γέλα

The word is known from Stephan of Byzantium etymologizing the Carian toponym Σ(ο)υάγγελα (Billerbeck & Neumann-Hartmann 2016a:210f., cf. Jablonski 1809:96; de Lagarde 1866a:269; Dorsi 1979a:29; Zgusta 1984a:587; Adiego 2007a:455). His probably unsuccessful (folk-)etymologizing of the toponym does not imply that the Carian words he used are non-existent (Brandenstein 1936a: 33; Dorsi 1979a:34; Adiego 2007a:11f.). Adiego 2007a:11 rightly pointed out that “a series of fragile hypotheses about sound changes” are needed if someone wants to connect γέλα to Carian “kδow(š)”, which Adiego believes to be the Carian word for ‘king’, although it is not, see s.v.

[Zs.S.]

The meaning ‘king’ given by Stephan of Byzantium is generally accepted, as there is no reason to doubt it (Jablonski 1809:96; de Lagarde 1866a:269; Sayce 1893a:117; Hirt 1907a:575; Brandenstein 1935a:col. 142; Dorsi 1979a; Adiego 2007a:8, 11f.; but see the scepticism of O. Masson 1973a:190).

[Zs.S.]

γέλα was compared by Sayce 1893a:117 to the Lydian gloss κοαλδδειν and the Phrygian gloss βαλήν, both ‘king’ (Hirt 1907a:575 called the latter “Anklang” which does not prove anything) and explained all of them from a root “*gwal-”. This root surely does not lead to γέλα on phonological grounds and the Phrygian status of βαλήν has been questioned (see the critical discussion in Obrador-Cursach 2020a:416 with refs.). Even if it is indeed Phrygian, it cannot be connected to γέλα on phonological grounds and the same applies to the Lydian gloss, if κοαλδδειν (this is the reading of the critical editions [Latte 1966a:495 and Cunningham 2020a:627] and thus to be preferred instead of the reading κοαλδδαν claimed by Payne 2019a:238) is connected to Qλdãn-, as it is usually assumed (see s.v.). All in all, this word is etymologically obscure.

[Zs.S.]