Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T09:58:07.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The origins of the Greek lexicon: Ex Oriente Lux

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

O. Szemerényi
O. Szemerényi
Affiliation:
Freiburg im Breisgau
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. For more than two thousand years research into the origins of the Greek lexicon had been understood and carried on in the spirit exemplified but also mocked in the Platonic Kratylos. The revolutionary change came in the early nineteenth century when after many inspired guesses Franz Bopp (1791–1867) finally and definitively proved in 1816 that Greek, in company with many European languages, derived, like Indian and Iranian, from one prehistoric ancestor, the whole family being dubbed Indo-European by the well-known physician and physicist, Dr Thomas Young, in 1813, three years before the publication of Bopp's work. But the first true etymologist was August Friedrich Pott (1802–87) who with the two volumes of his Etymologische Forschungen, published in 1833 and 1836 respectively, laid the foundations of Indo-European, and therewith also Greek, etymology.

Throughout the nineteenth century, and even down to our own days, the main emphasis has been on the IE origins of the Greek vocabulary.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 94 , November 1974 , pp. 144 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On etymology in antiquity see Krause, W., Problemkreise der antiken Grammatik (Serta Philologica Aenipontana ed. Muth, R., 1962, 215–37Google Scholar) 226; the excellent survey of pagan and Christian representatives and doctrines by Opelt, I., Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum VI, 1966, 797–844Google Scholar; Ferrante, , ‘Le etimologie nei dialoghi di Platone’, Ril 98, 1964, 162–70Google Scholar; id., ‘Le etimologie nella storiografia attica e nella poesia ellenistica’, Ril 100, 1966, 473–506; Leroy, , ‘Étymologie et linguistique chez Platon’, Bulletin Acad. Belg. 54, 1968, 121–52Google Scholar; Poerck, G. de, ‘Etymologia et origo à travers la tradition latine’, in: Anamnesis—Gedenkboek E. A. Leemans, 1970, 191–228Google Scholar.

2 In his review of Adelung-Vater, , Mithridates, in: Quarterly Review (London) X/2 (no. 19), 255Google Scholar. On the whole problem see Norman, , Mlr 24, 1929, 317Google Scholar; Siegert, , Wörter und Sachen 22, 1942, 75Google Scholar f.

3 On Pott's significance see Delbrück, , Einleitung in das Studium der idg. Sprachen,4 1904, 82–3Google Scholar; Meillet, , Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indoeuropéennes 8, 1937, 462Google Scholar; Pedersen, , The discovery of language, 1962, 262–4Google Scholar. Note that the second edition of Pott's work was published 1859–76 in ten volumes!

4 Humbach, , Kz 81, 1968, 279Google Scholar. This does not mean, of course, that Alcman's ἀστὴρ ὠρανѽ διαιπετής must be the same thing. Cf. also Heubeck, , Gga 218, 1966, 219Google Scholar; Schmitt, R., Dichtung und Dichtersprache in idg. Zeit, 1967, 368Google Scholar s.vv.

5 See Szemerényi, , Gn. 43, 1972, 665Google Scholar. Deroy, invents for νυσος an etymon νυκ-γοσ (∼νύσσω), i.e. ‘pointe, pic—rejeton, fils’ (Onomata (Athens), 4, 1972, 3–11)Google Scholar. On the presence of Dionysus in early Greek religion see Privitera, , 1st Myc. Congress, 1968, 1027Google Scholar f.; ‘Dioniso in Omero e nella poesia greca arcaica’, 1970 (known to me from Rph 46, 1972, 286–7).

6 Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (= Frisk) I 213 (βάλανος = ‘bolt-pin’, and so βαλανεῖον ‘verschlossener Raum’) is hardly worth recalling. For the suggestion mentioned in the text see Chantraine, , Linguistique Balkanique 6, 1962, 16Google Scholar; Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (=Chantraine) I 159 f.

7 For qerana ‘ewer, jug’ see Ventris-Chadwick, , Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 1956, 327Google Scholar (where IE xk wer- is considered); Palmer, L. R., The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek texts, 1963, 341Google Scholar, 353; Ruijgh, , Studia Mycenaea, Brno 1968, 99Google Scholar3 (‘vase à eau chaude’ IE xg wher-‘warm’, after Kamerbeek). I learn from J. Chadwick (letter of 19.3.1973) that he has been using the interpretation suggested by me for a long time. My explanation was first published in Gn. 43, 659, where I also referred to Petruševski, , Źa 15, 1965, 60Google Scholar, who however merely states the connexion between qerana and βαλανεύω without trying to explain their relation; more explicit is now Perpillou, , Les substantifs grecs en -eus, 1973, 313–14Google Scholar.

8 For details of Greek bathing habits see Becker, , Charicles, London 1854, 146Google Scholar f., where a vase-painting plainly shows the ‘pouring’ (p. 148). See also Ginouvès, R., Balaneutiké: Recherches sur le bain dans l' antiquité grecque, Paris 1962Google Scholar, and note the ‘bathpourers’ (lewotro-khowo) at Pylos.

9 This explanation was first given in Studia A. Pagliaro oblata 3, 1969, 236–8.

10 For this question see Meister, R.'s excellent paper ‘Die spartanischen Altersklassen vom Standpunkt der Entwicklungspsychologie betrachtet’, SbÖAW 241/5, 1963, 3–24Google Scholar. Note that according to Meister the ages are 11 and 12. My view, reached independently, had been current before Kretschmer, , see Glotta 18, 1929, 211Google Scholar.

11 Jeffery, L. H. and Morpurgo-Davies, A., Kadmos 9, 1970, 118–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 122 (date) and 136 (our word).

12 See Minos 9, 1969, 192–7, and cf. Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 662.

13 Glotta 41, 1963, 183.

14 Szemerényi, , Syncope in Greek and Indo-European, Naples 1964, 3771, 410Google Scholar. A gen. *dem-s is again regarded as original by Schindler, , Bsl 67, 1973, 32Google Scholar.

15 Note all the same the following: Erman, , Bb 7, 1883, 336–8Google Scholar; Wiedemann, , Sammlung |altägyptischer Wörter, welche von klassischen Autoren umschrieben oder übersetzt worden sind, Leipzig 1883Google Scholar; Spiegelberg, , Kz 41, 1907, 127–32Google Scholar; Hermes 56, 1921, 332–3; Debrunner, , in: Ebert's Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte IV/2, 1926, 518Google Scholar; Thompson, D'Arcy Wentworth, Jea 14, 1928, 23–33Google Scholar, and in: Studies presented to F. Ll. Griffith, London, 1932, 249–53; Schwyzer, , Griechische Grammatik I/1, 1934, 64Google Scholar, 152, 154 f.; Janssen, , Le Muséon 59, 1946, 233–40Google Scholar; Jernštedt, , Egipetskije zaimstvovanija v grečeskom jazyke, Moscow-Leningrad 1953Google Scholar; ‘Iz oblasti drevnejšix egiptizmov grečeskogo jazyka’, Palestinskij Sbornik 2 (64–5), 1956, 12–30; 3 (66), 1958, 29–40; Daniel, C., ‘Des emprunts égyptiens dans le grec ancien’, Studia et Acta Orientalia (Bucarest), 4, 1962, 13–23Google Scholar; Hemmerdinger, , ‘Noms communs grecs d'origine égyptienne’, Glotta 46, 1969, 238–47Google Scholar; McGready, , ‘Egyptian words in the Greek vocabulary’, ibid. 247–54Google Scholar; finally the very critical paper by Pierce, R. H., Symb. Osl. 46, 1971, 96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15a Müller, A., ‘Die semitischen Lehnworte im älteren Griechisch’, Bb 1, 1877, 273–301Google Scholar.

16 It is perhaps of interest in this context that according to Muss-Arnolt, who merely echoes Wharton on this point, the percentage of borrowed words in Greek is about 2.5. If we take the Classical vocabulary, down to about 300 B.C., to have 40,000 words, then the number of loanwords must lie around 1,000!

17 Boisacq, , Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, 1907–1916Google Scholar, pp. VII–VIII.

18 Meillet, , Aperçu d'une histoire de la langue grecque, 4 1935, 56Google Scholar = 71965, 59. In both quotations the Italics are mine.

19 See Hoffmann-Debrunner, , Geschichte der griechischen Sprache I,3 1953, 18Google Scholar (cf. also Debrunner, , Reallexi-kon der Vorgeschichte IV/2, 1926, 517Google Scholar). It is interesting that the corresponding passage in the fourth edition by A. Scherer (1969, p. 26) is quite differently phrased.

20 Masson, É., Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec, Paris 1967Google Scholar.

21 Szemerényi, , If 73, 1968, 197Google Scholar. Of more recent work I should like to mention the following: Mayer, M. L., ‘Gli imprestiti semitici in greco’, Ril 94, 1960, 311–51Google Scholar; ‘Ricerche sul problema dei rapporti fra lingue indoeuropee e lingue semitiche’, Acme 13, 1960, 77–100; ‘Note etimologiche III’, Acme 17, 1964, 223–9; Modena, M. L. Mayer, ‘Note etimologiche IV’, Acme 20, 1967, 287–91Google Scholar; Brown, John Pairman, ‘Kothar, Kinyras, and Kythereia’, Journal of Semitic Studies 10, 1965, 197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Literary contexts of the common Hebrew-Greek vocabulary’, ibid. 13, 1968, 163–91; ‘The Mediterranean vocabulary of the vine’, Vetus Testamentum 19, 1969, 146–70. On Astour, M. C.'s Hellenosemitica (Leiden, 1965, 415Google Scholar pp.) Masson, Mme has a brief comment (o.c., 18Google Scholar). On temenos see Manessy-Guitton, J., Bsl 67, 1973, 90–1Google Scholar. Cf. also n. 46 below, and on ‘Homer and the Phoenicians’, Muhly, J. D., Berytus 19, 1970, 19–64Google Scholar, as also Walcot, , Ugarit-Forschungen 4, 1973, 129–32Google Scholar. A quite recent addition is Dugand, J. E., Chypre et Canaan, Nice 1973Google Scholar.

22 For shape and size see, e.g., Baumgarten-Poland-Wagner, , Die hellenistische Kultur, 1913, 113Google Scholar (Fig. 129), 158 (Fig. 172).

23 See É. Masson 39 f., and for the last term Szemerényi, , If 73, 1968, 194Google Scholar f. For ‘Termes grecs pour désigner les vases …’ see Bănăţeanu, , Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 14, 1969, 205–19Google Scholar.

24 See Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 1955, 221 f.

25 See Soden, von, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I, 1959–1965, 472Google ScholarA.

26 On the internal Greek relations see Szemerényi, , Syncope 42Google Scholar, 49; Frisk II 1102. For the Semitic data cf. v. Soden I 296; Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (=Cad) 5, 1956, 127. Further research will have to decide how far, if at all, Middle Babylonian hulānu ‘blanket, wrap’ (v. Soden I 354; Cad 6, 1956, 229) played a role in the history of our group.

27 See Szemerényi, , Gn. 43, 673Google Scholar.

28 Szemerényi, ibid. 657. A different derivation (from Sumer, asam) is assumed by Furnèe, , Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Vorgriechischen, The Hague 1972, 45–6Google Scholar.

29 JSemSt 10, 1965, 203; 13, 1968, 182 f. For the Ugaritic phrase see Aistleitner, , Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache, Berlin 1963, 167Google Scholar. On brick-making and the etymology see now Salonen, , Die Ziegeleien im alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki 1972, 136Google Scholar f. The oft-attempted Ie interpretation was rightly rejected by Kretschmer, , Glotta 23, 1934, 12Google Scholar, who emphasised that the word, as a cultural term, was borrowed from a pre-Hellenic stratum; cf. also Lejeune, , Reanc 49, 1947, 26Google Scholar.

30 See already Gn. 43, 656. The equation is of course old. The Greek ξ will be due to an articular haḥṣīnā'.

31 See Salonen, , Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki 1970, 67Google Scholar f. The word is also used in a military sense which may be significant because of the meaning of σαγηνεύω: sweep, catch as in a net, the population of a country (Lsj); cf. Salonen, E., Die Waffen der alten Mesopotamier, Helsinki 1965, 98Google Scholar.

32 After Whatmough, and Jokl, especially Krahe, Sprache der Illyrier I, 1955, 114Google Scholar. On Lat. lembus see Castellani-Pollidori, Ornella, ‘I più antichi grecismi nautici in latino’ (Atti e Memorie dell'Accademia Toscana 22, 1957, 183–264Google Scholar) 223.

32a Engl. lighter readily comes to mind in this connexion and has indeed been repeatedly brought up in discussion. But a lighter is so called because it makes another, bigger, boat light, not because it is light itself.

33 Cf. v. Soden I 198 f.; Salonen, A., Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien, 1939, 11Google Scholar f.; Ziegeleien 107; Fronzaroli, , Bollettino dell'Atlante Linguistico Mediterraneo 8–9, 1966–1967, 211Google Scholar f.; Oriens Antiquus 11, 1972, 256.

34 Whether Myc. apenewo belongs with ἀπήνη and thus the second vowel of the word was an original ē, cannot be decided. Note that within the Ie orbit it is impossible to account for the initial variation ap-/kap-/lamp-.

35 Szemerényi, , Gn. 43, 663Google Scholar. Cf. also Brown, , JSemSt 13, 1968, 185Google Scholar.

36 There is no need to argue in detail against the suggestion (reported by Frisk II 890) that Τηθύς is a back-formation from τήθυον ‘sea-squirt’.

37 See Jacobsen, , Jaos 88, 1968, 108Google Scholar; Fronzaroli, , Bollettino (see n. 33) 205Google Scholar f.

38 Cf. Nougayrol, , Crai 1957, 83Google Scholar. At Ugaritica V 58 a form tāmatum is also recorded.

39 Szemerényi, , Gn. 43, 650Google Scholar. A loan-relation is now also recognised by Levin, S., The Ie and Semitic languages, 1971, 283Google Scholar, who however cannot decide on the direction of borrowing. (On this book see my review in General Linguistics, 13, 1974, 101–9.)

40 Szemerényi, , Gn 43, 668Google Scholar. The deglutination perhaps took place via a neuter thermāno-‘interpreting’ which was taken to be το ἑρμᾶνο- (cf. Lejeune, , Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien, 1972, 325Google Scholar).

41 See Robert, L. and Robert, J., Bulletin épigraphique (Reg), 1958, 348Google Scholar and cf. 358. A late epicising epigram (of fourth to fifth century A.D.) from Patras, quoted by Bingen, , Bch 78, 1954, 74CrossRefGoogle Scholarf.; uses the word in the same sense.

42 Glotta 40, 1962, 168–82. Gindin, , in: Etimologija (1965), 1967, 217Google Scholar fn., mentions our word but does not bring it nearer a solution. For further suggestions see Frisk II 143, and now Koller, , Glotta 51, 1973, 29–34Google Scholar, who would analyse λυκάβαντα as λύκαβάντα, ‘the vanished light (of the new moon!)’; but surely λυκ- would be feminine!

43 Aistleitner, , Wörterbuch 213Google Scholar.

44 Koehler, , Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros, 1958, 1039Google Scholar.

44a For the date of the Scutum see Page, Poetae melici Graeci, 1962, 133 ad 269; Walcott, , Smea 2, 1967, 58Google Scholar.

45 This is not, in my view, a ‘thematised’ form of ὀρεσ- as is suggested by, e.g., Frisk II 426 or Risch, If 59, 1944, 257. On the meaning of ὀρείχαλκος note Michell, , Cr 69, 1955, 21–2Google Scholar; Caley, E. R., Orichalcum and related ancient alloys—origin, composition and manufacture with special reference to the coinage of the Roman Empire, NY 1964 (non vidi)Google Scholar.

46 For the lexicon of Soden, v. and the Cad see nn. 25–6Google Scholar. For Ugaritic, note Aistleitner (n. 29), and Gordon, 's Ugaritic Textbook, Rome 1965Google Scholar, which also gives the grammar and the texts; for translations of the latter see Gordon, 's Ugarit and Minoan Crete, NY 1966Google Scholar. For Hebrew we have Koehler, and Baumgartner, , Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros, Leiden, 1958Google Scholar. For some of Salonen's monographs see nn. 29, 31, 33. Fronzaroli's studies are currently appearing under the title Studi sul lessico comune semitico in Rendiconti, Accad. Lincei; so far parts I–VII have been published (1964–72). For a planned Comp. Dict. of the Semitic languages see Zdmg Suppl. I, 1969, 714–17; for a newly published one, see Soden, W. v., Orientalia 42, 1973, 142–8Google Scholar.

Contacts of Greece with Mesopotamia have been dramatically illuminated by the cuneiform-inscribed cylinders found a few years ago at Thebes. Just as dramatic, if not even more so, is the appearance of a similar cylinder, dated around 650 B.C., in a tomb near Falerii, see Fronzaroli, , Se 39, 1972, 14–19Google Scholar.

47 Cf. Huxley, , Crete and the Luwians, 1961, 20Google Scholar f.; Chantraine, , Linguistique Balkanique 6, 1962, 14–15Google Scholar; Brandenstein, , In memoriam Bossert, 1966, 120Google Scholar; Eire, A. Lopez, Zephyros 18, 1967, 129–35Google Scholar; Palmer, , 1st Myc. Congress, 1968, 340Google Scholar f.; Scherer (see n. 19), 1969, 19; Georgiev, , 10th Onomastic Congress, 1969, 26Google Scholar f.; Carruba, , Rfic 97, 1969, 9Google Scholar f.; Crossland, , Cah 3 I/2, 1970, 848Google Scholar f.

48 See, e.g., Schwyzer, , Griech. Gram. I 59Google Scholar f.; Meillet, , Aperçu (see n. 18), 1965, 66Google Scholar f.; Beattie, , ‘Aegaean languages of the heroic age’, in: A Companion to Homer, edd. Wace, A. J. B. and Stubbings, F. H., London 1963, 311–24Google Scholar; Schachermeyr, , Ägäis und Orient, 1967, 12Google Scholar f.; Chadwick, , ‘Greek and Pre-Greek’ (Tps 1969, 80–98Google Scholar) 83 f.; Hester, , Minos 9, 1969, 220Google Scholar f.; Kammenhuber, , Handbuch der Orientalistik I/II/1–2, 1969, 260Google Scholar.

49 If we omit the exciting controversy of the twenties over the ‘Greeks in Hittite texts’, the first serious studies of Anatolian influence are due to Neumann, G., Untersuchungen zum Weiterleben hethitischen und luwischen Sprachgutes in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Wiesbaden 1961Google Scholar (and already 8th Congress of Linguists, 1958, 609–10), who found some fifty words in the spheres of food, savoir vivre, sex, religion, to be of Anatolian origin (cf. ἴτριον ‘cake’: Hitt. iduri), and Heubeck, A., Praegraeca, Erlangen 1961Google Scholar. More recent studies are: Gusmani, , ‘Isoglosse lessicali greco-ittite’ (Studi in onore di V. Pisani, 1969, 501–14Google Scholar) 508 f.; Lazzeroni, , ‘Stratificazioni nella lingua poetica greca’ (ibid.619–34Google Scholar), esp. 625 f.; Householder, and Nagy, , Current Trends in Linguistics 9, 1972, 774Google Scholar f.

50 See Laroche, , Rha 79, 1967, 180Google Scholar f.; Halleux, , Smea 9, 1969, 47–66Google Scholar.

51 Cf. Szemerényi, , Sprache 11, 1966, 1–6Google Scholar; Gn. 43, 675. A brief suggestion to the same effect was made by Brown, , JSemSt 10, 1965, 213Google Scholar7. See also Milani, , Ril 104, 1971, 495Google Scholar f. This explanation is still not noted by Borchhardt, J., Homerische Helme, 1972, 9Google Scholar.

52 Rosenkranz, , Ex oriente lux VI, 1966, 502–3Google Scholar. For the derivation from Hittite of the Greek word see Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 657, and Gusmani (n. 49) 512.

53 Szemerényi, , Studia A. Pagliaro oblata III, 1969, 243–5Google Scholar.

54 Schwyzer, , Griechische Grammatik I, 1939, 5335Google Scholar.

55 Benveniste, , Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen, 1935, 191Google Scholar.

56 Thieme, , Turner Jubilee Volume (=Indian Linguisstics 19), 1958, 149Google Scholar, finds that ēdhat̅e is ‘glows’ from idh- ‘kindle.’ See also Hoffmann, K., Kz 79, 1966, 185Google Scholar f.

57 See his Merit and responsibility—a study in Greek values, 1960, 32. This statement is not affected by Long, A. A.'s critique, Jhs 90, 1970, 121–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 This word is usually connected with hastai-‘bone’ on the assumption that ‘bony’ was the basic meaning, cf. Laroche, , Les noms des Hittites, 1966, 336Google Scholar; Gindin, , in: Etimologija (1965), 1967, 226Google Scholar; Ševoroškin, ibid. 230. But in view of Babyl. gištelu ‘noble’ it is not impossible that the word is ultimately of Sumerian origin. Cf. v. Soden I 293; Cad vol. 5, 109.

59 See Güterbock, , Journal of Cuneiform Studies 5, 1951, 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar, line 32. Güterbock prints hastalius but since the verb hastales- and the abstract hastaliyatar both lack a stem-vowel u, we must assume that -li-us on the tablet is merely a misspelling for -li-is, by omission of a second vertical wedge at the end.

60 I have not seen Doyle, 's work on this and other words in Traditio 26, 1970, 215–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Pokorny, , Idg. etym. Wb. I, 1949–1959. 477Google Scholar. Arena, , Helikon 6, 1966, 145Google Scholar f. substitutes for βρι- ‘heavy’ the stem βρω-, and imagines that the basic meaning was ‘eat excessively’.

62 See Friedrich, , Hethitisches Wörterbuch, 1952, 79Google Scholar; 1st Supplement, 1957, 7. Watkins, , Geschichte der idg. Verbalflexion, 1969, 30Google Scholar, connects huwap- with Gothic ubils ‘evil’.

63 See Kronasser, , Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache I, 1966, 271Google Scholar.

64 Jacobsohn, , Philologus 67, 1908, 494Google Scholar; Leumann, , Homerische Wörter, 1950, 112Google Scholar fn. 77.

65 See Frisk II 684.

66 Cf. Neumann, , Weiterleben (see n. 49) 18Google Scholar; Carruba, , Das Beschwörungsritual für die Göttin Wisurijanza, 1966, 17Google Scholar f.

67 See the good summing-up at Frisk II 607.

68 Laroche, , Rha 76, 1966, 37Google Scholar; cf. Imparati, , Studi Meriggi, 1969, 154–9Google Scholar.

69 Szemerényi, , Gedenkschrift für W. Brandenstein, 1968, 155–7Google Scholar.

70 Debrunner, in: Hoffmann-Debrunner (see n. 19) 17. Cf. also Scherer (see n. 19) 24. Gansiniec's, view, Eranos 57, 1959, 56–68 (‘maiden of Athens’)Google Scholar is incompatible with the facts.

71 On this see Brown, , ‘The birth of Athena’, TAPA 83, 1952, 130–43Google Scholar.

72 I may be permitted to recall here that Athena's other name, Pallas, was interpreted by me as a Semitic loanword, ba‘lat ‘lady’, see Minutes of the London Mycenaean Seminar of November 7, 1956. The same explanation was subsequently advanced by Carruba, , 1st Mycenaean Congress, 1968, 939Google Scholar.

73 See Frisk I 164; Chantraine I 124. The view of Grégoire, outlined in the text, has now been adopted by Toporov, , see Konferencija po sravnitel'noistoričeskoj grammatike ie.jazykov—Predvaritel'nyje materialy, Moscow 1972, 81Google Scholar.

74 Cf. Ammann, , Glotta 25, 1936, 5–6Google Scholar.

75 See Ph.Houwink, H. J. ten Cate, The Luwian population groups of Lycia and Cilicia Aspera, 1965, 175–77Google Scholar; Zgusta, , Anatolische Personennamensippen I, 1964, 93–102Google Scholar; Laroche, , Les noms des Hittites, 1966, 317–19Google Scholar. My interpretation of the second part was also found by Grindin, (cf. 1st Congress of Balkan Studies VI, 1968, 835Google Scholar), but he takes the first part quite differently.

76 For Semitic ḏ/d in NWSemitic see Moscati, , An introduction to the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages, 1969, 28Google Scholar f.

77 Schwyzer, , Griech. Gram. I 484Google Scholar, mentions κίβδα but this is nonexistent.

78 See Kronasser, , Etymologie (see n. 63) 171Google Scholar f., 211 f.

79 Since etymologists—obviously led by mere assonance—continue connecting with our word the terms κίβδος ‘dross’ and κίβδωνες . μεταλλεῖς, I should, without going into details, mention as possible sources Hebrew kōbed ‘heavy mass’ on the one hand, and kibšān ‘kiln’ on the other.

80 On ᾱ Schwyzer I 190. On the route Mesopotamia—Anatolia—Greece versus Mesopotamia— Phoenicia—Greece, see now, in connection with the ‘Kingship in Heaven’ theme, Littleton, C. Scott, in: Myth and Law among the Indo-Europeans (ed. Puhvel, J., Los Angeles, 1970) 102Google Scholar.

81 Benveniste, , ‘Relations lexicales entre la Perse et la Grèce ancienne’, in: La Persia e il mondo grecoromano, Rome 1966, 479–85Google Scholar. Note also Pagliaro's comments ibid. 486, and Schmitt, R., ‘“Méconnaissance” altiranischen Sprachgutes im Griechischen’, Glotta 49, 1971, 95–110Google Scholar; for Greek κόλλιξ note Belardi, , Studi Meriggi, 1969, 25–9Google Scholar; for μανιάκης, id., Studia Pagliaro I, 1969, 189–211.

82 Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 650.

83 Szemerényi, ibid. 672.

84 Rundgren, 's discovery, see Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 674.

85 Cf. Handley, , Bics 12, 1965, 57Google Scholar; Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 672.

86 Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 647, 673.

87 Szemerényi, , Gn. 43Google Scholar, 647.

88 See v. Soden II 783. This explanation was, as I now see, also Found by Lewy, E., Kz 58, 1931, 33Google Scholar.

89 See v. Soden s.v.

90 Cf. v. Soden II 615 s. māru 6c. For the Mycenaean texts see Ventris-Chadwick, , Documents 155Google Scholar f.; Chadwick, , The decipherment of Linear B, 1958, 141Google Scholar. Note that this solution effectively counters Ekschmitt, W.'s critique at Die Kontroverse um Linear B, Munich 1969, 67Google Scholar.

91 Note, e.g., Hein, H., Hesiod's Theogonie als phoinikische Kosmologie, Heidelberg 1950Google Scholar; Lesky, , ‘Zum hethitischen und griechischen Mythos’, Éranos 52, 1954, 8–17Google Scholar; Walcot, , ‘Hesiod's Theogony and the Hittite epic of Kumarbi’, Cq. 6, 1956, 198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Soden, v., Orientalia 25, 1956, 141Google Scholar f., esp. 143 (Anum dashes his wicked daughter to Earth— cf. Hephaistos' story); Barnett, , ‘Ancient oriental influences on Archaic Greece’, Studies Hetty Goldmann, 1956, 212–38Google Scholar; McNeill, I., ‘The metre of the Hittite Epic’, Anatolian Studies 13, 1963, 237–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haag, , ‘Der gegenwärtige Stand der Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Homer und dem Alten Testament’, Ex oriente lux VI, 1966, 508–18Google Scholar; Horon, , ‘Canaan and the Aegaean Sea: Greco-Phoenician origins reviewed’, Diogenes 58, 1967, 37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar (on Gordon, non vidi); Steiner, , ‘Die Unterweltsbeschwörung des Odysseus im Lichte hethitischer Texte’, Ugarit-Forschungen 3, 1972, 265–83Google Scholar (but see also Walcot, ibid. 1, 114). Note also Lambert, and Walcot, , ‘A new Babylonian Theogony and Hesiod’, Kadmos 4, 1965, 64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Cf. Friedrich, , Archiv für Orientforschung 17, 1956, 148Google Scholar; Laroche, , Bsl 52, 1957, 74Google Scholar.

93 Kronasser, , Festschrift W. Krause, 1960, 60Google Scholar f.

94 I am greatly obliged to the Classics Board of London University, and to my very good friends Dr John Chadwick and Prof. Ian Campbell to whose courtesy I owe the privilege of having been able to present these views in London, Cambridge, and Edinburgh (February 21 and 27, March 2, 1973).