*gu̯ou̯-
‘bovine (bull, ox, cow)’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 272
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/waw(i)-/, /uw(i)-/, BOS
‘ox, bull, cow (bovine)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested behind the logogram “BOS” already in the Bronze Age inscription of YALBURT (Südburg), but there is no attestation of a full syllabic writing found before the 8th century BCE.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
1.1.3Graphic Features
Hawkins 2011b:41 leaves the possibility open of having another sign between BOS and -i-, i.e. BOS-[…]-i- (ALEPPO 6, §6). However, this is neither supported by the space left nor is it necessary from the orthographic perspective.
[D.S.] [I.Y.]
1.1.4Meaning ‘bovine, ox, bull, cow, (pl.) cattle’
The meaning ‘ox, bull’ was assigned based on the KARATEPE bilingual and the Phoenician equivalent ’LP ‘ox, bull’ (Bossert 1953a:315, Laroche 1960c:66-68, HHG:154). Bossert (loc. cit.) established immediately an etymological connection with PIE *gu̯ou̯- ‘bovine’. The word is mostly translated as ox; cf. Hawkins 2000a:54 et passim, Payne 2010a:152, Payne 2012a:41 et passim, Giusfredi 2010b:310. The meaning ´bull´ is prefered by Yakubovich (pers. comm.) in sacrificial contexts, which are more likely to be sacrificed than cows and oxen. While cows are important for milk, oxen are important for agricultural purposes, which make bulls preferable for sacrifice. Since it is not always possible to determine the gender or the state of the "bovine" in question, the translation ´bovine´ or in the plural ´cattle´ is often more appropriate.
[D.S.]
1.1.5Stem
This lexeme belong to the paradigm of the i-mutation, which is shown by one attestation, i.e. BOS-i-(na) (ALEPPO 6, §6).
[D.S.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
GUD-(a/i)-
‘bull, ox’1.2.1Transmission
Attested in Luwian rituals and spells in MS and NS.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | GUD-iš | KUB 35.8 i 8’ | (CTH 763, NS) |
| GUD-˹iš˺ | KUB 32.124 iv 2’ | (CTH 763, NS) | |
| KBo 29.36, 5’ | (CTH 763, MS) | ||
| acc sg. c. | GUD-in | KUB 35.140 i 14 | (CTH 636, NS) |
| acc. pl. c. | GUD-in-za | KUB 9.31 ii 27 | (CTH 757, NS) |
| HT 1 ii 3’ | (CTH 394, NS) |
Attestations following CLL:290 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:121) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz (except HT 1, where no photograph was available, and KUB 9.31 ii 27, where the margin of the photo runs through this line). For its possible reading see the Hieroglyphic Luwian transmission (cf. also s.v. wāwi[).
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘bull, ox’
Although the meaning of the Sumerogram is clearly ‘bull, ox’ (in Sumerian cf. ePSD s.v., in Anatolian context cf. Weeden 2011b:503f., for Luwian context see Laroche 1959a:121) and this is supported by the context of KUB 9.31 ii 26–27 = HT 1 ii 2’–3’ (“you shall eat sheep and GUD-s”; Carruba 1968a:15; Görke 2015a; GUD is similarly paired with sheep in KUB 35.8 i 8’; KBo 29.36, 5’ is not informative; the context of KUB 32.124 iv 2’ is broken off), it was translated by CLL:290 and EDHIL:507 as ‘cow’.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Derivatives
I. *wawal(l)i- (?)
1.3 Lycian A
wawa-/uwa-
‘bovine, cow, bull’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in various inscriptions of Lycia.
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| acc. sg. | wawã | TL 26.18 (Tlos), TL 44b.45 (Xanthos), TL 149.9 (Rhodiapolis) |
| wawu | N 318.3 (Xanthos) | |
| abl./instr. | uwadi | N 320.27-28 (Xanthos) |
| uw[a]di | TL 65.13 (Isinda) | |
| [u]wadi | N 333.4 (Tlos) | |
| nom./acc. coll. | wawa | TL 45b.13 (Xanthos), N 325.6 (Xanthos) |
| uwa | TL 54.3 (Phellos), TL 111.4 (Limyra), TL 131.4 (Limyra) | |
| gen. adj. nom. sg. c. | uwehi | TL 22.2 (Tlos), TL 29.3 (Tlos), TL 29.4 (Tlos) |
The genitival adjective in -ehe/i- is built from the collective stem uwa-, because common gender nouns in -a- take a genitival adjective in -ahe/i- (Sasseville 2018a:314-316).
[D.S.]
1.3.3Graphic Features
The example wawa in N 325.6 could be incomplete, because it occurs at the end of the line and, thus, the word might continue on the next line, which is broken off.
[D.S.]
1.3.4Meaning ‘bovine, cow, bull’
Kishimoto 1965a:283-286 connects Lyc. wawa- to HLuw. /waw(i)-/ ‘ox, bull’ and shows that wawa- is often the object of an offering to a deity, which supports the etymological equation with HLuw. /waw(i)-/.Laroche 1967a:59-61 follows him and brings further contextual evidence for his semantic assignment. Furthermore, Laroche assigns the phonetic variant uwa- to the same lexeme as wawa- (accepted by Neumann 1974a:109f., Carruba 1977a:310, DLL:78). In TL 22.2, the genitival adjective uwehi is seen as part of a divine name in Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:29 n. 49, 55 n. 227. On the other hand, in DLL:78, it is taken as a priestly epithet meaning ‘who oversees cattle sacrifice’; cf. Neumann 1993c:36.
[D.S.]
1.3.5Derivatives
1.4 Lycian B
uwa-
‘bovine, cow, bull’1.4.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested on the Xanthos stele, which was inscribed shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.
[D.S.]
1.4.2Forms
| abl./instr. | uwadi | TL 44d.27 (Xanthos) |
1.4.3Graphic Features
The segmentation of tasñtuwadi in tasñt(u) uwadi is convincingly argued by Schürr 2016c:126. For different hypotheses on the word tasñtuwadi see Neumann 2007a:339 with further literature.
[D.S.]
1.4.4Meaning ‘bovine, cow, bull, (pl.) cattle’
The meaning is based on the equation with Lyc. A wawa-, uwa- ‘bovine’ (Schürr ibid.). Furthermore, the context provides additional evidence for the semantics. In TL 44d.27, the subject hands over the tasñta- with the cattle. Then, a few lines later, it is said that the subject hands over the uwadra ‘herd of cattle (?)’ as an offering.
[D.S.]
1.4.5Derivatives
1.5 Pisidian
ᴎαᴎο, *ουα-
‘bull, cow, bovine’1.5.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested not only as a personal name found in epitaphs engraved on steles, but also as an appellative in one inscription, all dated to the 2nd or 3rd century CE.
[D.S.]
1.5.2Forms
| acc. sg. | ᴎαᴎο | S 2.10 (Kesme), S 2.11 (Kesme) |
Onomastic:
| nom. sg. | Ουα | N 10. (Sofular), N 38. (Yayla de Senitli) |
The word ᴎαᴎο is here tentatively interpreted as accusative singular common gender; cf. under Graphic features.
[D.S.]
1.5.3Meaning
Adiego 2017a:16 suggests ᴎαᴎο is related with Lycian wawa- ‘cow, bull, bovine’, which is contextually supported by the pair καᴎη ᴎαᴎο ‘sheep (and) cow’ in S 2.10. Furthermore, he points that one instance of ᴎαᴎο(ειε) occurs within the proximity of a numeral expression.
Lebrun 2012b:360 connects the Pisidian personal name Ουα with the Luwian word for ‘cow, bull’ /waw(i)-, uw(i)-/. Because of the stem-final -α, Ουα- is more likely to reflect the collective like in Lycian uwa ‘cattle’. This analysis is superior to the one of Brixhe & Özsait 2001a:169, who want to see a simple lallname in Pis. Ουα-, for which there is no cogent argument (contra Simon 2017a:39 n. 23). Further evidence for a personal name derived from a bovine word can be adduced by citing the personal name Ουαουα- (Zgusta 1964a:392) found in Greek inscriptions from Pisidia. While Ουαουα- would equate Lycian wawa-, Ουα- equates the Lycian contracted variant uwa-. In N 10, the personal name Ουα designates a woman (Brixhe 2016a:82).
[D.S.]
1.6 Palaic
kuwa(w)-
‘bovine (?)’1.6.1Transmission
This lexeme occurs twice in the incantations of the Palaic festival (CTH 751) attested on one Old/Middle Script and one New Script fragment.
[I.Y.]
1.6.2Forms
| nom. pl. | ˹ku˺-wa-a-i-š(=) | KUB 35.165 rev. 6’ | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
| ku-wa-i-š(=) | KBo 53.301 5’ | (CTH 751, NS) |
Both occurrences checked against the photograph of the Konkordanz. For the clitic boundaries after the word kuwāiš in KUB 35.165 rev. 6´, see Carruba 1970a:61, for the matching clitic boundaries after kuwaiš in KBo 53.301 5´ see Soysal 2009a:306.
[I.Y.]
1.6.3Meaning
The context refers to three plural entities, kuwāiš, kuwaniš, and warlaḫiš, being offered or sacrificed in different designated areas. The first two of them can be identified as ‘bovines’ and ‘dogs’ on etymological grounds, the identifications mutually support one another. It is likely that the word was used for the bovines in the broadest sense, although the bulls were perhaps more suitable for sacrifice.
[I.Y.]
1.6.4Stem
Based on etymological consideration one can reconstruct a stem ending in a diphthong, *kuwaw-. For the reconstructed sound change *kuwawis > kuwaiš in the nominative plural form, one must compare the disappearance of /w/ next to /i/ in Pal. tiyat- ‘Son-god’ vs. Luw. /tiwad-/ ‘id.’. There is, naturally, no way of knowing whether this change was limited to the paradigmatic forms containing /i/ or extended by analogy to the whole paradigm. Differently Weitenberg 1984a:386, where the noun under discussion is treated as an i-stem.
[I.Y.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘cow, bull (bovine)’
The Proto-Anatolian lexeme for ‘bovine’ can be reconstructed based on Hitt. GU4-u- c., Luw. /waw(i)-/ c. and Lyc. A wawa- c. Each language shows synchronically a different stem. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:507f.) assumes that Hittite preserved the original stem and, thus, reconstructs a u-stem for Proto-Anatolian. However, since the Luwian cognate was affected by the i-mutation and since u-stems were not affected by the i-mutation in Luwic, cf. assu- c. ‘stone’, the lexeme for ‘bovine’ cannot have been a u-stem in origin (pace Kloekhorst loc. cit.). Therefore, a consonantal stem should be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian, i.e. *gu̯ou̯-. If the word hiding behind the logogram GU4 really goes back to *gu̯ou̯- in Hittite, then the original consonantal stem must have been reinterpreted as a u-stem for phonological reasons (see Weitenberg 1984a:57-62 with further literature). It should be emphasized that any statement regarding the shape and the etymology of the Hittite word hiding behind GU4-u- c. must be considered tentative.
In Lycian, consonantal stems do not survive and are transferred either to the mutated stems or to the a-stems. That Luwian and Lycian show a different outcome in this respect is not unparalleled, cf. Proto-Luwic dṷatér-/*dṷatr-´ (Outdated Oettinger 1976a:102).
Initial *gu̯- goes to /w/ in Luwian and Lycian (Melchert 1993a:247, Melchert 1994a:239, 290). The vowel of the root cannot be retrieved from the Anatolian attestations (EDHIL:508). Therefore, the vowel *o is assumed here based on the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PIE *gu̯óu̯- (vel sim.) m./f. means ‘bovine, cow’ “in both the English senses: ‘adult female bovine’ and ‘bovine of any age or sex’” (EIEC:134; cf. also NIL:189, 191 n. 1, Watkins 2011a:36). While the word shows genus commune in Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Latin, it is restricted to the feminine in Celtic, Germanic, and Baltic (Latvian). For further IE words meaning ‘cow, ox, bull’ vel sim., cf. EIEC:135f.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The PIE word for ‘cow, bovine’ is mostly reconstructed as a root noun *gu̯óu̯- (NIL:189, 190f. n. 1). Since prevocalic *gu̯óu̯-V would have given PIIr. *gā́u̯-V (with PIE *o > PIIr. *ā in open syllables according to Brugmann’s Law), Indo-Iranian prevocalic weak case forms such as dat. sg. Ved. gáve may suggest a weak stem *gu̯éu̯- and thus ó/é-acrostatic inflection for the PIE root noun: *gu̯óu̯-/*gu̯éu̯- (cf. Schindler 1972a:33, Schindler 1973a:157, NIL:191 n. 1 with lit.). In this case, however, initial g- instead of expected palatalized j- in Vedic weak case forms must be explained as an analogical innovation based on the strong stem forms (NIL:190f. n. 1 with discussion and lit.). The PIE paradigm would then have been as follows: nom. sg. *gu̯ō̆́u̯-s (Ved. gáuḥ, Gk. βοῦς), acc. sg. pre-PIE **/gu̯óu̯-m/ > PIE *gu̯ṓmBy Stang’s Law, cf. PIE *di̯éu̯- m. ‘(god of the) day-lit sky’ with acc. sg. pre-PIE **/di̯éu̯m/ > PIE *di̯ḗm (Ved. dyā́m). On Stang’s Law, cf. Schindler 1973a:153–155, Mayrhofer 1986:163f. with lit.(Ved. gā́m, OAv. gąm, Umbr. bum, Gk. Hom. βῶν ‘ox-hide shield’), gen. sg. *gu̯éu̯-s (Ved. góḥ), dat. sg. *gu̯éu̯-ei̯ (Ved. gáve), loc. sg. *gu̯éu̯-i (Ved. gávi); nom. pl. *gu̯óu̯-es (Ved. gā́vaḥWith Ved. ā < PIE *o in open syllables by Brugmann’s Law., Gk. βόες), acc. pl. pre-PIE **/gu̯óu̯-ms/ > PIE *gu̯ṓs (Ved. gā́ḥ)For the phonological development, cf. Schindler 1973a:154, Mayrhofer 1986:163f., instr. pl. *gu̯éu̯-bhis (Ved. góbhiḥ), etc. (cf. also Tichy 2009a:81f.).
Others, however, prefer the reconstruction of a proterokinetic u-stem noun: PIE *gu̯éh3-u-/*gu̯h3-éu̯- > *gu̯óh3-u-/*gu̯h3-óu̯-. This offers the advantage of a plausible root etymology, with PIE *gu̯eh3- meaning ‘to feed, tend’ – cf. Gk. βόσκε/o- act. ‘to feed, tend’ (of herdsmen), midd.-pass. ‘to feed, graze’ (of cattle), συ-βώτης ‘id.’ (Od.+), συ-βóτης ‘id.’ (Arist., Hsch.), Myc. su-qo-ta- ‘id.’, Lith. gúotas ‘herd’ (NIL:191 n. 1). Prevocalic weak case forms in *gu̯h3-éu̯-V > *gu̯h3-óu̯-V might have been affected by Brugmann’s Law, thus yielding Ved. †gā́v-V. The absence of Brugmann’s Law can be explained by analogy to preconsonantal weak stem forms (cf. instr. pl. *gu̯h3-éu̯.-bhis > *gu̯h3-óu̯.-bhis). However, there is also the possibility that PIE *o that results from laryngeal coloring (and not from ablaut) did not undergo lengthening in IIr. (cf. Lubotsky 1990a:133f., NIL:191 n. 1). A serious objection to the reconstruction of a proterokinetic u-stem noun, however, seem to be the irregular accusative forms: PIE acc. sg. *gu̯ṓm (Ved. gā́m), acc. pl. *gu̯ṓs (Ved. gā́ḥ). These are difficult to explain from such a paradigm (Schindler 1973a:155, Nielsen Whitehead 2018a:226 with further lit.). The explanation of the nom. sg. remains difficult as well, according to Nielsen Whitehead 2018a:225f.
Nielsen Whitehead 2018a, therefore, tries to solve these and other problems raised by a proterokinetic u-stem paradigm by proposing the reconstruction of a hysterokinetic u-stem noun, PIE *gu̯h3-éu̯-/*gu̯h3-u-´ > *gu̯h3-óu̯-/*gu̯h3-u-´, by which the irregular forms of the acc. sg. and pl. can be explained regularly by means of Stang’s Law (as in the case of a root noun *gu̯óu̯-); i.e., acc. sg. pre-PIE **/gu̯h3-éu̯-m/ > PIE */gu̯h3-óu̯-m/ > *gu̯h3-ōm and acc. pl. pre-PIE **/gu̯h3-éu̯-ms/ > PIE */gu̯h3-óu̯-ms/ > *gu̯h3-ōs. However, there are also some disadvantages that come with a hysterokinetic paradigm: the nom. sg., e.g., cannot have developed regularly (PIE *gu̯h3-ḗu̯ must have been remodeled to *gu̯h3ṓu̯s already in the protolanguage). Furthermore, the Indo-Iranian gen./abl. sg. *gáu̯š (Ved. góḥ, OAv. gǝ̄uš) cannot be derived directly from a hysterokinetic gen./abl. sg. *gu̯h3u̯ós. According to Nielsen Whitehead 2018a:228, the IIr. form “probably arose when the unproductive hysterodynamic gen. sg. ending *-u̯as was replaced by *-au̯š of the productive u-stem paradigm”.
3.3Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
As part of the cattle sacrifice a PIE syntagm *k̑m̥tóm ‘100’ + *gu̯óu̯- ‘cow’ (and vice versa) can be reconstructed on the basis of formations such as Gk. ἑκατόμ-βη f. ‘sacrifice’ (Il.+; literally ‘[offering of] a hundred cows’), Ved. śata-gvín- ‘consisting of a hundred cows’ (RV), OPers. ϑata-gu- ‘Sattagydia’ (a province of the Persian empire), and, with reversed compositional members, OIr. Bu-chet m. personal name (< PCelt. *bu-kantos < *gu̯u-k̑m̥to-s), who is described as bó-chétach ‘having a hundred cows’ (i.e., *gu̯ou̯- ‘cow’ + *k̑m̥tó- ‘100’ + Suffix -āko-), Skt. go-śatin- ‘having a hundred cows’ (MBh), and maybe Gk. Βουκάτιος (a month in west central Greece), Βουκάτια (a festival), which would ultimately point to a stem *gu̯ou̯-k̑m̥t-ii̯o- (cf. EIEC:137f., NIL:193f. n. 19).
In Indo-Iranian, a PIE syntagm *gu̯óu̯- ‘cow’ + (root) *u̯id- or (pres.) *u̯i-né/n-d- ‘to find’ is attested (cf. EWAia I:479, Scarlata 1999:483f.). As a nominal compound it not only appears in Indo-Iranian (cf. Ved. go-vindú- ‘finding cows’ [RV], Ved. go-víd- ‘id.’ [RV], YAv. Vīdat̰.gu- m. personal name), but also in Celtic, cf. the river name OIr. Boand f. < *gu̯ou̯-u̯indeh2 (KEWA III:698, EWAia I:478–480, and NIL:192 n. 11).
[C.S.], [T.S.]
4. Transmission
Ved. gáv- m./f. ‘bovine, cow’ (RV+): nom. sg. gáuḥ, acc. sg. gā́m, gen./abl. sg. góḥ, dat. sg. gáve, loc. sg. gávi, nom. pl. gā́vaḥ, acc. pl. gā́ḥ, instr. pl. góbhiḥ, loc. pl. góṣu, etc. – Av. gauu- m./f. ‘bovine, cow’: nom. sg. OAv. gāuš, YAv. gāuš, acc. sg. OAv. gąm, YAv. gaom, dat. sg. OAv. gauuōi, YAv. gauue, gen. sg. OAv. gǝ̄uš, YAv. gaoš, nom.(/acc.) du. OAv. gāuuā, nom. pl. YAv. gauuō, acc. pl. OAv. gā̊, gen. pl. YAv. gauuąm, etc.Cf., e.g., EWAia I:478–480, ALF:132, NIL:189, 191 n. 3–4, Gotō 2013a:18.
Myc. qo-o acc. sg./pl. /gu̯ōn(s)/ ‘cow(s)’, qo-u-ko-ro nom. sg. m. /gu̯ou̯-kolos/ ‘cowherd’; Gk. βοῦς, Dor. βῶς m./f. ‘bovine, cow’, pl. ‘herd of cows’ (Il.+): acc. sg. βοῦν, Dor. and Il. 7.238 βῶν ‘ox-hide shield’, gen. sg. βο(ϝ)ός, nom. pl. βόες, acc. pl. βόας, gen. pl. βοῶν, etc.; compound βου-κόλος m. ‘cowherd’ (also used as adj.; Il.+)Cf., e.g., GEW I:257f., 260f., DELG:189, 190f., LfgrE II:86–91, DMic II:207, 210f., Hajnal 1995c:30, LSJ s.v., Bartoněk 2003a:597, NIL:189, 191f. n. 6–7, EDG:230, 232f.
Arm. kov ‘cow’ (u-stem; gen./dat. pl. kovowcʻ)Cf., e.g., Olsen 1999a:105, 110, NIL:189, 192 n. 8, EDAIL:372.
Lat. bōs m./f. ‘bovine, cow’ (Naev.+; gen. sg. bovis, acc. sg. bovem, dat./abl. pl. būbus, etc.); Umbr. bum acc. sg. m. ‘(male) bovine’, bue abl. sg. ‘id.’, buf, buf acc. pl. ‘id.’, buo gen. pl. ‘id.’Cf., e.g., WH I:112, Untermann 2000a:152f., EDLIL:74f., NIL:189, 192 nn. 9–10.
TochA ko obl. sg. ‘cow’ (nom. pl. kowi, obl. pl. kos), TochB keu ‘id.’Cf., e.g., NIL:190, 193 n. 16, Adams 2013a:201f.