*Toll-i̯é/ó-
‘to draw, allure, exhort’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- verb
- Certainty
- high
- ID
- 216
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lycian A
teli-(ti)
‘to exhort (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested twice in the inscription TL 29 mentioning Idrieus, son of Hekatomnos, and Alexander the Great. Idrieus was satrap of Caria and Lycia from 351/50 until 344 BCE and the reign of Alexander began around 330 BCE. Thus, the terminus post quem of the inscription is 330 BCE. (see lately Wagner 2011a:155f.).
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 1sg. pret. ind. act. | telixa | TL 29.6 (Tlos), TL 29.6 (Tlos) |
1.1.3Meaning ‘to exhort, allure (?)’
Korolev & Shevoroshkin 1969a:541 equate Lyc. teli- with the Hittite verb talliye/a-(mi) ‘to allure, to exhort’, which remains both contextually and etymologically a very persuasive connection. Both attestations of the verb teli- are found in the same passage in two subsequent sentences. In the first instance, it takes a person (θurttu) as its direct object and in the second, some kind of office (wazzisñ). The second sentence is built with the preverb ñtepi and the complement pddãti. This prepositional phrase means ‘into place’ and provides evidence that teli- is a verb of movement.
This is in accordance with the analysis of Hitt. talliye/a-(mi) as a verb of movement presented by Melchert 2010g. The Hittite treaty of Mursili II with Manapa-Tarhunta contains a passage (KUB 19.49(+) i 10-13), where the Hittite king says that the royal house sent gifts to the men of Karkisa and repeatedly “exhorted” them on behalf of Manapa-Tarhunta (see Melchert 2010g:229f.). In the Lycian passage, some kind of offerings or rituals (mle- or mla-) are spoken of, which further supports the comparison of Lyc. teli- with Hitt. talliye/a-(mi). The current analysis remains tentative until the meaning of further passages of the inscription TL 29 is better understood.
For a different semantic analysis of this verb, cf. Carruba 1977a:308, Hajnal 1995a:144, Lebrun 1999a:51.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Stem
Since the ending is unlenited, Lyc. teli- appears to be a verb in -i-(ti). Hajnal 1995a:144 assumes a causative-iterative verb in -(e)i-(di) on account of an etymological connection with CLuw. kuwal(a)i- ‘to turn’. However, as he acknowledges, one would expect the lenited form *teliga from a verb in -(e)i-(di). Thus, the preference must be given to a verbal stem with an unlenited ending, i.e. -i-(ti).
[D.S.]
1.2 Hittite
talliye/a-(mi)
‘to draw, allure, exhort’1.2.1Literature / Comments
HEG T/D:58-60, Melchert 2010g
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to draw, allure, exhort’
Based on Hitt. talliye/a-(mi) and Lyc. teli-, one can reconstruct a verbal formation in *-i̯é/ó- for Proto-Anatolian. Since Lycian shows the retention of a full grade, one cannot posit a deradical formation in *-i̯é/ó-. Likewise, Hittite talliye/a-(mi) cannot reflect a zero-grade based on the gemination of the -ll- (EDHIL:819), which shows the phonological development -VRHV- > -VRRV-; cf. Oettinger 1979a:549, Melchert 1984a:44 n. 91, Melchert 1994a:55, 79, 83f., Kimball 1999a:352. Since a Proto-Indo-European deradical formation in *-i̯é/ó- necessitates a zero-grade of the root (LIV:219), one should rather posit a denominative verb in *-i̯é/ó- derived from a thematic stem with an o-grade of the root, *TolH-o-. For the presence of this o-stem in Indo-European see Part 2: Proto-Indo-European Etymology.
Moreover, the Proto-Anatolian development -VRHV- > -VRRV- is not expected to apply, if the second vowel is the half-consonant *-i̯- or -u̯-. Therefore, the gemination of the resonant must have occurred in the derivational base, i.e. *TolH-o- > *Toll-o-. Then, the denominative in *-i̯é/ó- was derived from the nominal base *Toll-o-, which accounts for the phonological shape of Hitt. talliye/a-(mi). Based on the Anatolian material, a Proto-Anatolian form is reconstructed as follows, i.e. *doll-i̯é/ó-. For the choice of a voiced *d for the initial alveolar of the root, see Part 2: Proto-Indo-European Etymology.For a different etymological proposal of Lyc. teli- see Hajnal 1995a:144, 168 n. 207 and of Hittite talliye/a-(mi) see Oettinger 1979a:346.
[D.S.]
For a derivative of the same root see Lycian B tala-.
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PAnat. *Toll-i̯é/ó- ‘to draw, allure’ is an inner-Anatolian formation, cf. above (sub PAnat. Reconstruction) for the morphological and phonological reasons.
3.1.1Derivational base
The derivational base of PAnat. *Toll-i̯é/ó- ‘to draw, allure’ is the thematic stem *dolH-o-. It reveals its most original meaning in Homeric Greek ‘bait’ (Od.12.252), i.e., ‘piece of food used to allure an animal’ < ‘alluring (thing)’.
Lat. dolus ‘intention, plan’, on the other hand, exhibits a narrowed and specialized meaning: ‘trick’ < ‘alluring (action)’.On semantic grounds it is – pace EDLIL:177 – not advisable to connect Lat. dolus ‘bad intention’ with Lat. dolor, -ōris ‘pain’, Lat. dolēre ‘feel pain’. Cf. also WH I:366, EM:182, Untermann 2000a:189.
Therefore, the meaning of PIE *dolH-o- can be reconstructed as ‘alluring’.
3.1.2Root etymology
The meaning of the root PIE *delH- (cf. IEW:193) can be reconstructed as ‘to (al)lure’, cf. the unequivocal transmission above and s.v. Lyc. B tala-.On semantic grounds, the proposed etymology has to be preferred to the phonologically equally possible connection of the Proto-Anatolian material with ON ϸul ‘string of words’. Cf. differently Polomé 1975a:661f., EIEC:450 s.v. PRAY, Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1995a I:708 fn. 14.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The geminate -ll- in Hittite talliye/a-(mi) ‘to draw, allure, exhort’ points to a preform *TólH‑(i)i̯e/o-. Because such a type of verbal stem (with accented o-grade of the root + suffix *-i̯e/o-) is not reconstructable as a primary formation for PIE,Instead, one would expect zero- or e-grade of the root, cf. LIV²:19 with the examples *g̑n̥h1‑i̯é/ó- and *spék̑‑i̯e/o-.it has to be explained as a secondary verbal stem derived from a noun stem base.Cf. PAnat. Reconstruction above.
It is remarkable that Germanic also provides a denominative i̯é/ó-formation, viz. ON, ModIc w.vb. tæla (jan) ‘to entice, betray’ (de Vries 1977a:604) which is derived from PGerm. *tēlṓ- ‘allurement’, cf. Lyc. B tala- and the comment on ON tál ibid. However, there exists no genetical identity between Hittite talliye/a‑(mi) ‘to draw, (al)lure’, Lyc. A teli‑(ti) ‘to exhort(?)’ on the one hand, and ON tæla ‘to entice, betray’on the other hand.
3.2.1Derivational base
The derivational base of PAnat. *Toll-i̯é/ó- ‘to draw, allure’ can be identified with the o-stem PIE *dolH-o- ‘alluring (thing)’, attested as Lat. dolus and Gk. δόλος. Especially the Hittite geminate -ll- in talliye/a-(mi) and Gk. δόλος point to an accented root syllable, viz. *dólH-o- which does not correspond to the accentuation of the reconstructed agent noun. This fact is best explained by the assumption of a substantivizing accent retraction: PIE adj. *dolH-ó- ‘alluring’ → PIE sbst. *dólH-o- ‘alluring thing’.Cf. GEW I:407f. Kümmel in LIV²+ (s.v. *delH- ‘ziehen, anziehen’ n. 1; 2016-05-18) seems to be not sure whether this o-stem belongs here or not. IEW:139 s.v. I del- reconstructs *dolo- ‘Abzielen, (böse) Absicht’ which does not fit the meaning ‘bait’.
3.2.2Root etymology
The root PIE *delH- (cf. IEW:193) is attested in six different IE branches, viz. Anatolian, Greek, Latin, Germanic, Baltic, Albanian. The Hittite sound law *V́RHV > *V́RRV points to a seṭ-root,Cf. also the acute accent of Lith. délka f., délkas ‘fishing rod’ pointing to PIE *delH-ko-, cf. Lith. žéntas ‘son-in-law’ < *g̑enh1-to- vs. žam̃bas ‘tooth’ < *g̑ombho-.but there is no secure evidence for the type of root-final laryngeal.Schaffner 2014b:539 reconstructs the first laryngeal without discussion. Any connection with the root *delh1- ‘to hew, split’ (LIV²:114) has to be excluded on semantic grounds.However, if Gk. δέλεαρ n. ‘bait’ belongs here (< *delH̥-u̯r̥),GEW III:70 and Chantraine 1999a:260 mention this possible interpretation.the root ought to be reconstructed as *delh1-However, PIE *delh̥2/3-u̯r̥ could also have yielded Gk. δέλεαρ by vowel assimilation.and would be homophonous with PIE *delh1- ‘to hew, split’ (LIV²:114).On the weak evidence (only Lat. dolēre) for *-h1-, cf.LIV²:114 n. 1.Since the connection with Gk. δέλεαρ ‘bait’ is not assured, we preliminarily reconstruct the root as PIE *delH- ‘to draw, (al)lure’.
3.3Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
†PItal. *dolo- malo-
The phrase Lat. dolus malus ‘bad intention’ is prominent in the Latin legal language.Cf. the Latin legal terminus dolo malo (Lex XII, CIL I2.366a [soon after 241 BCE]+), [sine] d(olo) m(alo) (CIL I2.583 [123/122 BCE]+). Osc. dol(l)o- mal(l)o- ‘id.’, however, is attested only very late (1st century BCE) in a single text (Tabula Bantina) and, thus, the question whether it is borrowed from Latin, can tentatively be answered in the positive.Cf. WH II:20, EM:380f., IEW:193, EDLIL:177, Untermann 2000a: 189, Heidermanns 1996a:§46c = p. 102, Decorte 2016a. The genuineness of Lat. dolus (malus) is supported by the early (ca. 7th century BCE) and rich attestation as well as by the case sēdulō ‘sincerely; diligently’ (< *sē(d)=dólō ‘without (bad) intention’). Therefore, the question of a Latin borrowing from Greek should not arise, cf. Heidermanns 1996a:§46c, p. 102; differently IEW:193 s.v. I del-, WH I:366f., EM:182.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
1.δόλος m. ‘bait; intention’On Gk. acc. sg. 1.δόλωνα m. ‘secret weapon, poniard, stiletto’ (Plu.TG10) which is derived from 1.δόλος ‘bait; intention’, cf. GEW I:408, and on “noms d’objets” in Gk. ‑ων, ‑ωνος, cf. Chantraine 1933a:162.
2.δόλος m. ‘πάσσαλος = peg, stake, pole; membrum virile’ (Hsch. δ 2164 Latte)According to EDG:346, it can be associated semantically with 1.δόλων ‘secret weapon, poniard, stiletto’ (cf. comment above) and, thus, would ultimately belong to 1.δόλος ‘bait; intention’.
Gk. nom. pl. 2.δόλωνες m. ‘fishing rod(?)’ (Artem.2.14) is derived either from Gk. 1.δόλος or 2.δόλος: ‘alluring, trick; bait’ (1.δόλος) > ‘tool (to catch fish)’ or ‘peg, stake, pole’ (2.δόλος) > ‘spear/rod (to catch fish)’; influence from both o-stem formations is possible. GEW I:408 connects Lat. dolāre ‘to hew’ which, however, belongs to a different root, viz. PIE *delh1- ‘to hew, split’ (LIV²:114).
Gk. 3.δόλων m. ‘flying jib (Plb.16.15.2, D.S.20.61); spar which carries such a sail (Poll.1.91)’ is probably not belonging here, but akin to PGerm. *teldan st. v. ‘to cover’, PGerm. *telda- ‘drape, tent’, Lith. délna- f. ‘palm of the hand’, and OCS dlanĭ f. ‘id.’. But cf. ALEW I:191f. on the Baltic and Slavic words. Cf. also Meyer 1891a:301, LEW I:87f.
GEW I:407f., 408, GEW III:70 s.v. δέλεαρ, Chantraine 1999a:260 s.v. δέλεαρ, 292, EDG:346, LSJ:443, TGL III:1617–1624, DGE s.vv. 1 δόλος, 2 δόλος, δόλων
Lat. dolus m. ‘intention’For the original meaning, cf. Paul. ex Fest.60.29–31 on dolus malus ([…] apud antiquos autem etiam in bonis rebus utebatur […] “however, it has been used in positive contexts by the ancients, too”) and Cic.De Off.3.60 (quaereretur, quid esset dolus malus, respondebat, cum esset aliud simulatum, aliud actum “being asked, what dolus malus would be, he answered: if one pretends to do something, but actually does something else”).
WH I:366f., EM:182, EDLIL:177, OLD:569, 1837
Lat. sēdulō adv. ‘sincerely; diligently’
WH II:509, EM:182, EDLIL:177, OLD:1726
(?)Osc. dolo- m. ‘intention, ruse’, cf. acc. sg. dolom (TB 5, TB 14, TB Pocc.185.2), dolum (TB 21), abl. sg. dolud (TB 20, TB Pocc.185.11), docud (TB 11), dol]ụd (TB Pocc.185.3)Osc. docud (TB 11) is a scribal error for dolud.
Untermann 2000a:189
Germanic
OE °tyllan w.vb. (jan) ‘to draw, lure’,This verb could be interpreted as a primary jan-verb with i-umlaut and gemination before *-j- (< *dl̥H-i̯é-), cf. Kümmel with question mark in LIV²+ s.v. *del(H)- ‘ziehen, anziehen’, but in view of ME tollen (< OE *tullian [ōjan]) which does not show umlaut, it is more likely that the geminate is already Proto-Germanic. Therefore, a hypothetical nó-adjective (PGerm. *tulla- < *tul-ná- ‘±drawn’) explains OE °tyllan best, cf. Holthausen 1913a:341. A rhyming parallel is provided by OE fyllan ‘to fill’ ~ OE full ‘full’ (< PGerm. *ful-ná- ‘filled’). cf. OE 3sg. pret. ind. for-tyl-de ‘to draw off from the object, seduce’ (ChristA,B,C 270, 9th c.), 3pl. pret. ind. be-tyl-don ‘to lure, decoy, (Lat.) introductus est’ (Bede 4 27.358.4, 9th c.), ME tillen (jan), tollen/tullen (ōjan) w.vb. ‘draw, allure’.An example for the (quasi-)synonymy between jan- and ōjan-verbs is provided by OE fyllan ‘to fill; to fulfil’ (Bosworth & Toller 1898a:350) vs. OE fullian ‘to fulfil, perfect’ (ibd. 346f.).
EDPG:508, de Vries 1977a:580f., Orel 2003a:406, GED:341 s.v. *talzjan, Holthausen 1934a:358 s.v. tyllan 1, Bosworth & Toller 1898a:325 s.v. fortyllan, 1029 s.v. tyllan, Toller & Campbell 1921:87 s.v. betyllan, eOED s.v. till v.2–4, toll/tole v.1, till n.1,2,6
Baltic
(?)Lith. délka f. ā-st., délkas m. o-st. ‘fishing rod’ (Haffgegend)
(?)Lith. délkiniñkas m. o-st. ‘rod fisher’It is not clear whether these words belong here or not, because it is difficult to prove the semantic development.
Klch. apud Kurschat 1968–1973 I:428 s.vv
Albanian
Alb. n-djell vb. ‘to entice, lure; to call’ < *délH-e-On the phonological processes, cf. Schumacher & Matzinger 2013a I:234, 245. Schumacher 2004a:612 derives Alb. n-djell from PIE *telH- ‘still werden’ (LIV²:621) which seems phonologically and semantically less attractive.
Meyer 1891a:301 s.v. ndjel, AED:286