%20-%20https://sketch.com%20--%3e%3ctitle%3e3ECBBF50-FD08-412A-943D-2CFC5E025A16%3c/title%3e%3cdesc%3eCreated%20with%20sketchtool.%3c/desc%3e%3cg%20id='Stylesheet'%20stroke='none'%20stroke-width='1'%20fill='none'%20fill-rule='evenodd'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(-926.000000,%20-668.000000)'%20id='BUTTONS'%3e%3cg%20transform='translate(100.000000,%20597.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='BTN-/-RIGHTS'%20transform='translate(816.000000,%2065.000000)'%3e%3cg%20id='ICON-/-Rights'%20transform='translate(10.000000,%206.000000)'%3e%3cpath%20d='M13.5752841,0%20L1.34943182,0%20C0.59375,0%200,0.586666667%200,1.33333333%20L0,22.6666667%20C0,23.4133333%200.620738636,24%201.34943182,24%20L17.6505682,24%20C18.40625,24%2019,23.3866667%2019,22.6666667%20L19,5.36%20L13.5752841,0%20Z%20M13.5752841,1.89333333%20L17.0838068,5.36%20L13.5752841,5.36%20L13.5752841,1.89333333%20Z%20M1.34943182,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,1.33333333%20L12.1988636,5.36%20C12.1988636,6.10666667%2012.7926136,6.69333333%2013.5482955,6.69333333%20L17.6235795,6.69333333%20L17.6505682,22.6666667%20L1.34943182,22.6666667%20Z'%20id='Shape'%20fill='%23595959'%20fill-rule='nonzero'%3e%3c/path%3e%3ccircle%20id='Oval'%20stroke='%23595959'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20fill='%23595959'%20cx='9.5'%20cy='13.5355339'%20r='5.5'%3e%3c/circle%3e%3cpolyline%20id='Path-2'%20stroke='%23FFFFFF'%20stroke-width='1.5'%20transform='translate(9.500000,%2013.035534)%20rotate(45.000000)%20translate(-9.500000,%20-13.035534)%20'%20points='8%2016.0355339%2011%2016.0355339%2011%2010.0355339'%3e%3c/polyline%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Etymological Studies in the Greek Dialect-Inscriptions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
Greek etymology in general has received wide study in recent years, chiefly in the work of Boisacq. In the case of Greek dialectic words, not only are etymological studies by Meister, Brugmann, Kretschmer, Meillet, Hoffmann, and others available, but pertinent material is also to be found in the general works on Greek dialects by Ahrens, Meister, Hoffmann, Bechtel, Collitz, Buck, and Schwyzer. The study, however, of Greek dialectic words from the point of view of IE linguistics has been relatively neglected. This is regrettable in view of the significance of such study for our knowledge of both Greek and IE linguistics. It is my purpose here to fill in some of the gaps by the study of selected words and groups of words.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Language , Volume 8 , Issue 2-Part2: Language Dissertation No. 10: Etymological Studies in the Greek Dialect-Inscriptions , June 1932, pp. 5 - 86
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1932 Linguistic Society of America
References
page 17 note 1 Passages taken from RFC 56. 26217-9, 264B2-4 (1928).
page 17 note 2 Mιάσ∈ι is evidently a future form from an old Doric present *μιάω; the regular Greek forms are μιαíνω and 
(future); for the base of this word, given as *mei- or *mai-, see WP 2. 243 (*μι-αω and μι-αíνω would represent the zero grade *mi- of such a base, that is, according to Gray's system, Za grade of an IE *me/
-).
page 17 note 3 S. Ferri, Alcune iscrizioni di Cirene, in AbhBerl. 17 no. 5 (1925).
page 17 note 4 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, in BSBerl. 19. 158 (1927).
page 17 note 5 P. Maas, KZ 56. 138 (1928-9). Cf. BSLP 30. 99-100 (1930); G. Devoto, in RFC 56. 389-90 (1928).
page 17 note 6 A. Vogliano, RFC 56. 275 (1928); cf. BT 95; S. Morsbach, Curtius Stud. 10. 30-1 (1878); Kretschmer, Vas. 74-6; G. Meyer, 242; K. F. Johansson, IF 8. 182 (1897-8); Brugmann, Grundriss l2. 1. 436.
page 17 note 7 BT 95.
page 17 note 8 WP 1. 130.
page 17 note 9 RFC 56 (1928).
page 18 note 10 K. F. Johansson, IF 8. 180 sqq. (1897-8).
page 18 note 11 W. Meyer-Lübke, Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch3 no. 409 (Heidelberg, 1930 sqq.).
page 18 note 12 Buck, GD 60. See also Thumb, Hdb. 155.
page 18 note 13 Bechtel, 1. 337.
page 18 note 14 G. Meyer, 242.
page 18 note 15 K. F. Johansson, IF 8. 182 (1897-8).
page 19 note 16 Wilamowitz, SBBerl. 19. 158 (1927).
page 19 note 17 lb. 165.
page 19 note 18 Boisacq, 954; WP 1. 719-20 under *tem. See Walde, 768-9 for temno and templum; cf. P. Kretschmer, KZ 31. 406 (1891-2); Trautmann, 324.
page 19 note 19 WP 1. 722-4.
page 20 note 20 Boisacq, 462-3; Walde3 213-4; WP 1. 361-2 under *qēi- (-ē-?).
page 21 note 21 WP 1. 442-3; Boisacq, 432; Walde3 194.
page 22 note 22 WP 2. 109-10.
page 21 note 23 WP 1. 778; Walde3 111.
page 21 note 24 WP 2, 110; Boisacq, 118; for dēbilis, Walde, 222; Prellwitz, 76, gives β∈λτíων, Cret. δ∈λrov ' άγαθóν (Hesych.) < *guelo (associated with, βοὐλομαι, Thess. βέλλομαι, 'wish').
page 21 note 25 Feist, 61.
page 21 note 26 Walde3 101, connects beō with bonus.
page 21 note 27 Walde,3 111, connects bellus with bonus through bene (bellus < *ben[e]los < *dṷen[e\los).
page 21 note 28 Brugmann, Grundriss, 22. 1. 313 sqq.
page 22 note 29 Boisacq, 1027; cf. Prellwitz, 489; A. Holder, Altceltischer Sprachschatz, 1. 422 (Leipzig, 1896-1913). For the suggestion φ- < σφ-, cf. Boisacq, 928; Solmsen, Unters. 200; Baunack, Stud. 1. 25 < *σφ-ιλοs (Skt. sabhā'- 'assembly', etc., Schrader, Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde, 1. 332 [Strasbourg, 1901]). For OHG billīch, cf. F. Kluge, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache3 28 (Strasbourg, 1884). For suffixal variation, see under avhaγλ∈σθο, p. 70.
page 23 note 1 A great part of the material of this chapter appeared in Language 7. 173-8.
page 23 note 2 Boisacq, 799. Cf. Prellwitz, 377; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 840; Endzelin, 524-6; Trautmann, 210.
page 23 note 3 Kretschmer, Glotta 1. 41-3 (1909). Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 840, gives a bibliography for discussion of ποι: BT 514-5; Thumb, Hdb. 110, 193, 231; C. D. Buck, CP 2. 249 (1907); A. Thumb, JCP 15. 396 sqq. (1905); J. Zubatý, IFAnz. 22. 59 sqq.; E. Fraenkel, KZ 43. 210 sqq. (1909-10); Hanisch, 26; J. Schmidt, KZ 38. 17 sqq. (1902-5); R. Günther, IF 20. 25, 54, 60 sqq. (1906-7). See also WP 2. 77, 78-9; Meister, 2. 250-1, 267; Bechtel, 2. 35-6, 69, 144, 274, 503-4, 768; V. H. Jacobsohn, KZ 42. 277 sqq. (1908-9); P. Kretschmer, Glotta 3. 322-3 (1912).
page 24 note 4 Buck, GD 100.
page 24 note 5 This reading is questioned; Glotta 1. 42 (1909).
page 24 note 6 Schwyzer 10941 gives this reading also.
page 24 note 7 Ilot as a preposition occurs 48 times, of which 41 appearances are before the article and 4 before Δ∈λφοs therefore, in reality, these 45 examples have the value of only two; of the other three, two are before dentals and one is not. It scarcely seems reasonable to create a new phonetic principle in Greek on examples based chiefly on the article; it is well known that any Greek preposition will show a preponderance of occurrences in that position. The prefix ποι- appears 9 times; 4 in ποιτασσω, 2 in ποιδ∈ι: ποιθ∈μ∈ν, ποικ∈φαλαιον, and ποιγραψανσθο are single occurrences. The count actually stands 7 to 3, according to the following division: (a) before dentals: ποι before the article, ποι before Δ∈λφονς, ποι θ∈οδοτον 3325297, ποι δ' 334220, ποιτασσω, ποιδ∈ι, ποιθ∈μ∈ν (b) before non-dentals: ποι ροπτον, ποικ∈φαλαιον,ποιγραψανσθο (those questioned, ποι λνσι[μαχον] and ποι γaν are omitted). The total appearances of ποι (ποι-) before dentals are 54; however, -ποτ ι (ποτ ι-) and ποτ (ποτ-) are found at least 61 times. In Argolic ποι is preferred to ποτ ι.
page 24 note 8 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 840.
page 24 note 9 Gray, Vocalic Alternation in the Disyllabic Base in Indo-European', AJP 51. 273-85 (1930).
page 24 note 10 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 838-44. Examples are given here for the different alternation-grades (*epoi, *opoi, *epi, *opi, *pi, *pei, *poi) as known before the appearance of Gray's study. Also, WP 1. 122-3, 2. 77, 78-9.
page 25 note 11 For discussion of IE prepositions, see Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 758-930; Hirt, Gram. 3. 15-9. The difference in accent between έπι and έπí may be due to separate developments from the IE base 
, as the accent would indicate, arising from the NZA grade *épi, and έπí having its origin in a locative case-form of the grade NZb *ep- (the accent on the final syllable is what one expects for a weak case-form). Cf. Gray, BSLP 93. 34-42 (1931).
page 25 note 12 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 737-8.
page 25 note 13 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 731.
page 25 note 14 P. Kretschmer, Glotta 1. 53-6 (1909).
page 25 note 15 Ποs: Boisacq, 806; cf. Hoffmann, 1. 311-2 (ποs < *ποτs); Bechtel, 1. 381, 440; Meister, 2. 118, 267. Ποτι: Boisacq, 808; cf. Bechtel, 1. 166, 259, 295, 2. 21-2, 35-6, 69, 112-3,182, 241, 274, 330-1, 477, 546, 593, 650, 768, 844, 885; Meister, 1. 284; Hoffmann, 2. 521, 592.
page 25 note 16 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 891-3.
page 25 note 17 WP 2. 77-9.
page 25 note 18 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 806-9. Only most rarely in genitival constructions in Greek, notably in Elean φ∈νγ∈τω ποτ τω Διορ τωλνμπιω αιματορ ‘let him be banished by Olympian Zeus for (shedding) blood’, Schwyzer, 4244-5 and in Av., as naēδa dunmąn uzǰasa'ti haraiθyō paiti barӘzayå ‘nor do clouds arise from lofty Haraiti’ (Yašt 10. 50), can one fairly assume connection with the base *apo, *po, in which case ποτι, paiti ‘to’, and ποτι, paiti ‘from’ would be homonyms; but even here the assumption appears quite unnecessary (cf. Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 789-91).
page 26 note 19 Walde, 598. So also Muller, 429.
page 26 note 20 P. Kretschmer, Glotta 1. 53-6 (1909).
page 26 note 21 Buck, GD 52 (cf. Hoffman, 1. 203; Bechtel, 1. 340, 413; BT 171).
page 27 note 22 For a doubtful Cypr. instance, see Hoffmann 1. 83, 200.
page 28 note 23 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 838-44; also Boisacq, 264-5, έπí; Walde, 532-3 ob, 573 pe-nitus; Trautmann, 207 pὰs, 210 pìe; WP 1. 122-3 *epi, *opi, *pi.
page 28 note 24 Trautmann, 210 pìe < *pei ‘to, near, against’, rightly may be placed here; it is merely the e-variant of this grade, ποι is the ο-variant.
page 28 note 25 Sturtevant, Language 6. 25-6 (Mar. 1930).
page 28 note 26 Boisacq, 801.
page 28 note 27 Boisacq, 801.
page 29 note 28 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 839; WP 1. 99; BT 617; Thumb, Hdb. 172; Meister, Hdb. 172; Boisacq, 263.
page 29 note 29 P. 33.
page 29 note 30 Leskein, 13.
page 30 note 1 BT 613.
page 30 note 2 Meister, 2. 222, 283.
page 30 note 3 Hoffmann, 1. 242.
page 30 note 4 Searles, 68.
page 30 note 5 Buck, GD 95.
page 30 note 6 P. 27.
page 30 note 7 P. 38.
page 30 note 8 Walde, 514, 616, 635; Muller, 325.
page 30 note 9 Walde, 631.
page 30 note 10 Delaporte, 47.
page 31 note 1 SGDI 6029 reads ὁπισís κ∈; Bechtel, 1. 439, ὂπι σís κ∈; Hoffmann, 1. 70, ὂπι σís κ∈; Meister, 2. 155, ὂφι ὁπι κ∈; Schwyzer, 67929, οπι σís κ∈. One must bear in mind that epichoric opi may stand for *(s)op(h)i.
page 31 note 2 Hoffmann, 1. 73, 181 (-ι of oπ = a shortening of -νι of ὂπνι).
page 31 note 3 Hermann, 89; BT 673, questions this.
page 31 note 4 J. Schmidt, KZ 27. 291 (1884-5), compares with Latin quī, instrumental stem; one expects in Greek, before ∈ or ι, τ < *qṷ, although examples to the contrary appear, chiefly on the analogy of kindred forms (see Buck, GD 57).
page 31 note 5 P. 27.
page 31 note 6 Whitney, 195.
page 32 note 7 Stolz, 706.
page 32 note 8 Buck, OU 143-4.
page 32 note 9 P. 29.
page 32 note 10 J. S. Speijer, Sanskrit Syntax 331-2 (Leiden, 1886); C. Bartholomae, Altiranisches Wörterbuch 83 (Strasbourg, 1904); Meillet, Arm. 133.
page 32 note 11 Speijer, 323, 332; B. Delbrück, Altindische Syntax 525-27 (Halle, 1888); L. Renou, Grammaire sanscrite 511, 516-7 (Paris, 1930).
page 33 note 1 Bechtel, 2. 705-6 (cf. 1. 149, 244; 2. 569). See also Meyer, 631; Thumb, Hdb. 128; Ehrlich, Idg. 16-7; BT150; Hoffmann, 2. 500; E. Kieckers, Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten im Dialekte Kretas, 39 (Marburg, 1908).
page 34 note 2 Buck, GD 68-9.
page 34 note 3 Boisacq, 811-2. See also E. Fraenkel, IF 28. 249 (1911); H. Osthoff, IF 19. 227 sqq. (1906); M. Bloomfield, AJP 29. 79-81 (1908); A. Bezzenberger, BB 4. 345 (1878); BT 51, 150, 246; Ehrlich, Unters. 134-5; Prellwitz, 383.
page 34 note 4 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 883.
page 34 note 5 Feist, 125, analyses frisahts < fri-sahts, the prefix fri- being referred to fair- (102, IE *peri,*per) or to Lith. prý-, pri-, and priẽ, and sahts to sakan ‘strive, dispute’ (also in ga-sahts and in-sahts). Th. v. Grienberger, Untersuchungen zur gotischen Wortkunde 75 sqq. (Vienna, 1900), refers to it salivan ‘see’.
page 34 note 6 WP 2. 34.
page 34 note 7 P. 7.
page 34 note 8 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 865-88; WP 2. 28-38; Hirt, Gram. 3. 18-9.
page 34 note 9 Boisacq, 817. For Aeol. πρ∈s, recorded by Johannes Grammaticus (sixth century A.D.), see Meister, 1. 44.
page 34 note 10 P. 25.
page 35 note 11 Boisacq, 813.
page 35 note 12 Cf. WP 2. 33.
page 35 note 13 P. 53.
page 35 note 14 P. 23.
page 35 note 15 Boisacq, 813.
page 35 note 16 Boisacq, 813.
page 35 note 17 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 865-80; WP 2. 29-38; Hirt. Gram. 3. 18-9. See also Walde, 611 pretium, 612-3 pro, 574-5 per, pri, 611 prīdem, 611 prīmus, 612 prīscus, prīstinus, prīvus; Boisacq, 814 πρó, 816-7 προτí, πpós, 812 Πρíªπos; Trautmann, 229-30 pra, 230-1 prei, 231-2 pretei.
page 35 note 18 P. Kretschmer, Glotta 1. 53-6 (1909).
page 35 note 19 Boisacq, 817.
page 36 note 20 P. 25.
page 36 note 21 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 873; BT 491.
page 36 note 22 P. 26.
page 36 note 23 Gray, JA 218. 323-4 (1931).
page 36 note 24 See footnote 17. Also Stolz, 220; Brugmann, 22. 1. 229. But F. Stolz, Historische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache 1. 405 (Leipzig, 1894-5), and H. Osthoff, ARW 7. 416 (1904), refer prīdem and prīdie to IE prī.
page 36 note 25 BT 219.
page 36 note 26 Leskien, 13-4.
page 37 note 1 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 51, 52; Hirt, Hdb. 447. See also BT 249; H. Eulenburg, IF 15. 142 (1903-4); H. Hirt, IF 21. 164-5 (1907); H. Ehrlich, KZ 40. 366 (1906); H. Güntert, IF 27. 55-7 (1910); WP 2. 37; Prellwitz, 265; Boisacq, 819-20; Thumb, Hdb. 169; Bechtel, 2. 97, 171, 224, 309, 389, 423, 449, 525, 563, 623, 677, 873; Meister, 1. 98; H. Osthoff, MU 6. 79 (1910).
page 37 note 2 Buck, CP 2. 255-6 (1907).
page 37 note 3 Boisacq, 819-20.
page 37 note 4 P. 35.
page 38 note 5 BT 238.
page 38 note 6 BT 215; Prellwitz, 265; Boisacq 819 under τρωí.
page 38 note 7 Hirt, Gram. 3. 19-20; WP 2. 35-8; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 873; Walde, 612-3; Boisacq, 814; Feist, 118; R. Thurneysen, KZ 37. 91 sqq. (1900).
page 38 note 8 Brugmann, Grundriss l2. 470 gives the general view of πράμοs <*pr-mos; WP 2. 37 derives it from IE *premos. See also Boisacq, 809.
page 38 note 9 Walde, 609, gives prandium < *prām-ediω < IE *pr-m-.
page 38 note 10 Brugmann, Grundriss 1. 496, 22. 2. 873.
page 38 note 11 Hirt. Gram. 3. 16-7.
page 38 note 12 Gray, JA 218. 323-4 (1931).
page 38 note 13 Hirt, Gram. 3. 19; BT 265; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 703, 864; WP 2. 33.
page 38 note 14 Curtius, 2. 354.
page 39 note 1 Buck, GD 18; Hoffmann, 1. 154, 311; 2. 353-5; WP 1. 58-9; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 789; BT 81 places ον- = άva- as uncertain; Bechtel, 1. 24, 47, 145-6, 409; Thumb, Hdb. 237; Meister, 1. 50-1, 2. 215-6, 284.
page 39 note 2 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 827-8; Hirt, Gram. 3. 17; WP 1. 125-7.
page 40 note 3 Buck, GD 120; Hoffmann, 2. 289; Bechtel, 1. 169-70; for the etymology of άλ- < *ϝaλ-, cf. Boisacq 45, 60, 1095.
page 40 note 4 Bechtel, 1. 47, gives these examples and references.
page 40 note 5 See note 2; practically all the examples are taken from Brugmann and Walde-Pokorny, but are arranged in grades according to Gray's system.
page 40 note 6 Gr. ένí, etc. could be considered as belonging to the NZb grade *en plus the IE locative ending -i; and perhaps it is better taken this way; further, the meaning would help toward such a conclusion. It is not improbable that έví was originally the grade NZa *e/oni-; and έví, as the accent would indicate, the grade NZb *e/on-plus the IE locative ending -i (cf. έζπι, k-πí, p. 27).
page 40 note 7 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 827-8, and WP 1. 125-7 indicate the question which arises as to whether these Slavic forms should be referred to IE *on connected with *en as *epi is with *opi, or to an IE *an.
page 40 note 8 Walde, 518-9.
page 40 note 9 Walde, 573.
page 40 note 10 Walde, 572.
page 41 note 11 See p. 44, under νν-, for discussion of homonymous bases.
page 42 note 1 Buck, GD 25; Thumb, Hdb. 272-3, 289; Meister, 2. 220; Hoffmann, 1. 168, 311;Bechtel, 1.387, 409.
page 42 note 2 Meister, 2. 220, gives a fragment of a word . . . ιs as another example of s = os; but such an illustration is obviously of no value.
page 42 note 3 BT 644; Hirt, Gram. 3. 18; cf. Feist, 401, on us.
page 42 note 4 P. 35.
page 42 note 5 P. 53.
page 42 note 6 P. 58.
page 42 note 7 WP 1. 13-5.
page 43 note 8 WP 1. 189-90; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 902-6. Meister, 2. 220, assumes an v in u(v)ϝaιs, u(v)τvχα, u(v)χηρωv, and writes v∈vξαμ∈vοs as uv∈vχασαμ∈vοs, explaining the v(v) as from ov-; but there seems to be no good reason for such an interpolation; Hoffmann, 1. 114, 125, 312-3, holds that v is the short form of ∈u which appears in Hesych. ∈vτροσσ∈σθαι. έπιτρ έφ∈σθαι (Πάφιοι); Schwyzer, 68212, writes uv∈vξαμ∈vοs. Prellwitz, 478-9, explains Arc. vφ∈αρ as for v + φ∈ϝαρ ‘growing’, connected with φύω ‘grow’ (cf. Bechtel, 1. 395). S. Bugge, BB 14. 62-3 (1888), followed by Boisacq 997, derives ὔβριs from v + βριs, associated with βριaρós ‘strong’. Other literature on v-: Baunack, Stud. 1. 16-8; P. Kretschmer, KZ 31. 415-7 (1891-2); F. Solmsen, KZ 34. 450 (1895-7); R. Günther, IF 20. 152-3 (1906-7); H. Ahrens, Phil. 35. 38-9 (1876); A. Fick (see Hoffmann, 1. 313) puts v- with OE upp(e), Eng. up, Goth, iup 
Boisacq, 1007, 1008, ΰσπληξ, ὔστ∈eρos, ὔστριζ.
page 43 note 9 J. Wright, Grammar of the Gothic Language 140 (Oxford, 1924).
page 43 note 10 P. 48.
page 43 note 11 BT 283, 300.
page 43 note 12 Boisacq, 99; Walde, 77 8.
page 44 note 13 WP 1. 187-9.
page 44 note 14 P. 25.
page 44 note 15 P. 41.
page 45 note 1 Meillet, Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique 62 (Vienna, 1903).
page 45 note 2 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 324-35; cf. Brugmann, Dem. 32-8.
page 45 note 3 WP 1. 96-102.
page 46 note 4 Meister, 2. 281-2.
page 46 note 5 Hoffmann, 1. 163.
page 46 note 6 Bechtel, 1. 438; cf. W. Deecke and J. Siegismund, Curtius, Stud. 7. 252 (1875).
page 46 note 7 Schwyzer, index 433.
page 46 note 8 Hoffmann, 1. 281.
page 46 note 9 BT 285; cf. K. F. Johansson, BB 16. 161 (1890).
page 47 note 10 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 391; BT 478.
page 47 note 11 A. Thumb, JCP 135. 641 sqq. (1887); cf. BT 628.
page 47 note 12 Hirt, Hdb. 426.
page 47 note 13 Boisacq, 639 s. v. μιv.
page 47 note 14 Bechtel, 2. 254; Hoffmann, Meister, and Searles have no comment on vιv.
page 47 note 15 WP 2. 336-7; cf. Hirt, Gram. 3. 13.
page 47 note 16 Trautmann, AP 265.
page 48 note 17 Boisacq, 968.
page 48 note 18 Thumb, Hdb. 297, 304; WP 2. 337; P. Persson, IF 2. 250 sqq. (1893); F. Solmsen, KZ 34. 64-8 (1895-7); BT 283; Bechtel, 1. 309-10, 358, 2. 818-9.
page 48 note 19 G. Deville, Étude du dialecte tzaconien 109 (Paris, 1866); M. Deffner. Zakonische Grammatik 1 (Berlin, 1881).
page 48 note 20 P. 42.
page 48 note 21 BT 283; Bechtel, 1. 439; Buck, GD 99.
page 49 note 22 Boisacq, 673.
page 49 note 23 P. 44.
page 49 note 24 WP 1. 187-9; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 341-4; cf. Boisacq, Les Dialectes doriens 76 (Paris, 1891), who discusses the question whether -vι = -οι or -vι; cf. Buck, GD 95, who holds that this type originated from the stem *πv- < IE *qṷu- (cf. Skt. kútas ‘whence’, Osc. puf ‘where‘) and was extended to other words.
page 49 note 25 Hoffmann, 1. 290; Bechtel, 1. 293, 439; BT 283, 630; WP 2. 337; Meister, 2. 285.
page 49 note 26 Boisacq, 673; E. G. Graff, Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz 2. 976-8 (Berlin. 1836); WP 2. 340; Delaporte, 86.
page 50 note 27 Bechtel, 1. 309-10, 358, 2. 818-9; BT 283.
page 50 note 28 For a complete list of occurrences of μιv in Homer, see A. Gehring, Index Homericus 530-2 (Leipzig, 1891; examples are very numerous).
page 50 note 29 Boisacq, 639; H. Güntert, Uber Reimwortbildungen in Arischen und Altgriechischen 190, note 3 (Heidelberg, 1914). See also Bechtel, 3. 162-3; BT 285; Hirt, Hdb. 426-7; Prellwitz, 295, explains μιv, vιv as from *ιμ-ιμ, *ιv-ιv (cf. Lat. emem, sese, etc.), accus, sing.; Baunack, Stud. 1. 48-9; Meyer, 383; Meister, 2. 281 sqq.; H. Dyroff, Geschichte des Pronomen reflexivum 1. 71 (Würzburg, 1893); W. Schulze, Quaestiones epicae 24 (Gütersloh, 1892); F. Stolz, Wiener Studien 12. 33 sqq.; K. F. Johansson, BB 16. 161 (1890); A. Thumb, JCP 135. 641 sqq. (1887); J. Wackernagel, IF 1.333, 342 (1891-2);P. Persson, IF2.250 (1893); Ceci, Appunti glottologici 26 (Turin, 1892).
page 50 note 30 Brugmann, Dem. 36, 111, 129.
page 50 note 31 P. 43.
page 51 note 32 Walde, 481.
page 51 note 33 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 382; BT 287-8; Hirt, Gram. 3.21; Prellwitz, 126, gives ἐγώ as from ∈ + γω (cf. γ∈); WP 1. 115-6, s.v. eĝ(h)om; Boisacq, 214-5; Walde, 251; P. Persson, IF 2. 217 (1893); J. Schmidt, Plur. 220; W. Petersen, Language 6. 167-9 (1930).
page 51 note 34 Gray, JA 218. 324-5 (1931) however, suggests that μ∈τά, like Latin ita, ali-uta, is an old instrumental comparable with the Kanis. instrumental type irmalit = irmalita.
page 51 note 35 Stolz, 282; Sommer, 449.
page 51 note 36 J. Schmidt, KZ 36. 405 (1898-9).
page 51 note 37 Stolz, 282; Sommer, 421.
page 51 note 38 Buck, OU 142-3, 147.
page 52 note 39 WP 1. 742-3. A. Thumb, Handbuch des Sanskrit 2442 (Heidelberg, 1930), connects the -sm- element with Skt. sma, an asseverative particle.
page 52 note 40 WP 1. 96-102.
page 52 note 41 Boisacq, 721.
page 52 note 42 The prior element of the pronoun of the first person singular may be the IE zero-grade *ns- of nē/ōs ‘we, us’; and that of the pronoun of the second person plural, IE 
‘you’ (WP 1. 209-10; Boisacq, 1001, *us-, zero-grade of *ṷeḽos ‘you‘).
page 52 note 43 WP 2. 236.
page 53 note 44 Cf. W. Petersen, Language 6.167 (1930).
page 53 note 45 P. 58, 35.
page 53 note 46 Buck, GD 90-1. Cf. Bechtel, 1. 74-5, 277-8, 429; 2. 124, 189, 254-5, 347, 488, 584, 642, 736; 3. 162-4.
page 53 note 47 W. Vollgraff, Mnem. 47. 209-10 (1929) ; cf. WP 1. 127; Walde, 254; Boisacq, 325.
page 54 note 1 WP 1. 326.
page 54 note 2 Brugmann, 22. 3. 1000-1.
page 54 note 3 BT 625-6.
page 54 note 4 P. Kretschmer, KZ 30. 588 (1888-90).
page 54 note 5 Hoffmann, 1. 291.
page 54 note 6 Meister, 2. 239-40; cf. J. and T. Baunack, Die Inschrift von Gortyn 44, note 1 (Leipzig, 1885).
page 55 note 7 Bechtel, 1. 437.
page 55 note 8 Boisacq, 390.
page 55 note 9 For this base, cf. WP 1. 507-8, 519-23.
page 55 note 10 Walde,3 209.
page 55 note 11 Boisacq, 424; WP 1. 326; Brugmann, 22. 3. 1000-1; F. Solmsen, KZ 35. 463 sqq. (1897-8); Walde,3 209, cēterus < cei or cē + tero-, following Brugmann, IF 6. 87-9 (1896).
page 55 note 12 πη = πη or πη, the indefinite enclitic of 
‘in what way, how’, is given as a dative feminine formation by BT 295 and Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 705 (similar to 
, etc.); and this view, which is quite generally accepted, may be correct.
page 55 note 13 Buck, GD 26, 140, gives the generally accepted view that κη is a mere façon d'écrire for καí; cf. Meister, 2. 239-40.
page 55 note 14 BT 625-6; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 1001; WP 1. 327; Berneker, 1. 122; Boisacq, 390.
page 55 note 15 Boisacq, WP, and Brugmann, as in note 11. Cf. Bechtel, 1. 290-1; 2. 33, 40, 68, 139-40, 196, 269, 277, 357, 359, 411, 412, 429, 500, 501, 544, 591, 606, 647, 648, 764, 799, 819; Thumb, Hdb. 111, 133, 144, 156, 171, 179, 184, 207; Meister, 2. 55; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 2. 734; Buck, C. P. 2. 255 (1907); F. Solmsen, KZ 35. 463-72 (1897-8); J. Wackernagel, KZ 33. 17 (1893-5).
page 56 note 16 See note 11.
page 56 note 17 See note 11; cf. Brugmann, Grundriss 12. 54.
page 56 note 18 F. Solmsen, KZ 33. 298-9 (1893-5).
page 56 note 19 W. Schulze, GöttAnz. 177. 907 sqq. (1897).
page 56 note 20 Cf. also C. D. Buck, IF 4. 156 (1894-5) ; Meillet, Notes d'étymologie grecque 13, 40 (Paris, 1896) ; Meillet-Vendryes, Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques 61 (Paris, 1927); Mansion, Les gutturales grecques 71-4 (Ghent and Paris, 1904).
page 57 note 21 Bechtel, 1. 151-2; Boisacq, 972.
page 57 note 22 Cf. BT 269-70, 469.
page 57 note 23 Buck, OU 149.
page 57 note 24 R. von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte, 1. 346, 396, 2. 222, 461 (Strasbourg, 1892-7); E. Enderis, Versuch einer Formenlehre der osk. Sprache mit den osk. Inschriften und Glossar 46 (Zürich, 1871); C. D. Buck, Der Vocalismus der osk. Sprache 31 (Leipzig, 1892).
page 58 note 1 Meister, 1. 221, 254. For the etymology of δήv, see Boisacq, 183.
page 58 note 2 Hoffmann, 1. 71, 228, 242, 254.
page 58 note 3 Schwyzer, p. 431.
page 58 note 4 Buck, GD 182. For the etymology of 
, see Boisacq, 309; WP 1. 668-70.
page 58 note 5 For examples, see Buck, GD 54 (ζ∈, ζικαια, ζιφvιοv, ζαμιοργια, ϝ∈ιζοs; cf. Rhod. τοζ' = τóδ∈, Arg. ϝισζ∈ι∈ = ∈ìδ∈ìη).
page 58 note 6 Schwyzer, 6799,18, απv ται ζαι ‘from the land’; 67930, ταs ζαs ‘the lands’; 67924, ἐζ rat ζαι ‘from the land’; 6804, ι(v) τvχαι αζαϑαι. See also Thumb, Hdb. 292; Meister, 2. 254; Bechtel, 1. 411; Brugmann, Grundriss 12. 276; Hirt, Gram. 3. 12; Hoffmann, 1. 221.
page 58 note 7 Boisacq, 142; BT 627; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 1002-3; Hirt, Gram. 3. 12.
page 58 note 8 Boisacq, 596; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 1008.
page 58 note 9 Boisacq, 424; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 1000; BT 624.
page 58 note 10 Boisacq, 673; Brugmann, 22. 3. 991-2; WP 2. 340.
page 59 note 1 For the literature on this inscription, see Schwyzer, 686.
page 59 note 2 R. Meister, ASG 56. 39 (1904).
page 59 note 3 W. Ramsay, JHS 1. 255 (1880).
page 59 note 4 Boisacq, 65, 100; WP 2. 493-4. For Lat. sōns ‘guilty’, OHG sunt(e)a ‘sin’, frequently supposed to be cognate with this base, see Walde, 725; WP 1. 160-1, 2. 514.
page 60 note 5 Bechtel, 2. 800, following A. Bezzenberger, BB 5. 332 (1880); cf. R. Meister, ASG 56. 38 (1904).
page 60 note 6 R. Meister, ASG 56. 35 (1904).
page 60 note 7 Meyer, 296-7.
page 61 note 1 Schwyzer, 6798,31; Buck, GD No. 1931 is followed for ∈ξōσι and ιōσι.
page 61 note 2 H. Ahrens, Phil. 35. 42 (1876).
page 61 note 3 Meister, 2. 151.
page 61 note 4 SGDI 608.31.
page 61 note 5 Hoffmann, 1. 70.
page 61 note 6 Schwyzer, 6798,31.
page 61 note 7 Buck, GD 181, 182.
page 61 note 8 Searles, 55.
page 61 note 9 W. Deecke and J. Siegismund, Curtius, Stud. 7. 249 (1875).
page 61 note 10 This actually occurs in Hebrew 'īr 'city', Sabaean 'R 'fortified height', Phoenician 'R 'city'. The vocalism of 'R, like the etymology of the word itself, is unknown.
page 62 note 11 Hirt, Ablaut 76-7.
page 62 note 12 BT 221; Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 1. 301.
page 62 note 13 WP 1. 78-9.
page 63 note 14 WP 2. 459-63, especially 459-60.
page 64 note 1 Buck, 181-2 footnote, quotes the Hesychian gloss 
.
page 64 note 2 Buck, 326.
page 64 note 3 Boisacq, 48; Prellwitz, 17; cf. also Hoffmann, 1. 71, 107, 157, 195, 217; BT 47. For the group, see especially Solmsen, Unters. 104-12, particularly 109-10.
page 64 note 4 Bechtel 1. 407, 423.
page 64 note 5 Meister, 2. 243.
page 64 note 6 WP 1. 86-7.
page 65 note 7 WP 2. 504-5; Fick, 2. 301-2 (OIr. selb); Meillet, Études sur l'étymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave, 419 (Paris, 1902-5) (OCSlav. selo).
page 66 note 1 Wiegand, BerlAbh. 20-2 (1908). See also Dittenberger, 3. 1002; W. Otto, H. 44. 594-7 (1909); Wilamowitz, GöttAnz. 1914. 100; SGDI 4. pp. 863-4 n. 36; Schwyzer, 728. In the translation, σπ[λα]γχαvα is taken to mean the inner parts of the sacrificial animal in contradistinction to δ∈ρματα ‘skins’ or Outer parts' ; and seem to be the words following grouped together, in apposition to aπ[λa]γχαvα. This interpretation may be open to question for the word generally means ‘viscera’, such as ‘kidneys, lungs, heart’. Σκολιοv literally means a ‘curved, winding, twisted thing’, but what its significance is when connected with the body is unknown. The suggestion is advanced that it here indicates the ‘lungs’. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words of this passage is quite uncertain. It might also mean ‘intestines’.
page 66 note 2 Similarly, Schwyzer, p. 417.
page 67 note 3 Boisacq, 549; WP 2. 436; Solmsen, Unters. 82; E. Zupitza, Die germanischen Gutturale 179 (Berlin, 1896); Berneker, 1. 742-3 ;Fick, 1. 536; H. Osthoff, MU 6. 5 (1910); Trautmann, AP 396.
page 67 note 4 WP 2. 426-7.
page 68 note 1 Buck, GD 279 footnote; so also Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, new ed. 1054 (Oxford, 1925 sqq.)
page 68 note 2 Schwyzer, p. 440.
page 68 note 3 SGDI 4952C29 and note.
page 68 note 4 Bechtel, 2. 789 (cf. 376-7).
page 68 note 5 Boisacq, 566; WP 2. 396-7; Walde, 433-4.
page 68 note 6 BT 42, 49, 114-5, 119.
page 69 note 7 WP 2. 401.
page 70 note 1 R. Meister, ASG 56. 37 (1904).
page 70 note 2 Bechtel, 2. 821.
page 70 note 3 Buck, GD 325.
page 70 note 4 Bechtel, 1. 204.
page 70 note 5 Boisacq, 28; for áγρa, 9-10.
page 70 note 6 Persson, Beitr. 575-6; cf. also Wurz. 59-67.
page 71 note 7 Falk-Torp, 1089, 1550.
page 72 note 1 Schwyzer, 1483. J. Baunack, Phil. 65. 474 sqq. (1906), and B. Keil, GöttNach. 231-2 (1906), consider the possibility of a stone-cutter's error; cf. also F. Solmsen, AM 31. 347 sqq.
page 72 note 2 Buck, GD 60; BT 95; F. Solmsen, Wortf. 106; Thumb, Hdb. 118; Prellwitz, 92; Bechtel, 2. 178.
page 72 note 3 Boisacq, 239-40, 246; WP 1. 294; Walde, 855.
page 72 note 4 WP 1. 258-60.
page 73 note 5 P. 73.
page 74 note 1 Bechtel, 2. 713-4.
page 74 note 2 Buck, GD 69-70. SGDI 4. p. 1146, also refers vuvαμαι to δύvαμαι.
page 74 note 3 BT 334; K. Brugmann, IF 30. 372 (1912).
page 74 note 4 Brugmann, Grundriss 22. 3. 306; and IF 30. 372 (1912).
page 74 note 5 Boisacq, 672, 785.
page 74 note 6 Buck, GD 275 footnote, translates οπαι κα (v)uvαται καλλιστα ‘as best they can’.
page 75 note 7 P. 28.
page 76 note 1 W. Vollgraff, Mnem. 57.226-7 (1929); discussion of the whole inscription, with text and photographic copy, ib. 206-34.
page 76 note 2 V. Boissevain, Mnem. 58. 17 (1930).
page 76 note 3 E. Schwyzer, RhM 79. 322-5 (1930).
page 76 note 4 WP 1. 312, places íδιοs under an IE base ṷi- ‘auseinander’, and this seems a better etymology than Schwyzer's; cf. Boisacq, 366.
page 76 note 5 Cf. Boisacq, 575, 318 note; WP 2. 527.
page 77 note 6 Boisacq, 282-3 (doubted by WP 2. 527).
page 77 note 7 Cf. Buck, OU 229.
page 77 note 8 Buck, GD 45; Bechtel, 1. 228; F. Sommer, Griechische Lautstudien 92, 96, 110 (Strasbourg, 1905); Pamph. ϝh∈ (Schwyzer 68623) is too fragmentary to admit more than confirmation of the presence of the group ϝh.
page 77 note 9 The present writer is pleased to learn that in this interpretation of ϝh∈ρι∈σταs he has arrived independently at the same conclusions as Mr. Sidney P. Goodrich of the University of Cincinnati.