The Center for Hellenic Studies

Anthroponymica Mycenaea: e-ti-me-de-i (dat.) /hEnti-mēdēs/ ‘(the one) who accomplished his plans’, Homeric ἐξήνυσε βουλάς

     
back
José L. García Ramón (Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington, DC)
1. The Pylian man’s name e-ti-me-de-i (dat.) occurs in PY Fn 324.1 (S324, Ciii), a tablet of contributions of barley (HORD, with indication of the quantities) beside a series of names.* Some of them, all in dative, are surely Greek, [1] among others a-ka-ma-jo .4 /Akmaiōi/ or /Alkmaiōi/ (: Ἀκμαῖος, cf. Ἀλκμαίων), da-]mo-ke-re-we-i .2 /Dā]mo-klewehi/, ẹ-ụ-ru-po-to-re-mo-jo , do-e-ro-i .26 /Euruptolemoio doheloihi/, o-qa-wo-ni .16 /hOkwāwōni/ (: Hom. ὀπάων ‘attendant’ and MN Ὀπάων, cf. ἕπομαι), pa-ra-ke-se-we .10 /Prāksēwei/ (: Πραξεύς) or /Phrāksēwei/ (cf. Φράξος), [2] pi-re-ṭạ .17 /Philetāi/ (: Φιλέτας), po-no-qa-ta .15 /Pono-(k)kwā(s)tāi/ (cf. πόνος, πᾱ́ομαι*), [3] most probably also ]de-ra-wo .6 /°lāwōi/ and ke-sa-me-no ke-me-ri-jo v.1 /Ke-samenōi/, an aor.ptc. */Kensameno-/ or */Kersameno-/.
The presence of a series of Greek names in the tablet justifies the attempt of an interpretatio graeca also for e-ti-me-de-i, which is currently considered as a Greek compound with second member (dat.) /°mēdehi/ (: °μήδης), i.e. e-ti-me-de /°mēdēs/ (so in what follows conventionally). [4] It is the first member of e-ti-me-de-i, which could a priori be the same as that of the MN e-ti-ra-wo (§5), which remains obscure.


In fact, the interpretations proposed till now, namely as /Eti-mēdēs/ (ἔτι°), as /Ēti-mēdēs/ (*Ἡτι-μήδης) or as /Erti-mēdēs/, [5] do not go beyond the limits of a more or less plausible transliteration, as the compounded names they imply make no sense and/or have no support in Greek phraseology. This applies also to /Erti-mēdes-/, with a first member /Er°/ (cf. ἔρετο · ὁρμήθη , ἔρχομαι), which would formally match that of e-ti-ra-wo /Erti-lāwo-/ (cf. Λᾱ-έρτης) ‘(the one) who rushes towards / upon / against the lāwos’, [6] but would make no sense with a second member /°mēdes-/ ‘plans, plot’ (see §5 below). A closer look at the different possibilities, some of which have not been taken into account so far (e.g. /Erti-mēdēs/ with εἴρo/ε- ‘fasten together in rows, string’ in the first member), will show that none of them is formally and/or semantically satisfying. The aim of the present contribution is to make the case for a transliteration of e-ti-me-de* as /hEnti-mēdēs/, a compound of the type βωτι-άνειρα, Myc. ne-ti-ja-no /Nesti-ānōr/*(dat. ne-ti-ja-no-re), with a first member /hEn°/ (/hEn-ti°/) which reflects the full grade *sen- of Hom. ἄνυμι, ἀνύο/ε- ‘accomplish, fulfill’ (*sn̥h2-éu̯- / sn̥h2-u̯-´, cf. PIE *senh2– ‘id.’: Ved. sani ‘reach’), which lives on in the second member of Att. αὑθ-έντης ‘author, murder’ (*‘accomplisher (himself) ’, cf. Hom. ἐξ-ανύω ‘I (shall) kill’) and ἔντεα ‘equipment’ (Hom+). The meaning of /hEnti-mēdēs/ is actually ‘the one who fulfills his plan(s)’, as clearly supported by the phraseological collocations of both terms and of their synonyms (τελείο/ε- for ἀνύο/ε-, βουλαί for μήδεα) already in the Epic.
2. The second member °μήδης (: pl. μήδεα ‘plans, counsels, plot’ [7] ) occurs frequently (also fem. °μήδεια,°μήδη), sometimes also °μέδης,°μέδεια, [8] in compound names with verbal first member in first millennium Greek, and is attested in Mycenaean in e-ti-me-de-i, also in e-ke-me-de /(h)Ekhe-mēdēs/ (KN, PY) : Ἐχε-μήδης, WN Ἐχε-μήδα (see §3.1 below). It is also attested with non-verbal first member, like in first millenium Greek, cf. a-no-me-de, gen. °me-de-o (PY) : Ἀνδρo-μήδης, Ἀνδρo-μέδης (Il. 2.340 … βoυλαί τε γενoίατo μήδεα τ’ ἀνδρῶν, like Θεo-μήδης: Od. 6.12 θεῶν ἄπo μήδεα εἰδώς), a-pi-me-de (KN, PY) : Ἀμφι-μήδης. e-u-me-de, dat. °me-de-i (PY) : Εὐ-μήδης (Il. 2.360 αὐτός τ’εὖ μήδεo, Od. 11.445 εὖ φρεσὶ μήδεα oἶδε), pe-ri-me-de, gen. °me-de-o (PY) : Περι-μήδης (Οd. 18.67 περὶ μήδεα, Hsd. Th. 559… πάντων πέρι μήδεα εἰδώς). [9]
Hom. μήδεα ‘plans, plot’ (and μήδομαι), which is surely old (Arm. *mit ‘thought’, pl. mitk‘, OHG māz “Mass” ‘measure’) lives on only in Poetry. Its semantics, and especially its synonyms, are crucial to determine the lexeme of the first member of e-ti-me-de* and the meaning of the compound in the light of Greek phraseology. It is important to stress that in Homeric “synchrony” (and in poetry) μήδεα ‘plans’ is synonymous (a) with μῆτις [10] and (b) with βουλαί, glossed as Att. βουλεύματα by the lexicographers, as the glosses below show.
As to (a): both μήδεα and μῆτις co-occur as the objects of ὑφαίνo/ε- ‘weave’ and of φράζομαι ‘Ι devise, think out’, in collocations with πυκνός (μήδεα πυκνά / μήτιδι πυκνῇ) and in the formula ‘equal in counsel’ (θεoῖς ἐναλίγκια μήδεα / Διὶ μῆτιv ἀτάλαvτov):
Il. 3.212 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ μύθoυς καὶ μήδεα πᾶσιν ὕφαινoν ‘but when they began to weave the web of words and of devices’ :: Od. 9.422 πάντας δὲ δόλoυς καὶ μῆτιν ὕφαινoν) (formular) ‘I was weaving all my resources and devices’. [11]
Il. 3.202 εἰδὼς παντoίoυς τε δόλoυς καὶ μήδεα πυκνά ‘knowing all manner of tricks and cunning counsels’ :: Hdt. 7.141 (oracle) Παλλὰς… / λισσομένη πολλοῖσι λόγοις καὶ μήτιδι πυκνῇ.
Od. 13.89 ἄνδρα … θεoῖσ᾿ ἐναλίγκια μήδεα ἔχovτα ‘a man having counsels like the gods’ (cf. above e-ke-me-de /(h)Ekhe-mēdēs/ : Ἐχεμήδης) :: Διὶ μῆτιv ἀτάλαvτov ‘equal of Zeus in counsel’ (a frequent formula, 2.169 +).
Synonymity is recognizable also for μήδομαι, μέδομαι and μητιάο/ε-, cf. Il. 10.52 τόσα γὰρ κακὰ μήσατ’ Ἀχαιoῖς ‘so many evils has he devised for the Achaeans’ :: 4.21 (= 8.458) κακὰ δὲ Τρώεσσι μεδέσθην ‘and planned/ devised evils for the Trojans’ :: Od. 1.234 νῦν δ’ ἑτέρως ἐβόλοντο θεοὶ κακὰ μητιόωντες ‘but now the gods have willed otherwise in their evil devising’.
As to (b) cf.

Il. 2.340 ἐμ πυρὶ δὴ βουλαί τε γενοίατο μήδεά τ’ ἀνδρῶν
‘may counsels and plans of men be consumed’

and the Hesychian glosses

μ 1143.1 μήδεα · βουλεύματα (Il. 2.340 ἐμ πυρὶ δὴ βουλαί τε γενοίατο μήδεά τ’ ἀνδρῶν see above)
μ 1145.1 μήδεο · βουλεύου (Ι l. 2.360)
μ 1147.1 μήδεσθαι · τεχνήσασθαι. βουλεύσασθαι
μ 1148.1 μήδεται · βουλεύεται. τεχνάζεται (Ι l. 21.413).
In conclusion: the first member of e-ti-me-de* /°mēdēs/ may be determined with the help of the collocations including the synonyms of μήδεα, namely μῆτις and βουλαί, βουλεύματα and the taking into consideration of the possible verbs underlying the first member e-ti°, which obviously remains the major problem.
3. Some of the interpretations proposed for the first member e-ti° /X-ti°/ may be ruled out, even if they are graphically possible, as they imply a bizarre word formation and/or lack any phraseological support: this is surely the case of the frequent transliterations as /Eti°/ (ἔτι as first member ?) and as /(h)Ēti-mēdēs/ (*Ἡτι-μήδης), which, moreover, have no match in first millennium Greek. For the sake of completeness, let us briefly mention three possible transliterations of e-ti°, which could have phraseological support, but are graphically impossible.
(1) */hEk-ti°/, i.e. /hEk-ti-mēdēs/* ‘(the one) who holds his plans’ (PIE *seĝh-ti°), which would match a putative Alph.Gk. (: *Ἑξι-μήδης, cf. Class. εὐ-εξία, ἕξις) as a variant of MN e-ke-me-de /hEkh-e-mēdēs/ [12] : Ἐχεμήδης, Ἐχεμήδα (cf. also Ἰσχένοος, with semantically close °νοος), the semantics of which lives on in MN Nικo-μήδης. [13] A collocation [HOLD (ἔχω) – PLAN (μήδεα)] is well attested, cf. the formulas θεοῖς ἐναλίγκια μήδεα ἔχοντα (§ 2) and πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδε’ ἔχοντες (Il. 24.674,.282) and its variants. [14] However, this interpretation is graphically impossible, as a putative */hEkti-mēdēs/, dat. /°mēdehi/ should have been spelled †e-ki-ti-me-de-i, not e-ti-me-de-i. [15]
(2) */Er-ti°/, i.e. /Er-ti-mēdēs/* ‘(the one) who rows his plans’, with /Er°/ as the reflex of the lexeme of Myc. e-re-e /erehen / ‘to row’ (later ἐρέττο/ε-, on ἐρετ-ης ‘rower’ [reanalysis of ἐρε-τήρ*], ἐρετ-μόν ‘oar’).This would indeed match the metaphoric use of the verb in S. Ant. 158 τίνα δὴ μῆτιν ἐρέσσων / ὅτι σύγκλητον τὴνδε γερόντων πρὔθετο λέσχην… ‘which plan (is he) rowing, that he has called this meeting of elders to this meeting place?’, but the etymology of the verb (*h1erh1–, cf. e-re-ta /eretā-/ ‘rower’, cf. ἐρετήρ* : Ved. aritár-, PN Ἐρετρία) makes it impossible, as the first member should have been †/Ere-ti°/ or †/Ere°/, not /Er-ti°/.
(3) */Er-ti°/, i.e. /Er-ti-mēdēs/* ‘(the one) who asks about the plans’, with /Er°/ as the reflex of Hom. ἔρομαι, εἴρομαι ‘ask, inquiry’ (also ἐρεείνo/ε-, ἐρωτάo/ε-, ἐρευνάo/ε- Hom.+). This would certainly have phraseological support in Οd. 16.402 ἀλλὰ πρῶτα θεῶν εἰρόμεθα βουλάς ‘we should first have to ask the gods for their counsels’, and, with ἐρευνάω (P. Pae. fr.61 οὐ γὰρ ἔσθ’ ὅπως τὰ θεῶν βουλεύματ᾿ ἐρευνάσει βροτέᾳ φρενί ‘for it is impossible that he will inquire into the plans of the gods with a mortal mind’). However, the spelling e-ti° is incompatible with the etymology of Hom. ἔρομαι, εἴρομαι (*eru̯o/e- with Ionic compensatory lengthening), which implies PGk. *ereu̯- /*eru- (PIE *h1réu̯-), pres. *ἔρευμι (ἐρείομεν Il. 1.62 [subj. *ereu̯-o/e-], impv. ἔρειο (*ereu̯-so), and thematic *eréu̯o/e- (ἔρευε · ἔρευνα Hsch.), *eru̯o/e- (εἴρο/ε-). A first member reflecting the verb should have been †/Ereu-ti°/ or †/Eru̯e-ti°/, or the like. [16]
Other possible ways to interpret e-ti-me-de* deserve more consideration, although it will turn out that they must be dismissed as well. This is the case with the widely assumed /Er-ti-mēdēs/ as a variant of an unattested’ */Orti-mēdēs/ (§4), or as the reflex of ἔρετο · ὁρμήθη (Hsch.), ἔρχομαι (§5), and of another possibility which has in fact never been proposed, namely /Er-ti-mēdēs/ (with /Er°/ as the reflex of εἴρο/ε- ‘fasten together in rows, string (together), connect, attach’ (§ 6).
4. On the assumption that Myc. e-ti-me-de-i may conceal /Erti-mēdēs/*, the first point to elucidate is whether /Er-ti°/ is simply a variant of */Orti°/ (Ὀρτι°, Ὀρσι° concealing ὀρσα-, ὄρνυ- ‘raise’, intrans. ‘rise’or ὀρίνο/ε- ‘stirr up’) or conceals a different lexeme, namely that of ἔρετο · ὁρμήθη, ἔρσεo · διεγείρoυ, ἔρσῃ · ὁρμήσῃ (Hsch.), and of ἔρχομαι ‘I go forwards to’ (aor. ‘arrive’). It may be stressed that the first possibility must be ruled out: /Erti°/ (and °έρτᾱς (*/-ertās/) is not a mere apophonic variant of */Orti°/ (Ὀρτί-λοχος and Ὀρσί-λοχος, Ὀρσί-λᾱος) and /°ortās/, /°ortos/ (°-óρτᾱς, °-ορτoς), which may traced back to *h3er- / *h3r̥- ‘rise up, put in motion upwards’ and is incompatible with ἐρ-. [17]
Let us, however, briefly remember that an unattested compound *Ορτι-μήδης, *Ορσι-μήδης, like e.g. Ὀρσιμένης (Athens, a.505) is certainly conceivable, although not as a variant of a putative *Ἐρτι-μήδης. In the hypothetical case that one day a MN *Ὀρτι-μήδης happens to occur, *Ὀρσι-μήδης, its first member could reflect transitive (a) ὀρσα- / ὀρνυ- ‘raise’ (PIE *h3er-/*h3r̥- ‘rise up’ (or transitive ὁρμησα-) and (b) ὀρίνο/ε- ‘stir up’ (sometimes upwards). [18]
As to (a) cf. Ὀρσί-λαoς and Ὁρμησί-λαος (Ὁρμησί-λεως) Il. 19.139 ἀλλ’ ὄρσευ πόλεμόνδε καὶ ἄλλoυς ὄρνυθι λαoύς ‘rise up, then, to the fighting and rouse the rest of the people!’, Il. 6.337-8 νῦν δέ με παρειποῦσ’ ἄλοχος μαλακοῖς ἐπέεσσιν / ὅρμησ’ ἐς πόλεμον … ‘… my wife, trying to turn my mind with gentle words, urged me into the fight’.
As to (b) cf. ὀρσί-αλος (of Poseidon: Βacch.16.19 ὀρσιάλῳ δαμασίχθovι), Od. 7.271-3 ὅς μoι ἐφoρμήσας ἀvέμoυς κατέδησε κέλευθov / ὤριvεv δὲ θάλασσαv ἀθέσφατov. [19]
Both (a) and (b) may apply to compounds with ὀρσι° and [WAR, EVIL] (πόλεμος, μάχη, νεῖκος, φύλοπις) as its second member, e.g. ὀρσίμαχος (of Athena, Bacch. Dith. 15.3 – -] Παλλάδος ὀρσιμάχου, MN Ὀρσίμαχος) ‘who raises up’ (Il. 9.353 οὐκ ἐθέλεσκε μάχην ἀπὸ τείχεος ὀρνύμεν Ἕκτωρ) [20] or ‘who stirs, agitates, whirl’ (cf. the collocation with κινέο/ε-, a synonym of ὀρίνο/ε- in Classical Greek, cf. Thuc. 6.34.4 δεόμενοι … τὸν ἐκεῖ πόλεμον κινεῖν, Plat. Resp. 566e πρῶτον μὲν πολέμους τινὰς ἀεὶ κινεῖ).
A compound name */Orti-mēdēs/ meaning (a) ‘who raises up plans, counsels’ (: ὄρνυσι / ὦρσε / ὥρμησε μήδεα) ‘raises/puts in motion his plan(s)’, or (b) ‘whirls (in mind) his plan(s)’ (ὀρίνει / ὥρινε μήδεα) is perfectly conceivable. Although no collocation of ὀρνυ- ὀρίνο/ε- with μήδεα, μῆτιν is actually attested, some phrases lend support to (a) ὀρσα-/ὀρνυ- with μένος, νόος as object, and to (b) ὀρίνo/ε- with θυμός, ἦτορ ‘heart’.
As to (a), cf. Od. 17.47 μῆτερ ἐμή, μή μοι γόον ὄρνυθι μηδέ μοι ἦτορ / ἐν στήθεσσιν ὄρινε φυγόντι περ αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον· ‘mother, do not stir up weeping in me, nor rouse the heart in my chest now that I have escaped from sheer destruction’.

Il. 8.335 Τρώεσσιν Ὀλύμπιoς ἐν μένoς ὦρσεν
‘Then once again the Olympian aroused fury in the (hearts of the) Trojans’

Od. 1.346/7 μῆτερ ἐμή, τί τ’ ἄρα φθονέεις ἐρίηρον ἀοιδὸν / τέρπειν ὅππῃ oἱ νόoς ὄρνυται
‘why, my mother, do you begrudge this loyal singer that he pleases himself in whatever way his thought is moved?’

The same collocation may be expressed by means of the synonym αἴρο/ε- ‘raise up’, cf. S. OT 914-5 ὑψοῦ γὰρ αἴρει θυμὸν Οἰδίπους ἄγαν /λύπαισι παντοίαισιν [21] (also with θάρσος ‘courage’ E. IA 1598) and of ἐγείρω ‘awake’ (Il. 5.510 … ὅς μιν ἀνώγει / Τρωσὶν θυμὸν ἐγεῖραι …).
As to (b) cf. Il. 2.142 Ὣς φάτο, τοῖσι δὲ θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσιν ὄρινε ‘so he spoke, and stirred up the spirit in the chests’ (also Od. 4.366), Od. 18.75 Ἴρῳ δὲ κακῶς ὠρίνετο θυμός ‘and the spirit of Iros was stirred miserably’ (also ὀρίνθη θυμός Il. 18.223).
It must, however, be stressed that these collocations are not exactly synonymous with those with μήδεα, βουλαί: μήδεα ‘(evil) plans’ is not exactly the same as the organs (νόος, θυμός) where / by which they are planned, or as the powers or internal forces (θάρσος, μένος) which rouse them.
A hypothetical */Orti-mēdēs/ ‘(the one) who raises up plans, councels’ or ‘whirls (in mind) his plan(s)’ could find support only in Eur. Phoen. 1064 Καδμείαν μέριμναν ὁρμήσασ’ ἐπ’ ἔργον ‘… rousing the pursuit of Cadmos to brood upon the task’, given that μέριμνα is quasi-synonymous with μήδεα, μῆτις. In any case, the problem remains stubbornly: all this does not apply to e-ti-me-de, which surely does not conceal a variant of *o-ti-me-de /Orti-mēdēs/.
5. If e-ti° in e-ti-me-de-i conceals the same first member /Erti°/ as in the MN e-ti-ra-wo /Erti-lāwo-/ in Pylos (/-os/ PY Cn 655.9, /-ōi/ 131.10, gen. -wo-jo /-woio/ Sa 1264), which semantically matches that of °έρτης in Λᾱ-έρτης, with a different type of compound, one can only assume that it has the same meaning.
The MN /Erti-lāwos/* (: Λᾱέρτης) refers to his bearer as ‘(the one) who rushes against the people’, with a first member /Er-ti°/(: ἐρ-), as I have tried to show. [22] The verbal lexemes reflects (a) aor. ἔρετο ‘rushed on / against’ (cf. the glosses ἔρετο · ὁρμήθη, ἔρσεo · διεγείρoυ, ἔρσῃ · ὁρμήσῃ Hsch.), a synonym of ὡρμήθη ‘id.’ and of intransitive ὁρμάο/ε- (both active and middle) and / οr (b) ἔρχεται, with indication of goal, and with or without connotation of hostility. This is supported by Homeric phraseology:
As to (a) cf. Il. 14.488 ὁρμήθη δ’ Ἀκάμαντος ‘rushed on Acamas’, Od. 10.214 οὐδ’ οἵ γ’ ὡρμήθησαν ἐπ’ ἀνδράσιν … ‘and these made no attack on the men’ (cf. ἔρετo · ὡρμήθη), Il. 4.334-5 … ὁππότε πύργος Ἀχαιῶν ἄλλος ἐπελθὼν / Τρώων ὁρμήσειε … ‘until some other mass of Achaeans advancing might crash against the Trojans’ (cf. ἔρσῃ · ὁρμήσῃ).
As to (b), cf. Il. 15.161 (=.177) ἔρχεσθαι μετὰ φῦλα θεῶν ἢ εἰς ἅλα δῖαν ‘and go back among the generation of gods or into the sea’ (without hostility), [23] also Il. 4.251 ἦλθε δ᾽ ἐπὶ Κρήτεσσι κιὼν ἀνὰ οὐλαμὸν ἀνδρῶν ‘on his way through the thronging men he came to the Cretans’ and, with hostility, Od. 16.85-6 κεῖσε δ᾽ ἂν οὔ μιν ἐγώ γε μετὰ μνηστῆρας ἐῷμι / ἔρχεσθαι ‘but I will not let him go down where the suitors are’.
Myc. /Erti-lāwos/* (: Λᾱ-έρτης) has a nice semantic parallel in the Cretan name Ἐρπετίδᾱμος (Phaistos, 7th c.), a compound of the type ἑλκεσί-πεπλος with Ἐρπε-τι°: ἕρπο/ε- ‘walk’ (originally ‘creep’). [24] On the other hand, ἐρ- : /er-/ fits into a system of compounds with Ἐρτι°, Ἐρσι° (and Ἐρε°, Ἐρεσι°) and /°ertās/: °έρτᾱς, cf. Ἐρσι-γένης, Ἐρσι-κλῆς, perhaps Myc. a-pi-je-ta /Amphi-ertā-/ “der ringsum antreibt” (A.Leukart) [25] and Ἐρέ-φιλος, Ἐρέ-δαμος, beside Ἐρεσί-δαμος (cf. Hom. ἑλκε-χίτων : ἒλκεσί-πεπλος).
Accordingly, for a putative MN Myc. /Erti-mēdēs/ one should have to assume a meaning ‘(the one) who rushes (ἔρετο, ὡρμήθη) or moves along (ἔρχεται) against / towards the plans, plots (μήδεα)’, or ‘…moves along (ἔρχεται) …’. Regardless of whether such a collocation is a conceivable one, the fact is that, to my knowledge, no text could be invoked in support of it.
6. An alternative interpretation of e-ti-me-de* could be as */Er-ti-mēdēs/* (: *Ἐρτι-μήδης), with a first member ἐρ-τι° reflecting εἴρο/ε- (δι°, συν°: *ser-i̯o/e-, aor. εἰρα-, ἐρσα-) [26] ‘fasten together in rows, string’ (PIE *ser-: Lat. serō, -ere ‘connect’): the name would thus mean ‘(the one) who strings together (εἴρει) plans / counsels’. The meaning of the verb is clear in the derivatives ὅρμος ‘chain, collar’, ἕρμα ‘prop, support’, ἕρματα ‘props used to keep ships upright’, ‘ear-rings’ (Hom.), [27] ἔνερσις ‘fastening, fitting’ (Thuc.) : insertiō (cf. Lucr. 10.164 sertas nardo florente coronas, also sēriēs, sermō).
In fact, συν-είρο/ε- is metaphorically used with λόγους as its object, cf. D.18.308 καὶ συνειλοχὼς ῥήματα καὶ λόγους συνείρει τούτους σαφῶς καὶ ἀπνευστεί, Arist. EN 1147a21 συνείρουσι μὲν τοὺς λόγους, ἴσασι δ’ οὔπω. Moreover, εἴρο/ε- also refers metaphorically to words and speech, specifically in the concept εἰρομένη λέξις ‘continuous, running style’ as per Aristotle (R. 1409a29). [28] The same applies to Lat. serere, cf. Plaut. Curc. 193 quod quidem mihi … seruus sermonem serat ‘that a servant joins speech (i.e. bandies words) with me …’, Mil. 700 me uxore prohibent, mihi quae huius similes sermones serat. [29]
Exactly the same goes for ὑφαίνο/ε- ‘weave, spin’, which partially overlaps with εἴρο/ε-, as shown by their co-occurrence in Philo 1.499 ὁ εἴρας καὶ συνυφάνας ἕκαστα [λόγος] ‘the logos which strings together and weaves all’. Besides its basis meaning, [30] ὑφαίνο/ε- is constitutive of a well-known metaphor with [HYMN, SONG], e.g. ὑφάνας ὕμνον (Bacch. 5.9), attested in several languages (e.g. RV 1.61.8. arkám … ūvuḥ ‘have woven a song’) [31] and is reflected in Avestan in the transferred sense of ‘sing’, cf. vaf ‘to sing of, hymn’ (pres. uf-iia-), OAv. vafuš ‘sentence, formula’.
All this may allow for the assumption of a collocation [STRING together – PLAN] (*εἴρει μήδεα), which would be parallel to [WEAVE – PLAN] (ὑφαίνει μήδεα), which is actually expressed in epic Poetry, among others by μήδεα (1x) and frequently by synonymous μῆτιν, e.g.

Il. 3.212 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ μύθους καὶ μήδεα πᾶσιν ὕφαινον
‘but when they weaved the web of words and of devices’

Od. 9.422 πάvτας δὲ δόλoυς καὶ μῆτιv ὕφαιvov
‘and I wove all sort of wiles and plots’ [32]

The collocation [WEAVE – PLOT, PLAN] has a perfect match in Old English (Gen. A 30-1 þe þone unræd     ærest fremman, / wefan and weccean ‘who first began to carry out the evil plot, to weave it and promote it’ and in Old Norse (bregða ráð ‘weave a plot’ Edda), as Riccardo Ginevra kindly points to me. [33]

A similar collocation is attested with Lat. serere, cf. Verg. A. 7.339 dissice compositam pacem, sere crimina belli ‘breaks the established peace, connect pretexts of war’, P. Most. 1100 quid tu porro serere uis negotium? ‘why do you want to contrive a further problem?’ [34]
In conclusion: the interpretation of e-ti-me-de as */Er-ti-mēdēs/* (: *Ἑρτι-μήδης) ‘(the one) who strings together (εἴρει) plans’ is formally possible and semantically reasonable, given the semantic proximity of εἴρω and ὑφαίνο/ε- and the parallel with Lat. serere crimina: in the absence of a better explanation, it could be assumed to be the good one.
7. In what follows, a new explanation will be proposed for e-ti-me-de-i, on the assumption that e-ti° in e-ti-me-de-i conceals /hEnti-/, i.e. /hEn°/, this being the full grade of PIE *senh2– ‘to accomplish, achieve’, which is surely represented in Ved. sani / sā ‘obtain, reach’ (*‘accomplish for oneself’) and Hitt. šanḫ-mi ‘strive for, attempt’. [35]
PIE *senh2– is represented in Greek in its zero-grade in Ηοm. ἄνυμι, ἀνύο/ε-, ἄν(ϝ)εται [36] (with Ionic psilosis, also Hom. ἐξανύω ‘I (shall) kill’, Att. ἁνύτο/ε-, ἐξανύτο/ε-: in what follows, conventionally (°)ἀνύο/ε-), as well as in full grade in °έντης (: Att.-Ion. αὐθέντης ‘author’ s. §9 below). [37] Gk. (°)ἀνύο/ε- ‘accomplish, bring to an end’, also ‘reach’ takes a special position: its semantics diverges from that of other languages, its morphology relies on an inherited present stem in *-éu̯-/-u-´, namely *sn̥h2-éu- /*sn̥h2-u-´ (ἄνυμι, thematic ἁνύο/ε-), which perfectly matches Ved. sanóti ‘wins’ (*sanáu̯- / *sanu-´) and Hitt. šanḫu-mi ‘roast’ (with lexicalization of *‘effect thoroughly’, as persuasively argued by H. Eichner). [38]
In Greek both the verbal paradigm and the nominal derivatives have -νυ-, extended from the present stem *ἁνυ- (*sn̥h2-u-),(°)ἀνύο/ε-, impf. ἤνυτο to the whole paradigm (on ptc. ἀνύμενος cf. §8.1): aor. ἀνυσα- (Hom.+) has replaced the putative reflex *ἀνεσα- (reshaped from *ἑνα-σα- : *senh2-s- by Ruipérez’s metathesis) [39] of the inherited aor. *sénh2-(o/e)- (Ved. sán-a-, sániṣ-). The same applies to the verbal adjective ἀνυτός*, in MN Ἄνυτος (like e.g. δύναμαι :: aor. δυνηθη-, δυνατός), and to ἄνυσις ‘accomplishment’ (ἄνυσις δ’ οὐκ ἔσσεται αὐτῶν ‘but no accomplishment will come of them’ Il. 2.347), [40] and to ἀνυσί-εργος (Theocr.), and Ἀνυσι° or Ἁνυσι° in onomastics (§8.3). There is, however, no instance of an agent noun †ἀνυτήρ, †ἀνύτωρ (only Late Greek ἀνυτής Just. : exactor), [41] which is actually attested as αὐθ-έντης. Other forms with full grade may be considered residual: Hom. ἔναρα, ἔντεα (§9). Both grades coexist in Mycenaean, as well as in the first millennium.
The meaning of (°)ἀνύο/ε- is a threefold one:

(a) ‘bring to an end, finish’, ‘accomplish’, ‘make effectual’ [42] (also with ἐξ° ‘id.’), with ἔργον and βουλάς, among others, as the object (like τελέο/ε-, τελείο/ε-, cf. καθανύσαι · συντελέσαι , ἀανές · οὐ τελεσθησόμενον (Hsch.), e.g.

Od. 5.243 αὐτὰρ ὁ τάμνετο δοῦρα· θοῶς δέ οἱ ἤνυτο ἔργον
‘and he cut timbers, and quickly had his work accomplished’.

Cf. Od. 11.246 αὐτὰρ ἐπεί ῥ’ ἐτέλεσσε θεὸς φιλοτήσια ἔργα
‘but when the god had accomplished his words of love’.

Il. 8.370 νῦν δ’ ἐμὲ μὲν στυγέει, Θέτιδος δ’ ἐξήνυσε βουλάς
‘yet now Zeus hates me and has brought to fulfillment the plans of Thetis’

The collocation ἐξήνυσε βουλάς will turn out to be decisive for the interpretation of Myc. e-ti-me-de-i (§11).

(b) ‘destroy, bring to end’, ‘kill’ (also with ἐξ° ‘id.’), with animates as the object

Il. 11.365 ἦ θήν σ’ ἐξανύω γε καὶ ὕστερον ἀντιβολήσας
‘yet I will surely make an end of you, if I meet you ever hereafter’ [43]

A Scharnierform for the specialization of (b) may be

S. Tr. 884-6 πῶς ἐμήσατο / πρὸς θανάτῳ θάνατον / ἀνύσασα μόνα;
‘how could she think, alone, having accomplished death after death?’
(cf. also A. Pers. 726 ὡς ἰδεῖν τέλος πάρεστιν οἷον ἤνυσεν κακόν
‘at the end it is possible to see what a disaster he managed to accomplish’).
(c) ‘obtain, reach, win’. This sense, which is surely inherited (cf. Ved. sani), is first attested in Classical Greek, with objects as φορβάν (S. Ph. 711 εἴ ποτε … ἀνύσειε γαστρὶ φορβάν [lyr.]), χρέος ‘debt’ (S. OT 156 τί μοι ἐξανύσεις χρέος;), frequently with χρείαν ‘request’, med. χρείαν ἠνύσασθε ‘to obtain the request’, e.g. A. Pr. 700 τὴν πρίν γε χρείαν ἠνύσασθ’ ἐμοῦ πάρα / κούφως ‘you obtained your previous request from me easily’.
8. Let us remember the evidence for non-finite verbal forms and compositional Ἁνυσι°, Ἀνυσι° in Mycenaean and in Alphabetic Greek. [44]
(1) The med.ptc. ἀνύμενος is attested in late authors, as well as a man’s name in Linear B. Myc. a2-nu-me-no /hAnumeno-/ [45] PY Jn 389.12. The participle (or a derivative) obviously does not make the (implicit) object of the verb explicit, as a compound does. [46] In any case, poetic phraseology clearly shows that Myc. /hAnumeno-/ reflects (a) ‘accomplish’ (scil. ἔργα), cf. Od. 5.243 ἤνυτο ἔργον (§7), 16.372-3 οὐ γὰρ ὀΐω / τούτου γε ζώοντος ἀνύσσεσθαι τάδε ἔργα ‘since I have no thought that we can get our present purpose accomplished while he is living’. [47] One can thus safely assume that /hAnumeno-/ semantically matches ἀνυσί-εργος (Τheocr.) (§ 8.3).
Ιn late authors, contrarily, ἀνύμενος (psilotic!) occurs in intransitive, patientive reading of (a) ‘reach the end’ (of the sunset which reaches the end), cf. Q.S. 5.410 ὅτ’ ἀνυμένου θέρεος μετὰ χεῖμα τράπηται (cf. Schol. in Opp. Cyn. 1.111.1 ἱσταμένοιο· ἀρχομένου. ἀνυμένοιο· δυνομένου (note the contrast with the rise of the sun). The active participle is attested in later authors with the transitive reading of (a), e.g. ἀνύων D.S. 36.5.3 μηδὲν δὲ ἀνύων μετανίστατο αὐτῆς.
(2) The verbal adjective ἄνυτος* is attested as a man’s name already in Myc. a-nu-to (KN As 1516.12+), a-nu-to-jo (X 697.2, also TH Z and Fq passim): the spelling may conceal both /hAnuto-/ and /Anuto-/. The psilotic variant may be assumed for Cnossos and regularly occurs in onomastics of the first milleniun, cf. MN Ἄνυτος passim (also ῎Ηνυτος in Athens, 329 a.C.). A variant ἀνυστός ‘which must be fulfilled / accomplished, practicable’ is common in Classical Greek (e.g. E. Heracl. 961 οὔκ ἐστ’ ἀνυστὸν τόνδε σοι κατακτανεῖν, X. An. 1.8.11 οὐ γὰρ κραυγῇ ἀλλὰ σιγῇ ὡς ἁνυστόν ‘as silently as possible’). Βοth forms have a privative variant, namely Class. ἀνήνυτος ‘endless, unfinished’ (e.g. Pind. fr. 52nb.7 ἀνήνυτον ἔργον πράττειν, of Penelope’s web) [48] and ἀνήνυστος ‘ineffectual’ (ἀνηνύστῳ ἐπὶ ἔργῳ Od. 16.111+).
The meaning of Ἄνυτος actually reflects the intransitive, patientive reading of (a) ‘accomplish’, i.e. ‘(the one) who is fulfilled, perfect’. It matches semantically τέλεος ‘perfect, complete’, ‘accomplished, perfect in his kind’ (of persons) (Isoc. 12.32 … τούτους φημὶ καὶ φρονίμους εἶναι καὶ τελέους ἄνδρας καὶ πάσας ἔχειν τὰς ἀρετάς, Pl. Cra. 403e ὁ θεὸς [οὗτος] τέλεος σοφιστής), or τέλειος ‘full-grown, adult’ (X. Cyr. 1.2.4 οἱ τέλειοι ἄνδρες+) with factitive τελε(ι)όο/ε- ‘make perfect, complete’ (Hdt.+, e.g. 1.120 πάντα ἐτελέωσε ποιήσας). The synonymity of ἄνυτος and τέλεος, τέλειος, like that of privative ἀνήνυ(σ)τος and ἀτέλεστος ‘without end, issue or effect’, ‘unaccomplished’ (Od. 8.571 τὰ δέ κεν θεὸς ἢ τελέσειεν ἤ κ’ ἀτέλεστ’ εἴη) is witnessed by glossists and lexicographers, cf. ἀνήνυτα· ἄπρακτα, δύσκολα ἀκατόρθωτα, μὴ ἀνυόμενα, νητελέα· ἀνήνυτα (Hsch.), πανάνυτον : πάντα δυνατόν (Suda).
It may be noted that MN a2-nu-me-no /hAnumeno-/ (agentive) and /(h)Anuto-/ : Ἄνυτος, ἄνυστος (patientive) have a partial parallel in their counterparts formed from αἴνυμαι ‘I take, pick, strip’. Myc. a2-nu-me-no /hAnumeno-/ and MN a3-nu-me-no /Ainumeno-/ (PY An 261.2), (°)αἰνύμενος (Hom.+) are both agentive: ‘(the one) who takes, strips’: an implicit object may be assumed among those of αἴνυμαι, namely τεύχεα, or φίλον θυμόν, or ‘men’, cf. Il. 11.580-1 τὸν δ’ ὡς οὖν ἐνόησεν … / τεύχε’ ἀπαινύμενον Ἀπισάονος … ‘but (Alexandros) watched him as he was stripping the armor of Apisaon’ (cf. ἀπαινύμενον· ἀφαιρούμενον Hsch. ad loc.), Od. 9.429 τῇσ’ ἔπι Κύκλωψ εὗδε πέλωρ,…, / σύντρεις αἰνύμενος ‘(twisted withes) on which the Cyclops used to sleep, taking three at time’ (σύντρεις αἰνύμενος · ὁμοῦ τρεῖς συλλαμβάνων Hsch.), Il. 20.459 οὐτάζων ξίφεϊ μεγάλῳ ἐξαίνυτο θυμόν (ἐξαίνυτο · ἐξῃρεῖτο Hsch. ad loc.). [49] An agent noun *αἴτωρ, *αἰτήρ is not attested, but an *αἴτᾱς may be assumed already in Mycenaean on the strength of the names tu-ma-i-ta /Thūm-aitā-/ (KN As 605: Θυμαίτης (name of a hero, cf. Hom. αἴνυτο θυμόν), [50] Ἱππ-αίτᾱς, Συ-αίτᾱς, Εὐ-αίτης. On the other hand, /(h)Anuto-/: Ἄνυτος, ἄνυστος has ἔξ-αιτος ‘picked, excellent’ (: ἐξαίνυμαι) , also MN Ἔξαιτος (Iasos, 367-354), as its only counterpart, [51] with patientive reading, e.g. οἶνóν τ’ ἔξαιτον μελιηδέα (Il. 12.320), ἐξαίτους ἐρέτας (Od. 2.307) et al.
(2) A first member of compound ἀνυσι°, which obviously presuppose the existence of aor. ἀνυσα- and ἄνυσις, is attested in ἀνυσίεργος (Theocr.) and in two names, which reflect phraseological patterns:
Ἀνυσι-κλῆς (Kamiros 4th/3rd c.) reflects the sense (a) ‘accomplish’ (: τελέo/ε-), and reflects the collocation [κλέος τελεῖν], as in Bacch. 17.78–80 … τοι πατὴρ ἄναξ τελεῖ / Ποσειδὰν ὑπέρτατον / κλέος χθόνα κατ᾽ ἠΰδενδρον ‘your father, lord Poseidon, will grant you (*‘achieve for you’) the highest fame on the well-wooded earth’ (Laura Massetti, p.c.)
Ἀνυί-λᾱς (Sparta a.25/1 BC), with ἀνυσι°, reflects ἐξανύo/ε- (b) ‘kill’, cf. Il. 11.365 ἦ θήν σ’ ἐξανύω γε καὶ ὕστερον ἀντιβολήσας ‘yet I will surely make an end of you’. Τhe name can thus be understood as ‘(the one) who kills the army’.
The common epithet ἀνυσίεργος, first attested in Theocrit (28.14 οὔτως ἀνυσίεργος, φιλέει δ’ ὄσσα σαόφρονες) has been assumed, according to a suggestion by August Nauck, and further reelaborated by Kl. Strunk, [52] to underlie Hom. ἐντεσι-εργός (of ἡμίονοι ‘draught mules’, Il. 24.277 ζεῦξαν δ’ ἡμιόνους κρατερώνυχας ἐντεσιεργούς) currently understood as ‘working in harness’: an original *ἠνυσί-εργος ‘(the one) who fulfills works’ would have been reshaped as → *ἐνεσι°, whence → *ἐννεσι° (metrically conditioned) and → ἐντεσι° by association with ἔντεα). Whether this is interpretation is right or not may remain open at this point.
The compounds with Ἀνυσι° (Ἀνυσικλῆς, Lac. Ἀνυίλᾱς, ἄνυσίεργος) attested in first millennium Greek may be assumed for Mycenaean times as well: the names a2-nu-me-no and a-nu-to make the existence of a (non attested) /(h)Anu-si°/ (or /(h)Anu-ti°) perfectly conceivable.
9. On the other hand, the full grade ἑν- (*sen-) lives on in the agent noun ἕντᾱς* (Αtt. αὐθέντης), and in ἔναρα ‘spoil, booty’, ἔντεα ‘equipment, armour’ (Hom.), in which the original sense is still recognizable.
(1) Att. αὐθέντης ‘criminal’, [53] originally ‘author’, [54] also αὐτο-έντης (Soph.), matches the sense of ἐξανύο/ε- (b), [55] cf. Hdt.1.117 … μήτε θυγατρὶ τῇ σῇ μήτε αὐτῷ σοὶ εἴην αὐθέντης, E. Andr. 172 τέκν᾿ αὐθέντου πάρα / τίκτειν, S. OT 107 τοὺς αὐτοέντας χειρὶ τιμωρεῖν). The negative connotation of ‘fulfill’ with αὐτο° evokes αὐτόχειρ ‘murder’ (S. OT 231, D. 21.116+), i.e. ‘(the one) who is himself the (guilty) hand’. [56] PGk. *hen-tā- (: *sen-tā-), [57] a continuant of *sen(h2)-tor- (which formally matches Ved. sánitar, sanitár- ‘winner’), is previous to the generalization of /(h)anu-/ and surely old: */°hen-tā-/ may be thus safely assumed for Mycenaean, and fully justifies the assumption of a first member */sen-ti°/, as is the case with other lexemes, e.g. Myc. /Nesti°/ :: /°nestā-/ and others (§10). Mycenaean evidence for */°hen-tā-/ is not straightforward: the MN a2-e-ta PY An 261.4 (H. 43) could conceal /hA-hen-tās/ “Mitarbeiter, Helfer”, whereas the MN au-to-a2-ta PY Cn 314.3 could be a form with zero-grade /Auto-ha-tās/ (*°sn̥-) of the same term. [58]
(2) ἔναρα ‘spoil, booty (of a fallen warrior)’ (Hom.+) reflects the sense of ἀνύο/ε- (c), as Ved. sani, e.g.

Il. 13.268 πόλλ’ ἔναρα Τρώων· ἀλλ’ οὐ σχεδόν ἐστιν ἑλέσθαι
‘there are many spoils of the Trojans, but not near me for me to get them’,

6.68 μή τις νῦν ἐνάρων ἐπιβαλλόμενος μετόπισθε / μιμνέτω …
‘let no man any more hang back with his eye on the plunder …’.

(3) ἔντεα ‘arms, armour’ ‘furniture’ (Hom.+) reflects ἀνύο/ε- (a) ‘achieve’, i.e. * ‘something accomplished’ (: ἀνύω (a)), e.g. ἔντεα ἀρήϊα Il. 10.407, ‘corslet’ (Il. 10.34), also ‘furniture, appliances’ ἔντεα δαιτός (Od. 7.232), ἔντεα αὐλῶν (P.N.7.12: αὐλοί), ἔντεα ‘musical instruments’ (P. P. 12.21). The term occurs also in composition, cf. χαλκ-εντής ‘brass-armed’ (of war, of army, cf. P. Ν. 1.16 ὤπασε δὲ Κρονίων πολέμου / μναστῆρά οἱ χαλκεντέος / λαὸν ἵππαιχμον ‘Cronion granted him a people of cavalrymen enamored of bronze-armored war’, also ibid. 11.35 στρατιὰν χαλκεντέα) as the reflex of χαλκέοισι δ᾽ἐν ἔντεσι (Pi. O. 4.22), [59] and, most probably, Myc. e-te-do-mo /entesdomo-/ ‘fabricant of weapons’ (KN Uf 432, PY 609.5, cf. δέμο/ε- ‘construct’). Whether the synonyms Hom. ἐντύο/ε- and ἐντύνο/ε- ‘equip, prepare’ [60] are formed from pl. ἔντεα or from an unattested *ἐντύς, and which of them is the oldest one may remain open here. [61]
10. The existence of forms with full grade /hen-/ (*sen-) in Alphabetical Greek and perhaps also in Mycenaean, especially °έντης (αὐθ-έντης) and Myc. /°hen-tās/), makes the existence of a first member /hEn-ti°/ (*sen-ti°) fully plausible. The coexistence of two types, namely (A) /CeC-ti°–/,/CeC-si°–/ and (B) /°CeC-tā-/ [62] is a common pattern, as reflected e.g. by (A) Δεξ(ι)° (ΜΝ, Δεξί-λᾱος. Δέξ-ανδρος et al.) :: (B) °δέκτης (πολυδέκτης HCer. 9: epithet of Hades, MN Πολυδέκτης, Πολυδέκτᾱς). [63] The same situation may be traced back to Mycenaean, as clearly shown by a series of pairs formed from other lexemes, namely (in alphabetical order) (1) *er- ‘go, come to’ (ἔρετο · ὡρμήθη, ἔρχομαι, §5), (2) *kad- ‘become visible’ (κέκασμαι ‘Ι excel’), (3) *kens- (PIE *k̂ens- ‘speak authoritatively’), (4) *nes- ‘go (wherever one will)’ (νέομαι), (5) *or- ‘raise up’ (ὀρσα- / ὀρνυ-). The essentials may be tabulated as follows:

(A) /CeC-ti°/,/CeC-si°/ :: (B) /°CeC-tā-/
(1) /Er-ti°/,Ἐρ-σι° :: °έρ-τᾱς, probably Μyc. °e-ta /°er-tā-/
(2) Κασ-τι°, /Kass°/,Κασσ° :: /°kas-tās/,°κάστη
(3) */Ke(n)s-t(i)°/ :: /°ke(n)s-tās/.
(4) /Nes-ti°/, Nεσσ° :: /°nes-tās/.
(5) /Or-ti°/, Ὀρ-τι°/Ὀρ-σι° :: /°οr-tās/, °όρ-τᾱς,

Whence one may assume for *hen- (*sen-)

/hEn-ti°/ :: /°hen-tās/

Let us mention the available evidence for the different lexical items: [64]

(1) *er- (*h1er-, §5).

(A): e-ti-ra-wo /Erti-lāwo-/, Ἐρσι-κλῆς, Ἐρσι-γένης, with “truncated” form ᾿Ερσηΐς.
(B): Λᾱ-έρτης (Λαέρτᾱς), probably Myc. a-pi-je-ta /Amphi-ertā-/ “der ringum antreibt”. [65] Cf. also compounded names with Ἐρε° (Ἐρέ-φιλος, Ἐρέ-δαμος), Ἐρεσι° (Ἐρεσί-δαμος), on the model of Hom. ἑλκε-χίτων : ἑλκεσίπεπλος).
(2) *kad- ‘to become visible’ (perf. κέκασμαι’: *k̂e-k̂n̥d-e- ‘is visible’, Ved. śā́sada), [66] PIE *(s)k̂end-: ‘become visible’). [67] Cf. also ka-to /Kastōr/ : Kάστωρ, gen. -to-ro /-toros/.

(A): Καστι-άνειρα (Hom.), Κασσάνδρα, ka-sa-no /Kassānōr/ ‘who excels among men’, Κάσσανδρoς, and, with onomastic motion, fem. Kασσ-άνδρα. [68]
(B): (d) po-to-ri-ka-ta (dat.) /Ptoli-kastāi/, [69] Μηδεσι-κάστη.
(3) *k̂ens- ‘speak authoritatively, give an estimation’ (Ved. śaṃs, Av. saŋh, Lat. censeō, -ēre), a lexeme which did not live on in Greek and was continued by means of αἰνέο/ε-, παραινέο/ε-.

(A): ke-sa-do-ro, ke-sa-da-ra : */Kensti̯-andros/ ‘who speaks to the men authoritatively’, with feminine form */Kens-ti̯andrā/, [70] <Κεσ(σ)ανδρα> in Corinthian vases (5th C.), matches Ved. śám̐sā náryā- and YAν. naiiriiō.saŋha-, also Ved. narāṃ śáṃsa- ‘praise of men’, narāśáṃsa-, epithet of Agni and of Pūṣan), and is continued by WN Αἰνησιμβρóτα (Alcm. Parth. 1.73). [71]
(B): ra-wo-ke-ta /Lāwo-ke(n)s-tās/. Cf. also ke-to /Ke(n)s-tōr/), gen. ke-to-ro (cf. Αἰνήτωρ).
(4) *nes- ‘go (home)’ (νέομαι *‘come where one will’: Ved. násate ‘joins’, Goth. nasjan “σῶσαι” [causat. *nos-éi̯o/e-] beside ga-nisan “σώζεσθαι”). [72]

(Α): ne-ti-ja-no /Nesti-ānōr/, dat. ne-ti-ja-no-re, Νέσσανδρος and Νέσσυλος (Thessaly, 3rd C.), also Νέστωρ. Cf. also ne-e-ra-wo /Nehe-lāwo-/, and probably Νηλεύς in spite of formal difficulties.
(B): pi-ro-ne-ta /Philo-nestās/.
(5) *or- (ὄρνυμι, *h3er- §4).

(Α): o-ti-na-wo /Orti-nāwos/ ‘(the one) who powers his ship’(cf. Il. 12.182-3 νηῦς ἐγγύθεν ὀρνυμένη), Ὀρσί-λαος ‘(the one) who stirs up the people (λαός), Ὀρτί-λοχος, Ὀρσί-λοχος (Ηοm.), also Ὀρσιλλᾶς.
(B): a3-ko-ta /Aig-ortās/ “der (wilde) Ziegen ausseucht, jagt” or “der sich auf Ziegen macht”, [73] with °όρτᾱς (: ὦρτο); Λυκόρτας (Chios 412-334,+), Κυνόρτας (mythic name, Amyclae). Cf. also Koνί-ορτος, κονίορτος (Hdt., Plat.+) ‘dust raised or stirred up’, [74] παλίνορτος ‘risen repeatedly’ (Aesch.) et al.
On the strength of the foregoing evidence, a pair (A) /hEnti°/ :: (B) */°hentās/ perfectly fits into the system. Accordingly we can a assumed /hEn-ti°/ in Μyc. e-ti-me-de* /hEnti-mēdēs/ beside Alph. °εντᾱς in αὐθ-έντης (which implies Myc. */°hentās/), exactly as we state the existence of /Erti-lāwos/ beside Λᾱ-έρτης, /Nesti-ānōr/ beside /P hilo-nestās/ and the like.
11. On the assumption that the sense of the compound e-ti-me-de* /hEnti-mēdēs/ may be elucidated with the help of the collocations of (°)ἀνύo/ε- ‘accomplish’ and of μήδεα ‘plans’, and synonyms, we assume that the compound means ‘(the one) who accomplished (ἤνυσε) / accomplishes (ἀνύει) his plans’. We must admit that this has no direct support in phraseology: there is no instance where μήδεα is the object of (°)ἀνύo/ε-. However, the evidence for the existence of the phraseme [ACCOMPLISH – PLANS], expressed by means of synonyms of ἀνύο/ε- (especially τελέo/ε-, Hom. τελείo/ε-) and of μήδεα (βουλάς, βουλήματα, also the quasi-synonyms νόον, ἐέλδωρ) is conclusive. Τhe essentials of the different collocations may be summarized as follows:
(1) with (ἐξ)ανύo/ε- – βουλάς (: μήδεα, cf. Il. 2.340 βουλαί τε … μήδεά τ’ ἀνδρῶν ‘may counsels and plans of men’)

Il. 8.370 νῦν δ’ ἐμὲ μὲν στυγέει, Θέτιδος δ’ ἐξήνυσε βουλάς
‘yet now Zeus hates me and has brought to fulfillment the plans of Thetis’
With ἄνυσις and implicit βουλήματα, presupposed by the context, cf. Il. 2.346-7 τούσδε δ’ ἔα φθινύθειν ἕνα καὶ δύο, τοί κεν Ἀχαιῶν / νόσφιν βουλεύωσ’· ἄνυσις δ’ οὐκ ἔσσεται αὐτῶν ‘as for those, let them perish, the one or two who take secret counsel separately from the rest’. [75]
(2) with τελείo/ε- – βουλή

Il. 1.5 οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι, Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή,
‘… and the will of Zeus was being brought to completion’
Also with quasi-synonyms of βουλή, like νόον ‘intent’, ἐέλδωρ ‘hope’ cf. Il. 23.149 ὣς ἠρᾶθ’ ὃ γέρων, σὺ δέ οἱ νόον οὐκ ἐτέλεσσας ‘So vowed that old man, but you did not fulfill for him his intent’, Ps.-Hsd. Sc. 36 εὐνῇ καὶ φιλότητι μίγη, τέλεσεν δ’ ἄρ’ ἐέλδωρ, also Il. 7.69 ὅρκια μὲν Κρονίδης … οὐκ ἐτέλεσσεν ‘the son of Cronus … would not make our oaths effective’.
The same applies to occurrences of τελείo/ε- with reference to implicit nomina actionis or rei actae of φράζομαι ‘I plan’ or μενοινάω ‘I desire, purpose for / against’:

Od. 4.699 ἀλλὰ πολὺ μεῖζόν τε καὶ ἀργαλεώτερον ἄλλο
μνηστῆρες φράζονται, ὃ μὴ τελέσειε Κρoνίων
‘but another evil, far greater and more grievous are the suitors planning, which may Cronion not accomplish’,

Cf. also Od. 2.34 Ζεὺς ἀγαθὸν τελέσειεν, ὅ τι φρεσὶν ᾗσι μενοινᾷ ‘so may Zeus accomplish for him whatever good he desires in his mind’. Hom. τελείo/ε- also expresses the fulfillment of an action and its outcome , and in that it fully matches ἀνύo/ε- (a), for instance,

Od. 18.389 “ἆ δείλ’, ἦ τάχα τοι τελέω κακόν, οἷ’ ἀγορεύεις
‘wretch, soon will I do something evil to you for how you are speaking’,

Od. 18.134 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ καὶ λυγρὰ θεοὶ μάκαρες τελέωσι,
‘but when the blessed gods fulfill misfortune…’

(3) with τελείo/ε- without explicit mention of the object, of the type θεῶν τελεσάντων (sc. αὐτό):

Pi. P. 10.49 ἐμοὶ δὲ θαυμάσαι / θεῶν τελεσάντων οὐδέν ποτε φαίνεται / ἔμμεν ἄπιστον
‘but, if the gods bring it about, nothing seems to be a marvel nor beyond belief’.

Cf. also εὖ τελεῖ θεός (A. sept. 35).

Finally, it is noteworthy that τελείo/ε- frequently expresses the fulfillement of an engagement or promise (ὅρκια, ὑπόσχεσιν) and that exactly the same applies to ἐντύo/ε-, ἐντύνo/ε- ‘carry out’, which belongs to the same root as (°)ἀνύo/ε- (§8.3), in Late Epics. Some instances:

Od. 2.272-3 οἷος κεῖνος ἔην τελέσαι ἔργον τε ἔπος τε,
οὔ τοι ἔπειθ’ ἁλίη ὁδὸς ἔσσεται οὐδ’ ἀτέλεστος.
‘such a man he was for accomplishing action and word, your journey then will be no vain thing nor go unaccomplished’. [76]
A.R. 3.737 ἀλλ᾽ ἴθι, κεῦθε δ᾽ ἐμὴν σιγῇ χάριν, ὄφρα τοκῆας
λήσομαι ἐντύνουσα ὑπόσχεσιν
‘But go, bury my kindness in silence, so that I may carry out my promise unknown to my parents’

Cf. also 3.509-10 …, μέμονάς τε πόνοιο, / ἦ τ᾽ ἂν ὑποσχεσίην πεφυλαγμένος ἐντύναιο ‘… you are eager for the toil, surely you will readily keep your promise’.

In conclusion: the collocation [ACCOMPLISH – PLANS], expressed by means of (°)ἀνύο/ε- (and synonym τελείω) and of different synonyms of μήδεα, especially Θέτιδος δ’ ἐξήνυσε βουλάς (Il. 8.370) and Διὸς δ᾿ἐτελείετο βουλή (Ιl. 1.5), equivalent to *ἐξήνυσε μήδεα and to *ἐξήνυτο μήδεα respectively, lend phraseological support to the interpretation of Myc. /hEnti°-mēdēs/* as ‘(the one) who accomplishes (ἀνύει, ἄνυται/ἄν(ϝ)εται) or accomplished (ἤνυσε) his plans (μήδεα)’.
12. Our main conclusions may be summarized as follows:
(1) Mycenaean e-ti-me-de-i (dat.) /hEnti°-mēdehi/ conceals a compound man’s name /hEnti°-mēdēs/*, with a first member /hen-°/ (/hEn-ti°/ reflecting PIE *sen(h2)- (: ἀνύo/ε- ‘accomplish’, *‘get for oneself’) and μήδεα ‘plans’ as second member. The full-grade *sen- is attested also in Att. αὐθ-έντης *‘author’, ‘criminal’ (°ἕντᾱς*: *hen-tā-), ἔναρα ‘booty’, and ἔντεα ‘arms, armour’. Myc. /hEn-ti°/ beside Alph. °ἑντᾱς (which implies Myc. */°hentās/) perfectly fits into the pattern of /Erti°/, Ἐρσι° :: /°er-tās/, °έρτᾱς (Myc. e-ti-ra-wo /Erti-lāwo-/ :: Λᾱ-έρτης or /Nesti°/ :: /°nestās/ (ne-ti-ja-no /Nesti-ānōr/ :: pi-ro-ne-ta /Philo-nestās/) and others.
(2) Myc. /hEn-ti°/ is an archaism as against Alph. ἀνυ-σι° (ἀνυσί-εργος Theocr. MN Ἀνυσικλῆς), with generalisation of /(h)Anu°/ from the present stem, which is otherwise attested also in Mycenaean, cf. MN a2-nu-me-no /hAnumenos/ ‘(the one) who has achieved’ (Hom. ἤνυτο δ᾿ἔργον), a-nu-to : Ἄνυτος ‘fulfilled, perfect’. A hypothetic *a-nu-si° /(h)Anusi°/ (or even *a-nu-ti° /(h)Anuti°/) is conceivable, even if not attested, for Mycenaean beside /hEnti°/ (/hEnti-mēdēs/).
(3) Myc. /hEnti°-mēdēs/* means ‘(the one) who accomplished (ἤνυσε) / accomplishes (ἀνύει, ἄνυται / ἄν(ϝ)εται) his plans (μήδεα)’. The collocation [ACCOMPLISH – PLAN] is clearly reflected in the collocations of ἀνύo/ε-, ἐξἀνύo/ε- and of μήδεα and their synonyms, namely τελέo/ε-, τελείo/ε- ‘accomplish’ (ἤνυτο δ᾿ἔργον Od. 5.243 :: ἐτέλεσσε θεὸς φιλοτήσια ἔργα Od. 11.246) and βουλαί ‘plans’, βουλεύματα (βουλαί τε … μήδεά τ’ ἀνδρῶν’ Il. 2.340, μήδεα · βουλεύματα Hsch.) respectively. Some of them are conclusive, especially Il. 8.370 Θέτιδος δ’ ἐξήνυσε βουλάς ‘(Zeus) brought to fulfillment the plans of Thetis’, Il. 1.5 … Διὸς δ’ ἐτελείετο βουλή ‘… and the will of Zeus was being brought to fulfillment’.

Bibliography

Bader, Françoise. 1969. “De mycénien matoropuro, arepozoo à grec ματρόπολις, ἀλειφόβιος: le traitement des sonantes-voyelles au premier millénaire”. Minos 10(1), 7-63.
Beekes, Robert S.P. EDGr. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden &Boston: 2010. Brill.
Benveniste, Émile. 1945. “La doctrine medicale des Indo-Européens”. Revue de l’histoire des religions 130.5–12.
———. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. 1-2. Paris : Gallimard.
Chantraine, Pierre. Gr.Hom. 1958. Grammaire homérique I. Phonétique et morphologie. Paris : Klincksieck.
———. DELG = Chantraine, Pierre. 2009.2 Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Avec un supplément, sous la direction de Alain Blanc, Charles de Lamberterie, Jean-Louis Perpillou. Paris: Klincksieck.
Dardano, Paola. 2002. “La main est coupable”, “le sang devient abondant”: sur quelques expressions avec des noms de parties et d’éléments du corps humain dans la littérature juridico-politique de l’Ancien et du Moyen Royaume hittite. Orientalia 71:4, 333-392.
Eichner, Heiner 1979. “Hethitisch gē̆nuššuš, ginušši, ginuššin”. Hethitisch und Indogermanisch (ed. E. Neu & W. Meid), 41-61. Innsbruck: IBS.
———. 1988. “Anatolisch und Trilaryngalismus”. Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- und Formensystems (ed. A. Bammesberger) 123-151. Heidelberg, Winter.
Frame, Douglas 2009. Hippota Nestor. Hellenic Studies 37. Harvard: Center for Hellenic Studies.
Frisk, Hjalmar. GHW. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg 1954–1972: C. Winter.
García Ramón, José Luis. 1992a. “Homérico κέκασμαι: védico śāśad, protoario *sćand, IE *(s)k̂end- ‘aparecer, hacerse visible’”. Die Sprache 34, 1988-1990, 27-58.
———. 1992b. “Mycénien ke-sa-do-ro /Kessandros/, ke-ti-ro /Kestilos/, ke-to /Kestōr/: grec alphabétique Aἰvησιμβρότα, Αἰvησίλαoς, Αἰvήτωρ et le nom de Cassandra”. Mykenaika (Actes du IXème Colloque International des Études Mycéniennes, Athènes 1990, ed. J.P. Olivier), 239-55. Paris.
———. 2000. “Mycénien qa-sa-ko /Kwās-arkhos/, grec alphabétique Πάσαρχoς, Κτήσαρχoς et le dossier de *ku̯ā(s)- dans la langue des tablettes”. Philokypros (Mélanges de Philologie et d’Antiquités Grecques et Proche-Orientales dédiés à la Mémoire d’Olivier Masson). Supplementos a Minos 16, 153-176.
———. 2004. “Zum Paradigma von idg. *nes-: homerisch ἀπενάσσατο, kausat. ἀπονάσσωσιν als Aoriste von (°)νέoμαι und die Entstehung des Präs. ναίω”. Analecta homini universali dicata. Festschrift Oswald Panagl (eds.Th. Krisch et al.), I 33-47. Stuttgart: Heinz.
———. 2005. “Indogermanische Dichtersprache, Phraseologie und Onomastik”. Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel (Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Halle 2000, ed. G. Meiser & O. Hackstein), 117-138. Wiesbaden: Dr. Reichert.
———. 2016. “Anthroponymica Mycenaea. 9. The compounded names with second member °me-de /°mēdēs/ (μῆδoς),°me-ta /°mētās/ (μῆτις), and the Pylian name me-ti-ja-no”. Tavet Tat Satyam. Studies in Honor of Jared S. Klein on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday (A.M. Byrd et al.), 52-64. Ann Arbor-New York: Beech Stave.
———. 2017. “Anthroponymica Mycenaea: 10. Τhe name e-ti-ra-wo /Erti-lāwos/ (and Λᾱ-έρτης): ἔρετο · ὡρμήθη (Hsch.), Hom. ὁρμήθησαν ἐπ᾿ ἀνδράσιν, and Hom. ἔρχεσθαι μετὰ φῦλα θεῶν and Cret. MN Ἐρπετίδαμος”. Usque ad Radices. Studies … Birgit A. Olsen (eds. Bjarne Simmelkjaer et al.), 161-177. Kobenhavn: MUSEUM Tusculanum.
Genevrois, Gérard. 2017. Le vocabulaire institutionnel crétois d’après les inscriptions (VIIe-IIe s. av. J.-C.). Genève : Droz.
Hajnal, Ivo. 1995: Studien zum mykenischen Kasussystem. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter.
Heubeck, A. 1957. “Weitere Bemerkungen zu den griechischen Personennamen auf den Linear B-Tafeln”. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 8, 268-278 (= Kl. Schr., 481-490).
Kölligan, Daniel. 2012. “Three Mycenaean warrior names”. Études Mycéniennes. Actes du XIIIème Colloque International sur les textes mycéniens et egéens, Sèvres, Paris, Nanterre. 2010). Roma-Pisa: Serra.
von Kamptz, Hans. 1982. Homerische Personennamen. Göttingen : Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
Landau, Oskar. 1958. Mykenisch-griechische Personennamen. Göteborg: Almqvist & Wiksell.
LIV2 = Helmut Rix et al. (eds.). 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
Leukart, Alex. 1994. Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Herkunft und Ausbreitung. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mayrhofer, Manfred. 2003. Die Personennamen in der Rgveda-Samhita. Sicheres und Zweifelhaftes. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaft.
Massetti, Laura. 2014. “Due epiteti pindarici di Zeus: ἐλασιβρόντας (fr. 144), ἐλατὴρ βροντᾶς (Ol. IV 1)”. Aevuum Antiquum N.S. 14, 119–130.
Meier-Brügger, Michael.1976. “Ἔχω und seine Bedeutungen im Griechischen”. Museum Helveticum 33,180-181.
———. 1994. “Zwei uralte griechische Wörter.” Früh-, Mittel- und Spätindogermanisch. Akten der IX. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft (Zürich 1992, eds. G. Dunkel et al.), 225-230. Wiesbaden: Dr. Reichert.
Nagy, Gregory. 1974. Comparative Studies in Greek and Indic Meter. Harvard: Harvard University Press. (https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/6448.gregory-nagy-comparative-studies-in-greek-and-indic-meter).
Narten, Johanna. 1964. Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Neumann, Günter. 1995. Wertvorstellungen und Ideologie in den Personennamen der mykenischen Griechen, Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 131, 127-166. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Pokorny IEW = Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern & München: Francke.
Rikov, Gregorij. 1994. “Sanskrit sanóti, Greek ἄνυμι and αὐθέντης”. Orpheus 4, 63-66
Rix, Helmut. 1965. “Hom. ὀρώρεται und die Verben ὄρνυμι und ὀρίνω”. Indogermanische Forschungen 70, 25-49 (: Kleine Schriften, 2001, 10-34. Bremen: Hempen).
Risch, Ernst. 19742. Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.
Ruijgh, Cornelis J. 1967. Études sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien. Amsterdam:. Hakkert.
Ruipérez, Martín S. 1949. “El vocalismo del tipo ὄρνυμι, στόρνυμι”. Emerita 17, 106-119 (: Opuscula selecta 1989, 106-118. Innsbruck: IBS).
Strunk, Klaus. 1967. Nasalpräsentien und Aoriste. Ein Beitrag zur Morphologie des Verbums im Indo-Iranischen und Griechischen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Tucker, Elisabeth F. 1990. The Creation of Morphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -éō, -áō,-óō, -úō and -íō. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Vine, Brent. (1998). Aeolic ὄρπετον and Deverbative *-etó- in Greek and in Indo-European. Innsbruck: IBS.
Waanders, Frederick M. J. 2008. An Analytical Study of Mycenaean Compounds: Structure, Types. Pisa-Roma: Serra.
West, Martin. L. 2007. Indo-European Poetry and Myth. Oxford.

Footnotes

[ back ] * Anthroponymica Mycenaea: “1. Mykenisch o-ki-ro, alph.gr. ὀρχίλος. 2. Mykenisch da-te-wa /Dāitēwās/ und e-u-da-i-ta, alph.gr. Δαίτας, Παvδαίτης”, Minos 35, 2000-2001, 431–442; “3. Mykenisch to-wa-no /Thowānōr/, homerisch Πρόθooς und Πρoθoήνωρ*”, ŽAnt 50, 2000, 205–212; “4. Mic. pe-ra-ko /Pherakos/, gr.alf. Φέρακος y el topos ἄκος φέρειν, ἀκεσφόρος”. De Cyrène à Catherine (Mélanges C. Dobias-Lalou). Nancy, 2005, 101–110; “5. a-wi-to-do-to /Awisto-dotos/ und die unsichtbaren Götter im Alph.-Griechischen. 6. we-re-na-ko /Wrēn-āgos/ oder /Wrēn-ā̆kos/ und Myk. */wrēn/ : alph.-gr. °ρρην-, ἀρήν”. ŽAnt 55, 2005, 85–97; “7. Los nombres con primer elemento e-ri°, ἐρι° (: Ἐρι°) y a-ri° (: Ἀρι°)”. Actas del Coloquio Internacional “55 años de Micenología”. Barcelona, UAB (12-13.4.2007) Faventia 2012, 107-125; “8. Micénico qe-re-ma-o /Kwēlemaho-/ ‘que busca desde lejos’, τηλóθε μεταμαιόμενος … ἄγραν (Píndaro)”. AION Linguistica 1 (N.S.), 2012, 149-164; 9: “Compounded names with second member °me-de /°mēdēs/ (μῆδoς), °me-ta /°mētās/ (μῆτις), and the Pylian name me-ti-ja-no” Tavet Tat Satyam (Studies … Jared S. Klein (edd. Andrew M. Byrd et al.). Ann Arbor-New York: Beech Stave Press. 2016,52-64; “10. Τhe name e-ti-ra-wo /Erti-lāwos/ (and Λᾱ-έρτης): ἔρετο · ὡρμήθη (Hsch.), Hom. ὁρμήθησαν ἐπ᾿ ἀνδράσιν, and Hom. ἔρχεσθαι μετὰ φῦλα θεῶν and Cret. MN Ἐρπετίδαμος”. Usque ad Radices (Studies … Birgit A. Olsen, edd. Bjarne Simmelkjaer et al.). Kobenhavn: Museum Tusculanum 2017, 161-177;“11. Micénico Ne-ri-to /Nērito-/ ‘libre de discordia’(ἔρις), Ἀνήριτος y Ἀνήριστος / Ἀνέριστος frente a hom. νήριτος ‘innumerable, incalculable’(: NP Νήριτος, top. Νήριτον), ἐπάριτος : NP Ἐπήριτος. In a Festschrift (in print). [ back ] This article has been written in the framework of the Research Project FFI2016-79906-P “Estudio diacrónico de las instituciones socio-políticas de la Grecia antigua y de sus manifestaciones míticas” (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) / Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI), Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER). It is pleasant duty to express my gratitude to Riccardo Ginevra (Köln) and to Laura Massetti and Lenny Muellner (Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington) for their comments and suggestions. [ back ] For Mycenaean forms, reference is made to Fr. Aura Jorro, Diccionario Griego-Micénico. For Greek forms cf. lemmata in H. Frisk, GEW, P. Chantraine, DELG and R.S.P. Beekes, EDGr and to the LfgrE, for personal names to Fr. Bechtel, HPNG and to LGPN (1988+). Abbreviations: MN man’s name, WN woman’s name.
[ back ] 1. Other names remain obscure, among others te-wa-jo .1, qo-re-po-ụ-ti .2, or pi-ja-ma-so .11 (cf. Hittite pai– / pii̯a-ḫḫi ‘give’?).
[ back ] 2. A truncated form of a compound with Πραξ(ι)° (e.g. Πραξί-δαμος et sim.), like Πραξέας, Πραξίας, Πρᾶξος, fem. Πραξ(ι)ώ (cf. aor. πρᾱξα-) or with Φραξ(ι)° (cf. φράσσο/ε- ‘encircle, fortify’, aor. φραξα-, MN Φρασσαμενός Cyrene, 4th C.).
[ back ] 3. I.e. “celui qui obtient / a obtenu des malheurs” vs. e-to-ro-qa-ta /Esthlo-(k)kwā(s)tā-/ (KN) “celui qui a obtenu des choses nobles, des distictions” (cf. ἐσλὰ πέπαται Pind. P. 8.73), as per García Ramón 2000: 164-8. More precisely on /Pono-(k)kwā(s)tā-/ Kölligan 2012: 476ff. (“who fights”, “who has the spoils of war”).
[ back ] 4. /Ker-sa-/ (: κείρο/ε- ‘cut off’), or /Kens-sa-/ (PIE *k̂ens- ‘speak authoritatively’), cf. the MN ka-e-sa-me-no /Kahēsameno-/ (and truncated form ka-e-se-u) or /ker-sa-/ (García Ramón 1992: 241, 255, 251). The patronymic ke-me-ri-jo may conceal /Kheimerio-/, but uncertainty remains.
[ back ] 5. /Eti-mēdēs/ (ἔτι°), as per Landau 1958: 53, 160, 167; Ruijgh 1967:254, Hajnal 1995: 228, Waanders 2008: 26 (contra, rightly Heubeck 1957: 272 = Kl.Schr. 485 “morphologisch völlig unmöglich”); as /Ēti-mēdēs/ (*Ἡτι-μήδης), like e-ti-ra-wo (assumedly concealing *Ἡτι-λᾱϝος), with first member ἕσις (and *ἧτις / ἧσις like in Ἡσί-oδος), as per Heubeck, loc.cit., also Waanders 2008: 26; as /Erti-mēdēs/ (Mühlestein 1968:113, Bader 1970:50, García Ramón 2016: 54).
[ back ] 6. García Ramón 2017: 163ff. against the possibility that /Erti°/ could be a variant of /Orti°/.
[ back ] 7. On the ambiguity of μήδεα in the expression Ζεὺc ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώc (Il. 24.88, Hsd. Th. 545, 550,561’ as referring to both unfailing genitals and unfailing knowledge cf. Nagy 1974: Appendix A (“μήδεα and ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδώς”).
[ back ] 8. °μήδης, °μήδεια obviously match pl. μήδεα, whereas °μέδης, °μέδεια, °μέδα/η (type Ἀvδρoμέδης !) may ultimately go back to an inherited form *méd-es- (cf. Umbr. meřs, mers, Osc. med-díss “iudex”), although some instances of °μεδ- may simply be due to metrical constraints within Greek itself. Both forms may coexist. cf. Ἀριστομήδης, Ἀριστομέδης, fem. Αὐτομέδα/η, Ἀλκιμέδη, Εὐρυμέδη. Benveniste 1969:2, 123ff. operates with two different roots, namely *med- (Lat. modus) expressing an authoritative measuring (“une mesure imposée aux choses”, “decision souveraine”, “mesure active”, “pas une mesure de mensuration, mais de modération”… “supposant réflexion, préméditation, et qui est appliquée à une situation desordonnée” (already Benveniste 1945) and *mē- (*meh1–), as the expression of a “mesure de dimension, qualité fixe et comme passive, dont l’emblème sera la lune mesurant le mois”. The alleged difference is not recognizable in Greek: μήδεα and μῆτις were used as synonyms in Homeric “synchrony”.
[ back ] 9. For more details cf. García Ramón 2016: 53-55.
[ back ] 10. Cf. also the MN Myc. e-u-me-ta (KN) : Εὐμήτης, Εὔμητις (and Εὐμητ-ίων), which semantically match Myc. e-u-me-de : Εὐ-μήδης. Regardless of whether μήδεα (μήδομαι) and μῆτις (with denominative μητιάομαι) are etymologically connected (García Ramón 2016: 54-55), μῆτις is surely inherited (: Ved. mā́ti– ‘wisdom, skill’).
[ back ] 11. Cf. also Il. 9.423 ὄφρ’ ἄλλην φράζωνται ἐνὶ φρεσὶ μῆτιν ἀμείνω ‘so that they were devising some other plan in their minds better than this’ (also 17.634, 712) :: Ap. Rh. 3.826 ἵνα φράζoιντo νόoν καὶ μήδεα κoύρης, Od. 1.540 τίς δ’ αὖ τοι δολομῆτα θεῶν συμφράσσατο βουλάς.
[ back ] 12. References: E-ke-me-de (KN Dd 659.B, U 4478.18; PY An 657.6, Jo 438.8, maybe also Un 853 v.1), Ἐχεμήδης (Sellasaia, 3rd c.), Ἐχεμήδα (Cyrene. 1st BC/ 1st AD).
[ back ] 13. The original meaning of Gk. ἔχο/ε- ‘hold, possess, keep’ (*seĝh–: Ved. sáhate ‘overcomes’, Goth. sigis “νῖκος”) is recognizable in the MN e-ka-no /(h)Ekhānōr/ : Nικᾱ́́νωρ (Meier-Brügger 1977; García Ramón 2005: 127 with reference to Ved. sah nr̥̄́n in RV V 7.10ce ā́d agne apr̥ṇató’triḥ sāsahiyād dásyūn iṣáḥ sāsahiyām nr̥̄́n “Then, o Agni, Atri should overpower the Dasyus, who never give; Iṣa should overpower men”, and to nr̥-ṣā́h- ‘who overpowers men’, nr̥-ṣáhya- ‘victorous might over men’).
[ back ] 14. Cf. Od. 13.89 ἄνδρα φέρουσα θεοῖσ’ ἐναλίγκια μήδε’ ἔχοντα, Od. 19.353 ἔστι δέ μοι γρηῢς πυκινὰ φρεσὶ μήδε’ ἔχουσα.
[ back ] 15. This is a nice occasion to retract my wrong assumption in García Ramón 2016: 54.
[ back ] 16. Cf. the discussion by Chantraine, Gramm.Hom. 1, 297. PGk. *ereu̯- is well attested in the nominal derivatives Myc. e-re-u-te-re /ereutēr-es/, or /-ei/, Cret. ερευτᾱς (on which Genevrois 2017: 140-2), and a possible *ἐρευνᾱ́ (underlying denominative ἐρευνάω), cf. raun ON ‘attempt’ (*h1rou̯-néh2–).
[ back ] 17. García Ramón 2017: 162ff. and n. 3.
[ back ] 18. It is irrelevant at this point whether ὀρίνο/ε- (*ori-n-i̯o/e-: *h3ri-nH-i̯o/e-) actually reflects *h3rei̯H- “wallen, wirbeln” (Rix 1965: 29ff., LIV2 s.v.) and is somehow connected with *h3er- (an enlarged root-variant *h3r-ei̯-H-?).
[ back ] 19. Cf. Il. 9.4 ὡς δ᾿ἄvεμoι δύo πόvτov ὀρίvετov ἰχθυόεvτα ‘just as two winds stir up the sea full of fishes’, Il. 11.297-8 … ἀέλλῃ / ἥ τε … πόντον ὀρίνει.
[ back ] 20. Also with ὁρμάο/ε- (Od. 18.376 εἰ δ’ αὖ καὶ πόλεμόν ποθεν ὁρμήσειε Κρονίων) and with αἴρειν (πόλεμον A. Supp. 342, πόλεμος αἴρεται Ar. Av. 1188, νεῖκος ἀειράμενος C.Thgn.90).
[ back ] 21. Cf. Also Ἀρσί-νooς (Ηom.), Ἀρσινόη (Pind.+), or the epíthets ἀερσί-νooς (Ion), ἀερσίφρων (Nonn.). For Hom. Ἀρσίνοος the appurtenance of ἀρσι° to ἀραρ- ‘join’ is possible, cf. Od. 10.552-3 οὔτε τι λίην /ἄλκιμος ἐν πολέμῳ οὔτε φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἀρηρώς (Von Kamptz 1980: 66 n.42).
[ back ] 22. García Ramón 2017. Myc. /er-/ in /Er-ti°/ actually reflects PIE *h1er- ‘arrive’, ‘move along towards’, cf. ἔρχεσθαι ‘go ahead (towards), move along’ (PGk. *er-sko/e-: *h1r̥- sk̂o/e).
[ back ] 23. With the variant ἔρχεο νῦν … καὶ δεῦρο κάλεσσον (Il. 15.54).
[ back ] 24. Cf. Od. 17.157-9 ὡς ἦ τοι Ὀδυσεὺς ἤδη ἐν πατρίδι γαίῃ, / ἥμενος ἢ ἕρπων, τάδε πευθόμενος κακὰ ἔργα, / ἔστιν (García Ramón 2017: 173f.).
[ back ] 25. Leukart 1994: 88f., Βader 1969: 50.
[ back ] 26. Cf. also Arm. y-er̄um ‘tie, link, string together’ (*ser-s, ser-nu-), OIr. sern(a)id “serit”.
[ back ] 27. The compound names with °ερμος (Ἀνάξερμος, Ἄρχερμος, Ἑρμοδάμας et al.) may reflect a military sense of ἕρμα as “Aufreihung von Kämpfern” (Neumann 1995:134f.).
[ back ] 28. The metaphorical use of εἴρο/ε- occurs also in Late authors, e.g. ὁ εἴρας καὶ συνυφάνας ἕκαστα [λόγος] (Philo1.499); ῥήματα δεξιῶς εἴρειν δυνάμενοι (Sext.Emp., M.1.98) et al.
[ back ] 29. Also Liv. 34.61.7 cum eo secreta colloquia serere, Verg. A. 6.160 multa inter sese uario sermone serebant ‘Many things they were stringing among each other with varied conversation’.
[ back ] 30. Cf. also ὑφή ‘web’, ὕφος, Ved. vabh (pres. ubhnā́-ti ‘unite, bind’), °vábhi- ‘spinning wheel’,‘spindle’ in Ved. ū́rṇāvábhi- *‘wool spindler’, ‘spider’ in aurṇavābhá- (RV, 3x) ‘son of the spider’, by-name of Ahīśu and name of a demon (Mayrhofer 2003: 24), perhaps also YAv. varǝnauua- (*varǝnā̆-uuaβi/a-).
[ back ] 31. The same applies to πλέκο/ε-, cf. West 2007: 36-8 (“Pοesy as weaving”), with references to Germanic and Celtic material.
[ back ] 32. Cf. Il. 7.324 ὑφαίvειv ἤρχετo μῆτιv (= Il. 9.93), Od. 4.678 μῆτιv ὕφαιvov, 4.739 κεῖvoς ἐvὶ φρεσὶ μῆτιv ὑφήvας (Hsd. fr. 195.28 ἄλληv μῆτιv ὕφαιvε μετὰ φρεσίv), 13.303 ἵνα τοι σὺν μῆτιν ὑφήνω,13.386 ἀλλ’ ἄγε μῆτιν ὕφηνον, Βacch. Dith. 16.22 … δαίμωv / πoλυδάκρυv ὕφα[vε / μῆτιv ἐπίφρovα, 17.52 ὕφαινέ τε ποταινίαν μῆτιν (García Ramón 2016: 55-7).
[ back ] 33. The collocation [WEAVE – WAR] is also attested in Old English (wigspeda gewiofu ‘weaving of battle-success’ Beow. 697 beside antithetic [WEAVE – PEACE], cf. freoðu-webbe .1942 ‘she who waeves peace’) and Old Norse (sigr-vefr ‘web of battles’ Darraðarljóð 2, and the refrain vindum vindum vefr darraðar ‘we weave, we weave the weaving of the spear”(ibid.).
[ back ] 34. Lat. serō is used metaphorically with ‘war, fight’, e.g. crebra … proelia serebant (Tac. Hist. 5.11.5), bella ex bellis serendo (Sall. Mithr. 89).
[ back ] 35. The meaning of Hitt. šanḫ-mi seems to reflect the lexicalization of the conative realization the aspectual function of a former -n-infix present *sn̥-n-h2– (cf. OIr. sennaid, OHG sinnan), i.e. ‘to be reaching’, ‘to be trying to reach’ more than a root present *senh2– (García Ramón 2002: 131-134).
[ back ] 36. Ηοm. ἄνϝεται (Il. 10.251) reappears in the gloss κασάνεις · ἀνύεις. Λάκωνες (Hsch.) for *καθάνεις beside καθανύσαι · συντελέσαι (cf. inf. καθανύσαι, καθανύσειν Xen.).
[ back ] 37. In both cases there is no trace of *h2, which has been dropped at least in the present stem (or starting from forms with -o- grade, *sonh2–, by the Saussure effect, or before vowel (Rikov 1994), and is only recognizable in Hom. ἔναρα (§8.2).
[ back ] 38. Eichner 1988: 143 n. 66, 1979: 55 n. 42.
[ back ] 39. Ruipérez 1949. The metathesis could underlie the alleged aor. ἀνε-σα- (ἤνεσε · συγκατέθετο Hsch.), if a real form. The inherited aor. *sénh2-(o/e)- (Ved. sán-a-, sániṣ-) is not represented in Greek.PGk. aor. *ἑνα-σα- could match Ved. sániṣ- (*senə2-s-, cf. Strunk 1967: 116, Leukart 1994: 71f.), even if the Vedic form is secondary (Narten 1964: 263f.). Irrelevant is aor. ἤνεσα IG 7.3226 (Orchomenos, Boeotia) in a poetic text.
[ back ] 40. Also Od. 4.544 οὐκ ἄνυσίν τινα δήομεν ‘we find no end, accomplish nothing’, CThgn. 462 χρήμασιν ὧν ἄνυσις γίνεται οὐδεμία.
[ back ] 41. Note that in Vedic, where -nu- is regularily limited to the present stem, the agent noun has analogical sánutrī-, sánutara- beside inherited sani-tár- (*senǝ2-tér-).
[ back ] 42. Αlso with other referents like θέσμια ‘customs, rites’ (E. Andr. 535-6) τί δʼ ἐγὼ κακῶν μῆχος ἐξανύσομαι ‘how will I reach a remedy against my evils’, (S. Aj. 710-2) ὅτʼ Αἴας … θεῶν δ’ αὖ / πάνθυτα θέσμι’ ἐξ/ήνυσ'(εὐ) ‘when Aias fulfilled all sacrificial rites of the gods…’, κακὰν μοῖραν (S. Aj. 926), πάθεα (E. Ion. 1066). Other objects are terms of time and distance: ἁμέραν τάνδε (E.), δρόμον, ἴχνος, πόρον (Ε.), also ‘to finish a journey’ (i.e. reach a goal): Hdt.6.139 ἐπεὰν … ἐξανύσῃ νηῦς ἐκ τῆς ὑμετέρης ἐς τὴν ἡμετέρην ‘when the ship will have finished its voyage]] … from your land to ours …’, Od. 4.357 ὅσσον τε πανημερίη γλαφυρὴ νηῦς ἤνυσεν (sc. ὁδοῦ) ‘as much as a ship gets through in a day’, A. Pers. 748 πολλὴν κέλευθον ἤνυσεν.
[ back ] 43. Cf. Od. 24.71 αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ δή σε φλὸξ ἤνυσεν Ἡφαίστοιο, Pi. P. 12.11 Περσεὺς ὁπότε τρίτον ἄνυσεν κασιγνητᾶν μέρος (Σγρ ἄνυσσεν Βοeckh).
[ back ] 44. Hom. ἀάτος ‘inviolable’ (ἀ-ᾱ́ατος does not belong here [aliter Meier-Brügger 2004: 228-30 “kein Erlangen habend, keine Chance habend” : *n̥-sń̥h2to- as against verbal adjective *sn̥h2-tó-]: it may be traced back to *n̥-h2uh2-eto- ‘inviolable’ (Vine 1998: 76-9, with critical review of other possibilities).
[ back ] 45. Probably with /h-/, as there is no trace of psilosis in Mycenaean texts from Pylos except in the case of technical terms of Cretan origin (e.g. a-ja-me-na ‘inlaid’, a3-te ‘inlayer’), for which psilosis may be assumed.
[ back ] 46. This is, among others, the case of Myc. (po-ro)ko-re-te /korē-ter/ or /korě-ter/ (and po-ro-ko-re-te : PY, KN), an agent noun in /-tér-/, beside the compound da-mo-ko-ro /dāmo-koro-/ (PΥ, KN). It seems clear that (°)ko-ro and (°)ko-re-te conceal the same verbal lexem. If /dāmo-koro-/ is ‘(the one) who nourishes the community (/dāmos/)’ (like λαοτρόφος), i.e. just the contrary than the δημοβόρος βασιλεύς (Il. 1.231, cf. also δημοφάγον … τύραννον C.Thg. 1181), we can assume that the implicit object of the derivative (po-ro)ko-re-te is the same, namely /dāmos/.
[ back ] 47. Αlso Il. 18.473 ὅππως … καὶ ἔργον ἄνοιτο ‘wherever … and the work went forward’, Hdt. 1.189 ἤνετο τὸ ἔργον et al.
[ back ] 48. Also of οἶτος ‘fate’ (S. El. 167), κακόν (Pl. Grg. 507e+), of ‘never-ending’ talks (Theocr. 15.87 ἀνάνυτα κωτίλλοισαι).
[ back ] 49. Also Il. 17.84-5 … αὐτίκα δ’ ἔγνω / τὸν μὲν ἀπαινύμενον κλυτὰ τεύχεα …, Il. 5.155 ἔνθ’ ὅ γε τοὺς ἐνάριζε, φίλον δ’ ἐξαίνυτο θυμὸν.
[ back ] 50. Αs per Leukart 1994: 72f. (with reference to a-u-to-a3-ta [KN] as possible /Auto-aitās/).
[ back ] 51. There is no attestation of *αἴνυτος, or of a simplex *αἶτος.
[ back ] 52. Strunk 1967: 115-16, 119-120 (also Heubeck 1957: 272 n. = Kl.Schr. 485).
[ back ] 53. Also as adjective (A. Eu. 212 οὐκ ἂν γένοιθ’ ὅμαιμος αὐθέντης φόνος). Ancient lexicographers and scholiasts are explicit, cf. αὐτοέντης · αὐτόχειρ also συνέντης · συνεργός (Hsch.), αὐθέντης δὲ λέγεται ὁ δι’ ἑαυτοῦ ἐπί τινος φόνον ἱέμενος, οἷον αὐτοέντης τις ὤν (Schol. A.R.2.754), ὅθεν καὶ αὐτοἕντης καὶ αὐθέντης ὁ αὐτοφόντης (Eusth. in Il. 2,p.26).
[ back ] 54. The etymological sense ‘author’ is attested seldom and only in Post-Classical Greek (πράξεως Plb.22.14.2; ἱεροσυλίας D.S.16.61), or ‘master’ (δῆμος αὐθέντης χθονός E. Supp. 442).
[ back ] 55. As Laura Massetti points out to me, the scholiasts have invented a verb ἔνω “φονεύω” on the basis of αὑθέντης, αὐτοέντης. This allows them to propose a “synchronic” etymology for Ἐνυώ, cf. Schol. in Hom. Il. 5.333b Ἐνυώ· ἀνθρωποπαθῶς πέπλασται ὡς Δεῖμος καὶ Ἔρις. εἰ δὲ ἦν θεός, ποῦ ἦν ἐν τῇ θεομαχίᾳ; b (CE3)T | Ἐνυὼ δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἐναύειν, ὃ σημαίνει τὸ ἐμφωνεῖν†. τινὲς δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἔνω, ὅ ἐστι φονεύω, ἔνθεν καὶ αὐτοέντης. παρ’ αὐτῆς δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἐνυάλιος. A b (CE3)T.
[ back ] 56. This matches the pattern of the ‘guilty hand’ (keššar u̯aštai) in Hittite juridic texts when the homicide has been commited accidentally and/or unwillingly: guilty is the hand, not the author (Dardano 2002: 374ff.).
[ back ] 57. Pace Meier-Brügger 1994: 230 (“*au̯t(o)-h1sent- ‘der, welcher er ist’”).
[ back ] 58. Both interpretations are as per Leukart 1994: 71,74 (“der es eigenständig zustande bringt”, “der eigenhändig (die spolia) nimmt”, with reference to E. Andr. 614f. αὐθέντης … Ἀχιλλέως).
[ back ] 59. I owe this reference to Laura Massetti (p.c.).
[ back ] 60. Cf. Il. 5.720 χρυσάμπυκας ἔντυεν ἵππους ‘he was harnessing the horses of golden frontlets, Od. 23.289 … Εὐρυνόμη τε ἰδὲ τροφὸς ἔντυον εὐνὴν ‘were getting the bed ready’ beside Od. 12.183 λιγυρὴν δ’ ἔντυνον ἀοιδήν ‘(the Sirens) were raising the loud strain’.
[ back ] 61. The pair *ἐντύς : ἔντεα could fit into the pattern of κλειτύς : κλεῖτος, πληθύς : πλῆθος, and a putative *ἐντύ- (*sen-tú-) has a formal aequabile in Ved. sánitu- ‘obtention’ RV 1.8.6b tokásya sánitau ‘at the winning of offspring’. But it is also possible that ἔντεα : ἐντύνω would be the original pair, and that ἐντύω is created beside ἐντύνω on the model of ἰθύνω : ἰθύω, ἀρτύνω : ἀρτύω (Tucker 1990: 47 n.42 with discussion).
[ back ] 62. Whether the type (b) /°CeC-tā-/(/°hen-tā-/ and similar forms) has been created “in der jüngeren Schicht der Αbleitungen aus beliebigen Wurzeln” (Leukart 1994: 47, 283f.) is irrelevant at this point. The fact is that this type is surely attested in the Mycenaean, e.g. /°der-tā/ (δέρω ‘I skin, flay’) in o-wi-de-ta /owi-dertā-/, a3-ki-de-ta /aigi-dertā-/.
[ back ] 63. Αlso simplex δέκτης ‘beggar’ (Hom.+). On -τᾱς as continuant of -τήρ (already in Mycenenan, e.g. e-re-ta /eretā-/ ‘rower᾿ vs. *ἐρετήρ, cf. PN ᾿Ερετρία), cf. Leukart 1994:167.
[ back ] 64. For references to the concrete forms cf. García Ramón 1992: 242-5, 2016: 58-9.
[ back ] 65. Leukart 1994: 88f., Βader 1969: 50.
[ back ] 66. García Ramón 1988-90, with reference to Hom. κεκάσμεθα : Ved. śā́śadmahe, κεκασμένoς : śā́śadānā-, cf. Il. 4.339 κακoῖσι δόλoισι κεκασμένε : RV I 123.10ab kanyèνa tanuνā̀ śā́śadānām̐ éṣi deνi ‘like a young woman, who excels by her figure, thou go, o goddess’).
[ back ] 67. The variant with s-mobile PIE *sk̂end- (Ved. chand, OAv. sand, OP ϑand ‘become visible’) underlies prs. chadáya-ti : YAv. saδaiia- : OP θadaya-, causat. chandáya- : YAv. sǝṇdaiia-; aor. Ved. achān : OAv. sąs (*sk̂ḗnd-s-) (García Ramón 1988-90).
[ back ] 68. Note that in Homer Cassandra was mentioned as the most beautiful of the daughters of Priam (Il. 13.365-6 Πριάμoιo θυγατρῶν εἶδoς ἀρίστην / Κασσάνδρην).
[ back ] 69. The dossier may include ka-ta-no /Kastānōr/, and surely ka-te-u /Kastēus/.
[ back ] 70. The name (with –e-vocalism : *k̂ens-) evokes Cassandra’s character of prophetess after Homer (Pind. Pyth. 11.32 μάντις κόρα), as again Homeric Cassandra, who was mentioned as excelling (cf. κέκασμαι) because of her beauty among the daughters of Priam (Il. 13.365-6 Πριάμoιo θυγατρῶν εἶδoς ἀρίστην / Κασσάνδρην). The generalisation of the -a-vocalism (Κασσάνδρα) at the expense of –e- (Κεσσάνδρα) is due to the convergence with Κασσ- of κέκασμαι, which has survived in Poetry.
[ back ] 71. Cf. also the MN ]ke-ti-ro, if it conceals /Ke(n)sti-los/, a truncated form for */Ke(n)sti-lāwos/ ‘who speaks to the army’ (cf. Aἰνησίλᾱς, Αἰνησίλεως, also Αἰνη/εσίδαμoς (García Ramón 1992: 249f.).
[ back ] 72. García Ramón 2004; Frame 2009:28ff., 37ff. (*nes- “return home safely”, “return from death to life”).
[ back ] 73. Other possible forms are a-no-ta /An-ortās/ “Der Aufrecht”, pe-ri-jo-ta /Peri-ortās/ “der ringsum (oder sehr) (zum Kampf) antreibt”, e-u-ru-wo-ta /Euru-ortās/ “der weiterhin treibt, jagt” (Leukart 1994: 89ff, also Bader 1969: 48-55, García Ramón 2017: 163-4 nn.9-10).
[ back ] 74. Laura Massetti kindly points to me that κονίορτος has a phraseological background, cf. Il. 11.151-2 ([…] ὑπὸ δέ σφισιν ὦρτο κονίη / ἐκ πεδίου, τὴν ὦρσαν ἐρίγδουποι πόδες ἵππων ‘and a storm of dust rose up under them, up from the plain the dust which the thundering hooves of horses stirred up’, RV IV 42.5d íyarmi reṇúm abhíbhūtyojāḥ “of overwhelming power, I raise the dust” (Massetti 2014:131 n.9).
[ back ] 75. With λιταί cf. Pi. O. 8.8 ἄνεται δὲ πρὸς χάριν εὐσεβείας ἀνδρῶν λιταῖς ‘but for men’s prayers there is fulfillment in return for piety’.
[ back ] 76. Cf. also Il. 2.286 οὐδέ τοι ἐκτελέουσιν ὑπόσχεσιν ἥν περ ὑπέσταν ‘they will not fulfill the promise they once made to you’, Od. 10.483 τέλεσόν μοι ὑπόσχεσιν ἥν περ ὑπέστης, Il. 23.20 τελέω τὰ πάροιθεν ὑπέστην ‘I am accomplishing all that I promised in past times’.


Donum natalicium