Latin lex

HABIS44

SEVILLA 2013

DIRECTORESRocío Carande Herrero y Salvador Ordóñez Agulla

CONSEJO DE REDACCIÓNLuis Ballesteros Pastor (Universidad de Sevilla, España), María Luisa de la Bandera Romero

(Universidad de Sevilla, España), José Beltrán Fortes (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Antonio Bravo García (Universidad Complutense, España), Antonio Caballos Rufino (Universidad de Sevilla, España),

José María Candáu Morón (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Francisca Chaves Tristán (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Juan Fernández Valverde (Universidad Pablo de Olavide, España), Enrique García

Vargas (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Pilar León Alonso (Universidad de Sevilla, España), José María Maestre Maestre (Universidad de Cádiz, España), José Luis Moralejo Álvarez (Universidad de Alcalá, España), Antonio Ramírez de Verger (Universidad de Huelva, España), José Miguel Serrano Delgado (Universidad de Sevilla, España), José Solís de los Santos (Universidad de Sevilla, España),

Francisco Villar Liébana (Universidad de Salamanca, España)

SECRETARIOSOliva Rodríguez Gutiérrez y Rafael Martínez Vázquez

CONSEJO ASESORRutger J. Allan (Universidad de Amsterdam, Holanda), Manuel Bendala Galán (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Máximo Brioso Sánchez (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Genaro Chic García (Universidad de Sevilla, España), José Antonio Correa Rodríguez (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Francisco Javier Fernández Nieto (Universidad de Valencia, España), Manuel García Teijeiro (Universidad de Valladolid, España), Juan Gil Fernández (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Luis Gil Fernández (Universidad Complutense, España), Cristóbal González Román (Universidad de Granada, España), Javier de Hoz Bravo (Universidad Complutense, España), Simon J. Keay (Universidad de Southampton, Reino Unido), Peter Kruschwitz (Universidad de Reading, Reino Unido), Francisco J. Lomas Salmonte (Universidad de Cádiz, España), Jesús Luque Moreno (Universidad de Granada, España), José María Luzón Nogué (Universidad Complutense, España), Mª Cruz Marín Ceballos (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Manuel Pellicer Catalán (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Patrizio Pensabene (Universidad de Roma “La Sapienza”, Italia), Emilia Ruiz-Yamuza (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Eustaquio Sánchez Salor (Universidad de Extremadura,España), Bartolomé Segura Ramos (Universidad de Sevilla, España), Emilio Suárez de la Torre (Universidad de Valladolid, España), Nicolas Tran (Universidad de Poitiers)

Reservados todos los derechos. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro pue-den reproducirse o transmitirse por ningún procedimiento electrónico o mecánico, incluyendo fotocopia, grabación magnética o cualquier al-macenamiento de información y sistema de recuperación, sin permiso escrito del Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla.

Este volumen ha sido parcialmente financiado por las Facultades de Filología y Geografía e Historia de la Universidad de Sevilla.

© UNIVERSIDAD DE SEVILLA SECRETARIADO DE PUBLICACIONES 2013 c/ Porvenir, 27. 41013 Sevilla Teléfonos: 954 48 74 46 - 74 51. Fax: 954 48 74 43 Correo electrónico: [email protected] http://www.publius.us.es

Impreso en España-Printed in SpainISSN 0210-7694Depósito Legal: SE-669-1994Maquetación e Impresión: Pinelo Talleres Gráficos, s.l.-Camas. Sevilla

5

ÍNDICE

ELWIRA KACZYŃSKA. The Indo-European Origin of Latin lex ........... 7

BARTOLOMÉ SEGURA RAMOS. Los dioses de la Ilíada (I) ................. 15

CÉSAR FORNIS. Cinisca olimpiónica, paradigma de una nueva Esparta 31

MÁXIMO BRIOSO SÁNCHEZ. Las sirenas en la épica griega: de Homero a las Argonáuticas órficas (II) .............................................. 43

JORGE GARCÍA SÁNCHEZ. Arqueología de la paideia. Las sedes de la educación superior en las provincias helenísticas del Imperio (I): las escuelas privadas ................................................................................. 61

ENRIQUE ÁNGEL RAMOS JURADO. Moderato de Gades: testimonios y fragmentos .................................................................... 85

LORETO GÓMEZ ARAUJO. Nuevas propuestas interpretativas de las termas de Munigua (Villanueva de Río y Minas, Sevilla) ................. 93

JAVIER ANDREU PINTADO. Sobre un repertorio de objetos de hueso romanos del Norte de la Tarraconense: Los Bañales de Uncastillo (Zaragoza, España) .............................................................................. 115

MARTA GONZÁLEZ HERRERO. El uso de la tribu Quirina por Claudio. A propósito de CIL II, 159 .................................................... 141

SALVADOR ORDÓÑEZ AGULLA / SERGIO GARCÍA-DILS DE LA VEGA. Evidencia de inscripciones monumentales asociadas al templo principal de Colonia Augusta Firma ...................................... 157

SILVIA TANTIMONACO. La ordinatio de inscripciones romanas sobre piedra: un testimonio inédito de Cacera de las Ranas (Aranjuez, Madrid) ................................................................................................ 185

DIEGO ROMERO VERA / RAMÓN MELERO GUIRADO. Nuevos hallazgos epigráficos en la comarca de Cazorla (Jaén) ....................... 203

SABINO PEREA YÉBENES. CIL II 2663 y la fórmula “in his actarius”: un colegio militar de equites legionis VII Geminae en Legio ............ 221

M. M. ALVES-DIAS / C. GASPAR / V. LOPES. Mértola en la Antigüedad Tardía: nuevos datos arqueológicos y epigráficos........... 247

LILIANA PÉGOLO. Immitis Achilles: sexualidad y violencia en los Commentarii de Servio a la Eneida .................................................... 269

6

PEDRO CASTILLO MALDONADO. El cristianismo y las iglesias del Sur peninsular en la Antigüedad Tardía: balance histórico ................ 281

JOSÉ CARLOS MARTÍN-IGLESIAS. Dos versiones inéditas de la passio s. Zoili (BHL 9022) y la inuentio s. Zoili (BHL 9024d) en manuscritos de origen leonés .............................................................. 305

PAMINA FERNÁNDEZ CAMACHO. Cádiz entre Europa y África: una paradoja geográfica ............................................................................. 323

F. VILLAR LIÉBANA / J.-E. VILLAR LIÉBANA. El topónimo antiguo del actual Torredonjimeno .................................................................. 337

JUAN GIL. De Alta Edad Media hispana ................................................... 359

ELENA REDONDO MOYANO. Cohesión discursiva y adverbios de tiempo .................................................................................................. 367

RESEÑAS .................................................................................................... 385

Michael von Albrecht, Virgilio. Bucólicas, Geórgicas y Eneida. Una introduc-ción. (Ana Pérez Vega) 385 ● Jaime Alvar, Los cultos egipcios en Hispania. (José Beltrán Fortes) 388 ● Carmen Aranegui Gascó, Los iberos ayer y hoy. Arqueologías y culturas (Francisco Javier Medianero Soto) 391 ● Gregorio Carrasco Serrano (coord.), La ciudad romana en Castilla-La Mancha (Oliva Rodríguez Gutiérrez) 393 ● Catherine Collobert, Pierre Destrée, Francisco J. González, Plato and Myth. Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myths (Rodrigo Verano) 397 ● Paolo Cugusi, Carmina Latina Epigraphica Hispa-nica post Buechelerianam collectionem editam reperta cognita (CLEHisp) (Ja-vier del Hoyo) 400 ● E. S. Gruen, Rethinking the Other in Antiquity (Jorge García Cardiel) 405 ● M. J. Hidalgo de la Vega, Las emperatrices romanas. Sueños de púrpura y poder oculto (Pilar Pavón) 409 ● Santiago Montero He-rrero, El Emperador y los ríos. Religión, ingeniería y política en el Imperio Ro-mano (Sabino Perea Yébenes) 412 ● B. Mora Serrano y G. Cruz Andreotti (coords.), La etapa neopúnica en Hispania y el Mediterráneo centro occidental: identidades compartidas (Encarnación Castro Páez) 417 ● J. Moralejo Ordax, El armamento y la táctica militar de los galos: fuentes literarias, arqueológi-cas e iconográficas (Manuel Ramírez Sánchez) 421 ● Miguel Ángel Novillo López, César y Pompeyo en Hispania. Territorio de ensayo jurídico-adminis-trativo en la tardía República romana (Sergio España Chamorro) 426 ● Mire-lla Romero Recio, Ecos de un descubrimiento. Viajeros españoles en Pompeya (1748-1936) (José Beltrán Fortes) 429 ● Germán Santana Henríquez (ed.), Li-teratura y cine (Máximo Brioso Sánchez) 431

AGUSTÍN GARCÍA CALVO. In Memoriam .............................................. 437

BERTRAND GOFFAUX. In Memoriam .................................................... 441

HABIS 44 (2013) 7-14 - © Universidad de sevilla - ISSN 0210-7694 7

THE INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGIN OF LATIN LEX

Elwira KaczyńskaUniversity of Łódź

[email protected]

EL ORIGEN INDOEUROPEO DEL APELATIVO LATINO LEX

RESUMEN: La autora acepta la etimología tradi-cional de acuerdo con la que el apelativo latino lex deriva del verbo legō (‘recoger, leer’), designando originariamente ‘la colección (de principios jurí-dicos)’. Comparte el mismo origen la palabra del sánscrito sraj- ‘corona de flores, guirnalda, corona que se lleva en la cabeza’, originariamente ‘co-lección (de flores)’. Ambos sustantivos abstrac-tos (nomina abstracta), documentados en latín y en sánscrito, se reducen al mismo arquetipo *sleĝs (f.), que se formó a partir de la raíz indoeuropea *sleĝ- ‘recoger’ (la cual se reconstruye de modo erróneo como *leĝ-). Las formas afines griegas y albanesas confirman la derivación sugerida de la raíz indoeuropea *sleĝ-. PALABRAS CLAVE: etimología latina; lex; nombres raíz indoeuropeos

ABSTRACT: The author accepts the traditional etymology according to which Latin lex (f.) de-rives from the verb legō ‘to gather, take off, tear off, pick, roll up, look through, read’, denoting originally ‘collection (of legal rules, principles)’. The same origin is suggested for Sanskrit sraj- (f.) ‘wreath of flowers, garland, chaplet worn on the head, any wreath or garland, circle, series, chain’, orig. ‘collection (of flowers)’. The two ab-stract nouns, attested in Latin and Sanskrit, must be treated as the same identical root formation *sleĝs (f.), derived from IE. *sleĝ- ‘to collect, to gather’ (and not *leĝ-). Also the Greek and Al-banian forms document the suggested derivation from IE. *sleĝ-.KEYWORDS: Latin etymology; lex; Indo-Euro-pean root nouns

RECIBIDO: 03.12.2012. ACEPTADO: 29.04.2013

i. introdUction

The Latin word lēx, gen. sg. lēgis f. ‘(legal) formula; contract, arrangement, law; resolution; regulation, rule’ probably represents the root noun whose orig-inal meaning was ‘collection (of legal rules, principles)’, relating directly to the

8 HABIS 44 (2013) 7-14 - © Universidad de sevilla - ISSN 0210-7694

ELWIRA KACZYŃSKA

Latin verb legō ‘to gather, take off, tear off, pick, roll up, look through, read’ 1. The foregoing derivation is not ruled out by the etymologists; for instance, the French linguists Ernout and Meillet 1951: 631, s.v. lēx, state: “Il est possible, mais non évident, que ce nom appartienne à la racine de lat. legō”. A similar position is maintained by Walde and Hoffmann 1938: 789, s.v. lēx, who nonetheless voice reservations about the semantic aspect. De Vaan 2008: 337 accepts the original meaning ‘collection’, adding the following comment:

The PIt. [= Proto-Italic] root noun *lēg- ‘law’ can be interpreted as a ‘collec-tion’ of rules. Whether the root noun existed already in PIE [= Proto-Indo-Euro-pean] is uncertain for lack of precise cognates 2.

Following De Vaan and others, I accept the traditional etymology, which derives Latin lēx from the Latin verb legō. The verb in question represents an Indo-European heritage, cf. Greek λέγω ‘to gather, select, count, calculate’, sec-ondarily ‘to speak, call’ 3 and Albanian mb(ë)ledh ‘to gather, clean up crops’ (Aor. mblodh). The Indo-European root is commonly reconstructed as *leĝ- ‘to gather / sammeln, auflesen’ 4.

In my paper I would like to demonstrate that (1) the Latin noun lēx has a pre-cise cognate in Sanskrit; (2) the root noun *(s)leĝ-s existed already in Indo-Euro-pean; (3) the reconstruction *sleĝ- is more acceptable than *leĝ-.

2. latin lēx and sanskrit sraj-

In my opinion, the exact equivalent of the Latin lexeme appears not only in Italic (cf. Marrucinian līxs nom. sg. ‘law’, Oscan līgud abl. sg. ‘lege’, līgis abl. pl. ‘legibus’, Samnian legu gen. sg. ‘of the laws’ and so on 5), but also in Old Indic, cf. Sanskrit sraj- f. (nom. sg. srak, instr. sg. srajā, loc. sg. sraji) ‘wreath of flowers, garland, chaplet worn on the head, any wreath or garland, circle, series, chain’ 6, as well as srajā- f. ‘wreath of flowers / Blumenkranz’ 7. The Sanskrit term could

1 So F. Bücheler apud Walde 1910: 424f., s.v. lēx; R. Meringer apud Muller 1926: 233; Walde, Po-korny 1926: 422; Buck 1949: 1421; Pokorny 1959: 658, s.v. leĝ-. The traditional etymology is commonly accepted by most modern scholars, e.g. Weiss 1993: 15-28; Sihler 1995: 282; Roberts-Pastor 1996: 95; Mallory-Adams 1997: 346; De Vaan 2008: 337; Kaczyńska 2011: 244.

2 De Vaan 2008: 337.3 Cf. Liddell-Scott 1996: 1033-1034; Montanari 2003: 1171-1172.4 See Pokorny 1959: 568; Rix 2001: 397.5 Buck 1905: 199; Weiss 1993: 15-22; Untermann 2000: 434-435. See also Oscan lígatús (nom. pl.)

‘legati’, lígatúís (dat. pl.) ‘legatis’, as well as the Oscan goddess’s by-name líganakdíkeí (dat. sg. f.) ‘legi-ferae’. According to Weiss 1993: 22, the Samnian phrase legu tanginud ‘by the decree of the laws’ seems to contain a clear Latinism.

6 Monier-Williams 1999: 1274.7 See especially Mayrhoffer 1964: 553; 1996: 784.



indicate ‘garland, wreath’ as a ‘collection (of flowers)’. Manfred Mayrhoffer con-siders the etymology of the Sanskrit word to be doubtful 8.

The suggested comparison is completely accurate from the view-points of the word-formation, semantics and phonology. Firstly, both Latin and Sanskrit terms represent the root formations (based on IE. *leĝ- or *sleĝ- ‘to collect, gather’), both are nouns of feminine gender, both belong to the abstracts (‘collection’). Sec-ondly, both refer to the verbal root denoting the activity of ‘collecting, gathering’, though Latin lex denotes a ‘collection of rules’, Sanskrit sraj- means ‘wreath, garland’ i.e. ‘a collection of flowers’. Thirdly, the correspondences between Lat. l and Skt. r (as if from IE. *l), Lat. e/ē and Skt. a/ā (as if from IE. *e/ē), Lat. g and Skt. j (as if from IE. *ĝ) seem certain. Fourthly, the presence of s- in Sanskrit is not troublesome, though it requires some important comments (see No. 3-6).

The original declension should be reconstructed as follows:

nom. sg. *slḗĝs (cf. Lat. lēx, but Skt. srak is formed analogically);

gen. sg. *sleĝ-és (cf. Skt. srajás, but Lat. lēgis with an analogical lengthening);

dat. sg. *sleĝ-éi (cf. Skt. srajḗ, but Lat. lēgī instead of *lĕgī),

acc. sg. *sléĝ-ṃ (cf. Skt. srájam, Lat. lēgem instead of *lĕgem);

loc. sg. *sleĝ-í (> Skt. srají);

instr. sg. *sleĝ-éh1 (> Skt. srajā́);

In plural we might expect: nom. pl. sléĝ-es; gen. pl. *sleĝ-ṓm; acc. pl. *sléĝ-ṃs; loc. pl. *sleĝ-sú, instr. pl. *sleĝ-bhis.

The long vocalism of Latin lēx (gen. sg. lēgis) seems expectable in the nomi-native singular, but it cannot be treated as original in the oblique cases (Sanskrit sraj- f. demonstrates only the short vowel -ă- in the root). Thus the lengthening should be regarded as resulting from the nominative case (by analogy) or alter-natively from a long-grade verbal form 9. In fact, the long-grade ē-root variant *lēĝ- (or *slēĝ-) is well attested in the Latin perfect tense lēgī ‘I gathered’ and the Albanian aorist mblodh ‘id.’ (as if from Proto-Albanian *ambi-llēdh- < IE. *h2ṃbhi-slēĝ-). Thus it is obvious that the long-vowel preterite form *(s)lēĝ- was inherited from the parent language 10.

Though there are no traces of the verb *srájati in Old Indic, the nouns sraj- and srajā (f.) seem to demonstrate that Old Indic preserved a pair of derivatives of

8 Mayrhoffer 1964: 553: “Nicht überzeugend erklärt”; Mayrhoffer 1996: 784: “Nicht sicher gedeutet”.9 Sihler 1995: 581f.; Weiss 2009: 412–413.10 According to Weiss 1993: 23, the lengthened grade of the root may be related to the Narten ver-

bal paradigm. He adds that “such a root Narten ablaut originally extended through all verbal and nom-inal formations”.


ELWIRA KACZYŃSKA

the Indo-European root *(s)leĝ- ‘to gather, collect’. In any case, Sanskrit sraj- (f.) ‘wreath, garland’ (orig. ‘a collection of flowers’) should be regarded as an exact cognate of Latin lēx f. ‘law’ (orig. ‘a collection of rules’).

3. the problem of the initial *s-

The Sanskrit root noun sraj- (f.) differs from the Latin and Italic cognates in that it contains the initial sibilant *s-. This difference might be explained in two ways:

1. The Sanskrit form sraj- contains the so called s-mobile added to the In-do-European root *leĝ- ‘to collect, gather’. The movable *s- occurs in the initial position of some Indo-European verbal and nominal roots, but it is absent from other examples. It is frequently explained as an addition created in the sandhi en-vironment by the false decomposition.

2. It is not impossible to suggest that the initial *s- was originally present in the Italic subgroup of languages, as well as in Greek. The initial cluster *sl- has been simplified to l- in Latin and to λ- in Greek 11, cf. Lat. līmus m. ‘slime, mud, dirt’ vs. Old Norse slīm adj. ‘thin, slim’, Old Eng. slīm, Old German slīmen ‘clean’ (< *sleimos); Lat. līmāx (m. and f.) ‘snail’, Greek dial. (Hesych.) λείμακες ‘naked snails’ vs. Pol. ślimak ‘snail’ (< PIE. *slei-meh2k-s).

The former possibility allows us to reconstruct the Indo-European verbal root *(s)leĝ- (with the ‘movable’ *s-), the latter one seems to suggest that the recon-struction *sleĝ- (and not *leĝ-) might be correct.

Below I intend to discuss the problem. It is obvious that the Latin and Italic examples are completely ambiguous (e.g. Lat. legō may derive both from *leĝ- or *sleĝ-). The Sanskrit sraj- contains the initial s-. Whether it represents s-mobile or not, the answer is uncertain.

In this situation we should review the Greek and Albanian lexical data, which demonstrate many verbal forms of the Indo-European root *leĝ- or *sleĝ- and a number of derivatives.

4. the Greek evidence for the clUster *sl

The Greek lexical material indicates quite convincingly that the Indo-Euro-pean root began with some consonantal cluster (e.g. *sl-). Let us consider consec-utively the confirmed forms:

11 See Rix 1992: 76f.; Sihler 1998: 171; Meiser 2006: 112.



A. The Aeolic form ἐπίλλογος m. (Alcaeus, Fr. 204, 2) 12 corresponds to the Attic-Ionic form ἐπίλογος. The Aeolic geminate -λλ- remains inexplicable if the word in question stems from the traditionally reconstructed Proto-Indo-European pre-form *h1epi-loĝos. The gemination in the Aeolic dialect must represent some consonantal cluster (*σλ, or *ϝλ). So, in our attempt to clarify the origin of the Aeolic ἐπίλλογος, it is necessary for us to assume the archetype *h1epi-sloĝos. Thereby, the Indo-European root must have sounded *sleĝ-. The Aeolic form rules out the traditional reconstruction *leĝ-.

B. The perfect form εἴλοχα might be derived from the reduplicated pre-form *se-sloĝ-h2e 13, which goes back to the Proto-Indo-European root *sleĝ-, show-ing a regular apophonic variant (with the vocalism *-o-) as well as the aspiration of the velar consonant *ĝ in the proximity of the laryngeal sound *h2. The afore-mentioned derivation of εἴλοχα is fully understandable in the light of the perfect form εἴληφα (Doric εἴλᾱφα), which is a continuation of the pre-form *hε-hλᾱφα (< Proto-Indo-European *se-sleh2gṷ-h2e). There is absolutely no doubt that the perfect forms λέλεχα and λέλεγα are secondary both in their structure and mean-ing (referring only to the sense ‘to speak’). The regular perfect form, derived from the root *leĝ-, would sound **λέλοχα (< Proto-Indo-European **le-loĝ-h2e), which form is not in fact attested. Therefore, the perfect form εἴλοχα should be deemed original and archaic, whereas the forms λέλεχα and λέλεγα – second-ary and analogical 14.

C. Greek Ionic-Attic ἀμφιλέγω, Doric ἀμφιλλέγω ‘to dispute, dispute about’ can be explained in two different ways: on the one hand, it may contain the rare Greek prefix ἀμφίς adv. ‘from both sides, on both sides, around, round, from all sides’ (e.g. cf. Attic ἀμφισ-βητέω, Ionic ἀμφισ-βατέω ‘to go separate ways, dis-agree’), while on the other hand – the Greek common prefix ἀμφί adv. ‘on both sides, around, round’ (< Proto-Indo-European *h2ṃbhi). The geminate -λλ-, con-firmed in the Doric dialect, needs clarification. Unfortunately, we have no pos-sibility of deciding whether the Greek verbum compositum goes back to the Proto-Indo-European *h2ṃbhis-leĝ- (according to the traditional interpretation, that is what the universally accepted pre-form would look like), or *h2ṃbhi-sleĝ-. The Albanian counterpart mb(ë)ledh ‘gather, clean up crops’ does not resolve the problem of the alternative, either, although there is no doubt that the Albanian -l- goes back to a kind of geminate.

My conclusion is: The internal analysis of the Greek material shows that there are such Greek forms as, e.g., Aeolic Greek ἐπίλλογος, Attic εἴλοχα, which clearly evidence that the onset of the Greek verb λέγω included originally a consonantal

12 Rodríguez Somolinos 1998: 219, 247. See also Liddell, Scott 1996: 127.13 After Rix 1992: 256 and Beekes 1995: 238 I reconstruct the 1 sg. perfect ending as *-h2e (and

not *-h2ṃ).14 See especially Kaczyńska 2011.


ELWIRA KACZYŃSKA

cluster (e.g. *sl- or *ṷl). The Proto-Indo-European verbal root *leĝ- ‘gather’ is therefore hard to keep up in the light of the Greek data. The alternative reconstruc-tion *sleĝ- is much better-grounded.

5. albanian evidence

For the Greek λέγω and Latin legō, the etymologists quote tertium compar-ationis in the form of the Albanian compound verb (verbum compositum) mb(ë)ledh ‘to gather, clean up crops’ (Aor. mblodh) 15, demonstrating the Albanian pre-fix mbë corresponding to the Greek ἀμφι- and Latin amb- (from IE. *h2ṃbhi- ‘around’ 16). So, the Albanian verb is synonymous with the Greek ἀμφιλέγω, Doric ἀμφιλλέγω ‘to dispute about, dispute, question’ 17. The Albanian counterpart is of great importance to the reconstruction of the original form of the Indo-Euro-pean root as it shows the palatal character of the voiced guttural appearing in the root (Albanian dh < Proto-Indo-European *ĝ). Besides, unlike the Greek verbum compositum having the figurative sense, the Albanian verb preserved the original meaning ‘to gather’. Therefore, both the phonetics and semantics provide suffi-cient evidence that the Albanian word was not a borrowed verb.

The Albanian phoneme l (pronounced like [l] or [ľ]) stems from the geminate *ll in intervocalic position, as found in numerous Latin loan-words (e.g. Alb. ng-jalë ‘eel’ < Lat. anguilla; Alb. bulë f. ‘bud’ < Lat. bulla; Alb. kál (Rom. kal) m. ‘horse’ < Lat. caballus; Alb. qelë ‘priest’s house’ < Lat. cella; Alb. fjalë f. ‘word, speech, tale’ < Lat. fabella; Alb. gjel ‘cock’ < Lat. gallus, etc.), whereas the Al-banian phoneme ll (a velarized alveolar lateral, pronounced like the English w) comes from the single liquid consonant in the same position (e.g. Alb. engjëll (dial. êjill) ‘angel’ < Lat. angelus; Alb. prill ‘April’ < Lat. aprīlis; Alb. buell ‘bull’ < Lat. būbalus; Alb. qiell ‘sky’ < Lat. caelum; Alb. kallm ‘reed, straw’ < Lat. cala-mus; Alb. kallënduor ‘calendar’ < Lat. calendārium; Alb. këndellë ‘candle’ < Lat. candēla, etc. 18). The pre-Albanian geminate *ll (whence Alb. l) could point to an original consonantal cluster (e.g. *sl-, *ṷl-, also *ln or *lĝ 19), however not to the single Proto-Indo-European phoneme *l.

The obvious conclusion is that the Albanian lexical data give a positive evi-dence to reconstruct the Indo-European root *sleĝ- (and not *leĝ-).

15 Cf. Walde, Hoffmann 1938: 780; Pokorny 1959: 658; Orel 1998: 251; Rix 2001: 356; Beekes 2010: 841-842.

16 Beekes 1995: 221. See also Skt. abhi-, Av. aibi-, aiwi-, OIr. imb-, OHG. umbi.17 Liddell-Scott 1996: 92.18 See especially Pedersen 1895: 535-551. Examples of the Albanian borrowings from Latin are

quoted after Haarmann 1978: 200-271.19 Demiraj 1997: 52, 55 derives the Albanian intervocalic -l- from IE. *-ln- (e.g. Alb. dal ‘to go out’

= Gk. θάλλω ‘to bloom’ < IE. *dhalnō), as well as from IE. *-lĝ- (e.g. Alb. mjel ‘to milk’ = Gk. ἀμέλγω ‘id.’ < IE. *h2melĝō).



6. indo-eUropean *sleĝ- ‘to Gather, collect’

The Latin lexical material offers no possibility of determining the original form of the Indo-European root (Lat. legō may continue not only the Indo-Euro-pean root *leĝ-, but also *sleĝ- or *ṷleĝ-). For this reason, the Greek, Albanian and Sanskrit data must be taken into consideration.

The Greek and Albanian data indicate the initial cluster *sl- (or alternatively *ṷl-), whereas the Sanskrit nominal forms contain the cluster sr- (as if from *sl-). Thus we reach to the final conclusion that the Indo-European verbal root denoting ‘to gather, collect’ should be reconstructed as *sleĝ-. It is necessary to conclude that the traditional reconstruction *leĝ- should be treated as obsolete (out of date).

7. the root noUn *sleĝ-s f. ‘GatherinG, collection’

The Italic languages (namely Latin, Marrucinian and Oscan) demonstrate the root noun *lēgs which seems to come back to the archetype *slēĝ-s (gen. sg. *sleĝés). This root noun had to be created as early as in the Indo-European times, if my hypothesis, according to which the Sanskrit appellative sraj- (f.) ‘wreath, garland’ corresponds to the Latin word lēx (f.) ‘law’ and refers to the verbal root *sleĝ-, appears to be correct.

references

Beekes 1995: R. S. P. Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. An Intro-duction (Amsterdam-Philadelphia 1995).

Beekes 2010: R. Beekes, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, vol. 1-2 (Leiden-Bos-ton 2010).

Buck 1905: C. D. Buck, Elementarbuch der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte (Hei-delberg 1905).

Buck 1949: C. D. Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal In-do-European Languages. A Contribution to the History of Ideas (Chicago 1949).

Demiraj 1997: B. Demiraj, Albanische Etymologien (Untersuchungen zum alba-nischen Erbwortschatz) (Amsterdam-Atlanta 1997).

De Vaan 2008: M. de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Leiden-Boston 2008).

Ernout-Meillet 1951: A. Ernout-A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots (Paris 1951 [3e éd.]).

Haarmann 1978: H. Haarmann, Balkanlinguistik (1). Areallinguistik und Lexiko-statistik des balkanlateinischen Wortschatzes (Tübingen 1978).

Kaczyńska 2011: E. Kaczyńska, “Perfect Forms of the Verb λέγω”, Eos 98.2 (2011) 241-246.


ELWIRA KACZYŃSKA

Liddell-Scott 1996: H. G. Liddell-R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. With a Re-vised Supplement (Oxford 1996).

Mallory-Adams 1997: J. P. Mallory-D. Q. Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-Euro-pean Culture (London-Chicago 1997).

Mayrhoffer 1964: M. Mayrhoffer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen, B. III (Heidelberg 1964).

Mayrhoffer 1996: M. Mayrhoffer, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoa-rischen, B. II (Heidelberg 1996).

Meiser 2006: G. Meiser, Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, 2. Auflage (Darmstadt 2006).

Monier-Williams 1999: M. Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Delhi 1999 [A reprint of the first edition published in Oxford in 1899]).

Montanari 2003: F. Montanari, Vocabolario della lingua greca (Milano 2003).Muller 1928: F. Muller, Altitalisches Wörterbuch (Göttingen 1926).Pedersen 1895: H. Pedersen, “Die albanesischen l-Laute”, Zeitschrift für ver-

gleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der idg. Sprachen (KZ) 33 (1895), 535–551.

Pokorny 1959: J. Pokorny, Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Bern-München 1959).

Rix 1992: H. Rix, Historische Grammatik des Griechischen. Laut- und Formen-lehre, 2. korrigierte Auflage (Darmstadt 1992).

Rix 2001: H. Rix (Hrsg.), Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, Zweite Auflage (Wiesbaden 2001).

Roberts-Pastor 1996: E. A. Roberts-B. Pastor, Diccionario etimológico indoeuro-peo de la lengua española (Madrid 1996).

Rodríguez Somolinos 1998: H. Rodríguez Somolinos, El léxico de los poetas les-bios (Madrid 1998).

Sihler 1995: A. L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (New York-Oxford 1995).

Untermann 2000: J. Untermann, Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen (Heidel-berg 2000).

Walde 1910: A. Walde, Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Heidelberg 1910).Walde-Pokorny 1926: A. Walde-J. Pokorny, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indo-

germanischen Sprachen, B. II (Berlin-Leipzig 1926).Walde-Hoffmann 1938: A. Walde-J. B. Hoffmann, Lateinisches etymologisches

Wörterbuch, 3. neubearbeitete Auflage. B. I (A-L) (Heidelberg 1938).Weiss 1993: M. L. Weiss, Studies in Italic Nominal Morphology. A Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University. UMI (AnnArbor, MI 48106 1993).

Weiss 2009: M. Weiss, Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin (Ann Arbor-New York 2009).

Latin lex

Documents

Transcript of Latin lex