Explore the vast range of titles available.

Since its publication in 1969, Émile Benveniste's Vocabulaire --here in a new translation as the Dictionary of Indo-European Concepts and Society --has been the classic reference for tracing the institutional and conceptual genealogy of the sociocultural worlds of gifts, contracts, sacrifice, hospitality, authority, freedom, ancient economy, and.

Originally, φράσσω ‘enclose, fence in, secure, fortify, block’ was a three-place verb meaning ‘to enclose, cover something with something’, as shown not only by the syntax and semantics of its Homeric and post-Homeric occurrences, but also by its lexical family within Ancient Greek, which includes the Hesychian glosses φαρκ-άζω* ‘conceal’ and φόρξ* ‘fence’. These considerations allow for a new analysis, supported by exact matches in Germanic languages and in Hittite, of φράσσω and φόρξ* as two inherited formations reflecting Proto-Indo-European *bʰr̥gʰ-i̯ó/é- ‘enclose’ and *bʰr̥gʰ-s ‘enclosing’, respectively. The study further discusses the development of a Proto-Greek ‘neo-root’ *√pʰr̥k ‘enclose, fence in’, which was re-analyzed and extracted from these inherited terms and from which new words were derived, including the Hesychian gloss φύρκος ‘wall’ (whose problematic root vowel may be explained in various ways) and the name of the sea-god Φόρκῡς/Φόρκος, whose characterization was probably a reflex of the Ancient Greek (and apparently already Indo-European) mythological motif of the ‘serpent-like world-enclosing water-deity’.

In the , which contains 2,483 entries, the name Šimon Ondruš appears in 91 of them. Ondruš’s etymological interpretations are original, controversial, often isolated. The specific features of his etymologies, which the mentions, include in particular the application of laryngeal theory, the Benveniste model of the Indo-European root and the Schwebeablaut, in addition to the method of semantic parallels, the theory of the originally single phoneme in the Indo-European proto-language, delabialization of Indo-European and Proto-Slavonic consonant groups. For a number of words generally considered to be old borrowings from Romance or Germanic languages, Ondruš preferred their domestic origin, explaining them as autochthonous words. Ondruš’s interest in Old Church Slavonic language was also reflected in the dictionary: for several Old Church Slavonic words, he specified their translation into contemporary Slavonic languages, including Slovak.

The paper presents a contrastive–comparative research on English, Italian, and Slovenian phraseological units with the word bread. First, it focuses on the etymological origins, and then it explores the similarities and differences in the meanings of the word bread and its phraseological units. Additionally, common and distinctive phraseological units, their frequency, and their intrinsic cognitive ideals are examined. The findings reveal that the three languages share the same Proto–Indo–European ancestry and sentimental anachronism. Nonetheless, different cultural, historical, political, and societal traditions have generated phraseological units distinctive of the three languages. Slovenian excels in the overall use of phraseological units and in the use of proverbs, whereas English and Italian mirror extensive influences of the Bible. The Italian language also reflects close ties to Roman heritage. Even if it may seem as though the proverbs are declining in use, examples of modifications more in touch with the present times prove their relevance. Lastly, the canonic pieces of literature influence the emergence and use of phraseological units.

In this short etymological note, we derive Lat. ‘mark, sign’ from the PIE root ‘press, knead’ (OE , OCS , etc.). It is argued that * initially denoted impressed or branded marks, in contradistinction to < (from the root of ‘cut’), which denoted carved or incised signs.

The aim of this paper is to analyse Old Church Slavic nravъ ‘nature, character’ and rovaniję ‘gifts’. As the meanings of the words from Proto-Indo-European *(H)nōrH- point out, Proto-Slavic *norvъ, from which Old Church Slavic nravъ derives, had a semantics similar to that pervasive in Latin mōrōsus ‘hard to please’ or ‘qui suit son humeur, difficile, capricieux, chagrin’. In the Old Church Slavic period, however, the word nravъ ‘manner, custom’ had a neutral connotation, like Latin mōs ‘custom, usage’. As for the word-form rovaniję, it originated in a period when gifts and taxes were distinguished. Taxes were given (*da-nь ‘tax’, *da-rъ ‘gift’ < *da-ti ‘give’), offered first to pagan deities and then to the Christian God. They were also brought as (voluntary) gifts to Slavic princes. According to the etymology of rov-aniję < *rov-ati ‘to make a notch, cut; to determine the amount of a fee (tax/gift)’, nevertheless, they were written down (or prescribed) in the Old Church Slavic period in Great Moravia.

In this article, three Indo-European loan etymologies for Uralic kinship terms meaning ’sister’, ’daughter’ and ’brother’ are discussed and a thorough etymological analysis of the words is given based on the latest research. An attempt is made to try and untangle the multitude of ways in which the relationship of these words can be interpreted and to provide the most probable scenario for whence the words entered the lexicons of Uralic languages. Both the phonological and the semantic side — which has often been greatly neglected in Uralic etymology — of the loan etymologies are explored.

Bilinguals often show evidence of cross language influences, such as facilitation in processing cognates. Here we use computational methods for analyzing spontaneous English texts written by hundreds of speakers of different L1s, at different levels of English proficiency, to investigate writers’ preference for using cognates over alternative word choices. We focus on English, since a majority of its lexicon is either of Romance or Germanic origin, allowing an investigation of the preference of speakers of Germanic and Romance L1s towards cognates between their L1 and English. Results show that L2 writers tend to prefer English cognates, and that this tendency is weaker as English proficiency level increases, suggesting diminishing effects of CLI. However, a comparison of the L2 writers with native English writers shows general overuse of cognates only for the Germanic, but not the Romance, L1 speakers, most likely due to the register of argumentative writing.

This study analyzes the Greek word κ?λον \"part of the large intestine\" in terms of its documentation, word formation and internal and external etymology. It is promising to connect it with other anatomical terms designating various parts of viscera, namely Armenian k'a?irt' & k'a?ird \"cavity of the body and its organs\", Celtic ·kalon-\"heart; middle, central\" and Tocharian B kele \"navel; center\". This last term is discussed from a broad semantic point of view, demonstrating that in many languages \"navel\" got its name from an abdominal organ. For the Greek, Armenian and Celtic forms there is a common semantic denominator consisting in the fact that the relevant organs resemble a \"bag\". That is why forms such as PGreek ·κολε??ν \"sheath of a sword\", Greek κ?λυθροι pl. \"testicles\", and perhaps also Latin cullus & culleus \"leather sack\" and cōleī pl. \"testicles\" are added. Taking into account the semantic motivation of Lithuanian pilv~as \"stomach, belly\" from the verb pìlti \"to fill\", the names of the bag-like organs which are the focus of our etymological interest are explained on the basis of the verb ·kelH-\"to make full of water\".3

The etymologies of English blood and bone are obscure. Although their cognates are well represented in the Germanic family, both lack clear cognates in other Indo-European languages. Various explanations for their origins have been proposed, including that they may be non-Indo-European (e.g. Hawkins 1987). Blood and bone, and their cognates, share an initial /b/ with numerous body-related words (e.g. beard, breast, bosom) throughout Germanic. This initial /b/ constitutes a phonestheme. Phonesthemes – ‘recurring sound-meaning pairings that are not clearly contrastive morphemes’ (Bergen 2004: 290) – are present in many Germanic languages, but their role in lexicogenesis is little understood. I suggest that blood and bone were formed by blending the initial /b/ phonestheme with two pre-existing lexemes: Proto-Germanic *flōda- ‘something that flows’ and *staina- ‘stone’. Phonesthetic blending may be a fruitful avenue for future etymological research.