CC BY
22
GREEK idrcxw*
Предметом данной статьи служит редкий глагол (каш)1аятю ‘портить, ранить, наносить ущерб’. В качестве рабочей гипотезы принимается отсутствие этимологической связи между этим глаголом и (npo)idnx® ‘слать (стрелы), низвергать (души героев в Аид)’. Взамен
5 ' С 9 ^
предлагается возводить 1аяхю ранить к редуплицированной пре-зентной основе *se-s(e)h2p-(ie/o-) от корня *seh2p- ‘бить’. Реконструкция этого корня предлагается впервые; она подкрепляется анатолийским, индоиранским и латинским языковым материалом. Для хеттского глагола sap(p)- в статье обосновывается синхронное значение ‘ударить, ткнуть’ и предлагается возведение к корневому аористу *seh2p-. К корню *seh2p- может также восходить не имеющий этимологии осетинский глагол safyn (ирон.), isafun (дигор.) ‘губить’, который возводится к основе *(ui-)sapaia- < *seh2p-eje/o-; сходную праформу может продолжать ведийский гапакс sapayant- ‘бьющий, разящий (врагов)’ (TB 2.4.6.5.4). Корень со значением ‘бить’ мог быть употреблен в переносном значении ‘futuere’ (в случае корня *seh2p-, помимо типологических параллелей, эта гипотеза подкрепляется белудж. sapag ‘покрывать овцу’): эту семантику предлагается видеть в лат. prdsapia ‘род’ и sdpid, -5nis ‘penis' (Cat. 37.10, CIL 4.1700 и, возможно, Petron. Sat. 22).
Ключевые слова: этимология, древнегреческий язык, хеттский язык, латинский язык, осетинский язык, древнеиндийский язык, ларингальная теория.
1. There are two verbs lanxro in Greek which are listed separately in the LSJ, but are not always kept distinct in other works of reference. Neither verb has an accepted etymology and opinions are still divided as to whether or not they go back to the same root. One of the verbs is the better known (npo)lanxro ‘send forth’, ‘shoot (arrows)’, ‘rush (oneself)’, familiar from the proem of the Iliad: noXXaq 8’ 1ф0щои<; wuyaq Ai8i npotaysv ‘hurled strong souls in their multitudes to the house of Hades’ (Il. 1.3). The other verb is less frequent (ката)1аптю ‘hurt’, first attested in the Odyssey. This verb will be the object of our inquiry in this paper.
* I would like to record my gratitude to Jay Jasanoff, Alexis Manaster Ramer, H. Craig Melchert, Martin Peters, Jeremy Rau, Martin Schwartz, Andrei Sidel’tsev, and Brent Vine for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Usual disclaimer applies. I would also like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Research Council of the President of the Russian Federation (grant nr. MK-389.2011.6).
1.1. (ката)іапхю is found in the Odyssey twice, in a versus iteratus: in book 2 Telemachus speaks to his nurse, Eurycleia, who later retells this conversation to Penelope.
Od. 2.376 (~ 4.749)
dXX’ opooov p^ pnxp'i табє puO'qoaoOai,
/ • C/ • )\ С Г» / ОС*' '
npLv y ox’ av evosKaxn хє оиюоєкахп хє yev^xai,
Л aux^v лоОєааі каі ^oppnOEvxoc акоиааі wc av p'q K^aLouaa ката xpoa KaXov іажтц
But swear to not tell these things to my dear mother at least until the eleventh or the twelfth day comes or she misses me and hears that I’ve departed so she (= Penelope) won’t mar her fair flesh with weeping
The ancient commentators understood the verb as ‘hurt, spoil, damage’: thus scholia D provide a gloss 5іаф0гір^ ‘ruin’ for Od. 2.376 and in schol. min. (P. Mich. 1588) Ldnxro is glossed as л e£eBa^sv л §ієф08іоєу; in Hesychius we find Ldrcxeiv P^anxeiv and
1аф0^уаг ano0av8Lv1.
The verb Lanxro in the meaning ‘hurt’ is also probably attested in a processional song by Bacchylides where the verb has ‘heart’ as its direct object, contrasting with earlier dnsv0^ 0u^ov ex®v ‘having spirit free from grief’.
Bacch. fr. 11.6:
єі<с opoc, pLa PpoxoiaLv eaxiv єих^а^ обос;,
Oupov єі xic £X®v dn^vO'q Ouvaxai
бlaxєXєLv pLov ос б є pu-
pLa pev dpфlлoXєL фpєvL,
xo б є nap’ apap тє <каі> vuKxa pєXX6vxюv
xdpiv alev іаятєтаї
кєар, aKapnov ^i novov
There is one guideline, one path to happiness for mortals: to be able to keep an ungrieving spirit throughout life.
The man who busies his mind with a thousand cares, whose heart is hurt day and night for the sake of the future, has fruitless toil.
1 It is interesting to note that Quintus of Smyrna adapted the Odyssean verse in a martial context, where Іаятю refers to piercing by spear: EvOa xox’ A^Lao Kax’ aanLOoc eyxoc ^шє / Tєuкpoc; єuppєXLnc;• xou б’ ou xpoa KaXov iaysv (Q. S. 6.546). This nicely illustrates the understanding of the Homeric verse current in the late Antiquity.
The form (alev) larcxsxai in this passage is Boeckh’s palmary emendation of the meaningless dovi drcxsxai in the mss. of Stobaeus (Flor. 4.44.16). Estienne’s alternative conjecture Sarcxsxai ‘devours’ is quite elegant, but larcxsxai Keap commands acceptance in view of a late Alexandrine imitation larcxo^ai d^ysoiv ^xop ([Mosch.] Meg. 39)2.
W. Schulze cited Aesch. Septem 525 rco6o0s rcu^av Ks©a^dv lawsiv ‘he (= Hippomedon) will lanxsiv his head before the gates’3 as one more example of Idrcxro in the meaning ‘to hurt’ (Schulze 1892: 168 n. 3). But while any increase in the documentation of Idrcxro? would be salutary, Schulze’s suggestion is doubtful, since Aeschylus’ juncture Kswa^dv lawsiv is hard to separate from Il.
11.55 rcoAAdc; l^0L^ouq Ks^a^dq Ai8i rcpoiaysiv “hurl down a multitude of strong heads to the house of Hades”. The Iliadic phrase referring to the slaying of men may have engendered a considerable confusion in the usage of lanxro1 and ldrcxro2 already in the antiquity; it is entirely possible that Aeschylus reanalyzed the Homeric phrase as applicable to one’s own head4. The Aeschylean verse is thus not very likely to continue an old use of ldnxro2 ‘hurt’.
1. 2. Outside Bacchylides and the Odyssey the verb Idrcxro ‘hurt’ is not found until post-classical times when it reemerges in Hellenistic bucolic and epic poetry. In Apollonius’ Argonautica laysi refers to hypothetical damage that might be done by an unskilled helmsman:
Ap. Rh. 2.875:
faq §£ Kai aXXoi 5eupo Saqpoveq avSpeq eaaiv, xwv oxiva npupvnq eniPqaopev, ou Tiq iaysi vauTiXinv.
And so there are here other men of skill, of whom none will harm our voyaging, whomsoever we set at the helm
2
The epyllion “Megara” is ascribed by the manuscript tradition to Moschus; while the authorship is uncertain, its author must have been a poeta doctus, steeped in the knowledge of archaic and classical poetry. The poem is replete with Homeric and lyric reminiscences, including, as is the custom of the genre, most obscure and rare words and expressions (for a useful collection see Breitenstein 1966: 70-93).
3 Sommerstein translates ianxsiv as ‘lose’.
4 Cf. “ianxsiv war schon den Tragikern eine Glosse, die sie für ganz Verschiedenes verwendeten” (Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1907: 35; a propos of THes.l fr. 204.118-19 (M.-W.) ка! njoXXàç AlS^ K£9aXdç àno xa^KÔv idy[si]v).
Here one may wonder which of the two verbs Ldrcxw is used, since the meaning ‘to hurl’ would not be altogether unfathomable in the description of a ship thrown off course. However, vauxi^in means ‘sea voyage’ or ‘seamanship’; in the Argonautica the word is used 16 times in the former meaning and once in the latter, but never in the meaning ‘ship’. Therefore the most likely translation of Ldysi vauxi^inv is ‘does harm to the sea voyage’ which is in fact how the line was understood in the antiquity: ou5si<; Sia^Bspsl xov rc^ouv (Schol. Lm Wendel)5.
In Nicander Ldrcxw likewise means ‘hurt, strike’: oxs 5^ KaKov av5pa<; Ldnxsi ‘this is the time when disaster strikes a man’ (Th. 116); kslvo noxov yap xs Kap^axi ^oivov Ldnxsi ‘this drink (viz.
hemlock) assuredly looses disaster upon the head’ (Al. 187)6. In its literal meaning, the verb refers to insects’ and snakes’ bites: PouPwoi xurc^v a^iaoxov Lanxsi ‘(scorpion) deals an incurable stroke upon the groin’ (Th. 784); vouoov 5’ a^a^env ... xurc^oiv a^uSpoxep^oiv Lanxsi ‘[the viper] imparts the affliction of thirst with its feeble blows’ (Th. 357-58)7.
The “Bacchylidean” way of using idnxro with reference to feelings and heartache (Ldnxsxai Keap) is likewise continued in Hellenistic poetry. We have already seen one example of the verb employed to describe the state of emotional turmoil (idnxo^ai ^xop Meg. 39); similarly, Theocritus uses the verb twice about being consumed by the fire of love: ^oi nupi 0u^o^ id^Bn ‘my heart was aflame’ (2.82) and Kaxao^u^wv Kai ec; ooxiov a^pi^ idnxsi
‘(Eros), who tortures me by burning me up to the very bones’ (3.17).
1. 3. As a result of this cursory review of relevant passages, we see that the difference in meaning between (nDo)Ldnxw ‘send forth’ and (Kaxa)Ldnxw ‘hurt’ is beyond doubt. The question now becomes whether Idnxwi and Ldnxw2 go back to two different verbal roots or they are the same verb in origin8. But while one could imagine how the meaning ‘kill’ could have developed based on such usages as Il. 1.3 (yuxd<; A'i5i rcpotaysv), it is still quite hard to conceive of a
5 Vian-Delage 1974: 218: “compromettra la navigation”; Green 2007: 101 “mess up our voyage”; Matteo 2007: 575: “danneggera”.
6 On the interpretation of the verse see Gow 1951: 109.
7 Translations from Nicander follow Gow-Scholfield 1953.
The widely held belief is that the verbs continue the same root, e.g. GEW 705; Peters 1980: 101 n. 44; Tichy 1983: 230; St. West 1988: 153; Maehler 1997: 313; Beekes 2010: 574.
further development to ‘hurt the skin’ (Od. 2.376 ката уроа Іалт^) or ‘bite into the groin’ (Nic. Th. 784 PouPwoi xunnv Lanxet)9.
In fact it was the view of scholars no less than W. Schulze and F. Bechtel that Іаптю ‘Р^аптю’ is a separate verb (although neither authority ventured an etymology for either of the two verbs Ldnra) (Schulze 1892: 168 n. 3; Bechtel 1914: 180). In this paper I will build on this idea and offer a new etymological account of іаптю ‘hurt’, assuming that this verb is distinct from Іаптю ‘send forth, hurl’10.
2. We will start with an internal reconstruction. іаятє/o- is best analyzed as a present stem reduplicated with *i-n and extended with suffixal *-ie/o-12. Such extended reduplicated present stems are not
9 The use of ката with verba delendi is well documented, but I cannot agree with Lindblad 1922: 111 that the preverb itself should be held responsible for the meaning ‘to hurt’ in our case (i.e.: it was the addition of ката- ‘zer-’ to Іаптю ‘send forth’ that resulted in the meaning that ката Іалтп has in the Odyssey). The development of ката- must have been from ‘down, downward’ to ‘completely’; its “destructive” meaning in compounds must have been brought about by its use with verbal roots already denoting violent physical actions (cf. кататрихю ‘wear out’, катабаптю ‘devour’, катапрію ‘bite into pieces’, катаптіааю ‘grind to powder’, etc.). I am unable to find any examples of ката- added to a verbal root whose meaning had nothing to do with any harm whatsoever and the resulting compound denoting some kind of destructive action.
10 The old connection between (про) іаптю ‘to send forth, to hurl’ and Latin iacio (e.g. Monro 1891: 46) is excluded by the *h1 in the root of the latter, clearly related to Greek inpi. The only somewhat plausible etymology known to me connects іаптю 1 with the passive aorist єафОп, attested twice in the Iliad in battle scenes, with аалц ‘shield’ as the subject: Il. 13.543 ~ 14.419 єп’ (атю) S’ аалц єафОп. The form was obscure already in the antiquity: Aristarchus wrote єафОп, thinking of єпорш, while Herodian recommended a derivation from аптю; both etymologies can still be found in modern works. H. Ebel (1855: 167) was the first to compare єафОп to Іаптю; he was followed by K. Meister (1921: 110 n.2). There have been several ingenious attempts to find a plausible cognate of єафОп outside Greek: thus F. Froehde (1879: 24) proposed Sanskrit vapati ‘scatter, throw’ as the cognate, and M. Meier-Brugger (1989: 91-92) suggested a comparison with орф^ ‘song’ and Germanic *singwan ‘to sing’, assuming that the verb described the clang of weapons. But the most plausible etymology was offered by J. Schmidt (1881: 131; 1895: 63) who compared єафОп and Іалхю to Germanic *sinkwan ‘to fall’ and Armenian ankanim ‘id.’: PIE *sengw- must therefore have had an original meaning ‘to shove down’ (trans.), ‘to fall down’ (intr.). (On Іалєто^ see Peters 1980: 101 n. 44).
11 All Greek reduplicated present stems have -i- as the reduplication vowel: granted the reduplicated present is old enough, it could have been reduplicated with an -i- or an -e- in the protolanguage.
12 E. Tichy (1983: 230) surmised that the reduplication in Іаптю was
unknown, e.g. ‘send forth’ (< *si-sl-ie/o-), xixaivro ‘stretch’
(< *ti-tn-ie/o-), (Aeolic) ^aiouai ‘long, desire’ (< *li-las-ie/o-) or
° ^ 13 ^
iauro ‘spend the night’ (< *h2i-h2us-ie/o-) . As an alternative one could set up a stem with a rare verbal suffix *-te/o- (type *pek-te/o-‘to comb’, *plek-te/o- ‘to weave’), but this reconstruction has much less to recommend itself: so far as can be inferred from extremely scanty data, the suffix *-te/o- does not occur in reduplicated stems14 and is virtually absent from Greek15.
If the suffix was *-ie/o-, the next step would be to assume, rather straightforwardly, that -rcxs/o- came from *-pie/o- and that the final consonant of the root in question was *p; and yet neither *kw nor even *gw can be ruled out with certainty 6. As for the beginning of the root, it is important to note that the absence of a spiritus asper in Larcxs/o- is not diagnostic for our purposes: as a poetic verb, Larcxro probably comes from either East Ionian or Aeolian poetic tradition und is therefore likely to show psilosis. The root of Ldrcxro could therefore have begun with any one of the consonants lost in Greek in intervocalic position: *u, *s or *i17. Finally, the root vowel -a- can have various sources, including *h2, *n, *m and *a.
analogical to “semantisch nicht allzu fernstehende[m]” LáXX©, but the semantic points of contact are between (npo)lánx©i and (npo)LáXX© (both ‘to send forth’), not between (Kaxa)Lánx©2 and LáXX©.
13 On the phonology of Laú© < *h2i-h2us-ie/o- see Peters 1980: 34-39.
14 The only (highly uncertain) example is ávúx© / ávúx©, the Attic equivalent of ávú© ‘accomplish’ (Thuc., Pl.); neKxé© ‘shear’ (Ar. Av. 714; Lys. 685) is almost certainly a denominative.
1 The other thinkable possibility is that the suffix was *-dhe/o-, assuming that the expected *Lá^Oe/o- was reshaped into *Lánxe/o- after other tense allomorphs that had (L)án-; however, all Greek stems in -Oe/o- are intransitive (axOopai ‘be vexed’, OaXéO© ‘sprout’, nX^O© ‘be full’, ^OivúO© ‘wane’, etc.).
16 Since the actually attested Averbo of our verb is built on the present stem Lánxe/o- (fut. Láye/o-, aor. Láya-, etc.) and we do not know what its prehistoric forms may have been, nothing in principle stands in the way of positing the following two-stage process: first, in an athematic form (e.g. root aorist middle ‘was hurt’) the root final labiovelar produces a labial reflex before another consonant: *-kw/gw-to > *-p-to. Then the root allomorph with a final *-p is generalized in Proto-Greek and the suffix *-ie/o- - whose addition to the reduplicated present stem has to be secondary anyway - is added to this very allomorph. (Cf. the pair evlgg© : evltcx©; see Hackstein 1997).
17 However, the last of these three options requires a number of additional assumptions, since one would expect reduplicated *ii-iVp- to have given Greek fZiarc- with initial *i- > Z- (see García Ramón 1999). A reconstruction of a root-initial sequence *hxi- solves this problem, but still does not elicit the desired result, since *hxii-hxiVp- would have produced a stem
We are thus confronted with a plethora of possible variants: *ueh2p- / *uap- / *uemp-18, *ueh2kw- / *uakw- / *uemkw-, *ueh2gw- / *uagw- / *uemgw-, *seh2p- / *sap- / *semp-, *seh2kw- / *sakw- / *semkw-, *seh2gw- / *sagw- / *semgw-, *(hx)ieh2p- / *(hx)ia- / *(hx)iemp-, *(hx)ieh2kw- / *(hx)iakw- / *(hx)iemkw-, or *(hx)ieh2gw- / *(hx)iagw- / *(hx)iemgw-. And yet, despite this abundance of options, the LIV does not seem to contain a root of suitable form and meaning (‘hurt, damage, strike’ uel sim.).
Nonetheless, I believe that one of the roots posited exempli gratia above must in fact be reconstructed for the protolanguage and that this hitherto unrecognized root has cognates in Anatolian, Indo-Iranian and Latin. In what follows I will present the evidence for a root *seh2p- with the meaning ‘hit, strike, damage’.
3. The first ingredient of the proposed reconstruction is the Hittite verb sapzi, sappanzi, whose exact meaning is unclear.
It might be useful to briefly summarize the research situation regarding this verb. J. Friedrich’s widely accepted translation of sap(p)- is ‘scrape, peel, wash’ (Friedrich 1968: 38; Tischler 2001: 143 ‘schälen’; Puhvel 2004: 20: ‘strip, peel’). This analysis is based on the Luvianism sappatta (written with a Glossenkeil) which demonstrably means ‘peeled off (the bark)’ (the context will be examined momentarily). While there is no reason to doubt this interpretation of the Luvoid form, it has given rise to conclusions more far-reaching that it can justify: in particular, N. Oettinger has argued that Hittite sapzi has the same meaning as sappatta, that sapzi is likewise a Luvianism and that Luvoid sap- < *sep- corresponds to genuine Hittite sippai- (Oettinger 1979: 383, partially corrected in Oettinger 1998: 98 n. 7). This position is open to objections from more than one angle. H. Güterbock, however, argued that sap(p)-rather means ‘hit, slap’19. If Güterbock could be shown to be right and Oettinger could be shown to be wrong, Hittite sapzi, sappanzi would perhaps be traceable back to *seh2p- and compared to Greek
with a long 1- in the reduplication syllable, cf. Attic < ^Ji-hxieh!- (see Peters 1976). One would have to assume that ^idnxe/o- underwent a morphological shortening to Ldnxe/o- in analogy to other verbs with i-reduplication (LdXX®, xixaiv© and perhaps even Ldnx©1 ‘hurl down’ < *si-sngw-, see above, n. 10).
18 *uenp- is not listed as a possible variant, since *-np would probably assimilate to *-mp already in the protolanguage.
19 Guterbock 1967: 141-42. See the excellent presentation of the evidence in CHD-S 201-3 with ample references (to which Kassian, Korolev and Sideltsev 2002: 638-39 should now be added). The editors of the CHD have wisely adopted an agnostic position regarding the meaning of the verb.
Ldrcxro ‘hurt’ (< *si-sh2p-), rescuing the latter from its etymological isolation.
3. 1. In view of the uncertainty of the meaning, a reassessment of the evidence seems in order. I will begin by reviewing the attestations of the verb sap(p)-, building on the work already done by Guterbock and the editors of the CHD.
To start with the least helpful context, sapp- describes the actions performed by the priest on the king’s hands in the ritual of the festival of Nerik (cTh 645.6):
1) KUB 25.36 i 12'-13' ( = v 11-13 = 24-25); OH?/MS?
[man luGUDU 12 ma]lduwar
[zinnizzi nu L]UGAL-un QA-TEmeS-SU sapzi
when the GUDU-priest finishes reciting, he sapzi the king’s hands
The translation ‘purifies’ (e.g. Haas 1970: 200) is essentially a fall-back option in the absence of any clues as to the meaning of the verb sap(p)- (Taggar-Cohen 2006: 249 and Gorke 2010: 252 n. 296 follow Guterbock and translate ‘slaps’).
sapp- also describes the actions of the “Old Woman” in the Hittite-Hurrian Allaiturahhi ritual (CTH 780):
2) KUB 27.29 i 9
[(n=an munusSU.G)]I xsapzf° nu I-NA E HI.US.SA
The ‘Old Woman’ sapzi him, and <she goes> to the bathhouse
21
Here again ‘purifies’ is the translation of least resistance since the text is peppered with parkunu- and other such terms (e.g. suppiyahh-). However, insufficient notice seems to have been taken of the fact that the description of the ritual continues with a mention of giSalkistanus, viz. ‘boughs’ or ‘branches’:
[munus]SU.GI alkistanus ANA ALAMmeS GAM-an dai The ‘Old Woman’ puts down branches beside the statues/images
This is significant insofar as in another text the verb sapp- is found construed with the noun meaning ‘stick’, namely, in the ritual for a royal prince (CTH 647.14):
2G sanzi corrected to sapzi by the duplicates: KBo 23.23:56, KUB 27.29, KUB 59.73:6-7 (ed. Haas and Wegner 1988, nr. 2 rev. 74', nr. 19 i 38 and nr. 2G 6').
21 ‘reinigt’ (Haas and Thiel 1978: 135).
3) HFAC 49.3’; NH
[.. ,DUMU.]LUGAL giSPA-it sapzi ((s)he) sapzi the [pri]nce with a stick
Because of the mention of the stick, Guterbock (1967: 141) is very likely to be correct in translating sapzi as ‘hits’. We are dealing with a very short fragment (“Merzifon fr. 2” - see Guterbock 1986: 74) and the ritual meaning of the act remains obscure; nevertheless, we can point out comparable passages where participants in the ritual are subjected to beating22. One of them is found in the description of the (h)isuwas-festival:
KBo 15.37 v 1-5 (CTH 628; NH)
L[(USANG)]A giSGIDRU.HI.A dingir-lim anda hulal[i]yanda=pat dai nu LUGAL-us ANA DINGIR-LIM 3-SU USKEN LUSANGA=ya=an ISTU giSGIDRU.HI.A DINGIR-LIM iskisa 3-SU walhzi
The priest takes the wrapped-together staffs of the deity.
The king bows three times to the deity.
And the priest strikes him on the back with the staffs of the deity three times.
KBo 11.25 rev. v? 7'-9' (CTH 656)
LUGAL-us 3-SU USGEN luAZU []x KUSismiriaz 3-SU w[a]lhzi
The king bows three times. The AZU-priest strikes [him] three times with reins
In view of these parallels to the act of ritual striking one may surmise that the giSalkistanus ‘branches’ in the Allaiturahhi ritual (above) may have played a similar role and are to be implicitly understood as the instrument that executes the action described as
MUNUSpitt ✓"'i j ^
n=an SU.GI sapzi.
A different use of sapp- is found in the funerary ritual (CTH 450
II 2):
4) KUB 39.45 obv. 10-11 ( = KUB 39.6 i 9-10)
INA UD.9.KAM GA s[appa]nzi makkuya[n] sappuwas GIS-r[u ASR]A ISTU KU.BABBAR hali[ssiyan]
On the ninth day they sappanzi milk.
22
Haas (1994: 216 n.196) thinks of this procedure as an instance of a Stärkungsritus; for Strauss (2006: 309) ritual striking “liesse sich als Exorzismus böser Geister und Dämonen deuten”.
The churning vessel and wooden sappuwas are inlaid in [x] places with silver
As Guterbock has argued, here the verb can, too, be translated as ‘hit, beat’, viz. ‘churn milk’ (sappuwas taru thus means ‘churner’). This technical meaning can further be illustrated by the use of the stem sappesk- in the instructions for temple officials (CTH 264; pre NH/NS):
KUB 13.4 iv 41-43 (= KUB 13.17 iv 4'-6')
nasma man DINGIR-LIM-ni kuedani EZEN4 GA eszi GA kuwapi sappeskanzi n=an=kan le sakuwantariyanutteni n=an=si iyattin
or if for some god there is a milk festival, when they sappeskanzi the milk, do not neglect it (Guterbock 1967: 141: let it be idle), prepare it for him!
Summing up, one can see that the meaning ‘hit’ posited for the verb sapp- by Guterbock is essentially unavoidable for the contexts cited under (3) and (4) above and it works for the examples in (1) and (2) at least just as well as Friedrich’s ‘scrape, wash’
3. 2. We can now revisit Friedrich’s arguments in favor of a translation ‘scrape, peel, wash’. Friedrich’s analysis was largely based on the form < sap-pa-at-ta, attested in the Hittite version of the epic of Gilgamesh:
KUB 8.50 iii 13'-16'
1 V V V V V
nu GIM-an GIS.GIM.MAS-us SA mURSANABI (14') memiyan ISME nu HASSINNU SV-zn epta (15’) nu-kan w[i]nala SA 50 gipesnas [ ]
(16’) kar(a)sta n=at sappatta ^ pis\-...] n=at=kan ANA GISMA sara dais
When Gilgames heard Ursanabi’s words, he took an axe with the hand, cut down [trees/poles] of 50 cubits, stripped them, [.] and placed them up on the boat
As the Akkadian version shows, sappatta (= Akk. ikpurma) clearly means ‘peeled off (the bark)’. The Luvian provenance of the form is vouchsafed by both the Glossenkeil and the 3 sg. pret. ending -atta23.
As C. Melchert has observed (1993: 187), there are two more forms of similar shape and meaning. One of them is sappaizzi found in a medical text (cTh 461):
23
Another Luvianism in the same text is acc. sg. n. / pl. pintanza 4 lines later.
KUB 44.63 ii 10'-11'
gapanu=ya=ssi=kan arha dai namma=at sappaizzi
he takes the gapanu (part of a tree) away from it, then peels it
Another stem related to sappai- can be seen in sippai-, attested in the ritual of Samuha (CTH 480), where its object is suppiwashar ‘onion’ or ‘garlic’:
KUB 29.7 rev. 30-32
kinun=a kasa kun sup[piw]asharSAR (31) arha sippanun [n=an=s]an katta 1 kakin dawanin kurkun idalu=ya uttar NlS DINGIR[lim hu]rtais (32) papratar ANA DINGIR[lim piran arha QATAMMA sippaidu nu DINGIRlUm EN.SISKUR.
SISKUR=ya ape[z udda]naz parkuwaes asandu
Now I have just peeled away this onion; I left over only one miserable stem;
so likewise let him/it peel away evil word, perjury, curse, defilement from before the god. And let the deity and the lord of the sacrifice be pure from that matter.
What is the relationship between sappaizzi, sippaidu and \sappatta? Hittite sippai- rather straightforwardly goes back to a Proto-Anatolian verbal stem *sepaia-/e- ‘to peel’ with the development of pretonic *e to -i- (Melchert 1994: 139). Luvian < sappatta is probably made from a factitive stem sappa- the suffix of which goes back to *-eh2 (“newahhi-type”): the unlenited ending seems to exclude an origin in *-eh2ie/o-, while the -a- in the medial syllable of sap-pa-at-ta (which must be real) excludes an original athematic inflection24. Finally, sappaizzi is a Hittite adaptation of either Luvian {*)sappatti 25 (inferable from sappatta) or, less likely, Luvian
*sappa(i)ti, identical to Hittite sippai-26.
24
The Luvian continuants of *-eh2ie/o- stems show an unlenited 3 sg. pret. ending, cf. turatta ‘pierced’ (tura/i-‘spear’), tappatta ‘spat’ (= Hittite allapahhas), aranuwatta ‘?’, assatta ‘spoke’, niwarallatta ‘made alienated’ (Melchert 1997: 132).
5 The reason for positing Luvian present sappa- with mi-endings is that in Proto-Luvic *-eh2- factitives secondarily adopted mi-conjugation, while Hittite (where these forms follow hi-conjugation) has preserved the original situation (see Melchert 2007: 2-3).
26 In Luvian a development of unaccented *e to a remains a possibility, the fate of pretonic short *e being completely uncertain (compare Melchert’s reservations, 1994: 262), thus *sappa(i)- < *sepaia-/e-.
We thus have evidence for two stems with the meaning ‘to peel’, both of which are morphologically different from the Hittite stem sap(p)-. Since the meaning ‘to hit’ is demonstrable for the Hittite verb on the ground of Hittite contexts, the Luvian forms do not seem to constitute a sufficiently compelling argument in favor of revising the semantics of Hittite sap(p)- to ‘peel, scrub’, as Friedrich had wanted.
3. 3. Nonetheless, N. Oettinger (1979: 383) assumed that sapzi,
v •• T * * 1 v / \ v • 1 v •
sappanzi is a Luvianism and sap(p)-, sappai-, sippai- and sapiya-should all be collapsed under one root. Despite several dissenting voices27, Oettinger’s view seems to have been widely adopted; in particular, it must have been the reason why A. Kloekhorst did not include Hittite sap(p)- (qua Luvianism) in his 2008 Lexicon28. However, it should be noted that Oettinger’s reference to the form sappatta, discussed above, renders the entire argument completely circular: if sappatta somehow engendered sapzi29, then the mechanism of purported athematization remains obscure, but if sappatta is a different stem (as seems to be the case), it barely has any bearing on the question of sapzi at all. Oettinger did not discuss the phonology of the forms, probably assuming a standard Luvian sound change *e > a, but Hittite -a- can of course have other origins. The semantics of Hittite sap(p)-, discussed above, do not seem to favor the identification with sa/ippai- either. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Hittite sap(p)- should be kept separate from sa/ippaiand other similar-looking Anatolian forms30.
27 Goetze 1947: 319 n. 71: “The 3rd. sing. sapzi belongs, I believe, to a different verb”; Melchert 1993: 187: “No conn. to Hitt. sapp(a)- [...] nor sapzi”.
28 In a paper from 1998 Oettinger reiterated the translation ‘schaben’, ‘abschälen’ in a discussion of nouns sap(p)(a)ra- and sipart(a)-, the meaning of which he tentatively defined as ‘knife’ (CHD-S 206-7 prefers ‘(a part of) garment’).
29 “keil.-luw. Prät. Sg. 3 sappatta (Gl.) ‘schälte ab” zu einem heth. Stamm sapp-mi führte”. The stem sappa- can in theory continue not only a newahhi-type factitive in *-eh2, but also a plain oxytone thematic stem (with a full grade in the root), but this interpretation does not seem to lead anywhere.
On Luvian sapiya- (with a lenis consonant) see Melchert 2003: 149, who argues for a meaning ‘to cleanse’. Palaic sa-pa-û-i-na-i, sa-pa-a-ma-an were glossed by Carruba 1970: 14, 69 as ‘reinigen, Reinigung’ precisely on the basis of a comparison to Hittite and Luvian forms (see also Wallace 1983: 166; Eichner 2010: 44), but the meaning of these forms remains a matter of guesswork. The lenis consonant makes a comparison to Luvian sapiya- possible (unless an argument can be made that *p was lenited between two unaccented vowels in the precursor of Palaic *sapawai-).
3. 4. We can now turn to the previous scholarship regarding the etymology of the verb. Only one hypothesis is on record: B. Vine (1988: 60-61) considered a possibility that our forms are related to the root *sep- (Vedic sapati, Greek елю, Latin sepelio), the meaning of which he established as ‘handle (skillfully), hold (reverently)’; acutely aware of problems in the interpretation of the relevant Anatolian passages (including Guterbock’s work on sap(p)-), Vine carefully distinguished between the different forms discussed above and concluded that “the Anatolian data are in fact quite consonantal with [...] the meaning of IE *sep- [...], although it would be premature to insist on the etymology at this time” 31. It appears that while some abstract physical meaning such as ‘to handle’ may indeed elicit a variety of designations for ritual actions, including ‘purify’ or ‘wash’, the semantics become more of an issue if the meaning of Hittite sap(p)- was ‘hit’, which, as we saw above, seems very likely.
An alternative proposal is therefore not unwarranted, and given the meaning of the Hittite verb, it seems possible to compare it with Greek іаптю ‘hurt’ and to trace both verbs back to a common root *seh2p-.
3. 5. It remains to place the findings made thus far in the context of a morphological reconstruction. An athematic verb sapzi in Hittite does not have to continue a PIE present *seh2p-ti directly, just as tezzi ‘speaks’ does not need to be traced back to a putative present *dheh1-ti, coexisting with familiar reduplicated *dhe-dheh1-ti. Rather, the root present sap(p)- was back-formed to the preterit, continuing the root aorist *seh2p-t (cf. *dheh1-t ^ pres. (transponate) *dheh1-ti > tezzi). Next to a root aorist in Proto-Indo-European one would expect to find a characterized present stem, and reduplicated stem *si-s(e)h2p-32 (> Ldnxe/o-) conforms to these expectations.
4. Another cognate of the newly posited root *seh2p- is found in
Iranian: this is the Ossetic verb safyn (Iron), isafun (Digor) ‘destroy, ruin, kill; NT dno^u^i’. For this verb Abaev (1979: 10-11)
proposed a reconstruction *ui-sap- which is formally unassailable: (1) Proto-Iranian initial *u is lost in Ossetic before *i; (2) initial *i- is
31
A consequence of accepting this etymology is the necessity to consider all instances of sapzi, sappanzi as Luvianisms on the account of their a-voca-lism, as Vine himself conceded (writing of “Luvian and partly, although perhaps not originally, Hittite sap(p)-”), and as Oettinger had implicitly assumed a decade earlier.
32 Or *se-s(e)h2p-: see above n. 11.
IT
lost in Iron (but not in Digor) ; (3) the root vowel must have been long, since a short *a before a single consonant would have been reflected as -^-34. Abaev further posited a connection to Sanskrit ksap- ‘destroy’, assuming a “thorn”-type correspondence between the Sanskrit ks- and Iranian *s-. This cannot be right: Sanskrit ksapayati is the causative of ksi- ‘destroy’ with a secondary “hiatus-filling” -p- (cf. dapayati ‘makes give’, hapayati ‘makes open’, etc.) and thus surely an Indic innovation.
Compromised by Abaev’s implausible etymology, Ossetic safyn / isafun has nearly escaped the attention of etymologists35. Now the sin the Ossetic verb can also go back to *s-, a reflex of Indo-Iranian *s, “rukified” in the position after *i. Under this hypothesis safyn / isafun ‘destroy, kill’ may continue *ui-sapa- or *ui-sapaia- made from PIE *seh2p- ‘to hit’.
The only problem spot in this analysis is the root-final -f which cannot go back to Indo-Iranian *p36. However, following Gershe-vitch (1977: 66), we can explain -f as a result of paradigmatic leveling to the passive-intransitive stem *ui-saf-ia- (swfyn (I.), isafun (D.) ‘to die, to perish’) where f from preconsonantal *p would be lautgesetzlich. One parallel case of precisely such levelling can be seen in the descendants of Iranian *Hap- (YAvestan apaiia-, pass. afiia-) that in Ossetic come out as afun (D.), wjafyn (I.) ‘reach’37.
33
Compare D. igosun vs. I. qusyn ‘to hear’ < *ui-gaus-.
34 Similar conclusions were independently reached by I. Gershevitch, who in a paper from 1977 reconstructed Proto-Iranian *sap- ‘sweep, wipe’. Central to Gershevitch’s contribution was the idea that the same root was contained in Younger Avestan visapa-, an epithet (or a name) of a snake in N. 30, known also from Armenian (visap) and Georgian (vesap-), see Gippert 1993: 317-29 with references. Whether or not this epithet should really be analyzed as ‘wiping away’ (Gershevitch) or ‘smashing aside’ (according to the reconstruction of the root *seh2p- put forth in the present paper), rather than ‘having venom for water’ (*uisa-ap-), ‘achieving through venom’ (*uisa-ap-) or ‘having venomous sap’ (*uis-sap-) is impossible to prove.
5 The verb is not found in the LIV or EWAia; Cheung 2007: 335 lists safyn / isafun with a question mark as a possible cognate of Chr. Sogdian psyp ‘slander’ and Sanskrit sap- ‘slander’, but the semantic development is hard to substantiate, as Cheung himself concedes.
36 *p would have given -b- > -v- in intervocalic position, cf. tavyn / tavun ‘to warm up’ < *tapaia-, Avestan a.tapaiia-.
37 Under the reconstruction *seh2p- the stem *ui-saf-ia- would itself need to be secondary. One possible explanation is as follows: passive *(ui-)sap-ia-(> *(ui-)saf-ia-) ‘to perish’ was analogically built to inherited *(ui-)sap-a(ia)- ‘to destroy’, perhaps matching synonymous *mr-ia- ‘to die’. Later in the history of Iranian the vowel quantity was adjusted through a
Two other Iranian cognates of this verb offer an interesting twist on the present discussion. Gershevitch (1977) has argued that the Ossetic verb was related to Balochi sapag38 ‘to mount a ewe’, and Filippone 2006: 20 added Minabi safidan ‘futuere’. These forms indeed look surprisingly similar to the Ossetic material, even though an aphaeresis of *i- is out of the question in this case, and the initial “rukified” s- must have spread to the simplex from the compounded form39. As for the semantics of sapag and safidan, it is easy to maintain the etymological relationship between these forms and *seh2p- ‘hit’, since the assumption of a semantic development from ‘strike’, etc. to ‘futuere’ comes at no cost. What makes these forms particularly interesting is that in other traditions we may find descendants of the root *seh2p- used in a similar aischrological context.
5. The participle sapayant- is attested in the TaittirTya Brahmana, in a yajya to Indra Vaimrdha, remarkable for featuring one of the few Vedic occurrences of the verb yabhati ‘to have sexual intercourse’:
TB 2.4.6.4.9-5.5 (~ AsSS 2.10.14)
sakUtim indra sacyutim 10 sacyutim jaghanacyutim kanatkabham na abhara
2 prayapsyann iva sakthyau vi na indra mrdho jahi 4 kamkhunad iva sapayan abhi nah sustutim naya
6 prajapatih striyam yasah muskayor adadhat sapam
Bring us, o Indra, a lustful (woman),
10 moving, moving, shaking her butt, shining like gold. Like someone who is
four-part proportion *maraia- ‘to kill’ : *maria- ‘to die’ (Ossetic (I.) maryn : mælyn) = *(ui-)saf-aia- ‘to destroy’ : X, X = *(ui-)saf-ia- ‘to perish’. (The -a- / -æ- ablaut is highly characteristic of the verbal system of Ossetic and other Modern Iranian languages where the historically short vowel is found in intransitive or passive forms, while -a- from *a marks transitive verbs; at the origin of this productive system are the Indo-Iranian causatives in *-aia- with a long vowel in the root).
38 Eastern Balochi sáfay with fricatives in place of stops may reflect the influence of Modern Persian (see Korn 2005: 250 with references).
39 J. Cheung,’s (2007: 175) ingenious derivation of sapag from *fra-(H)iab-(PIE *h3/ieb -) lacks conviction in view of the phonological problem of -pin the place of expectable -b-.
2 going to bring the penis (yabh-) into the two thighs, smash aside our enemies, o Indra (RV 10.152.4),
4 s.-ing as if k.-ing.
Lead us to good praise.
6 Prajapati put the penis in the vagina40, the glory in the women.
1 kanätkäbhäm TB : pranäkaphä ÄsSS : +kanakäbhäm Hoffmann apud Sharma 1959/1960: 92
4 känikhunad TB : canikhudad ÄsSS : ^känikhudad; säpäyan TB : sapham ÄsSS : +säpam Hoffmann 1976: 572
känikhunad in line 4 (connected by Sayana’s commentary with khan- ‘dig’) is a nonce-form. It is usually emended to känikhudad on the basis of the parallel text in the ÄsSS that has canikhudad yathä sapham41; the form would then be an intensive participle made from the root khud- which means to ‘insert (a penis)’ 42.
The TB passage, however, is still far from being absolutely clear (“unintelligible stuff”, according to Bloomfield-Edgerton 1930: 150). K. Hoffmann restored the original text as känikhudad yäthä säpam ‘wie einer, der immer wieder das Glied stößt’, assuming that the entire pada 4 in TB transmission is ^ corrupt (1976: 572). Note, however, that +säpam (sapham in the ÄsSS) is a lectio facilior, since säpa- is mentioned in the lines immediately following those under discussion, and säpäyant- must have been sufficiently unclear to be exposed to supersession43. It behoves us therefore to try to make some sense of the transmitted TB text +känikhudad iva säpäyan.
The entire passage is replete with sex talk and in particular, the main clause vi na indra mrdho jahi is preceded by yet another iva-phrase (prayapsyänn iva sakthyäu); it is therefore no wonder that the universally accepted meaning of säpäyant- is ‘futuens’44. This
40 lit.: between the two labia.
41 See Mylius 1972: 132 n. 559, Hoffmann 1976: 572. The form kamkhudad is of course still not “ideal”: one would expect *c/kavikhudad.
42 RV 10.101.12ab: kaprn narah kaprtham ud dadhatana / codayata khudata vajasataye ‘The penis, o men, erect the penis, thrust it, insert it for the winning of booty!’ Mark Hale pointed out to me that this root may also be contained in the first member of Av. ku.nain- ‘prostitute’ (V. 8.31; 32).
43 Note the alliteration between yapsyan and sapayan.
44 Bohtlingk and Roth list the form under a separate entry sap-2 (P.W. 7.656); S. Jamison, too, thinks that sapayant-, albeit “obscure”, is unrelated to the causative of sap-1 ‘handle, caress’ (1981: 219 n. 3). Ch. Werba, however, lists sapayant- under the forms of the more frequent root sap-(1997: 251-52).
translation has clearly been influenced by the remarkable similarity between sapayati and the noun sapa- ‘penis’. But this interpretation of sapayati creates more questions than answers:
• if iva is used here as a comparative particle (‘as if, like’), two syntactic approaches are theoretically possible:
• a complex simile kanikhudad iva sapayan could stand in apposition to vi ... jahi (in this case sapayan [iva] kanikhunat would have to be viewed as a sequence of two asyndetically conjoined participles); however, there already is another simile adjoined to the verb in the main clause, namely, prayapsyann iva sakthyau;
• kanikhudad iva could be a one-word simile in apposition to sapayan - but what would be the rationale behind comparing two essentially synonymous verbal forms to each other?
• if iva is used here as an attenuating particle (‘as it were’, ‘in some way’), as commonly in the Brahmanas, we still do not get a satisfactory reading of the passage: if kanikhudad is not intended to be understood in its strict sense, it is unclear what the purpose would be of putting the form next to essentially synonymous sapayan, there being nothing imprecise about the verbal notion conveyed by khud-.
It appears that kanikhudad iva sapayan can hardly be given a satisfactory syntactic and semantic interpretation under the assumption that the participle sapayant- means ‘futuere’. But what if it does not?
Let us start with what is certain about the passage. The meaning of prayapsyann iva sakthyau and kanikhudad iva is beyond doubt: both similes are expressly sexual. The main clause vi na indra mrdho jahi ‘smash aside our enemies, o Indra’ is also clear. If sapayan is unlikely to convey the same idea as prayapsyan and kanikhudat, then may be it means the same thing as vi ... jahi? In fact, once this hypothesis is adopted, the structure of the sentence becomes transparent: the verb in the main clause (vi ... jahi ‘smash aside!’) is modified by a participial form with approximately the same meaning (‘striking’? ‘hitting’?), and both verbal forms are provided with sexual similes:
matrix clause: [vi na indra mrdho jahi
o Indra, smash our enemies,
[prayapsyann iva sakthyau]]
like someone who is going to yabh- in the two thighs subordinate [sapayan clause: striking [them],
[kanikhudad iva]]
like someone who is inserting the penis over and over again
If this interpretation of the intricate poetic syntax is correct, Vedic sapâya-1 has nothing to do with the noun sâpa- ‘penis’. Separating one from the other may seem to violate the law of parsimony, but in fact a closer look at the attestations of sâpa- reveals the somewhat dubious status of this word: in Vedic mantras, sâpa- is only attested in two adjacent TB stanzas (2.4.6.5.7; 6.1) which happen to be right after the verse where sapâyant- is used. The remaining attestations are in the Brahmana-glosses on a mantra used in the Pravargya ceremony: the mantra goes tvâstrmantas tv a sapema ‘possessing Tvastr, we wish to dedicate ourselves (sapema) to you’ and the Brahmana “explains” this this as sâpad dhi prajâh prajayante ‘because from the penis progeny is produced’ (MS 3.7.7)45. The word sâpa- is not found in the later language, nor is it continued in any of the Modern Indo-Aryan languages. It seems that sâpa- ‘penis’ could be a product of brahmanic creativity, owing its existence to the erotic meanings of sap-1 ‘handle, caress’46. But more likely sâpa- is a tabuistic metathesis of *pâsa- ( ~ PIE *peses-), as Yaska had thought (Nirukta 5.16).
To sum up, Vedic may provide evidence for a verbal stem sapâya-tl denoting a violent action of some sort (‘strike, hit, destroy’) and therefore compatible with the reconstruction *seh2p-, proposed above.
6. Despite the fact that Vedic sapâya- does not seem to have been an obscene term after all, a semantic match for the Balochi verb sapag ‘to mount ewe’ is certainly found in Latin. This is the rare word for ‘penis’ sopio, -onis, largely neglected in the etymological literature (it is even missing from the recent etymological dictionary by de Vaan). This word is only known from a few sources and in view of its obscurity it may be helpful to review them all (See also Adams 1982: 62-64; André 1991: 171).
Our first source is Catullus: in the poem “Salax taberna”, replete with obscene vocabulary47, the lyric hero threatens to mark the bar as a brothel by covering it with obscene phallic drawings48:
45 Similarly KS 24.4 and KathA 2.115: ato himah prajah prajayante: prajananaya ‘from here progeny is produced: this serves to produce progeny’ (see Oertel 1942: 43; Witzel 2004: lvii).
6 sapa- is connected to sap-1 by Houben 1991: 120 n. 81 and EWAia 699.
47 mentulas ‘penises’ (v. 3), confutuere ‘have sex’ (v. 5), irrumare ‘perform oral sex’ (v.7), etc.
48 For a slightly different interpretation see Syndikus (1984: 1, 210, 213), who argues that Catullus applies the word taberna meaning ‘brothel’ to a private house (Lesbia’s?).
Cat. 37.9-10 Kroll
Atqui putate: namque totius vobis Frontem tabernae sopionibus scribam
Go on - keep thinking it: for I’ll draw up the front of the whole shop with pricks
10 sopionibus mss. : scorpionibus Ellis : ropionibus Hertz, alii alia
Next, 3rd cent. AD grammarian Marius Sacerdos quotes an anonymous verse containing an insult leveled at Pompey (possibly, from a military song or some other carmen populare) and proceeds to explain söpiö as ‘penis’49:
GL 6.461.30-462.3 Keil
illud de Pompeio, qui coloris erat rubei, sed animi inuerecundi, “quem non pudet et rubet non est homo sed sopio. ”
Sopio autem est aut minium aut piscis robeus aut penis50.
This is about Pompey who had red complexion and a shameless character:
“who does not feel shame or blush, he is not a person, but a prick.”
Sopio means either red pigment or red fish or penis.
Next come two graffiti from Pompeii that together form an amusing if cryptic semiliterate exchange51:
CIL 4.1700
diced nobis Sineros et sopio <est?>
where a second hand has added
ut merdas edatis qui scripseras sopionis
Lastly, there is a passage in Petronius where F. Schöll (1880: 488 n. 30) conjectured sopionibus for fsopitionibus of the mss.:
Petron. Sat. 22 Müller
Cum Ascyltos gravatus tot malis in somnum laberetur, illa quae iniuria depulsa fuerat ancilla totam faciem eius fuligine longa perfricuit, et non sentientis labra umerosque sopi<ti>onibus pinxit.
49 The best and most complete discussion can be found in Lunelli 1969: 125-42.
50 The mss. have ropio (the scribal mistake was probably caused by the resemblance of Insular r and s, Schmeling 2011: 65).
51 The inscription was first signaled by Sonny (1898; 1900); see Vaananen 1959: 97.
Ascyltos was so worn out with all he had gone through he could not keep his eyes open a moment longer, and the waiting-maid, whom he had scorned and slighted, now proceeded to daub his face all over with streaks of soot, and bepaint his lips and shoulders with pricks? as he lay unconscious.
Schöll’s conjecture has been widely accepted, e.g. by K. Müller, and recently by G. Schmeling (2011: 65) who translates sopionibus
52
by ‘phallic symbols’ .
This exhausts the evidence for söpiö, -önis ‘penis’: each of the three passages above (leaving aside the conjectured reading in Petronius) is beset with philological problems of its own, but it will be hard to sweep all three attestations under the carpet. One is left with the firm impression that the word existed; its meager attestation should be explained solely by its vulgar character.
6. 2. As Schöll was preparing to restore the reading söpiönibus in Catullus 37, he consulted with his Heidelberg colleague H. Osthoff, who immediately proposed an etymology, published first apud Schöll 1880: 496 and then later in Osthoff 1895: he compared söpiö to Vedic säpa- ‘penis’ and säpäyati discussed above (adopting for the latter the meaning ‘futuere' from Böhtlingk and Roth). According to Osthoff, the underlying root (which he reconstructed as *so/a/ap-) had both the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’ and ‘to beget’: the latter is continued in Gothic frasts ‘child’ which Osthoff traced back to *pro-s(p)-ti- and in Latin prösäpia ‘a group of persons past and present related by blood, lineage, kin, family’.
I think that Osthoff’s etymology was basically right and söpiö is indeed cognate with Vedic säpäyati, as well as with the other material discussed in this paper: Hittite sap(p)- ‘to hit’, Greek Ldrcxsiv ‘to hurt’ and Ossetic safyn / isafun. However, Vedic säpa-‘penis’ is in all likelihood unrelated (see above) and there is little need to posit a second meaning ‘beget’: Gothic frasts ‘child’ does not necessarily belong here (a host of other etymologies are
53 _ _
available ) and should not detain us for long, while prösäpia, the only Latin cognate of söpiö, deserves a digression.
Prösäpia is an archaic Latin word that had become obsolete by Cicero’s time (Cic. Tim. 39: “ut utamur veteri verbo...”)54 and was
52
Perhaps some sort of sexual stimulation magic is involved.
53 See Orel 2003: 112 for references.
54 Cicero used prosapia as an equivalent of Greek eKyovoi. On Cicero’s use of archaisms in his translation of Plato see Puelma Piwonka 1980: 169.
censured by Quintilian who deprecated it as tasteless (insulsum) and antiquated (Inst. orat. 1.6.40; 8.3.26). The meaning ‘parentage’ is clear from the two passages in whichprosapia is used by Plautus55:
Merc. 634
rogitares quis esset aut unde esset, qua prosapia
You should have asked who he was or where he was from,
from what family
Curc. 393
de Coculitum prosapia te esse arbitror, nam ei sunt unoculi Coclitum mss., Varr. Ling. Lat. 7.71.3: Coculitum Lanciotti et de Melo post Ribbeck
I take it you come from the lineage of Cyclopes; they are one-eyed.
In Roman historiography prosapia is often used in descriptions of distinguished parentage; in particular, the phrase vetus prosapia, found already in Cato (Orig. 1.29 Peter56), seems to have enjoyed a certain popularity: it recurs in Sallust (Iug. 85.10), who, as was observed already in antiquity, frequently adopted Catonian vocabulary57, as well as in Suetonius (Galba 2) and Justin (14.6.11).
55 Havet (1901: 298) conjectured a form of prösäpia at Ter. Phorm. 395 where the mss. have progeniem vostram usque ab avo atque atavo pro-ferens (so printed in the OCT text by Kauer-Lindsay-Skutsch); Havet pointed out that prögenies is unlikely to be used in the meaning ‘descent, ancestry’ (as opposed to ‘offspring, progeny’), but his concern is perhaps unwarranted in view of Lucil. 849-50 (Marx) progeniem antiquam qua est Maximus Quintus and other citations assembled in the OLD s.u. prögenies 2.
56 The exact quotation as transmitted via Nonius Marcellus (p. 94, 25 Lindsay) is veteres prosapia ‘ancient by their lineage’. This wording was accepted by some editors (Chassignet, fr. 27: “vieux par la lignee”, Cugusi, fr. 32: “antichi per stirpe”), while others emended the phrase in different ways, e.g. gen. sg. veteris prosapiae (Jordan 1860: 9) or abl. sg. vetere prosapia (Schröder 1971: 197), see Scarsi 1978: 246 for a full report. Other changes that have been proposed presuppose a fifth declension prösäpies, probably prompted by the fact that in the mss. of Nonius the lemma that contains the fragment from Cato begins with prosapies generis longitudo, which, however, Onions plausibly emended into prosapia est (printed by Lindsay); it should be noted that the evidence for prösäpies is otherwise virtually absent (abl. prosapie Prob. app. gramm. iv.194.26), even though an analogical formation triggered by the nearly synonymous pröperies and prögenies could of course have been created at any time. (Till’s work on Cato’s language (1935: 4) is rather unhelpful in regard to prösäpia).
57 Quint. 8.3.29. That Sallust imitated Cato specifically in the use of prösäpia is assumed e.g. by Skard 1956: 81.
The phrase mea vetus prosapia is also found in the prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (1.1.3 Helm), where the identity of the
58
speaker unfortunately remains a much debated question . Apuleius, with his penchant for archaisms, was in fact so fond of the word prosapia that he used it on another seven occasions59. Finally, there is one epigraphic attestation of prosapia from near Metaponto in Lucania: Occius hic situs est Mani prosapia Festus (CLE 370 = CIL 10.8089)60.
There is little to suggest that prosapia was felt relatable to sopio. Two arguments have been advanced in favor of the view that prosapia was perceived as a vulgar word, but neither is quite compelling. First, E. Kraut (1881: 3) suggested that Sallust’s choice of the word prosapia (Iug. 85.10) was due to the fact that the speaker is the ill-educated Marius; however, this may well be a matter of irony rather than anything else61: Marius is speaking about some other hypothetical candidate, “a man of ancient lineage and many ancestral portraits, but no campaigns”62, whom the senate might choose instead of him to conduct the war against Jugurtha. Secondly, it has recently been suggested by A. Richlin (2005: 102 n. 393) that “from the lineage of Coclites” (viz. Cyclopes) at Pl. Curc. 393 contains a sexual double entendre: Lyco addresses Curculio as “oneeyed” which was one of the Roman ways of describing a penis. This is not implausible63, but one would perhaps go too far by assuming
58 This is the only instance of prosapia referring to place of origin rather then parentage: “Attic Hymettus and the Corinthian Isthmus and Spartan Taenarus are my origin of old”. However, the geographical references here are surely not literal and should probably be understood as the author’s desire to emphasize his literary pedigree and his indebtedness to the Greek writers of the past (see Innes 2001; for an even more figurative reading (the Metamorphoses themselves claim an origin in a Greek book) see Harrison 1990).
59 Consistently about family background: Met. 3.11; 6.23; 8.2; 9.35; 10.18; De Deo Socr. 23.23; Ap. 18.12. I have found Scobie 1975: 73 and Keulen 2007: 79 to be the most helpful on Apuleius’ use of prosapia; on Apuleius’ archaizing bent see especially Callebat 1964: 348; 1994: 1643-49 (esp. 1644 n. 153 on prosapia).
60 Variant prosapies lurks behind the abl. prosapie (Prob. app. gramm. iv.194.26) and gains ground in medieval Latin, but this is likely to be an analogical formation triggered by the nearly synonymous properies and
1896: 36.
62 Lebek (1970: 311) points out the artful antithesis between veteris prosapiae ac multarum imaginum and nullius stipendi at the end of the description.
63 Cf. Mart. 2.33 cur non basio te, Philaeni? Iusca es. / Haec qui basiat, o
progenies.
61 So already Fighiera
that this pun was precisely the reason why Plautus chose prdsapia over other words for ‘kin, lineage’ such as stirps or genus.
We can now return to the semantics of sopio and prosapia. Despite semantic parallels such as English kin < *genh1es-, Latin prosapia does not have to be derived from a word meaning ‘to beget’, as Osthoff had wanted: its derivational base may just as well have had a meaning related to sexual intercourse, witness Old English fast and OHG fasel ‘progeny, offspring’ (Proto-Germanic *fasula-) that eventually continue PIE *pes- ‘futuere’, or, perhaps closer to home, Italian semenza meaning both ‘seed, semen’ and ‘stock, lineage’, cf. e.g. Dante’s famous considerate la vostra semenza (Inf. 26.118). Kinship at Rome being patrilineal, it is easy to conceive of prosapia as a term that represented a specifically male-to-male line of descent, the semantics of male semen being central to its meaning64. The act of impregnation was equivalent to procreation and a progenitor could thus be thought of as a “prosapitof" 65.
Therefore the likeliest derivational analysis of prosapia would be to assume that the word is originally a deverbal abstract, derived from a prefixed verb such as *pro-sapare (cf. invidia ‘ill-will’ from invideo ‘feel hostility’)66, where the preverb had the most basic meaning ‘forth’.
As far as the morphological analysis of sopio goes, there are several possibilities67, out of which three main scenarios have to be considered:
Philaeni, fellat “why don’t I kiss you, Philaenis? You’re one-eyed. A man who kisses these things, Philaenis, sucks”.
64 Compare Beltrami’s (1998: 17-18) remark on the semantics of prdsapia: “esso sembra percio specificamente indicare la stirpe in quanto linea agnatizia, che si riproduce di generazione in generazione, sempre contraddistinta dal fatto di costituire la materializzazione di un medesimo sangue maschile (cioe, seme) che si perpetua” (“The word therefore seems to designate kin specifically as agnatic lineage which reproduces itself from generation to generation, always characterized by the fact that it is the blood (viz. seed) of a single male that is perpetuated”).
65 Compare the reverse situation in Classical Sanskrit where we find a euphemismprajanana- ‘generator’ for ‘penis’ (Jamison 1996: 68).
66 Other options are less likely: (1) prepositional governing compound, substantivized as a feminine (after familia) would require positing a nominal phrase *prd sap- ‘in (front of) *sap- which is difficult semantically and morphologically; (2) a deadjectival abstract of the type concordia ‘harmony’ from concors ‘harmonious’ is excluded by the absence of pro as an adjectival prefix; (3) a denominal formation (cf. militia ‘military service’ from miles ‘soldier’) is possible, but the further analysis of nominal *sap- is uncertain.
67 On this class see the useful monograph Gaide 1988.
1. sdpidn- is a Cato type derivative made from adj. *soh2piio- itself derived from an o-stem nomen agentis *soh2pó- ‘hitter’, cf. *pougó- ‘piercer’ ^ *pougijo—► pügid ‘dagger’.
2. sopion- is a possessive denominal derivative with the suffix *-h1on- (“Hoff-mann’s suffix") *soh2pi-h1on- ‘he who is in charge of hitting’, cf. restio ‘dealer in rope’ (Plaut. +) from restis ‘rope’68; this analysis presupposes i-stem *soh2pi- with the meaning ‘hitting’ as the starting point of the derivation69.
3. sopion- is a concreticized verbal abstract (cf. regio, legio, Umbrian legin- ‘troop’); adopting the analysis of A. Nussbaum (2006; cited apud Weiss 200970), we may assume the following development:
*soh2pi- ‘hitting’ (subst.)
^ instr. *soh2pih1 ‘with hitting’ > ‘hitting’
(adnominal participle-like form) ^ abstract *soh2pih1-(o)n- ‘hitting’
this type of -ion-stems would be expected to have feminine gender in Latin, but for the word with the meaning ‘penis’ it is easy to imagine a change of gender (cf. Venus, f., originally a neuter s-stem).71
The choice between these options is not easy: in particular, it has to be borne in mind that several other Latin names for parts of the body show the same n-stem suffix, cf. mento ‘chin’, talo ‘ankle’ and especially testo ‘testicle’ and culio ‘testicle’. This said the first option provides the most satisfactory explanation, in my opinion.
68 This option was chosen by Osthoff apud Schöll 1880: 496, citing curia ‘one of 30 divisions of Roman citizens’ : curio ‘priest, presiding over a curia’.
69 This scenario may in theory also involve a thematic stem *soh2piio-m, but while there is just as little evidence for an i-stem *soh2pi-, as there is for *soh2piio-, the o-apophony makes a reconstruction of an acrostatic i-stem somewhat likelier.
70 See also García Ramón 2007: 291 et passim on Latin cortumio ‘slice of land’.
71 There are ample parallels for a scenario under which a word for genitalia is a secondarily concretized verbal abstract made from the root denoting a certain physical (and by extension, sexual) activity, e.g. Vedic *sardi- (in sárdigrdi- lit. ‘vagina-penis’) derived from the root *serd- ‘futuere’ (Hittite sart- ‘rub’, see Melchert 2002) or Latin pénis, if it continues an abstract *pes-ni- made to the root *pes-, reflected in Hittite pes(s)- ‘to rub’ (so J. Schindler apud Pinault 1979: 32; but see also de Vaan 2008: 458 who views the meaning ‘tail’ (Naev.+) as original and prefers a derivation from *petsni-). In fact, PIE *peses- ‘penis’ (Greek néoç, Vedic pásas-) may have originally been a verbal noun made from the root of Hittite pes(s)- ‘to rub’ (so Oettinger 1979: 327; for alternative derivations ofpes(s)- see Kloekhorst 2008: 669).
7. To conclude, the evidence from within and outside Greek discussed on the previous pages makes it very plausible that Greek Lanxro ‘hurt, damage’ is best explained not as a result of semantic development of (про)1аптю ‘send forth’, but rather as a descendant of PIE *seh2p- ‘to hit, to destroy’72. The Averbo of this root included a present *se-seh2p/sh2p- (> Greek idnxro), a root aorist *seh2p-(Hittite sap(p)-) and possibly an iterative (?) *soh2peie/o-, the source of Vedic sàpâyant- and Ossetic safyn.
References
Абаев 1979 - Абаев В. И. Историко-этимологический словарь осетинского языка. Т. 3: S-T’. Ленинград: «Наука», 1979.
Adams 1982 - Adams J. N. The Latin sexual vocabulary. London: Duckworth, 1982.
André 1991 - André J. Le vocabulaire latin de l’anatomie. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1991.
Baldwin 2008 - Baldwin B. Sopi-opera // Petronian Society Newsletter.
2008. Vol. 38. P. 27-30.
Bechtel 1914 - Bechtel F. Lexilogus zu Homer. Halle, 1914.
Beltrami 1998 - Beltrami L. Il sangue degli antenati. Bari: Edipugli, 1998. Bloomfield-Edgerton 1930_- Bloomfield M., Edgerton F. Vedic variants: A study of the variant readings in the repeated mantras of the Veda. Vol. 1: The verb. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1930.
72
There is another form in Greek that may belong with the pres. іалхю, namely, the medium tantum їяхорш ‘hurt, strike’ (only fut. їує/о- and aor. їуа- are actually attested), known from the Iliad onwards. The comparison between іалхю and їяхорш is not new: W. Schulze thought that їяхє/о- was a contraction of шяхю (1892: 168 n.3); F. Bechtel, too, compared the two verbs to each other (1914: 179-80), positing for їяхє/о- a zero grade of a root *iakw- (*ieh2kw-), no further evidence for which is known. Lastly, F. Kuiper (1933: 282) compared the Greek forms to Indo-Iranian *aka-‘bad’ (Avestan akd, Vedic aka-m ‘pain’) from IE *akw- (but a root of such adjectival meaning is hardly expected to form a reduplicated present stem). It appears that їяхє/о-, too, can be derived from the root *seh2p-. Let us suppose that the active reduplicated stem *se-seh2p- (> шяхю) coexisted with a middle stem *(se-)sh2p-ie/o-. After the loss of the laryngeal in a heavy consonant cluster, the latter stem would come out as *hi-sp-ie/o-, fut.
*hisp-se/o-, aor. *hisp-sa-, and one could assume a dissimilatory loss of -5-, comparable to the one observed in fut. sviy® < *eni-skw-se/o- (see Waack-Erdmann 1982: 201). The result is the actually attested fut. їує/о- and aor. itya- with East Ionic / Aeolic psilosis, just as in шяхю.
The future stem їує/о- may also be continued in a “de-desiderative” a-stem *їуа- (cf. Greek аи|о^аї ‘increase’ ^ au^n ‘growth’, Vedic jigisa- ‘want to win’ ^ jigisa- ‘desire for victory’), from which an adj. ауі^а^о- ‘unhurt’ (or: ‘whom one does not want to hurt’?), quoted from Stesichorus in the grammatical literature (fr. 249 PMGF), was derived as a secondary /о-derivative of the type яєхп^о^ ‘stretched’.
Callebat 1964 - Callebat L. L’archaïsme dans les Métamorphoses d’Apulée // Revues des Études Latines. 1964. T. 42. P. 346-361.
Callebat 1994 - Callebat L. Formes et modes d’expression dans les oeuvres d’Apulée // Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt. 1994. II. 34/2. S. 1600-1664.
Carruba 1970 - Carruba O. Das Palaische. Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon.
Wiesbaden: O. Harrasowitz, 1970.
Cheung 2007 - Cheung J. Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb.
Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2007.
CLE = Bücheler F. Carmina Latina Epigraphica. Vol. I. Lipsiae, 1895.
Ebel 1855 - Ebel H. Die scheinbaren unregelmässigkeiten des griechischen augments // Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. 1855. Bd. 4. S. 161-172.
Eichner 2010 - Eichner H. Laudatio hostiae und laudatio victimae im Palaischen // Hethitica. 2010. T. 16 (= Studia Anatolica in memoriam Erich Neu dicata / Ed. by R. Lebrun and J. de Vos). P. 39-58.
Fighiera 1896 - Fighiera S. L. La lingua e la grammatica di C. Crispo Sallustio. Savona: D. Bertolotto, 1896.
Filippone 2006 - Filippone E. Ilya Gershevitch and New Western Iranian // The Scholarly contribution of Ilya Gershevitch to the development of Iranian studies / Ed. by A. Panaino. Milan: Mimesis Edizioni, 2006. P. 11-24.
Friedrich 1968 - Friedrich J. Zu einigen Hethitischen Wortbedeutungen // Journal of the American Oriental society. 1968. Vol. 88. P. 37-39. Froehde 1879 - Froehde F. Zur homerischen Wortforschung // Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen. 1879. Bd. 3. S. 1-25.
Gaide 1988 - Gaide F. Les substantifs masculins latins en ...io, ...ionis.
Louvain; Paris: Peeters, 1988.
Gershevitch 1977 - Gershevitch I. Visapa // Вопросы иранской и общей филологии. Tbilisi, 1977. P. 62-69 (reprinted in: Philologia Iranica / ed. N. Sims-Williams. Wiesbaden, 1985. P. 142-148).
Gippert 1993 - Gippert J. Iranica Armeno-Iberica: Studien zu den iranischen Lehnwörtern im Armenischen und Georgischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993.
Goetze 1947 - Goetze A. Contributions to Hittite lexicography // Journal of cuneiform studies. 1947. Vol. 1. P. 307-320.
Güterbock 1967 - Güterbock H. G. Lexicographical notes III // Revue hittite et asianique. 1967. T. 25/81. P. 141-150.
Güterbock 1986 - Güterbock H. G. Hittites at Grinnell // Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of change and cultural development: Essays in Honor of M. J. Mellink / Ed. by J. V. Canby et al. Madison; London, 1986. P. 70-76. Haas 1970 - Haas V. Der Kult von Nerik. Rome, 1970.
Haas 1994 - Haas V. Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Leiden; New York; Köln: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Haas-Thiel 1978 - Haas V., Thiel H. J. Die Beschwörungsrituale der Allaiturahhi und verwandte Texte. Hurritologische Studien II. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker, 1978.
Haas-Wegner 1988- Haas V., Wegner I. Die Rituale der Beschworerinnen salSU.GI. ChS I/5. Rome: Multigrafica editrice, 1988.
Hackstein 1997 - Hackstein O. Probleme der homerischen Formenlehre I // Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 1997. Bd. 57. S. 19-46.
Harrison 1990 - Harrison S. J. The speaking book: The urologue to Apu-leius’ Metamorphoses // Classical quarterly. 1990. Vol. 40. P. 507-513.
Havet 1901 - Havet L. Terentius, Phormio // Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes. 1901. T. 25. Fasc. 4. P. 295-310.
Hoffmann 1976 - Hoffmann K. Ved. yabh- //Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik / Hrsgg. von J. Narten. Bd. 2. Wiesbaden: L. Reichelt, 1976. S. 570-574.
Houben 1991 - Houben J. E.M. The Pravargya Brahmana of the Taittirîya Aranyaka: an ancient commentary on the Pravargya ritual. Delhi: Motilal Baharsidass, 1991.
Innes 2001 - Innes D. Why Isthmos Ephyrea? // A companion to the prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses / Ed. by A. Kahane and A. Laird. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. P. 111-122.
Jamison 1981 - Jamison S. Function and form in the -aya-formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1981.
Jordan 1860 - Jordan H. M. Catonis praeter librum De re rustica quae extant. Leipzig: Teubner, 1860.
Josephson 1979 - Josephson F. Assibilation in Anatolian // Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprach-gruppe Altkleinasiens / Hsrgg. von E. Neu and W. Meid. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1979. S. 91104.
Kassian-Korolëv-Sidel’tsev 2002 - Kassian A., Korolëv A., Sidel’tsev A. Hittite funerary ritual: sallis wastais. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2002.
Keulen 2007 - Keulen W. H. Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses / Book I: Text, introduction and commentary. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 2007.
Kloekhorst 2008 - Kloekhorst A. 2008 Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008.
Kraut 1881 - Kraut E. K. Ueber das vulgäre Element in der Sprache des Sallustius / Programm des königlich-württembergischen evangelischtheologischen seminars. Blaubeuren: Fr. Mangold, 1881.
Kuiper 1933 - Kuiper F. Beiträge zur griechischen Etymologie und Grammatik // Glotta. 1933. Bd. 21. S. 267-294.
Lebek 1970 - Lebek W. D. Verba prisca. Göttingen, 1970.
Lunelli 1969 - Lunelli A. Aerius. Storia di una parla poetica. Varia neoterica. Roma: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 1969.
Meier-Brügger 1989 - Meier-Brügger M. Griechisch op^, èà^On, àanxoç und éyia // Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 1989. Bd. 50. S. 90-96.
Meister 1921 - Meister K. Die homerische Kunstsprache. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1921.
Melchert 1993 - Melchert H. C. 1993 Cuneiform Luvian lexicon. Chapel Hill: self-published, 1993.
Melchert 1994 - Melchert H. C. Anatolian historical phonology. Amsterdam; Atlanta: Rodopi, 1994.
Melchert 2002 - Melchert H. C. Sanskrit sardigrdi- // Journal of American Oriental Society. 2002. Vol. 122. P. 325-328.
Melchert 2003 - Melchert H. C. PIE thorn in Cuneiform Luvian? // Proceedings of the 14th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference
/ Ed. by K. Jones-Bley. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 2003. P. 145-161.
Melchert 2007 - Melchert H. C. Luvian evidence for PIE *H3eit- ‘take along; fetch’ // Indo-European Studies Bulletin. 2007. Vol. 12. P. 1-3.
Mylius 1972 - Mylius K. Der zweite Adhyaya des Asvalayana Srautasütra // Acta Orientalia. 1972. Vol. 36. P. 95-162.
Nussbaum 2006 - Nussbaum A. The Latin nouns in -tio, -tion- / Handout of the talk given at the 25th East Coast Indo-European Conference Ohio State University (2006).
Oettinger 1979 - Oettinger N. Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: H. Carl, 1979.
Oettinger 1998 - Oettinger N. Hethitisch sappara- und siparta- ‘Messer?’ // Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 1998. Bd. 58. S. 95-100.
Orel 2003 - Orel V. A Handbook of Germanic etymology. Leiden; Boston: E. J. Brill, 2003.
Osthoff 1895 - Osthoff H. Etymologica II // Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Litteratur. 1895. Bd. 20. S. 89-97.
Peters 1976 - Peters M. Attisch hiemi // Die Sprache. 1976. Bd. 22. S. 157-161.
Peters 1980 - Peters M. Untersuchungen zur Vertretung der indogermanischen Laryngale im Griechischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1980.
Pinault 1979 - Pinault G.-J. Instrumental et adverbe predicatif // LALIES. 1979. T. 1. P. 31-33.
Puelma Piwonka 1980 - Puelma Piwonka M. Cicero als Platon-Übersetzer // Museum Helveticum. 1980. Bd. 37. S. 137-178 ( = Labor et Lima: Kleine Schriften und Nachträge / Hrsgg. von I. Fasel. Basel, 1995. S. 316-359).
Puhvel 2004 - Puhvel J. Hittite etymological Dictionary / Vol. 6: Words beginning with M. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004.
Richlin 2005 - Richlin A. Rome and the mysterious Orient: Three plays by Plautus. London: University of California Press, 2005.
Scarsi 1978 - Scarsi M. Le Origines di Catone e Nonio // Studi Noniani. 1978. T. 5. P. 237-297.
Schmeling 2011 - Schmeling G. A commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Schmidt 1881 - Schmidt J. Zwei arische a-laute und die palatalen // Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 1881. Bd. 25. S. 1-179.
Schmidt 1895 - Schmidt J. Kritik der Sonantentheorie. Berlin: H. Böhlau, 1895.
Schöll 1880 - Schöll F. Zu Catullus // Jahrbücher für classische Philologie. 1880. Bd. 26. S. 471-496.
Schröder 1971 - Schröder W. A. M. Porcius Cato, das erste Buch der Origines. Ausgabe und Erklärung der Fragmente. Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain, 1971.
Scobie 1975 - Scobie A. Apuleius. Metamorphoses. Asinus Aureus. Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain, 1975.
Sharma 1959-1960 - Sharma A. Beiträge zur vedischen Lexikographie: Neue Wörter in M. Bloomfields Vedic Concordance // PHMA. 19591960. Bd. 5-6.
Skard 1956 - Skard E. Sallust und seine Vorgänger: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. Oslo, 1956.
Sonnv 1898 - Sonnv A. Sopio, -onis bei Catull // Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. 1898. Bd. 10. S. 528.
Sonnv 1900 - Sonnv A. Nachträgliches zu sopio, -onis // Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. 1900. Bd. 11. S. 275-276. Strauss 2006 - Strauss R. Reinigungsrituale aus Kizzuwatna. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung hethitischer Ritualtradition und Kulturgeschichte. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 2006.
Taggar-Cohen 2006 - Taggar-Cohen A. Hittite priesthood. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 2006.
Tichy 1983 - Tichy E. Onomatopoetische Verbalbildungen des Griechischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1983.
Till 1935 - Till R. Die Sprache Catos. Leipzig, 1935.
Tischler 2001 - Tischler J. Hethitisches Handwörterbuch. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 2001. de Vaan 2008 - Vaan M. de. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Väänänen 1959 - Väänänen V. Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959.
Vine 1988 - Vine B. Greek etc© and Indo-European *sep- // Indogermanische Forschungen. 1988. Bd. 93. S. 52-61.
Waack-Erdmann 1982 - Waack-Erdmann K. Das Futur des Verbums £vv£tc© // Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 1982. Bd. 41. S. 199-204.
Wallace 1983 - Wallace R. The development of PIE *e in Palaic // Die Sprache. 1983. Bd. 29. S. 159-173.
Werba 1997 - Werba Ch. Verba Indoarica: die primären und sekundären Wurzeln der Sanskrit-Sprache. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1997.
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1907 - Wilamowitz-Moellendorff U. de. Hesiodos // Berliner Klassikertexte. Heft V: Griechische Dichterfragmente. 1. Hälfte: epische und elegische Fragmente. Berlin: Weidmann, 1907. S. 21-46.
Willi 2008 - Willi A. Sikelismos. Sprache, Literatur und Gesellschaft im griechischen Sizilien 8.-5. Jh. v. Chr. Basel: Schwabe, 2008.
A. S. Nikolaev. Greek lánxw
This paper examines the use of the verb iám© and argues that in Greek there are two homonymous and etymologically distinct verbs, (npo^anx© ‘to send forth’ and (Kaxa)iaTCx© ‘to hurt, to destroy’. It is argued that Lanx©2 ‘to hurt’ goes back to a reduplicated present stem *se-s(e)h2p-(ie/o-) made from a root *seh2p- ‘hit, strike’. This root is reconstructed here for the first time on the basis of Anatolian, Indo-Iranian and Italic evidence. First the paper discusses Hittite verb sap(p)- ‘to hit’: despite the widely held belief this verb does not have to be viewed as a Luvianism related to Luvian sappa- ‘to peel’, but can rather continue a root aorist *seh2p-. A cognate of Hittite sap(p)- can be identified in Ossetic safyn (I.), isafun (D.) ‘to destroy’ which can be traced back to *ui-sapaia-. The Ossetic forms are nicely
matched by a Vedic hapax sapayant- (TB 2.4.6.5.4) which means ‘striking’ (and not ‘futuens\ despite Bohtlingk-Roth). Finally, under assumption that the root *seh2p- ‘to hit’ was employed metaphorically in the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’ (attested in Balochi sapag ‘to mount a ewe’) it becomes possible to offer a new account of Latin prdsapia ‘lineage, kin, family’ and the rare word sdpid, -dnis ‘penis’ (Cat. 37.10, CIL 4.1700 and possibly Petron. Sat. 22).
Keywords: etymology, Greek, Hittite, Latin, Ossetic, Vedic, laryngal theory.
