# ἱδρώς / ὕδωρ



## soplamocos

I know that 'hydro-' is from ὕδωρ 'water': *hydro*plane

I just found ἱδρώς 'sweat', for example in Spanish: _Hiper*hidros*is _(a sickness) 'to sweat a lot' (?)

I look for some point in common between this two greek words, but I couldn't find any. Is there any relation?


----------



## ahvalj

There's no relation; the Greek word is cognate to the English _sweat:_ Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/sweyd- - Wiktionary.


----------



## Perseas

And _ὕδωρ_ is cognate to _water_.


----------



## soplamocos

Amazing. They are so similar in sound and meaning that I would have bet they share the root. Thank you.


----------



## Johann Krest

I'm sorry, but where is Indo European "sweyd" attested? It's not. It's a hypothetical word constructed from putative "daughter" languages. English "sweat" (which actually meant "blood" in Old English) is only attested from the 8th century AD, while Greek ἱδρώς is found in the 10th century BC in Homer. Why are we trying to connect these words, when the logical connection between ἱδρώς and ὕδωρ is so clear?


----------



## ahvalj

Johann Krest said:


> I'm sorry, but where is Indo European "sweyd" attested? It's not. It's a hypothetical word constructed from putative "daughter" languages. English "sweat" (which actually meant "blood" in Old English) is only attested from the 8th century AD, while Greek ἱδρώς is found in the 10th century BC in Homer. Why are we trying to connect these words, when the logical connection between ἱδρώς and ὕδωρ is so clear?


Are there other examples of alternation _i~y_ in the root in Ancient Greek?


----------



## sotos

λευκό - lux - licht. Δύο - δίς - bis


----------



## Johann Krest

ahvalj said:


> Are there other examples of alternation _i~y_ in the root in Ancient Greek?




κυρ-τός (hooked) and κίρ-κος (ring)
τύκ-ος (a hammer, from the verb τεύχω, "to make," whence also τύχη, "Fate") and τίκ-τω (to beget)
τρί-βω (to rub) and τρύ-ω (to wear away)
φλύ-ω (to be full) and φλι-δή (an overflowing)

Other alternations:

Βι-βλίον (book) comes from Bύ-βλος (a city in Egypt)
Homer has μόλιβ-ος instead of μόλυβ-δος (lead)
Latin "frigo" (to roast) and "stilus" (a stake) come from Greek φρύγω and στῦλος respectively.


----------



## ahvalj

sotos said:


> δίς - bis


Both from _*duis_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/dwís - Wiktionary)


Johann Krest said:


> κυρ-τός (hooked) and κίρ-κος (ring)


_Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek: _808, 702 & 779 regards both words as etymologically obscure and in any case not related.


Johann Krest said:


> τύκ-ος (a hammer, from the verb τεύχω, "to make," whence also τύχη, "Fate") and τίκ-τω (to beget)


_Κ_ before a vowel doesn't alternate with _χ_ in inherited words (except in the Perfect, where it is secondary); Beekes (p. 1516) regards _τύκος~τύχος_ as a word coming (along with very many others) from the language of the Pre-Indo-European dwellers of Greece. _Τίκτω,_ in contrast, has a neat Indo-European etymology (Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/teḱ- - Wiktionary), and the root is actually _κτ_ (with a metathesis from _*tkʲ_); in other languages the same reduplicated root looks like _*tekʲs_ (texo - Wiktionary).


Johann Krest said:


> τρί-βω (to rub) and τρύ-ω (to wear away)


The root is _τρ_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/terh₁- - Wiktionary) with suffixes.


Johann Krest said:


> φλύ-ω (to be full) and φλι-δή (an overflowing)


There is actually even an alternation _φλιδάω~φλυδάω _(φλυδᾶν). No clear etymology for either. Beekes is inclined to regard both as substrate loans.


Johann Krest said:


> Βι-βλίον (book) comes from Bύ-βλος (a city in Egypt)


Beekes (246–247) regards as coming from a Pre-Greek substrate (there is also _βίμβλις_ — βίμβλις, DGE Diccionario Griego-Español).


Johann Krest said:


> Homer has μόλιβ-ος instead of μόλυβ-δος (lead)


Loanword (Beekes: 964–965). Also _βόλυβδος~βόλιμος~-βόλιβος._ The Mycenaean form is _mo-ri-wo-do,_ with _w,_ not the later _b_. The alleged source is Anatolian, cp. the Lydian _marivda-_ "dark" (as in Latin: _plumbum nigrum_ "lead" vs. _plumbum candidum_ "tin").


Johann Krest said:


> Latin "frigo" (to roast) and "stilus" (a stake) come from Greek φρύγω and στῦλος respectively.


Latin lacked a proper counterpart of the Greek _ü,_ so in the popular language this vowel was originally substituted through _u _(or simply borrowed from a Greek dialect retaining _u_), and later through _i_ (_y_ existed in the language of educated people or those otherwise exposed to Greek). Compare the French word _bureau _that becomes _buró_ in Spanish but _birojs_ in Latvian.

To substantiate your idea, you need examples of alternation _i~u/y_ in Ancient Greek words with transparent Indo-European etymology.


----------



## Johann Krest

ahvalj said:


> _Beekes RSP · 2010 · Etymological dictionary of Greek: _808, 702 & 779 regards both words as etymologically obscure and in any case not related.



There is nothing obscure about it:

Κυρ-τός means "hooked", κίρ-κος is a "ring", κορ-ωνίς means "curved." In Latin, this root yields cur-vus, cir-cus, cir-ca, cir-culus, and cor-ona. There is a clear semantic connection.



ahvalj said:


> _Κ_ before a vowel doesn't alternate with _χ_ in inherited words (except in the Perfect, where it is secondary); Beekes (p. 1516) regards _τύκος~τύχος_ as a word coming (along with very many others) from the language of the Pre-Indo-European dwellers of Greece. _Τίκτω,_ in contrast, has a neat Indo-European etymology (Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/teḱ- - Wiktionary), and the root is actually _κτ_ (with a metathesis from _*tkʲ_); in other languages the same reduplicated root looks like _*tekʲs_ (texo - Wiktionary).



Tύχ-η (chance, fate) is clearly related to τυγχ-άνω (to happen, befall; future: τεύξομαι), which comes from τεύχ-ω (to fashion, make), the participle of which is τε-τυγ-μένος (wrought). I fail to see how τύκος, a stonemason's hammer (used to _fashion _rock) does not fit perfectly into this group.

The alternation between Κ, Χ, Γ, and Ξ is extremely regular in Greek. For example:

πηκ-τός (fixed, dense), πάχ-νη (frost), πῆγ-μα (framework), πῆξ-ις (freezing, solidity)


Examples of κ alternating with χ in the root:

ἀκ-ή (point), ἀκ-ών (javelin, dart), ἀκ-μή (edge) vs. αἰχ-μή (point, edge)

λύκ-η (light), λυκ-άβας (year) vs λύχ-νος (lamp)

ῥάκ-ος (tattered garment) vs. ῥάχ-ις (spine) and ῥαχ-ίζω (cleave in two), from the verb ῥήγ-νυμι (to break)


It is fallacious to use PIE to make an argument about the nature of Greek roots, because PIE is itself constructed based on Greek. It's circular logic: a Greek root Y is Y because if comes from PIE X, and X > Y. But how do we know X=X? Because of X>Y and Y=Y! It assumes the conclusion from the beginning. The only proper way to argue is to look at attested words and figure them out within the internal logic of the language.

So you can't say that τίκτω is formed by metathesis from a hypothetical root *kt- because there is no evidence for that "pre-metathesized" root to begin with. In Greek, the two roots that start with κτ- are κτά-ομαι, which means "to acquire," and κτί-ζω, which means "to build." There is no connection whatsoever between these roots and τίκ-τω, τέκ-νον, τόκ-ος, τέχ-νη. On the other hand, there is a strong logical connection between this group and τεύχ-ω, τύχ-η, τυγχ-άνω, which is why I paired τύκος and τίκτω earlier.

If anything, the cognates in the page you linked only strengthens this hypothesis. Sanskrit has ták-ṣati (to fashion, form by cutting), and Slavonic has тес-ати. So the root is clearly: tVk.



ahvalj said:


> The root is _τρ_ (Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/terh₁- - Wiktionary) with suffixes.



You say that that the root of τρί-βω and τρύ-ω is τρ-. I disagree. Τρ- cannot be a syllable in Greek. It needs a vowel. The υ in τρύω is part of the root, as it is in βρύ-ω (to gush), whence βρύ-σις (a spring).

So the root in Greek is τρV (τρίβω, τρύω, τρῆμα) or, by metathesis, τVρ (τόρνος, τέρετρον). Latin adopted the metathesized root, hence "ter-o" (to rub) and "ter-es" (polished), while it appears that Germanic adopted the unmetathesized form: "thraw-an" (to twist), "thre-skan" (to thresh), if the latter are even related that is.



ahvalj said:


> There is actually even an alternation _φλιδάω~φλυδάω _(φλυδᾶν). No clear etymology for either. Beekes is inclined to regard both as substrate loans.



Φλύ-ω and φλι-δή are related to φλέ-ψ (vein), φλοῖ-σβος (noise of the waves), and φλύ-κταινα (a skin boil). It's irrelevant whether or not there are cognates in other languages. What matters is that _within Greek_, the root is productive, and part of this productivity involves ι alternating with υ.



ahvalj said:


> Beekes (246–247) regards as coming from a Pre-Greek substrate (there is also _βίμβλις_ — βίμβλις, DGE Diccionario Griego-Español).
> 
> Loanword (Beekes: 964–965). Also _βόλυβδος~βόλιμος~-βόλιβος._ The Mycenaean form is _mo-ri-wo-do,_ with _w,_ not the later _b_. The alleged source is Anatolian, cp. the Lydian _marivda-_ "dark" (as in Latin: _plumbum nigrum_ "lead" vs. _plumbum candidum_ "tin").



I don't understand your point about βιβλίον and μόλυβδος. Βιβλίον was also spelled βυβλίον, and μόλυβδος was spelled μόλιβος. It doesn't matter that these are loanwords. The point is that ι and υ alternate, as they do in Latin. Therefore, it's very likely that ἱδρώς actually comes from a form ὑδρώς, related to ὕδωρ.


----------



## ahvalj

Amen.


----------



## Johann Krest

Good discussion.


----------



## ahvalj

Every such forum from time to time gets visited by somebody who attempts to revise the scientific status quo.


----------



## sotos

ahvalj said:


> To substantiate your idea, you need examples of alternation _i~u/y_ in Ancient Greek words with transparent Indo-European etymology.



Why should we consider Greek isolated? Linguistic phenomena like u<>i could happen on the borders with other languages, including pre-Greek.


----------



## GlebRomani

Johann Krest said:


> Κυρ-τός means "hooked", κίρ-κος is a "ring", κορ-ωνίς means "curved." In Latin, this root yields cur-vus, cir-cus, cir-ca, cir-culus, and cor-ona. There is a clear semantic connection.


Don't forget the possibility of secondary vocalizations like u as a development of IE syllabic R in a zero-grade root: ker- : kR- "bind, curve", and metathetic nature of such forms as kirkos  < krikos : kr-i-, possibly a suffixed root.



Johann Krest said:


> Tύχ-η (chance, fate) is clearly related to τυγχ-άνω (to happen, befall; future: τεύξομαι), which comes from τεύχ-ω (...) I fail to see how τύκος, a stonemason's hammer (used to _fashion _rock) does not fit perfectly into this group.


The point is that the phonetical resemblance does not necessarily guarantee common roots. Týkos "hammer" is _terminus technicus_ with rather specified semantics which cannot be explained simply from the basic meaning of the verb "create, produce". Substratal and borrowed terms, which are abundant in Greek - especially among _termini technici_, can resemble something inherently Greek. Anyway, tykos cannot be ascribed to this root phonetically, because teuch- comes from theukh- by certain phonological law of the initial aspiration loss (Grassmann's law), so that teuch- < *theukh-, and earlier: *dheugh-, while the initial t- in tykos can't be derived from dh-.



Johann Krest said:


> πηκ-τός (fixed, dense), πάχ-νη (frost), πῆγ-μα (framework), πῆξ-ις (freezing, solidity)


These are not necessarily from the same root, this is rather doubtful, I would say, so are the next, especially due to the restricted ablaut a // ai:

ἀκ-ή (point), ἀκ-ών (javelin, dart), ἀκ-μή (edge) vs. αἰχ-μή (point, edge)

λύκ-η (light), λυκ-άβας (year) vs λύχ-νος (lamp) - connection disputable

ῥάκ-ος (tattered garment) vs. ῥάχ-ις (spine) and ῥαχ-ίζω (cleave in two), from the verb ῥήγ-νυμι (to break) - also arguable.
Remember about the genetic heterogeneity of the seemingly uniform Greek vocabulary: there are so many lexical strata and _sub_strata of loanwords from various origins, IE as well as non-IE, which could phonetically converge and resemble something "truly" Greek.



Johann Krest said:


> So you can't say that τίκτω is formed by metathesis from a hypothetical root *kt- because there is no evidence for that "pre-metathesized" root to begin with. In Greek, the two roots that start with κτ- are κτά-ομαι, which means "to acquire," and κτί-ζω, which means "to build."


In Greek tķ- always undergoes metathesis: cf. árktos "bear (animal)" vs. Hitt. ḫartaggas (= ḫartkas) with no metathesis. So, ktízō is from *tķei-/tķī- (and tíktō is root reduplication: *ti-tķ-, like di-dō-mi vs. Lat. dō "I give"). But: ktáomai is from zero grade of ghed- (cf. En. get): ghd- > kt-. The similar metathesis can be seen in Gr. khthōn "earth" vs. Hitt. tēkan.



> Sanskrit has ták-ṣati (to fashion, form by cutting), and Slavonic has тес-ати. So the root is clearly: tVk.


True, the full grade is *teķ-*. But the reduplicated stem basically has a zero grade: ti-tķ-, as we see in tíktō above and in Skt. takṣati <te-tķ- - the same metathetic development as in ŗkṣas "bear". Slavic тесати [tes-ati] is a result of assibilation of palatovelar ķ to s (via affrication ķś > ś) and cluster reduction: tetsati > tesati, typical of Slavic.



> So the root in Greek is τρV (τρίβω, τρύω, τρῆμα) or, by metathesis, τVρ (τόρνος, τέρετρον). Latin adopted the metathesized root, hence "ter-o" (to rub)


Ter- is a full grade, so tr- is a zero with various further suffixations.



> I don't understand your point about βιβλίον and μόλυβδος. Βιβλίον was also spelled βυβλίον, and μόλυβδος was spelled μόλιβος. It doesn't matter that these are loanwords. The point is that ι and υ alternate, as they do in Latin. Therefore, it's very likely that ἱδρώς actually comes from a form ὑδρώς, related to ὕδωρ.


The point is not only they are loanwords that tend to break the sound laws and allow phonetic fluctuation, but here we're in labial environment (*b*i*b*lion, *m*oly*b*dos) which favours vowel labialization or vice a versa, delabialization as a dissimilation process. And to the point, the inherited (i.e. from IE) i and u never interchange, because of the fundamental ablaut laws in IE, which are that only e/o/0 alternations are allowed, while i and u are not syllable-building sounds in proto-IE, but merely allophones of "semiconsonants" (actually, consonants) y and w in a zero grade stem CeC(C) > CC(C) (exactly like nasals n, m, liquids l, r and laryngeals), that's the case with diphthongal stems: CeyC / CiC, CewC / CuC, so that hidrōs < *swidrōs is actually a zero stem of *sweyd-r-, while hýdōr contains the zero of wod-, i.e. ud- (h- being secondary). The resemblance here is also due to the Greek elimination of initial sw-, cf. éthos "custom" vs. Skt. svádhā, i.e. from *swe-dhos, based on the reflexive pronoun *swe "self".


----------



## sotos

GlebRomani said:


> ... the inherited (i.e. from IE) i and u never interchange, because of the fundamental ablaut laws in IE, ...



Do ancient languages have to conform to 19th-20th century "fundamental laws", or the other way around?


----------



## ahvalj

sotos said:


> Do ancient languages have to conform to 19th-20th century "fundamental laws", or the other way around?


Take three-four-five unproblematic inherited roots and demonstrate this alternation occurring in them. I myself will suggest a Krest-Sotos law for Ancient Greek then…


----------



## ahvalj

As a proof that these words belong to different roots, consider their Latvian counterparts:
_sviedri_ "sweat" (sviedri site:.lv - Google Search; the exact Greek counterpart would have looked like _**εἱδροι _or_ **οἱδροι: _the Nom. Pl. of a thematic stem with the full grade of the root)
vs.​_ūdrs_ "otter" (ūdrs site:.lv - Google Search; the exact counterpart of ὕδρος - Wiktionary; the long vowel in Latvian after Winter's law - Wikipedia).​


----------



## Johann Krest

GlebRomani said:


> In Greek tķ- always undergoes metathesis.



This is the type of circular reasoning I pointed out above. A feature of Greek is assumed a priori to construct its PIE ancestor, and that ancestor is then cited as "proof" of a sound change from PIE to Greek. As far as I'm concerned, reconstructed and unattested forms are a completely invalid way of making an argument, especially when there is no proof that PIE ever existed.


----------



## ahvalj

Johann Krest said:


> This is the type of circular reasoning I pointed out above. A feature of Greek is assumed a priori to construct its PIE ancestor, and that ancestor is then cited as "proof" of a sound change from PIE to Greek. As far as I'm concerned, reconstructed and unattested forms are a completely invalid way of making an argument, especially when there is no proof that PIE ever existed.


There is another logical inconsistency: the Greek (and Indo-European overall) historical linguistics has been developed by countless educated scientists over the last 200 years, and one needs not assume he may just come and discern easily detectable flaws in their argumentation. Paradigms do change, sometimes this is driven by lonely geniuses, but not in such simple ways…

Again, to be accepted as a valid observation, the alternation _u : i_ in the roots has to be demonstrated on recurring patterns in unproblematic examples. Otherwise one may take any pair of sounds, find a couple of congruent words, and say whatever he wants: that's actually how folk etymology has been working perhaps since the rise of the human language. 
The (alleged) loanwords are ideally to be avoided as well, since any observed alternation may turn out to be just a substitution of foreign sounds: for example, Russian doesn't normally have an alternation _u : i_ in the roots, but when it still occurs in the pairs like the surnames _Kurilin : Kirilin, _this has an easy explanation — in the name _Κύριλλος_ the alien vowel _ü_ was substituted with either _u_ or _i _(I'm simplifying a little), which created such a phenomenon in this particular group of Greek loans.​


----------



## Johann Krest

Are you aware of the history of the Indo-European theory? It was a purely racial theory invented in the 19th century by the colonial British and German nationalists - based mainly on Sanskrit (there's some hidden religious motives there too) - to justify the alleged superiority of their race. It hijacks valid linguistic methods like comparative linguistics for purely political ends. 

Let me show you an example. I'm a native Greek speaker. According to the logic of the current establishment, it's invalid to pronounce Ancient Greek according to the Modern fashion. According to the most recent studies, Ancient Greek phonology is believed to have completely changed between the 3rd century BC and the 3rd century AD, with over half of the alleged sound changes from Ancient to Modern Greek occurring during these 6 centuries. The establishment wants me to believe this, and yet at the same time it holds that to figure out the phonology of Ancient Greek, we must refer to PIE, which allegedly existed 20 centuries before that! I don't care how smart you are not to see the blatant inconsistency. 

If PIE existed, there must necessarily have been a Proto-Indoeuropean people that spoke that language. Yet there is zero evidence that such a people has ever existed. The genetic studies advanced are invalid as they a priori assume the PIE homeland, and check genetic differences against this; archaeological evidence (e.g. pottery) is flimsy and open to myriad interpretations. How do you know to whom this shard of vase belonged? Finally, all comparative mythology proves is that mythologies share common elements! It's tautological. It doesn't tell you where these elements come from (common descent or horizontal diffusion). But if you are a bit familiar with Ancient Greek historiography and all the stories of how Dionysus and the rest spread the Eastern and Egyptian religions to Greece, it's evident that the second option is the most plausible.

At this point, I'm inclined to see ἱδρώς simply as an orthographic variant of ὑδρώς, which eventually replaced the latter form.


----------

