cuwell(i)-

This form occurs in a dating formula of a burial inscription found in Sardis and commonly dated to the late fourth century BCE based on internal evidence.

[I.Y.]

The lexeme follows ora- ‘month’ and therefore must represent a month name, as was already observed in (Mentz 1922a:491). Further attempts to specify the month appear to be impossible due to the lack of bilingual evidence or an etymology that would plead for a specific season or time period.

[I.Y.]

The month name cuwell(i)- formally resembles pakill(i)-. Both appear to be derived with a suffix -ll(i)-, which formally resembles that of possessive adjectives but is characterized by consonant germination. Attempts have been made to explain this suffix via anticipatory assimilation. Thus the base noun *cuweλ- was assumed in Heubeck 1959a:16, while the base noun *cuwer- was the preference in Schürr 2006b:1572-1574. Neither of these reconstructions, however, rests on compelling comparative evidence (cf. the discussion of dacuwerst under the lemma cuwe-). The alternative would be to assume a derivation from the stem *cuwe- or something similar (Gusmani 1964a:94), in which case the geminated ll must be attributed to analogy. The analogical explanation actually gains in strength if the etymological connection between cuwell(i)- and ciw- ‘god’, proposed in Schürr 2006b:1572-1574, holds water.   

[I.Y.]

No reconstruction possible.

[I.Y.]