*h1ek̂u̯o-
‘horse’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst
- Certainty
- high
- ID
- 204
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/azzu-/, á-zu-, EQUUS
‘horse’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is mostly attested in inscriptions dated to 8th and 7th century BCE. Its earliest attestation would be in the ANDAVAL inscription, which is dated to the 9th or very early 8th century BCE., see Balatti 2012a.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | /azzus/ | (ANIMA)EQUUS-sa4 | TOPADA §19 (Tabal) |
| (ANIMA)EQUUS-sa8 | TOPADA §26 (Tabal) | ||
| acc. sg. | /azzun/ | (EQUUS.ANIMA)á-‹zú›(=) | KARATEPE 1 Ho. §8 (Cilicia) |
| EQUUS.ANIMA-zú(=) | KARATEPE 1 Hu. §8 (Cilicia) | ||
| (EQUUS)zú-na | ÇİNEKÖY, §3 (Cilicia) | ||
| dat./loc. sg. | /azzuwi/ | (EQUUS.ANIMA)á-zú-wa/i | KARATEPE 1 Hu. §8 (Cilicia) |
| (EQUUS.ANIMA)á-zú-wá/í | KARATEPE 1 Ho. §8 (Cilicia) | ||
| (EQUUS.ANIMA)zù-wa/i | ÇİNEKÖY §3 (Cilicia) | ||
| dat./loc. pl. | /azzuwanz/ | (EQUUS)á-zú-wa/i-za | ANDAVAL §4 (Tabal) |
| abl./instr. | /azzuwadi/ | (ANIMA)EQUUS-wa/i-ti | TOPADA §5 (Tabal),TOPADA §8 (Tabal), TOPADA §10 (Tabal) |
| (ANIMA)EQUUS-ti | TOPADA §23 (Tabal) | ||
| gen. adj. nom. sg. c. | /azzuwassis/ | (ANIMA)EQUUS-sa | TOPADA §16 (Tabal) |
| gen. adj. nom. pl. c. | /azzuwassinzi/ | (ANIMA)EQUUS-zi/a | TOPADA §21 (Tabal) |
The dat./loc. pl. form (EQUUS)á-zú-wa/i-za has also been interpreted as a substantivized neuter accusative singular of the adjective of appurtenance in /-i(ya)-/, which would have undergone syncope, i.e. *azzuwiyan=za > *azzuwin=za (Hawkins 2000a:515). The interpretation of this form as an accusative is not necessary, since the verb la-pa-ni-wa/i ´I provide pasture´ might be constructed with the dative. Since this verb is a hapax legomenon, one cannot verify this hypothesis. But, it is more economical to assume a dative plural of the lexeme /azzu-/, than to create a new lexeme.
The two instances parsed as genitival adjectives in /-assa/i-/ (TOPADA, §16 and §21) are not certain. Instead one might be dealing with derivatives in /-i(ya)-/.
[D.S.] [I.Y.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
We accept the reading of the sign L.448
[D.S.] [E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
According to Kloekhorst 2004a, the sign L.19 <á> reflects the phonetic sequence glottal stop + a followed by Simon 2010a and Simon 2013a, which we do not follow.
[D.S.] [E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning ‘horse’
The assignment of the meaning ‘horse’ for the lexeme /azzu-/ was facilitated by the logogram L.99 , which represents the head of a horse, see HHG:39. In the Luwian-Phoenician bilingual inscription, Luwian /azzu-/ (KARATEPE 1 Hu./Ho. §8) corresponds to Phoenician SS ´horse´.
[D.S.]
1.1.5Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
ANŠE.KUR.RA-u-
‘horse’1.2.1Transmission
Attested in Luwian rituals in MS.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. |
anše.kur.ra-uš |
KUB 35.108 rev. iv? 7 | (CTH 765, MS) |
| ? |
anše.kur.⸢ra⸣ |
KUB 35.128 rev. iii? 7’ | (CTH 765, MS) |
Attestations following Laroche 1959a:119 and CLL:286, checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. Oettinger 1994b:74 adds also anše.kur.raḪI.A-un (KBo 8.36 obv. 4’), but this fragment is in Hittite (cf. Kloekhorst 2008c:237). For a possible phonetic spelling, see azzu(wa)-.
[A.B.], [Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘horse’
On the logogram see in general Weeden 2011b:157–159.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Stem
Weitenberg 1984a:57 maintains that this form is not enough to assume an u-stem (without arguments; with question mark also in Laroche 1959a:119). Taking into account the widespread Luwian contraction -uwa- > -u- this is correct, but the Hieroglyphic Luwian spelling of the word ‘horse’ unambiguously points to a synchronic u-stem, see under ázu-.
[Zs.S.]
1.3 Lycian A
esbe/i-
‘horse’1.3.1Transmission
The lexeme esbe/i- is attested twice on inscriptions. The first attestation is on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, which is dated shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE. The second attestation is found in a funerary inscription of Limyra (TL 128), where the dynast Trbbẽnimi is mentioned, whose reign ended around 390-380 BCE (Wagner 2011a:150f.). It is also attested as a genitival adjective on coins e.g. M 27 dated between 470 and 450 BCE (Spier 1987a:37).
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| abl./instr. | esbedi | TL 44a.36 (Xanthos) |
| gen. adj. nom. sg. c. | esbe[h]i | TL 128.1 (Limyra) |
| esbehi | M 27a | |
| esehi | M 22 | |
| M 27b |
1.3.3Graphic Features
Neumann 2007a:74 points out that one could reconstruct a different letter in TL 128.1: esbe[l]i. This would give a new adjective in -ele/i-. The solution with an h is more appealing, especially if one compares the syntagm axãti esbe[.]i with axuti uwehi (TL 29.3), see Neumann 1993c:37.
Spier 1987a:36 suggests to read im̃ese (M 22, M 27b) the other way around, i.e. esehi and changes the reading of m̃ for the similar letter h. He further emends esehi to es<b>ehi based on M 27a, cf. Eichner 1988-1990a:397, Carruba 1993c:16-17.
[D.S.]
1.3.4Meaning ‘horse, cavalry(?)’
Bugge 1897a:26-29 rejects the possibility that Lycian esbe/i- is borrowed from Iranian on phonological grounds, but considers it to be an actual cognate of the Indo-European word for ‘horse’. The meaning ‘rider’ was still kept, but there is no longer any positive evidence that esbe/i- means ‘rider’, cf. Pedersen 1945a:51. The basic meaning ‘horse’ is sufficient in each context and the recognition of the derivative esbẽt(i)- ‘knight, horseman’ makes the semantics of the base more evident. The coins brings further support for the semantic identification ‘horse’, since they picture a flying Pegasus on the obverse side, see Spier 1987a. However, as argued by Carruba 1993c:17, the genitival adjective esbehi on these coins is more likely to be an appellative meaning ‘belonging to the horse’ rather than the name of a ruler. Starke 1995a:119 n. 238 rejects the claim that Lyc. esbe/i- is borrowed from Iranian based on the fact that the Iranian noun for horse is spelled differently in the personal name Wizttasppa- (← Vištāspa-). Furthermore, Lyc. esbe/i- is the regular phonological outcome of the pre-form *h1ekṷo-, cf. Melchert 1987a:202, Oettinger 1994b:75.
Whether the instance esbedi (TL 44a.36) is a collective with the meaning ‘cavalry’ (nom. *asba), as per Bossert 1951a:278 and Neumann 2007a:74, or simply a plural meaning ‘horses’ (nom. *esbi) cannot be determined due to the lack of evidence; cf. DLL:17.
[D.S.]
1.3.5Stem
This lexeme is a thematic stem, which was surely mutated, although the synchronic evidence is still missing, cf. Meriggi 1978c:247 and esbẽt(i)- under derivatives. Pace Kloekhorst 2008c:237-239, Lycian esbe/i- is not is not a u-stem. The ablative-instrumental ending in -edi belongs to the paradigms of the mutated stems. Based on the following examples, e.g. xahba- (c.) ‘grandson’ (< *Homsu-), urttuwa- ´big´ (adj.) (<< *ur-tu-), one can see that original u-stems were transformed into a-stems in both Lycian A and B. In this case, the expected ablative-instrumental ending would be -adi. Cf. Oettinger 2013a:170.
[D.S.]
1.3.6Compounds
1.3.6.1Uncertain Compound
- xaxakba- (divine name) (cf. Carruba 1979b:84f., Heubeck 1979a:80, Schürr 2003c:71 n. 5, DLL:81, Neumann 2007a:110 with further literature, Schürr 2009c:101 n. 6 with further literature)
1.3.7Derivatives
1.3.8Origin
Contra Kronasser 1956a:230 and Szemerényi 1976a:1068, Lyc. esbe/i- is not an Iranian loanword, see above under Meaning.
[D.S.]
1.4 Sidetic
†asba-
‘horse’1.4.1Transmission
Eichner 1988b:46 n. 9. identifies a word asba- with the meaning ‘horse’ in the Sidetic inscription No. 4. (followed by Oettinger 1994b:75 [cautiously] and Starke 1995a:119 n. 241 [“a/esb-”]). He reads the 3rd line of the inscription (written in scriptio continua) as “tagosadjosbijai”, where Josbija would represent a personal name in dative. He explains this name with a putative Sidetic sound change from an earlier *yu(w)-asbiya-, that would be a compound divine name with *asba- ‘horse’ as the second part (cf. Κακασβος, etc.). However, this reading of the inscription is not valid anymore (Nollé 2001a:637 and esp. 639 with n. 54), its current transcription is “tagośadwoskiji”, see s.vv. iśtratag, ośad, and woskiji.
[Zs.S.]
1.5 Carian
*sb
‘horse (?)’1.6 Hittite
ANŠE.KUR.RA-u-
‘horse’1.6.1Literature / Comments
Weitenberg 1984a:56f.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘horse’
The equation between -s- in Lyc. esbe/i- and -z- in HLuw. /azzu-/ requires the reconstruction of the palatal *k̂, which is thoroughly discussed in Melchert 2012a. The quality of the vowel of the root cannot be reconstructed based on Luwian and Lycian here, but the vowel *e is assumed based on the PIE etymology.
The weight of the evidence for the reconstruction of the Proto-Anatolian lexeme for ‘horse’ must be given to Luwian and Lycian. Based on the Lycian evidence, one is dealing with a thematic o-stem, which is more likely to be original, see Oettinger 2013a:170, pace Kloekhorst 2008c:237-239 and Carruba 2009a:8. The loss of the thematic inflection in the Luwian word /azzu-/ can be the result of contraction -(u)wa- > -u-. For a discussion of this sound change, see Rieken 2001a:377f.
If the same PIE root underlies the Hittite logogram ANŠE.KUR.RA-u-, then the same phonological and paradigmatic change would have also happened in Hittite, see Höfler 2015b:236f. n. 40 and for the phonology see also Rieken 2001a:376. Kloekhorst 2008c:237-239 and Oettinger 2015a:164 reconstruct the tentative form *ekku- behind the logogram. Starke 1995a:120 sees instead an ablauting type *ēkku-/*ikkuw-, even though he assumes a PIE thematic o-stem, which is not conventional. In any case, we do not take part here at guessing what the shape of the Hittite word behind the logogram is. Regardless of the logogram in Hittite, the noun for ‘horse’ is reconstructed as *h1ek̂u̯o- c. for the Proto-Anatolian stage.
The assumptions of Lipp 2009a:275-302 regarding this lexeme are rejected in Melchert 2012a:210. Cf. Oettinger 1994b:74-76, Oettinger 2015a:164, Hajnal 1998a:85-86, Hajnal 2003a:192, Kloekhorst 2008c:237-239.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PIE *h1ék̑u̯o- denotes the wild as well as the domesticated horse.The archaeo(bio)logical material is no help in this case, because the horse does not seem to have undergone morphological changes during domestication. Differently, for instance, the dog’s jawbone changed to a high degree in comparison to the wolf’s, cf. EIEC:275f. with further literature.Throughout the IE languages, the continuants of PIE *h1ék̑u̯o- show a rather homogeneous semantic value, viz. ‘(domestic) horse’. Therefore, assuming a more general meaning ‘equid’ on the basis of Arm. ēš ‘ass, donkey’ might be too bold with regard to the narrow semantic outcomes everywhere else.
The horse was an integral part of the Indo-European cultureCf., e.g., Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995a I:402f. with the result that “horses held the uppermost position among domestic animals”.as well as of some archaeologically identified peoples. However, archaeological findings are difficult to assign to a specific speech community.On Indo-Iranian archaeology, cf. Kuz’mina 2007a passim (accessible via the index on page 742). For some of the vast amount of literature on the topic, cf. Meier-Brügger 2010a:198 and Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995a I:463–480 (including linguistic, cultural, mythological and archaeological paragraphs).
Several branches preserve the word for ‘horse’ as genus commune, which beyond doubt is an archaism.Cf. Hackstein 2013a:96–99, Meier-Brügger 2010a:186, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995a I:463, Matasović 2004:142f.Therefore, the feminine form PIE *h1ék̑u̯eh2‑, which is attested in Indo-Iranian, Greek (as a personal name), Latin and Baltic, might have been a late‑PIE collective formation meaning ‘stud (farm)’. Later on, the meaning of the collective was individualized to ‘mare’ (cf. ModHG Stute ‘mare’ < ‘stud’). As Mallory & Adams 2006:154 point out, the emergence of a collective (→ feminine) is indicative of domestication, which supports the view that the horse was domesticated in late PIE times or slightly after the split-off of the proto-language.
According to the morphological reconstruction below, PIE *h1ék̑u̯o- is a substantivized possessive adjective ‘the one having swiftness (PIE *h1ók̑u‑/*h1ék̑u‑)’. ‘Swiftness’ as the Benennungsmotiv of ‘horses’ is paralleled by other IE formations.Cf. Hackstein 2013a:99. The two main Germanic words for ‘horse’ show similar semantics: PGerm. *χangistá‑ m. ‘horse’ can be related to Lith. šankùs adj. ‘nimble’ etc. (Schaffner 2001a:133, EDPG:209, EWAhd IV:954–957) and PGerm. *χursa‑ n. ‘horse’ is related to PGerm. *χurzōn‑ ‘to rush’, Lat. currō ‘to run’ etc. (EDLIL:157f., EDPG:259). For more ‘horse’ words, cf. Buck 1949a:167–170.
3.1.1Root etymology
Except for PIE *h1ék̑u̯o- ‘horse’ and *Ho‑h1k̑‑u- (vel sim.) ‘swift’ (with the comparative *Hoh1k̑‑(i)i̯es- and superlative *Hoh1k̑‑isth2o‑), there are no cognate formations in the Indo-European languages. Based on the semantic reconstruction of PIE *h1ék̑u̯o- ‘horse’ (< *‘the swift one’), we are able to reconstruct an adjectival root *h1ek̑- with the meaning ‘swift’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The PIE word for ‘horse’ is unanimously reconstructed as PIE *h1ék̑u̯o‑.Lehmann (GED:15) proposes “borrowing, introduced when the horse became known to the Indo-Europeans through an unidentified steppe people”. This assumption is unneccessary because the PIE form fits well into PIE phonology and morphology. For connections with non‑IE languages, cf. the literature given by, e.g., EDAIL:276f., Raulwing 2000:101–109. Furthermore, cf. Ivanov 1999a:167–214 on names for ‘horse’ in Hurrian, Northern Caucasian and Indo-European.The originally biphonemic sequence *‑k̑u̯- is attested by, e.g., in Indo-Iranian (*‑ću̯‑) and Greek (‑ππ‑).While the geminate in Alphabetic Greek points to biphonemic pre‑PGk. *‑ku̯- (cf. Rix 1992a:93), Myc. i‑qo- (not †i‑ko‑wo‑, cf. Meier-Brügger 2010a:186) shows the outcome of monophonemization (< PGk. *‑ (k)ku̯‑). The first syllable of Lat. equus scans metrically as a short syllable. This means that PIE *‑k̑u̯- became monophonemic in Latin, cf. Meiser 1998:52 (pace Sommer & Pfister 1977a:143).Morphologically, we may be dealing with a substantivized possessive o‑stem adjective derived from an underlying u‑stem abstract noun: sbst. *h1ók̑‑u‑/*h1ék̑‑u- ‘swiftness’ → adj. *h1(e)k̑‑u̯‑ó- ‘having swiftness’This zero-grade formation may be the source of Gk. ἵππος with anaptyctic ‑ι‑. Differently, the Greek root vowel could be explained via Mycenaean or early-Greek sound laws (*e > i/_C[+labial]), cf. Meier-Brügger 1992a I:61, Neri 2003:70f. n. 168.→ sbst. *h1ék̑u̯o- ‘the one having swiftness, the swift one’.Cf. Schaffner 2001a:150, Hackstein 2013a:99f. and also Neri 2003:60 n. 141.
3.2.1Root etymology
Already Bopp 1861a:384 proposed a relation between the PIE ‘horse’ (*h1ék̑u̯o‑) and the adjective PIE “*ōku‑” ‘swift’ (cf. Ved. āśú‑, Av. āsu‑, Gr. ὠκύς ‘fast, swift’).Cf. NIL:200f., Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995a I: 469 as well as the literature given by Meier-Brügger 2010a:186f., „[e]in strenger Beweis ist aber nicht zu führen.“Schindler in 1985 assumed a Bahuvrīhi compound *oh1‑h1k̑‑u- ‘having swiftness (at hand); swift’,The result of Schindler’s 1985 talk at Ithaca, N.Y., is referred to by, e.g., Balles 1997a:221 n. 8, Schaffner 2004a:490f. n. 16, Lipp 2009a I:75f., Hackstein 2013a:94, LIPP II:330 n. 34.which is by and large accepted by Dunkel (LIPP II:330) by reconstructing PIE *h2o‑h1k̑‑u‑.Neri 2003a:71 n. 168 calls attention to the fact, that the anlauting laryngeal could be *h3, too. This is refuted by Dunkel, who does not accept *h3 as a possible phoneme of particles in general, cf. LIPP I:15, LIPP II:334 n. 1.The second compound member PIE *h1Ek̑‑u- is the zero-grade derivational base of *h1éku̯o‑ ‘horse’, cf. above.For a collection of further etymological suggestions, cf. NIL:200 n. 1. Other etymologies for the adjective ‘fast, swift’ are discussed by de Lamberterie 1990:577, 583 suggesting a relation with *h2ek̑- ‘to be sharp’ (LIV²:261) while Eichner 1973a:81f. seems to favor a connection with the root ?*h1ek̑- ‘to die’ (LIV²:234f.). Schrijver 1991a:54f. proposes a rather unspecified root *HeHk̑- ‘fast’.On the basis of PIE *h1ék̑u̯o‑ ‘the swift one, horse’ and *Ho‑h1k̑‑u‑ ‘having swiftness (at hand), swift’ the adjectival root *h1ek̑‑ ‘swift’ can be reconstructed.
3.3Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
On IE phrases involving the ‘horse’ see the following two paragraphs.
3.3.1‘swift horses’
In Indo-Iranian the ‘horse’ is often employed beside adjectives meaning ‘fast, swift’ in a variety of compounds and phrases, cf., e.g., Ved. āśvàśva‑, YAv. āsu.aspa- ‘having (a) swift horse(s)’. Greek, too, provides evidence for such a phraseology, cf. Hom. ὠκέες ἵπποι. Therefore, the phrase PIE *Ho‑h1k̑‑u- *h1ék̑u̯o- can be reconstructed with some certainty and belonged to the PIE Dichtersprache, cf. Schmitt 1967a:240.There is also another adjective meaning ‘swift’ combined with the word for ‘horse’, cf. Ved. r̥jrá- ‘swift; red, reddish’, r̥jrā́śva- ‘having swift horses’, Yav. personal name Ǝrǝzrāspa‑. Though not explicitly attested, the concept is found in Homeric as well, cf. Schmitt 1967a:240f. In all three languages there is also a number of corresponding verb phrases, cf. Schmitt 1967a:238f.
3.3.2‘mastering (a) horse(s)’
According to Pinault 2007a, Gaul. EPOMEDUOS and the Gk. personal name Ἱππομέδον (Aisch.) can etymologically be identified with eachother. The second compound member belongs to a root PIE *med- ‘to take (effective/suitable) measures’.This root has semantically different, but related outcomes in the IE languages, cf. YAv. vīmad‑ m. ‘healer’, Gk. μέδον m. ‘ruler’, Lat. modus m. ‘measurement, rule’, medicus m. ‘healer’, OIr. mess m. ‘judgement’, Goth. mitan ‘measure’ etc.Thus, both the Greek and the Gaulish names may well represent a PIE compound *h1ek̑u̯o-med‑u̯o- ‘(Fr.) celui qui dirige les chevaux, he who masters horses’ originating in a yet unattested syntagma *h1ek̑u̯o- *med- ‘to master (a) horse(s)’.Ved. áśvamedha- m. ‘horse-sacrifice’ was thought to have conceptual parallels in Celtic (as the inauguration ritual of the Cenél Conaill) and the Latin ritual of the equus october, cf. Puhvel 1955a and Puhvel 1970a. On phonological grounds this compound has to be excluded from the Greek-Gaulish equation.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
PIIr. *áću̯a- m./f. o-stem ‘horse’, cf. Mitannic ‑aš‑u̯a- only in personal names (Bi‑ri‑da‑aš‑u̯a = OInd. *prīta‑aśva-, Bi‑ri‑i̯a‑aš‑šu‑u̯a = OInd. *priya‑aśva‑), Ved. áśva‑ m./f. (RV+), OAv. ‑aspa- only in personal names, YAv. aspa‑ m., OPers. asa‑ m., Khot. aśśa‑, Sogd. (ʾ)sp‑ ‘id.’
PIIr. *áću̯aH‑ f. ‘mare’, cf. Ved. áśvā‑ f. (RV+), OAv. aspā‑ f. ‘id.’ etc.
EWAia I:139f., Grassmann 1996a:140f., Bartholomae 1904:216f., Bailey 1979:11, Gharib 1995a:62 No.s 1590, 8873Vedic provides two hierarchically distinctive lexemes: Ved. áśva‑ m. ‘horse (of men)’ vs. háya‑ m. ‘horse (of gods)’. On multiple naming in Indo-European, cf. Viti 2017a.
Myc. i‑qo(‑qe) instr. sg. (PY Ta 722.1), i‑qo nom. pl. (Kn Ca 895.1), ?i‑qo (Py Fa 16), i‑qo‑jo gen. sg. (PY Ea 59.5) ‘horse’
Gk. ἵππος m./f. ‘id.’ (Il.+), Dor. ἴκκος m. ‘id.’ (EM 474,12), Gk. personal names Ἵππη f., Ἐπειός and Λεύκιππος ‘having a white horse’, Cypr. personal name i‑po‑wa‑ta‑u /I(p)powadau/ (PAPHOS, ICS 10.a, cf. Egetmeyer 2010a:72, 326)According to Kroonen EDPG:115f., Greek represents a contamination based on an amphikinetic u‑stem *h1ék̑‑u‑/*h1k̑‑u̯‑´ (cf. also EDHIL:237). The root vowel -i- is often taken as anaptyctical but still a matter of debate, cf. EDG:597f., NIL:232 n. 7, de Vaan 2009a:201f., Meier-Brügger 2010a:185f., Hackstein 2012a:111, Hackstein 2013a:100, Bozzone 2013a:10. Klingenschmitt 2005b:130 n. 41 reconstructs the Greek word as *síku̯o‑, which admittedly is phonologically possible, but would separate the Greek lexeme from the evidence of the other IE languages.
GEW I:733–735, GEW III:112, DELG:467f., EDG:597f., DMic I:285f., LfgrE II:1208–1218, LSJ:835, Lejeune 1972:83 (§72.1), Fischer 2003a:189f. with n. 69
Arm. ēš m./f. ‘ass, donkey’
EDAIL:276f., Klingenschmitt 1980a:210, Olsen 1999a:4, 20
Lat. equus m.(/OLat. f.) (Liv.Andr.+), ecus (Lucil.+) ‘id.’
Lat. equa f. ‘mare’ (Pl.+)
WH I:412f., EM:199f., EDLIL:192f., OLD²:675
Venet. acc. sg. .e.kvo[.]n[.] m. ‘id.’ (No. 51), nom. sg. m./f. eku‑peθaris adj. ‘pertaining to a wheelwright (qualifying a tomb); (lat.) equitālis (Lejeune 1974:86)’ (No. 122+)
Lejeune 1974:85f., 211, Prosdocimi 1972a:222, Pulgram 1976a
PCelt. *eku̯o‑ m. ‘horse’, cf. Celtib. personal names (?)dat. sg. m./n. EQUOISUQUE, nom. sg. m. ekualakos (cf. Wodtko 2000a:104f., 118f.), Gaul. personal name Epos, divine name Epona (cf. Delamarre 2003a: 163), Ogham personal names EQQ‑EAGGNI, EQU‑ODDI (cf. Ziegler 1994:177), OIr. ech m., OBret. eb m. ‘id.’
PCelt. *eku̯ālo- (< *h1ek̑u̯o‑pōlHo‑, EDPC:115) m. ‘foal’, cf. OBret. ebol m., MBret. ébeûl m., OCorn. (gl.) ebol m., OW epaul m., W ebawl, ebol ‘id.’
EDPC:114, 115, Holder 1896a I:1446, Henry 1900a:109, Schrijver 1995:26
PGerm. *eχu̯a‑ m. ‘horse’, cf. Goth. dat. sg. aíƕa‑tundjai f. ‘bramble, thorn bush’ (cf. Casaretto 2004a:157), ON (poet.), ModIcl. jór m., Runic ehwu (br. 47), ehe (br. 96) ‘horse’, OE eoh m. ‘war‑horse’, OS ehu‑skalk m. ‘horse-servant, groom’.
PGerm. personal name *eχu̯a‑rīχa- ‘master of the horses’, cf. WGoth. Evarix, ON Jórekr, OE Eohric, Eoric, OHG Eharîch
EDPG:115, Orel 2003a: 83, GED:15, de Vries 1977a:263, 293
PBalt. *ašva‑ f. ‘mare’, cf. Lith. ešva, ašva f., → MLatv. asa f. ‘id.’, OPr. river names Asswene, Asswaylen
Furthermore, cf. (?)OPr. sweikis ‘plowhorse, (Germ.) Pflugpferd’ (EV 432) (cf. Blažek 2009a:176)
ALEW I:63f., ALEW 2.0 s.v. ašva, EDBIL:65, LEW I:20
On the sparse and speculative Slavic evidence (PSlav. *sverěpŭ ‘a plant name’, Cz. svízel ‘Galium’), cf. Blažek 2009a:175f., on place names Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995a I:463 n. 1.
PToch. *i̯äku̯e m./f. ‘horse’, cf. Toch. A yuk m., Toch. B yakwe m./f. ‘id.’
DTB:518f., Pinault 2008:468–470
(?)Alb. sasë ‘horsetail rush, species of equisetum’
AED:—, Huld 2004, Blažek 2009a:175Huld 2004 assumes a pre-form *ek̑u̯ó‑g̑hati̯ō (cf. Gk. χαίτη ‘hair, lock’) or *ek̑u̯ó‑sati̯ō (cf. Lat. saeta ‘bristle’). However, since the development PIE *k̑ > Alb. s is unlikely (p.c. Sergio Neri), this etymology has to be rejected.