*u̯Élgu̯-
‘monstrosity, lion’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst, gender unclear
- ID
- 1592
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/walwa(/i)-/, LEO(ANIMA)-wa/i-
‘lion’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is a hapax legomenon and its sole attestation occurs in one of the inscriptions from Tell Ahmar, dating to the late 10th or early 9th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | /walwa/is/ | LEO(ANIMA)-wa/i-sa | TELL AHMAR 6, §31 (Tell Ahmar) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of the present lexeme is fairly secure, even though its sole HLuw. occurrence shows only partially syllabic spelling. Linked to cognates within HLuw. (in personal names), CLuw. (also in personal names) and further Anatolian languages such as Lyd. *walwe- ‘lion’ and Hittite walkuwa- ‘monstrosity’, its phonological form can be reconstructed without issues, cf. already Steinherr 1968a:324, more recently Oettinger 2014a:312f.
Kloekhorst (EDHIL:951) casts doubt on the equation of Luw. walwa(/i)- with the sumergram UR.MAḪ ‘lion’ used in Hittite contexts as suggested by Steinherr 1968a, because the occurrences as studied by Steinherr never alternate in spelling within the same text. However, this does not constitute a strong argument, because proper names, be they for humans or deities, often feature particularly conventionalised spellings and would hence not be expected to show substantial variation when referring to one and the same entity and within the same text, too, unless a stylised rebus spelling were used here and there.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of the present lexeme was figured out by Steinherr 1968a:320, who interpreted the HLuw. logogram *97, also used on seals and frequently as part of personal names.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The lexeme is a thematic noun; on the basis of the available data it cannot be said whether or not it undergoes i-mutation, cf. Melchert 2003b:187f.
Although rarely attested as a simplex, /walwa(/i)-/ features in a number of personal names in Luwian and several other Anatolian languages, cf. already Carruba 1963a:403 and more recently Yakubovich 2010d:263 and Oettinger 2014a:312f.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
*walwa(/i)-
‘lion’1.2.1Derivatives
walwayalla/i-1.3 Luwian in Hittite transmission
walwīn[(-)
‘(unknown)’1.3.1Transmission
Hapax in a Hittite ritual (NS).
[Zs.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| acc. sg. c. | wa-al-ú-i-˹in˺[(-) | KBo 12.96 iv 2 | (CTH 433, NS) |
Attestation follows Ünal 2007a:784, Ünal 2016a:581 (cf. HEG U-Z:276). Contra Ünal and esp. the transcriptions of Bawanypeck 2005a:76 and Torri & Barsacchi 2018b:106, the tablet is broken through the last sign (according to the hand copy the entire sign is still visible, but not more), and, accordingly, it is not clear if we are dealing with the entire word (cf. already Rosenkranz 1964a:240, 250; Otten 1969b:95 n. 5; HEG U-Z:276).
[Zs.S.]
1.3.3Meaning ‘(unknown)’
Rosenkranz 1964a:250 cautiously identified it with Luwian *walwa/i- ‘lion’ (see s.v.), but Bawanypeck 2005a:77, 82 (“unklar”) and Ünal 2007a:784, Ünal 2016a:581 assigned no meaning to it (it was not included in Friedrich 1952a and Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a). Although this is formally possible, Otten 1969b:95 n. 5 and HEG U-Z:276 rightly pointed out that nothing can be said about this form due to the completely fragmentary context, including that we do not even know if we are dealing with the entire word (cf. under Form).
[Zs.S.]
1.3.4Origin
The word is not included in the usual Luwian glossaries (Laroche 1959a; CLL, Melchert 2005a; van den Hout 2006a; Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a; Ünal 2016a; also EDHIL does not include it implying a loanword in Hittite). If Rosenkranz’s identification with Luwian *walwa/i- ‘lion’ was correct, we would deal with a Luwian word, but his proposal cannot currently be verified (see under Meaning).
[Zs.S.]
1.4 Luwian (other transmission)
*walwa/i-
‘lion’1.4.1Transmission
This word is unambiguously reconstructed from numerous personal names in different sources, e.g., Mula-walwi, Piḫa-walwi, Takiti-walwa, Walwa, Walwalli, Walwanu, Walwa-zidu / Walwa-LÚ-iš in Cuneiform transmission (Laroche 1966b:120 [No. 817], 140 [No. 972], 170 [No. 1210], 204 [No. 1486]; Trémouille 2014a s.vv. with attestations; cf. also Hawkins 2005d:294) identified as early as Laroche 1959a:106.
[Zs.S.]
1.4.2Meaning ‘lion’
There is a widely accepted view that this word means ‘lion’ (e.g. CLL:254, Melchert 2013c:40; Hoffner 1998a:118; Ünal 2007a:784, Ünal 2016a:580 [but 975 without meaning]; Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:419; Yakubovich 2010d: 97 with n. 33; Weeden 2011b:636; Lebrun 2014a:122, 129). Lehrman 1978a:228, Lehrman 1987a:13 and EDHIL: 951 credit Steinherr 1968a with the identification of the reading of the logogram UR.MAḪ-i- as walwa/i- based on the personal names Piḫa-walwi- and Piḫa-UR.MAḪ on the one hand as well as *Walwa-ziti and UR.MAḪ.LÚ on the other, although the identification of Piḫa-walwi- and Piḫa-UR.MAḪ was first assumed (with question mark) by Nougayrol 1956a:165, 191, 248 (Hawkins 2005d:293; HEG U-Z:275; whether the two personalities are the same is still unclear, cf. Singer 1999a:684, d’Alfonso 2005a:152 n. 543, and Lebrun 2014a:122–132 with refs.). However, Kloekhorst rejected these equations, since Steinherr “is unable to give a single text in which UR.MAḪ and walwa/i- are used as duplicates of one another” and since piḫa- and ziti- are very common onomastic elements, their occurrence with both elements in question is non-probative. This is correct, nevertheless, as Hawkins 2005d:294, Weeden 2011a:74, and HEG U-Z:275 underline, the reading *walwa/i- is strongly supported by Otten’s identification (Otten 1969b, cf. Otten 1981b:143) of the cult functionaries LÚ.MEŠUR.MAḪ and LÚ.MEŠwalwalla- (see s.v.), even if digraphic evidence is also missing.
[Zs.S.]
1.4.3Origin
The word is generally assumed to be Luwian (Laroche 1959a:106; Steinherr 1968a; Lehrman 1978a:228, Lehrman 1987a; CLL:254, Melchert 2013c:40; Hawkins 2005d:293–295; Yakubovich 2010d:97; Weeden 2011b:636, Weeden 2011a:74; Lebrun 2014a:122, 129; Ünal 2016a:975). This is based on the fact that it is attested in combination with Luwian name elements (piḫa-, ziti-, Steinherr 1968a:322), which strongly supports the idea, and that it might be the reading of the Hieroglyphic Luwian sign LEO, too (see s.v.). Whether the Luwian origin can also be supported by historical considerations, too, it depends on its precise etymology, which is, however, debated, see under Reconstruction.
[Zs.S.]
1.5 Carian
*walwa-
‘lion’1.5.1Transmission
Reconstructed from Carian names in Greek (Halicarnassus, last quarter of the 5th – first half of the 4th c., Blümel 1993a:3) and Babylonian (last quarter of the 6th c., Waerzeggers 2006a:14, Zadok 2005a:90) transmission.
[Zs.S.]
1.5.2Forms
| Οαλοαλον̣ | (SGDI 5727, left side 30; Zgusta 1964a:388 §1134-2; Blümel 1992a:20) |
| IUl-ú-tu-e | (BM 29107 rev. 13, Waerzeggers 2006a:14; Zadok 2005a:91) |
Attestations following Simon 2016e:279f. The reading of IUl-ú-tu-e follows that of Waerzeggers instead of Zadok (“Zurutue” or “Zurs/šamkē”). See the discussion under Meaning, whether these names really belong here.
[Zs.S.]
1.5.3Meaning ‘lion’
Adiego 1993a, Adiego 2007a:338f. (followed by Vernet Pons 2012a:149) explained Oaloalos*, i.e., *walwala-, as a reduplicated form of Luwian *wala/i- ‘strong’, the assumed Luwian equivalent of Hittite walliwalli- ‘strong, powerful’ also attested in the personal names Walawala and Waliwali in the Old Assyrian texts from Anatolia. However, as Simon 2016e:279 with refs. points out, the Old Assyrian personal names can equally be of Hattic origin, walliwalli- does not regularly lead to *walwala-, and neither *walli- nor *walliwalli- means ‘strong’. Thus, instead he suggests a derivation from Luwic *walwa- ‘lion’ with the ubiquitous -alla/i- appurtenance suffix, Note, however, that this suffix is normally reflected as -oλ / -ωλλος / -ωλδος (Adiego 2007a:258), and thus, the suffix should probably be different.
Simon 2016e:279 suggests furthermore that Ulutue is a compound name from Ulu-tue- with ulu-, a regular Akkadian spelling of *walwa-, and an unidentifiable second member (Dees 2021a:57 falsely claims that Simon identified Ulutue with Oaloalos and, accordingly, her argumentation against this identification is pointless). Instead, Dees 2021a:57 explains Ulutue from Carian wlj/iat (see s.v.), which, however, can safely be excluded due to the different and unexplained vocalism of the second syllable.
[Zs.S.]
1.6 Lydian
*walwe-
‘lion (?)’1.6.1Transmission
The existence of the word *walwe- in Lydian, etymologically related to CLuw. *walwa(/i)- ‘lion’ (cf. Gusmani 1964a:220f., Wallace 1986a, Melchert 1994a:127, Dale 2015a:162f.), is based on the personal name walwete-, attested on coins and equating to Greek Alyattes (Ἀλυάττης), a royal name worn by a few Lydian kings (Payne & Wintjes 2016a:32-35, 120). For the publications of the various coins bearing this name see e.g. Browne 1996a (LW 52: walwet(elim)), Karwiese 2008a:138 ((wal)ẉetẹ(lim)), Gander 2019a (Ἀλυά(ττης)(?)).
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘monstrosity, lion’
The comparison of Hitt. walkua- n. (or n-stem, walkuan-) ‘monstrosity’ with Luw. /walwa(/i)-/ ‘lion’ allows a Proto-Anatolian reconstruction *u̯Elgu̯-. The stem formation is not clear for neither Anatolian cognate due to the lack of attestations; see below. The connection with the Proto-Indo-European noun *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- ‘wolf’ (HEG W-Z:270f. with further literature) requires that the labio-velar was lenited in Proto-Anatolian perhaps following a heavy accented syllable (cf. Melchert 1994a:61 and 127, trying to work with a zero-grade): *u̯Élku̯- > PAnat. *u̯Élgu̯-. Then, the velar part of *gu̯ is regularly dropped in Proto-Luwic, which yielded the proper outcome *u̯Élu̯- (contra EDHIL:951).
Concerning the semantics, the meaning ‘monstrosity’ in Hittite on the one hand, and ‘lion’ in Luwic on the other hand, is entirely compatible, as they both describe a “scary” creature. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that we might be dealing with different types of stem formation between Hittite and Luwic. For example, the Luwian noun /walwa(/i)-/ could reflect a thematic stem, an *i- or even an *-eh2- stem. One should also consider seriously the Luwian word for ‘wolf’, i.e. CLuw. ulipn(i)- ‘wolf’, which very likely continues a pre-form *u̯Elgu̯-no- > *u̯Elu̯no- > *u̯Elβno- > (+ i-anaptyxis) ulipn(i)-.
For a different etymological proposition, which fails to combine all the Anatolian data together, see Neumann apud HEG W-Z:277f.
[D.S.] [E.R.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- m. means ‘wolf’, *u̯l̥ku̯íh2- f. ‘she-wolf’ (IEW:1178f., EIEC:646f.). Divergent meanings, however, can be found among the Anatolian forms attested, with Hitt. walkua(n)- meaning ‘monstrosity’ vel sim. and Luw. /walwa(i)-/ ‘lion’. Originally, PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- might have meant *‘what is dangerous’ (cf. Morphological Reconstruction below), which could account for the semantic differences (> ‘wolf’ in Core-IE vs. ‘monstrosity; lion’ in Anatolian).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The Reconstruction of PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- m. ‘wolf’ is based in particular on the evidence from Indo-Iranian (Ved. vŕ̥ka-, YAv. vǝhrka-), Baltic (OPr. wilkis, Lith. vil͂kas, Latv. vìlks), Slavic (OCS vlĭkŭ, Russ. volk, etc.), Tocharian (TochB walkwe), and Albanian (OAlb. ulk, Alb. ujk). On the other hand, the forms attested in Anatolian (Hitt. walkua(n)- ‘monstrosity’, Luw. /walwa(i)-/ ‘lion’, perhaps also CLuw. ulipn(i)- ‘wolf’), Germanic (PGerm. *u̯ulfa- > Goth. wulfs, OHG wolf, etc.), Greek (Gk. λύκος), and Italic (Lat. lupus) are more difficult to explain. – For the Anatolian forms that can be explained from PAnat. *u̯Élgu̯° < pre-PAnat. *u̯Élku̯°, cf. the discussion sub PAnat. Reconstruction and see below. – PGerm. *u̯ulfa- m. ‘wolf’ can ultimately be considered an outcome of PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o-, with PIE *u̯–ku̯ → pre-PGerm. *u̯–p > PGerm. *u̯–f, to which compare, e.g., PIE *pénku̯e ‘5’ → pre-PGerm. *pémpe (with *p–ku̯ → *p–p) > PGerm. *fimfe (Schaffner 2005a:323, EDPG:598). – Gk. λύκος m. ‘wolf’ is ambiguous in phonological terms: if from PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o-, a metathesis to pre-PGk. *lúku̯o- is required, followed by a regular delabialization to *lúko- > λύκος; for the latter, cf. Gk. βου-κόλος m. ‘cowherd’ < *gu̯ou̯-kólo- < *gu̯ou̯-ku̯ólh1o- or ὑ-γιής adj. ‘healthy, sound’ < *h2i̯u-gu̯ih3°. Somewhat differently, e.g., Lühr 2000a:86, who operates without a metathesis by explaining Gk. λύκος directly from PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- via a velarization of the root vowel preceding the labiovelar and subsequent loss of the labialization before the stem vowel *o. Less likely, by contrast, seems an etymological connection of Gk. λύκος with PGerm. *luχō(n)- f. ‘lynx’ (OSwed. lō) and *luχsa- m. ‘id.’ (OE lox, OS lohs, OHG luhs),On the Germanic words for ‘lynx’, cf. EWAhd V:1500–1503, EDPG:342f.as considered, e.g., in GEW II:143f., EDG:877. – Finally, Lat. lupus m. ‘wolf’ can be explained from PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- as well, via pre-PItal. *lúku̯o-, showing the same metathesis as perhaps Gk. λύκος. The word-internal p (< PIE *ku̯) in Lat. lupus can be explained as a borrowing from Sabellic; cf. Lat. bōs ‘cow’, the b of which is also likely to be borrowed from Sabellic, because PIE *gu̯ṓu̯s ‘cow’ would regularly have given Lat. *uōs. Alternatively, de Vaan (EDLIL:353) proposes an etymological connection of Lat. lupus with PIE *u̯l̥p°, (metathesized) *lup° ‘fox, marten, cat’ vel sim., to which he compares, e.g., YAv. urupi- m., arguably a kind of fox, as well as Lat. volpēs, -is m. ‘fox’ (Plaut.+). The semantic shift may be explained by “tabooistic replacement of an earlier word for ‘wolf’” (EDLIL:353). However, as de Vaan (ibid.) himself admits, “the disadvantage of this approach is that the stem *ulp- is already continued in Lat. volpēs, so that an additional reflex in lupus would require further special pleading.” Therefore, Lat. lupus is more likely to derive from PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o-. The metathesis involved in Latin (and Greek) might be due to taboo (cf. EDG:878).
Alongside the masculine form PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- ‘wolf’ an already PIE feminine formation *u̯l̥ku̯íh2- ‘she-wolf’ (nom. sg. *u̯l̥ku̯íh2-s, acc. sg. *u̯l̥ku̯íh2-m̥, gen. sg. *u̯l̥ku̯íh2-es/os, etc., cf. Schaffner 2001a:80) can be reconstructed, which was formed by the addition of the feminine suffix *-ih2- to the masculine stem. More or less direct reflexes can be found in Indo-Iranian (Ved. vr̥kī́-; Shughni wirjin), Germanic (PGerm. nom. sg. *u̯ulƀī́, gen sg. *u̯ulǥii̯ṓz, whence eventually ON ylgr, OHG wulpa, MHG wülpe), Baltic (Lith. vìlkė), and Slavic (Russ. volčíca, SCr. vùčica, etc.).For Gk. λύσσα, Att. λύττα f. ‘(martial) rage, fury, frenzy’, cf. GEW II:147, EDG:879f.
Morphologically, PIE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- can be analyzed as *u̯ĺ̥ku̯-o-, suggesting an o-stem noun formed to an unidentified root PIE *u̯lku̯-. According to Lehrman 1987a, *u̯ĺ̥ku̯-o- could have been the substantivization of an original adjective *u̯l̥ku̯-ó- ‘dangerous’ (with substantivizing accent retraction). The adjective might underlie formations like Ved. a-vr̥ká- adj. ‘safe’ (< ‘not dangerous’), Ved. vr̥kátāt- f. ‘danger’, vr̥kāyú- adj. ‘rapacious, murderous’, and vr̥káti- (m.) ‘rapacious; robber’ (cf. IIr. transmission above). OIr. olc ‘bad, evil’, if from pre-PCelt. *ulku̯o- (cf. EDPC:400),Others relate OIr. olc to Lat. ulcīscī ‘to take revenge’, cf. EDPC:400.could also point to an original adjective, as does Hitt. walkua- n. (or walkuan-) ‘monstrosity’ vel sim., which can be analyzed as a substantivized neuter of an adjective *u̯l̥ku̯ó- ‘dangerous’ vel sim. Unlike Core-IE *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- m., which was substantivized from the adjective *u̯l̥ku̯ó- only by a shift in accent (substantivizing accent retraction), Hitt. walkua- n. ‘monstrosity’ and Luw. /walwa(/i)-/ ‘lion’ seem to reflect an accented full-grade root PAnat. *u̯Élgu̯° < pre-PAnat. *u̯Élku̯°. This can be explained by setting up a preform *u̯élku̯o-, which was derived from the adjective *u̯l̥ku̯ó- ‘dangerous’ vel sim. by accent retraction plus root ablaut. For this substantivizing mechanism, cf. cases like PIE adj. *g̑n̥h1-tó- ‘born’ (Ved. jātá-, Lat. (g)nātus, etc.) → sbst. *g̑énh1-to- ‘the born one’ (PGerm. *kénþa- > OHG kind ‘child’, cf. Schaffner 2001a:334f.). Thus, PIE adj. *u̯l̥ku̯ó- ‘dangerous’ → pre-PAnat. sbst. *u̯élku̯o- c./n. ‘dangerous being/thing’ (Hitt. walkua- n. ‘monstrosity’,The development pre-PAnat. *u̯élku̯o- > Hitt. walkua- is based on the assumption that PIE *élC > Hitt. alC, which is not certain, however. Cf., e.g., the discussion by Melchert 1994a:136.Luw. /walwa(/i)-/ ‘lion’). For Core-IE, the derivation is to be modified as follows: PIE adj. *u̯l̥ku̯ó- ‘dangerous’ → Core-IE sbst. *u̯ĺ̥ku̯o- m. ‘dangerous being > wolf’ → sbst. f. *u̯l̥ku̯íh2- ‘she-wolf’.
[C.S.], [T.S.]
4. Transmission
Ved. vŕ̥ka- m. ‘wolf’ (RV+), vr̥kī́- f. ‘she-wolf’ (RV [nom. sg. vr̥kī́ḥ, acc. sg. vr̥kyàm, dat. sg. vr̥kyè]+), vŕ̥kadvaras- adj. ‘running like a wolf’ vel sim. (RV 2.30.4), (?)a-vr̥ká- adj. ‘not hurting, inoffensive, true; unendangered, safe’, sbst. n. ‘safety, peace; quiet’ (RV), (?)vr̥kátāt- f. ‘danger’ (RV 2.34.9), (?)vr̥kāyú- adj. ‘rapacious, murderous’ (RV 10.133.4), (?)vr̥káti- (m.) ‘rapacious, robber’ (RV 4.41.4); YAv. vǝhrka- m. ‘wolf’, Shughni wirjin f. ‘she-wolf’Cf., e.g., KEWA III:239f. s.v. vŕ̥kadvaras-, 240 s.v. vŕ̥ka-, EWAia I:763f. s.v. dvará-, EWAia II:570f. s.v. vŕ̥ka-. For the phonological development of YAv. vǝhrka- < PIIr. *u̯ŕ̥ka-, cf. ALF:92.
Lat. lupus m. ‘wolf’ (Plaut.+)Cf., e.g., EDLIL:353 with further lit.
OIr. olc adj. ‘bad, evil’Cf., e.g., EDPC:400 s.v. *ulkwo-.
Goth. wulfs m. ‘wolf’, ON úlfr m. ‘id.’, OE wulf m. ‘id.’, OS wulf, wolf m. ‘id.’, OHG wolf m. ‘id.’, etc.; ON ylgr, ylgja f. ‘she-wolf’, OHG wulpa f. ‘id.’, MHG wülpe f. ‘id.’Cf., e.g., Lühr 2000a:86, Schaffner 2005a:320–324, esp. 323f., EDPG:598 s.v. *wulfa- and s.v. *wulgī- ~ *wulbjō-
TochB walkwe ‘wolf’Cf., e.g., DTB²:632.
OAlb. ulk m. ‘wolf’, Alb. ujk m. ‘id.’Cf., e.g., Demiraj 1997a:403, Matzinger 2006a:57.