*Hou̯i-

The logogram for ‘sheep’ OVIS is attested from the Bronze Age down to the Iron Age period. Its first full phonetic spellings are found only in inscriptions of the late 8^th century BCE (KARATEPE 1, GEMEREK, KULULU lead strip 2).

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	/hawis/	(“ANIMA.OVIS”)há-wa/i-sá	KARETEPE 1 Ho. §48 (Cilicia)
		(ANIMA.OVIS)há-wá/í-i-sá	KARETEPE 1 Ho. §48 (Cilicia)
		(ANIMA.OVIS)há-wa/i-sá	KARATEPE 1 Hu. §48 (Cilicia)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-wa/i-sa	KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §18e (Karkamiš)
		[OVIS(ANIMA)-wa/i]-sa	KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §18f (Karkamiš)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-wa/i-sa	KARATEPE 1 Hu. §48(Cilicia)
		OVIS-wa/i-sa	KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §18d (Karkamiš)
		“OVIS”-sa	SULTANHAN §11 (Tabal)
		OVIS-sa	KARKAMIŠ A11b+c §18b (Karkamiš) KULULU lead strip 2: obverse 6 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §1.10 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §2.12 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §2.13 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.15 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.16 (Tabal)
		OVIS-sá	KULULU lead strip 2 §1.4 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §1.8 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §1.9 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §1.11 (Tabal)
		OVIS	CEKKE §11 (Karkamiš) HAMA frag. 7 KULULU lead strip 2 §1.3 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.14 (Tabal)
acc. sg.	/hawin/	(OVIS)ha-wa/i-na	KULULU lead strip 2 §1.1 (Tabal) KULULU frag. 1 1 (Tabal)
		(O[VIS])ha-wa/i-na?-´	GEMEREK D2 §1 (Tabal)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-wa/i-na	MARAŞ 11 §8 (Maraş)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-na	KARKAMIŠ A1a §31 (Karkamiš) MALPINAR §26 (Commagene)
		OVIS-na	KULULU lead strip 2 §1.2 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §1.5 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §1.7 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.17 (Tabal) KULULU lead frag. 1 Side 1.2 (Tabal) KULULU lead frag. 1 Side 1.3 (Tabal) KULULU lead frag. 1 Side 1.6 (Tabal)
		OVIS(ANIMA)	CEKKE §5 (Karkamiš) MARAŞ 3 §6 (Maraş) ALEPPO 6 §10 (Aleppo)
		OVIS.[(ANIMA)]	ALEPPO 6 §6 (Aleppo)
		OVIS	PALANGA §12 (Malatya) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.20 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.18 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.19 (Tabal) KULULU lead strip 2 §3.20 (Tabal) KULULU lead frag. 1 Side 1.4 (Tabal) KULULU lead frag. 1 Side 1.5 (Tabal)
dat. sg.	/hawi/	(ANIMA.OVIS)ha-wa/i-i	AKSARAY §4a (Tabal)
		OV[IS…]-wa/i	KARKAMIŠ A11a §10 (Karkamiš)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-i	KARKAMIŠ A2+3 §8 (Karkamiš)
		OVIS(ANIMA)	< span class="o_corplink">ARSUZ 1 §5 (Amuq) ARSUZ 1 §5 (Amuq)
gen. sg.	/hawasi/	OVIS(ANIMA)-wa/i-si	KARATEPE 1 Ho. §55 (Cilicia) KARATEPE 1 Hu. §55 (Cilicia)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-si	KARKAMIŠ A1a §30 (Karkamiš)
nom. pl.	/hawinzi/	OVIS(ANIMA)-zi	SULTANHAN §29 (Tabal)
		OVIS(ANIMA)	KARKAMIŠ frag. A29f2, l.2 (Karkamiš)
acc. pl.	/hawinzi/	OVIS(ANIMA)	KARKAMIŠ A4d §1 (Karkamiš)
		OVIS	YALBURT Frag. 1, 17 §10 (Südburg) YALBURT Frag. 2, 15 §6 Südburg)
abl./instr.	/hawadi/	(“ANIMA.OVIS”)ha-wa/i-ti	KULULU 1 §6 (Tabal)
		OVIS(ANIMA)-ti	MALPINAR §5 (Tabal)
		OVIS	SULTANHAN §3 (Tabal)
		OVIS[…]	ADANA 1 §3 (Karkamiš)
		“OV[IS?”]	KARKAMIŠ A24a2+3 §13 (Karkamiš)
unknown		[…]OVIS	ANCOZ 8 §3 (Commagene)
		O[VIS?]	KARKAMIŠ frag. A26d §2

For the literature on the decipherment of the logogram OVIS (L.111), see Laroche 1960c:71f., Marazzi 1990b:142.

[D.S.]

The semantic approach of this lexeme was facilitated by the logogram picturing the head of a sheep. Moreover, in the KARATEPE bilingual inscription, it corresponds to Phoen. Š ‘sheep’. The first full phonetic spelling of HLuw. /haw(i)-/ (c.) found in the KARATEPE bilingual inscription allowed etymological comparisons (Bossert 1953a:316, Kronasser 1956a:91, 220); cf. Laroche 1960c:71f. and HHG:58f.

For the asyndetic construction BOS OVIS in the YALBURT inscription and its semantic interpretation as ‘livestock’, see Laroche 1960c:72, Poetto 1993a:44. For various contextual analyses of the lexeme /haw(i)-/ (c.) ‘sheep’, cf. Meriggi & Poetto 1982a:105, Hawkins 1987a:147.

[D.S.]

1. HLuw. OVIS-ti-

Attested in Luwian rituals and spells in NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.

ḫa-a-ú-i-iš

KUB 35.43 ii 10

(CTH 761, NS)

Sumerographic spelling:

nom. sg. c.	˹UDU˺-iš	KUB 35.8 i 8	(CTH 763, NS)
acc. pl. c.	UDU-in-za	KUB 9.31 ii 27	(CTH 757, NS)
		HT 1 ii 3’	(CTH 394, NS)

Attestations following CLL:66 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz and Walker 1987a:43 (HT 1) and slightly corrected.

I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) adds KBo 29.36 l. col. 5’, which, however, does not contain UDU but GU₄ (see also Starke 1985b:379) and a question mark to the UDU sign in HT 1 ii 3’, which cannot be justified based on the photo published in Walker 1987a:43.

Problematic is the assumed attestation in KUB 35.51 iii^? 13’, which is read as [ḫa]-a-ú-i-iš (Laroche 1959a:44) or [ḫa]-ạ-ú-i-iš (Starke 1985b:177), though in fact only ]-ú-i-iš is visible on the photo of the Konkordanz. While the restoration [ḫa-a]-ú-i-iš is possible (cautiously [“vielleicht”] suggested by Otten 1953a:98 n. 179, also followed by CLL:66), the entirely fragmentary context (cf. Starke 1985b:177) makes verification impossible.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning ‘sheep’ is generally assumed without doubts and exception (Laroche 1959a:44; Carruba 1982a:46; CLL:66; HED H:280; HEG A-K:277, Tischler 2008a:53, Tischler 2016a:86; Ofitsch 1998a:662; Ünal 2007a:205, Ünal 2016a:957; EDHIL:337; Weeden 2011b:627). This is evident in case of the Sumerographic spelling and the only syllabically written form (KUB 35.43 ii 10) is not only homophonous with Hieroglyphic Luwian hawi- ‘sheep’ (see s.v.), but its context refers to a four-legged/hooved scape animal, that also supports this meaning (contra Friedrich 1966a:84).

[Zs.S.]

There is no agreement regarding the stem. CLL:66 (followed by Hajnal 1994a:150 n. 45) proposes an a-stem with i-mutation due to the long -ī-, what he retracted in Melchert 2003b:197 based on ḫawiyašši- (see below) but maintaining the notation ḫāwa/ī-. Nevertheless, most of the scholars assume an i-stem (Ofitsch 1998a:662; Ünal 2007a:205, Ünal 2016a:957; Tischler 2008a:53, Tischler 2016a:86; EDHIL:337; Weeden 2011b:627, either as ḫāwi- or as ḫawi-); and I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) provides a third possibility (ḫaw(i)-). Kloekhorst rightly points out that ḫawiyašši- ‘ovine, relating to sheep’, a probable derivative of this word (a Luwianism in Hittite, see s.v.), argues that the Luwian word was an i-stem. The long -ī- of the stem requires further research, for a graphic explanation see now Rieken 2017a:26.

[Zs.S.]

1. ḫawattanna/i- (?)
2. ḫawiyašša/i-

Attested in oracle texts in NS and LNS and perhaps in a MS festival fragment as well as in an unidentified fragment in LNS.

[Zs.S.]

? nom. sg. c.	˹ḫa˺-ú-wi5-ša	KUB 46.69 ii 12’	(CTH 832, LNS)
? nom. pl. c.	˹ḫa˺-a-u-e-eš	KBo 24.26 iii 3’	(CTH 694, MS)
	ḫa-a-u-˹e-eš˺	KBo 24.26 iii 2’	(CTH 694, MS)

Sumerographically:

nom. sg. c.	UDU-iš	KUB 6.9, 5.6	(CTH 578, NS)
		KUB 18.59, 18	(CTH 578, NS)
		KUB 16.40 obv. 8’	(CTH 576, LNS)
		KUB 18.11 rev. 3’	(CTH 576, NS)
	UDU-˹iš?˺	KUB 16.40 obv. 4’	(CTH 576, LNS)

Attestations following HW (2nd ed.) III:538; van den Hout 2010d:124; and Weeden 2011b:627 (cf. also Laroche 1952a:25; HEG A-K:230; HED H:279; EDHIL:337f.; contra Ünal 1990a:356) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. Tischler 2010b:185 claims the existence of ˹UDU˺-iš in KUB 30.8 i 8, but this is a misprint for KUB 35.8 i 8, which is, however, a Luwian passage. Due to the fragmentary context it cannot be ascertained that ˹ḫa˺-ú-wi₅-ša of KUB 46.69 ii 12’ belongs here. Although the context of ˹ḫa˺-a-u-e-eš is not too fragmentary, its meaning is unclear, thus its connection is similarly doubtful, cf. KBo 24.26 iii 2’-4’ (as van den Hout 2010d:124 points out, the form in 2’ proves that [ (-)]˹ḫa˺-a-u-e-eš in 3’ is not acephalic):

(2’) [ ]x ḫa-a-u-˹e-eš na^?˺[ ]u^?-en ḫa-˹aš˺-ta
(3’) [ ]˹ḫa˺-a-u-e-eš la-az-za-an-da-ti-in ḫa-aš-ta
(4’) [ la-az]-za-an-da-ti-iš ^DA-i-in-du-pí-in-zu ḫa-aš-˹ta˺

‘ḫāwēš bore/begot …, ḫāwēš bore/begot lazzandati-, […laz]zandati- bore/begot (the deity) Aīndupinzu’ (cf. EDHIL:338; CHD L:50; HED H:279; HW (2nd ed.) III:538; van den Hout 2010d:124 – the latter three question the plural interpretation of ḫāwēš calling attention to the verb in singular: nevertheless, the plural is morphologically assured and there are apparent examples of Hittite common gender plural subjects with predicate in singular, although this is attested thus far only with intransitive verbs, Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:214).

If these attestations do not belong here, then UDU-i- is not attested yet in syllabic spelling, hence the notation (*)ḫāwi-.

[Zs.S.]

The last sign of UDU-˹iš^?˺ in KUB 16.40 obv. 4’ is not clear since its last part is broken, thus it can be read as UDU-˹uš˺ as well, fitting the u-stem UDU-u-. Nevertheless, since the same text uses UDU-iš only four lines later, it is probable that one has to read UDU-˹iš˺here too.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of the logogram UDU is clear (HEG A-K:230, Tischler 2016a:86 [with question mark on the syllabic form]; HED:279; HW (2nd ed.) III:538; EDHIL:337f., Kloekhorst 2014b:143, with question mark on the syllabic form). The meaning of the alleged syllabically spelled forms is based entirely on their homonymy with the Luwian word for ‘sheep’ (for their context cf. above).

Nevertheless, some scholars (Laroche 1952a:25; Hoffner 1993a:117; van den Hout 2010d:124; Weeden 2011b:627 [he cites only Laroche]) claim that UDU-iš must be the same animal as UDU.ŠIR-iš, i.e. ‘ram’. Hoffner argues (followed by van den Hout) that UDU appears in the oracle texts always as UDU-i-, except one single text, when it appears as UDU.ŠIR-iš, thus UDU-i- must be an abbreviation of UDU.ŠIR-iš. Although this is possible, it is by no means necessary. Moreover, UDU.ŠIR is attested as an a-stem as well (“meist”, according to Tischler 2010b:186, see there for attestations). This can be explained only by assuming an -iya-stem underlying UDU.ŠIR-a- with an occasional contraction to UDU.ŠIR-i- (for this change in Hittite see Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:32f.). Thus, in order to connect the two words one must either assume that also UDU-i- is the result of the same change (which cannot be excluded) or assume the abbreviation, but none of these assumptions can be verified. All in all, there is no compelling evidence to translate UDU-i- as ‘ram’.

[Zs.S.]

Most of the scholars (HED H:279; Ofitsch 1998a:664; EDHIL:337f., Kloekhorst 2014b:143; and Tischler 2010b:185, Tischler 2016a:86, earlier only “vielleicht”, HEG A-K:230) treat this word as Hittite, HW (2nd ed.) III:538 (cf. also CHD L:50 with question mark), however, assumes a Luwian loanword (“wohl”) due to the homonymy with the Luwian word for ‘sheep’ and (implicitly) since the word for ‘sheep’ in Hittite is usually iyant- next to an u-stem attested until now only as UDU-u- (note that it is not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a). Although synonyms within the same language for (different types of) ‘sheep’ are cross-linguistically well-known, the limited number of attestations in contrast to the common words for ‘sheep’ in Hittite as well as the limited distribution in terms of chronology and genre (assured examples are all attested in (L)NS and in oracle texts) may be used as an argument for Luwian origin, which thus cannot be excluded.

[Zs.S.]

Inferred from personal names in three Old Assyrian documents.

[Zs.S.]

In personal names:

*ḫawi-

Ḫa-wi-wa-šu

Kt m/k 36.3

Problematic cases:

? *ḫawi-	Ḫa-wi-a or Ḫa-wa-a	Kt b/k 176.3
	Ḫa-wi-li-a or Ḫa-wa-li-a	Sch. 22.35

The attestations follow Yakubovich 2010d:212, 214 and Kloekhorst 2019b:58, 61(photographs are not available, only hand copies of Sch. 22 [Garelli 1964a:126] and Kt b/k 176 [Gül 1990a:57]). For the reading problem -wi- or -wa- see the discussion under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning is clearly ‘sheep’, if it reflects the Luwian word ḫāwī- ‘sheep’, see under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

The etymological connection with the Luwian word ḫāwī- ‘sheep’ was suggested by Yakubovich 2010d:211–216 (Kloekhorst 2019b:61, 65, 92 admits that his suggestion is formally possible). Nevertheless, he read the names as Ḫa-wa-a (following Gül 1990a:52) and Ḫa-wa-wa-šu (and Ḫa-wi-li-a). However, the PIE and the Luwian forms show an i-stem (that may also be present in Hittite (*)ḫāwi-, if it is not a Luwian loanword, see s.v.) and thus the alleged a-stem in the Old Assyrian names is remarkable. Although CLL:66 (but retracted in Melchert 2003b:197) and Hajnal 1994a:150 n. 45 assume that the Luwian word for ‘sheep’ was an a-stem, this is probably not the case (see s.v.). Lycian A χawã (acc. sg.) also shows an a-stem, but it cannot be excluded that it is secondary (as it is generally explained, e.g. Starke 1990a:70; Hajnal 1994a:150; DLL:81; EDHIL:338; NIL:337, for details see s.v.),  and the in Carian κοῖον / κόον may represent a Hellenized form (see s.v.).

Moreover, nothing requires to assume an a-stem in the Old Assyrian names: one has to take into account also that these are not the only reading possibilities, since Ḫa-wa-a, Ḫa-wa-wa-šu and Ḫa-wa-li-a can be read e.g. as Ḫa-wi-a (thus also aATU kt b/k (v. 0.2.2004) [last accessed 19.01.2016]), Ḫa-wi-wa-šu and Ḫa-wi-li-a too. At first glance, this would allow a more uniform and more regular interpretation of all these names as derivatives from an i-stem Luwian word ḫāwī- ‘sheep’. However, the interpretative possibilities are more numerous:

1) No decision can be made in case of Ḫa-wa-a / Ḫa-wi-a, since both readings lead to typical Anatolian names: Ḫawā can also originate in a mountain name known from Central Anatolia (del Monte & Tischler 1978a:s.v.; del Monte 1992a:s.v.), since mountain names can occasionally underlie personal names (see the well-known case of Tudḫaliya). The mountain could have of course received its name after the ‘sheep’ (as suggested by Weeden 2011b:627 with question mark), but then we have the problem of the stem, as per above. On the other hand, Ḫawia would be a regular adjectival form in -iya- from Luwian ḫāwī- ‘sheep’.

2) Similarly no decision can be made in case of Ḫa-wa-li-a / Ḫa-wi-li-a, since again both readings lead to meaningful Anatolian names: Ḫawalia can be derivative from the above mentioned mountain name via *Ḫawalla/i- by the adjective suffix -alla/i- (either as an adjective or as a toponym, cf. the well-known double toponym Waršiya- / Waršiyalla-) and with the ubiquitous suffix -iya-. Although Ḫawilia may represent a derivation from Luwian ḫāwī- ‘sheep’ with -alla/i- and regular contraction (*ḫāwiyalla/i- > *ḫāwilla/i-) as well as the ubiquitous suffix -iya-, it may equally represent a derivation from the mountain name Ḫawā with the suffix -ili- (*Ḫawili, type Ḫattušili) and again with the ubiquitous suffix -iya-.

3) Finally, since Ḫa-wa-wa-šu / Ḫa-wi-wa-šu shows a compound name with Luwian wašu- ‘good’ (see s.v.), this argues for the existence of the first member as a real word (and not as a name or Lallname), thus *ḫawa- or *ḫawi- seems to be an existing Luwian word.

Although at this juncture one may still assume that (a) this word has nothing to do with the ‘sheep’ word, or it is the ‘sheep’ word, but (b) there was an a-stem version too (so Hajnal 1994a:150 n. 45), whose traces are, however, scarce, or (c) ḫāwī- was transferred into the a-stems in the Luwian dialect underlying the Assyrian names, the solution (c) is ad hoc and as yet there is no evidence that this Luwian dialect would be different from any of the known Luwian dialects, the solution (b) is not supported by the ambiguous spelling and Occam’s razor supports the identification of *ḫawi- with the Luwian word for ‘sheep’ rather than with an unknown word.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 30 June 2020

This lexeme is a hapax legomenon attested in a sepulchral inscription.

[D.S.]

acc. sg. c.

xawã

TL 149.10 (Rhodiapolis)

The sentence in TL 149.8-10 refers to a penalty to be inflicted upon the potential offender. In this sentence, the word xawã is coordinated as a direct object with wawa- ‘bull’. Laroche 1967a:59-61 notices the parallelism between wawã … xawã in the Lycian sentence and the typical Hieroglyphic Luwian sequence of /waw(i)- … haw(i)-/ ‘bull (and) sheep’ and suggests the meaning ‘sheep’ for Lyc. xawa-. The semantic assignment is supported both by the context and the etymological approach, cf. DLL:81 and Neumann 2007a:112.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in a late inscription dated tentatively to the 2^nd or 3^rd century CE.

[D.S.]

acc. sg.	καᴎη	S 2.3 (Kesme)
		S 2.5 (Kesme)
		S 2.10 (Kesme)

The grammatical interpretation is tentative and is dependent on the interpretation of the ending of Pis. ᴎαᴎο.

[D.S.]

Brixhe & Özsait 2013a suggests that Pis. καᴎη is related to Luw. /haw(i)-/ and Lyc. xawa-; cf. Adiego 2017a:16. This etymological equation is persuasive, especially if one considers the pair καᴎη ᴎαᴎο ‘sheep (and) cow’ in S 2.10.

[D.S.]

Glosses in the scholia to the Iliad by Eustathius on the one hand and in the Scholia Vetera on the other and also in the commentaries of Tzetzes on Greek authors. Georgiev 1941a:90f., Bossert 1953a:316, and HEG A-K:230 refer to a gloss in Athenaeus’s Deipnosophistae (XIII, 580) as well, but there is nothing similar in the critical edition (Kaibel 1890a).

[Zs.S.]

acc.? sg.

κοῖον / κόον

The word κοῖον appears in the T manuscript of the Scholia Vetera ad Iliadem XIV, 255. Although the syntax points to an accusative, this is not mandatory, since the author may have quoted κοῖον also in nominative: “τὸ δὲ πρόβατον κοῖον οἱ Κᾶρες ὀνομάζουσιν” ‘the Carians call the sheep/cattle κοῖον’ (the same goes for the wording of Eustathius as well, see below). Nevertheless, Erbse 1986a:389 questions this form (†κοῖον†, already Mette 1952a:70 put the iota into parentheses, albeit without arguments): according to him the form κοῖον is suspicious, since Eustathius mentions the word twice as κόον (Commentarii ad Iliadem 318, 41 [ad II, 677] and 983, 33 [ad XIV, 255]). Erbse would explain the difference with a spelling mistake in this manuscript rather than with the modification of κοῖον into κόον by Eustathius in order to get a better fitting etymology for the name of the island of Κῶς (thus implicitly already Barth 1984a:129f.). Adiego 2007a:8f. presents the positions of these researchers, without decision.

Although Eustathius indeed does not label κόον as Carian in 318, 41 (ad II, 677) as Adiego 2007a:9 n. 7 emphasizes and he does not explicitly mention the word κόον in 983, 33 (ad XIV, 255), just the accusative of the name of the island (Κόον), the context and the identical glossing makes clear that for Eustathius the Carian word was κόον (in accusative or in nominative, as per above).

Since Eustathius is reminded of the Carian word by the spelling Κόον, κόον may have been the original form (note also that it fits better the etymological expectations via *kowo-). The form κοῖον, however, is not necessarily corrupted: the iota might represent a secondary hiatus filler after the loss of intervocalic *w. This could be supported by the Carian word kojoλ, that may mean ‘shepherd’ requiring a stem koj- (see s.v.).

A form κῶς is also frequently cited in the literature (Sayce 1893a: 18, although mentioning also “κόος”; Hirt 1907a:575; Brandenstein 1935a:col. 142; Georgiev 1941a:90f.; Bossert 1953a:316; HEG A-K:230). This is based on the scholia of Eustathius (quoted above) and Tzetzes (ad Lycoph. 644, Comm. in Aristoph. Plut. 166b) as well as the entry Ἄρνη of the Etymologicum Genuinum explaining the name of the island of Κῶς, but either the Carian noun itself is not quoted (thus the Carian noun is not necessarily completely identical to the name of the island, emphasized by Dorsi 1979a:29 too) or it is clearly secondary (κῶς in Comm. in Aristoph. Plut. 166b).

[Zs.S.]

The meaning of this word is defined by the Greek glosses quoted above as πρόβατον, on which the generally adopted translation ‘sheep’ is based (Sayce 1893a:118; Hirt 1907a:575; Bossert 1953a:316; Dorsi 1979a:29; HEG A-K:230; Adiego 2007a:8f.; the translation provided by Brandenstein 1935a:col. 142 [‘Schaf; Gefängnis, Schloßhof’] results from a misunderstanding, cf. Georgiev 1941a:90 with n. 1). However, Georgiev 1941a:90f. points out that the meaning of πρόβατον is more general, thus he translates ‘Vieh, besonders Kleinvieh, Schaf, Ziege, usw.’. Although the meaning of πρόβατον is almost exclusively ‘sheep’ in Attic prose, which definitely influenced the authors of these scholia, prudence requires taking into account the entire sphere of meaning of πρόβατον (on which see LSJ s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

1. kojoλ (?)
2. κῶας (?)

Rejected cognates:

1. qoΩo