 67,16 or TG 24,56 ≈ GT 15: 71,13), or of the Islamic paradise guardian, Riḍwān, and of fairies, parī, by Georgian kaǯi "monster" (TG 25,53 ≈ GT 16: 73,27 / TG 25,131 ≈ GT 16:76,6). A similar effect is often produced by the necessary adaptation of specific elements of the Persian natural environment to the Georgian "reader" not familiar with them. This may be observed mainly in the areas of fauna and flora, but also with respect to Persian geographic names, month names, star names and the like; cp. the following sample list:

Persian nahang "crocodile" > Georgian lomi "lion" (TG 16, 14 ≈ GT 8: 49,13);

P. gawazn "roe, deer" > G. veluri txa "wild goat" (23,146 ≈ 14: 68,37-38);

P. āhū "gazelle" > G. veluri txa "wild goat" (23,9 ≈ 14: 65,9-10; 25,4 ≈ 16: 71,36-72,1);

P. gurg "wolf" > G. avaza "panther" (23,9 ≈ 14: 65,10);

P. xurmā "date tree" > G. vardi "rose" (23,69 ≈ 14: 67,2-3: xurmā bē-xār "date [tree] without thorns" vs. vardi ueḳlo "rose without thorns"); but in 25,184 ≈ 15: 78,4 xurmā "date (fruit)" is rendered by the Georgian borrowing xurma;

P. sarv "cypress" > G. naʒui "spruce" (24,65 ≈ 15: 71,23; 25,5 ≈ 16: 72,1; 25,130 ≈ 16: 79,5);

P. lāla "tulip" > G. vardi "rose" (24,66 ≈ 15: 71,25, but cp. G. lali "ruby" ≈ P. lāla in 25,42 as treated above);

P. raՙd-ī nou-bahārān "spring thunder" > G. šemodgomata karni "autumn winds" (16,5 ≈ 8:49,5-6);

P. tīq-ī hinduvāni "Indian blade" > G. basris qmali "dagger (of steel) from Basra" (16,46 ≈ 8:50,8);

P. Tīr u Keyvān "Mercury and Saturn" > G. masḳulavni "stars" (22,14 ≈ 13:64,1);

P. nīsān "April-May" > G. zapxuli "summer" (25,11 ≈ 16: 72,9);

P. day-māh "December-January" > G. zamtari "winter" (25,11 ≈ 16: 72,9) and > G. gazapxuli "spring" (25,116 ≈ 16: 75,29-30 abr-i dey-mahīgazapxulisa ġrubeli "spring cloud");

Esp. interesting in this respect is the frequent substitution of P. māh "moon" by G. mze "sun" (or mze da mtvari "sun and moon", e.g. TG 15,25 ≈ GT 7: 48,24 mah > mze da mtvari; 22,1 ≈ 13:63,23: māh-e māhān "the moon of the moons = Vīs" > mze-vita Visi "Vis, the sun-like"; 25,48 ≈ 16: 73,21: sīmbār māh "silver moon" > sulieri mze "sun endowed with a living soul"; but cp. 25,45 ≈ 16: 73,18: māh-i jānvar "moon endowed with a living soul" > mtvare gavsili "full moon"), and the treatment of the name of the river Jeyhōn (Oxus): This is taken over as a borrowing in the form ǯeon-i in TG 24,52 ≈ GT 15:71,7 where it is further explained as rōd-ī Marv "the river of Marv" ≈ Maravisa c̣q̇al-i "the water of Marv"; it is simply omitted in 15,20 ≈ 7: 48,19-20, but rendered by Mṭḳvari, the name of the main river of Georgia, the Kura, in 23,4 ≈ 14: 65,1 and 25,181 ≈ 16: 77,37.
Here of course, conclusions can only be drawn when the whole material has been collected, for we may always be misled by single cases. Contrast, e.g., TG 24,57 ≈ GT 15: 71,14 where Georgian ḳanǯari "wild ass" renders Persian naxjīr "prey (animal)" with TG 25,140 ≈ GT 16: 76,18 where Georgian nadiri "prey (animal)" stands for Persian gōr "wild ass". One important reason for deviations from the original is the addition of explanations for textual clarity. This may be illustrated by passages such as TG 24,32-35:
      pas āngah rōy u mis har dū bi-āvard
      ṭilism-i har yak-ē-rā ṣūrat-ē kard
      ba āhan har duvān-rā bastə bar ham
      ba afsūn band-i har dū kardə muḥkam
      hamē tā basta māndē band-i āhan
      ze band-aš basta māndē mardə bar zan
      w-agar band-aš kas-ē bar ham šikastī
      hamān gah mardum-ē basta bi-rastī
      "Then she brought brass and copper,
      described the talisman of each party;
      then tied them together with iron,
      sealed the fastening of both with a spell.
      So long as the iron clasp should be fastened
      would a man remain spellbound and impotent with a woman.
      But should anyone break its clasp,
      there and then the spellbound male would be released."

(Morr. 71-72)

This is rendered in the Georgian text as follows (GT 15: 70,18-24):
      merme ʒiʒaman sṗilenʒi da rvali moiġo
      da grʒnebita rayt-me
ṭilismi šekmna:
ori Moabadis saxe da erti Visisi

      šeuloca ra-meda rḳinita ertman-ertsa zeda magrad šeač̣edna.
ʒiʒa magalitad grʒneuli iq̇o da ese ori čxibi asre vita-me šekmnili iq̇o

vi-re-mca igi ertgan dač̣edili iq̇vnen,
Vissa zedan šeḳruli iq̇os
      da tu vin gaqsnida, mas-ve c̣amsa gaisqneboda.

      "Then the nurse took copper and bone,
      and with some sort of enchantment made a talisman;
two in the likeness of Moabad, and one of Vis;

      she uttered some charm,
      firmly welded them upon another with iron.
The nurse was a rare sorceress,

and these two bonds were made in such a manner,

      that as long as they were welded together,
      Moabad should be bound with regard to Vis,
      and if anyone undid these,

at this moment he (Moabad) would be unbound." (Ward. 59)

Note that the edition Wardrop had at hand read ძუალი ʒuali "bone" instead of რუალი ruali "bronze" ≈ Persian روى rōy. Between ori "two" and Moabadis we should expect erti "one": "two, [namely] one in the likeness of Moabad, and one of Vis".

A similar case is TG 25,128:
      ba har ḥāl-ē ba baxšāyiš sazāy-am
      ke čūnīn dar dam-ī surx-aždahāy
      "By any standard I am worthy of mercy,

caught as I am in the jaws of a fierce dragon!" (Morr. 78)

Here, the Georgian translator felt it necessary to motivate the "red" colour (surx) of the "fierce dragon" aždahā in the following way (GT 16:76,2-4):
      (.. me var ..) q̇ovlita sakmita sabralo,
      amit romel c̣itlisa gvel-vešaṗisa,
      ḳacisa sisxlisa msmelisatvis
, daṗq̇robil var.
      "(I am ..) in everything to be pitied,
      for I am enthralled by a red dragon

which drinks men's blood." (Ward.67) On the other hand, the translator has sometimes felt free to omit passages which seemed unnecessary or excessive to him. So, e.g. he dismissed nearly all of chapter 37 (of the earlier editions ≈ TG 23, 109-134) which contains a detailed description of Vīs as arrayed by her nurse. Instead we read the following lines which we may take as an apology (GT 14: 68, 20-22 / Ward. 56):

ra ama ṭirilita dašura da mo-re-c̣q̇narda, suli daiġo, esre dašuenda, romel razom-ca vin brʒeni da gonieri iq̇os, naasalsa-ca kebasa missa ver mihxvdebis.

"When she had dried these tears and again become calm, her spirits revived, and she became so beautiful, that no one, however wise and clever he might be, could achieve one-hundredth part of her praise." For the purpose of better understandability, e.g. in order to avoid a hysteron-proteron etc., the translator sometimes rearranged sentences or verses as in TG 16,27:
      basā asp-ī siyāh u mard-i burnā
      ke gašt az gardə xing u pērə-sīmā

      "Many were the black horses and young men

who became white and hoary because of the dust." (Morr. 42-43)

which he rendered as follows (GT 8: 49,24-26):
      mravali q̇rma ḳaci daberebul iq̇vis
      da šavi cxeni gač̣armagebul iq̇vis.

      "Many youths became like old men,

and black horses grew white." (Ward. 28) One major source of deviations is the poetic skill of the translator who seems to have been trained in recognizing alliterations, figurae etymologicae, plays on words etc. and to have endeavoured to reproduce them in his translation. Under this aspect we may understand why he chose the following words (GT 65: 249,4-6):
      tu me daberebul var, miǯnuroba čemi ar damberebia:
      axali qma
ʒuelisa ʒalisagan čamoiḳrvis.
      "Though I may be old, my love has not aged;

a new tune may be struck from an old string." (Ward. 318)

when rendering TG 82,5:
      tan-am gar pīrə šud, mihr-am na-šud pīr,
      navā-yi nou
tuwān zad bar kuhan zīr
      "Though my body has grown old, my love has not -

`one can play a new tune on an old fiddle'." (Morr. 293)

Obviously, the alliteration to be seen in ʒuel-i "old" and ʒal-i "string" was introduced as an image of the alliteration found in Persian navā "tune" and nou "new".
The same explanation may hold true for the wording in GT 16: 74,11-12:
      da, tu-ca bedman čemman me gamc̣ira,
      bednierobisa bedi
mas-mca nu moešorebis.
      "Though my fortune has forsaken me,

may the good fortune of happiness never abandon her." (Ward. 65)

Here, the translator may have looked for an equivalent of the threefold alliteration b... b... b... as present in TG 25,70:
      w-agar-če baxtə bā man xordə zēnhār
      mar-ō-rā baxtə
farrux bād u bēdār
      "Though fortune has broken faith with me,

may glorious fortune be afoot for her!" (Morr. 76)

Sometimes he may even have added poetic devices of his own, such as the alliteration using bed-i "fate, fortune" and bedit-i "unfavourable, wretched" in GT 16: 71,30-31:
      ra gul-c̣arsrulsa Ramins gauʒnelda sakme da uġono ikmna,
itda miǯnurobisagan bedi,
      "When the matter had grown irksome to Ramin, the bereft of heart,
      and he became resourceless,

and his fate waxed wretched through love ..." (Ward. 62)

Here, the Persian original has no stylistic equivalent (TG 25,1):
      ču bar Rāmīn-i bē-dil kārə šud saxt
      ba ՙišq andar mar-ō-rā xwārə
šud baxt
      "When the plight of the brokenhearted Rāmīn grew more,

his fortunes in love declined." (Morr. 73)

Incidentally, however, such poetical figures may have developed by chance, in that the translator had no choice as to the words to be used. The problem is to decide which words can be regarded as "normal" correspondences. Cp., e.g., the cooccurence of mtuare- "moon" and mṭuer-i "dust" in GT 7: 48,20-22:
      mati mṭueri asre amaġlda,
      romel hgvanda, tu mtuare da mṭueri
xuašiadsa iṭq̇uian ertgan.
      "Their dust rose so high
      that it seemed as if the moon and the dust were holding

provey converse." (Ward. 25)

Here, the Persian text has xāk "earth" and māh "moon" (TG 15,22):
      hamē raft az zamīn bar āsəman gard
      tu guftē xākə bā mah
rāzə mē-kard
      "The dust went right up from earth to heaven;
      you would have sworn the earth exchanged secrets

with the moon." (Morr. 41)

From the material investigated so far it seems that Persian xāk otherwise is most frequently translated by Georgian mic̣a- "earth" or nacar-i "ashes"; but the final decision whether the translator intended a play of words using mṭueri beneath mtuare must be left open until the whole text has been worked through.
A similar case may be seen in GT 14: 66,5-7 where vecxlisa vašli "apple of silver" translates TG 23,41 sīb-i sīmīn "idem", given that Persian sīm(īn) is represented by Georgian lari (< Persian lārī "from the province of Lār") in GT 14: 69,7 ≈ TG 23,153. One set of divergences between the two texts can only be explained by assuming either that the translator misunderstood the original or that he used a manuscript model with variants today unknown. One such example is GT 13: 64,15-17 where only the Georgian text speaks of "casting lots":
      igi zogǯer dedisa sišorisatuis ṭirodis
      da zogǯer Viroys siq̇uarulisatvis, da c̣ilni q̇arnis
      "Sometimes she wept because of separation from her mother,
      and sometimes on account of Viro's love,

and she cast lots". (Ward. 51)

Here the Persian text has nāla zade "lamented" (TG 22,25):
      gah-ē bi-grīsətē bar yād-i Šahrō
      gah-ē nāla zadē
bar dard-i Vīrō
      "Now she wept at the memory of Shahrū,

now lamented in grief for Vīrū." (Morr. 64)

But it becomes conceivable that the translator read qur'ī zadē instead of nāla zadē if we compare GT 16: 72,27-29:
      da c̣ilni q̇arnis moq̇vrisa saxelsa,
      tu bolosa žamsa čemi da misi sakme vit ertgan ikmnebis-o?

      "(Sometimes he ...) cast lots in the name of his beloved,

and said: Shall her lot and mine be united at last?" (Ward. 63)

with TG 25,23:
      gah-ē qur'ī zadē bar nām-i yār-aš
      ke bā ō čūn buwad farjām-i kār-aš

      "Now he told lots using his lover's name,

to see how his fortunes would end with her." (Morr. 74):

Another example may be seen in GT 16: 73,12-13 where in the Georgian text Rāmīn's face is compared with a garden in spring:
      gazapxul c̣alḳoṭi tu-ca ḳeḳluci-a,
      Raminis ṗiri atas-ǯer mas uṭurpe iq̇o.

      "Although the garden is charming in spring,

Ramin's face was a thousandfold more lovely." (Ward. 64)

The Persian text uses a "rose" for the comparison instead (TG 25,39):
      gul ar-če saxtə nēkō būd u barbār
      rux-ī Rāmīn nēkōtar būdə ṣad bār

      "However passing fair and luxuriant a rose might be,

Rāmīn's cheek was a hundred times fairer." (Morr. 75)

For an explanation, we could think of a misreading yielding bahār "spring" instead of barbārpurbār "rich (in blossoms)"; but we have to be aware that bahār would not fit metrically in the given position.

A third example is met with in GT 16: 75,12-13 where the Georgian text compares a "mattress" (sagebel-i) with a "snake" (guel-i):
      missa tualsa dġe nateli bnel iq̇uis
      da mas kueše sṭavrisa amo sagebeli vita gueli
      "Daylight was as darkness to his eyes.
      The pleasant couch of brocade under him was like a serpent."

(Ward. 62)

Here the Persian text speaks of "thorns" (xār) instead (TG 25,14):
      ba čašm-aš rōz-i rōšan tārə būdē
      ba zēr-aš xazz u dēbā xārə
      "The bright day was dark in his eyes,

silk and brocade thorns under him." (Morr. 73)

In this case, two explanations are possible: Either Georgian guel-i "snake" was chosen because the Persian model had mār "snake" instead of xār "thorn(y)"; or the translator aimed at presenting a rhyme, viz. bnel iq̇uis vs. guel(i) iq̇uis.
An obvious example is TG 25,48 ≈ GT 16: 73,21 where Georgian mic̣a "earth, ground" seems to be used as an equivalent of Persian zamān "time, world" for which we have to posit zamīn "earth, ground".
The reason for such deviations cannot always be stated with certainty, though. Thus we find an unexpected č̣ino- "owl" in GT 16: 75,1-2:
      magra misi siamovne simc̣arisa ǯupti-a
      da misi simxiarule č̣inosaebr
      "But his pleasure is the twin of bitterness,

and his merriment is wretched as an owl's." (Ward. 66)

The corresponding Persian verse contains the word xumār "aftereffect" (TG 25,93):
      kujā xwaššī-šə bā talxī-šə yār-ast
      čunān k-aš xurramī juft-ī xumār
      ".. its sweetness is the companion of its bitterness,

as its delight matches its aftereffect." (Morr. 77)

The most appropriate solution would consist in presuming a misreading of juft "pair, match" by juġd "owl"; but juft is present in the Georgian text in the form of ǯupt-i, an obvious borrowing of the Persian word. So we must either assume that the translator played with the Persian words intentionally, or that he tried to mediate between different models.

Still less clear is the usage of "pure crystal" in the following context (GT 16: 77,6-7):
      šenisa ṭanisagan čemi broli uṭalao-ada šenisa saubrisagan
      "From thy form is my pure crystal,

and from thy conversation ..." (Ward. 69)

Here, the Persian text speaks of yāsmīn "jasmine" instead (TG 25,159):
      ze andām-ī tu bāšad yāsəmīn-amze guftār-ī tu bāšad āfərīn-am
      "your eyes (be) as jasmine (for me),

your words as blessings .." (Morr. 79)

The expected equivalent of Georgian broli "crystal" would be Persian bolur(īn) which can hardly be assumed in the position of yāsmīn. It should be noted in this context that there are unexpected convergences, too, between the two texts which again show that the translator tried to keep as close to his model as possible. In this respect we may note, e.g., the rendering of a Persian bahuvrīhi-composite by a Georgian "inverted" bahuvrīhi as in the case of xasta-dil "broken-hearted" in TG 23,20:
      ču Vīs-ī xasta-dil-rā dīdə dāyaze šādī gaštə jān-aš nēkə-māya
      "When the nurse saw Vis brokenhearted,

her soul grew full of happiness." (Morr. 65)

which is translated by Georgian gul-dac̣q̇lulebul-i, lit. "heart-wounded" (GT 14: 65,19-20):
      ra gul-dac̣q̇lulebuli Visi naxa ʒiʒaman,
      misisa naxvisa sixarulita aivso.

      "When the nurse saw the heart-wounded Vis,

she was filled with gladness at the sight." (Ward. 52-53)

Another such case is the Persian figure tu guftē "you('d) say", frequently occurring as in TG 16,31:
      tu guftē nāgahān dū kōh-i pōlād
      dar ān ṣaḥrā ba yak-dīgar dar-uftād

      "You would have sworn two steel mountains

clashed on that field." (Morr. 43)

Lit.: "You'd say, suddenly two mountains of steel
      fell on one-another in that steppe."
This figure is often rendered by Georgian tu stkva "as if you('d) say" (GT 8: 49,29-30):
      tu stkva, orni mtani basrisaniertman-ertsa šeeṭaḳnes-o.
      "(The two armies met) like two mountains of steel

falling together." (Ward. 28)

Lit.: "(The two armies met,) you'd say, two mountains of steel
      crashed on one-another".
Although Georgian თუ tu is a conjunction meaning "(as) if" and does not correspond grammatically to Persian tu "you", it seems to have been preferable for the translator because of its similar sounding.

1.2.5. Looking for the explanatory value the Persian text offers with respect to the Georgian language as used in the Visramiani, we may first of all think of misunderstandable or otherwise unknown words. One such case is GT 14: 67,21-22, where the word šarux-i appears:
      c̣avida igi žami da dġe,
      odes ertman ḳuman ori šaruxi
Wardrop's translation (55) seems to be tentative, and it makes hardly any sense:
      "That time and that day are past
      when a tortoise overcame two nightingales".
In a footnote, Wardrop wonders whether the word is "P[ersian]" and whether it could be a "proper name". He seems not to have realized that it had first been treated by the 17th century Georgian lexicographer, Sulxan-Saba Orbeliani, who did not claim to be able to explain it: č̣adraḳis mġerisa ars, tu sxva, ar vici "It is from the game of chess, or something else, I don't know". In the present edition of his lexicon9 we are referred to the bird name čaxrux-i "nightingale" again, a notice that may have been influenced by the Georgian lexicographer of the 19th century, Davit Čubinašvili; according to his Georgian-Russian dictionary10 šaruxi was "Persian" ("sṗars[uli]") as well, and it denoted a "bulbulis msgavsi mprinveli, соловей", i.e. a "bird similar to the nightingale". This meaning alone is recorded once again in the eight volume "Explanatory dictionary of the Georgian language"11: šarux-i "bulbulis msgavsi prinveli". The correct meaning of the verse in question and of šarux-i is now presented in the new German translation, however (Leipzig, 63):
      "Vorbei ist die Zeit, da ein Läufer zwei Türme fällte."
That this is really a metaphor taken from the game of chess (as Saba presumed), becomes clear at once if we compare the Persian text (TG 23,83):
      šud ān rōz ū šud ān hangām-i farrux
      ke bi-twānīstə zad pīl-ē du šah-rux

      "That day and that fortunate time are gone

when a bishop could take two castles." (Morr. 67)

While šarux-i, revealing itself as a loan from Persian šah-rux here, seems no longer to have been used in Georgian, ḳu "tortoise" has been preserved until nowadays as the equivalent of Persian pīl "elefant" = "bishop in chess".
A second field where we can expect the Persian text to have an explanatory value for the Georgian, is the etymology of Georgian words. So, e.g., Georgian ḳaḳabi "partridge" appears in GT 25,144 as an equivalent of Persian kabk "idem", and it becomes at once plausible to derive the Georgian word from the Persian (assuming a metathesis of stops).

1.2.6. The main explanatory value of the Georgian text for the Persian original will consist in establishing the phonetics of 12th century Persian with the help of Persian elements (loans) in the Georgian text. There is a general problem, however, in that it is not always easy to decide whether a Persian word was taken over just at that time (and it is only in this case that the Visramiani can help us) or whether it was borrowed into Georgian earlier. So for every single word, an investigation of its own is necessary, as the following short hand list may illustrate: Persian ā-šoft-a — Georgian aġ-špot-ebuli "stirred up" (e.g. TG 15,28 ≈ GT 7: 48,27): older instances exist (e.g., in Bible translation, Sap.Sal. 18,19 aġ-a-špot-eb-des);

P. pīl — G. ṗilo- "elephant" (e.g. 16,17 ≈ 8: 49,17-18): older instances exist (e.g., Ps. 44,9);

P. darafš — G. droša "flag" (e.g. 16,21 ≈ 8: 49,22): older instances exist (e.g., in the so-called "Nino-legend", Mokcevay kartlisay, 119,7; cp. Armenian drawš);

P. bēzār — G. abezar "estranged" (e.g. 16,36 ≈ 8: 49,37): do. (the word is borrowed from Middle P. abēzār; cp. my study "Iranica Armeno-Iberica", Wien 1993, p. 1-7);

P. xāṣ(ṣ)agān — G. xasagian- "nobles" (e.g. 16,73 ≈ 8: 50,38-39): no older instances known so far;

P. meydān — G. moedan- "playground" (e.g. 16,90 ≈ 8: 51,11): no older instances known;

P. u(m)mēd — G. imed- "hope" (e.g. 16,93 ≈ 8: 51,13): older instances exist (cp. "Iranica Armeno-Iberica", p. 84-91);

P. juft — G. ǯupt- "pair, twin" (e.g. 16,110 ≈ 8: 51,30); no older instances known;

P. zabūn — G. ʒabun-i "coward" (e.g. 16,112 ≈ 8: 51,33); no older instances known; cp. ǯaban- "id.";

P. nišāṭ — G. *nišaṭ- "merriment" (as discussed above); cp. ga-nišaṭ-ian-eba "become happy" in the so-called Gelati-Bible (12th century), Judg. 16,24;

P. kāravān — G. karavan "caravan" (e.g. 22,28 ≈ 13: 64,20); no older instances known;

P. za՚frān — G. zapran- "saffron" (e.g. 22,29 ≈ 13: 64,21); older instances exist (e.g., in the so-called Šaṭberd-codex from the 10th century, within the Georgian version of Gregorius Nyssenus, De hominis opificio: 125,17);

P. jamāza — G. ǯama(za)- "fast camel" (e.g. 23,17 ≈ 14: 65,15); no older instances known;

P. zang "rust" — G. da-žang-ebuli "rusty" (e.g. 23,25 ≈ 14: 65,24); no older instances known;

P. diram — G. drama "drachma" (e.g. 23,38 ≈ 14: 66,2); older instances exist (e.g., in the 11th century vita of Grigor Xanʒteli: 268,40);

P. turinj — G. turinǯ- "lemon fruit" (e.g. 23,41 ≈ 14: 66,6); no older instances known;

P. nadīm — G. nadim- "companion" (e.g. 23,67 ≈ 14: 66,39); no older instances known;

P. šahrux — G. šarux- "castle (in chess)" (as discussed above); no other instances known;

P. yāqut — G. iagund- "jacinth" (e.g. 23,138 ≈ 14: 68,25); older instances exist (e.g., in the Šaṭberd-codex, within Epiphanius of Cyprus, De gemmis: 134,29); both words seem to have been borrowed from different languages;

P. naxčir — G. nadir- "prey animal" (e.g. 23,152 ≈ 14: 69,6); older instances exist (e.g., Gen. 25,28), and it is not sure whether both words are connected at all;

P. dēv — G. dev- "demon" (e.g. 24,31 ≈ 15: 70,15-16); older instances exist (e.g., in the legend of St. Šušaniḳ, ascribed to the 5th century; cp. my forthcoming study "Daemonica Irano-Caucasica"12);

P. rōy — G. rval- "bronze" (e.g. 24,32 ≈ 15: 70,18); older instances exist (e.g., Ex. 25,4); cp. Armenian aroyr: both this and G. rval- presuppose a Middle Iranian rōδ-13;

P. nam — G. nam- "moistness" (e.g. 24,46 ≈ 15: 70,35); no older instances known;

P. dāġ — G. daġ- "brand mark" (e.g. 25,30 ≈ 16: 73,1); no older instances known;

P. sunbul — G. sumbul- "hyacinth" (e.g. 25,40 ≈ 16: 73,13-14); no older instances known;

P. mušk(īn) — G. mušḳ- "musk" (e.g. 25,41 ≈ 16: 73,14); no older instances known;

P. kāfūr — G. kapur- "camphor" (e.g. 25,41 ≈ 16: 73,15); no older instances known;

P. qabā — G. ḳaba- "men's coat" (e.g. 25,46 ≈ 16: 73,19); no older instances known;

P. baxt — G. bed- "fortune" (as discussed above); older instances exist (e.g., Jes. 65,11); are both words related?;

P. dōzax(ī) — G. ǯoǯox-et- "hell" (e.g. 25,103 ≈ 16: 75,14); older instances are very frequent in Bible translation (e.g., Ps. 6,6); the G. word must be from a form like Parthian dōžox;

P. juwān-mard(ī) — G. ǯomard-(oba)- "nobleness" (e.g. 25,125 ≈ 16: 75,36-37); no older instances known;

P. but — G. but- "idol" (e.g. 25,130 ≈ 16: 76,6); no older instances known;

P. yōz — G. avaz- "panther" (e.g. 25,144 ≈ 76,23); older instances exist (e.g., in the Šaṭberd-codex, 76,22); what is the actual relationship between the two words?;

P. xurmā — G. xurma- "date" (as discussed above); no older instances known;

P. zēnhār — G. zenaar- "caution, care" (e.g. 25,217 ≈ 16: 79,3); no older instances known;

P. afsār — G. avšara- "halter" (e.g. 25,240 ≈ 16: 79,24); no older instances known.

One main point of interest in this respect will be the question whether there are indications that the distinction between ō and ū and between ē and ī was still perceivable. In this respect we may note Georgian kos-i and buḳ-i as equivalents of Persian كوس kōs "drum"14 and بوق būq "trumpet", appearing several times side by side in TG 16,3-11 / GT 8: 48,35-49,10. It may be intesting to note as well that Persian -q is represented as a velar stop in buḳ-i. Additional problems are met with in this connection with proper names. The general question is, whether they were taken over from spoken or from written Persian. Besides, we have to be aware that they must have always been highly liable to corruption during the manuscript transmission within Georgian. For this we may compare, e.g., the name of the river Oxus, Jeyhōn, which is now and then rendered as ǯeon- with a variant reading ǯoen-. The whole set of difficulties can be illustrated by two passages containing several names. The first one is TG 15,4, where we are offered the following list:
      ze Āzarbāyəgān u Rayy u Gēlān
      ze Xūzistān u Istarx u Sipāhān

      "(nobles) from Āzerbaijān, Reyy, and Gīlān,

from Khūzistān, Istarkh, and Isfahān." (Morr. 40)

In the Georgian version, we read the following names (GT 7:48,5-7):
      adrabadaganelni, raelni, gelanelni,
      xuzisṭanelni, asṭabaxrelni, asṗaanelni.

      "(nobles) from Adrabadagan, Ray, Gēlān,
      Xūzistān, Istaxr, Isfahān".
For most of them, there exist some more or less divergent variants such as adrabaginelni, darbadaganelni, adrabaganelni; ranelni; asṭarabatelni, asṭarabasranelni, asṭarabatelni, asṭrabarelni, asṭarxanelni; isṗaanelni. So it is understandable why Wardrop proposed to connect the second entry erroneously with the name of the province Ran, i.e. the Old Georgian name of today's Karabaġ (25):
      "(nobles) from Adraba[da]gan, Ra [? Ran], Gelan,
      Khuzistan, Astabakhar (var. Astabar or Astabasran), Aspa[a]n".
The -b- in the name of the city of Istaxr cannot be explained palaeographically within any Georgian script (cp. ასტაბახრ, ასტაბახრ, and ႠႱႲႠႡႠႾႰ); but it may be due to a confusion with Astarābād, the other name of the author's home Gurgān (so Faxr ud-dīn Gurgānī himself was called Asՙad al-Astarābādī, too). For the name of Isfahān, the variants asṗa(a)n- and isṗa(a)n- occur side by side elsewhere within Georgian tradition.
As a second example we may quote the list of beautiful women present at Vis's wedding (TG 8,65-74):
      ču Šahrō māhəduxt az Māhə-ābād
      ču āḏarbādagānī sarv-i āzād
      ze Gurgān Abənōš-i māhə-peykar
      hamēdūn az Dehistān Nāz-i dilbar
      ze Ray Dinārəgēs u ham Zarīngēs
      ze būm-i kōhə Šīrīn u Farangēs
      ze Iṣfāhān du but čūn māh u xwaršēd
      xujasta Ābənāz u Ābənāhēd
      ba gouhar harduwān duxt-ī dabīrān..

      Gulāb ū Yāsəman duxt-ī wazīrān
      hamēdūn Nāz u Āḏargūn u Gulgūn
      ba rux čūn barf u bar-ō rīxəta xūn
      Sahī nām ū sahī bālā zan-ī šāh
      tan az sīm ū lab az nōš ū rux az māh
      Šakarlab Nōšə az būm-ī Humāwar
      saman rang ū saman bōy u samanbar
      "Like Šahrō, daughter of Media, from Māh-Ābād,
      like a free cypress from Āzarbaijān,
      from Gurgān Ābnōš, with the form of the moon,
      at the same time from Dehistān charming Nāz,
      from Ray Dīnargēs and Zarīngēs,
      from the foot of the mountain Šīrīn and Farangēs,
      from Isfahān two idols like moon and sun,
      fortunate Ābnāz and Ābnāhēd
      by descent both daughter(s) of scribes, ..
      Gulāb and Yāsaman, daughter(s) of viziers,
      as well Nāz and Āzargūn and Gulgūn,
      with a cheek like snow with blood sprinkled on it,
      Sahī by name and `upright' by stature, the Šāh's wife,
      her body of silver, her lip of nectar, her cheek (like) the moon,
      Šakarlab Nōš from the land of Humāvār,
      jasmine (her) colour, jasmine (her) scent, jasmine-wearing."
These names are rendered by the Georgian tradition in the following way (GT 2: 35,37-36,5):
      Šahro Mahduxṭ adrabadaganeli,
{v.l. manoš, monao, man mo} gurganeli
      {v.l. aspburganeli, aspuraganeli, aspagur},
      Naslakit dehisṭaneli,
      Dinarges {v.l. dinigruz, dinarguz, danirges} da Zaringes
      {v.l. zargines, zarnisges};
       mtis-ʒirelni Širini da Gurgesi {v.l. gergesi, gurgen}
      asṗaanelni {v.l. asṗaaneli, asṗaneli, isṗanelni}, orni mzisebrni
      ḳeḳlucni: Abanozi
{v.l. abanozni} da Abanoed
      {v.l. abaned, abanod} -
      orni ḳeḳlucni kalni mc̣ignobarta asulni;
{v.l. ǯalabi} da Iasaman {v.l. diasaman, diasman}
       — vazirisa {v.l. vezirisa} asulni {v.l. asuli};
      Šakarlab Noš {da Abanoš} eraq̇eli;
      iq̇o: Nazi
{monazi mss.}, Adraguni da Gulgunoi {v.l. gulguni}
{v.l. šarazneli},
      Sainam {v.l. šainam, šainaš} da Saibala {v.l. saibla da, sibla}
       — Šahi Moabadis colni.
      "Šahro Mahduxṭ,from Adrabadagan,
      Abanoš from Gurgan,Naslakit from Dehistan,
      Dinarges and Zaringes;
      Širin-i and Gurges-i from the foot of the mountain,
      from Isfahān, two sun-likebeauties: Abanoz-i und Abanoed,
      two beautiful women, daughters of scribes;
      Gulab-i and Iasaman, a vizier's daughters;
      Šakarlab Noš from Eraq̇;
      there were: Naz-i, Adragun-i and Gulgun-ifrom Šīrāz,
      Sainam and Saibala,Šah Moabad's wives.
An especially interesting feature of the Georgian text in this respect is that the author himself, Faxr ud-dīn Gorgānī, is called Paxpur here which would correspond to the Persian title faġfūr "emperor of China" (1: 34,18); and that his client for whom he composed the epic is called Ibdal-Meliki-vaziri (1: 34,12) instead of Abu-l Fatḥ Muẓaffar.

2. Let us return to the question now in which way we may think of applying computers to the given task. From the examples discussed above it may have become clear that there is hardly any field of investigation that can be supported by automatical analyses without a lot of preparatory work to be done before. In my view, there are at least three essential stages:
2.1. The first step consists in bringing both texts into an electronic form ("encoding"). This step has now been fulfilled for the Georgian part: I read it in 1992 using an optical scanner and corrected it manually afterwards. As for the Persian text, this too exists in electronic form. It was entered as a basis for Emiko Okada's and Kazuhiko Machida's study called "Perusha bungaku. Bunka-no dētabēsu-ka — josei-no seikatsu to shikō-o chūshin-ni" ("Persian literature. Transformation of culture into a database. With emphasis on women's thought and life") which appeared in three parts in Tōkyō 1991. This study contains a type list with frequency, i.e. an alphabetical list of all word-forms occuring in the text, with their frequency; a frequency list of the types, i.e., a list of the word-forms arranged according to their frequency (part I); a type concordance, i.e. an index of the occurrences of all wordforms, without context (part II); and the whole text (part III; it is identical with the one as edited by Mahǧūb). For several reasons, however, I decided to start a new encoding of the Persian text: Firstly, the text as entered in Japan was simply not yet available to me. Secondly, it contains all Persian material in the original script, which bears the disadvantage that it is ill suited to linguistic (esp. phonetic) investigations as it is. Besides, it seems to provide no material for grammatical analysis and no hints for distinguishing between homographs, and it obviously does not reveal any information about the position of words within the verse, esp. with respect to metrics and rhymes. So it would have to be reorganized anyway for the present purposes. Instead, I am glad to be supported by Soraya Divshali who has been engaged with typing in the Persian text (according to Todua / Gwakharia's edition) in transcription for some time now, and we hope to finish this stage within another year's time.
2.2. The second stage will consist in preparing both texts for a complete indexation as to occurences of words and word forms. Such an indexation can easily be achieved using programs such as the "WordCruncher" (Brigham Young University); the only preparation necessary for it is providing the texts with indexation marks such as, for the Persian text, chapter and verse numbers or, for the Georgian text, page and line numbers. The resulting indexes will be useful as an aid for the main task, which is the third stage:
2.3. This stage consists in preparing both texts for an automatic comparison, i.e., for joint indexation with respect to all points of investigation as discussed above. Here we have to be aware that from the beginning we should aim at integrating as much information as possible, in order to facilitate analyses on all levels of linguistic and philological interest. Let me illustrate what I mean using four different arrangements of the beginning of chapter 15 (TG / 7 GT).
2.3.1. The least informative encoding would just consist in a synoptical marking of verse units, which would mean to arrange the Georgian text according to the Persian original:

|l1a ču az šāh āgahī āmad ba Vīrō
|l1b ke ham z-ō kīna dārad ham ze Šahrō
|l2a ze har šahr-ē u az har jāyəgāh-ē
|l2b hamē āmad ba dargāh-aš sipāh-ē

"When news of the king reached Vīrū,

how he was in feud against him and Shahrū,

from every city and every place

an army came to his court."
|l1a cna Viroman ambavi Šahi Moabadisi,
|l1b vita mas-ca emṭerebis da Šahrosa-ca
|l2a da q̇ovlisa kveq̇anisa

|l2b didebulni da laškarni mivides missa da šeq̇rilan

"At that time when Viro learnt the tidings of Shah Moabad,

how he was become an enemy to him and to Shahro also,

and had collected from every land
magnates and soldiers ..."
It goes without saying that the information retrievable from such an arrangement is scanty; the only result we could produce by this would be a "synoptical" word index.

2.3.2. If we aim at retrieving informations about the interdependency of words in both texts, we need at least an additional marking of keywords:

|l1a ču az šāh1 āgahī2 āmad3 ba Vīrō4

|l1b ke5 ham z-ō6 kīna7 dārad8 ham ze Šahrō9

|l2a ze har10 šahr-ē11 u az har12 jāyəgāh-ē13
|l2b hamē āmad14 ba dargāh-aš15 sipāh-ē16
|l1a cna3 Viroman4 ambavi2 Šahi1 Moabadisi,
|l1b vita5 mas-ca6 emṭerebis7+8 da Šahrosa-ca9
|l2a da q̇ovlisa12 kveq̇anisa13

|l2b didebulni da laškarni16 mivides14 missa15 da šeq̇rilan

Here, all words that have a counterpart in the other text are marked with a unique number so that their equivalents can be searched for automatically. This marking is not satisfying yet, either, because it may turn out necessary to retrieve informations about syntactical relations, too, which do not become transparent like this at all. So we could think of marking syntactical units instead as in the following way:

|l1a [ču]1 [az šāh]2 [āgahī]3 [āmad]4 [ba Vīrō]5

|l1b [ke]6 [ham z-ō]7 [kīna dārad]8 [ham ze Šahrō]9

|l2a [ze har šahr-ē]10 [u]11 [az har jāyəgāh-ē]12

|l2b [hamē āmad]13 [ba dargāh-aš]14 [sipāh-ē]15

|l1a [cna]4 [Viroman]5 [ambavi]3 [Šahi Moabadisi]2,

|l1b [vita]6 [mas-ca]7 [emṭerebis]8 da [Šahrosa-ca]9

|l2a da [q̇ovlisa kveq̇anisa]12

|l2b didebulni da [laškarni]15 [mivides]13 [missa]14 da šeq̇rilan

This method, too, has a disadvantage in that it does not allow for an internal analysis and that grammatical phenomena cannot be searched for. So we would need at least a combined encoding of keywords and of grammatical units as in the following way:

|l1a [ču1]1 [az2 šāh3]2 [āgahī4]3 [āmad5]4 [ba6 Vīrō7]5

|l1b [ke8]6 [ham9 z1011]7 [kīna12 dārad13]8 [ham14 ze1 Šahrō16]9

|l2a [ze17 har18 šahr1920]10 [u21]11 [az22 har23 jāyəgāh2425]12

|l2b [hamē26 āmad27]13 [ba28 dargāh29-aš30]14 [sipāh3132]15

|l1a [cna5]4 [Viroman7]5 [ambavi4]3 [Šahi3 Moabadisix]2,

|l1b [vita8]6 [mas11-ca9]7 [emṭerebis12+13]8 da14 [Šahrosa16-ca14]9

|l2a [da21]11 [q̇ovlisa23 kveq̇anisa24]12

|l2b didebulnixx daxxx [laškarni31]15 [mivides27]13 [missa30]14 daxxxx šeq̇rilanxxxxx

2.4. Of course, I do not regard the methods of encoding additional informations in the way as presented here (using brackets, numbers and the like) as practicable in any way; they are meant just as an illustration of the problems involved. What we need instead is a thorough morphological analysis of the single words in both texts (just as it was procured for many biblical texts or the like in other projects) plus detailed informations about the interdependencies between the two texts and the words contained in them. Only then will the computer be able to help extending our knowledge in the present field of investigation, in that it will allow for a quick and complete search under different topics through two texts of about 150 pages length at a time. As for the way how it will be best prepared for this purpose, I have as yet no final solution.

 Georgian text:
 Title (according to Ward.)  Ward.  Leipzig  Saunǯe  BIḲ  GT  №.
 The beginning of the story of Vis and Ramin  1-3  19-20  17-18  3-4  33-34  1
 The story of Vis and of Ramin, and his eldest brother Shah Moabad  4-7  21-24  18-21  5-7  34-37  2
 (Vis's and Ramin's birth and youth)  8-10  24-26  21-22  8-9  37-38  3
 The letter written by the nurse of Vis to Shahro, the mother of Vis  11-15  26-27  22-24  10-11  38-40  4
 .. They bring Vis from Khuzistan into the City of Hamian  13-15  28-29  24-25  12-13  40-41  5
 Here the wedding of Vis and her brother Viro and the coming of Moabad's  16-24  30-38  25-32  14-20  41-48  6
 Here Shah Moabad sets forth to fight Viro  25-26  38-39  32-33  21-22  48  7
 Here is the great battle between Moabad and Viro  27-31  39-43  33-36  23-26  48-52  8
 The investment of Viro's castle by Moabad, and the discourse of Vis  32-40  43-50  36-42  27-33  52-58  9
 Moabad's letter to Shahro  41-44  51-54  42-44  34-36  58-60  10
 Viro learns of the abduction of his wife and his mourning thereat  45-46  54-55  44-45  37-38  60-61  11
 Ramin becomes enamoured of Vis  47-49  55-58  45-47  39-41  61-63  12
 Here is the wedding of Moabad and Vis  50-51  58-59  47-49  42-43  63-64  13
 The lamentation and weeping of the nurse for the carrying away of Vis  52-57  59-65  49-53  44-48  64-69  14


Persian text:

 №.  TG  Lees  №.  Minowī  Mahǧūb  Morr.  Title (according to Morr.)
 1  1-6  1-6  1  1-6  1-5  1-4  (Praise to God)
 2  7-10    2  6-9  5-7  4-6  Praise of Muḥammad
 3  10-15    3  9-15  7-11  6-10  Praise of Sultan Abū Ṭalīb Ṭughrilbeg
 4  16-18    4  15-17  11-13  10-12  Praise of Khvājeh Abū Naṣr Ibn Manṣūr ibn Muḥammad
 5  18-21    5  17-21  13-16  12-14  The taking of Isfahān by the sultan
 6  21-26  7-9  6  21-24  16-18  14-16  Praise of ՙAmīd Abū'l-Fatḥ Muz̤affar
 7  26-30  9-12  7  24-28  18-21  16-19  The Sultan leaves Isfahān; account of the author
 8  31-38  13-19  8  28-31  21-23  19-21  The story of Vīs and Rāmīn begins
       9  31-33  24-25  21-23  The beauties of moonlike face look on at King Moubad's banquet
 9  38-41  19-22  10  33-36  25-27  23-25  Moubad asks Shahrū's hand in marriage and she makes a compact with him
 10  42-45    11  36-38  27-29  25-27  Vīs is born to her mother
       12  39  29-30  27  Vīs and Rāmīn are brought up in Khūzān at the nurse's side
 11  46-48  22-25  13  40-42  30-32  27-29  The nurse writes a letter to Shahrū who sends an envoy to fetch Vīs
 12  48-50  25-26  14  42-44  32-33  29-31  Shahrū gives Vīs in marriage to Vīrū but both fail to gain their desire
 13  51-62  26-28  15  44-49  34-37  31-34  Zard comes to Shahrū as messenger
     28-30  16  50-52  37-39  35-36  Vīs questions Zard and hears his answer
     30-34  17  52-55  39-41  36-38  Zard returns from Vīs to Moubad
 14  62-64  34-36  18  55-57  41-43  38-40  News reaches Moubad of Vīrū's taking Vīs in marriage
 15  64-66  36-50  19  57-59  43-44  40-41  Vīrū learns of Moubad's coming to do battle
 16  66-73    20  59-64  45-49  41-45  The battle between Moubad and Vīrū
       21  65-66  49-50  45-46  Shāh Moubad is routed by Vīrū
 17  74-76    22  66-67  50  46-47  Moubad sends an envoy to Vīs
       23  67-68  51  47-48  
 18  76-84    24  68-71  51-54  48-50  Vīs replies to King Moubad's messenger
       25  71-72  54-55  50-51  Shāh Moubad's envoy returns from Vīs
       26  73-76  55-57  51-53  Moubad consults his brother about Vīs
 19  84-91  50-52  27  77-78  58-59  53-55  Moubad writes a letter to Shahrū and subverts her with riches
       28  79-80  59-60  55  Description of the goods sent by Moubad to Shahrū
     52-54  29  80-83  60-63  56-58  How Shahrū surrendered Vīs to Shāh Moubad; the sinister aspect of that night
       30  84  63  58-59  Moubad enters the castle and brings out Vīs
 20  92-93  54-55  31  85-86  63-64  59  Vīrū receives tidings that the king has carried off Vīs
 21  93-97  55-60  32  86-90  64-67  60-62  Rāmīn sees Vīs and falls in love with her
 22  97-99    33  90-92  68-69  63-64  Moubad brings Vīs to Marv the royal abode
 23  99-108  60-63  34  92-96  69-72  64-67  The nurse learns of the plight of Vīs and goes to Marv
     63  35  96  72  67  Vīs replies to the nurse
     63-67  36  97-99  72-74  67-68  The nurse replies to Vīs

 Georgian text:
 Title (according to Ward.)  Ward.  Leipzig  Saunǯe  BIḲ  GT  №.
 The binding of the virility of Moabad by Vis and the nurse  58-61  65-68  53-56  49-51  69-71  15
 The story of Ramin's love  62-73  68-80  56-65  52-61  71-80  16
 The parting of Ramin from the nurse and her coming before Vis  74-81  80-87  65-70  62-67  80-85  17
 The nurse's second visit to Ramin  82-89  87-94  70-75  68-73  86-91  18
 The nurse parts from Vis and sees Ramin for the third time  90-93  94-97  75-78  74-76  91-94  19
 Vis sees Ramin in Moabad's throne-room and becomes enamoured of him  94-96  98-99  78-80  77-78  94-95  20
 The nurse goes to Ramin  97-100  100-103  80-83  79-81  96-98  21
 The union of Ramin and Vis  101-106  103-108  83-87  82-86  98-102  22
 Moabad learns of the love of Ramin and Vis  107-113  108-115  87-92  87-92  103-108  23
 Moabad takes away Vis and comes to Marav and Khurasan  114-116  115-117  92-94  93-94  108-109  24
 Vis's parting from Moabad  117-120  117-121  94-97  95-98  109-113  25
 Ramin goes to Vis  121-122  121-123  97-98  99-100  113-114  26
 Moabad learns that Ramin has gone to Vis  123-129  123-130  98-103  101-106  114-119  27
 Moabad lights a fire for Vis to swear by  130-136  130-136  103-108  107-112  119-124  28
 Moabad's wanderings in search of Vis  137-139  136-138  108-110  113-115  124-126  29
 Moabad comes to Marav and learns tidings of Vis  140-145  139-143  110-114  116-120  126-130  30
 Ramin brings Vis to Marav, and the rejoicing and banquet of Moabad  146-156  144-154  114-123  121-129  130-138  31
 Moabad's campaign against Greece, and his committal of Vis and her nurse  157-163  154-161  123-128  130-136  139-144  32
 Vis's lament for Ramin's absence  164-166  161-164  128-130  136-138  144-146  33
 Ramin goes from Marav to Ashkap'hut'hidevan to be united to Vis  167-174  164-172  130-136  139-144  146-152  34
 Moabad learns that Vis and Ramin are together  175-184  172-180  136-142  145-151  152-159  35
 Shahro's lament and weeping for Vis  185-197  181-193  142-152  152-161  159-168  36
 Moabad learns of the meeting of Vis and Ramin  198-204  193-199  152-157  162-166  168-173  37
 Moabad invites Shahro and Viro and makes a banquet  205-207  199-201  157-158  167-168  173-174  38
 Bego's good counsel to Ramin  208-213  201-206  158-162  169-172  174-178  39
 Shah Moabad's advice, instruction, and command to Vis  214-217  206-210  162-165  173-176  178-181  40


Persian text:

 №.  TG  Lees  №.  Minowī  Mahǧūb  Morr.  Title (according to Morr.)
       37  99-102  74-76  69-70  The nurse arrays Vīs; her description
 24  109-112  67-68  38  102-106  76-79  70-73  The nurse puts a spell on Shāh Moubad to render him impotent with Vīs
 25  113-130  69-87  39  106-108  79-81  73-74  Rāmīn walks in the garden and laments his love for Vīs
       40  108-124  81-93  75-85  Rāmīn meets the nurse in the garden and tells her his plight
 26  130-140  87-89  41  124-134  93-100  85-92  The nurse wins Vīs over to Rāmīn by stratagem
 27  140-153  89-93  42  134-147  100-110  92-102  The nurse returns to Rāmīn in the garden
 28  153-157  100-106  43  148-151  111-113  102-105  Vīs sees Rāmīn and falls in love with him
 29  157-160    44  152-155  114-116  105-107  The nurse goes once more to Vīs with news
 30  160-167  106-112  45  155-161  116-120  107-111  Vīs and Rāmīn come together
       46  161-162  121  111-112  Vīs and Rāmīn go to Kūhistān to join Moubad
 31  168-176  112-118  47  162-171  122-128  112-117  Moubad discovers the secret of Vīs and Rāmīn
 32  176-179  118-121  48  171-174  128-130  117-120  Shāh Moubad returns from Kūhistān to Khurāsān
 33  180-185  121-126  49  174-180  130-135  120-124  Vīs goes from Marv the royal abode to Kūhistān
 34  186-188  126-128  50  180-182  135-137  124-125  Rāmīn goes to Kūhistān after Vīs
 35  188-194  128-130  51  182-187  137-140  125-129  Moubad discovers Rāmīn's visit to Vīs, complains to his mother, and writes a letter
     130-133  52  188-189  141  129-130  Moubad goes from Khurāsān to Hamedān
 36  195-198  133-136  53  189-192  142-144  130-132  Vīrū sends a reply to Moubad
 37  198-208  136-140  54  193-195  144-146  132-134  Moubad chastises Vīs
     140-144  55  195-202  146-152  134-139  Moubad goes to the fire temple; Vīs and Rāmīn flee to Reyy
 38  208-211  144-151  56  202-205  152-154  139-141  Shāh Moubad wanders the world in search of Vīs
 39  211-218    57  206-208  154-156  141-142  Rāmīn writes a letter to his mother
       58  208-213  156-160  142-145  Moubad's mother gives him news of Vīs and Rāmīn and writes a letter to Rāmīn
 40  218-233  151-168  59  213-229  160-171  146-156  Moubad sits at the banquet with Vīs and Rāmīn, and Rāmīn sings of his plight
 41  233-238    60  229-233  171-175  156-159  Moubad receives tidings of the roman emperor and goes to war
 42  238-243  168-172  61  233-238  175-179  160-164  King Moubad takes Vīs to the castle of Ishkaft e Dīvān
 43  243-247  173-175  62  239-241  179-181  164-166  Vīs laments Rāmīn's departure
 44  247-259  175-185  63  242-253  181-189  166-174  Rāmīn comes to Vīs at the castle of Ishkaft e Dīvān
 45  259-270  185-194  64  253-264  190-198  174-182  King Moubad comes from Rome and goes to Vīs at the castle of Ishkaft e Dīvān
 46  270-279  194-201  65  264-271  198-203  182-187  Shahrū laments before Moubad
       66  271-273  203-205  187-188  Moubad replies to Shahrū and speaks of the beating of Vīs and the nurse
 47  279-28  202-209  67  273-282  205-211  189-195  Moubad entrusts Vīs to the nurse; Rāmīn comes into the garden
 48  289-299  209-217  68  282-292  212-219  195-202  The king receives news of Rāmīn, and goes into the garden
 49  299-302  217-220  69  292-295  219-221  202-204  Moubad holds a banquet in the garden and the songster minstrel sings a song
 50  303-310  220-226  70  295-302  221-226  204-209  Bihgū counsels Rāmīn
 51  310-312  226-228  71  302-304  226-228  209-210  Moubad counsels Vīs

 Georgian text:
 Title (according to Ward.)  Ward.  Leipzig  Saunǯe  BIḲ  GT  №.
 Vis and Ramin part in anger  218-225  210-216  165-170  177-182  181-186  41
 Ramin falls in love with Gul  226-231  217-222  170-174  183-188  186-191  42
 The wedding of Ramin and Gul-Vardi  232-234  222-224  174-176  188-189  191-193  43
 Ramin's letter abandoning Vis  235-238  224-227  176-178  190-192  193-195  44
 Vis receives Ramin's letter  239-247  228-235  178-185  193-199  195-201  45
 Vis falls sick through grief  248-249  236-237  185-186  200-201  201-202  46
 Vis's conversation with Mishkin  250-251  237-238  186-187  202-203  203-204  47
 The first letter of Vis to Ramin  252-256  239-242  187-190  204-207  204-207  48
 The second letter of Vis to Ramin  257-259  243-245  190-192  208-209  207-209  49
 The third letter of Vis to Ramin  260-262  245-247  192-193  210-211  210-211  50
 The fourth letter of Vis to Ramin  263-265  247-250  193-195  212-214  210-212  51
 The fifth letter of Vis to Ramin  266-268  250-252  195-197  215-216  212-214  52
 The sixth letter of Vis to Ramin  269-271  252-255  197-199  217-219  214-216  53
 The seventh letter of Vis to Ramin  272-274  255-257  199-201  220-221  216-218  54
 The eighth letter of Vis to Ramin  275-277  257-260  201-203  222-224  218-220  55
 The ninth letter of Vis to Ramin  278-280  260-262  203-204  225-226  220-222  56
 The tenth letter of Vis to Ramin  281-286  262-267  204-209  227-231  222-226  57
 Ramin thinks on Vis  287-292  267-273  209-213  232-236  226-230  58
 Rap'hed informs his daughter of Ramin's desertion  293-299  273-279  213-218  237-242  231-235  59
 Ramin sees Adina  300-301  280-281  218-219  243-244  236-237  60
 Ramin's letter to Vis  302-306  281-286  219-223  245-248  237-240  61
 Ramin comes to Marav  307-312  286-288  223-227  249-253  241-245  62
 Vis's answer  313-315  292-294  227-230  254-256  245-247  63
 Vis's further discourse  316-317  294-296  230-231  257-258  247-248  64
 Ramin's reply  318-319  296-298  231-232  259-260  248-250  65
 Vis's answer  320-321  298-300  232-234  261-262  250-251  66
 (Ramin's answer)  322-324  300-302  234-235  263-264  251-253  67
 (Vis's answer)  325-326  302-303  235-236  265-266  253-254  68


Persian text:

 №.  TG  Lees  №.  Minowī  Mahǧūb  Morr.  Title (according to Morr.)
 52  312-316  228-230  72  304-307  228-230  210-212  Vīs replies to Moubad
 53  316-324  231-236  73  307-315  230-236  212-218  Rāmīn goes to Gūrāb and becomes exiled from Vīs
 54  324-332  236-244  74  316-324  236-243  218-224  Rāmīn goes to Gūrāb, sees Gul, and falls in love with her
 55  332-337  244-248  75  324-327  243-245  224-226  Rāmīn marries Gul
       76  327-328  245-246  226-227  Gul takes offense at Rāmīn's words
 56  337-342  248-258  77  329-339  246-254  227-235  Rāmīn writes a letter to Vīs
 57  342-349            
 58  349-353  258-261  78  339-346  254-259  235-240  The nurse goes to Rāmīn at Gūrāb
 59  353-357  261-263          
 60  357-363  264-269  79  346-383  259-286  240-263  Vīs writes a letter to Rāmīn and begs a meeting
 61  363-366  269-271    352-354  263-265  243-245  First letter
 62  366-369  271-274    355-357  265-267  245-247  Second letter
 63  369-372  274-276    358-360  268-270  247-249  Third letter
 64  372-375  276-278    361-363  270-272  249-251  Fourth letter
 65  375-378  278-281    364-366  272-274  251-253  Fifth letter
 66  378-381  281-283    367-369  274-276  253-255  Sixth letter
 67  382-384  283-286    370-372  276-278  255-256  Seventh letter
 68  385-387  286-288    373-375  278-280  257-258  Eighth letter
 69  387-390  288-290    376-378  280-282  258-260  Ninth letter
 70  390-394  291-293    379-380  283-286  260-261  Tenth letter
 71  394-397  293-296  80  383-386  286-288  263-265  Vīs sends Āzīn to Rāmīn
 72  397-402  296-299  81  386-390  288-291  265-268  Vīs laments her separation from Rāmīn
 73  402-409  299-305  82  390-397  291-296  268-272  Rāmīn regrets his marriage with Gul
 74  409-417  305-310  83  397-404  296-302  273-277  Gul learns of Rāmīn's regretfulness
 75  417-419  311-312  84  404-406  302-303  278-279  Āzīn comes to Rāmīn from Vīs
 76  419-422  312-315  85  407-409  304-306  279-281  Rāmīn sends a fair to Vīs
 77  422-426  315-317  86  410-413  306-308  281-283  Vīs learns of the coming of Rāmīn
 78  426-429  318-320  87  413-447  308-334  283-306  Rāmīn comes to Vīs at Marv
 79  429-434  320-324    416-421  310-314  285-289  Rāmīn replies to Vīs
 80  434-438  324-329    421-427  314-319  286-289  Vīs replies to Rāmīn
 81  438-440            
 82  440-442  329-331    427-429  319-320    
 83  443-444  331-332    429-431  320-322    
 84  445-448  332-335    431-434  322-324  296-306  Rāmīn replies to Vīs
 85  448-450  335-336    434-436  324-325    

 Georgian text:
 Title (according to Ward.)  Ward.  Leipzig  Saunǯe  BIḲ  GT  №.
 (Ramin's answer)  327-328  303-304  236-237  267-268  254-255  69
 (Vis's answer)  329-330  305-306  237-238  269-270  255-256  70
 (Ramin's answer)  331-332  306-307  238-239  271  256-257  71
 (Vis's answer)  333-334  307-308  239-240  272  257  72
 (Ramin speaks again)  335-336  308-309  240-241  273  258  73
 (Vis's answer)  337-338  309-310  241-242  274-275  258-259  74
 (Ramin's answer)  339  311  242-242  276  259-260  75
 (Vis's answer)  340-346  311-318  242-242  277-282  260-265  76
 (Ramin's answer)  347-349  318-321  248-250  283-285  265-267  77
 (Vis's answer)  350-351  321-322  250-251  286-287  267-268  78
 (Ramin's answer)  352-353  322-323  251-252  288-289  268-269  79
 (Vis's answer)  354-356  324-326  252-254  290-292  269-271  80
 The union of Ramin and Vis  357-362  326-331  254-258  293-297  271-276  81
 Moabad goes to the chase  363-367  332-336  258-262  298-301  276-279  82
 (The nurse thinks on Vis)  368-371  336-340  262-264  302-304  279-282  83
 Vis's letter to Ramin  372-376  340-343  264-268  305-308  282-285  84
 Ramin's soliloquy (Here Vis's letter comes to Ramin)  377-378  344-345  268-269  309-310  285-287  85
 Ramin comes to Marav  379-381  346-348  269-271  311-313  287-289  86
 Ramin slays Zard  382-385  348-352  271-274  314-316  289-291  87
 Shah Moabad is slain by a boar  386-388  352-354  274-275  317-318  291-293  88
 The accession of Ramin  389-396  354-360  275-280  319-324  293-298  89


Persian text:

 №.  TG  Lees  №.  Minowī  Mahǧūb  Morr.  Title (according to Morr.)
 86  450-452  337-338    436-437  325-326    
 87  452-453  338-339    437-439  327-328    
 88  453-454  339-340    439-440  328  301  
 89  455-456  340-341    440-441  328-329    
 90  456-458  341-342    441-443  329-330    
 91  458-459  342-343    443-444  331-332    
 92  459-461  343-344    444-445  332-333    
 93  461-464  345-346    445-447  333-334    
     346-347  88  447-449  334-335  307-308  Vīs grows angry, leaves her vantage point, and shuts the doors on Rāmīn
 94  465-467  347-349  89  449-451  335-337  308-309  Vīs repents of what she has done
 95  467-471  349-352  90  451-464  337-347  309-318  Vīs sends the nurse after Rāmīn and follows
 96  471-475  352-355    455-459  340-343  312  
 97  475-477  355-357    459-460  343-344  315  
 98  477-479  357-358    460-462  344-345  316  
 99  479-486  358-360    462-464  345-347    
 100  482-486  360-363  91  464-468  347-350  319-321  Vīs turns from Rāmīn in anger; he follows her
 101  486-489  364-366  92  469-472  350-352  322-324  Rāmīn makes his appearance before Shāh Moubad
 102  489-496  366-371  93  472-485  352-355  324-326  The king goes to the chase from the old castle in the season of spring
     371-374  94  475-478  355-357  326-328  Shāh Moubad goes to the chase and takes Rāmīn with him
 103  496-499  374-377  95  478-482  357-360  329-331  Vīs laments Rāmīn's departure and appeals to the nurse for remedy
 104  500-507  377-379  96  482-486  360-363  331-334  Vīs writes a letter to Rāmīn
     379  97  486-488  363-365  334-335  Rāmīn receives the letter of Vīs
 105  597-510  379-382  98  489-494  365-369  335-339  Rāmīn enters the castle by a stratagem; the death of Zard
 106  510-513  382-384          
 107  513-515  384-386  99  494-496  369-370  339-341  Rāmīn carries off Moubad's treasure and flees to Dailamān
 108  515-516  386-387  100  496-497  370-371  341  Moubad learns that Rāmīn has absconded with the treasure and Vīs
 109  517-520  387-390  101  497-500  371-374  342-344  Moubad meets his end without battle or bloodshed
 110  520-528  390-396  102  501-506  374-378  344-348  Rāmīn sits on the royal throne
 111  528-530  396-398  103  506-508  378-380  348-349  The death of Vīs
 112  530-534  398-500  104  509-512  380-382  349-352  Rāmīn sets his son on the throne and haunts the fire temple to his dying day
 113  534-542  500  105  512-520  383-388  352-357  Conclusion

24. andar bastan-ī dāya mar šāh-i Moubad-rā bar Vīs

1a ču dāya Vīsə-rā čūnān bi-ārāst
      1b ke xwaršēd az rux-ī ō nūrə mī-xwāst
2a du čašm-ī Vīsə az girya nay-āsūd
      2b tu guftē har zamān-aš dardə bi-fzūd

3a nihān az har kas-ē mar dāya-rā guft
      3b ke baxt-ī šūr-i man bā man bar-āšuft
4a dil-am-rā sīrə kard az zīndagānī
      4b w-az-ō bar kandə bīx-ī šādəmānī
5a na-dānam čāra-ē juz kuštan-ī xwēš
      5b ba kuštan rasta gardam z-īn dil-ī rēš
6a agar tū mar ma-rā čāra na-jōyē
      6b w-az-īn andīša jān-am-rā na-šōyē
7a man īn čāra ke guftam zūdə sāzam
      7b bad-ō kūtah kunam ranj-ē dirāz-am
8a kujā har gah ke Moubad-rā bi-bēnam
      8b tu gōyē bar sar-ī ātaš našēnam
9a če marg āyad ba pēš-ī man če Moubad
      9b ke rōz-aš bādə ham-čūn rōz-i man bad
10a agar-če dil ba āb-ī ṣabrə šust-ast
      10b havāy-ī dil hanūz az man na-just-ast
11a hamē tarsam ke rōz-ē ham bi-jōyad
      11b nihufta rāz-i dil rōz-ē bi-gōyad
12a ze pēš-ī ān ke ō jōyad ze man kām
      12b tu-rā gustardə bāyad dar rah-aš dām
13a ke man yak sālə na-spāram bad-ō tan
      13b bi-parhīzam ze pād-afrāh-i dušman
14a na-bāšad sūk-i Qāran kam ze yak sāl
      14b ma-rā yak sālə bēnī ham bad-īn ḥāl
15a na-dārad Moubad-am yak sālə āzarm
      15b kujā ō-rā ze man na bīm u na' šarm
16a yak-ē neyrangə sāz az hōšəmandī
      16b m-agar mardīšə-rā bar man bi-bandī


1a ra ʒiʒaman šeḳazma Visi,

2a ṭirilisagan ar gamoisvenebdis,
      2b tu stkva, c̣amsa da c̣amsa č̣iri moemaṭeboda.

{15. 69-71} Visisa da ʒiʒisagan Moabadisa mamacobisa šeḳrva

3a merme Visi sac̣utro-moc̣q̇enilman malvit ḳactagan ʒiʒasa utxra da
      3b "čemi bedi mebrʒvis dġe da ġame.


4a gaʒġa guli čemi sicocxlisagan
      4b da gamqmara ʒiri čemisa sixarulisa xisa.
5a ara vici, tu čemi ġone ra-ġa-a tavisa moḳlvisagan ḳide,
      5b romel nu-tu-mca siḳvdilita daveqsen čemsa q̇opasa!
6a ac̣ tu šen čemsa ġonesa ar eʒeb
      6b da ama č̣irisagan ar miqsni,
7a me, vita mitkvams, agre adre tavsa moviḳlav,

8a amit romel, ra Moabads davinaxav,
      8b vita-mca cecxlsa ševsdgebodi.
9a siḳvdilisa danaxva da misi — sc̣orad mičns.
      9b ġmertman Moabadis sac̣utro asre mc̣are kmnas, vita čemi.
10a tu-ca ǯeret datmobisa c̣q̇lita guli daubania
      10b da gulis-neba čemgan ar uʒebnia,
11a amis mešinian, romel ver gaʒlos
      11b da xvašiadi damaluli gamoacxados.
12a ac̣e vi-re igi čemgan nebasa eʒebdes,
      12b šen gzasa zeda maxe dauge.
13a ese icode, romel me ert c̣lamdis tavsa ar mivscem
      13b da me tvit siḳvdilisatvis tav-ganc̣iruli var.
14a mamisa čemisa ṭḳivili amisagan umcro ar egebis.
      14b munamdi me esre vikmnebi,
15a ert c̣lamdis Moabad ar damtmobs da ar-ca mimišvebs,
      15b amit romel mas čemgan ar-ca rcxvenian da ar-ca ešinian.
16a ac̣ šemic̣q̇ale, šeneburad daiurve,
      16b misi mamacoba šeḳar čemzeda.

Achtung: Dieser Text ist mit Unicode / UTF8 kodiert. Um die in ihm erscheinenden Sonderzeichen auf Bildschirm und Drucker sichtbar zu machen, muß ein Font installiert sein, der Unicode abdeckt wie z.B. der TITUS-Font Titus Cyberbit Unicode. Attention: This text is encoded using Unicode / UTF8. The special characters as contained in it can only be displayed and printed by installing a font that covers Unicode such as the TITUS font Titus Cyberbit Unicode.

Copyright Jost Gippert, Frankfurt a/M 9. 1.2003. No parts of this document may be republished in any form without prior permission by the copyright holder.