ζειγάρη

According to Hesychius, ζειγάρη· ὁ τέττιξ παρὰ Σιδήταις, i.e. ζειγάρη is the word used for cicada by Sidetans. Unfortunately, it is not clear from this gloss if it was used by the Sidetic speaking Sidetans or by the Greek ones or both. It is booked as a Greek word by the Greek dictionaries (LSJ:753; DELG:397; GEW III:98; EDG:497) and by several other authors (Bezzenberger 1880a:329; LEW I:211; Metri 1954a:101; Gil 1957a:324; Gil Fernández 1959a:126; Dressler 1965a:85; Brixhe 1976a:84, 86 n. 3). Scholars with a focus on Anatolia, however, treat it as Sidetic (Bossert 1950b:2; Friedrich 1953a:138; Brandenstein 1958a:80f., Brandenstein 1961a:169f.; Neumann 1961a:42 [implicitly], Neumann 1968a:76).

Many of those who treat it as a Greek word and provide an etymology consider it a loanword from a “Mediterranean” language since Niedermann 1919a:80 n. 1 (LEW I:211 (“vielleicht”); Alessio 1954a:94f.; Gil 1957a:324; Gil Fernández 1959a:126; Dressler 1965a:85, together with Latin cicāda [see below, the connection to the Latin word is “mehr als ungewiß” according to GEW III:98]; similarly EDG:497 [“Pre-Greek”, with question mark]) or as an onomatopoetic word (Bezzenberger 1880a:329 with n. 6 and Brixhe 1976a:84f., 86 n. 3). Alternatively, Schmidt 1860a:255 proposed to emend the word into ζιγαρά and explained it from Greek σιγηρός ‘silent’ as the ‘mute (i.e. female) cicada’ (summarily rejected by Dressler 1965a:85). Kaczyńska & Witczak 2019a:55 rightly pointed out that the emendation is not necessary, since ζειγάρη could have been internally derived by accent retraction.

However, the fact that ζειγάρη appears only here in the wide range of Ancient Greek terms for ‘cicada’ (for their most recent critical overview see Kaczyńska & Witczak 2019a) tips the scale in favour of Sidetic origin, either synchronically or etymologically. There are several views regarding its origin as a Sidetic word:

1. Although Bossert 1950b:2, 10 characterizes the word first as “lautmalend”, he connects it with Latin cicāda ‘dto’ as an Indo-European word (explaining the formal difference with the Sidetic rhotacism). This was rejected by Friedrich 1953a:138 as “Gleichklang” (and with the extraordinary claim that Bossert believes Latin ‹c› expresses [ts]). As mentioned above, the Latin word is usually treated as a loanword from a Mediterranean language (cf. also EM:211f.), but it was also analysed as an onomatopoetic word (EM:211f. and de Vaan 2008:112 [alternatively “but not necessarily, a loanword”]). An explanation from PIE has some phonological problems: although ‹ei› can express [i] (cf. already Brandenstein 1961a:169), the spelling with zeta of Sidetic ‹ś› from PIE *k̑ (on this Sidetic sound law see Pérez Orozco 2007a:133), which is the only way to align the initial consonants, is irregular, and the change /d/ > [r] requires the extension of Sidetic rhotacism so far known involving only /ll/ and /n/, which is not impossible, but there is currently no evidence for this.
2. It was understandably explained as an onomatopoetic word (Brandenstein 1958a:80f., Brandenstein 1961a:169f.; Neumann 1968a:76 n. 4 [although maintaining a connection to σιγαλφοί, cf. below]).
3. Finally, Neumann 1961a:42 suggested a nomen actoris in -alla- with the Sidetic rhotacism from σιγαλ[φ]οί· (…) οἵ ἄργιοι τέττιγες ‘the wild cicadae’ (with an unspecified “r-suffix” in Neumann 1968a:76 n. 4). This is possible only if one follows the widespread conjecture of the Hesychian gloss, i.e. the deletion of ‹φ›. However, Kaczyńska & Witczak 2019a:56 demonstrated recently that this ‹φ› is a regular and integral part of the word.

In conclusion, the onomatopoetic origin is currently the most probable explanation, but it cannot be excluded (modernizing Neumann’s idea) that it also has the suffix -re from -alla/i- (on this Sidetic suffix see the discussion s.v. tobVn₂(re)).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 1 October 2020