*gu̯ón- (?)
‘woman’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 457
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
wāna(/i)-
‘woman’1.1.1Transmission
Relatively amply attested, nevertheless only from different (MS and NS) manuscripts of the same Luwian ritual.
[Zs.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| dat.-loc. sg. | wa-a-ni | KUB 35.88 iii 12’ | (CTH 766, NS) |
| dat.-loc. pl. | wa-na-a-an-za | KUB 35.89, 10’ | (CTH 766, MS) |
| wa-na-an-za | KUB 35.88 iii 9’ | (CTH 766, NS) |
Genitival adjective:
| nom.-acc. sg. n. | [wa-a?]-˹na˺-aš-ša-an | KUB 35.88 iii 6’ | (CTH 766, NS) |
| [wa]-˹na˺-aš-ša-an | KUB 35.89, 8’ | (CTH 766, MS) | |
| nom. pl. c. | wa-na-aš-ši-in-˹zi˺ | KUB 35.89, 15’ | (CTH 766, MS) |
Attestations following CLL:254 checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. [wa]-na-aš-ša-an in KUB 35.88 iii 6’ was restored as [wa-a]-na-aš-ša-an by Starke 1985b:227 (similarly CLL:254; EDHIL:501), which is, however, based only on the length of the broken part (Starke 1980b:85), thus the restoration of the plene spelling, although plausible, cannot be proven. I. Yakubovich (pers. comm.) adds MUNUS-in from KUB 35.105 i? 5 (and accordingly defines the stem as wan(i)-), which is otherwise booked under wanatt(i)-, e.g. CLL:255). The phonetic complement allows, however, both possibilities.
[Zs.S.]
1.1.3Meaning ‘woman’
The meaning ‘woman’ was established by Starke 1980b:83–86 and is generally accepted (CLL:254; EDHIL:501; Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:420; Ünal 2016a:975). This is based on etymological considerations (this is the expected form from PIE ‘woman’), on the formal identity with the stem of Luwian wanatt(i)- ‘woman’ and on the passage KUB 35.88 iii 12’-13’ (since the other passages are either too fragmentary or too obscure): anta=wa=aš=ta walluna<š>šan wāni uppanta […] šarri=wa=tar DUMU-in wallitta (Starke 1985b:227) ‘They brought them in to the w. of lifting. […] (S)he lifted the child over (them).’ (for the precise grammatical analysis and translation see Goedegebuure 2010a:308 with n. 48). Since this probably refers to the activity of the midwife (Starke 1990a:550f.; followed by Haas 1994a:439, Haas 2003a:731; Hutter 2003a:230; Goedegebuure 2010a:308; cf. also Carruba 1998f:76), Starke’s proposal is very probably correct.
[Zs.S.]
1.1.4Stem
The stem is usually booked as wānā- (CLL:254; EDHIL:501; Tischler 2008a:218, Tischler 2016a:420; but wana- in Ünal 2016a:975) presumably based on the spelling wa-na-a-an-za in KUB 35.89, 10. However, as D. Sasseville (pers. comm.) pointed out to me, plene spelling in dat.-loc. pl. is not isolated, see e.g. a-pa-a-aš-ša-a-an-za (KUB 35.16 i 9’, cf. s.v. CLuw. apā- ‘that; he, she, it, they’). Since this is an -a/i-stem, it shows that the plene spelling in this ending does not provide enough evidence to assume an -ā-stem (cf. already Rieken 2005b:65 n. 19). If nom.-acc. sg. n. DIŠTAR-aš-ša-a-an-za (KUB 35.71 ii 8) is also taken into account, the plene spelling may even point to an -a/i-stem. However, since there is no assured evidence for an -a/i- stem in the word under discussion (cf. Forms), this question is left open here (for further discussion see under Reconstruction).
[Zs.S.]
1.1.5Derivatives
Derivative:
1.2 Luwian in Old Assyrian transmission
*wanī- ?
‘woman’1.2.1Transmission
Reconstructed from a female name in the Old Assyrian corpus.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| Wa-ni-i | Kt k/k 14 A.9, B.5 |
The attestations follow Yakubovich 2010d:218, Zehnder 2010a:301, and Kloekhorst 2019b:63, checked against the hand copy of Donbaz 1989a:96 (Fig. 6), since no photo is available. On the reading see under Origin.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘woman’
This meaning was proposed by Yakubovich 2010d:217 based on the Luwian word wāna(/i)- ‘woman’. However, this depends on the origin of the name, which is not assured, see under Origin.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Origin
Yakubovich 2010d:217f. identifies a group of Anatolian female names in the Old Assyrian texts ending in -wani that may be identified either with the Luwian appurtenance suffix -wann(i)- or with wāna(/i)-, the Luwian word for ‘woman’. According to him, this group includes the following names: A-lá-ú-a-ni (TC 3 123.1), A-ni-wa-a-ni (Kt 94/k 1389.2), A-wa-wa-ni (Kt n/k 32.11), Ḫa-az-za-wa-ni (TC 2 37.31), Wa-ni-i itself and Wa-áš-ḫu-wa-ni (Kt d/k 23a.2). However, he himself rightly points out (Yakubovich 2010d:217 n. 16) that A-lá-ú-a-ni is rather to be understood as a theophoric name (from Ala-) with -wann(i)- (or as a name derived from a toponym, Garelli 1963a:140, followed by Hecker 1968a:39; cf. also Zehnder 2010a:107, 135) and A-ni-wa-a-ni is “possibly related to” Luwian ānna/i- ‘mother’ (or rather to Luwian ānniya- ‘maternal’, see s.v.), thus again pointing to -wann(i)-. The segmentation of “-wani” does not lead to an identifiable first member in the cases of A-wa-wa-ni and Ḫa-az-za-wa-ni, thus it cannot be proven that they belong here (in case of A-wa-wa-ni a suffix -wann(i)- is considered also by Zehnder 2010a:135 [with the important caveats regarding the ambiguity of the ‹wa› sign]; for further suggestions regarding Ḫa-az-za-wa-ni see Ichisar 1981a:348). The same applies to Wa-áš-ḫu-wa-ni (a word wašḫu- ‘pure’ is not attested contra Yakubovich 2010d:217 n. 15, see the discussion s.v. *wašḫi-), thus only Wa-ni-i remains as a potential candidate (also Kloekhorst 2019b:63 rejects both the analysis with the word for ‘woman’ based on the problem of the i-mutation [cf. below] and the analysis with the suffix -wann(i)- claiming that none of the initial elements can evidently be linked with a toponym, which is, however, not a decisive counter-argument [nevertheless, later he has not excluded a Luwian origin (“perhaps”), see Kloekhorst 2019b:65])
The etymology suggested by Yakubovich 2010d:217 from the Luwian word wāna(/i)- ‘woman’ is semantically convenient and formally possible for this name. However, this solution requires that this word shows i-mutation (cf. also Kloekhorst 2019b:63). Yakubovich indeed defines the Luwian word as wan(i)-, which is, although possible, not assured yet, see s.v. wāna(/i)- (Yakubovich based wan(i)- on an ambiguous form, see the discussion there and see Norbruis apud Kloekhorst 2019b:63 n. 183 for an unproven hypothesis in favour of the i-mutated form). A further problem is provided by the frequent hypochoristic suffix -(n)na/i- (Zehnder 2010a:44f.), which allows an alternative analysis of Wa-ni-i as a hypochoristic derivative from a monosyllabic Lallname Wa.
The most serious problem is, however, that the reading is not assured. Setting aside the ambiguity of the first sign, ‹ni› can be and was also read as ‹lí›, thus leading to a name Wa-lí-i (Donbaz 1989a:82; Zehnder 2010a:301), which is well-known in its reduplicated form Waliwali and probably survives in Isaurian Ουαλις (Zehnder 2010a:302 with refs.).
In other words, the derivation of Wa-ni-i from the Luwian word ‘woman’ is a mere possibility only, which cannot be proven yet and the parallels to Wa-lí-i rather point to this reading.
[Zs.S.]
Last updated: 31 July 2020
1.3 Lydian
kãna-
‘wife’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in various inscriptions of Lydia.
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| nom. sg. | kãnaṣ | LW 115.8 (Koloe) | |
| kãna(s) | LW 41.6 (Middle Kaystros), LW 80.9 (Sardes) | ||
| [k]ạ̃na(s) | LW 42.4 (Emre (Maionia)) | ||
| dat. sg | kãnaλ | LW 5.4 (Sardes) | |
| nom. pl. | kã!nš | LW 80.8 (Sardes) |
The grammatical assignment of kãna(s) (LW 80.9) is not assured; cf. Gusmani 1975b:19.
[D.S.]
1.3.3Graphic Features
For the emendation of kmnš to kã!nš see Gusmani 1975b:19, Gusmani 1980a:65.
[D.S.]
1.3.4Meaning
Gusmani 1985a:129f. argues convincingly that Lydian kãna- means ‘wife’ (see also Gérard 2005a:128). He points out the fact that it occurs before esa- ‘offspring’ in a curse formula (LW 5.4), which means that the kãna-person must be more important than the children, but still related to them. Furthermore, kãna- often accompanies a man’s name in a dedicatory inscription, which means that it should be one of the closest relatives of the man. Therefore, he concludes that Lyd. kãna- must be the wife, which is adequate for each passage. For the outdated literature on the meaning of Lyd. kãna- see Gusmani 1985a:127.
[D.S.]
1.4 Palaic
kuwani-
‘woman, queen (?)’1.4.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in the festival for the Palaic pantheon.
[D.S.]
1.4.2Forms
| voc. sg. | ku-wa-ni-iš | KUB 35.165 obv. 16 | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
1.4.3Meaning
The word kuwaniš stands in apposition to the name of the deity Kataḫzip/wuri (Kammenhuber 1959a:21). Watkins (apud Melchert 1990a:207) suggests from an etymological perspective the meaning ‘woman’ for kuwaniš by comparing the Proto-Indo-European word for ‘woman’ *gu̯en-. Based on the fact that Kataḫzip/wuri is a female deity, i.e. a goddess, an epithet meaning ‘woman’ is very convincing. Furthermore, it is possible that the epithet is used more as a title such as ‘queen’.No meaning has been suggested in Carruba 1970a:61.
[D.S.]
1.4.4Stem
Melchert 1990a:206f. mentions the possibility of having an adjectival stem in -iya- instead of an i-stem. An i-stem is taken here by default, although the other possibility must remain open.
[D.S.]
1.5 Hittite
MUNUS-(a)n-
‘woman’1.5.1Literature / Comments
Carruba 1994a, EDHIL:501-505.
The attestation of kuinnaššan, which was interpreted by Neu 1990a as ‘his wife’, is not taken into account here, becuase it is rejected by Güterbock 1992a on philological grounds. In the literature, however, it remains debated; cf. Rieken 1999a:39-42 and EDHIL:501f., Rieken et al. (ed.), hethiter.net/: CTH 322.1 (TX 2009-08-26, TRde 2009-08-26).
For the personal name kwa/i-a-zi/a attested on a seal and its equation with the Hittite word for ‘woman’, see Hawkins apud Weeden 2013a:84.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘women’
The reconstruction of the Proto-Anatolian word for ‘woman’ depends on four main pieces of data, i.e. Hitt. MUNUS-(a)n- c., Pal. kuwani- c., CLuw. wāna(/i)- c. and Lyd. kãna- c. The initial consonant can be reconstructed with a voiced labiovelar *gu̯-, which becomes /w-/ in Luwian (Melchert 1994a:239). In Lydian, it can be hypothesized that the labial element was lost before the vowel *o, i.e. *gu̯o- > *go-, and, then, the voiced velar was devoiced word initially, i.e. *ko- (cf. Gusmani 1985a:131, Melchert 1994a:357, Melchert apud Sasseville 2014-2015a: 109 n. 12). Regarding the root vowel of the noun for ‘woman’, not only Lydian, but also Luwian and Palaic speak for the reconstruction of the vowel *o (thus also EDHIL:504f.).
Regarding the stem formation of the noun for ‘woman’, it was assumed to be a stem in *-eh2- based on Lyd. kãna- and CLuw. wa-na-a-an-za (dat. pl.), which shows plene writing of the stem. However, as pointed out by Sasseville 2014-2015a:109 n. 12, Luwian nominal stems in *-eh2- have a dative singular in /-a/. Since the Cuneiform Luwian word for ‘woman’ has a dative in /-i/, it should be a mutated stem, which would exclude an original stem in *-eh2-. Moreover, the plene spelling of the dative plural has been interpreted as a reflex of *-oi̯-ons (Rieken 2005b:65 n. 19), which speak a priori for a mutated stem. Furthermore, the Hittite and Palaic evidence supports this assumption. While Hittite shows clearly a root noun, Palaic has an i-stem. Since root nouns are recessive in Anatolian, it would explain better the secondary i-stem in Palaic, the very probable mutated stem in Luwian and the secondary a-stem in Lydian.
However, Kloekhorst (EDHIL:505) points out that the nominative singular of a root noun for ‘woman’ should look like an n-stem such as Hitt. ḫāraš ‘eagle’, i.e. *MUNUS-aš /kwas/ (< *kwáns, i.e. with loss of -n- before s), and not MUNUS-an-za. Therefore, he posits the pre-form with *-h2-, i.e. *gu̯ónh2-s, and assumes that the presence of the laryngeal would have prevented the -n- to be dropped, and, therefore, the outcome of the nominative ending would be -nz(a). The problem here is that in the word for ‘woman’ the -n- is part of the root, while in a word like ‘eagle’, the -n- is part of the suffix. Thus, we are dealing with different morpheme boundaries. To prove that a root noun whose root-final consonant ends in -n behaves differently than n-stems, one needs another example (cf. HEG I:606f.).
Melchert (apud Sasseville 2014-2015a:109 n. 12) suggests that the Proto-Anatolian substantive for ‘woman’ was an acrostatic root noun *gu̯ón-/*gu̯én-, whose strong stem would have been generalized in most Anatolian languages. Only Hittite still masks the root ablaut by means of a sumerogram. Therefore, only the o-grade of the acrostatic paradigm would be secured. For a different perspective on the pre-form of the substantive form ‘woman’ see under PIE reconstruction.Rieken 1999a:39-42 leaves the exact reconstruction open of Hitt. MUNUS-(a)n- open, but recognizes the presence a root noun. A summary of the older literature can be found in Rieken ibid. The name of the dkuwanšeš-deities has often been adduced here as a cognate. Whichever interpretation of the deity one has, it is not a reliable piece of data for the reconstruction of the word for ‘woman’; cf. EDHIL:501-504, Waal 2014a, Yakubovich 2014a.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- is the PIE generic noun for ‘woman’ (cf. above sub Transmission). The meaning ‘wife’ developed secondarily from *‘(special) woman, (most important) woman’ vel sim.“Words for ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are most commonly from those for ‘man’² and ‘woman’” (Buck 1949a:95).
In the literature, the underlying root of PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- ‘woman’ is mostly taken as a nominal root of the same meaning, cf., e.g., NIL:179 n. 2, Harðarson 2014a:23 with n. 2. Under this assumption, the meaning of the underlying collective formation (cf. below sub Morphological Reconstruction) can be rendered as ‘group of women, family association of women’Cf., e.g., Hackstein 2017a:1319. On the sociological saliency of the group affiliation of women, cf. Hackstein 2012c:145–148.> ‘(single) woman’.
However, if we accept Opfermann’s root etymology as presented below, the formation PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- ‘woman’ (and PIE/PAnat. *gu̯ón‑h2[/*gu̯én‑h2?], cf. below) might be interpreted as ‘high amount of fertility, fertility by itself’.If a root-noun PIE *gu̯ón‑/*gu̯én- with the meaning ‘woman’ is reconstructed (cf. PAnat. Reconstruction above), this could be explained as a metonymic transformation of the abstract concept of ‘fertility’ or as an individualization ‘the fertile one’.Thus, the PIE term for ‘woman’ would be named after the reproductive abilities of women, cf., e.g., Lat. fēmina ‘woman, female’ (: PIE *dheh1(i̯)- ‘to suckle; to suck’).
3.1.1Root etymology
It is possible that the root PIE *gu̯en- underlying the h2‑stem PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- ‘woman’ means just ‘woman’. This is the communis opinio of most of the secondary literature.
However, alternative proposals for the meaning of the word’s derivational base have been made,Cf. Ledo Lemos 2002a:55–71 for an overview.the most recent of which is Opfermann 2017a:69–75. He connects the vulgar Greek verb βενέω, βῑνέω ‘to have sexual intercourse (male human subj.)’ and the body part PIE *n̥‑gu̯én- ‘gland’ (cf. Gk. ἀδήν, ‑ένος f./m. ‘gland’, Lat. inguen, ‑inis ‘the groin, genitalia’).Umbr. ampeřia (IgT IIa.29, Untermann 2000a:89) could belong here too, cf. Meiser 1986a:225f. (followed by Opfermann 2017a:73 n. 94).He interprets the latter as an entheos-compound with PIE *en ‘in’ as the first member, viz. *‘having fertility inside’ > ‘groin, gonad, gland’ and the former as derivative from an o‑stem *gu̯en‑o- ‘fertilization, pregnancy’, thus *gu̯ene‑i̯é/ó- ‘to cause pregnancy, fertilize’. On the basis of this evidence, he approximates the root PIE *gu̯en- as ‘fertile; fertility’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Old Irish (nom. sg. béN, acc. sg. bein vs. gen. sg. mnás) and Indo-Iranian (PIIr. *ǰáni- vs. *gnáH‑) preserve the ablaut alternations of a proterokinetic h2-stem PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- ‘woman’. Other languages, like Balto-Slavic (BSl. *genā‑) and Germanic (PGerm. *kwenōn- ← *kwenō‑), generalized the full-grade of the root and suffix, which resulted in a form *gu̯en‑eh2-.On the Balkans Indo-European languages Greek, Armenian, Albanian, and Phrygian, which show a diphthongal suffix in some forms, cf. Opfermann 2017a:58–69 with refs.The developments of the PIE/Core IE formation in the individual IE languages are quite diverse, but the reconstruction of the h2‑stem as PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- ‘woman’ is beyond any doubt.
The neuter gender of the h2-stem is attested in Old Irish bé n. ‘woman’, which, according to Jasanoff 1989a, is the regular outcome of nom./acc. sg. *gu̯én‑h2 > *gu̯ḗn (via Szemerényi’s Law). The unexpected neuter gender of a lexeme denoting a female person (but cf. OHG wīb n. ‘woman’), the stem alternation strong stem (nom./acc. sg.) *gu̯ḗn : weak stem *gu̯néh2- as well as the high productivity of eh2‑stems in post-PIE led to the various kinds of outcomes attested in the IE languages.
The inner-Anatolian stem variants (Pal. i‑stem, Luw. i‑mutated stem, Lyd. a‑stem) speak in favor of an original consonant stem which is rebuilt individually in the respective languages. Its root vowel *‑o‑, however, differs from the evidence we can retrieve from the non-Anatolian languages.Cf., e.g., the stems listed in NIL:177f. Furthermore, cf. Opfermann 2017a:60–65 on the -υ- (< *‑o‑) of Gk. γυνή, γυναικός ‘woman’.
While the oblique case forms of the Hittite lexeme could be traced back to a root-noun,Acc. sg. MUNUS‑nan < *gu̯é/ón‑m̥, gen. sg. MUNUS‑naš < *gu̯é/ón‑os, dat./loc. sg. MUNUS‑ni < *gu̯é/ón‑i.it seems impossible for Hitt. nom. sg. MUNUS‑an‑za /kwants/ to continue PIE *gu̯ón‑s (as per Melchert apud Sasseville 2014-2015a:109 n. 12 and others). This pre-form most likely would result in Hitt. †/kwas/, cf. Hitt. ḫaraš ‘eagle’ (< *‑ō + -s).As per EDHIL:505. But cf. the objection above sub PAnat. Reconstruction. Furthermore, it has to be borne in mind that the accent of putative *gu̯ón‑s (?> *kuwanza ‘woman’) is immediatly before the sequence *‑ns, while the accent of *h3ér‑on‑s (> ḫaraš ‘eagle’) is on the penultima.
Neither can PIE *gu̯én‑h2 be the proto-form of nom. sg. MUNUS‑an‑za because it would result in Hitt. †/kwas/, too, cf. Hitt. kutruas ‘witness’ (< *‑ḗn + ‑s, cf. EDHIL:500f.).< Hitt. */kwi(n)/ + ‑s ← PIE *gu̯ḗn < *gu̯én‑h2 (via Szemerényi’s Law, cf. OIr. bé).
Inner-Hittite analogical remodeling of the nom. sg. to /kwants/ is impossible, because the paradigm of the Hittite word for ‘woman’ is unique (cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:113).Influence from the nt‑stems with nom. sg. ‑an‑za is highly unlikely.
Kloekhorst’s proposal (/kwants/ < *gu̯én‑h2‑s, cf. EDHIL:505) depends on the validity of the sound law *‑nHs > Hitt. /‑nts/, which is assumed for the inlauting cluster in Hitt. genzu- ‘abdomen, lap’ < *g̑enh1‑su- (EDHIL:468f.). Furthermore, we would have to assume analogical remodeling in this scenario, like in Indo-Iranian:
PIE nom./acc. sg. n. *gu̯én‑h2 > *gu̯ḗn
→ pre-Hitt. nom. sg. c. *gu̯én‑h2‑s > Hitt. */kwents/ → Hitt. /kwants/, acc. sg. c. *gu̯én‑h2‑m̥ > Hitt. */kwenan/ → Hitt. /kwanan/In the light of Hitt. genzu- ‘abdomen, lap’, we would actually expect a synchronic e‑grade in Hittite (cf. EDHIL:469), which makes the following proposal (with o‑grade) more plausible.
→ pre-PIIr. *gu̯én‑h̥2‑C > Ved. jáni‑, OAv. jə̄ni-
Uniting all Anatolian stems (Hitt., Pal., Luw., Lyd.) in one o‑grade proto-form causes less problems:
PAnat./PIE nom./acc. sg. n. *gu̯ón‑h2 > *gu̯ṓVia Szemerényi’s Law and loss of auslauting *n after *ō, cf. Mayrhofer 1986:159 §6.1.2.1., Byrd 2018a:2060 (κ).
→ pre-Hitt. nom. sg. c. *gu̯ón‑h2 + ‑s > Hitt. /kwānts/,There is one Hittite athematic h‑stem erḫ- ‘line, boundary’ which, however, is remodelled in the nom. sg. erḫaš < *h1ér‑h2‑os ← *h1ḗr < *h1ér‑h2 (cf. EDHIL:107) and, thus, is not helpful for explaining Hitt. MUNUS‑an- ‘woman’.acc. sg. c. *gu̯ón‑h2 + ‑m > Hitt. /kwanan/
→ Pal. c. kuwani- (secondary i‑stem)
→ Luw. c. wāna/i- (secondary mutated stem)
→ Lyd. c. kãna- (secondary a‑stem)
In view of the absence of an o‑grade stem in Core IE, either the PAnat. stem *gu̯ón‑h2(/*gu̯én‑h2?) is secondary compared to the h2‑stem PIE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- or vice versa. No decision can yet be made here.
3.2.1Root etymology
The phonological shape of the root underlying PIE/Core IE *gu̯én‑h2/*gu̯n‑éh2- and/or PIE/PAnat. *gu̯ón‑h2(/*gu̯én‑h2?) is reconstructable as PIE *gu̯en‑.
Among various proposals to connect this word for ‘woman’ with other lexical material,Cf. Ledo Lemos 2002a:55–71 for an overview.Opfermann 2017a:69–75 most recently proposed an adjectival or nominal root PIE *gu̯en- ‘fertile; fertility’. Comparanda that hint at this conclusion are the PIE compound PIE *n̥‑gu̯én- ‘gland’ and the denominal verb Gk. βενέω, βῑνέω ‘to have sexual intercourse (male human subj.)’ (← *gu̯en‑o- ‘fertilization, pregnancy’).
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
*gu̯én-h2/*gu̯n-éh2- ‘woman’, cf. esp. the Indo-Iranian and Celtic continuants below
NIL:177–185
PIIr. *ǰáni- ‘woman, wife’, cf. Ved. jáni-The devī-formation Ved. jánī- is secondary, cf. AiGr III:134–138.‘woman, wife’ (RV+), OAv. jə̄ni-, YAv. jaini-
EWAia I:568f., KEWA I:416, Grassmann 1996a:475, Bartholomae 1904:603f.
PIIr. *ǰā́ni- ‘wife’, cf. Ved. second compound member °jā́ni- ‘wife’,Pali jāni-patayo ‘husband and wife’ attests the use of jāni- as first compound member.YAv. nom. pl. jąnaiiō ‘(?)wives’ (hapax, V.7.59)
EWAia I:569, Grassmann 1996a:483, 651, 927, 1122, 1269, Bartholomae 1904:608
PIIr. *gnáH- ‘woman; divine wife’, cf. Ved. gnā- (RV+) ‘goddess; divine female’ (gen. sg. gnā́.as with laryngeal hiatus), OAv. gənā- ‘noblewoman’, YAv. γənā-, γnā- ‘noblewoman’On γanahe (Vyt.50), cf. Bartholomae 1904:493.
EWAia I:503f., KEWA I:351, Grassmann 1996a:415, Bartholomae 1904:525f., Hintze 2007a:196–209, 341, Narten 1986a:189–194For an explanation of the various forms, cf. Opfermann 2017a:58f. tab. 1.
nom. sg. Gk. γυνή (Hom.+) ‘woman’, Dor. γυνά, Cypr. ku-na (hapax, ICS 11.1, Paphos)According to Egetmeyer 2010a:206, Cyp. †po-na ‘woman’ (ICS:298, cf. Vine 1999b:585 fn. 30) actually does not exist, cf. ICS:298, DELG:242.,γυναῖξ (hapax, Hdn.Gr.2.643),Since this form is a hapax, it is most likely a “grammaticorum Byz. inventum” (adn. crit. ad Hsch. γ1008 Latte), but cf. the compound ἀ-γύναιξ ‘without a woman’ (S.fr.4) etc. (DELG:242).Boiot. βανᾱ́ (hapax, Kor.664a), acc. Gk. γυναῖκα, Boiot. [γ]ουνhκα (IG VII.2476, cf. also Roesch, IThesp 367), γυνήν (hapax, Pherecr.91), gen. sg. γυναικός, Cypr. ku-na-i-ko-se (dis, ICS 144, 154.1, Marion), (?)Myc. dat. pl. ku-na-ki-siThis form can alternatively be understood as dat. pl. /kunāgisi/ ‘to the huntresses’, cf. Perpillou 2001a:309f., Delgado 2015a:118 with n. 11. On Myc. ku-na-ja (PY Ta 711) and Hom. gen. pl. γυναίων (Od.11.521, 15.247), cf. Opfermann 2017a:62 n. 40, 68 n. 74.
For the remaining forms attested in Greek, cf. Opfermann 2017a:59 tab. 2.
GEW I:333–335, DELG:242f., EDG:291f., LSJ:363
Gk. βενέω, βῑνέω ‘to have sexual intercourse (male human subj.)’ (Com.+)
GEW I:237, GEW III:51, DELG:176, EDG:215, LSJ:305, de Lamberterie 1991a, Opfermann 2017a:69–73
(?)Aeol. βεν(ν)ος ‘fruit, society of the faithful’ (e.g. SEG VI.550)
Opfermann 2017a:72 n. 89
Arm. nom. sg. kin ‘woman’, loc./gen. sg. knoǰ, nom. pl. kanay-k‘ (Bible+) etc.
EDAIL:112, Olsen 1999a:172–174, Opfermann 2017a:61–69
nom. sg. OPhryg. ḳnais (B-07) ‘woman, wife’, acc. sg. NPhryg. κ̣ναικαν (16.1 (116).11), etc.OPhryg. βονοκ and NPhryg. βανεκος seem to be loans from (Proto-)Greek, cf. NIL:183 n. 32.
NIL:184 n. 34 (with lit.), Opfermann 2017a:68 n. 73
gen. sg. (?)personal name benn(a) arrihi, acc. sg. bennan
NIL:182f. n. 26 (with lit.)
OIr. nom. sg. béN n./f. ‘woman’, etc. (plural forms are late)
OIr.(+) nom. sg. f. ben ‘woman’, acc. sg. bein (later: mnaí), gen. sg. mná, etc.For an explanation of the various forms, cf. Opfermann 2017a:58f. tab. 1.
EDPC:61, LEIA-B:23f., 31f., eDIL s.v. 1 bé, 1 ben, Jasanoff 1989a
PGerm. *kwēni- f. ‘wife’, cf. nom. sg. Goth.(+) qēns, etc.
PGerm. *kwenōn- f. ‘woman’, cf. nom. sg. Goth.(+) qino, etc.
EDPG:316f., 317, Orel 2003a:228, 230, GED:275f., 277, de Vries 1977a:325, 339, Holthausen 1934a:64, 66, Casaretto 2004a:186f., 230, Ringe 2006a:72, 99
BSl. *génā- f. ‘woman, wife’, cf. OPr. genna-, OCS(+) žena, nom./acc./voc. du. ženě
EDBIL:558, PKEŽ² s.v. genna, EDSIL:558, Vasmer I:418
sg. grúo f. ‘woman’, Gheg grúe, Tosk grúa, pl. grā
Matzinger 2000a, AED:125, Demiraj 1997a:180f.
PToch. *śänā ‘wife’, cf. nom. sg. TochA śäṃ, TochB śana, obl. sg. TochA śäṃ, TochB śano
DTB²:676f.On TochA kuli, TochB klīye ‘woman; female’, cf. Hackstein 2017a:1326 (< *gu̯n-en-ēn ‘[the one] endowed with womanhood; feminine; single woman’), DTB²:242f. and, differently, Blažek 2005b (semantically implausible), Pinault 2005a.