# Ancient Greek "βούλησις"



## Michael Zwingli

In reading through one of Cicero's Tusculan Disputations, I have come across a Greek (obviously Ancient) word which I would like to get a sense of the precise meaning and etymology of. The word is _βούλησις_. I find myself wondering if this is cognate to Latin _voluntas_, which being itself a derivative of the verb _volo_, "I wish, I choose", derives ultimately from the IE verbal root **welh₁ *"to choose, to want". This would make _βούλησις _a cognate of _ἔλδομαι _(which I have trouble seeing). Any help or opinions that I can get pertaining to this will be much appreciated.


----------



## ioanell

*βούλησις *n.f. [will, wish, volition] < v. βούλομαι [to want, to wish] < IE *gwel-/gwol- [to want, to wish]. Obviously, _βούλησις _is cognate to Latin _voluntas _and Latin _vol-o_ is cognate to _βούλ-ομαι, _as all relevant sources seem to agree on the verbal root, regardless of whether they render it as *welh₁, *wel-1, *qvel or *gwel-/gwol-. As to whether _βούλησις _might be a possible cognate to _ἔλδωρ/ἐέλδωρ, τό_ [wish, longing, desire] < v._ ἔλδομαι, _(_or ἐέλδομαι, _the original form [to desire, to want, to long for])_, _according to R. Beekes, derives from IE *h1ueld- [wish, desire] and has no cognates outside Greek.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ioanell said:


> *βούλησις *n.f. [will, wish, volition] < v. βούλομαι [to want, to wish] < IE *gwel-/gwol- [to want, to wish]. Obviously, _βούλησις _is...


Thanks, @ioanell, for the thorough answer. It can be a bit difficult for me to define certain Greek words.


----------



## sotos

In Greek we have the derivatives Vouli (Parliament) and ancient Voulefterion, but don't know if the Latins created similar concepts from "volo".


----------



## Scholiast

@sotos (# 4):

Modern Greek βουλή (_vouli_) and βουλευτήριον (_voulefterion_) are identically written with their classical forebears (the Athenian Council, or 'steering committee' for meetings of the sovran έκκλησία (_ekklesia_), and its meeting-chamber respectively).

Σ


----------



## ahvalj

ioanell said:


> *βούλησις *n.f. [will, wish, volition] < v. βούλομαι [to want, to wish] < IE *gwel-/gwol- [to want, to wish]. Obviously, _βούλησις _is cognate to Latin _voluntas _and Latin _vol-o_ is cognate to _βούλ-ομαι, _as all relevant sources seem to agree on the verbal root, regardless of whether they render it as *welh₁, *wel-1, *qvel or *gwel-/gwol-.


Latin indeed merges the outcomes of _u̯_ and _*gʷ_ into _v_ [u̯], but their original nature can be checked in cognate words in Sabellic languages, where _*gʷ_ gives _b_ and thus remains distinct from _u̯._ In de _Vaan MAC · 2008 · ‹Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages›:_ 687 the possible Sabellic cognates have _v:_ e. g. Oscan _velliam_ ‘legal demand’ (accusative singular) and Umbrian _veltu_ ‘may he order’, which suggests that the Latin words in question come from _*u̯elhₑ-_ and are therefore cognate to _λῆσις_ (<_*u̯l̥hₑtis_), not to _βούλησις_.


----------



## ioanell

ahvalj said:


> the Latin words in question come from _*u̯elhₑ-_ and are therefore cognate to _λῆσις_


Thanks for the contribution. It does seem correct that the possible Sabellic cognates have v and the Latin words in question come from _*u̯elhₑ/*welh-1_. As for them being cognate to λῆσις (and Gr. Doric v. λῶ, λῇς, λῇ, λῶμες etc), de Vaan in “Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages” is not sure whether this is a cognate, as he expresses a *reservation* by noting “*if related*, the Greek root reflects earlier **F*λη- which *probably* originated in the root-aorist”. Besides, λῆσις (with the meaning 'will, choice') cannot be found in LSJ (definition unavailable) or elsewhere (except once in Hesych’s Lexicon with the meanings a) λήθη and b) βούλησις, αἵρεσις), as it is not an original form, but, following a simplification, comes from λῆστις (_[= oblivion/forgetfulness] < v. λήθω [=forget], a variant of λανθάνω <IE *leh2- [=remain unnoticed or hidden]_), which has no semantic connection with “voluntas”.


----------



## Michael Zwingli

ahvalj said:


> Latin indeed merges the outcomes of _u̯_ and _*gʷ_ into _v_ [u̯], but their original nature can be checked in cognate words in Sabellic languages, where _*gʷ_ gives _b_ and thus remains distinct from _u̯._ In de _Vaan MAC · 2008 · ‹Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages›:_ 687 the possible Sabellic cognates have _v:_ e. g. Oscan _velliam_ ‘legal demand’ (accusative singular) and Umbrian _veltu_ ‘may he order’, which suggests that the Latin words in question come from _*u̯elhₑ-_ and are therefore cognate to _λῆσις_ (<_*u̯l̥hₑtis_), not to _βούλησις_.


Two thumbs up!


----------

