A New Phrygian inscription from Kadınkuyu

(1)

PEETERS LEUVEN - PARIS

2020

COLLECTION LINGUISTIQUE

publiée par la

SOCIÉTÉ DE LINGUISTIQUE DE PARIS

CVI

Ὀνομάτων

ἵστωρ

Mélanges offerts à Charles de Lamberterie

Textes réunis par

(2)

Ὀνομάτων ἵστωρ, Mélanges offerts à Charles de Lamberterie Louvain, Peeters, 2020, p. 691-695.

__________________________________________________________________________

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Préface……… IX

Publications de Charles de Lamberterie……… XIII Première partie : Linguistique et philologie arméniennes Rose Varteni Chétanian, Agnès Ouzounian

Les citations scripturaires dans la version arménienne de la Démonstration de la prédication apostolique d’Irénée de

Lyon……….. 3

James Clackson

The development of *o in Armenian: the evidence of Greek

loanwords……….… 33

Richard Faure

Relatives et interrogatives en arménien classique et dans le grec des Évangiles. Un cas d’interpénétration syntaxique………….…... 45 Petr Kocharov

Armenian busanim and Greek πέφυκα………..……… 61 Daniel Kölligan

Etyma armeniaca……….…... 71 Jean-Pierre Mahé

Sur les bases philologiques de la linguistique arménienne : le cas des participes aoristes radicaux athématiques………... 89 Vincent Martzloff

(3)

692 Table des matières

692 Table des matières Birgit Anette Olsen

An Armenian sound law revisited : *-eu̯- > *-iw-?..……… 115 James Russell

A note on Arm. Vahangi……….…….……… 125

Théo van Lint

Kostandin of Erznka’s vademecum for the Spiritual Life. A Medieval Armenian Poetic Collection from the Early 14th

Century………. 129

Rémy Viredaz

Arménien tiw, tuənǰean « jour »………... 147 Deuxième partie : Linguistique et philologie grecques

Nicolas Bertrand

Enjambement et description chez Homère………... 163 Michèle Biraud

L’idylle 28 de Théocrite : structures centrées et organisation

mélodique………. 183

Alain Blanc

L’étymologie du nom des hilotes (grec Εἵλωτες)………. 197 Michel Casevitz

Sur un hapax homérique : aporie grammaticale pour défaillance

physique……… 219

Éric Dieu

Lycophron lecteur de Callimaque ? À propos de gr. τινθός,

(δια)τινθαλέος………... 225

Catherine Dobias

Trois notules de lexicographie grecque………. 241 Laurent Dubois

(4)

Table des matières 693 Table des matières 693 José Luis García Ramón

Grec κότος « rancune », hittite kattau̯ātar « tort, grief », « cause (ou objet de) vengeance, motif de querelle » : phraséologie, comparaison, reconstruction………. 261 Romain Garnier

Genèse du type homérique ὀψείοντες « désireux de voir » ……... 283 Olav Hackstein

Tocharian A o-n-, B au-n- ‘strike, begin; s’attaquer à’, and Arca-dian impv. oὔνη, ion. *oὔνει ‘run’………. 291 Jared Klein

PIE *nu as a Discourse Particle………. 307 Claire Le Feuvre

Qui n’entend point n’y entend rien : νῆϊς, -ϊδος « ignorant »………. 323 Michael Meier-Brügger

Zur Vorgeschichte von altgriechisch πάσσω………. 341 Sophie Minon

De ἐσχατιά au neutre ἔχθαρ, en passant par ἔκ(σ)τασις : béot. Ἐχθάτιος et cyrén. Ἐχθ̣ατ̣ι̣αν (?), deux noms ‘border-line’………... 345 Georges-Jean Pinault

Le bois, le bâton et la pique………... 353 Pierre Ragot

Étude morpho-syntaxique d’un lexème entre archaïsme et innova-tion : le composé grec ἀδηφάγος et le cycle de la racine i.-e. *h1

ed-/ *h1d- « manger »………. 391

Nathalie Rousseau

De καινοτομεῖν et καινοτομία à ground-breaking et bahnbrechend : une métaphore de l’innovation……….. 413 Françoise Skoda

Coquillage et ophtalmologie : sens et histoire du terme chémosis

(5)

694 Table des matières

Troisième partie : Autres langues indo-européennes Alain Christol

Ossète las « tirer », védique rātrī « nuit »………. 451 Emmanuel Dupraz

Note sur une inscription osque de la série iúvilas……….. 461 Nicole Guilleux

Renouer le fil entre latin ōrdior, ōrdō, ōrnō et grec ὄρδημα, ὄρδικον, ὠρδυλευσάμην………... 469 Stephanie Jamison

Vedic iṣudhyá- and Old Avestan išud-, išūidiia-: The Aim of

Praise……… 483

Pierre-Yves Lambert

Sur l’instrumental-sociatif du gaulois………... 495 Alexander Lubotsky

A New Phrygian inscription from Kadınkuyu……….. 515 Audrey Mathys

Proposition infinitive et verbes déclaratifs en germanique………… 521 Craig Melchert

Hittite tarru- ‘firm, secure’ and Luvian cognates……….. 541 Daniel Petit

Une correspondance balto-celtique ?……… 555 Rüdiger Schmitt

Paralipomena zum Altpersischen………….……… 575 Quatrième partie : Au-delà de la linguistique indo-européenne Françoise Bader

Émile Benveniste : le choix d’Émile et de ses signatures. Contribu-tion à la biographie d’Émile Benveniste………... 591 Jean Haudry

(6)

Table des matières 695

Table des matières 695

Jean-Pierre Levet Le nostratique d’Albert Cuny, disciple d’Antoine Meillet, son contenu, les recherches antérieures et postérieures sur les apparentements de l’indo-européen………...………... 617

Jean-Louis Perpillou Pouvoirs d’un chiffre……… 637

Index verborum………. 651

Index notionum………. 685

(7)

Ὀνομάτων ἵστωρ, Mélanges offerts à Charles de Lamberterie Louvain, Peeters, 2020, p. 515-520.

__________________________________________________________________________

A NEW PHRYGIAN INSCRIPTION FROM KADINKUYU

Alexander Lubotsky

In the village of Kadınkuyu near Başara (province of Eskişehir), Thomas Drew-Bear has discovered a door-stone of pitted local stone broken at top. Its measurements are: height 1.52; width 0.63; thickness 0.36; letter height (lines 1-2): 0.025, (line 3) 0.04. The surviving portion of the Phrygian inscription occupies the space between the bottom of the projecting moulding and the clumsily stylized incised acroteria separated by asymmetrical grape clusters which surmount a pediment in low relief above a recessed door, in the panels of which are represented: a chest above a door knocker, a keyplate with elongated extremities, a vase and a beaker on a tripod with curved legs and a basket with handles; below the panels is the end of the Phrygian inscription above a wide flat projecting moulding similar to that at top, now missing (Fig. 1 and 2).1

The Phrygian inscription reads: ...

[ατεα]μα τος νι με σζεμε- λως κε Τιε κε τιττετικμε- {relief}

νος ειτου

Several years before this discovery, in 2009, Thomas Drew-Bear received from a collector a photograph of an unpublished New Phrygian inscription (Fig. 3) and sent it to me.

At that time, we had no knowledge of the provenance of the stone, neither of its measurements, and decided not to publish the inscription for the time being. But when I prepared the Kadınkuyu inscription for publication, it occurred to me that the mentioned

(8)

516 _Aalexander_LEXANDER_Llubotsky_UBOTSKY 516

photograph represents the same inscription, only with the projecting moulding still intact (which means, incidentally, that mutilation is of a very recent date). We can thus finally read the complete original Phrygian inscription: ιος νι σεμουν κνουμα- νει κακουν αββερετοι αινι α- τεαμα τος νι με σζεμε- λως κε Τιε κε τιττετικμε- νος ειτου

“Whoever inflicts harm upon this grave or upon the stone, let him be cursed before men and Zeus”.

We still miss an epitaph, either in Greek (as usual), or in Phrygian. It is conceivable though that the epitaph is found on the back side of the stele.

LINGUISTIC COMMENTARY αββερετοι

In the first ninety New Phrygian inscriptions that were discovered, the only forms of the root βερ- that were found were αββερετ or αββερετορ, so when αββερετοι was encountered in 91 and 113, scholars considered it a mistake for αββερετορ (e.g., Brixhe 1978: 6). It now turns out, however, that αββερετοι is a more frequent form than αββερετορ. It occurs five times: in our inscription, in 91, 113, 129 (from Prymnessos, cf. Brixhe - Drew-Bear 2010),2_and,

possibly, in 25, where Hamilton, the only one who saw the inscrip-tion, read αββιρετο. On the other hand, αββερετορ is only found in two inscriptions, viz. 73 and 75.3_{Of these two occurrences,}

inscrip-tion 75 (ιος κακον αββερετορ κνουμανει αινι [––-] ζεμελως ιτε τιττετικμενος ειτου) is peculiar in several respects: the position of αββερετορ is aberrant and the misspelled ιτε (instead of τιε) shows

2. For the New Phrygian inscriptions and their numbering, cf. Ligorio – Lubotsky (2018: 1818). We can add to this collection No. 130 published by Avram (2015), so that the present inscription will be No. 131. For the reading of the Prymnessos inscription see further Lubotsky (2017).

(9)

anewphrygianinscriptionfromkadinkuyu 517 A NEW PHRYGIAN INSCRIPTION FROM KADINKUYU 517 that the inscription was carelessly written. In spite of its scant attes-tation, the form αββερετορ is secure, since the ending -τορ is also found in αδδακετορ (40 63; also [αδ]α̣κετορ 121).

The third form of this root in the apodosis, α(β)βερετ, also occurs five times (6, 11, 13, 103, 114); we may add to it two times µεβερετ (86, 111) in the protasis.

The distribution of the three forms α(β)βερετ, αββερετορ, and αββερετοι is not quite clear. Kortlandt (2016: 120) suggests that “αδδακετ was a perfect form ‘has put’ whereas αββερετορ and αββερετοι were middle forms of the imperfect ‘brought’ and the present ‘brings’, respectively.”

ατεαµα

The word occurs in six more inscriptions, but the form is every time a little different: τεαµας 115, τιαµας 87; ατεα̣µας 112, ατεα̣µ̣[ας] 102, <αδ> ατεαµα̣ς 14, ατεαµαις 120. The reading (and meaning) of ατ̣ι̣αµα 18 is uncertain.

If we do not count ατ̣ι̣αµα (18), the word only occurs in the protasis (‘whoever inflicts harm to this grave or to [this] (a)teamas’) and must refer to the monument or a part of it. Its feminine gender follows from 115. σα τ(ο)υ τεαµας ‘to this very (a)teamas’. The latter passage with its emphatic particle suggests that (a)teamas is a term for a stele or for a stone.

(10)

518 _Aalexander_LEXANDER_Llubotsky_UBOTSKY 518

Brixhe 1997: 48 hesitatingly explains the variants by assuming a compound with αδ- (+ τεαμας), but this remains ad hoc.

ιος νι ..., τος νι ...

The protasis of the NPhr. malediction formulas is normally intro-duced by ιος νι ... ‘whoever ...’, whereas the apodosis does not show any correlative pronoun. Nevertheless, the construction ιος νι ..., τος νι ... is attested a few times: τος νι 6 25, τ̣[ος] νι 69, το[ς νι] 103 (for the syntax see further Brixhe 1978: 15ff.).

σζεμελως

The Phrygian word goes back to PIE *dh_{ǵemelo- (cf. Gr. χθαμαλός} ‘near the ground, on the ground, low’, Lat. humilis ‘low’), dat.pl. ζεμελως < *-ōis. The spelling with initial σζ- is also found in 39 (δ̣ιος [κ]ε σ̣ζεμε̣λ̣ως / κε̣ τ̣ιτ[τ]ε[τ]ικμεν̣ο̣ς ε̣ι/του) and 113 (με σζεμελως κε δυως κε τιτ̣/[τετικμενος ειτου]) and probably is an attempt to render the initial palatal cluster.

τος νι με σζεμελως κε Τιε κε τιττετικμενος ειτου

This phrase is the only part of the Kadınkuyu inscription which has never been encountered before. The curse represents a new variant of the δεως ζεμελως formula, the major types being the following:

with με: • με ζεμελως κε δεως κε (3, 6, 97, 113, 119) • με ζεμελως (21, 103), με ζεμελως οτ (124) • με διω[ς ζ]ομολως or ζ](ε)μ(ε)λως (5) • με δεως κε ζεμελως κε (96) • με δδεω με ζεμελως (128) • με δεως (112) without με: • [ζε]μελως κε [δ]ε[ω]ς με κοννου κε (42) • [ζεμ]ελωσι κε δεως [...] κε (92) • δεος κε ζεμ[ελος κε] (7), δ̣ιος [κ]ε ζεμελως κε̣ (39), διως κε ζεμελως κε (118) • δεως ζεμελως κε (40) • δεως ζεμελως (63, 93), διως ζεμελω[ς] (4), διως {ορ} ζεμ̣[ελ]ω̣(ς) (121) • [δεως ζ]ιμελως τι με κ' (25) • ατ τιη κε δεως κε (62)

(11)

anewphrygianinscriptionfromkadinkuyu 519 A NEW PHRYGIAN INSCRIPTION FROM KADINKUYU 519 “let him be cursed among gods and men by Zeus”, which forms a dactylic hexameter line. This original is preserved in a few inscrip-tions (3, 6, 97, possibly 113), but elsewhere Τιη ‘by Zeus’ is omitted (except for 62. ατ τιη κε δεως κε ‘by Zeus and gods’).

The formula με σζεμελως κε Τιε κε of the Kadınkuyu inscription is remarkable as it seems to mean ‘among men and Zeus’, which does not make sense. At the moment, we can only speculate that this new variant represents an unfortunate blend of the other formulas.

Alexander Lubotsky Leiden University LITERATURE

AVRAM,A.,2015.«Ein Altar aus Nakoleia und seine

griechisch-phrygi-schen Inschriften ». Gephyra 12, p. 199-229.

BEEKES, R.S.P., 2010. Etymological Dictionary of Greek (2 vols), with the

assistance of Lucien van Beek. Leiden - Boston, Brill.

BRIXHE,C.,1978. « Études néo-phrygiennes I ». Verbum 1,1, p. 3-21.

—, 1997. « Les clitiques du néo-phrygien ». R. Gusmani, M. Salvini, P. Vannicelli (eds.), Frigi e frigio, Atti del 1o_{Simposio Internazionale,}

Roma, 16-17 ottobre 1995. Roma, Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche,

p. 41-70.

BRIXHE,C.,DREW-BEAR,Th.1997. « Huit inscriptions néo-phrygiennes ».

R. Gusmani, M. Salvini, P. Vannicelli (eds.), Frigi e frigio, Atti del 1o

Simposio Internazionale, Roma, 16-17 ottobre 1995. Roma, Consiglio

nazionale delle ricerche, p. 71-114.

—, 2010. « Inscription phrygienne hellénistique de Prymnessos ». Kadmos 49, p. 161-168.

BRIXHE,C.,M.WAELKENS, 1981. « Un nouveau document néo-phrygien

au musée d’Afyon ». Kadmos 20, p. 66-75.

KORTLANDT,F., 2016. « Phrygian between Greek and Armenian ».

Lin-guistique Balkanique 55, p. 117-123.

LAMBERTERIE,Ch. de, 2013. « Grec, phrygien, arménien : des anciens aux

modernes ». Journal des Savants 2013/1, p. 3-69.

LIGORIO O., A. LUBOTSKY, 2018. « Phrygian ». J. Klein, B. Joseph,

M. Fritz (eds.), Handbook of Comparative and Historical

Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin - Boston, de Gruyter, p. 1816-1831.

LUBOTSKY,A.,1998. « New Phrygian metrics and the δεως ζεμελως

for-mula ». J. Jasanoff, H.C. Melchert, L. Oliver (eds.), Mír curad. Studies

in honor of Calvert Watkins. Innsbruck, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft

der Universität Innsbruck, p. 413-421.

LUBOTSKY, A., 2004. « The Phrygian Zeus and the problem of the

(12)

520 _Aalexander_LEXANDERlubotsky_L_UBOTSKY 520

—, 2017. « The Phrygian inscription from Dokimeion and its meter ». I. Hajnal, D. Kölligan, K. Zipser (eds.), Miscellanea Indogermanica.

Festschrift für José Luis García Ramón zum 65. Geburtstag. Innsbruck,

(13)

(14)

Fig.

3.

Th

e