Etymology and the European Lexicon

Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung

der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft,
17–22 September 2012, Copenhagen

Edited by
Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen,
Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead,
Thomas Olander and Birgit Anette Olsen

Wiesbaden 2016
Reichert Verlag
 The Pre-Greek substratum revisited
Biliana Mihaylova
Sofia University

The problem of the Pre-Greek substratum has been an important point of debate from
the late nineteenth century until now. Here, I am not going to review all the theories
that appeared on this subject: Mediterranean and non-Indo-European substratum,
Anatolian and the so-called Pelasgian Indo-European Substratum.
The aim of this paper is to re-examine the most probable etymologies supporting the
theory on the existence of an Indo-European Pre-Greek substratum, i. e. the so called
Pelasgian theory, elaborated by Vladimir Georgiev. Considering the phonetic features
typical of the Pre-Greek (Pelasgian) language reconstructed by him, I have compiled
a list of 23 lexemes with reliable cognates within the Indo-European family and with
Indo-European patterns of word formation.

Some questions are closely related to the problem of the Pre-Greek Substratum:
1 The problem of the population of Neolithic Europe and the Balkans
2 The problem of the ethnogenesis and homeland of the Indo-Europeans
3 The problem of the ethnogenesis of the Paleo-Balkan peoples
It is obvious that these questions do not yet have an unambiguous answer. As there are no
written testimonies, nor reliable archaeological data, every theory regarding the Pre-Greek
substratum is more or less a speculation.
We cannot be sure what type of language contact occurred between Greek and the non-
Indo-European and/or Indo-European languages spoken in the Balkans before the arrival of
the Greeks.1 The data extractable from the Greek lexicon and Balkan onomastics do not allow
us to affirm that there was any real sub- or adstratum influence as we cannot identify any in-
fluences on the phonetics, the morphology or the syntax of the Greek language.
In his works from 1937 and 1941 Vladimir Georgiev attempted to reconstruct an unattested
Pre-Greek language that he later called Pelasgian. Georgiev analyzed a number of words from
the Greek vocabulary that could not be explained by the rules of the Greek historical phonet-
ics and compared them to cognates from other Indo-European languages. On the basis of
several etymologies he established the phonetic laws of this unattested Indo-European lan-
guage and continued to increase its lexical corpus. Georgiev’s hypothesis provoked opposite
reactions. Unfortunately, over the years the so-called “Pelasgian theory” has been seriously
discredited by the incontrollable extent of the etymological imagination of its adherents.
In recent years R. S. P. Beekes, following Kuiper and Furnée,2 has tried to prove the exis-
tence of a non-Indo-European substratum in Greek. By analyzing Greek words that deviate
from Indo-European phonetics and word formation, he endeavors to demonstrate that these
particularities could not be due to pure hazard. In his opinion certain phonetic and morpho-
logical characteristics appear repeatedly and give evidence of a different structure from that
of the Indo-European languages. In the chapter “Pre-Greek loanwords in Greek” in his Ety-
mological dictionary of Greek he states: “The ‘Pelasgian’ theory has done much harm, and it is

1 See on this point Hajnal 2005.

2 See GED, p. XIV.
308 Biliana Mihaylova

time to forget it.” (GED XVI). In 2009 Beekes mentions the Luwian etymology of Παρνασσός
proposed by West3 and declares: “… there were in my view no Luwians in Greece. We should
be spared a new disaster as with ‘Pelasgian’. Pre-Greek is a completely non-Indo-European
language.” (Beekes 2009: 194).
Like Georgiev’s hypothesis, Beekes’ reconstruction of an unknown non-Indo-European
substratum language or languages has the advantage of allowing the explanation of a very
large corpus of words without etymology. Another shared feature is that the majority of criti-
cal observations addressed to Georgiev’s theory could be assigned to Beekes’ theory as well.
However, the reconstruction of an unknown language family seems much more hypothetical
than the reconstruction of Georgiev’s Pre-Greek Indo-European which has a rich base of
comparison. As the famous Bulgarian historian Alexander Fol (1981: 54) notices, the theory
of the presence of a non-Indo-European population is clear and simple, but it is based on
presupposed conclusions and not on real results.
As for the Anatolian substratum in Greece, which Beekes definitely rejects, I would like to
quote the results of a recent genetic research study (King et al. 2008) demonstrating that the
data collected from Neolithic sites in mainland Greece show strong affinity to Balkan data,
while those from Crete show affinity with Central/Mediterranean Anatolia.
I believe that the Pre-Greek layer is heterogeneous. We could accept a non-Indo-European
layer in Greece and in all of Europe; this hypothesis fits well with the Kurgan theory which
presupposes that Old (Neolithic) Europe was inhabited by a non-Indo-European population.
Even in this case nothing contradicts the idea that Indo-European tribes inhabited the area of
the Balkan Peninsula and the Aegean islands before the first Greeks, e.g. in the last centuries
of the third millennium BC.
We find in Greek a group of words sharing a set of common phonetic developments and
showing an Indo-European pattern of word formation. In his etymological dictionary Beekes
does not provide a satisfactory explanation for these words and often marks them with a
question mark <?>. For the time being the best explanation for them remains within the
framework of Georgiev’s theory.4
The main phonetic features of the Pre-Greek, Indo-European language reconstructed by
Georgiev (1981: 100) are:
· IE *o > PGk. a
· IE *r̥, *l̥, *m̥, *n̥ > PGk. ur/or, ul/ol, um/om, ur/ol
· Application of Grassmann’s Law
· Consonant shift posterior to Grassmann’s Law (MA > M, M > T, T > TA)
· Preservation of IE *s in initial position before a vowel and in intervocalic position
· IE *su̯- before a vowel > PGk. s-
· Palatalization of velars in the position before a front vowel
· Delabialization of labiovelars
· IE *ei̯ > PGk. ī
Before I present a list of lexemes with certain or very probable etymologies belonging to the
Indo-European Pre-Greek layer, I have to make a few notes. In the following, we should bear
in mind that

3 This etymology is well known from Palmer’s book “Mycenaeans and Minoans” (1961).
4 In my opinion the denomination “Pelasgian” is purely conventional and I shall avoid it because of its negative
reputation.
 The Pre-Greek substratum revisited 309

1 Some fluctuations, as for example between the vowels u/o, are due to the fact that foreign
phonemes that did not have exact Greek correspondences are transmitted with Greek
script.
2 Pre-Greek stems could be adapted in Greek with Greek or grecized suffixes.
3 In many cases it is difficult to distinguish Pre-Greek substratum words from borrowings
from other Paleo-Balkan languages like Thracian, Phrygian or Macedonian. From the pho-
netic viewpoint the difference between Georgiev’s Pre-Greek and Thracian consists in one
single phonetic feature: Grassmann’s Law which is а regular development in Pre-Greek,
while the deaspiration in Thracian is late and eventually occurs subsequent to the conso-
nant shift, cf. Pre-Greek πύργος ‘tower’ < *burg̑h- < *bhr̥g̑h-, the place name Πέργαμος, -ν,
-η <*berg̑h- <*bherg̑h- vs. Thrac. Βεργ- in place names like Βεργούλη, Βεργέπολις < *bherg̑h-.
The Thracian consonant shift has been recently doubted by Yanakieva (2010). If her hy-
pothesis is correct, this would be another difference between the two idioms.
4 It is difficult to set the chronological framework within which the Pre-Greek IE bor-
rowings penetrated the Greek lexicon.5 It is certain that these borrowings postdated the
weakening of IE *s > h (which is a pre-Mycenaean phenomenon). We could suppose that
Grassmann’s Law still operated in Greek as it took place in the Pre-Greek loanword ταχύς
‘swift, quick’ < *thakhu- from IE *toku-. The comparative degree θάσσων preserved the as-
pirate and this is a clear indication that the deaspiration occurred on Greek ground. There
are some indications that Grassmann’s Law postdates the Mycenaean period (Ruijgh 1967:
44–46).
The main criteria for inclusion in the list of the most probable Pre-Greek words of Indo-
European origin are:
· Presence of phonetic feature(s) of the Pre-Greek language
· Reliable cognates in other IE languages
· IE pattern of word formation
My aim is to be as conservative as possible, and for this reason I have not included onomas-
tic elements, phytonyms and words containing suffixes which are usually claimed to be Pre-
Greek such as -νθ-, -σσ-, -γγ-, etc. The secondary productivity of the suffixes increases the
risk of mere root etymologies. Below each entry I have indicated the author of the etymology.
However, many of these etymologies have been essentially reviewed and updated according
to recent achievements in Indo-European linguistics.

1. Wordlist
1 ἄδδεε· ἐπείγου. Hesych. ‘to press, urge, hurry’
The second part of this compound corresponds exactly to the Greek imperative θέε from
θέω ‘to run’ derived from the IE root *dʰeu̯- ‘to run, flow’ (IEW 259–260, LIV 147–148).
The treatment *dʰ > d is typical of Pre-Greek. The first part of the compound is the prefix
*ad- which Hamp (1985: 70; 1989a: 54; 1989b: 75–76) considers to be characteristic of Pre-
Greek. Lat. accurro ‘to run to a place’ represents a parallel structure containing the prefix
ad-.

5 See on this point Lejeune 1947: 31–32.

310 Biliana Mihaylova

From the same root, but with zero grade, is derived δύαν· κρήνην Hesych. ‘well, spring’.
δύαν goes back to *dʰu(u̯)eh2-, cf. Skt. dhávate ‘runs, flows’, dhautí- ‘spring, stream’, OHG
tau, Germ’. Tau, OE deaw ‘dew’, E. dew.6
Pre-Greek feature: consonant shift *dh > *d.
(Georgiev 1941: 83)
2 ἄμβων m. ‘crest of a hill’, ἄμβη f. ‘raised edge or protuberance’ < *h3enbh-ōn, *h3enbh-eh2, cf.
OHG amban, ambon ‘belly’ <*h3enbh-n-, Lat. umbō, -ōnis ‘boss (of a shield; protuberance)’
< *h3n̥bh-n- with the basic meaning ‘protuberance’.
Pre-Greek features: IE *o > PGk.*a; IE *bh > PGk. b.
(Georgiev 1937 I: 89)
3 ἀμέσω· ὠμοπλάται. Hesych. ‘shoulder blade’
According to Georgiev (1950: 48) this is a dual form. Therefore ἀμέσω goes back to
*h2em‑es-oh1 or *h2om-es-oh1. An exact correspondence is Lat. umerus ‘shoulder’, cf. also
Skt. áṃsa-, Gk. ὦμος < *h2om-so-,7 Arm. us, Goth. ams, Toch. A es, B āntse <*h2ōm(е)so-.8
Pre-Greek features: preservation of intervocalic *s; IE *o > PGk.*a.
(Georgiev 1950: 48)
4 ἀρβόν· διεστός, ἀραιόν, ἐλαφρόν. Hesych. ‘to set apart, sparse, light ’; ἀρβάκις· ὀλιγάκις.
Hesych. ‘seldom’, cf. Skt. árbha- ‘little’, arbhaká- ‘little, weak, young, in the age of child-
hood’, Gk. ὀρφανός ‘orphan’, etc. from IE *h3erbh-.
Pre-Greek features: IE *o > PGk.*a; IE *bh > PGk. b.
(Georgiev 1941: 79)
5 ἄσις f. ‘slime, mud’ (Hom.), ἄσις· κόνις. Hesych. ‘dust’. From IE *u̯os- ‘wet, slime’ (IEW
1171–1172 ‘wet’) attested in OS waso, OHG waso, MLG wase ‘mud’.9
Pre-Greek features: IE *o > PGk.*a; preservation of intervocalic *s.
(Van Windekens 1952: 73–74)
6 ἀτέμβω ‘maltreat’, pass. ‘to be bereft or cheated of a thing’.
From the nasalized form of the IE root *dhebh- ‘to damage, diminish; cheat’ (IEW 210,
LIV 132), cf. Hitt. tepnu-zi ‘to diminish’, Skt. dabhnóti ‘to hurt, injure, deceive, abandon’. If
*dhembh- (LIV 144) is a separate root, it is also attested in the Vedic causative dambháyati

6 The forms ἄδδεε and δύαν are without any doubt borrowed in Greek, but we cannot affirm with certainty that
they are Pre-Greek, because the prefix ad- and the loss of the aspiration of MA are typical of Phrygian too.
7 On the Greek forms with long vowel see GED 1680.
8 See Adams (1999: 43–44) who reconstructs PToch. ān(t)se < IE *h1/4ōm(e)so-.
9 The old etymology of ἄσις that connects the Greek word to Skt. ásita- ‘black’ (see GEW Ι 162) and further to OHG
amsala ‘blackbird’, Hitt. ḫanzana- ‘?black’ (see Nikolaev 2005: 50) requires a reconstruction*(h2)n̥si-. Nikolaev
(ibid.: 50–53) argues that Rix’s Law does not operate before nasals and that Gk. ἄσις < *h2m̥si- or *h2n̥si- supports
his hypothesis. However, the appurtenance of the Hittite word to this group is far from certain because of its dif-
ferent meanings (see Kloekhorst 2008: 292–293). On the other hand, the preservation of *s after the vocalic nasal
is quite disputable. In order to explain it Nikolaev (loc. cit.) is forced to propose an analogical retention of *s
according to the variant *h2émsi- of an old ablauting paradigm. But h2émsi- should yield †ᾱμι-/ημι- in Greek (for
the development the sequence -Ns- in intervocalic position see Lejeune 1987: 128–129), cf. for example Gk. ἡνία,
Dor. νία ‘bridle, rein’ < *h2ensieh2 (GED 520–521), *ghans- > Gk. χήν, χηνός, Boeot. χν, χᾱνός ‘goose’. Moreover,
OHG amsala is rather cognate with Lat. merula and Celtic words for ‘blackbird’ (IEW 35–36). According to
Schrijver (1997: 308), the Germanic forms for ‘blackbird’ go back to *amsl- or *amesVl-, while the Italic and Brit-
ish Celtic words go back to *mesVl-. The a-prefigation and the stem alternations point to a Non-Indo-European
loanword. It should also be mentioned that the semantic equation of Gk. ἄσις and the Germanic words proposed
by van Windekens (1952: 73–74) is more plausible both from the phonetic and the semantic viewpoint.
 The Pre-Greek substratum revisited 311

‘to destroy’ and Khwarezmian dnby- ‘beat’. The initial a- is explained by Hamp (1985: 70) as
the prefix ad- ‘to’ which he derives as a special syntactic use from *ad- ‘conformity, goal’.10
Pre-Greek features: Grassmann’s Law; consonant shift IE *d > PGk. t, IE *bh > PGk.
b.
(Georgiev 1941: 81)
7 ἄχνη f. ‘chaff; foam, froth’, ἄχυρον n. ‘chaff ’, perhaps also ἄχωρ, -ορος m. ‘scurf, dandriff ’
According to Hamp (1983: 22) these words are ancient heteroclitic formations from the
root *h₂eḱ- (IEW aḱ-, oḱ- ‘sharp, stone’: 18–22), cf. Gk. ἄκανος ‘pine-thistle’, ἄκαινα ‘spike,
prick, goad’, Lat. agna < *ac-na ‘an ear of grain’, Goth. ahana ‘chaff ’, Lith. asnìs, аšnis
‘growth of a plant’, Czech osina, SCr. osje ‘awn’.
Pre-Greek features: IE *o > PGk. a; consonant shift IE *k > PGk. kh.
(Georgiev 1937 I: 94)
8 βαλιός ‘spotted, dappled’, Βαλίος name of one of Achilles’ horses.
Cognate with Greek φαλιός, φαληρός, φαλᾱρός, φαλός ‘white, with white spots’ formed
from the zero grade of the root *bʰelh2- ‘white, shine’. Most likely βαλιός and φαλιός con-
tain the same suffix -iu̯o- as πολιός ‘grey, grizzled, grisly’ (cf. Myc. po-ri-wa).11
Greek φαλιός goes back to *bhl̥h2-iu̯o-s, while βαλιός is formed with o-grade of the root
like πολιός.
Pre-Greek features: IE *o > PGk. a; consonant shift IE *bh > PGk. b.12
(Georgiev 1941: 80)
9 βυλλίχαι· χοροί τινες ὀρχηστῶν, παρὰ Λάκωσι. Hesych. ‘dancers at Sparta’.
An exact correspondence to Gk. φαλλικά· ὠδὴ πεποιμένη εἰς τὸν Διόνυσον, τοῦ φαλλοῦ
ᾷδομένου. Hesych. Both lexemes go back to IE *bʰl̥niko-, cf. also Gk. φαλλός ‘membrum
virile’ < *bʰl̥nos from the IE root *bhel- ‘to swell’.
Pre-Greek features: IE *l̥ > PGk*ul; IE *bh > PGk. b.
(Haas 1959: 50 ff.)
10 ἔτνος n. ‘thick soup made with peas or beans’ < *h1еd-n-es- from the root *h1ed- ‘eat’ with
the same suffix as in κτῆνος (Chantraine 1979: 420).
Pre-Greek feature: IE *d > PGk.*t.
(Georgiev 1959: 81)
11 θάλαμος m. ‘an inner room or chamber, surrounded by other buildings; store-room; the
lowest, darkest part of the ship, the hold’.
This word should be derived from IE *telh2-mo-s > *θέλαμος with assimilation ε-α > α-α.13
It belongs to the IE root *telh2- ‘flat surface, ground, support’ (IEW 1060). The basic mean-
ing of the Pre-Greek form is perhaps ‘basement, ground floor room’ and it is cognate with
Skt. tala- ‘surface, bottom’, Gk. τελαμών ‘broad strap or band for bearing or supporting

10 Prof. Georges-Jean Pinault suggested to me in a personal communication that the initial ἀ- could result from the
prefix *(H)o- ‘close by, near, with’ attested for example in Gk. ὀ-κέλλω ‘to drive ashore’ and ὀ-τρύνω ‘to encour-
age, urge, incite’.
11 See Schwyzer 1939: 472, Weiss 1996: 212.
12 However the word could be of Phrygian or Macedonian origin if βαλιός < *bhl̥h2-iu̯o-s. We should not forget
the possibility that the word may be a macedonized Greek form like κεβάλη for κεφάλη, Βίλιππος for Φίλιππος,
Βερενίκη for Φερενίκη.
13 If we posit a proto-form *tolh2-mo-s, it would be a counterexample to the Saussure effect or the laryngeal would
be conserved analogically to an unknown e-grade formation.
312 Biliana Mihaylova

anything’, Lat. tellus ‘earth’, ОIcel. þel ‘ground, floor’, Lith. tìltas ‘bridge’, OPr. talus ‘ground,
floor’, OBg. tĭlo ‘ground’, Russ. potolok ‘ceiling’.
Pre-Greek feature: consonant shift IE *t > PGk. th.
(Georgiev 1941: 85)
12 κῖκυς, -υος f. ‘strength, vigour’ (Hom.)
This word could be analyzed as IE Pre-Greek if we assume that it continues *gʷih3g(w)u-
from the IE root *gwi̯eh3- ‘to live, life’ (IEW 467–469, LIV 215), cf. with the same enlarge-
ment Latv. dzîga ‘live’ and the Germanic formations *kwikwaz ‘alive’: OE cwic, OIcel.
kvikr, kykr, Germ. keck ‘bold’, etc. vs. Goth. qius ‘alive’ < *gʷih3u̯o-.14
Pre-Greek features: delabialization of IE *gʷ; consonant shift IE *g > PGk. k.
(Van Windekens 1956: 239–242)
13 ὄμβρος m. ‘storm of rain, thunder-storm’ from IE *n̥bh-ro-. Exact correspondences are Lat.
imber ‘rain, heavy or violent rain, a rain-storm, shower of rain, pelting or pouring rain’,
Skt. abhrá- ‘cloud’, Av. aβra- ‘rain, rain cloud’ and perhaps Gk. ἀφρός ‘foam, of the sea’.15
Pre-Greek features: IE n̥ > PGk. un/on; consonant shift IE *bh > PGk. b.
(Georgiev 1941: 94)
14 πύνδαξ, -ακος m. ‘bottom of a jar, cup, or other vessel’ m.
This word is a parallel formation to Skt. budhná- ‘bottom, foot, root’, Lat. fundus ‘bottom’
with the same metathesis -dn- > -nd- as in Pre-Greek, OIr. bond ‘foot sole’, OIcel. botn, OE
botem ‘bottom’, all deriving from IE *bhudh-mn-o- with loss of the labial nasal in -Cmn- >
‑Cn‑.16 The Greek cognate πυθμήν ‘bottom of a cup or jar’ is attested with a full-grade
suffix. According to DELG III 954: “Dérivé qui comporte le même suffixe -ακ- de noms
d’objets que μύλαξ, κάμαξ, πίναξ ”.
Pre-Greek features: Grassmann’s Law; consonant shift b > p, dh > d.
(Kretschmer 1934: 115–118: German loanword mediated through a Northern Balkan lan-
guage; Georgiev 1937 I: 88)
15 πύργος m. ‘tower, especially such as were attached to the walls of a city’ < *bʰr̥g̑ʰos from
the IE root *bherg̑h- (IEW 140–1). The word is an exact correspondence to Germ. Burg
‘castle’, cf. also Hitt. parku-, Arm. barjr ‘high’< *bhr̥gh-u-, Skt. br̥hánt- ‘high, tall, great’, Av.
bərəzant- ‘high’, MIr. brí, acc. brig ‘hill’, Gaul. -briga in toponyms.
Πέργαμος, -ον, -η name of different cities, generally ‘citadel, acropolis’ < *bherg̑ho-mo-.
The toponyms belong to the same root, but with e-grade of the root as in Germ. Berg
‘mountain’, OBg. brěgŭ ‘scarp, bank’.17

14 PGmc. *kwikwaz is considered as one of the keystones of Cowgill’s Law which states that at least IE *h3 became
k between a sonorant and w. In this respect Goth. qius is usually explained with dissimilatory loss of the second
stop. However, besides the Pre-Greek word the Germanic forms have other irrefutable correspondences with a
velar enlargement like Latv. dzîga, Lat. 1 sg. perf. vīxī. See on this point Müller 2007: 116–117.
15 For semantic reasons Meillet (1931: 51–52) rejects the old connection of Greek ὄμβρος with the forms derived
from IE *n̥bh-ro- meaning ‘cloud, rain’ which according to Kroonen (see GED 1075) could represent the zero
grade of IE *nebh-, cf. Skt. nábhas- ‘vapor, cloud, mists, fog, sky’, Gk. νέφος ‘cloud’, etc. But since the basic mean-
ing of the word is ‘foam of the sea’, we could suppose an original sense ‘to drizzle, sprinkle, splash’, thus implying
that the connection with the notion of ‘rain’ does not seem impossible.
16 On the treatment of the sequence -Cmn- in Indo-European see Nussbaum 2010: 269–277. On the Germanic
reflexes see Kroonen 2006: 21–23.
17 Arm. burgn ‘tower’, which appears with an irregular vocalism next to barjr, is often considered to be a borrowed
form related to Gk. πύργος (Martirosyan 2008: 246). Martirosyan (loc. cit.) suggests that “we may be dealing
with a ‘Wanderwort’ ultimately of IE origin”.
 The Pre-Greek substratum revisited 313

Pre-Greek features: IE *r̥ > PGk. ur; Grassmann’s Law; consonant shift b > p, gh > g.
(Kretschmer 1934: 100ff.: German loanword mediated through a Northern Balkan lan-
guage; Georgiev 1937 I: 67)
16 σέλας, -αος n. ‘light, brightness, flame’
From IE *su̯elos (< *su̯el(hx)os), cf. Gk. ἕλη, εἵλη ‘the sun’s heat or warmth’ < *su̯el(hx)-eh2,
OE swelan ‘to burn’ (IEW 1045, LIV 609: 1. *su̯el-). The presence of a final laryngeal is sup-
posed on the basis of OE swol ‘flame’ < PGmc. *swulan < IE *su̯l̥hx-, Lith. svìlti ‘to singe’
(Rikov 1999).18
We have two possibilities to explain Pre-Greek σέλας:
1 *su̯el(hx)os is an es-stem of the type *genh₁os, *genh₁esos, borrowed in Greek with the
nominative form *selas and conceived as a neuter of the type κέρας, -αος.
2 If we are dealing with a seṭ root,*selas might continue IE *su̯elh2/3s.
Pre-Greek features: IE *su̯- > PGk. s and possibly IE *o > PGk. a.
(Georgiev 1941: 99)
17 σῖγα ‘silently’ (Trag.), σῑγή ‘silence’ f.
This form should be derived from IE *su̯ei̯hx-gh- or *su̯ihx-gh- ‘to be silent’ (IEW 1052). The
word is cognate with OHG swīgēn, Germ. schweigen, OE swīgian ‘to be silent, still’, OHG
swīga, OE swīge ‘silence from PGmc. *swīg-.
Pre-Greek features: IE *su̯ > PGk. s ; consonant shift IE *gh > PGk. g; IE *ei̯ > PGk. ī.
(Georgiev 1937 I: 107)
18 σῖτος m. ‘grain, comprehending both wheat and barley’ m. (X., Hdt.) ‘food made from
grain, bread’ (Hom), Myc. si-to in compounds.19
Derived from IE *ku̯ei̯dos with palatalization of the velar and phonetic change *ei̯ > *ī.
Cognate with Goth. hwaiteis, OS hweti, ON hveiti, Norw. kveite, OFris. hwete, MDu., Du.
weit, OE hwæte, E wheat, OHG weizzi, Germ. Weizen ‘wheat’ < *ku̯oi̯d- from the IE root
*ku̯ei̯-, *ku̯oi̯- ‘to shine’ (IEW 628).
The German word for ‘white’ is derived from the same root with another ablaut degree,
cf. Goth. hweits, OS, OFris. hwīt, ON hvítr, Du. wit, OE hwīt, E white, OHG (h)wīz, Germ.
weiß < IE *ku̯ei̯-d-. Obviously the plant is named after its white seeds and flowers. For the
semantic development, cf. Gk. ἄλφι, ἄλφιτον ‘barley-groats’, Alb. elp, -bi ‘barley’ from the
root *h2elbh- ‘white’ (IEW 29–30), cf. Lat. albus ‘white’.
Pre-Greek features: palatalization; consonant shift IE *d > PGk. t; IE *ei̯ > PGk. ī.
(Georgiev 1937 I: 73)
19 σῦλον n., σλη f. ‘right of seizing the ship or cargo of a foreign merchant, to cover losses
received through him’ < *sl̥h1-o-m, -eh2, συλάω ‘to strip off, strip him of his arms, take off
or out, deprive, seize’.

18 Some scholars argue that sonorants are geminated in Germanic when followed by laryngeals (Lühr apud Beekes
1988: 97). Resonant gemination in the cluster *-VRHV- in the Germanic languages is ​​ not proven with certainty
in all cases (Beekes 1988: 97–8, Polomé 1988: 404 fn. 13). According to Müller (2007: 88–95) the gemination
occurred in both *-VRHV- and *-VIHV- sequences, but only when the first vowel was stressed and short. I am
following Zair’s position that “the lack of sonorant gemination is not evidence against a seṭ root, and that gemina-
tion is evidence for one” (Zair 2012: 12). Therefore, the related OE swelan and MHG schwelen ‘to smoulder’ with
a single -l- do not contradict the presence of a final laryngeal in this root.
19 The connection between σῖτος and Toch. B. ṣito ‘grainfield’, Skt. stā- ‘furrow’, sra- ‘plough’ from the root *seh1-
enlarged with -i- (IEW 899, LIV 517) is tempting, but t remains unexplained unless we posit IE *sih1-d-o-s which
seems arbitrary in view of the external evidence.
314 Biliana Mihaylova

From the root *selh1- ‘to take, take away’ (IEW 899, LIV 529), cf. Gk. ἑλεῖν aor. inf. ‘to
grasp, seize, take away’, ἑλετός ‘that can be taken or caught’, Goth. saljan ‘to offer as sacri-
fice’, OIr. selb ‘possession’ < *selh1-u̯o-.20
Pre-Greek features: preservation of IE *s; IE *l̥ > PGk. ul.
(Georgiev 1941: 105)
20 σῦς, -ος m. f. ‘sow, boar’.
Exact correspondence to Gk. ὗς, cf. YAv. hū-, Alb. thi ‘pig’, Lat. sūs ‘pig, sow’, OHG, OE sū
‘sow’ < IE *suH-s.
Pre-Greek feature: preservation of the IE *s in initial position before a vowel.
(Georgiev 1941: 106)
21 ταχύς ‘swift, quick’ < *thakhu- from IE *tokwu-, cognate with Skt. táku- ‘rushing, quick’ <
*tekwu-. The adjectives are derived from the IE root *tekw- ‘to run, to flow’ (IEW 1059–60,
LIV 620). The Sanskrit form is paroxytone and with e-grade of the root like Skt. tápu-
‘burning hot’ < *tep-u-, vásu- ‘excellent, good’ < *h1u̯es-u-, réku- ‘empty, void, deserted’
< *lei̯kw-u-.21 The o-grade of the root of the Pre-Greek adjective is comparable to that in
Gk. πολύς ‘many’ < *polh1-u-. The different ablaut grades are not surprising, cf. Gk. πολύς
vs. Skt. purú- ‘much, many, abundant’ < *pl̥h1-u-. According to Lubotsky (1987: 122) the
almost omnipresent oxytonesis of the Greek adjectives in -υς is relatively recent.
The only problem remains the long α of the comparative degree θσσων, θᾶσσον which
is most probably secondary.22 The voiceless aspirate confirms that Grassmann’s Law oper-
ated on Greek ground.
Pre-Greek features: delabialization; consonant shift IE *t > PGk. th, IE *k > PGk. kh;
IE *o > PGk. a.
It is important to note that the deaspiration did not occur in Pre-Greek, because Grass-
mann’s Law chronologically preceded the Pre-Greek consonant shift.
(Georgiev 1937 I: 89)
21 τρυγή f. ‘grain-crop, vintage; dryness’; τρυγεῖ· ξηραίνει. Hesych.
The Greek forms are cognate with OE dryge, E. dry, MLG dröge, MDu. druge, Du. droog,
OHG dröge, OHG truckan, Germ. trocken OIcel. draugr ‘dry log’ from the IE root *dhreu̯gh‑.
Georgiev (1950: 57) supposes the following semantic development: ‘dry’ > ‘dry season’
> ‘harvest, vintage season’.
Pre-Greek features: Grassmann’s Law; consonant shift IE *d > PGk. t, IE *gh > PGk. g.
(Georgiev 1950: 57)
22 τύμβος m. ‘sepulchral mound, cairn, barrow’ < *dʰm̥bʰos. This word is an exact correspon-
dence to Gk. τάφος ‘funeral-rites; grave, tomb’ derived from the IE root *dhembh- ‘bury’
(IEW 248–249, LIV 143). Cf. also Arm. damban, dambaran, Av. daxma- ‘grave’ < *dʰm̥bʰo-,
Gk. θάπτω ‘bury’ < *dʰm̥bʰ-i̯e-.
Corc. τῡμος < *tuh2-mo-s is not cognate with τύμβος = τάφος, but rather derived from
the root*teu̯(h2)- ‘to swell’ and related to OHG dūmo, OS thūmo, OIcel. þumall ‘thumb’ <
*tuh2-m- and to Lat. tumulus ‘raised heap of earth, a mound, hill, hillock’ from the root
without laryngeal extension (Schrijver 1991: 530, de Vaan 2008: 633).
Pre-Greek features: IE *m̥ > PGk. um, Grassmann’s Law, consonant shift d > t, bh > b.
(Georgiev 1937 I: 74)

20 On the reconstruction of the Celtic form see Matasović 2009: 329.

21 See Lubotsky 1987: 11.
22 See Sihler 1995: 363, GED 1456, DELG IVa: 1097.
 The Pre-Greek substratum revisited 315

23 τύρσις f. ‘tower, tower on a wall, bastion’, τύρσις· πύργος, τύρσος· τὸ ἑν ὕψει οἰκόδομα.
Hesych. < *dʰr̥g̑his from IE *dherg̑h- (IEW 254), cf. Skt. dr̥hyáti ‘to be strong’, Av. dǝrǝzra-
‘strong, firm’, Lith. dir̃žti ‘to become hard’, OBg. drьžati ‘hold’; perhaps Lat. fortis ‘strong,
robust’ also belongs to this root (see de Vaan 2008: 236–7). A similar semantic develop-
ment is observed in French fortification ‘fortification, towers, walls etc. built around a
place in order to protect it or defend it’ from Lat. fortificatio ‘act of fortifying, a strengthen-
ing, fortifying’ in the sense of ‘defensive construction’.
Pre-Greek features: IE *r̥ > ur; Grassmann’s Law; consonant shift d > t, gʰ > g; palatal-
ization.
(Kretschmer 1934: 110–112: German loanword mediated through a Northern Balkan lan-
guage; Georgiev 1937 I: 66)

Conclusions
The Pre-Greek borrowings showing an IE pattern of word formation are very scanty. Many
loanwords may belong not to an unknown “substratum” language, but to the Paleo-Balkan
languages like Thracian, Phrygian, Macedonian. Nevertheless, taken together, the loan-
words show a coherent complex of common phonetic features suggesting
that most likely they belong to one and the same language.

References
Adams, Douglas. 1999. A dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Beekes, Robert S. P. Laryngeal developments: a survey. In Alfred Bammesberger (ed.), Die
Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems,
59–105. Heidelberg: Winter.
Beekes, Robert. S. P. 2009. Pre-Greek names. JIES. 37(1–2). 191–197.
Chantraine, Pierre. 1979. La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fol, Alexandar. 1981. История на българските земи в древността, tom 1. Sofia: Nauka i
izkustvo.
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1937. Die Träger der Kretisch-Mykenischen Kultur, ihre Herkunft und
ihre Sprache. I Teil. Urgriechen und Urillyrier (Thrako-illyrier). Annuaire de l’Université
de Sofia. Faculté Historico-Philologique. 33(4).
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1941. Vorgriechische Sprachwissenschaft. Annuaire de l’Université de So-
fia. Faculté Historico-Philologique. 36. Sofia: Imprimerie de l’Université.
Georgiev, V ladimir. 1950. Inscriptions minoennes quasi-bilinques. Annuaire de l’Université
de Sofia. Faculté Historico-Philologique 46(4). 1–85.
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1959. Contributions à l’étude de l’étymologie grecque. Linguistique balka-
nique 1. 69–86.
Georgiev, Vladimir. 1981. Introduction to the history of the Indo-European languages. Sofia:
Publishing House of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
GED = Robert. S. P. Beekes & Lucien van Beek. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek. Leiden
& Boston: Brill.
GEW = Hjalmar Frisk. 1960–1972. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 3 Bde. Heidelberg:
C. Winter.
Haas, Otto. 1959. Die Lehre von den indogermanischen Substraten in Griechenland. Linguis-
tique balkanique 1. 29–56.
316 Biliana Mihaylova

Hajnal, Ivo. 2005. Das Frühgriechische zwischen Balkan und Ägäis – Einheit oder Vielfalt? In
Gerhard Meiser & Olaf Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel. Akten der XI.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, 17.–23. September 2000, Halle an der Saale,
185–214. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Hamp, Eric. 1983. Prehellenic ἄχυρον “chaff, awn”. Živa Antika 33(1). 22.
Hamp, Eric. 1985. Notes on Indo-European dialects. Indogermanische Forschungen 90. 70–1.
Hamp, Eric. 1989a. Prehellenica 5–6. Živa Antika 39 (1–4). 54.
Hamp, Eric. 1989b. Prehellenica 7: Words derived from IE. *ǵher-. Živa Antika 39 (1–4). 75–76.
IEW = Julius Pokorny. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.
LIV² = Helmut Rix et al. (eds.). 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: L.
Reichert. (2., erw. und verb. Aufl.).
King, R. J. et al. 2008. Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian influences on the Greek and Cre-
tan Neolithic. Annals of Human Genetics 72(2). 205–214.
Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon. Leiden &
Boston: Brill.
Kretschmer, Paul. 1934. Nordische Lehnwörter im Altgriechischen. Glotta 22. 100–122.
Kroonen, Guus. 2006. Gemination and allomorphy in the Proto-Germanic mn-inflection:
bottom and rime. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 61. 16–25.
Lejeune, Michel. 1947. Linguistique préhellénique. Revue des études anciennes 49(1–2). 25–37.
Lejeune, Michel. 1987. Phonétique historique du mycénien et du grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Lubotsky, Alexander. 1987. The system of nominal accentuation in Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-
European. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Martirosyan, Hrach. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon. Leiden
& Boston: Brill.
Matasović, Ranko. 2009. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Celtic. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
Meillet, Antoine. 1931. Grec ἀφρός. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 31. 51–52.
Müller, Stefan. 2007. Zum Germanischen aus laryngaltheoretischer Sicht: Mit einer Einführung
in die Grundlagen der Laryngaltheorie. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Nikolaev, Alexander. 2005. К действию закона Рикса в древнегреческом языке. In N. N.
Kazansky et al. (eds.), Hr̥dā́ mánasā: Studies presented to Professor Leonhard G. Herzenberg
on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 38–72. St.-Petersburg: Nauka.
Nussbaum, Alan. 2010. PIE -Cmn- and Greek τρᾱνής ‘clear’. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oet-
tinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia lux: Anatolian and Indo-
European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday,
269–277. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave.
Polomé, Edgar. 1988. Are there any traces of laryngeals in Germanic? In Alfred Bammes-
berger (ed.), Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und
Formensystems, 383–414. Heidelberg: Winter.
Rikov, Georgi. 1999. The formations of the Indo-European nasal infix presents ultimae larynga-
lis. Unpublished dissertation.
Ruijgh, Cornelis. J. 1967. Etudes sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amster-
dam.
Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford University Press.
Schrijver, Peter. 1991. Development of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin. Amster-
dam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Schrijver, Peter. 1997. Some Western European substratum words. In Alexander Lubotsky
(ed.), Sound law and analogy. Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his
60th birthday (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 9), 293–316. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
 The Pre-Greek substratum revisited 317

Schwyzer, Eduard. 1939. Griechische Grammatik. Bd. 1. Allgemeiner Teil. Lautlehre. Wortbil-
dung. Flexion. München: C. H. Beck.
de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages. Leiden
& Boston: Brill.
Weiss, Michael. 1996. Greek μυρίος ‘countless’, Hittite mūri- ‘bunch’ (of fruit). Historische
Sprachforschung 109(2). 199–214.
van Windekens, Albert J. 1952. Le pélasgique. Essai sur une langue indo-européenne préhellé-
nique. Louvain: Publications universitaires. Institut orientaliste.
van Windekens, Albert J. 1956. Pelasgisch κῖκυς ‘Kraft, Energie’ und germanisch *kwiku-,
*kwikwa- ‘lebendig’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 74. 239–242.
Yanakieva, Svetlana. 2009. Тракийската хидронимия. Sofia: Marin Drinov Academic Pub-
lishing House.
Zair, Nicholas. 2012. The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Celtic. Leiden &
Boston: Brill.