I was messaged the other day about an interesting word with a mystery etymology. In Greek, there is ἴσχιον or ἰσχίον 'hip, hip-joint, haunches' which may be compared with the Hittite s-stem iskis- 'back'. This pair of comparanda seems to be where most inquiry stops however.
The OED mentions that this Greek word is "probably from iskhi 'loin,' of unknown origin" yet I can't find this word in Perseus online. Perhaps the editor rather meant an underlying root iskhi-, as in the word ἰσχιάζω 'move the hips', but there's no mention of the Hittite term. Many like Anna Prins (Hittite neuter singular - neuter plural: Some evidence for a connection [1997], p.218) have however acknowledged the Hittite link that establishes that this word at the very least straddled a Greco-Anatolian region, even if its exact source is unknown. Predictably forced attempts have been made by some IEists to explain this away through a hypothetical s-stem *h₁isgʰís-. This is unlikely to be true since the zerograded accented syllable dates it to Late IE at best and the word's meaning and derivation appears obscure (not to mention the severely restricted attestation of the word).
Exploring a possible Proto-Aegean (PAeg) term, we might note that the Greek evidence points to a specifically voiceless, aspirate velar stop. Aegean languages are notable for their lack of voiced stops and use of aspiration contrast in its place. Thus PAeg *iskʰis(a) 'lower back, hips, loin' might explain both although I must admit that the shape of the word seems as odd for this language just as *h₁isgʰís- does for PIE. Maybe there's a third possibility in all this that I'm not considering.
Of course I'm exploring conjectures here but it's always worth pondering alternative ideas to either illuminate further possibilities or to fully expose the absurdity of the path of thought. So far, the word for 'back' isn't known in Etruscan nor do I have the foggiest clue what it might have been, but there does seem to be an Etruscan derivational suffix -is. I'll keep my eye out for further info on this term, of course.
The PIE looks a little bit like a reduplication. Might it be a babytalk term of some kind ("poopoo")?
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, I recall reading a PDF on substrate evidence in Pre-Greek which is making the back of my brain tingle when I look at that Greek word. When I'm on the right computer I'll try and dig that out.
Found it. (I have nothing to do with the host site, I hasten to add; I got the link from a third party.)
ReplyDeleteKetsuban: "The PIE looks a little bit like a reduplication."
ReplyDeleteOnly if one splices an obscure stem in willy-nilly fashion. I want to avoid assumptions like that.
"Alternatively, I recall reading a PDF on substrate evidence in Pre-Greek which is making the back of my brain tingle when I look at that Greek word."
Yes, Beekes is the guy on "Pre-Greek" substrate. I disagree with him on the existence of labialized and palatalized phonemes though.
From my perception of a common Etrusco-Minoan grammar and vocab, the existence of a Minoan word here explains nicely the Greco-Anatolian distribution but I'm still as yet at a loss about how to break this word down further. It just doesn't even look Proto-Aegean. I must have missed something. This is a puzzle I can't find a satisfying answer to.
I checked on iskis- in Kloekhorsts "Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon" (I use the pdf that used to be on his site but was taken off when he published the dictionary at Brill.) He also mentions ἰσχίον and says the following: "Problematic, however, is the fact that good IE comparanda lack, let alone words
ReplyDeletethat reflect an s-stem as well. The only proposed cognate is Gr. ἰσχίον ‘hip(s),Hes. ἴσχι·ὀσφύς ‘loins’ (first by Ribezzo 1920: 130), but the semantic connection is in my view not very convincing. Moreover, the inner-Greek alteration ἴσχι:ὀσφύς clearly points to a substratum origin. If these forms are to be regarded as cognate, however, I would rather regard them as loans from a common source than as inherited." So ἴσχι is from a Hesychios gloss, that's probably why it's not in Perseus. I checked on ὀσφύς in the online Frisk and indeed there seems to be no good etymology for that word either.
Simply saying "the semantic connection is in my view not very convincing" without further elaboration or justification is ironically the most unconvincing of all.
ReplyDeleteIf we must *assume* a common source for ἴσχι and ὀσφύς (and I don't see why we do), what single substratal form could possibly explain it? The vocalism is all over the place.
Oh wait, perhaps I misunderstood about the "semantic connection" quote. I was assuming what was being referred to was the semantic connection between Hittite iskis- 'back' and ἰσχίον 'hip' which I feel is sound. However upon rereading, he must be talking about the shakey connection between ἴσχι and ὀσφύς which I already consider to be unsound. Good then.
ReplyDeleteTo add confusion to the mix, I just noticed ὄσχη 'scrotum' with a variant ὄσχεον which nonetheless is no doubt affected by ἰσχίον. I suppose now I'm going to have to figure out where ὀσφύς and ὄσχη come from.
"I was assuming what was being referred to was the semantic connection between Hittite iskis- 'back' and ἰσχίον 'hip' which I feel is sound. However upon rereading, he must be talking about the shakey connection between ἴσχι and ὀσφύς which I already consider to be unsound. Good then." Obviously, I can't look into Kloekhorst's head, but I think your first impression was right - he doubts the link between Hittite iskis- and ἰσχίον. That ἴσχι means ὀσφύς is established by the Hesychios gloss - of course, we can assume that Hesychios got that wrong, but on what would be base such an assumption? I agree with you that Kloekhorst is the one who isn't convincing here - "hip" and "back" are neighbouring regions of the body and shifts of meanings between neighbouring body parts happen. The loins are in that general region as well, so I don't see any big semantic problems with a link between ἴσχι, ἰσχίον and iskis-.
ReplyDelete"If we must *assume* a common source for ἴσχι and ὀσφύς (and I don't see why we do), what single substratal form could possibly explain it? The vocalism is all over the place."
This now is speculation, so disregard it if you think it doesn't work. The source language could have been related dialects where the forms descended from something like **iskhu - in one dialect the first vowel was assimilated to the second giving *u/oskhwu with labialisation of the /kh/ (source of ὀσφύς), in another dialect the assimilation was the other way round to *iskhi (source of ἴσχι, ἰσχίον and iskis-). Or it may have been the other way round, with a pre-form **u/oskhi. If I understand you correctly, you don't think that the word is Aegean?
"I disagree with him on the existence of labialized and palatalized phonemes though."
ReplyDeleteWhat of this inscription from Pamphylia? That's an attested instance of labialised phonemes, in both a name (Lwaravus) and a rank or title (vasirwotas). As I understand it, Anatolian is one suggestion for the identity of pre-Greek substrate languages in the region.
Ketsuban,
ReplyDeleteApparently you don't understand the definition of Beeke's Pre-Greek which is by definition **non-Indo-European**. And surely this and many other posts made it clear that I already know that Anatolian substrate exists. Are you feeling okay?
I reject palatalized and labialized consonants in **non-Indo-European "Pre-Greek"** (ie. Minoan and related dialects, ie. Proto-Aegean dialects).
As for this inscription, it means nothing in itself. Explain why it must relate to Beeke's Pre-Greek (ie. Minoan et alia) and not to other Indo-European languages.
Let me refer everyone to some new thoughts I've had on these terms: Paleoglot: Back to 'back'. I'm been considering a direct Hittite-to-Greek loan here rather than requiring an intermediary.
ReplyDeleteHans' question is answered in that post and I essentially am suspicious of an Aegean intermediary because of my views on allowable syllable codae in Proto-Aegean and later Minoan.
Ah, apologies. I misinterpreted you somewhere along the line and a little meme crept into my head that substrate languages are like Highlander - there can be only one.
ReplyDeleteNo, substrate languages don't always decapitate each other with swords. ;o) I take it as self-evident that Greek harbours quite a number of substrate languages - Hittite, Minoan, Eteo-Cretan, Egyptian, Latin, Hebrew, etc. - so we have to be specific.
ReplyDeleteWhen Beekes writes about a non-IE "Pre-Greek", I take it as a synonym of "Proto-Aegean" (ie. the parent of Minoan, Etruscan, Lemnian, Rhaetic, Eteo-Cypriot and Eteo-Cretan). So when I deny labialized/palatalized stops and resonants in his theory, I reject the phonemic overindulgence in Proto-Aegean phonology. While I enjoy his work on this subject, I think Beekes is being too simplistic by lumping Greek words together into a murky pile of seeming loans, implying roots and suffixes in an obscure language family without identifying their meanings as per a testable theory.