# Ingaevones/Achaiwoi



## ahvalj

The etymology of the names of the ancient Germanic tribal groups like Ingaevones, Istaevones etc. to date remains obscure. These names, found in Tacitus (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Germania), look so un-Germanic that scholars often try to correct them, making more etymologizable on the Germanic ground (e. g. to Ingvaeones and Istvaeones). Meanwhile, at least "Ingaevones" looks suspiciously similar to the tribal name of Achaeans (archaic Achaiwoi) since the former word may have developed from the IE *en-ghaywo- and the latter from the IE *n-ghaywo-, with the difference being only in the ablaut degree of the first element (prefix?). The recent Greek etymological dictionary by Beekes (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_7IkEzr9hyJeWVWWWcydS0wVE0/edit?usp=sharing page 181) claims "Achaiwoi" a pre-Greek borrowing following Beekes' procedure of regarding every Greek word without transparent IE connections a borrowing. Nevertheless, the similarity (coincidence?) is too remarkable and has been circulating in the literature for many decades. The identity of these two names does not necessarily imply any close connections of Ingaevones and Achaeans, and only points at the existence of the IE set of ethnonymic lexis (like e. g. Veneti/Venedi) that was a source of tribal names across the IE dialectal continuum. *(e)nghaywo- may be one more example of this lexical layer.

Comments are welcome.


----------



## fdb

First of all, let me say that I am extremely grateful to you for alerting us to the fact that Beekes’s dictionary (and the other dictionaries from the Leiden project) is available on line. As a survivor from the pre-internet era I would never have been able to work this out on my own.

From a phonological point of view there is no difficulty in deriving Ingaevones and Akhaiwoi from IE *n-ghaywo-. This looks as though it ought to mean “non-ghaywo”. But what does *ghaywo- mean?


----------



## Gavril

I might be revealing my inexperience here, but I thought the IE negative prefix **n.*- only occurred as a syllabic nasal, based on its attested reflexes -- i.e., an e-grade form **en*- (as in putative *_en-gHajwo_- > _Ingaeuones_) would never have occurred?


----------



## fdb

Vocalic n becomes Latin en or in and Greek a.


----------



## Gavril

I know, but _Ingaeuones_ is a Latin rendering of a non-Latin tribal name, so if it contains the negative prefix *_n._-, we would have to posit a new branch or sub-branch of IE to account for the change to *_in_-. (It's unclear that this branching would be Germanic since all attested Germanic languages point to **n.-* > Proto-Germanic *_*un*_-.)


----------



## fdb

That is a good point.


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, the negative particle was ne-/n- and never en-/n-, to my knowledge. As to the etymology, the ethnonyms quite often have none: I would say, half of the names of modern European countries are not etymologizable from the modern state languages (España, Italia, France, Britain, Belgique, Dan-mark, Eesti, Latvija, Россия, Česko, България, Ellada, Македониjа, Србиjа, Hrvatska, have I forgotten anything?).


----------



## ahvalj

As to the ablaut variation, after all we have both gaut- and gut- as names of tribal groups in Sweden (even nowadays in form of Götaland/Gotland), so it is not a problem.


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> As to the ablaut variation, after all we have both gaut- and gut- as names of tribal groups in Sweden (even nowadays in form of Götaland/Gotland), so it is not a problem.



It's interesting that _Göt_- (in Götland) is traced back to Germanic *_gautaz_, an *o-stem noun with o-grade in the root vowel (-au-), whereas _Got_- (in Gotland) is traced back to *_guto:n_-, an *n-stem with zero grade (-u-) of the root vowel.

If *engHajwo:n- is the source of _Ingaeuones_ and *n.gHajwo- is the source of _Akhaioi,_ then the stems differ by the same suffixes as _Göt_-/_Got_-, but the vowel-grade alternation is the opposite. I wonder if it's not simpler to trace both ethnonyms back to *n.gHajwo-, since Greek _a_- should continue older *_n_.- whereas we don't know exactly what sound Latin writers were trying to render with the initial "*In*g-" of _Ingaeuones_.


----------



## ahvalj

Gavril said:


> It's interesting that _Göt_- (in Götland) is traced back to Germanic *_gautaz_, an *o-stem noun with o-grade in the root vowel (-au-), whereas _Got_- (in Gotland) is traced back to *_guto:n_-, an *n-stem with zero grade (-u-) of the root vowel.
> 
> If *engHajwo:n- is the source of _Ingaeuones_ and *n.gHajwo- is the source of _Akhaioi,_ then the stems differ by the same suffixes as _Göt_-/_Got_-, but the vowel-grade alternation is the opposite. I wonder if it's not simpler to trace both ethnonyms back to *n.gHajwo-, since Greek _a_- should continue older *_n_.- whereas we don't know exactly what sound Latin writers were trying to render with the initial "*In*g-" of _Ingaeuones_.



I don't think the stem is relevant here. The Germanic saw an explosive spreading of the weak declension, so it may have switched from thematic to n-stems at any time between IE and Tacitus. As to the original vowel, Germanic had only two short front vowels, e and i, the latter being the preferred reflex of both before "nC" (bindan, bringan, singwan) in the language of that time. I see no way to trace "Ingaevones" to *nghaywo-.


----------



## ahvalj

By the way, the neighbors of Goths use the thematic form: gouthoi, gothi, gudai (Lithuanian name of Belarussians, if related here)...


----------



## Gavril

ahvalj said:


> I don't think the stem is relevant here. The Germanic saw an explosive spreading of the weak declension, so it may have switched from thematic to n-stems at any time between IE and Tacitus. As to the original vowel, Germanic had only two short front vowels, e and i, the latter being the preferred reflex of both before "nC" (bindan, bringan, singwan) in the language of that time. I see no way to trace "Ingaevones" to *nghaywo-.



*n.gHajwo- > **u*ngaj*w*o:n > (dissimilation) **i*ngaj*w*o:n-, maybe?



> By the way, the neighbors of Goths use the thematic form: gouthoi, gothi, gudai (Lithuanian name of Belarussians, if related here)...​



Does the -_ou_- in _Gouthoi_ reflect the single vowel *_u_?


----------



## Gavril

Gavril said:


> *n.gHajwo- > **u*ngaj*w*o:n > (dissimilation) **i*ngaj*w*o:n-, maybe?



Or, alternatively,

*n.gHajwo- > **u*nga*j*wo:n- > (assimilation) **i*nga*j*wo:n-.


----------



## ahvalj

I still think such ad hoc explanations are rather redundant in this case. Nothing wrong with two ablaut grades, especially considering the distance in time and space.

"ou" is just an orthographic convention for the sound "u" used in Greek since the 5th century BC. Compare even modern transliterations like Papadopoulou.


----------



## sotos

ahvalj said:


> "Ingaevones" looks suspiciously similar to the tribal name of Achaeans (archaic Achaiwoi) .


Doesn't look (or sound) similar to me, and the correct transliteration of the latter should be "Achaioi" (pronounced today A-che-i). 
Achaioi is not irrelevant to some Greek words. For example, there is the w. "άχος" (variant of ήχος = sound) and ιαχή (shouting).


----------



## fdb

sotos said:


> the correct transliteration of the latter should be "Achaioi"



Ἀχαιϝοί (with digamma) is supported by the Latin spelling Achivi.


----------



## OBrasilo

fdb said:


> Ἀχαιϝοί (with digamma) is supported by the Latin spelling Achivi.


Isn't that name also attested in Hittite, as _Ah__hiyawa_? Which IMHO lends more support to _Achaiwoi_.


----------



## ahvalj

The Hittite link is conjectural: there is no good evidence either for or against. Anyway, "Achaiwoi" is the universally reconstructed prototype for the attested "Achaioi".


----------

