<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The aorist infinitives in -εειν in early Greek epic</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Hellenic Studies</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper examines the distribution of thematic infinitive endings in early Greek epic in the context of the long-standing debate about the transmission and development of Homeric epic diction. Ιn Homer we find both Ionic -εῖν and Aeolic -έμεν, the latter mostly occupying the biceps of the fourth or the fifth foot, conforming to the well-known preference for a dactylic word-end before the bucolic dieresis and before the sixth foot. Forms in -έμεν have been viewed either as (1) remnants from the “Αeolic stage” of epic diction, not “ionicized” by Ionian bards, because contracted Ionic -ẹ̄n (&amp;lt; *-ehen) would otherwise fill the biceps, resulting in an undesirable spondaic foot, or as (2) products of secondary “aeolicization”, whereby Aeolic -έμεν from the neighboring tradition was substituted for the metrically inept Ionic -ẹ̄n.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This paper provides a novel argument in favor of the second solution (the “diffusionist” approach), starting from the fact that there are no aorist infinitives in -έμεν in Homer which would scan as υ υ - before a consonant or caesura (e.g. *βαλέμεν): instead we find unexplained forms in -έειν (e.g. βαλέειν). It is argued that this artificial “distraction” should be viewed as an actual analogical innovation, resulting from a proportional analogy to the “liquid futures” in *-ehe/o-:&lt;br&gt; inf. fut. βαλεῖν : βαλέειν = inf. aor. βαλεῖν : Χ, where X is resolved as βαλέειν&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As the paper proceeds to argue, the total absence of aoristic -έειν from Hesiod is unlikely to be coincidental: this artificial form must have been a product of specifically East Ionic Kunstsprache (aor. inf. in -έειν are absent from epichoric Ionic) and was unknown in the different Ionian school of epic poetry where Hesiod may have been trained.&lt;br&gt; Returning to the debate about the stages of Homeric epics, this paper argues that the striking avoidance of anapaestic aorist infinitives in -έμεν cannot be adequately explained under the “Aeolic phase” theory: it remains unclear why in the process of Ionicisation an Ionian singer would replace an archaic/foreign form in -έμεν by a form in -έειν which likewise did not belong to his vernacular (e.g. *βαλέμεν δέ → βαλέειν δέ). Artificial forms generated by the preference for dactylic word-end in certain metrical contexts abound, but there are no cases in Homer where an Aeolic form can be suspected to have been replaced by a metrically equivalent artificial form. Under the “diffusionist” approach, however, it can be plausibly supposed that in the cases where contraction of *-ehen to -ẹ̄n distorted the meter, the Ionian singers were nevertheless able to continue employing traditional formulae by replacing the former *-ehen before a consonant (e.g. *βαλέhεν δέ) by a form in -έειν (e.g. βαλέειν δέ), created and embedded in their own poetic tradition. But -έειν could not be used if the resulting form had a cretic shape (*ἐλθέειν - υ - ), and therefore the Ionian singers had to resort to borrowing Aeolic aor. inf. ἐλθέμεν. The “aeolicization” theory is thus able to fully explain the distribution of Aeolic έμεν and Ionic -έειν in Homeric epics.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An epic party? Sober thoughts on νηφέμεν (Archil. fr. 4 W.)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philologus</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper shows that the Aeolic inf. νηφέμεν used in Archil. 4.9 W instead of expectable νήφειν in the beginning of a pentameter is problematic: it cannot be a metrical variant, since Ionic νήφειν would be unimpeachable in the first part of a pentameter colon (where a contracted biceps is entirely admissible), and it cannot simply be put down as an epicism, since νήφω, a very colloquial verb, is never used in the heroic epic that came down to us and is very unlikely to have ever been used in this genre. The rare instances of Aeolic infinitives in -έμεν in the language of elegy can be shown to be dependent on epic models of one kind or another (e.g. γηρᾱσέμεν Simon. 20.7 W.2). Assuming that the form νηφέμεν is Archilochus’ own coinage, therefore, the question is whether the poet intended the final distich of fr. 4 to resonate with the epic tradition; and if so, whether it was a specific allusion to a fixed text or a reference to a broader tradition. It is argued that νηφέμεν should be viewed as modeled on πινέμεν from the famous midsummer picnic scene in Hesiod (Op. 592, construed with αἴθοπα οἶνον): the combination of the high-flown ending, best known from the epic dialect, with a lowly root νηφ- must have both produced a comic effect in the context of an invitation to get drunk on duty and serve as an allusion to the well-known passage in Hesiod.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Homeric ἀάατος: etymology and poetics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Die Sprache</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper argues that obscure Homeric adjective ἀάατος is related to PIE *séh2u̯l̥, gen. sg. *sh2u̯éns ‘sun’ and goes back to a proto-form *ahāu̯ato- &amp;lt; *n̥seh2u̯n̥to- ‘not having sun’: the juncture ἀάατον Στυγὸς ὕδωρ (Ξ 271) can now be understood as ‘the sunless water of the Styx’. In the post-Homeric period this epithet underwent a formal renewal and is indirectly continued by ἀνάλιος / ἀνήλιος in tragedy (e.g. ἀνάλιον χέρσον (scil. of the Underworld) A. Th. 859). Under this analysis ἀάατο- &amp;lt; *ahāu̯ato- is best seen as an Aeolic element in the Homeric diction (which would also explain the absence of spiritus asper). While it is possible that *(a)hāu̯a to- ‘(not) having sun’ is a Proto-Greek coinage, formed from *hāu̯əl, oblique stem *hāu̯a(t)-, an expectable remodeling product of heteroclitic *séh2u̯l̥, *sh2u̯éns on the way to Greek, such athematic formation is not attested in Greek. This paper therefore argues for a possessive compound *(n̥-)seh2u̯n̥to- ‘not having sun(light)’ whose second member is a substantive *séh2u̯n̥to- ‘sunlight’ derived from adjectival *sh2un tó- ‘having sun’ by a substantivization process that involved an insertion of a new full-grade in the root in addition to the accent shift. Adj. *sh2un tó- is reflected both by Tocharian B swāñco, A swāñceṃ ‘sunbeam’ and by Proto-Germanic *sunþa  ‘south’ ( &amp;lt; *súh2nto-, with a secondary substantivizing accent shift).&lt;br /&gt;
The poetic status of reconstructed *n̥séh2u̯n̥to- in Indo-European is confirmed by the existence of similar formations derived from the word for ‘sun’ in archaic Indo-Iranian texts. This paper first discusses Vedic asū́rta- (RV X, 82, 4c): asū́rtam rájas- is the Vedic term for the Underworld, exactly matching the description of the Underworld river Styx as ἀάατος (rájas- = Ἔρεβος). Secondly, it is shown that YAvestan axvarəta-, the standing epithet of xvarənah-, can be traced back to a reconstruction *n̥-s(h2)u̯el to- and interpreted as ‘not lit by the sun’, which is exactly true of xvarənah-, concealed in the waters of the sea Vourukasəm (Yt. 19, 51-59). Lastly, no less significant is another YAvestan epithet xvanuuant- ‘sunny’, associated with the heavenly waters (Y. 16, 7) and one’s immortal life: xvahe gaiiehe xvanuuatō aməṣ̌ahe (Y. 9, 1; Yt. 8, 11). Thus, in a number of Indo-European traditions there is a close association between the sun, waters, and immortality. This study of several obscure and archaic epithets from three Indo-European poetic traditions makes it possible to suggest a new interpretation of a difficult Homeric word and reveals a further aspect of Indo-European poetics.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Latin draucus</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Classical Quarterly</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article discusses the meaning and the origin of the rare Latin word draucus. In Martial drauci are strong young men, engaged in different athletic activities, who are often found physically attractive and sexually desirable. This meaning is confirmed by a defixio from Wilten-Veldidena where the word seems to denote figurines of young men.&lt;br&gt; Draucus is usually taken to be a Celtic loanword, but this view is without foundation: the only evidence that supports it consists in a few proper names of unknown origin. Draucus finds no correspondence in attested Gaulish, and no hypothetical Celtic etymology is forthcoming. It is argued that the word draucus can instead be given an Indo-European etymology: given Martial’s penchant for colloquial and vulgar language, it does not seem impossible that he was the first poet to use an inherited word with the meaning “hulk”, “stud” that had been banned from the higher genres of poetry for centuries.&lt;br&gt; The article proposes to connect Latin draucus with Greek δροός “strong” and the Indo-European root *doru- / *dreu̯- that meant both “oak-tree” and “strong” (cf. rōbur vs. rōbustus): Old English trum ‘strong’, Old Irish dron ‘firm, vigorous’, Lith. drū́tas ‘strong’, etc.&lt;br&gt; The problematic -a- in the root can be explained through Thurneysen-Havet’s Law: *drou̯ó ‘strong’ &amp;gt; Italic *drau̯ó-, whence *drau̯iko- &amp;gt; Latin draucus ‘strong’ → draucus, i ‘strong man, stud, hunk’ (compare rauus ‘hoarse’ → ravis ‘hoarseness’ &amp;gt; *rau̯iko &amp;gt; raucus ‘hoarse’).&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The origin of Latin prōsāpia</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Glotta</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Abstract: it is argued that Latin prōsāpia ‘lineage, stock’ together with sōpiō, -ōnis ‘penis’ goes back to the verbal root found in Vedic sāpáyati ‘to strike’, Ossetic safyn (I.), isafun (D.) ‘to destroy’, Hittite šap(p)- ‘to hit’ and Greek ἰάπτειν ‘to hurt’. The root can be reconstructed as *seh2p- (aor. *seh2p- &amp;gt; Hittite šapp-, pres. *se-seh2p- &amp;gt; Greek ἰάπτω). This root with the basic meaning ‘to hit, to strike’ was also employed metaphorically in the meaning ‘to have sexual intercourse’ which survives in Latin and Iranian (e.g. Balochi šāpag ‘to mount ewe’).&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ἄργος Μυριωπός</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In Press</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper shows that there is a discontinuity in the representation of Argus, the guardian of Io: while in the earliest literary source, the Aegimius ([Hes.] fr. 230 Most), and in the sixth century iconography (LIMC V 664.1, 667.31) we find the conception of Argus as a two-faced monster with four eyes (three according to Pherecydes fr. 66 Fowler), all fifth-century and later sources depict Argus as a giant with thousands of eyes dappling his entire body (Bacch. 18.19-25; Aesch. Suppl. 305; [Aesch.] Pr. 568, 677, etc.). The time period in which this sudden change is observed suggests the following hypothesis: the image of the myriad-eyed cowherd was imported from Achaemenid Iran. Around the turn of the fifth century Greek craftsmen of all kinds had access to the court of the Persian king and it is precisely at that time that a considerable Iranian influence on Greek philosophy and literature can be detected (as shown, above all, by W. Burkert and M. L. West). It is argued that the source for the many-eyed representation of Argus in the fifth century was the Iranian deity Miθra who had a cult in Persepolis: Mithra’s standing epithet is ʻhe who has ten thousand eyesʼ. In Avestan texts Miθra is said to be all-seeing and ever awake, just like Argus, and his vigilance is repeatedly emphasized. Another epithet of Miθra is ʻlord of wide pasturesʼ; he is the quintessential guardian. Miθra is associated with starry sky just like Argus. Given the prominence of the cow in Zoroastrianism, it becomes possible to propose a scenario in which a Greek in the sixth century could have acquired an incomplete picture of a Persian triad corresponding to Zeus, Argus and Io, where Argus matches Miθra, the myriad-eyed cowherd. &lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">On the meaning and origin of Greek ἀμαυρός</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Through the thicket: ἀπείρᾰτος Pi. O. 6.54</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Submitted</style></year></dates><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;It is argued that Heyne’s emendation ἀπειρίτωι adopted at O. 6.54 in all modern editions of Pindar is unnecessary. The variant ἀπειράτωι transmitted in two mss. of the Vatican recension (Laur. 32.37, 32.33) should be interpreted not as a form of ἀπείρᾱτος ‘inexperienced’, but as a form of ἀπείρᾰτος ‘boundless’ (cf. [Hp.] Flat. 3.9 Jouanna): this reading provides the required sense and meter, gives an easy account of the corrupted variant ἀπειράντωι and allows restoring a phonic echo in Pindar’s text. Thanks to the recent progress in our understanding of nominal composition in Greek and Indo-European it has now become possible to offer a linguistic explanation of the form ἀπείρᾰτος and clarify its relation to πεῖραρ, ἀπείρων and ἄπειρος.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Avestan Haecat.aspa-, Rigveda 4.43, and the myth of the Divine Twins</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of American Oriental Society</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">132</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">567–575</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper argues that Gathic Haēcat̰.aspa-, the name of Zaraθuštra’s mythical ancestor, should be translated as ‘he whose horses splash, besprinkle themselves’. This name finds an exact parallel in the Rigvedic hymn to the Aśvíns: (síndhur) siñcad áśvān (RV 4.43.6). This obscure stanza also features Sūryā, the Sun Maiden; its contents become clear once viewed through the lens of comparative mythology: drawing on the material of Latvian dainas, we can reconstruct the core myth about the Divine Twins in which they rescue the Sun Maiden from drowning. The horses of the Nā́satyās get wet in the waters of the ocean during this rescue operation, and this is the part of the myth to which the name Avestan Haēcat̰.aspa- contains a compressed reference.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Showing praise in Greek choral lyric and beyond</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">American Journal of Philology</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">133</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">543-572</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper focuses on the use of the verb δείκνυμι in Greek choral lyric. in Alcman, Pindar, Bacchylides and Philodamus the verb is found construed with direct objects meaning ‘song’, ‘hymn’ or ‘poetry’ (ὕμνος, γάρυμα, μέλος, ἀρετά (= ἀρετᾶς κλέος), δῶρον Μωσᾶν, μουσικά). It is argued that in these instances δείκνυμι should be translated not as ‘display’ or ‘reveal’, but simply as ‘sing’: this usage finds an exact parallel in Vedic Sanskrit where the cognate root diś- is likewise used with ‘song of praise’ as its object (stómaḥ, námaüktiḥ, gīḥ) and the subject is likewise a poet. It is through the lens of this comparison that the Greek contexts can be understood: δεῖξαι ὕμνον, μέλος, etc. is an archaism of the melic poetry that goes back to the Indo-European poetic language where the precursor of δείκνυμι encoded the relationship between laudandus and laudator; the poet was “showing forth” a song of praise as a gift to a deity or a patron, expecting rewards in return. In view of the correspondence between Greek and Vedic, the possibility has to be considered seriously that the use of Latin dīcō in Augustan poets of reciting or performing verse (dīcere carmen) as well as of praising (dīcere laudēs) continues the same inherited phraseology. Based on these results the paper offers a new interpretation of the unclear epic epithet ἀριδείκετος (ἀνδρῶν / λαῶν / ἀνάκτων #), whose traditional explanation as a metrically lengthened form of *ἀριδέκετος ‘well received’ (to δέκομαι) has always lacked conviction and is fatally undermined by the Doric proper name Ἀριδείκης found in epichoric prose inscriptions. Instead, ἀριδείκετος can now be understood as “most famous”, “well worth praising (in song)”.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Гимн Диоскурам Алкея</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aristeas</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">27–51</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Indo-European *dem(h2)- 'to build' and its derivatives</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Historische Sprachforschung</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">123</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">56-96</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The root meaning ‘to build; to amass; to grow’ is customarily reconstructed as *demh2-; this paper examines the evidence pro and contra this reconstruction. In the first part of this paper it is shown that a number of nominal offshoots from this root clearly contradict the reconstruction *demh2-: 1) Gk. δμώς ‘slave’ (not †δαμώς) &amp;lt; *dm-ōu̯-; 2) MIr. dét ‘disposition, habitude’ (not †dmáth / †dmath), MWelsh pl. deint ‘temper, character’ &amp;lt; *dmto-; 3) Hitt. dametar ‘abundance’ (not †dammetar).   This paper further addresses the notorious Greek forms δέμας and perf. δεδμᾱ-. For δέμας ‘body’ a reconstruction of a secondary s-stem derivative from a stem with a suffixal *-h2- is suggested: this reconstruction is supported by HLuv. tamiḫit  ‘abundance, prosperity’ which matches Hitt. dam(m)etar ‘abundance’ in the meaning and the uniqueness of the suffixal vocalism (vs. usual -atar / -ann  in Hittite and -aḫit in Luvian). On the evidence of these forms a hysterokinetic stem *dm ēh2-, *dm-h2-es is reconstructed; this stem is best interpreted as an internal derivative of *dem-h2 , *dm-eh2-s (cf. *k̑er-h2  ‘horn (material)’ → *k̑er-h2-s  ( &amp;gt; κέρας) and *k̑r-e:h2  ( &amp;gt; κάρη). Other nominal derivatives of the same root discussed in this paper include Indo-Iranian *dmāna-, n. ‘house, dwelling place’ (analyzed here as a substantivized Romānus-type adjective *dmeh2-no-m), Lat. māteriēs ‘timber’ (traced back to *dmeh2-tes-ih2-, a devī-derivative from *dmeh2-tes- ⇐ *dm-h2-to-) and a very unclear case of Gk. (μεσό)δμη = NPhryg. (ακρο)δμαν. Lastly, reconstruction of an acrostatic stem *domh2- (subst.) can perhaps account for the enigmatic Homeric form δῶ, Myc. do(-de) via *domh2 &amp;gt; *dōm (Szemerényi–Nussbaum’s law) &amp;gt; *dōmh2 (with restored *-h2) &amp;gt; *dō(h2) (Brandenstein’s law).  The third part of this chapter investigates the verbal system of the root *dem- and its reflexes in Greek, where we find a confusing picture: middle perfect stem δέδμη- (Ionic-Attic) / δέδμᾱ- (Doric) speaks for *demh2-, Myc. part. fut. de-me-o-te may either be a straightforward case of a “liquid” future, derived from a root *dem-, or continue a root *demh1-, while pres. δέμω, aor. ἔδειμα present a highly atypical Averbo for a root of the structure CeRH-.  It is argued that the evidence of Doric δέδμανται and -δμᾱτος in melic poetry, customarily cited as the prima facie evidence in support of a reconstruction *demh2-, is in fact not airtight: δέδμανται (Theoc.15.120) has high chances of being a hyperdoricism created in order to obtain the desired literary effect via a substitution of *dedmę̄- by *dedmā- by proportional analogy: Ionic aor. ἐρρύη (perf. ἐρρύηκα): Doric aor. ἐρρύᾱ = Ionic (δέ)δμη- : X, where Χ is resolved as (δέ)δμᾱ  (cf. γεγεναμένον (Pi. O. 6, 53) or μεμενακώς in Archimedes). Lastly, this paper argues that the perfect stem δέδμη- is due to analogy to semantically close verb νέμω ‘to dispense; med. to hold land’ which goes back to a seṭ-root, as can be inferred from Gk. νέμεσις &amp;lt; *nemh1-ti , the accentuation of Latv. (dial.) nemt ‘he takes’ and perf. νενέμημαι from old *ne-nmē- &amp;lt; *ne-nmh1- (with an adjustment of the root ablaut in order to avoid a metathesis to *ne-mnē-). As a result of two analogies, pres. *neme/o-, aor. neme-s-, perf. *ne-nmē- and pres. *deme/o-, aor. *dem-s-, perf. *de-də- evolve into two similar sets of forms: δέμω, ἔδειμα, δέδμημαι and νέμω, ἔνειμα, νενέμημαι. &lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"> †ἀκεσταλίων† ὀρνίθων (Stesich. PMGF 247)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mnemosyne</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2011</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">64</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">625-628</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper argues that the obscure Stesichorean word ἀκεστάλιος (preserved by Ptolemaeus Chennus and transmitted via Photius Bibl. 148a32 Bekker = 3.56 Henry) goes back to a derivative of *ἄκος, *ἄκεος ‘grain, corn’ (= Latin acus, eris), сf. ἀκοστή ‘barley, grain’. ἀκεστάλιος would be derived from a stem *ἀκεστο- by means of the suffix -αλιο-, same as in semantically close φυταλιή, Myc. pu-ta-ri-ja ‘orchard, vineyard’ derived from φυτόν ‘(garden) plant’. This stem *ἀκεστο- ‘corn, grain’ could be reflected in the name of a Sicilian town Ἀκέστη (Soph. fr. 672 Radt, Steph. Byz. I 159, 2). If this formal analysis is correct, the expression ἀκεσταλίων ὀρνίθων can be translated as ‘birds of the corn (field)’; the reason this passage in Stesichorus constituted a zetema for the Hellenistic scholars was probably not the meaning of the word, but rather the precise identity of the birds&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hittite menahhanda</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of American Oriental Society</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">130</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63-71</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper argues that Hitt. mē̆naḫḫanda ‘opposite, against, vis-à-vis’ should be analyzed not as a compound of mē̆na- c. ‘face, cheek’ and ḫant  ‘front’, but rather as *mē̆naḫḫ-anda ‘into the face’ (compare the near-synonyms in Lycian ñtewẽ ‘opposite’ &amp;lt; *‘into the eye’ and especially tewe ñte (TL 44a,53) ‘facing’). mē̆naḫḫ is an athematic form made from a root noun *men- (dual *menih1 &amp;gt; Hitt. meni) which goes back to the root *men- ‘to protrude’ (Lat. mentum ‘chin’). It is argued that mē̆naḫḫ is a form of allative, which in Proto-Indo-European had the ending *-eh2 (cf. Lith. žmogùs &amp;lt; *(dh)g̑hmeh2-gwu-, as recently argued by M. Furlan). The postpositional use of anda &amp;lt; *endo is likely to be inherited, cf. OLat. TEDENDO (“Duenos” inscription).&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">63</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>6</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Issledovanija po praindoevropejskoj imennoj morphologii [Studies in Indo-European Nominal Morphology]</style></title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&amp;id=Ojz0kSyO-0QC</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nauka, 439 p.</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">St.Petersburg</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Reviews: C. Le Feuvre, BSL 107 (2012);&lt;/p&gt;</style></notes></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">H. C. Melchert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S. W. Jamison</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">B. Vine</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Time to gather stones together: Greek λᾶας and its Indo-European background</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of the 21st Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ute Hempen Verlag</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bremen</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">189-206</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper argues that Greek λᾶας, acc. λᾶαν 'stone' ( &amp;lt; PGk. *lāhas, -m) is a “singulative” formation derived from a stem with a collective suffix *-h2- by adding the endings for animate nouns (viz. a derivative of the type νεανίας or δρῦς). The underlying h2-stem is a collective neuter plural *leh2-es-h2 ‘mass of stones’; its singular *leh2-o/es- was originally a verbal noun of the root *leh2- 'to cut' (for this semantic development cf. Latin saxum vs. secō or OCS skala vs. Hitt. iškalla-). The evidence for the verbal root *leh2- is found in (1) Toch. AB lātk- 'to cut' ( &amp;lt; *lh2-T- with a dental extension), (2) the neo-root *leu̯(H)- 'to cut' reflected in Old Indic (lunāti) and Germanic (this root can be interpreted as a new &quot;state 1&quot;, back-formed to the zero-grade *luh2-), (3) nominal derivatives such as Hittite (kata)luzzi- and luttāi- ‘window’, Toch. B lyauto ‘opening’ &amp;lt; *'a cut'.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">K. Ju. Lappo-Danilevskij</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. B. Shishkin</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ζακλῆς</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vyach. Ivanov: Materialy i Issledovanija</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Izdatelstvo Pushkinskogo Doma</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">St.-Petersburg</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">371-376</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;The subject of this note is a pseudonym of Vyacheslav Ivanov (1866-1949), a scholar of Roman history and Greek religion, a major Russian poet, a Kulturträger and a mystagogue. The word Ζακλης that has puzzled the biographers is of course a literal rendition of the Slavic name Vyache-slav &quot;whose fame is far and wide, very famed&quot; into Ancient Greek; the real question is what made the poet choose an obscure Aeolic version of the intensifying prefix δια.&lt;br /&gt;
Interestingly, as the note shows, in his private correspondence prior to 1903 Ivanov used another pseudonym with the same meaning, Ἀριστοκλῆς. The year 1903 was a turning point in Ivanov's career - it is then that he started publishing prolifically on Greek religion and in particularly on Dionysus. Moreover, in letters to his partner, L. D. Zinovjeva-Annibal, Ivanov associates himself with the figure of Zagreus (Ζαγρεύς), the chief deity of the &quot;Orphic religion&quot; as it was understood by the Altertumswissenschaft of the time. Clearly, changing his nom de guerre from Ἀριστοκλῆς, potentially loaded with undesirable associations, to Ζακλῆς that had an Orphic ring to it (Ζακλ-ῆς ~ Ζαγρ-εύς) was just one more step in Ivanov's forging himself a new, mystical identity.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Germanic word for ‘sword’ and delocatival derivation in Proto-Indo-European</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Indo-European Studies</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">37</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">461-488</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">There is no compelling etymology for the Germanic word for sword (OHG swert, OE sweord). This paper argues that this word is related to Cuneiform Luvian ši(ḫ)wal ‘dagger’: both words are derived from a stem *seh2u- ‘sharp’ (cf. Cuneiform Luvian šiḫwa- 'sour' &lt; *sēh2u̯o- 'sharp (on the tongue)', Old Irish serb, Welsh chwerw 'bitter' &lt; *s(h2)u̯er-u̯o- 'id.'). Gmc. *su̯erða-n goes back to a substantivized adjective *sh2u̯er-tó- ‘sharp’ (with a loss of the laryngeal already in the protolanguage), derived from a locative *sh2u̯er (compare *ĝhei̯m-ento- ‘wintry’ from *ĝhei̯m-en ‘in winter’). </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3/4</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">461</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gedanken über ein neues Buch (Review of Paul Widmer, Das Korn des weiten Feldes. Innsbruck, 2004)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Linguistica Petropolitana</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">541-570</style></pages><isbn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">978-5-02-025540</style></isbn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This review article adresses a number of issues in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European inflectional and derivational nominal morphology, raised in a recent excellent book by P. Widmer. While this book contains many important insights and astute observations, some of its claims are harder to accept. In particular, contrary to Widmer’s claim, there is no reliable evidence for Schwebeablaut in internal derivation: the reconstruction *h2u̯és-es  from which familiar *h2éu̯s ōs ‘dawn’ should have been derived, lacks conviction, since W.’s two pieces of evidence (*h2u̯és-er &gt; Vedic vasar(-hán-) and *h2u̯és-en &gt; Tocharian А wṣe, В yṣiye) are both better explained as delocatival hypostases. Same is true for two other examples, *h3enbh-en- and *g̑héi̯m-en-. Instead, the review article argues that Schwebeablaut, descriptively a marker of PIE locatives with suffixes *-er /*-en /*-el, is in fact due to vrddhi in the root: the morphological operation that inserted an extra full-grade vowel in the root (preferably at a “wrong” place) goes hand in hand with the derivation of locative caseforms in PIE and should be viewed together with lengthened grades in such locatives as *dēm or *pēd. Several other details of morphological reconstruction are critically discussed, such as the accentual difference between Vedic vrṣṇi-, n. and vrṣṇí , m. that purportedly reflects different prehistorical accents of neuter and animate.</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">541</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The name of Achilles</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cambridge Classical Journal</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Supp. vol. 32 (= Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective)</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">162-173</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In this paper a new etymology for the name of Achilles is put forth. It is argued that the name continues a compound *h2nghi-(h2)wl(H)o- 'slaying death'. The first member of the compound, *h2nghi- (&gt; Greek akhi-, as Rix Law was not operative before nasals), is related to Younger Avestan azah- ‘desperate straits, perilous juncture’, Vedic áṃhas- ‘distress, trouble’, Latin angustus and other derivatives from the root *h2emgh- that originally referred to 'narrowness' and 'constricting space', but at least in the Indo-Iranian poetic tradition came to be used in the meaning 'peril' as a replacement of inherited words for 'death': Avestan (vī)tar-ązah- makes a perfect equation with Vedic áṃhas- tari- and the formula serves as an equivalent of PIE *nek- / *mr̥tim *terh2- (Vedic mr̥tyum tar-, Greek νέκταρ). The root *h2emgh- is therefore one of the exponents of the PIE formulaic theme «HERO SLAYS DEATH». 
The second member of the reconstructed compound *h2nghi-wl(H)o- continues the PIE root *wel(H) attested in Tocharian (A wäl- ‘die’), Greek (ἑάλων ‘I am seized’, but notice the older meaning in θανάτῳ ἁλῶναι  ‘to be dead, slain’) and Anatolian (CLuvian walaunta); the intransitive meaning does not speak against the reconstruction of a factitive bahuvrīhi compound ‘the one, who provides death with defeat’.
The new etymology provides a phonological explanation for the notorious variation /l/ ~ /ll/ in the epics, on which, it is argued, the variation /s/ ~ /ss/ in the name of Odysseus was modeled.
Even though the name of Achilles was likely understood by the Greeks themselves as ‘bringing ἄχος to his host of men’ throughout the 1st milennium BCE. and potentially even earlier than that, the myth about a hero who overcomes death glimpses in the epic narrative, for instance, in the story of Thetis’ attempts to endow her offspring with immortality by putting him into the hearth and anointing his body with ambrosia (Schol. D ad Il. 16.36). It is not unreasonable to speculate that the archaic myth about an immortal hero was remastered for the purposes of heroic epic and Achilles' name (which was no longer transparent for the poets) was accordingly reinterpreted, similarly to how the name of Tristan was “etymologized” in the 12th century based on its similarity to Old French triste ‘heartsore’ (Tristan was &quot;born in the afflictions of grief&quot;); or the name of the foremost hero of the Irish saga, Chuchulainn, was provided with an explicit account of how young Sétanta got his name by killing the dog (Cú) of Culann the smith. Neither legend was present in respective archetypal mythological narratives. Similarly, the name of Achilles potentially preserves a precious fragment of an archaic myth of a hero who defeats the death. </style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">162</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Бессуффиксный претерит ro-ír и другие древнеирландские претериты с долгим ‑í- в корне</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Voprosy Jazykoznanija</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18-34</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">18</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Review of Novalis Indogermanica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Fritz und S. Zeilfelder. Graz, 2002</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Linguistica Petropolitana</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">388-403</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ἰάονες</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Linguistica Petropolitana</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">100-115</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This paper puts forth a new etymology for the name of Ionians. It is suggested that this ethnicon is based on a (self-proclaimed?) assertion of a physical strength and goes back to a preform *wiH-eh2won- (with a dissimilatory loss of the first /w/, the existence of which is now confirmed by the new reading wi-ja-wo-ne KN Wm 1707). The base noun *wiH-eh2 ‘strength’ is related to the root noun *wiH- in Homeric ἶφι, Latin uīs as ἀλκή to Dat. Sg. ἀλκί. In this connection the derivational process that produces possessive nouns in *-won  from *-h2- stems (of the type ὀπάων ‘companion’) is discussed. It is suggested that since both *-won-stems and *-h2- stems are substantives, one should assume an adjectival stem *sekweh2-u- ‘having companionship’ as an intermediate stage (probably indirectly reflected in Lithuanian (at)sakõvas); *sekweh2-u- ‘having companionship’ results in *sekweh2-won-  ‘that one who has companionship’ by addition of the individualizing Catō-suffix.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">100</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">О суффиксе индоевропейских и тохарских причастий (к проблеме звукового развития и.-е. *ĕ &gt; пратох. *'æ)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Linguistica Petropolitana</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2006</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">46-78</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper addresses a recent proposal made by Svetlana Burlak, according to which Indo-European short /e/ before  nt  should yield Proto-Tocharian /'æ/ (to result in Toch. A /a/, B /e/). Two main arguments that Burlak cites in support of her sound law are Proto-Tocharian *w'ænte ‘wind’ (A want, B yente) and Tocharian nt-participles, which more often than not show palatalisation of the consonant preceding the suffix * ænt.&lt;br /&gt;
This paper shows that there are in fact no morphological reasons to assign an e grade to either of the two formations: (1) Proto-Tocharian *w'ænte can easily go back to *h2u̯ḗnto- (after a resyllabification of the original *h2u̯éh1n̥to-); (2) Tocharian present participles reflect the pattern of Indo-European athematic participles, viz. a holokinetic paradigm: in this paradigm no ĕ-grade is involved, with an important exception of locative singular (*-ĕnti), but it is precisely in this form that one should admit the existence of a by-form *-ēnt (possibly to have spread from *h1sent &amp;gt; *h1sēnt with a lengthening in a monosyllabic form). But it is also possible that already in the protolanguage some nt formations with participial value were reshaped due to analogy to hysterokinetic agentive n stems that had Nom. Sg. in *-ēn, hence an apparent reflex of *-ēnt in Tocharian participles / Nomina agentis (this theory would also explain the double nature of deverbal  nt-stems in Tocharian).&lt;br /&gt;
Since a pre-Proto-Tocharian ĕ-grade in the suffix of the word for ‘wind’ or in the -nt-participles is difficult to justify and alternative explanations are available, there is no need to accept a special sound change *ĕ &amp;gt; *'æ /  _nt.&lt;br /&gt;
In the appendix to the paper I discuss the etymology of Tocharian B paṣe ‘hare’ : the recent treatment by Georges-Jean Pinault is critically examined against the background of the more general problem of Hoffmann’s possessive suffix.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">46</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">N.N. Kazansky</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E.R. Krychkova</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A.S. Nikolaev</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A.V. Shatskov</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">К действию закона Рикса в древнегреческом языке (Lex Rix before nasals in Greek)</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hr̥dā́ mánasā: Studies presented to Professor Leonhard G. Herzenberg on the occasion of his 70th birthday</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nauka</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">St.-Petersburg</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">38-72</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I suggest that Rix Law was not operative before nasals; instead, a development of word-initial *h1/2/3NC- to ἀC- is advocated. This claim can be supported by quite a few etymologies, some of which were proposed before (such as ἄσις &amp;lt; *h2m̥s-i-, Mycenaean a-i-qe-u &amp;lt; *h2n̥si-, ἄττομαι &amp;lt; *h2n̥t-̯e/o-, ἀδήν &amp;lt; *hxn̥gwen-, ἄορ &amp;lt; *h2n̥s-r̥ or ἀθήρ as opposed to ἀνθέριξ), while others are put forth here for the first time: ἀρετή &amp;lt; *h2n̥r-etéh2 ‘valour, manliness’ (ἀνήρ); ἄχθος &amp;lt; *h1n̥k̑-dh-es- ‘burden’ (ἐνεγκεῖν); ἄτερ &amp;lt; *h2n̥ter (MGerm. ohne).&lt;br /&gt;
Possible counter¬examples are discussed as well: it appears perfectly possible and even in some cases advantageous from the viewpoint of what we know about PIE morphology to explain all of alleged examples of *h1/2/3NC- &amp;gt; ἐ/ἀ/ὀνC- as formations with full-grade in the root (ἀμφί &amp;lt; *h2entbhi ; ἀμβλύς &amp;lt; *h2emlh2-u- ‘soft’; ἄγγελος &amp;lt; *h2éng̑h1lo- ‘endowed with rapidity’ derived from *h2n̥g̑h1ló- ‘fast’; ἄνθρωπος &amp;lt; *h2endhro-h3kw-o-; ἄμφην ‘neck’ &amp;lt; *h2enghu̯-en ‘what is situated in narrow part [of the body]’. Rix Law thus seems to be confined to the liquid cases only.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Тох. А śamantär и индоевропейский претерит с продленной ступенью аблаута в корне</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Voprosy Jazykoznanija</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68-83</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">68</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Die Etymologie von altgriechischem ὕβρις</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Glotta. Zeitschrift für griechische und lateinische Sprache</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10/2005</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">114-125</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;There is no compelling etymology for Greek ὕβρις (hubris) ‘wanton violence’. Earlier attempts to relate this word to the Indo-European root *gwerh2- 'heavy' are unsatisfactory, as they do not explain the inflection in short -ĭ-; moreover, a preposition ὑ- is not supported by any actual evidence. A different solution can be offered: some Homeric usages of ὕβρις suggests that the original meaning of this word may have been simply ‘physical power’. This paper argues that ὕβρις goes back directly to PIE acrostatically inflected i-stem abstract noun *Hi̯o(H2)gw-ri- ‘might’, internally derived from *Hi̯aH2gw-ro- ‘mighty’ (the root of ἥβη, lith. (pa)-jėgà), with the loss of laryngeal according to the Weather-rule and change of ο to υ in labial environment (Cowgill’s Law).&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">114</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aind. abda- und Zubehör</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Acta Linguistica Petropolitana</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">103-117</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper discusses ἔνθεος-type compounds in Indo-European languages and presents evidence for an archaic type with a zero-grade in the first member (*n̥-): Tocharian omprotärcci, ompalskoññe, Greek ἄκαρος, ἄξυλος, ἀτρύγετος, ἀτενής, possibly Hittite andurza and antuwaḫḫa-/ antuḫša-. Old Indic evidence is discussed in detail: apvā́- ‘panic’ is traced back to *n̥-pu̯-o- (Latin pauor, Old Irish úath); for ádri- a preform *n̥-dr-i- may be suggested under the assumption that the underlying root is *der- 'to split' (cf. Latin saxum and secō); apsarás- &amp;lt; *n̥-pseros- ‘having exhilaration within’. Lastly, it is suggested that the word ábda- ‘year’ goes back to *n̥-pd-o- ‘having foot within’ and continues the same inherited metaphor of ‘running time’ that we find in a number of Indo-European traditions (Latin annus und Gothic Dat. Pl. aþnam vs. Old Indic atasi; Tocharian B lyakur, A lkwär vs. Lithuanian lekiù; Greek ἔτος and Old Irish fethid, etc.).&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">103</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Review of Compositiones Indogermanicae in Memoriam Jochem Schindler, ed. by H. Eichner, H. Chr. Luschützky, V. Sadovski, Praha: enigma corporation, 1999</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jazyk i rechevaja dejatelnost’ / Langue et parole</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">171-195</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">N.N. Kazansky</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rund um att. γραῦς, hom. γρηΰς: zur Deutung einiger altgriechischer Personennamen</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Colloquia Classica et Indogermanica III</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nauka</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">St.-Petersburg</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">179-198</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">О возможном источнике выражения «живые струны» в «Слове о полку Игореве»</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trudy Otdela Drevnerusskoj Literatury</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2003</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">54</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">565-580</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;In this paper I argue that the expression &quot;zhivaja struny&quot; (living chords) in the prooemium to the Slovo o Polku Igoreve is a literal translation of νεύροι ἔμψυχοι found in John Chrysostom's homily on the Holy Week (PG 55, 519ff.). In Chrysostom's text King David is playing a kithara that has no soul (ἀπὸ νευρῶν ἀψύχων); he is contrasted with the Church that has a kithara the chords of which are animated (ἔμψυχοι): these chords are the tongues of the faithful. (Further analysis of this metaphor in the patristic texts has shown that it goes back to the opposition Old Testament vs. New Testament expressed through the contrast of &quot;body&quot; and &quot;soul&quot; encoded by different musical instruments). In the &quot;Slovo&quot; it is the poet Bojan who strikes the &quot;living chords&quot;; the author of the &quot;Slovo&quot; thus placed a pagan singer in a Christian context. Chrystostom was one of the most widely read church fathers in the medieval Rus and even though no Old Russian translation of this homily has yet been discovered, it is very likely that it was the source of the otherwise enigmatic expression in the beginning of the Slovo o Polku Igoreve.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">565</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alexander Nikolaev</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">K. Jones-Bley</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">M. Huld</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Della Volpe</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proto-Indo-European Ergativity and the Genitive in *-osyo</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Proceedings of XI UCLA Indo-European Conference</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2000</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institute for the Study of Man</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Washington, D.C.</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">293-311 </style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language></record></records></xml>