# Persian: Original names of kings Dareios, Xerxes and Kyros



## franknagy

We know this pages of history from Greek chronicles.
Dareios, Xerxes, Kyros are _distorted _names.
What were their original names in Ancient Persian language?  How are they pronounced in present Persian language?


----------



## colognial

Hello, franknagy.

I'm sure I've no clear idea as to how these names must have been pronounced in Ancient Persia. It's easy, however, to tell you how they are pronounced now.

Daar-yoosh
Kha-shaa-yaar-shaa
Koo-rosh

Of course there are really no hyphens in these names. I have put them there to divide the syllables, just to help make it easier to see how each syllable is pronounced.


----------



## Dib

The Old Persian originals (in nominative case) are as follows:

dārayavahuš (The "h" was not written in the Old Persian script in the nominative case of the name, but was written in the genitive: "dārayavahauš". So, it was probably actually pronounced in both cases, as would sort-of be expected from the etymology too.)
xšayāršā
kuruš

The transliteration uses the Standard Old Persian Romanization. If you have doubts about it, plz. feel free to ask.


----------



## colognial

Dib, your answer is informative and fascinating to me. Did these names mean anything in those days? Has anyone come up with any good guesses or, better still, definite answers on that?
Another question is, you say the h was not spelled in the nominative case, yet you seem to have chosen to put it there all the same. Could you explain this to me, please!


----------



## Dib

Yes, kind of.

 dārayavahuš is completely transparent: "dāraya-vahu-", "possessor of good things (wealth, etc.)". Both the elements survive in modern Persian: the first element in the verb "daar-" to have; the second in "beh-" as in "behtar". The final -š is just the nominative singular case marker.

xšayāršā is a bit less obvious, still reasonably clear: "xšaya-ṛšan-", "ruler of men/heroes (?)". The first element also survives in modern derivative words from it, like "shaah", "shahr", etc. I don't know of any modern reflexes of the second part.

kuruš is, however, not clear. Maybe, the clan/tribe name "kuru-", which was very prominent in India too. Arguably the greatest ancient Indian literary achievement, the Mahābhārata, is the story of the Indian "kuru-" clan. But this might just be my fancy. I am not aware of any linguistic consensus.


----------



## fdb

Dib has given an excellent answer. One nit-picking point: graphic <x-š-y-a-r-š-a> is probably not xšayāršā but xšaya-ṛšā with <ar> as “Anlautschreibung” for/ ṛ/.


----------



## Dib

colognial said:


> Another question is, you say the h was not  spelled in the nominative case, yet you seem to have chosen to put it  there all the same. Could you explain this to me, please!



I am sorry, I overlooked this bit before. So, there are a couple of  reasons to believe that the h - even though not written - was  pronounced:

1) It is believed that it was a regular OP  orthographical convention to omit the h before a u. The same words  sometimes (not always though!) show the "h" when written in Akkadian  (e.g. the god - Ahuramazdā), and when word-initial, also in the Greek versions, as a k or a x (OP Huvārazmi-  ~ Gk. Xorazmia). Those orthographically omitted "h"-s can be observed for  many words in Middle Persian too. [Ref. Prods Oktor Skjærvø. _An Introduction to Old Persian_. revised and expanded 2nd version - p. 83]

2)  Secondarily, there are also etymological expectations, as can be figured  out through comparison with related languages like Avestan, Sanskrit,  etc. But this is, of course, subordinate to the previous point.

Applying these principles, reconstructing a phonetic dārayavahuš in the nominative makes sense because:
a) It explains the spelling of both the nominative (as explained in (1) above) and the genitive (dārayava*hauš*).
b) It makes perfect etymological sense.



fdb said:


> Dib has given an excellent answer. One nit-picking  point: graphic <x-š-y-a-r-š-a> is probably not xšayāršā but  xšaya-ṛšā with <ar> as “Anlautschreibung” for/ ṛ/.



Thanks for pointing this out. I am just wondering though, wouldn't a  sequence, -a-ṛ-, get resolved to a syllable like -ar- or -ār- through  sandhi? As you can guess, it's my Sanskrit-educated brain talking of  course.


----------



## gagun

this for one who is interested in etymology
www.ancientscripts.com/avestan.html


----------



## franknagy

Thank you for the answers.
What do x and ṛ denote in "xšaya-ṛšan-"?
A Hungarian cannot pronounce ksz-s-a...
The ṛ is like K*r*ishna?

Dárius (proniunce with š) lives in Hungarian.
Dárius kincse= Enourmous treasure.


----------



## Dib

x is not like Hungarian ksz here. It is like German "ch" in Bach.
And the ṛ is indeed like in K*ṛ*shna, that is to say a syllabic (or vocalic) r.


----------



## fdb

franknagy said:


> Dárius (pronounce with š) lives in Hungarian.
> Dárius kincse= Enourmous treasure.



That is interesting. Darius is mentioned several times in the Bible, so I would imagine that the Hungarian Dárius is taken directly from the Latin Bible. Kincs “treasure” is related to the pan-Iranian word for “treasure, treasury” (New Persian ganj etc.), probably one of the Alanic loanwords in Hungarian.


----------



## colognial

fdb, not that I have ever attempted to investigate this myself, but I've always heard of Cyrus or Koorosh as the Persian king who has been mentioned in the Old Testament. His name crops up, or so I've heard, in association with the conquest of Assyria and the liberation of Jews enslaved by some great Assyrian king, probably Nebuchadnezzar. I wonder if you happen to know if there's any substance to this claim.


----------



## franknagy

Dib said:
			
		

> dārayavahuš is completely transparent: "dāraya-vahu-", "possessor of  good things (wealth, etc.)". Both the elements survive in modern  Persian: the first element in the verb "daar-" to have; the second in  "beh-" as in "behtar". The final -š is just the nominative singular case  marker.
> 
> xšayāršā is a bit less obvious, still reasonably clear: "xšaya-ṛšan-",  "ruler of men/heroes (?)". The first element also survives in modern  derivative words from it, like "shaah", "shahr", etc. I don't know of  any modern reflexes of the second part.


I infer from this names that these king took of self-shining names during their governing. Was it a general habit, like the pope's name change? I know that Darius caught the power with a coup d'état. They must have had another name before their kingdom.

...


			
				Dib said:
			
		

> Kincs “treasure” is related to the pan-Iranian word


If I remember well _arany_=Au, _ezüst_=Ag, comes from Iran, too.
---
The opposite of wealth is _"nincs"_ in Hungarian. It sounds very similarly to _"kincs"_.
It is a very strange *negative verb *having defective conjugation (only 3rd person, present, singular and plural).


----------



## colognial

franknagy said:


> I infer from this names that these king took of self-shining names during their governing. Was it a general habit, like the pope's name change? I know that Darius caught the power with a coup d'état. They must have had another name before their kingdom.



My inference, in a very general way, is that personal names are bestowed not just because they are appropriate but also, or even more so, because they are believed or hoped to have the power to impart something of their meaning to the individual. In the case of the (de facto) king named _Possessor of All the Good Things_ (?), I personally could only make guesses as to whether or not Daaryoosh had had this name even before the coup. But I think in the absence of any hard evidence, an expert would have to look into the question of whether this name was a grand name, worthy of kings only, or whether it was a common enough name, given as a blessing to their offspring by the common folk.


----------



## fdb

Frank Nagy has raised an interesting question. I would think that Dāraya-vahu- is primarily a religious (Zoroastrian) name: “holding tight to Good”. By contrast Xšaya-ṛšan- is a typical royal name: “ruling over men”. Darius was a usurper, so his father did not necessarily expect him ever to be king. Xerxes was born heir to the throne and bore a royal name from the outset.


----------



## franknagy

fdb said:


> That is interesting. Darius is mentioned several times in the Bible, so I would imagine that the Hungarian Dárius is taken directly from the Latin Bible. Kincs “treasure” is related to the pan-Iranian word for “treasure, treasury” (New Persian ganj etc.), probably one of the Alanic loanwords in Hungarian.



There is another historical king who is used for very rich men in Hungarian:* Kroisos*. He was not Persian but Lydian king who took part in Persian internal fight. His name is went to Hungarian via Latin as *krőzus* (pronounce with š on its end) as synonym of extremely rich people.

Dárius is used in denial:
I won't do it even for Dárius' treasure.
Krőzus as high level of richness:
He is a krőzus.


----------

