Aspects of Folk Etymology in Ancient Greek: Insights from Common Nouns | 179
(iii) From the viewpoint of morphology, there is an increased number of forms that are (deemed to be) derivatives or compounds. In other words, many forms give us the impression that they have a transparent multi-morpheme structure. This feature is important since as mentioned above (2, 2.1), folk ety- mology often operates through subconscious morphosemantic confusion, which facilitates morpheme substitution.
possible ‒ on an individual basis ‒ is a prerequisite for any large-scale study.
Increased confidence in the results of etymological analyses could allow per- haps a more thorough theoretical-typological analysis alongside studies of the phenomenon in modern languages (cf. e.g. Fliatouras 2017) despite the obvious difficulty here with (written) data from an ancient languages; or, it could even let us attempt a rough statistical analysis in place of more impressionistic ap- proaches. (ii) A comprehensive examination of the (relatively) more reliable cases, i.e. of the forms whose morphosemantic change(s) can be analyzed with some degree of certainty, would provide clearer indications about the basic features (‘mechanisms’, trends, limitations, etc.) of the phenomenon in the context of ancient Greek. (iii) Onomastics ought to be treated as a separate, special field, but a comparison between proper nouns and common nouns in the context of folk etymology will always be most welcome, as long as (i) and (ii) have previously been implemented, to some extent at least, in this case too (cf.
also Michel 2015, 1015–1016 for research desiderata in the study of folk etymolo- gy in general).
References
Andriotis, Nikolaos P. (1990), Ετυμολογικό λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής, 3rd ed., Thessaloniki.
Babiniotis, Georgios (2012), Ετυμολογικό λεξικό της νέας ελληνικής γλώσσας, 4th ed., Athens.
Beekes, Robert S.P. (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I-II, Leiden/Boston.
Beekes, Robert S.P. (2014), Pre-Greek. Phonology, Morphology, Lexicon, Leiden/Boston.
Brixhe, Claude (2007), “A Modern Approach to the Ancient Greek Dialects”, in: Anastasios- Foivos Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, Cambridge, 486–499.
Chantraine, Pierre (1933), La formation des noms en grec ancien, Paris.
Chantraine, Pierre (2009), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque: histoire des mots, 2nded., Paris.
Durkin, Philip (2009), The Oxford Guide to Etymology, Oxford.
Fliatouras, Asimakis (2017), “Παρετυμολογία και μορφολογία : μύθος και πραγματικότητα”, Γλωσσολογία 25, 33-49 (online: http://glossologia.phil.uoa.gr/node/137).
Frisk, Hjalmark (1960–1972), Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I–III, Heidelberg.
Furnée, Edzard J. (1972), Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des Urgriechischen, The Hague.
Garcea, Alessandro (2014), “Etymology (etumología), ancient theories of”, in: Georgios K.
Giannakis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Linguistics, I, Lei- den/Boston, 579–582 (online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2214-448X_eagll_COM_
00000125).
Grebe, Sabine (2001), “Views of Correct Speech in Varro and Quintilian”, in: Journal of Latin Linguistics 6, 135–164.
Aspects of Folk Etymology in Ancient Greek: Insights from Common Nouns | 181
Hatzopoulos, Miltiades (1991), Actes de vente d’Amphipolis, Athens.
Hock, Hans Henrich (1991), Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd ed., Berlin/New York.
Hoffmann, Otto (1939), “Ἀλέξανδρος”, Glotta 28.1–2, 21–77.
Katičić, Radoslav (1976), Ancient Languages of the Balkans, I-II, The Hague/Paris.
Lindner, Thomas (2003), “Das Problem der ‘vorgriechischen’ Toponymie”, in: Alfred Bammes- berger/Theo Vennemann (eds.), Languages in Prehistoric Europe, Heidelberg, 105–108.
LSJ = Liddell, Henry George/Scott, Robert/Jones, Henry Stuart (1996), A Greek-English Lexicon.
With a Revised Supplement, Oxford.
Matthews, Peter H. (2014), The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 3rd ed., Oxford.
Meier-Brügger, Michael (1992), Griechische Sprachwissenschaft, I–II, Berlin/New York.
Michel, Sascha (2015), “Word-Formation and Folk Etymology”, in: Peter O. Müller et al. (eds.), International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, II, Berlin/New York, 1002–1019.
Morpurgo Davies, Anna (1986), “The Linguistic Evidence: Is There Any?”, in: Gerald Cadogan (ed.), The End of Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, Leiden, 93–123.
Moysiadis, Theodoros (2005), Ετυμολογία. Εισαγωγή στη μεσαιωνική και νεοελληνική ετυμολογία, Athens.
Nikolaev, Alexander (2007), “The Name of Achilles”, in: Coulter George et al. (eds.), Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, Cambridge, 162–173.
Panagl, Oswald (2005), “Volksetymologie und Verwandtes”, in: D. Alan Cruse et al. (eds.), Lexiko- logie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen, II.
Berlin/New York, 1346–1352.
Perpillou, Jean-Louis (1973), Les substantifs grecs en -εύς, Paris.
Rank, Louis-Philippe (1951), Etymologiseering en verwante verschijnselen bij Homerus, Assen.
Robins, Robert Henry (1997), A Short History of Linguistics, 4th ed., London.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (ed.) (1977), Etymologie, Darmstadt.
Schmitt, Rüdiger (2008), “Greek Reintrepretation of Iranian Names by Folk Etymology”, in:
Elaine Matthews (ed.), Old and New Worlds in Greek Onomastics, Oxford, 135–150.
Sihler, Andrew L. (2000), Language History. An Introduction, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Tonnet, Henri (2003), Histoire du grec modern. La formation d’une langue, 2nd ed., Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622744-011
Michael Meier-Brügger
εὐ-
By way of my short contribution to this Festschrift, I would like to thank John N.
Kazazis for all he has done and will continue to organize and realize in the Cen- tre for the Greek Language (CGL) and especially for the Lexicography Division.
He performed well, εύγε!
I will, therefore, focus on the lexical item εὐ-, still present in Modern Greek today in the laudable adverb just used above and as the first part in a large number of compounds. My aim is to outline briefly – in the manner of an entry in an etymological dictionary – the history of this productive lexical item, going back to its roots in the common mother tongue (Proto-Indo-European = PIE) of the cognate Indo-European linguistic community of which Greek is a substantial member. Thanks to research in the field of comparative historical grammar, today we have much more knowledge than before of historical phonology, mor- phology, syntax and lexicography in all Indo-European linguistic branches.
Often the results of this research are known only to specialists, but they are worthy to be disseminated.1
The oldest available data on εὐ- is a reconstructed so-called acrostatic PIE noun *h1ósu- (strong stem, which is the starting point for endings like nomina- tive and accusative singular) vs. *h1ésu- (weak stem, which is the starting point for endings like the genitive singular) ‘thing that is real; existent goods’. Associ- ated with this noun was a so called proterodynamic PIE adjective *h1ésu- (strong stem) vs. *h1séu- (week stem) ‘having goods; good’. The comparative evidence guaranteeing this reconstruction is provided by Hittite (cf. aššu), Ancient Greek (s. below), Old Indic (cf. Vedic su-), etc.2 This noun and the corresponding adjec- tive present a well known formative schema evidenced by the well documented PIE noun *pólh1u- (vs. *pélh1u-) and the adjective *pélh1u- (vs. *p°lh1éu-) ‘many’, cf. Greek πολύς, πολυ- ‘many, much”, Old Indic purú-, puru- ‘id.’.3 Both nouns,
||
1 The present data are taken first from the following etymological dictionaries (in chronological order): Frisk I (1960, 594ff.) and III (1972, 96ff.) s.v. ἐύς; Chantraine (1999, 388) (the original text is older) s.v. ἐύς; Mayrhofer II (1996, 734-36) s.v. sú1 and Mayrhofer II (1996, 533ff.) s.v. vásu-; Beekes I (2010, 484ff.) s.v. ἐύς; Dunkel II (2014) s.v. Investigations and discussions in all senses are delivered in the -u-stem monograph by Lamberterie (1990 II, 746ff.); more specific on morphological aspects are Watkins (1982), Zimmer (1994), Pinault (1995), Pinault (2001, 162ff.).
2 See the presentation and comments on all data in NIL (2008, 239–43) s.v. *h1es-u-.
3 See the morphological survey with facts given in Meier-Brügger (2010, 425ff.).
*h1ósu- and *pólh1u-, are derivatives in -u- from verbal roots; cf. for the former PIE *h1es- ‘to exist, to be’ and for the latter PIE *pleh1- ‘to fill’.
The reconstruction of PIE *h1ósu- is not so smooth as it seems first: Besides, there are testimonies of another slightly different PIE *h1wósu- with the same meaning, cf. Old Indic (Vedic) vásu-, Avestan vohu-, Luvian vasu- and also some Celtic forms. The reason for this ambiguity between PIE *h1ósu- and PIE *h1wósu- is not yet understood: Are there two items, PIE *h1ósu- and PIE *h1wósu-, initial- ly with different meaning? Or do we have to deal with a PIE *h1wósu-, from which an additional PIE *h1ósu- arose, probably built on the zero grade *h1usu-, which finally became *h1su- via syncope?4
Greek εὐ- is attested throughout the history of the Greek language. Mycenaean attests personal names like e-u-me-de /Ehu-mēdes-/ and e-u-me-ne /Ehu-menes-/.
In the Homeric language there certainly are a lot of ἐϋ-, ἠϋ- and εὐ- com- pounds as adjectives and personal names: cf. adjectives ἐϋπλόκαμος, ἠύκομος, εὐρύχορος, etc., or personal names like Εὐτέρπη, etc.). In addition, there exists also the isolated adjective ἐΰς and ἠύς (nominative and accusative singular, with no feminine) and the adverb εὖ.5 A Greek candidate for a PIE *h1wósu- background is the Homeric expression δωτῆρες ἐάων, but a PIE abstract noun
*h1és-ah2- ‘possession’ seems to fit better as the starting point.6 To be sure, the first member of ὑ-γιής has to be kept separate from our consideration here of εὐ-.7 Later on in the language εὐ- remains alive as the first member of com- pounds.
The original meaning of PIE *h1es- is ‘to exist, to be present’. Therefore, the PIE noun *h1ósu- signified originally ‘that which is present; thing; possession, goods’, and consequently the PIE adjective *h1ésu- had the meaning ‘having things; generous; good’. “Wellness” was clearly a consequence of ‘possession’
(of goods).
Since Mycenaean times, the antonym of ευ- ‘good, brave, strong’ is δυσ-
‘bad’. The same opposition is found elsewhere in IE, cf. for instance the Indo- Iranian pair su- vs. dus-.8 The antonym δυσ- has to be connected with the PIE verbal root *deu(s)- ‘to lack’.9
||
4 See the facts and the thorough discussion in NIL (2008, 253-58) s.v. *h1wes-.
5 See LfgrE II 1991 s.vv. For the accentuation of the adverb εὖ < *éhu, see Hoenigswald (1998).
6 See Nussbaum (2013); earlier considerations in Nussbaum (1998).
7 See Weiss (1994), who provides good arguments for a first compound member ὑ- going back to *h2ju-.
8 See Schlerath (1969). For Welsh, see Zimmer (1995).
9 See Dunkel (2014) II s.v. dus-.
εὐ- | 185
References
Beekes, Robert (2010), Etymological Dictionary of Greek, I–II, Leiden/Boston.
Chantraine, Pierre (1999), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, nouvelle édition mise à jour, Paris.
Dunkel, George E. (2014), Lexion der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, II 2, Die Indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme, Heidelberg.
Frisk, Hjalmark (1960–1972), Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, I–III, Heidelberg.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. (1998), “Εὖ, ἐύ and the Accent of Non-Thematic Neuters”, in: MÍR CURAD, Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, ed. by Jay Jasanoff/H. Craig Melchert/Oliver Lisi, Innsbruck, 271–274.
de Lamberterie, Charles (1990), Les adjectifs grec en -υς, I–II, Louvain-la-Neuve.
LfgrE I 1979 II 1991 III 2004 IV 2010 = Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos, begründet von Bruno Snell, im Auftrag der Göttinger Akademie herausgegeben vom Thesaurus Linguae Grae- cae, Göttingen.
Mayrhofer, Manfred (1992–2001), Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, I–III, Heidelberg.
Meier-Brügger, Michael (2010), Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, IX, durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage, unter Mitarbeit von Mathias Fritz und M. Mayrhofer, Berlin/New York.
NIL 2008 = Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon, erarbeitet und herausgegeben von Dagmar S. Wodtko/Britta Irslinger/Carolin Schneider, Heidelberg.
Nussbaum, Alan J. (1998), Two Studies in Greek and Homeric Linguistics, Göttingen.
Nussbaum, Alan J. (2013), “The PIE proprietor and his goods”, paper given at the 32nd East Coast Indo-European Conference (ECIEC) in Poznan, 23 June 2013.
Pinault, Georges-Jean (1995), “Préhistoire de tokharien B yṣuwar”, in: Kuryłowicz Memorial, I, ed. by W. Smoczyński, Cracow, 191–205.
Pinault, Georges-Jean (2001), “Sur les thèmes indo-européens en *-u-: dérivation et étymolo- gie”, in: Indogermanisches Nomen: Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut, Akten der Arbeitsta- gung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Freiburg, ed. by Eva Tichy, Bremen, 153–188.
Schlerath, Bernfried (1969), “Some Remarks on Indo-Iranian *dus- and *su-”, in: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume, Bombay, 113–120.
Watkins, Calvert (1982), “Notes on the plural formations of the Hittite neuters”, in: Investiga- tiones Philologicae et Comparativae, Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser, ed. by Erich Neu, Wiesbaden, 250–262.
Weiss, Michael (1994 [1995]), “Life everlasting”, in: Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissen- schaft (= MSS) 55, 149ff.
Zimmer, Stefan (1994 [1995]), “Griech. ευ(-) usw.: Ablautstufe und Wortart”, in: Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft (= MSS) 55, 157–171.
Zimmer, Stefan (1995), “Indogermanisch *h1su- und *dus- im Kymrischen“, in: Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie (= ZCP) 47, 176–200.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622744-012