νάρκαφθον: Difference between revisions
Ὁ δὲ μὴ δυνάμενος κοινωνεῖν ἢ μηδὲν δεόμενος δι' αὐτάρκειαν οὐθὲν μέρος πόλεως, ὥστε ἢ θηρίον ἢ θεός → Whoever is incapable of associating, or has no need to because of self-sufficiency, is no part of a state; so he is either a beast or a god
m (Text replacement - "<span class="sense"><p>" to "<span class="sense">") |
m (Text replacement - " <span class="bld">" to "<span class="bld">") |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Transliteration C=narkafthon | |Transliteration C=narkafthon | ||
|Beta Code=na/rkafqon | |Beta Code=na/rkafqon | ||
|Definition=or νάσκαφθον, τό, <span class="sense"> | |Definition=or νάσκαφθον, τό, <span class="sense"><span class="bld">A</span> [[a fragrant Indianbark]], used as a spice, etc. (perh. the same as [[λάκαφθον]]), Dsc.1.23:—written ναόκαφθον and νάκαφθον in most codd. of <span class="bibl">Paul.Aeg.7.3</span>; νάκαφθον in one cod. of <span class="bibl">Id.7.22.4</span> (v.l. [[λάκαφθον]]).</span> | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{pape | {{pape |
Revision as of 15:50, 30 December 2020
English (LSJ)
or νάσκαφθον, τό, A a fragrant Indianbark, used as a spice, etc. (perh. the same as λάκαφθον), Dsc.1.23:—written ναόκαφθον and νάκαφθον in most codd. of Paul.Aeg.7.3; νάκαφθον in one cod. of Id.7.22.4 (v.l. λάκαφθον).
German (Pape)
[Seite 229] τό, od. νάσκαφθον, Rinde eines indischen Strauches, zu Gewürz u. Räucherwerk gebraucht, Diosc.
Greek (Liddell-Scott)
νάρκαφθον: ἢ νάσκαφθον, τό, Ἰνδικός τις φλοιὸς ἐν χρήσει ὡς ἄρωμα, κτλ., ἴσως τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ λάκαφθον, Διοσκ. 1. 22, Παῦλ. Αἰγ. 7, σ. 248.
Greek Monolingual
νάρκαφθον και νάσκαφθον και ναόκαφθον και νάκαφθον, τὸ (Α)
ευώδης ινδικός φλοιός που χρησιμοποιούσαν ως αρωματικό θυμίαμα, ίσως το λάκαφθον του Διοσκορίδη.
Frisk Etymological English
Grammatical information: n.
Meaning: a fragrant Indian bark used as spice (Dsc. 1, 23).
Other forms: Also νάσκαφθον (written ναόκαφωον, which will be a simple mistake), but also νάκαφθον. Also λάκαφθον (Paul. Aeg. 7, 22)?
Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]X [probably]
Etymology: Fur. 299 thinks of an Anatolian cultural term in spite of the suggested Indian origin. On a possible variation ρ\/σ ibid. 299f.