Les Études classiques 79 (2011), p. 257-283.
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM
A Critical Assessment of Recent Theories *
Résumé. — Un précédent article, paru dans Les Études classiques, avait présenté
diverses théories récentes sur le préhellénique (théories dites « pélasgique »,
« anatolienne », « égéenne » et « kartvélienne ») ; elles sont ici comparées et
évaluées sur la base d’une sélection de problèmes étymologiques (notamment, les
étymologies de pölekuj, de t⁄mboj, de si
-gª/si
%wpª, d’¢gaq“j et du suffixe
-nqoj). Ces sont les théories « égéenne » et « kartvélienne » qui s’avèrent les plus
productives, bien qu’elles posent encore divers problèmes méthodologiques. Les
mots les plus problématiques sont ceux qui peuvent avoir été adoptés d’une langue
sémitique et les gloses d’Hésychios. En outre, dans quelques cas, une explication à
l’intérieur du grec ou une interprétation indo-européenne semble préférable au
postulat d’une origine préhellénique.
Introduction
In a previous volume of LEC, I published a first article in which I gave
an overview of the linguistic research into the Pre-Greek substratum of the
last thirty years 1
. While my approach there was mainly descriptive, the
present article confronts and evaluates the theories presented there through
a selection of etymological problems. For a great part, I shall comment on
the research by R. S. P. Beekes, probably the most important linguist
studying the Pre-Greek substratum at present.
In order to understand the evaluation of the selected etymologies, a
brief summary of the main Pre-Greek theories should be given. A first
theory, founded by V. I. Georgiev and A. J. Van Windekens, and in the
1980s and 1990s mainly represented by E. P. Hamp, regarded Pre-Greek
as a hypothetical Indo-European language, dubbed ‘Pelasgian’. A second
group of scholars (viz. L. R. Palmer and Margalit Finkelberg) identified
the substratum as Anatolian (more precisely Luwian). According to a third
* I would like to thank professor L. Isebaert and professor H. Seldeslachts for
their significant comments and suggestions. I am also grateful to my former fellow
students and friends Liesbeth Schulpé and Lore Willemse for correcting and
improving my English text.
1. G. VERHASSELT (2009).
258 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
theory, which we may call ‘Aegean’, the substratum was non-IE and nonSemitic and extended over (a large part of) the Mediterranean. At present,
the main proponent of this theory is R. S. P. Beekes, who has developed
his ideas on Pre-Greek within the framework of ongoing substratum
research in Leiden. Finally, at the end of the 1970s, a fourth theory was
developed by E. J. Furnée (a former adherent of the ‘Aegean’ theory), viz.
the Kartvelian theory. His main thesis was that the Pre-Greek substratum
consisted of two important components: an East-Mediterranean substratum
(as in the Aegean theory) and a genuine Kartvelian substratum (termed
‘Pelasgian’). Currently, the main advocate of this Kartvelian theory is the
Georgian scholar R. Gordeziani. Having established this brief survey of the
main theories, we can move on to the etymological case-studies, viz.
pölekuj, t⁄mboj, si
-
gª/si
%wpª, ¢gaq“j and the suffix -nqoj 2
.
1. pölekuj
Traditionally, pölekuj “(battle-)axe” (already attested in Homer) is
less closely associated with the Pre-Greek substratum than the words that
will be discussed in the next sections. Usually, it is traced back to PIE
*peleKu-: cf. OI paraSú- “axe” (epic párSu-), Osset. färät “id.” (Toch. A
porat “id.”, B peret “id.” is an Iranian loanword).
In his doctoral thesis, E. J. Furnée 3
mentioned the following Greek
variants: pölekkon “axe-handle” (Il. 13, 612), ¹mipölekkon “half-axe,
one-edged axe”, bölekkoj (Hsch.) 4
, pölekra (Hsch.) 5
and pölux “a
kind of axe”. According to him, pelek£n “pelican” too is related to this
set of words. He supposed that pölekuj and paraSú- represent a pre-IE
cultural term borrowed by both the Greeks and the Indo-Iranians. bölekkoj
was interpreted as a younger Pre-Greek loanword, showing the Pre-Greek
variations p/b and k/kk 6
. Hellenistic pölux would be a later borrowing
from Asia Minor.
In her review of E. J. Furnée’s work, Françoise Bader 7
criticised the
Dutch scholar for treating loanwords of various origin and Pre-Greek
substratum words indiscriminately. For pölekuj, she considered a
2. I confine myself to recent literature (i.e. starting from 1977) on each word
discussed, combined with the etymological dictionaries of P. CHANTRAINE (1968) and
H. FRISK (1972) and with the doctoral thesis of E. J. FURNÉE (1972).
3. E. J. FURNÉE (1972, p. 150-151).
4. bölekkoj· ‘spri“n ti ômferùj laq⁄rJ mögeqoj ôrebÖnqou úcon (Hsch.). Cf.
Aristoph. Ran. 755; POxy. 1801, 21.
5. pölekra· ¢xÖnh (Hsch.).
6. According to P. CHANTRAINE (1968, p. 875), kk goes back to *k#.
7. Françoise BADER (1975, p. 104).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 259
borrowing of PIE date, directly inherited by Greek and Indo-Iranian. A
good candidate for a donor language would be Semitic. Thus, G. Takács 8
connected pölekuj with Akk. pilakku “spindle”, a derivative of the
Semitic root *plq- “split”. R. A. Brown 9
(another proponent of the
Aegean theory) too assumed pölekuj and paraSú to be Near Eastern loans.
R. S. P. Beekes 10, conversely, stressed that a word occurring in
several IE languages could still be an early borrowing (although the IndoIranian group is usually excluded in such cases). In his etymological
dictionary 11, he followed H. Frisk 12, who had rejected the connection with
Akk. pilakku on semantic grounds, since the Semitic word does not mean
“axe” but “spindle” 13. On other occasions too, R. S. P. Beekes stated that
in doubtful cases, “it is better to consider such words as Pre-Greek, and to
define them as loanwords [...] only when there is reason to do so” 14. What
those reasons may be, we are not told. This rather peculiar methodological
principle illustrates R. S. P. Beekes’ attempt to keep his corpus of PreGreek words as large as possible.
Pace E. J. Furnée and R. S. P. Beekes, pölekuj is a less convincing
example of Pre-Greek vocabulary (in R. S. P. Beekes’ use of the term, i.e.
belonging to a non-IE, non-Semitic substratum). The parallel with the
Semitic language family (despite the minor semantic change) makes an
early loanword in PIE plausible, although Semitic might have borrowed it
from PIE as well. Alternatively, it could be explained as a so-called
Wanderwort. Nevertheless, a PIE reconstruction *peleKu- remains
plausible, even though the root structure is unusual for PIE 15. For the
problematic form bölekkoj, the safest option is to assume a secondary
evolution (rather than a Pre-Greek variation), since this variant is only
attested from Aristophanes onwards, whereas the ‘standard’ form is already
used by Homer. Still, this development remains puzzling. Perhaps the b
was influenced by the word böloj “missile” (later used of any weapon). Of
course, caution is advised with this type of argumentum ex silentio, given
the fragmentary preservation of Greek literature: many words may be
unattested by sheer coincidence. Thus, the later attestation of bölekkoj
8. G. TAKÁCS (1998, p. 144).
9. R. A. BROWN (1985, p. 81).
10. R. S. P. BEEKES - A. H. KUIPERS (1975, p. 78). Cf. R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p.
215).
11. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. 1166-1167).
12. H. FRISK (1972, p. 497).
13. M. MAYRHOFER (1996, p. 87) concluded the same for the Old Indic words in
his etymological dictionary of Old Indo-Aryan.
14. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. xv).
15. T. V. GAMKRELIDZE - V. V. IVANOV (1995, p. 771).
260 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
does not mean that it did not exist yet in Homer’s time. That is exactly why
the Hesychian glosses, despite their late attestation, are so important for
E. J. Furnée and R. S. P. Beekes. It was precisely the lexicographers’
purpose to collect rare and perhaps even archaic forms of various origins.
Nevertheless, nothing guarantees the Pre-Greek origin of such words. At
best, they can point to a non-Greek (not necessarily Pre-Greek) origin.
Moreover, since Hesychius is usually the only source for the word in
question, the possibility of scribal errors cannot be excluded. Since it is not
even certain when these words entered the Greek language, some glosses
may well be Byzantine loanwords. Therefore, the examination of PreGreek features should primarily be based on (relatively) early attested
words, whereas material from Hesychius should be treated more carefully.
This does not imply that the latter material is useless, but such an approach
is methodologically sounder.
Finally, the form bölekkoj invites a remark on E. J. Furnée and
R. S. P. Beekes’ interpretation of the Pre-Greek stop variations.
E. J. Furnée 16 considered most of these cases expressive variants (cf. the
expressive geminate in Iuppiter), a hypothesis which proves to be
untenable, since most words showing Pre-Greek variations belonged to the
technical rather than the expressive vocabulary. In the debate on
E. J. Furnée’s work, several other explanations were suggested, the most
popular one explaining these vacillations as resulting from the different
nature of the Pre-Greek phonological system. According to
R. S. P. Beekes, Pre-Greek lacked a phonological opposition between
voiceless, voiced and aspirated stops 17. A possible explanation is that they
were allophonic variants differing from one word to another. Yet in several
cases (e.g. b“lbiton/bolbÖdion/b“lbiqoj “cow-dung”), these variations
occur within almost identical words. The suggestion by A. Heubeck 18 in
his review of E. J. Furnée’s doctoral thesis, viz. that Pre-Greek had a
phonological opposition between fortes and lenes, is a reasonable
explanation for the velars (where variation between voiced and aspirated
stops is rare) but not for the labials and dentals 19. One could assume that
there were two velar phonemes, whereas labials and dentals lacked this
16. E. J. FURNÉE (1972, p. 108).
17. The real phonological opposition, according to R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. xvi),
is the opposition between plain, labialised and palatalised consonants.
18. A. HEUBECK (p. 276).
19. The variation g ~ c occurs only 5 times and the variation k ~ g ~ c only 7
times, whereas k ~ g is attested 55 times and k ~ c 51 times. For the labials and
dentals, by contrast, the following proportions are found: b ~ f (28), p ~ b (53),
p ~ f (43), p ~ b ~ f (11), d ~q (16), t ~ d (27), t ~ q (26), and t ~ d ~ q
(6). See R. S. P. BEEKES - A. H. KUIPERS (1975, p. 72).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 261
phonological contrast. Still, were aspiration and voicing attributed
randomly in the borrowing process? A final possibility is that Pre-Greek
had a voicing pattern different from that of Greek. J. Clackson 20, for
example, mentioned with P. Ladefoged and I. Maddieson five types of
voicing attested in the languages of the world: breathy voice, slack voice,
modal voice, stiff voice and creaky voice. Pre-Greek might have had an
unusual type of voice, which the Greeks sometimes perceived as voiced,
sometimes as voiceless and sometimes as aspirated.
2. t⁄mboj
t⁄mboj “burial mound, grave” is one of the stock examples of the PreGreek substratum research. The pivotal question is whether it is related to
t£foj “grave, tomb” and q£ptw “bury”, the latter two being derivatives
of PIE *d
hembh
- “dig”: cf. Arm. damban/dambaran “tomb, grave” 21
,
OPr. dambo “ground” 22, Goth. faur-dammjan “dam up”, Rum. dîmb
“bank” 23, Av. daxma- “grave”. In his controversial book on the ‘AfroAsiatic roots of classical civilisation’, M. Bernal 24 rejected the PIE root
*d
hembh
-, assuming that t£foj and q£ptw are Egyptian loanwords, cf. »tpHt
“hole, cavern”, an improbable hypothesis, given the parallels in other IE
languages.
2.1. Genetic relationship between t⁄mboj and t£foj
According to V. I. Georgiev 25
, t⁄mboj and t£foj are genetically
related. The latter was interpreted as the regular Greek outcome of the PIE
proto-form, whereas the former showed a ‘Pelasgian’ development
characterised by the following sound laws: dissimilation *d
h
-bh
> *d-bh
,
vocalisation *m > um, *d > t and *b
h
> b. In his re-examination of the
Pelasgian theory, K. Strunk 26 distinguished two evolutions of a nasal +
*b
h
: a Greek evolution, viz. mf (e.g. ¢mfÖ “around” < PIE *h2mb
h
í
“around”: cf. Lat. amb- “around”, Ved. abhí “on both sides”, OHG umbi
“around”) and a Pelasgian evolution, viz. mb or f (e.g. k“rumboj “top of a
20. J. CLACKSON (2007, p. 48).
21. J. CLACKSON (1994, p. 120-121), however, interpreted damban and dambaran
as loanwords, given the late attestation of these words (from the 10th century
onwards). In the earliest Armenian, the words to designate a tomb or grave were
gerezman and sirim.
22. J. POKORNY (1969, p. 248-249) only accepted the Armenian words as derived
from PIE *d
hembh
-, explaining that OPr. dambo had to be corrected into daubo, a
derivative of PIE *d
he2b- “deep”.
23. According to J. CLACKSON (1994, p. 121), Rum. dîmb is a Dacian survival.
24. M. BERNAL (2006, p. 428-429).
25. V. I. GEORGIEV (1981, p. 103).
26. K. STRUNK (2004, p. 94-96).
262 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
hill”, korufª “top, summit, peak of a mountain”). The former group
shows parallels in other IE languages, whereas the latter does not, thus
implying a non-IE origin for this group. K. Strunk, furthermore, suspected
that the b was of an allophonic nature rather than an independent phoneme.
I. Hajnal 27, by contrast, attempted an inner-Greek explanation for
t⁄mboj. According to him, t⁄mboj and t£foj are etymologically related,
though not through Pre-Greek sound laws. t£foj would derive from the
zero-grade *d
hmb
h
-os, whereas t⁄mboj was explained as reflecting the fullgrade *d
hómbh
-os. In I. Hajnal’s view, PIE *O developed into U in
accordance with Cowgill’s rule 28 (cf. n⁄x “night” < PIE *nokwt- “id.”),
whereas the loss of the aspiration could be explained by Miller’s rule: in
the combination of a nasal and a voiced aspirated stop, the stop lost its
aspiration if the accent was on the previous syllable. As I. Hajnal himself
acknowledged, the problem with this reconstruction is that the expected
form would be †q⁄mboj. An early dissimilation of the aspirates is
excluded, since Miller’s rule operated before Grassmann’s law 29. The only
possible explanation was analogy, although I. Hajnal was not clear about its
model.
2.2. No genetic relationship between t⁄mboj and t£foj
Other scholars have rejected the etymological relation between t⁄mboj
and t£foj. In his complementary Greek etymological dictionary, A. J. Van
Windekens 30, who had been a staunch defender of the Pelasgian theory in
his previous work, suggested an inner-Greek explanation, a tendency also
found in the rest of his dictionary. He explicitly rejected V. I. Georgiev’s
analysis, claiming that t⁄mboj could not derive from PIE *d
hmb
h
-, since in
that case, it would mean “what is dug out”. He also mentioned the variant
t‡moj (found in inscriptions from Corcyra and Eretria), which he
connected with Lat. tumulus “hill, sepulchral mound” and tumere “swell”,
as had been proposed before him by H. Frisk 31. If the relation with these
Latin words, which must derive from the PIE extended root *te2-m-
“swell” (cf. OE duma, OHG dumo “thumb”), is accepted, the b in t⁄mboj
becomes problematic. The ad hoc solution suggested by A. J. Van
27. I. HAJNAL (2005, p. 197-198).
28. See A. L. SIHLER (1995, p. 42-43). Note, however, that Cowgill’s rule is
generally restricted to a position between labial and resonant.
29. According to I. HAJNAL (2005, p. 197), the order is as follows: loss of the
aspiration (Miller) > devoicing of the PIE voiced aspirated stops > dissimilation of
the aspirates (Grassmann).
30. A. J. VAN WINDEKENS (1986, p. 223).
31. H. FRISK (1972, p. 943-944).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 263
Windekens was that t⁄mboj resulted from a contamination of t‡moj and
k“rumboj “top, summit, peak of a mountain”.
A Pre-Greek interpretation of the word-pair t‡moj - t⁄mboj was
proposed by E. J. Furnée 32, who analysed the fluctuation between m and
mb as reflecting two Pre-Greek sound variations, viz. b/µ and b/mb
(‘nasalisation’ or, in R. S. P. Beekes’ terminology, ‘prenasalisation’). In
this interpretation, a form with the single labial (*tuboj) must be
reconstructed, a variant of which is found in to‡foj (Hsch.) 33. E. J.
Furnée associated t⁄mboj / t‡moj not only with Lat. tumulus but also with
MIr. tomm “little hill”, Arm. t‘umb “bank” and OWN þuf “little hill”,
assuming a pre-IE Wanderwort.
R. S. P. Beekes 34 considered the possibility that t⁄mboj derives from a
nasalised variant of the PIE extended root *te2H-bh
- “hump, bump,
knag” 35 (cf. t⁄fh “plant used for stuffing cushions and beds”), with loss
of the aspiration after the nasal. Like A. J. Van Windekens, he rejected the
connection with t£foj on semantic grounds: in his opinion, t£foj denotes
the grave or pit, whereas t⁄mboj primarily indicates the hill, later more
specifically the burial hill, and finally the grave.
2.3. Conclusion
It cannot be excluded that t⁄mboj and t£foj are related, although
popular etymology may be involved. Some other word might have been
remodelled to t⁄mboj under the influence of t£foj, an association that may
have been stimulated by their semantic proximity. However, if t⁄mboj is
related to Lat. tumulus, tumere, OE duma and OHG dumo, the connection
with PIE *d
hembh
- is impossible, since the Latin and Germanic words
cannot derive from this root. The pivotal question is whether this set of
words continues a PIE root (viz. *te2-m- “swell”). By connecting t⁄mboj
with the Latin and Germanic words and interpreting t⁄mboj as a Pre-Greek
word, R. S. P. Beekes implied that the Latin and Germanic words are nonIE as well. K. Strunk, on the other hand, proposed viewing mb as an
allophone of m (i.e. with a weakly pronounced b). If a Pre-Greek origin is
assumed, one could reconstruct a phoneme *mb
, although caution is
advised, given the limited number of cases showing the variation m/mb.
32. E. J. FURNÉE (1972, p. 287-288).
33. to‡foj· t£foj (Hsch.).
34. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. 1517-1518).
35. This was also suggested by P. CHANTRAINE (1968, p. 1144).
264 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
3. si
-
gª - si
%wpª
3.1. si
-
gª
Although si
-
gª “silence” shows parallels in other IE languages, viz.
OHG swigen “be silent”, OSax. swigon “id.”, OE swigian/sugian/suwian
“id.”, an IE reconstruction for Greek is problematic, since the initial *sshould have developed into an aspiration in Greek 36. The proponents of the
Pelasgian theory derived si
-
gª from the same PIE root as the Germanic
words and considered it a Pelasgian loanword (i.e. a word belonging to a
hypothetical IE substratum). They did not agree, however, on the exact
reconstruction of the PIE root. V. I. Georgiev 37 posited a root *s2ig
h
-,
with preservation of the initial s- and an evolution of PIE *g
h
into Pelasg.
g. K. Strunk 38 adjusted this into *s2iHgh
-, the long i resulting from the
combination of *i with a laryngeal. E. P. Hamp 39, on the other hand,
suggested a reconstruction *s2e1g
h
- with a Pelasgian development of *ei to
i. Incidentally, V. I. Georgiev 40 suggested the same phonetic evolution for
sãtoj “grain, food” but did not invoke this rule to explain the i
-
of si
-
gª.
The problem with V. I. Georgiev’s reconstruction is that the assumed PIE
root is of an unusual shape.
R. S. P. Beekes 41 originally considered si
-
gª a ‘European’ substratum
word (i.e. belonging to a prehistoric language that extended over Central
Europe and left traces in several IE languages), thus explaining the
similarity with the above-mentioned Germanic words. On the basis of ·Öga
(Hsch.) 42, probably a writing error for *#Öga (by confusion of <#I> and
in majuscule script 43), he concluded that the original Greek form
must have been *sw-. #- can easily derive from *s#- but s- cannot. In his
etymological dictionary, by contrast, R. S. P. Beekes 44 considered the
etymology of si
-
gª unknown.
36. Because of this irregularity, M. BERNAL (2006, p. 307) suspected that the
Greek word is an Egyptian loanword, viz. sgr(i) “silence”, a seemingly rash
conclusion.
37. V. I. GEORGIEV (1981, p. 100).
38. K. STRUNK (2004, p. 91).
39. E. P. HAMP (1983, p. 148).
40. V. I. GEORGIEV (1981, p. 102).
41. R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p. 233-234).
42. ·Öga· siËpa (Hsch.).
43. P. CHANTRAINE (1968, p. 1001) and K. STRUNK (2004, p. 91).
44. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. 1327).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 265
A final explanation was suggested by G.-J. Pinault 45. This scholar
derived si
-
gª from the interjection sãga “hush”, based on an onomatopoeia
/ss/, which was syllabified by the insertion of an /i/.
3.2. si
%wpª
P. Chantraine 46 assumed that the word-pair si
-
gª - si
%wpª went back
to an onomatopoeia and that si
%wpª was an expressive variant. This
expressive interpretation was rejected by G.-J. Pinault 47, who
reconstructed the verb si
%w-p£w (from which si
%wpª would be derived) as
a compound with *peh2
- “protect, keep” as its second member 48. Thus, he
believed, the assumed Homeric meaning of siwp©n, viz. “garder le
silence” (as opposed to sig©n “être silencieux”) could be explained 49. For
the first element of the compound, he considered two explanations: an
interjection /si/ “hush” or a reduced form of the imperative si
-
gÓ > si
%w-
(the loss of the intervocalic g being explained on the basis of a similar
evolution in —lÖoj < —lÖgoj “little, small”) 50. The former explanation,
however, fails to account for the w, whereas the latter is implausible, since
vocalic contraction and weakening of intervocalic g are both relatively late
developments, not yet operating in Homeric Greek, and since the variation
of long and short i remains unexplained.
According to A. J. Van Windekens 51, the original form of si
%wp£w/
si
%wpª was swp£w/swpª: cf. seswpamönon (Pind.) “kept silent”,
diaswp£somai (Pind.) “I shall be silent”, swpª (Call.) “silence”,
eŸswpÖa (Hsch.) 52. He explained this form as a Pelasgian loanword
derived from the PIE lengthened grade *s2op- “sleep” (cf. Lat. sopire “lull
to sleep”); more specifically, he assumed a Pelasgian dialect showing the
development PIE *s2- > Pelasg. s- but not the consonant shift PIE *p >
Pelasg. f. The form si
%wp£w, in his opinion, arose through contamination
of swp£w either with si
-
g£w (despite the contrast between i
%
and i
-
) or with
an unattested Pelasgian word *si
%
-, deriving from the PIE zero-grade *Kiof the root *Ke1- “lie down” (cf. Gr. keã-tai “he lies down”, OI Sé-te
“id.”) and showing the development of PIE *K into Pelasg. s.
45. G.-J. PINAULT (1994, p. 503).
46. P. CHANTRAINE (1968, p. 1008).
47. G.-J. PINAULT (1994, p. 503).
48. G.-J. PINAULT (1994, p. 518-519).
49. G.-J. PINAULT (1994, p. 516).
50. G.-J. PINAULT (1994, p. 521).
51. A. J. VAN WINDEKENS (1986, p. 216).
52. eŸswpÖa· ¹sucÖa (Hsch.).
266 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
Originally, R. S. P. Beekes 53 also connected si
%wpª with si
-
gª, the
variation velar/labial, the ablaut i
-
/i
%
and the w indicating, in his view, a
non-IE origin. He did not rule out the possibility of a loanword from a lost
IE language, although, in his opinion, the variation labial/velar rather
points to a ‘European’ (i.e. non-IE) borrowing. si
%wpª would be derived
from *swip-, which developed into *siwp/siup- through metathesis, then
into *siop- (because Greek had no diphthong iu) and finally into *siop-,
where the long o arose through popular etymology under the influence of
words in -wp-. This whole explanation seems somewhat far-fetched,
however.
Later, R. S. P. Beekes 54 withdrew his aforementioned interpretation,
abandoning the etymological relation between si
%wpª and si
-
gª and
explaining the former as a genuine Pre-Greek substratum word that can be
reconstructed as *s
yup- with a palatalised sibilant *s
y
. This palatal element
was normally rendered with i, but in some cases, it was completely
ignored, which would explain the above-mentioned variants without i.
Note, however, that these forms are poetic variants, which may derive
from a secondary synizesis. In any case, in this new interpretation by R. S.
P. Beekes, the variation labial/velar, one of the main reasons for explaining
si
-
gª as a ‘European’ loanword, was dropped. Note, moreover, that this
scholar neglected to explain the development of *u into o in *s
yup- > si
%
wpª, for which he could not assume an original form *s
yop-, since, in his
opinion, Pre-Greek originally only had the vowels a, i and u.
55 Recently,
R. S. P. Beekes has revised his system of the Pre-Greek vowels, now
assuming a system consisting of five vowels. 56
3.3. Pre-Greek labiovelars
Even though R. S. P. Beekes now rejects an alternation between velar
and labial for si
-
gª-si
%wpª, this pair invites a comment on the vacillation
between labial, velar and dental stops (cf., for instance, göfura, Boeot.
böfura, Lacon. döfura “[Hom.] dam; [later] bridge”), for which he
usually reconstructs a Pre-Greek labiovelar 57, the existence of which is
attested, for instance, by Myc. qasireu /gwasileus/. Apparently, this
53. R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p. 233-234).
54. R. S. P. BEEKES (2008, p. 52).
55. One explanation could be to assume analogical influence of words in -wp-, as
R. S. P. Beekes suggested in his former reconstruction.
56. See R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. xix-xx). Incidentally, R. GORDEZIANI (2008, p.
33) suggested that i and u were vocalic allophones of 1 and 2 respectively.
57. R. S. P. BEEKES (1995/1996, p. 12-13), R. S. P. BEEKES (2002, p. 17) and R.
S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. xxviii).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 267
phoneme developed differently from the PIE labiovelars 58, which is only
plausible if the Greeks borrowed the substratum word after the evolution of
the PIE labiovelars to labials or dentals, since the Linear B tablets show
that Mycenaean Greek still knew the labiovelars. This implies that in PreGreek words that were borrowed into early Greek, the Pre-Greek
labiovelars must have developed in the same way as the IE ones.
Accordingly, words showing the variation labial/velar/dental, are not likely
to have previously been borrowed in Mycenaean Greek. An enigmatic case
is xÖfoj “sword”, attested in Mycenaean in the dual form qisipee, which
unmistakably shows a labiovelar. R. S. P. Beekes 59 assumed that the
cluster *k
ws normally developed into y (e.g. M“yoj < Myc. Moqoso
/Mokwsos/), which implies, of course, that qisipee is read as /kwsiphee/ (i.e.
with a dummy i) and not as /kwisiphee/ (as R. S. P. Beekes suggested in his
etymological dictionary 60), unless a (Pre-Greek?) syncope is assumed.
According to R. S. P. Beekes, the labial element was lost through
dissimilation against the following f. Alternatively, the initial consonantal
cluster may have been reduced to ks for articulatory reasons.
4. ¢gaq“j
The etymology of ¢gaq“j is highly controversial. The etymological
explanations largely fall into two categories: one assumes the word to be of
non-IE origin, whereas a second regards it as a compound based on IE
elements. The following section explores both tendencies.
4.1. Non-IE interpretation
4.1.1. Aegean substratum word
In his dissertation, E. J. Furnée 61 mentioned several Greek variants of
later date, viz. ¢kaq“j (Hsch.) 62
, ¢kht“n (Hsch.) 63
, *¢kat“j
('AkatÖdhj) and ¢geq“j (Cypriot inscription 64). In these variants, he
recognised the following Pre-Greek sound variations: g/k
65
, q/t and a/e.
58. The PIE labiovelars developed in Greek into labials (*k
w
> p, *g
w
> b, *g
wh
> f), except before front vowels, in which case they developed into dentals (*k
w
>
t, *g
w
> d, *g
wh > q). In contact with u or w, they were delabialised at an early
stage. For the Pre-Greek labiovelars, these restrictions are lacking.
59. R. S. P. BEEKES (2002, p. 17).
60. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. 1036-1037).
61. E. J. FURNÉE (1972, p. 124; p. 347).
62. ¢kaq“n· ¢gaq“n (Hsch.).
63. ¢kht“n· kr£tiston (Hsch.).
64. H. VAN HERWERDEN (1910, p. 9).
65. E. J. FURNÉE (1972, p. 106) interpreted this variation as an assimilation of g-q
to k-q.
268 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
In his review of this work, R. S. P. Beekes 66 added the gloss c£sioj
(Hsch.) 67, which shows the variations g/c and q/s. The latter variation,
however, is more likely to have resulted from Greek assibilation of the
dental before i rather than from a Pre-Greek consonantal variation.
4.1.2. European substratum word
¢gaq“j resembles words of similar meaning in other IE languages, viz.
Germ. *goda- “good, fitting” (Goth. gods “good”, OHG guot “id.”,
MLG gaden “fit”), OCS god#n$ “pleasant”, Russ. gódnyj “useful”, which
point to an underlying root *g
hadh
- “fit”. According to R. S. P. Beekes 68
,
this reconstruction presents us with two problems. First, *g
hadh
- cannot
develop into ¢gaq“j through regular Greek sound laws, since the expected
outcome would be †k£qoj < *c£qoj (in accordance with Grassmann’s
law). Second, this root contains the supposedly non-IE phoneme /a/. In the
aprioristic conception by the Leiden IE School of the phoneme /a/, a Greek
a can only go back to a PIE laryngeal or vocalised liquid. Although few
words require the reconstruction of a PIE phoneme /a/, this does not mean
that the phoneme did not exist at all. R. S. P. Beekes was right, however,
to point out other irregularities in the Greek forms, viz. variation of the
stops (g/k, q/t, g/c), variation of a/a and the prothetic vowel. Since these
variations are ‘typical’ of the ‘European’ substratum 69, he traced ¢gaq“j
with its IE parallels back to a European substratum word with the root
*(a)ghadh
-/*(a)ghad
h
- “good”. He justified the consonantal alternation by
assuming that the ‘European’ aspirated stops were of a different quality
than the PIE stops. In his etymological dictionary 70, by contrast, he was
more cautious about the origin of ¢gaq“j, acknowledging that it can be
either of IE origin or a substratum word.
4.1.3. Kartvelian substratum word
In his later work, E. J. Furnée 71 identified ¢gaq“j (and its variants
¢kaq“j and ¢geq“j) as a ‘Pelasgian’ substratum word, i.e. a substratum
word of Proto-Kartvelian origin. More precisely, he reconstructed the PreGreek word as *agat-/*aget-, analysing it as a combination of the
Kartvelian prefix *ag- “upwards” and an adverbial formation in -ad-/-at-.
This reconstruction seems rather random, however. While E. J. Furnée
66. R. S. P. BEEKES - A. H. KUIPERS (1975, p. 79).
67. c£sioj· ¢gaq“j, crhst“j (Hsch.).
68. R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p. 227-230).
69. Incidentally, vowel prothesis does not belong to the ‘European’ features as
enumerated by R. S. P. BEEKES (2000, p. 23-24).
70. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. 7).
71. E. J. FURNÉE (1986, p. 131).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 269
supposed that the basic form was an adverb derived from a prefix, all other
scholars have attempted to connect it with a (predominantly verbal) root.
A Kartvelian hypothesis was also advocated by R. Gordeziani 72, who
connected ¢gaq“j with Geo.-Zan k.et “good, kind”. The irregularity in this
reconstruction is that Kartv. k.
usually corresponds to Pelasg. k
73, unless
some secondary development k > g is assumed (although in Greek, the
form in k appears to be secondary, given its late attestation). A second
problem is that R. Gordeziani did not explain the origin of the initial ¢-.
Vowel prothesis, in the system of E. J. Furnée 74, on which R.
Gordeziani’s relied, was a feature typical of Aegean (i.e. the non-IE, nonKartvelian substratum layer in the eastern part of the Mediterranean).
4.2. IE interpretation
4.2.1. Haplology: *aga-ghadh
-oM. Harari 75 explained ¢gaq“j as developed from *¢ga-kaqoj through
haplology. The first element, the intensifying prefix *¢ga-, is also found in
such words as ¢ga-kleªj, ¢ga-kleit“j, ¢ga-klut“j “very famous”,
ºg£-qeoj, Dor. ¢g£-qeoj “most holy”, ¢g£-nnifoj “much snowed on”,
¢g£-rrooj “strong-flowing”, etc. The second element developed through
regular Greek sound laws from the PIE root *g
hadh
- “seize”. Apart from
the above-mentioned Germanic and Slavic words, M. Harari also connected
this root with OI gádhyaH “which has to be held on to”, a-gadhitaH
“seized”, OSax. gigado “one’s equal”, Latv. gads “supply”, OCS god$
“right time”, u-goditi “please”. Thus, the meaning of *kaqoj evolved
from “tangible” to “useful” and finally “good”. M. Harari interpreted
these semantic shifts on the basis of the primitive hunter-gatherer culture.
R. S. P. Beekes 76, however, found this reconstruction “most improbable”
and rejected the connection between the Old Indic words (meaning
“seize”) 77 and the Germanic and Slavic words (meaning “fit”).
4.2.2. Dissimilation: *sm-ghadh
-o- or *n-ghadh
-oIn his article on Grassmann’s law, A. Pârvulescu 78 also interpreted ¢-
gaq-“j as a derivative of the verbal root *g
hadh
- “fit”. The first element
was not explained as an intensifying prefix *¢ga- but as derived from PIE
72. R. GORDEZIANI (2008, p. 35).
73. E. J. FURNÉE (1979, p. 56).
74. E. J. FURNÉE (1979, p. 15; p. 32).
75. M. HARARI (1979).
76. R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p. 230).
77. According to M. MAYRHOFER (1993, p. 461), the Old Indic words (related to
Lat. prehendo “seize” and praeda “booty”) derive from PIE *g
he(n)d-.
78. A. PÂRVULESCU (1993, p. 63-65).
270 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
*sm- “with” or *n- “together with”, the combination of both elements
resulting in *sm-ghadh
- or *n-ghadh
- “fitting together”. That g in ¢gaq“j
should go back to PIE *g
h
is confirmed, in his view, by the variants
c£sioj (with PIE *g
h
> Gr. c) and ¢kaq“j (with PIE *g
h > Gr. c > k
according to Grassmann’s law), both of which show the expected outcome.
Consequently, A. Pârvulescu had to assume a dissimilation of the aspirates
that already operated in PIE before Grassmann’s law, a phenomenon which
apparently only left traces in Greek. R. S. P. Beekes 79 rightfully thought it
unlikely that this early, ‘Pre-Grassmannian’ dissimilation would only have
operated in Greek and not in Germanic. Moreover, there are practically no
other instances of such a sound law in Greek 80
.
4.2.3. ghqöw: *sm-gh2
d
h
-oIn his complementary etymological dictionary, A. J. Van Windekens 81
also regarded ¢gaq“j as a derivative with the prefix *sm- (with intensifying
value). The second element, however, he connected with ghqöw, Dor.
ga
-
qöw “rejoice” (which he derived from PIE *geh2
d
h
-; cf. Toch. AB katk-
“be happy”), assuming -gaq- to be derived from the zero-grade *gh2
d
h
-.
*sm-gh2
d
h
-, he explained, developed into *°gaq“j and then into ¢gaq“j
through dissimilation of the aspirates. The original meaning was thus
“about which one rejoices”. Contrary to most of A. J. Van Windekens’
proposals, this reconstruction was applauded by M. E. Huld, one of Van
Windekens’ critics 82. Note that it implies that the Germanic words are not
related to ¢gaq“j, since in Germanic, PIE *g developed into k in
accordance with Grimm’s law.
4.2.4. *h2
gadh
-oLike A. J. Van Windekens, Rosemarie Lühr 83 also connected ¢gaq“j
with Toch. AB katk-. The PIE root was reconstructed as *h2
gadh
-,
however, probably in order to explain the so-called prothetic vowel in
79. R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p. 229).
80. A. PÂRVULESCU (1993, p. 65) saw parallels for this phenomenon in fe⁄gw
“flee” < PIE *b
he2g
h
-, qug£thr “daughter” < PIE *d
hughh2
têr and qigeãn “touch”
< PIE *d
h
iG
h
-. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. 561; p. 1564-1565), however, reconstructed
the first two words as *b
he2g- and *d
hugh2
-ter- respectively (i.e. without a second
aspirated stop). qigeãn probably took the g from the present tense qigg£nein, where
*g
h
might have lost the aspiration after a nasal: see R. S. P. Beekes (2010, p. 549).
81. A. J. VAN WINDEKENS (1986, p. 1).
82. M. E. HULD (1988, p. 467).
83. Rosemarie LÜHR (2000, p. 119-120).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 271
Greek. Contrary to A. J. Van Windekens, she did not mention a connection
with ghqöw 84
.
4.2.5. mögaj: *mGh2
-dhóG.-J. Pinault 85 explained ¢gaq“j as a combination of the zero-grade of
mögaj “big” and a Caland suffix *-d
ho-. Apart from this suffix, he found
PIE *meGeh2
- also connected with the following suffixes belonging to the
Caland system: *-i- (Hitt. mekki- “big” < PIE *meGh2
-i-), *-es- (Ved.
máhas- = Av. mazah- “size” < PIE *meGh2
-es-) and *-ent- (Ved.
mahánt- = Av. mazant- “big” < PIE *meGeh2
-ent-, Gr. •gan “too much”
< PIE *mGeh2
-nt-, Lat. ingens “enormous” < PIE *mGh2
-nt-).
4.2.6. mögaj: *mGh2
-d
hh1
-óLike G.-J. Pinault, several other scholars have also identified the first
element as the prefix *¢ga- (interpreted as the zero-grade *mGh2
- “big”),
though now taking the second part as the zero-grade of the verbal root
*d
heh1
- “put, do” 86. J. W. Poultney 87 was the first to propose this
reconstruction in a short article read at the Bopp-Symposium of 1992.
According to C. J. Ruijgh 88, a similar compound is found in Latin, viz.
magnificus < *magno-fak-o-s (with *fak- derived from PIE *d
heh1
-k, cf.
Gr. ú-qhk-a “I put”). Among the scholars who adopted this reconstruction,
there has been discussion concerning the meaning of the compound,
however. According to J. W. Poultney, C. J. Ruijgh, S. Scarlata and P.
Ragot, ¢gaq“j originally had an active sense, viz. “große Taten
wirkend” 89
, “Großes leistend” 90, “qui accomplit de grands actes” 91
,
“dont les actes sont grands” < “qui s’applique à des actes de grande
allure” 92
. O. Panagl and S. Neri, by contrast, assumed that it had a passive
sense, viz. “hochgestellt”, “groß gemacht” 93. For both interpretations,
reference was made to Homer’s use of ¢gaq“j, in which the word is
84. Recently, O. HACKSTEIN (2002, p. 8) explained ghqöw and Toch. AB katk- as
compounds of *geh2
- “brilliance” and *d
heh1
- “put”, thus, originally meaning “in
Glanz versetzen”. According to R. VIREDAZ (2003, p. 115), however, an active
compound in *d
heh1
- is incompatible with the intransitive meaning of the verbs.
85. G.-J. PINAULT (1979; 1991).
86. The laryngeal h1
was lost between consonant and vowel.
87. J. W. POULTNEY (1994).
88. C. J. RUIJGH (1996, p. 379).
89. J. W. POULTNEY (1994, p. 210).
90. S. SCARLATA (1999, p. 260).
91. P. RAGOT (2006, p. 340).
92. C. J. RUIJGH (1996, p. 378; p. 388; p. 393).
93. See O. PANAGL (1995, p. 235) and S. NERI (2003, p. 48). Irene BALLES (2003,
p. 16; 2006, p. 223) remained neutral as to the exact semantics and mentioned both
interpretations.
272 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
applied to noble heroes. According to O. Panagl, the word in Homer is still
felt as a compound, since there are no compounds with ¢gaqo- yet in the
Homeric epics. C. J. Ruijgh, on the other hand, claimed that already at an
early stage, ¢gaq“j was no longer recognised as a compound: ¢ga- was no
longer identified as the zero-grade of möga- and -q“- was no longer
associated with the verb tÖ-qh-mi “I put”. As proof of this hypothesis,
C. J. Ruijgh argued that already in Homer, compounds were made with
mega- (e.g. meg£-qumoj “great-hearted”).
4.2.7. •gw: *aGn-dhh1
-oR. Anttila 94, finally, accepted the reconstruction of the second element
as the verbal root *d
heh1
- “put, do” but derived the prefix ¢ga- from the
PIE root *h2
eG- “drive” instead of the zero-grade *mGh2
- “big” 95. In his
opinion, the aga were games or contests (cf. ¢gËn “contest”), so that an
adjective such as ¢gaklut“j “very famous” originally meant “famous with
respect to the aga, the games”. In the derived superlative meaning, the
prefix was also combined with words that were not connected the games
(e.g. ¢g£nnifoj “much snowed on”). In ¢gaq“j, R. Anttila explained, the
first element goes back to *aG-n “drove, herd”, an agrarian term which,
he believed, was applied to people at a certain time (cf. the similar use of
poÖmnh, ¢gölh, pÓu “herd”). Consequently, the original meaning of the
compound *aGn-dhh1
-o-s was “supporting the aga, upholding the (social)
unit”. Like J. W. Poultney, C. J. Ruijgh, S. Scarlata and P. Ragot,
R. Anttila interpreted the verbal root in an active sense. The ¢gaqoÖ were
the drivers or leaders of society, doing what was useful and therefore good
for society. Thus, ¢gaq“j originally had a primarily social meaning. Via
this social meaning, R. Anttila made the connection with the games (aga):
the contester did not act as an individual but represented his group or
family.
4.3. Conclusion
A. Pârvulescu’s reconstruction (viz. an early dissimilation that only
worked in Greek and that chronologically precedes Grassmann’s law) is the
least convincing of all proposals, since it relies on controversial sound
laws. Occasionally, the variants ¢kaq“j, ¢geq“j and c£sioj are adduced
(viz. by E. J. Furnée, R. S. P. Beekes and A. Pârvulescu). Other linguists,
however, ignored these forms and based their reconstructions solely on
94. R. ANTTILA (1996) and R. ANTTILA (2000, p. 70-75).
95. R. BRACCHI (1999, p. 89) accepted the reconstruction of the second element as
PIE *d
heh1
- but hesitated between *mGh2
- and *h2
eG- for the reconstruction of the first
element.
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 273
¢gaq“j itself (e.g. M. Harari, A. J. Van Windekens, O. Panagl and
R. Anttila). Indeed, the question arises whether these words are all related.
Especially in the case of c£sioj, this claim seems doubtful. This word,
which probably developed from *c£qioj (with assibilation of the dental
before i) may be derived from PIE *g
hadh
- “to fit”, an interpretation which
would enable a connection with the Germanic and Slavic words. If the root
is reconstructed as *g
heh2
d
h
- (in an attempt to avoid reconstructing a
phoneme /a/, as the Leiden researchers are eager to do), the Slavic words
cannot be related for phonological reasons 96
. ¢gaq“j itself is most likely a
compound (*mGh2
-dhh1
-ó-s or *aGn-dhh1
-o-s), with *mGh2
-dhh1
-ó-s (either
meaning “made great” or “doing great things”) as the most likely
reconstruction from a semantic point of view. The variant ¢geq“j is
probably a secondary form, arisen by (epichoric) dissimilation of the
vowels. ¢kaq“j, finally, might be a contamination of ¢gaq“j and an
unattested form *kaq“j (which, like c£sioj, might continue PIE *g
hadh
-).
This last suggestion should be treated cautiously, of course, given the great
risk involved in working with unattested forms.
Although R. S. P. Beekes’ hypothesis of a ‘European’ substratum
word showing several variants is often a reasonable suggestion, we should
be careful not to label words as substratum words too easily. Indeed, E. J.
Furnée’s dissertation was often criticised for listing several words that
could be alternatively explained within Greek or PIE. In fact, the
reconstruction *mGh2
-dhh1
-ó-s appears to be the common opinion on
¢gaq“j in comparative linguistic research 97
.
5. The suffix -nqoj
A final case-study concerns the recent theories about the suffix -nqoj,
which was used to form both place names (e.g. K“rinqoj, Z£kunqoj,
'Er⁄manqoj) and appellatives (e.g. ôröbinqoj “chick pea”, kol“kunqoj
“gourd, pumpkin”). From the beginning of the substratum research, it was
considered a Pre-Greek suffix, since it could not be derived from PIE
through regular Greek sound laws. An important question is whether words
in -nqoj form one homogeneous group and whether the suffix is related to
the Anatolian suffix -nda (-nda), with which it is often connected.
96. In Balto-Slavic, a laryngeal is never vocalised between consonants; eh2
would
give a. Therefore, in OCS god#n$ “pleasant” and Russ. gódnyj “useful” a laryngeal is
excluded. See R. S. P. BEEKES (1996, p. 228).
97. See the recent works of M. JANDA (2000, p. 242) and Dagmar S. WODTKO -
Britta IRSLINGER - Carolin SCHNEIDER (2008, p. 108; p. 470-471).
274 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
5.1. Identity between -nqoj and -nda
A first group of scholars identified the suffixes -nqoj and -nda with
each other but disagreed on their origin. L. R. Palmer 98 and Margalit
Finkelberg 99 assumed these suffixes to be of Anatolian origin, considering
Luwian as the most probable donor language for appellatives and place
names. Y. Duhoux 100, though sceptical of any hypothetical Pre-Greek
language, thought of one or more Anatolian (i.e. not necessarily Luwian)
languages. According to him, -nda could be connected with PIE *-nt-, like
-nqoj (with aspiration of the dental), although he neglected to explain the
origin of the aspiration. In her monograph on the suffix -nqoj, Adriana
Quattordio Moreschini 101 also concluded it to be of Anatolian origin. More
specifically, she assumed the suffix -nq- to be derived from two different
Anatolian suffixes, viz. -(a)nt- (used to build plurals and collectives) and
-(a)nda/-(a)nta (a place name suffix). Because the singular morpheme -oj
was added, the Greeks were no longer aware of the original collective
meaning in appellatives. Thus, ôröbinqoj, for instance, should originally
have denoted a collective of chick peas or the plant name in general and
only later a single chick pea, an interpretation that seems needlessly
complicated. Adriana Quattordio Moreschini, moreover, failed to explain
the discrepancy between Anatolian d and Greek q. Should we assume that
the Greeks perceived the Anatolian voiceless dental in -ant- as an aspirate?
V. I. Georgiev 102 accepted the IE origin of both -nqoj and -nda but
considered the former suffix to be of Pelasgian instead of Anatolian origin.
He added that the suffixes -anqoj, -inqoj and -unqoj derived from
different PIE forms, viz. -anq-oj < PIE *-ont- (with PIE *o > Pelasg. a
and PIE *t > Pelasg. q), -inq-oj < PIE *-ent- (with PIE *e > Pelasg. i
before nt without stress) and -unq-oj < PIE *-nt- (with PIE *n > Pelasg.
un), whereas in Anatolian, all these variants developed into -ant-/-and-.
This last remark cannot apply to PIE *-ent-, however, since in Hittite, PIE
*e developed into e/i (not a).
The proponents of the Aegean theory associated -nqoj and -nda as well
but assumed both of these suffixes (i.e. also Anatolian -nda) to be of nonIE origin 103. Thus, R. A. Brown 104 considered -nqoj to be a prenasalised
98. L. R. PALMER (1980, p. 11-12).
99. Margalit FINKELBERG (2005, p. 52).
100. Y. DUHOUX (2007, p. 228).
101. Adriana QUATTORDIO MORESCHINI (1984, p. 107-108).
102. V. I. GEORGIEV (1981, p. 106).
103. H. HAARMANN (1996, p. 5) and K. STRUNK (2004, p. 89) agreed on the nonIE origin of -nqoj.
104. R. A. BROWN (1985, p. 12).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 275
variant of the Pre-Greek suffix -a
-
toj. R. S. P. Beekes 105 elaborated on this
theory and connected -nqoj with a set of other not prenasalised suffixes.
Thus, he connected -anq-/-inq-/-unq-, -and-/-ind-/-und- and -ant-/-unt106
with -aq-/-iq-/-uq-, -ad-/-id-/-ud- and -at-/ -it-/-ut-. In other words, the
basic suffix had the form VC, which could be prenasalised and could show
the Pre-Greek variation t/q/d.
The proponents of the Kartvelian theory also accepted the association
of the suffixes -nqoj and -nda. According to E. J. Furnée 107, these suffixes
were of East Mediterranean origin (i.e. belonging to a non-IE, nonKartvelian substratum that left traces in both Greek and Kartvelian). More
specifically, he connected -nq- with Georgian -nd- and supposed a
secondary, ‘Aegean’ aspiration. Later, he considered the East
Mediterranean -int- a secondary, ‘nasalised’ variant of -it-, corresponding
to Kartvelian -et-/*-etj- 108, whereas Anatolian -ind- was explained as
assimilated from *-int-. A. Uruschadse 109, on the other hand, connected
the suffixes -nth-, -nd- and -nt- with Georgian -ian-ta, -an-ta and -ta
(without the nasal element), which are used to build plurals and to express
possession.
5.2. -nqoj and -nda: two different suffixes
Other scholars have kept -nqoj and -nda etymologically separated,
most of them agreeing on the genuine Anatolian nature of the suffix -nda
(derived from PIE *-nt- and *-2ent-). Anna Morpurgo Davies 110 doubted
that -nqoj could be a reflex of this Anatolian suffix, since the expected
outcome would be -nt- and -nd- (not -nq-). C. Renfrew 111 too kept the two
suffixes separated, explaining -nda as an Anatolian suffix and -nqoj as a
Pre-Greek and Pre-Anatolian but not Pre-IE word. F. Lochner von
Hüttenbach 112 considered the suffixes -wanda, -anda and -assa to be of IE
origin, but since there are no traces of a Hittite-Luwian migration to
Greece, he preferred to keep -nqoj separated from the similarly sounding
suffixes in Asia Minor. In his contribution to Der neue Pauly, J. L.
García-Ramón 113 considered three possibilities: these suffixes could derive
from a common pre-IE substratum, go back to an extension of (IE or non105. R. S. P. BEEKES (2010, p. xxxiv).
106. The suffix *-int- is not attested.
107. E. J. FURNÉE (1982, p. 29).
108. E. J. FURNÉE (1986, p. 67-68).
109. A. URUSCHADSE (1984, p. 102-104).
110. Anna MORPURGO DAVIES (1986, p. 120).
111. C. RENFREW (1998, p. 254).
112. F. LOCHNER VON HÜTTENBACH (1985/1986, p. 7).
113. J. L. GARCÍA-RAMÓN (2002, p. 334).
276 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
IE) linguistic material from Asia Minor, or reflect different developments
of the same basic form.
In contrast to the previous scholars, who frequently did not go beyond
a negative conclusion (viz. that the Greek and Anatolian suffix could not be
related), Françoise Bader 114 in her review of Adriana Quattordio
Moreschini’s work suggested a positive etymological explanation of the
suffix -nqoj. She believed that it derives from an inherited combination of a
nasal and an aspirated dental (parallel complex suffixes being *-nt- and
*-nd-). The dental could be connected not only with a nasal but also with
*-i- (e.g. ‘rn-i
-
-q- “bird”) or *-u- (e.g. k“r-u-q- “helmet”). Consequently,
Anatolian -nd- shows a different, though parallel, combination of a nasal
with a dental. Another explanation of the suffix was proposed by
M. Bernal in his controversial Black Athena 115, where the suffix was
assumed to have various origins. First, it would go back to “simple
introduction of a nasal before a dental” 116 (i.e. [pre]nasalisation), an
explanation which, as J. H. Jasanoff and A. J. Nussbaum 117 argued in their
review of the linguistic evidence in Black Athena, cannot be invoked as a
regular Greek sound change without further justification. Second,
M. Bernal assumed that some instances of -nqoj were renderings of Eg.
-n»tr “holy”, which, in his view, was also borrowed as nÖtron “sodium
carbonate”, •nqoj “flower” (with vowel prothesis and loss of final r),
xanq“j “yellow” (< sn»tr “make holy”, with a causative s- and
transcription of an ‘uncertain’ Egyptian sibilant as x), k£nqaroj “dungbeetle” (< *k n»tr “holy spirit”) and s£turoj “satyr” (< sn»tr, where the
n was dropped). This second explanation does not seem likely either, since
no traces of the so-called original meaning of -nqoj are preserved in the
Pre-Greek toponyms and appellatives.
5.3. Conclusion
Most scholars agreed on the Pre-Greek origin of -nqoj, except for
M. Bernal and Françoise Bader. As the Anatolian suffix -nda can be
explained on a PIE basis, it seems safer to keep both suffixes separated
when discussing their etymology. If one wants to associate them, Françoise
Bader’s explanation (i.e. IE origin for both suffixes, although the
formations are not completely identical) seems the most likely suggestion.
The strongest objection against the identification of both suffixes is the fact
114. Françoise BADER (1987, p. 232-236).
115. M. BERNAL (2001, p. 126-132).
116. M. BERNAL (2001, p. 128).
117. J. H. JASANOFF - A. J. NUSSBAUM (1996, p. 187).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 277
that in toponyms, they are never attested with the same root (for instance,
we do not find Anatolian *Korinda besides K“rinqoj)
118
.
6. General conclusion
A first conclusion to be drawn is that the Anatolian theory has proven
to be the least influential. Its main proponents concentrated on the suffixes
-nq- and -ss-. The other three theories (Pelasgian, Aegean and Kartvelian)
had a wider scope, examining more data.
Second, several words not only have competing Pre-Greek
interpretations (as presented in my first article) but have also received
explanations within PIE or Greek (e.g. t⁄mboj, si
-
gª and ¢gaq“j). For
other words (e.g. pölekuj), an alternative borrowing could be considered
(e.g. from Semitic) rather than substratum influence.
Third, the Pelasgian theory, though influential in the past, failed to
explain a large part of the data collected by E. J. Furnée. For most of the
terms discussed in the present article, a Pelasgian suggestion could be
made, but this is far from true for the rest of E. J. Furnée’s corpus (e.g.
göfura - böfura - döfura).
A fourth conclusion concerns the Kartvelian theory, an innovation in
the substratum research. The proponents of this approach pointed to a few
more or less systematic sound correspondences between Pre-Greek and
Kartvelian, although the question of the original donor language often
cannot be resolved. Moreover, not every Pre-Greek word can be explained
as a Kartvelian substratum word, as becomes evident from the elements
examined: there are no Kartvelian parallels for pölekuj, t⁄mboj and si
-
gª.
Therefore, E. J. Furnée did not abandon the Aegean theory but
incorporated it into his theory of Pre-Greek as consisting of two substrata,
viz. a non-Kartvelian and a Kartvelian one. Still, the great chronological
gap between ‘Pelasgian’ (which, according to E. J. Furnée 119, goes back to
the third millennium BC) and the historically attested Kartvelian languages
(with Georgian, attested from the fourth century BC onwards, as the only
Kartvelian language with a historical tradition) invites us to be cautious.
Unsurprisingly, K. H. Schmidt 120 was sceptical of the extent to which the
Proto-Kartvelian material could still be reconstructed on the basis of the
Kartvelian languages.
Research on the basis of the Aegean theory (as currently practised by
R. S. P. Beekes) seems the most fruitful approach. For several instances, it
118. A possible exception may be the pair Labraunda - Lab⁄rinqoj.
119. E. J. FURNÉE (1979, p. 14).
120. K. H. SCHMIDT (1979, p. 96).
278 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
can be supplemented with the Kartvelian theory. Still, a few critical
remarks are in order, first concerning the criteria used by the linguists of
Leiden in the identification of substratum elements 121, which are the
following:
(1) Absence of a good IE etymology
(2) Limited geographical distribution: the word in question only occurs in
one language (group)
(3) Unusual word formation: suffixes unknown in PIE
(4) Meaning: loanwords for certain local phenomena
(5) Phonological irregularity: ablaut patterns impossible in PIE
Objections can be made to each of these criteria. First, the limited
geographical distribution of a certain word does not necessarily point to a
non-IE origin, since it may have been lost in other languages. This might
be the case for pölekuj, which is only attested in Greek and Old Indic,
although these languages may have borrowed the word separately from
Semitic. Second, certain phonological irregularities can be explained by
assuming assimilation, dissimilation, onomatopoeia, taboo or
contamination. An onomatopoeic value may be present in si
-
gª, whereas
contamination and dissimilation may have given rise to ¢kaq“j and ¢geq“j
respectively (two variants of ¢gaq“j). Third, a so-called non-IE suffix may
be a complex IE suffix cluster, for instance in the case for -nqoj (as
Françoise Bader suggested), although most scholars agreed on its PreGreek nature. Fourth, the semantic argument is not sufficient to label a
certain word as non-IE either, since our knowledge of the Indo-European
culture is still fairly limited. Finally, the presence of the so-called non-IE
phoneme *a is also a debatable issue. It is one of the main reasons for R.
S. P. Beekes to assume that ¢gaq“j is of non-IE origin. Most modern
scholars, however, do accept the existence of this phoneme in PIE.
Although each of these criteria can thus be challenged, a non-IE origin is
usually made plausible not by simply one of these criteria but by the
combination of these features, as P. C. H. Schrijver 122 argued.
Another problem is that R. S. P. Beekes’ methodology can often be
questioned. He adduced many Hesychian glosses as so-called proof of the
Pre-Greek sound variations, although nothing guarantees the antiquity of
these glosses: some of them may even be recent (perhaps Byzantine)
loanwords. Furthermore, many borrowings that presumably came from a
different source (e.g. Semitic) are subsumed under the Pre-Greek
121. For a more detailed discussion of these criteria, see P. C. H. SCHRIJVER
(1997, p. 293-296). See also R. S. P. BEEKES (1999, p. 14) and R. S. P. BEEKES
(2010, p. xxiii).
122. P. C. H. SCHRIJVER (1997, p. 296).
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 279
vocabulary. Therefore, as a suggestion for future research, a stricter
methodology seems in order, in which a distinction should be made at least
between early attested Pre-Greek words, Hesychian glosses and loanwords
that may be of a different origin.
One last crux is the unity of Pre-Greek, which was assumed by
R. S. P. Beekes. The wide geographical distribution of the Aegean
substratum, however, makes a linguistically diverse continuum (perhaps
even comprising IE elements) more plausible. Moreover, given the
chronological gap between the various attested words, diachronic variation
too remains possible. Finally, dialectal differentiation within Pre-Greek
cannot be a priori excluded. Any speaker of a natural language will agree
that the dialects of his language can show extreme differences. Retrieving
these Pre-Greek dialects, however, may forever be beyond our grasp.
Gertjan VERHASSELT
KU Leuven - Faculty of Arts
Research Unit: Ancient History
Blijde Inkomststraat 21 box 3307
3000 Leuven (Belgium)
gertjan.verhasselt@arts.kuleuven.be
280 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
Literature
Raimo ANTTILA (1996): “'Agaq“j Again”, HS 109, p. 237-239.
Raimo ANTTILA (2000): Greek and Indo-European Etymology in Action. ProtoIndo-European *aG-, Amsterdam, Benjamins.
Françoise BADER (1975): Review of E. J. FURNÉE (1972), RPh 49, p. 102-106.
Françoise BADER (1987): Review of Adriana QUATTORDIO MORESCHINI (1984),
BSL 82, 2, p. 227-236.
Irene BALLES (2003): “Die lateinischen Adjektive auf -idus und das
Calandsystem”, in Eva TICHY, Dagmar S. WODTKO & Britta IRSLINGER
(ed.), Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten
der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Society for IndoEuropean Studies, Société des Études Indo-Européennes. Freiburg, 19. bis
22. September 2001, Bremen, Hempen, p. 9-29.
Irene BALLES (2006): Die altindische Cvi-Konstruktion. Form, Funktion,
Ursprung, Bremen, Hempen.
Robert S. P. BEEKES (1996): “Ancient European Loanwords”, HS 109, p. 215-
236.
Robert S. P. BEEKES (1999): Indo-Europees en niet-Indo-Europees in het
Nederlands, Leiden, Onderzoekschool CNWS.
Robert S. P. BEEKES (2000): “European Substratum Words in Greek”, in
M. OFITSCH & C. ZINKO (ed.), 125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz, Graz,
Leykam, p. 21-31.
Robert S. P. BEEKES (2002): “Hom. göfura, and Arm. kamurj ‘bridge’”, Glotta
78, p. 12-21.
Robert S. P. BEEKES (2008): “Palatalized Consonants in Pre-Greek”, in
A. LUBOTSKY (ed.), Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Essays in Honor of
Frederik Kortlandt. Volume 1. Baltoslavic and Indo-European Linguistics,
Amsterdam - New York, Rodopi, p. 45-56.
Robert S. P. BEEKES (2010): Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vol., Leiden -
Boston, Brill.
Robert S. P. BEEKES - Aert H. KUIPERS (1975): Review of E. J. FURNÉE (1972),
Lingua 36, p. 69-85.
Martin BERNAL (2001): Black Athena Writes Back. Martin Bernal Responds to His
Critics, Durham - London, Duke University Press.
Martin BERNAL (2006): Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical
Civilization. Volume III. The Linguistic Evidence, New Brunswick - New
Jersey, Rutgers University Press.
Remo BRACCHI (1999): “Turdus e i suoi corrispondenti. L’uccello ‘che cova nel
fango inaridito’”, Athenaeum 87, p. 79-92.
Raymond A. BROWN (1985): Evidence for Pre-Greek Speech on Crete from Greek
Alphabetic Sources, Amsterdam, Hakkert.
Pièrre CHANTRAINE (1968): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque.
Histoire des mots, Paris, Klincksieck.
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 281
James CLACKSON (1994): The Linguistic Relationship between Armenian and
Greek, Oxford, Blackwell.
James CLACKSON (2007): Indo-European Linguistics. An Introduction, Cambridge,
University Press.
Yves DUHOUX (2007): “Pre-Greek Languages. Indirect Evidence”, in
A.-F. CHRISTIDIS (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek. From the Beginning to
Late Antiquity, Cambridge, University Press, p. 223-228.
Margalit FINKELBERG (2005): Greeks and Pre-Greeks. Aegean Prehistory and
Greek Heroic Tradition, Cambridge, University Press.
Hjalmar FRISK (1972): Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Heidelberg,
Winter.
Edzard J. FURNÉE (1972): Die wichtigsten konsonantischen Erscheinungen des
Vorgriechischen mit einem Appendix über den Vokalismus, The Hague -
Paris, Mouton.
Edzard J. FURNÉE (1979): Vorgriechisch-Kartvelisches. Studien zum
ostmediterranen Substrat nebst einem Versuch zu einer neuen pelasgischen
Theorie, Leuven, Peeters.
Edzard J. FURNÉE (1982): Beiträge zur georgischen Etymologie. Faszikel 1.
Georgisch-vorgriechische, georgisch-vorromanische und georgischvorindogermanische Materialien, Leuven, Peeters.
Edzard J. FURNÉE (1986): Paläokartvelisch-pelasgische Einflüsse in den
indogermanischen Sprachen. Nachgewiesen anhand der
spätindogermanisch-griechischen Reflexe urkartvelischer Sibilanten und
Affrikaten, Leiden, The Hakuchi Press.
Thomas V. GAMKRELIDZE - Vjaceslav V. IVANOV (1995): Indo-European and the
Indo-Europeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a ProtoLanguage and a Proto-Culture. Part I. The Text, Berlin - New York, De
Gruyter.
José L. GARCÍA-RAMÓN (2002): “Vorgriechische Sprachen”, in H. CANCIK &
H. SCHNEIDER (ed.), Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike 12, 2,
Stuttgart - Weimar, Metzler, p. 331-334.
Vladimir I. GEORGIEV (1981): Introduction to the History of the Indo-European
Languages, Sofia, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
Rismag GORDEZIANI (2008): Mediterranea-Kartvelica IV. Summary. Abbrevations.
Indices. Addenda et Corrigenda, Tbilisi, Logos.
Harald HAARMANN (1996): “Aspects of Early Indo-European Contacts with
Neighboring Cultures”, IF 101, p. 1-14.
Olav HACKSTEIN (2002): “Uridg. *CH.CC > *C.CC”, HS 115, p. 1-22.
Ivo HAJNAL (2005): “Das Frühgriechische zwischen Balkan und Ägäis. Einheit
oder Vielfalt”, in G. MEIER & O. HACKSTEIN (ed.), Sprachkontakt und
Sprachwandel. Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen
Gesellschaft. 17.-23. September 2000. Halle an der Saale, Wiesbaden,
Reichert, p. 185-214.
Eric P. HAMP (1983): “Prehellenica. 3. stifr“j, stãfoj”, A 33, 2, p. 147-148.
Maurizio HARARI (1979): “Nuova proposta di etimologia per ¢gaq“j”,
Athenaeum 57, p. 150-153.
282 LES ÉTUDES CLASSIQUES
Henricus VAN HERWERDEN (1910): Lexicon Graecum suppletorium et dialecticum,
Leiden, Sijthoff.
Alfred HEUBECK (1974): Review of E. J. FURNÉE (1972), IF 79, p. 272-277.
Martin E. HULD (1988): Review of A. J. VAN WINDEKENS (1986), AJPh 109, 3,
p. 463-467.
Michael JANDA (2000): Eleusis. Das indogermanische Erbe der Mysterien,
Innsbruck, Universität Innsbruck. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.
Jay H. JASANOFF - Alan J. NUSSBAUM (1996): “Word Games. The Linguistic
Evidence in Black Athena”, in Mary R. LEFKOWITZ & G. MACLEAN
ROGERS (ed.), Black Athena Revisited, Chapel Hill, University of North
Carolina Press.
Fritz LOCHNER VON HÜTTENBACH (1985/1986): “Hellenen und Athener.
Überlegungen zu Sprachwissenschaft und Frühgeschichte”, GB 12/13,
p. 1-20.
Rosemarie LÜHR (2000): Die Gedichte des Skalden Egill, Dettelbach, Röll.
Manfred MAYRHOFER (1992): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, I,
Heidelberg, Winter.
Manfred MAYRHOFER (1996): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, II,
Heidelberg, Winter.
Anna MORPURGO DAVIES (1986): “The Linguistic Evidence. Is There Any?”, in
G. CADOGAN (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean,
Leiden, Brill, p. 93-123.
Sergio NERI (2003): I sostantivi in -u del gotico. Morfologia e preistoria,
Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen. Abteilung
Sprachwissenschaft.
Leonard R. PALMER (1980): The Greek Language, London - Boston, Faber and
Faber.
Oswald PANAGL (1995): “Griechisch ¢gaq“j. Ein etymologischer Versuch”, in
H. HETTRICH, W. HOCK, P.-A. MUMM & N. OETTINGER (ed.), Verba et
Structurae. Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck,
Universität Innsbruck. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, p. 229-235.
Adrian PÂRVULESCU (1993): “IE. dhugh5têr ‘daughter’ and Grassmann’s Law. A
Phonetic and Semantic Analysis”, IF 98, p. 50-91.
Georges-Jean PINAULT (1979): “Grec ¢gaq“j”, MSS 38, p. 165-170.
Georges-Jean PINAULT (1991): “Grandeur et excès. Avatars du morphème ¢gadans le lexique et le discourse”, RPh 65, p. 195-218.
Georges-Jean PINAULT (1994): “Les deux formes du silence homérique et l’origine
du verbe siwp£w”, in D. CONSO, Nicole FICK & B. POULLE (ed.),
Mélanges François Kerlouégan, Paris, « Les Belles Lettres », p. 501-526.
Julius POKORNY (1969): Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Bern,
Francke.
James W. POULTNEY (1994): “Die Etymologie von ¢gaq“j”, in R. STERNEMANN
(ed.), Bopp-Symposium 1992 der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin,
Heidelberg, Winter, p. 208-211.
Adriana QUATTORDIO MORESCHINI (1984): Le formazioni nominali greche in -nth-,
Rome, Edizioni dell'Ateneo.
THE PRE-GREEK LINGUISTIC SUBSTRATUM 283
Pièrre RAGOT (2006): “¢gaq“j”, RPh 80, p. 340.
Colin RENFREW (1998): “Word of Minos. The Minoan Contribution to Mycenaean
Greek and the Linguistic Geography of the Bronze Age Aegean”, CAJ 8,
2, p. 239-264.
Cornelis J. RUIJGH (1996): “L’étymologie de l’adjectif ¢gaq“j”, in
A. RIJKSBARON & F. M. J. WAANDERS (ed.), Scripta Minora ad linguam
graecam pertinentia, II, Amsterdam, Gieben, p. 378-395.
Salvatore SCARLATA (1999): Die Wurzelkomposita im Àg-Veda, Wiesbaden,
Reichert.
Peter C. H. SCHRIJVER (1997): “Animal, Vegetable and Mineral. Some Western
European Substratum Words”, in A. LUBOTSKY (ed.), Sound Law and
Analogy. A Festschrift for Robert S. P. Beekes, Amsterdam - Atlanta,
Rodopi, p. 293-316.
Andrew L. SIHLER (1995): New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin,
Oxford, University Press.
Klaus STRUNK (2004 [= 2003]): “‘Vorgriechisch’/‘Pelasgisch’. Neue Erwägungen
zu einer älteren Substrathypothese”, in A. BAMMESBERGER &
T. VENNEMANN (ed.), Languages in Prehistoric Europe, Heidelberg,
Winter, p. 85-98.
Gábor TAKÁCS (1998): “Afro-Asiatic (Semito-Hamitic) Substratum in the ProtoIndo-European Cultural Lexicon?”, Lingua Posnaniensis 40, p. 141-172.
Gertjan VERHASSELT (2009): “The Pre-Greek Linguistic Substratum. An Overview
of Current Research”, LEC 77, p. 211-239.
Rémy VIREDAZ (2003): “ghqöw”, RPh 77, p. 115.
Albert J. VAN WINDEKENS (1986): Dictionnaire étymologique complémentaire de
la langue grecque, Leuven, Peeters.
Dagmar S. WODTKO - Britta IRSLINGER - Carolin SCHNEIDER (2008): Nomina im
indogermanischen Lexikon, Heidelberg, Winter.
