Iranian and Anatolian cognates to Greek (k)sun.

• Author: Testen, David
• Position: Report

1. GREEK (K)SUN AND PROTO-GREEK " *K[S.sup.X]-"

   The early Greek preposition/particle meaning 'with; together' currently lacks a convincing etymological explication. (1) What makes the analysis of Greek 'with' complex is the fact that its initial letter shows an odd indeterminacy that runs counter to the sound correspondences as we currently know them.

   INITIAL Ksi Homeric [xi] [upsilon] v (chiefly in compounds) Early Attic [xi] [upsilon] v Ionic verse [xi] [upsilon] v Linear B ku-su

   INITIAL SIGMA Homeric [sigma] [upsilon] v Later Attic (post 5th-c. B.C.E.) [sigma] [upsilon] v Ionic prose [sigma] [upsilon] v Boeotian [sigma] [upsilon] v

   Note that the distribution of ksi and sigma in this word does not follow the familiar dialect breakdown of early Greek--indeed, the fact that both shapes occur within a single dialect precludes a simple dialectological approach to the problem, since it would presumably be necessary to posit, e.g., that Attic [xi] [upsilon] v reflects a fifth-century borrowing from an external source which entirely supplanted the indigenous shape [xi] [upsilon] v. It is difficult, however, to imag-ine why such a basic element of the vocabulary should have been suddenly replaced with a cognate from outside Attic.

   The fact that the apparent replacement of ks- by s- in Attic correlates with a historical point in time the fifth century B.c.E.--suggests that we find before us the results of a pho-nological shift from a more archaic early shape in ks-toward a truncated later shape in s-. In the s-of dialects such as Boeotian, we would have to presume that a parallel but evidently independent shift occurred in that dialect's prehistory. If the s-form results from a secondary development, we must consequently conclude that this development took place on more than one occasion across the various dialects.

   However, whether we posit a single shift or multiple shifts, it is difficult to accept that the replacement of ks-by s-represents a simple phonological change since we must account for the fact that the phenomenon seems not to encompass initial ks-in general but only the ks-found specifically in this word. Unless we wish to settle for a theory of diachronic phonology that countenances changes targeting individual lexical items, we must come up with some way to give a phonology-based characterization of the Greek word for `with' that uniquely defines this word and distinguishes it from all other words containing initial ks-. In principle, we might posit that, as a function word, (k)sun had unusual suprasegmental characteristics that might account for the fact that it has apparently been subjected to eccentric phonological developments. Such a hypothesis cannot be ruled out, but. in the absence of further parallels to this development, it likewise cannot be proven.

   The above qualifications notwithstanding, in the following, pages I would like to sug-gest that the relation between ksun and sun may indeed be viewed ultimately as a matter of conventional, lautgesetzlich phonology. The hypothesis that I would like to consider here is that the apparently eccentric reflexes of (k)siin are due to the presence of something special about the Proto-Greek Anlaut underlying ksun/sa n. For indexical purposes, let us label the onset of the Pre-Greek precursor of the word for 'with' as "*[ks.sup.x]"--i.e., a sequence of elements that in some manner yet to be defined differed from the typical *ks-cluster. Using this assumption as a starting point, it is possible to posit that this "*k.s.''-" left differing reflexes in documented Greek by undergoing at least two contrasting developments as the historical dialects took shape:

1. In some of the Greek proto-dialects, "*[ks.sup.x]" merged with simple s-.

2. In the ancestor of dialects like Attic, "*[ks.sup.x]-" evidently remained distinct from *ks-and only later--i.e.. after the onset of written records--did the outcome of "*[ks.sup.x]" merge fully with x. Prior to this merger, if this view is correct, early Attic still retained a distinction between its *ks- and its reflex of "*[ks.sup.x]" but the distinction was presumably obscured on the graphic level through the use of a single character ksi to represent both.

3. It is possible that other dialects (e.g., that of Linear B) also retained the distinction between the reflexes of "*[ks.sup.x]-" and "*ks-" but, like early Attic, did not reveal the distinction through their graphic systems. On the other hand, one can, just as readily imagine that such dialects had already lost the distinction through a merger of "*[ks.sup.x]-" and *ks-.

   The situation in the Homeric text, which shows both ks- and s- as its reflexes of "*[ks.sup.x]-," is is interesting. Perhaps Homeric. like early Attic, still synchronically possessed a distinct reflex of "*[ks.sup.x]-" which it manifested through differing allophones governed by environmental factors which are not presently apparent. Alternatively, the co-occurrence of ks- and s- in Homeric may perhaps be ascribed to contact...