Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

© stefan höfler, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/22125892-00301004 This is an open access a

© stefan höfler, 2015 | doi: 10.1163/22125892-00301004 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported (cc-by-nc 3.0) License. Indo-European Linguistics 3 (2015) 24–41 brill.com/ieul Dark Matter The Root *√k̑u̯el ‘Dark, Black’ Stefan Höfler* University of Vienna hoefles6@univie.ac.at Abstract The assumption of a root *√k̑u̯el ‘dark, black’ offers new possible etymologies for Arm. šaɫax, Gk. πηλός, Toch. b kwele, Hitt. kuu̯aliu-, Gk. κύλα, Lat. culex, and Lat. color, whose derivational background will be dealt with in the course of this paper. Keywords šaɫax – πηλός – kwele – kuu̯aliu- – κύλα – culex – color 1 The Root *√k̑u̯el In the Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (p. 629), J. Pokorny men- tions a root *k̑u̯el- ‘schlammig’ (‘muddy’) with a question mark, the evidence for which is claimed to be limited to Armenian (šaɫem ‘to moisten, to mix the mortar’, šaɫax ‘clay, mud, mortar’), and Lithuanian (švelnùs ‘soft, smooth’). It is not easy to derive the latter from a proposed meaning ‘muddy’, so we will have to leave it aside for now. * A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 34th eciec in Vienna in June 2015. It is a pleasure for me to thank Melanie Malzahn, Martin Peters, and Oliver Plötz for their helpful advice in the course of the preparation of this study, as well as various scholars for their valuable comments during the conference, and especially two anonymous iel referees for several precious observations. However—as always—the usual disclaimer applies. I am also grateful to Ronald Kim for his initiative to publish the paper. The work on this opuscule has been possible thanks to a doc fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. dark matter 25 Indo-European Linguistics 3 (2015) 24–41 The Armenian words, however, can be interpreted quite straightforwardly: It seems plausible that šaɫax should be analyzed as *šaɫ- plus a denominal suffix or enlargement -ax.1 The verb šaɫem can then very easily be explained as denominative from this presumable o-stem *šaɫ in the very same way as gnem ‘I buy’ is based on the o-stem gin ‘purchase price’, etc.2 Concerning its prehistory, one might find it easiest to reconstruct *k̑u̯l̥no- or *k̑u̯l̥so- which would have regularly given Arm. *šaɫ in accordance with Armenian sound laws, namely *k̑u̯- > Arm. š- as in the word for ‘dog’ (Arm. šown < *k̑u̯ōn3), *l̥ > Arm. al (parallel to *-r̥- > Arm. -ar- as in mard ‘human’ from *mr̥to-4), and *-ln- or *-ls- > Arm. -ɫ- (as in geɫ ‘beauty’ from *u̯el-no-5). As a matter of fact, it seems to have remained unnoticed that there is an exact equivalent of Arm. *šaɫ elsewhere in the ie languages: The very same pre-form *k̑u̯l̥s/no- does indeed also account for Gk. πηλός, (Dor. πᾱλός) m. ‘clay, earth, mud, mire’ [Hdt.+].6 The semantic match is impeccable, and also phonologically the outcome πηλός, πᾱλός is precisely what we would expect according to Greek sound laws.7 A neat Graeco-Armenian isogloss is in itself certainly a good thing and definitely an asset, but to round out the argument we would of course want to adduce further material in favor of setting up a root *√k̑u̯el. It would therefore be advisable to look for other potential cognates within the Indo-European languages. For that reason, it will first be necessary to ascertain a possible basic 1 The derivational function of -ax is not clear. It appears in words of different semantic fields, some of which are thought to be of foreign origin; cf. Martirosyan 2010:220, 660, 761. 2 For more examples cf. Klingenschmitt 1982:140. 3 Cf. Klingenschmitt 1982:259; Olsen 1999:133f.; Martirosyan 2010 s.v. 4 Cf. Klingenschmitt 1982:100; Olsen 1999:40; Martirosyan 2010 s.v. 5 Cf. Klingenschmitt 1982:242; Olsen 1999:51. 6 “Without a convincing etymology. Pre-Greek?” (Beekes 2010 s.v.). 7 *pāló- < *k̑u̯l̥no- or *k̑u̯l̥so- with *k̑u̯- (~ *ku̯-) > Gk. p- before -al- < *-l̥- as in πάλιν from *ku̯l̥h1- i-. For the development of *(-)k̑u̯- in Greek cf. Balles 2002:13ff. As G. Kostopoulos (Vienna; p.c.) points out to me, we cannot exclude a priori a parallel development of an anlauting *k̑u̯- to Gk. k-, similar to the development in internal position (*-k̑u̯- > Gk. -pp- and -kk- [ἵππος, ικκος (onomast.), πέλεκκον, etc.]), for which the exact dialectal (or otherwise conditioned) distribution has yet to be defined (cf. also Peters 2000:38857). In any case, if we may assume a likewise legitimate outcome *kāló- < *k̑u̯l̥no- or *k̑u̯l̥so- it becomes possible to account for the substantive κηλίς ῖδος f. ‘stain, spot, defilement; stain, blemish; naevus’ [trag., Antipho, x., Arist.] as a denominal derivative in *-ī́d- (thus Kostopoulos fthc.) from the adjective underlying πηλός. The semantics of this formation (‘dark spot’) will become evident in the course of this paper. Cf. also Hsch. κηλήνη· μέλαινα. For a different etymology of κηλίς (via *keh2l-) cf. Lipp 2009:39f. 26 höfler Indo-European Linguistics 3 (2015) 24–41 meaning of the root in question. As it happens, typological evidence suggests that words for ‘clay, mud, mire’ tend to be derived from roots denoting color concepts in the range of ‘dark, black’. This can be seen from several examples, including Gk. ἄσις f. ‘slime, mud’ [Il. 21.321, Nic., Hsch.] as ‘the dark one’ from a root *√h2ems ‘black, dark’ (cf. Nikolaev 2005:50ff.), Lith. mólis, Latv. mãls ‘clay’ from an underlying ‘blue, black’ (Lith. mė́las ‘blue’), or, presumably from pre- einzelsprachlich times, Gk. ἰλῡ́ς -ύος f. ‘mud, slime’ [Ion., Il., Arist.] and ocs ilъ ‘bog, mire’ (+)8 from *(hx)ihxlu- (cf. Peters 1980:101), which can be regarded as a substantivization of the homophonous adjective underlying Latv. īls ‘very dark’ and the Hesychius gloss εἰλύ· μέλαν ‘black’ (with ει for /ῑ/). It thus seems natural to watch out for a root *√k̑u̯el ‘black, dark’. 2 Toch. b kwele ‘Black, Dark Gray’ ThemostobviousdescendantcomesfromTocharianb,wherewefindanadjec- tive kwele that is usually glossed as ‘black, dark gray’. The commonly accepted etymology is to assume a reconstruction *k̑i-u̯o-lo-,9 which can be regarded as rather difficult, since there is no external justification for a formation of this structure. The proposed connection to *k̑i-u̯o- (attested in Gmc. *hiwa- ‘(gray) color’: on hý ‘fine hair’, oe hīw ‘color’, Goth. hiwi ‘appearance’) is seman- tically rather weak. A connection with Ved. śyāvá- ‘dark brown’ (etc.; cf. EWAia ii:661) from *k̑i̯eh1-u̯o- is more plausible on the semantic side, but phonolog- ically impossible, since the underlying root obviously contained a laryngeal, and even a zero-grade *-u̯o-formation would not have resulted in the needed Tocharian form, not to mention the extension by an otherwise unparalleled *-lo-suffix. It therefore seems much easier to resort to our newly acquired root *√k̑u̯el ‘dark, black’ and assume an o-grade adjective *k̑u̯ol-o- ‘black, dark’10 of the type attested by pie *h1rou̯dh-o- ‘red’ as in Lith. raũdas, Goth. rauþs, OIr. rúad 8 Synchronically, ilъ inflects as an o-stem, but this is not surprising, given that inherited u-stems and masculine o-stems both ended in -ъ in the nom.-sg.; cf. Vaillant 1958:108ff.; and Derksen 2008:211 for the Slavic forms. Further evidence for the originality of the u- stem comes from the derivatives Russ. иловатый (ilovátyj) ‘silty’, иловай (ilováj) ‘lowland, marshland’, SCr. ilovača ‘loam, clay’, etc. according to Vasmer 1953:478. 9 Cf. Hilmarsson 1993:184; Adams 2013:258. 10 As a funny coincidence, in one attestation (319b1) the adjective refers to kärkalle ‘mud, mire’; cf. Fellner 2005:133f. for the details. dark matter 27 Indo-European Linguistics 3 (2015) 24–41 etc.11 Again, this account seems to be in line with the apparent development of *k̑u̯-sequences (as opposed to *ku̯) in Tocharian, though the minutiae are still disputed. It is impossible to recapitulate the different doctrines here, but see Fellner 2005 for an exhaustive overview. It will suffice for our purposes to compare the supposed development of *k̑u̯ol-o- > b kwele to *k̑u̯on-m ̥ > b obl. kweṃ‘dog’12 or to *h1ek̑u̯os > b yakwe ‘horse’ (as opposed to a “real” labiovelar in similar positions: *teku̯os n. > b cake ‘river’, *ku̯olo- > b kele ‘navel’).13 3 Hitt. kuu̯aliu- / kuliu- ‘?’ Blažek1997wasthefirsttocompareToch.bkweletoHitt.kuu̯aliu-/kuliu-witha possible meaning ‘dark, blue’ (but see below) under the reconstruction *Kuwo- lo- / *Kuwo-li-. If we were to explain Hitt. kuu̯aliu- as descending from the root *√k̑u̯el, we would have to accept the following derivational scenario: The adjective *k̑u̯ol-o- ‘black, dark’ would have formed a regularly derived14 i-abstract *k̑u̯ol-i- ‘darkness, blackness’ (the type *h1ro/eu̯dh-i- ‘redness’ under- lying Lat. rūbidus 3 ‘red’, cf. Nussbaum 1999:401ff.). According to the model substantive →possessive u-adjective that can be observed quite nicely within Hittite,15 an adjective ‘having darkness, blackness’ (virtually *k̑u̯ol-i- u-) was then derived, which regularly developed into Hitt. kuu̯aliu- and—via optional syncope of -uu̯a- to -u- (cf. Melchert 1984:52f.)—kuliu-. Note that the desinence °iu- is quite unique within Hittite and therefore favors the interpre- tation as an “enlarged” i-stem. The problem with this account, however, is that the meaning ‘dark, blue’ is by no means secure. Other interpretations include ‘rein, hell’ (Weitenberg 1984:117f.) or ‘ruhig, verhalten, stillstehend’ (hed iv:303f.; heg i:624f.; cf. also Blažek 1997 for the references). It is therefore impossible to add Hitt. kuu̯aliu- to the probable continuants uploads/Geographie/ hoefler-stefan-dark-matter.pdf