Having been persuaded that this is a useful exercise, the author traces his growth as an etymologist and Indo-Europeanist from his early linguistic situation and guidance via a series of sidesteps through science, engineering, slavistics and an iconoclast Indo-Europeanist mentor to a barely supervised PhD in the subject. It is hoped readers will not be unduly disturbed by the author’s lack of formal training in the precise disciplines in which he continues to publish in the belief that the background here portrayed may explain his adherence to a number of minority views.
Five short articles are presented offering, in some, new etymological suggestions (§§ 1. μάχομαι ‘fight’, μισθός ‘reward’, 2. βούλομαι ‘want, wish’ : Slavic *gòlъ ‘bare, naked’, 4. εἵλη ‘warmth, heat of the sun’), in others, comments on existing etymologies (§§ 1. μισθός ‘reward’, 3. οὖτα ‘wound’, 5. ὄνυξ ‘nail’ and delabialization by *l in North and East Germanic). Two of the items present alternatives to reconstructions with PIE *a (§§ 1, 3).
Contrary to what the title of the paper implies, the author does not limit himself to the presentation of the current state of research on Phrygian, but also provides his own interpretations and evaluations in many places. The very extensive list of references attached will certainly prove to be useful to the reader interested in the subject analysed.
Sowa (2007: 157) casts doubt on the Diakonoff/Neroznak (1985: 109) derivation of alleged Phrygian γάλλος ‘castrated priest of Attis and Cybele’ from a PIE base *g2 hl3-los1 ‘cut short, shave’, chiefly on the ground that the analysis of the word as an *l-deverbative on this basis is “dubious”.2 Instead, Sowa tentatively suggests a connection with PIE *gelH- ‘gain power over’, as reconstructed in LIV2 (p. 185f.).3 Since an appeal to the *l-deverbative is the most obvious way of accounting for the medial geminate in both suggestions, which I shall refer to as [1] and [2], respectively, as well as being the most interesting from the point of view of my (2006) theory of Phrygian conditioned devoicing of mediae, my intention here is to assess the phonology of both suggestions in the light of that theory. Obviously for this purpose I am assuming the word is Phrygian.
Three approaches to the etymology of Slavic * - are developed under two complementary assumptions about the age of the forms reconstructed with short second syllable. These three approaches are tested to determine which best yields the spread of attested accentual and other forms listed in representative sources. Derivations containing the PIE neuter deictic *hed as first component are found to be the most fruitful if it is assumed that anlaut laryngeals remained in Slavic until the completion of both Winter’s law and the subsequent loss by dissimilation of one or more laryngeal reflexes, including the laryngeal component of PIE *d, in this compound word, all these reflexes having merged by this time in some kind of glottal constriction. Comments are also offered on the etymologies of Slavic * (ъ)và and Lith. võs.
Discussed are the etymologies of twelve Hittite words and word groups (alpa- ‘cloud’, aku- ‘seashell’, ariye/a-zi ‘determine by or consult an oracle’, heu- / he(y)aw- ‘rain’, hāli- ‘pen, corral’, kalmara- ‘ray’ etc., māhla- ‘grapevine branch’, sūu, sūwaw- ‘full’, tarra-tta(ri) ‘be able’ and tarhu-zi ‘id.; conquer’, idālu- ‘evil’, tara-i / tari- ‘become weary, henkan ‘death, doom’) and some points of Hittite historical phonology, such as the fate of medial *-h2n- (sub §7) and final *-i (§13), all of which appear to receive somewhat inadequate treatment in Kloekhorst’s 2008 Hittite etymological dictionary. Several old etymologies are defended and some new ones suggested.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.