ἄλοξ: Difference between revisions

From LSJ

Δελφῖνα νήχεσθαι διδάσκεις: ἐπὶ τῶν ἐν ἐκείνοις τινὰ παιδοτριβούντων, ἐν οἷς ἤσκηται → Teaching dolphins to swim: is applied to those who are teaching something among people who are already well versed in it

Source
(1)
(1a)
Line 33: Line 33:
{{etym
{{etym
|etymtx=-κος<br />Grammatical information: f.<br />Meaning: [[furrow]] (Trag., Com.).<br />Other forms: Also <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b> (Hes.), <b class="b3">ὦλκα</b>, <b class="b3">-ας</b> acc. sg., pl. (Hom.), Dor. <b class="b3">ὦλαξ</b> EM 625, 37and in <b class="b3">ὁμ-ώλακες</b> (A. R. 2, 396). Further <b class="b3">εὑλάκα</b> [[plough]] with the Lacon. fut. inf. <b class="b3">εὑλαξεῖν</b> (Orac. ap. Th. 5, 16); and <b class="b3">αὑλάχα ἡ ὕννις</b> H. and <b class="b3">*ὄλοκες</b> (cod. <b class="b3">ὀλοκεύς</b>) <b class="b3">αὔλακες</b> H.<br />Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]<br />Etymology: The relation between these forms was unclear. Solmsen Unt. 258ff. explained <b class="b3">ὦλκα</b> from <b class="b3">*ἄϜολκα</b> (<b class="b3">κατὰ ὦλκα Ν</b> 707 for original <b class="b3">*κατ</b>' <b class="b3">ἄϜολκα</b>); it is strange that this form did not live on. Beside <b class="b3">*ἀ-Ϝολκ-</b> the zero grade would give <b class="b3">*ἀ-Ϝλακ-</b> in <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b>. The root was supposed in Lith. <b class="b2">velkù</b>, OCS <b class="b2">vlěkǫ</b>, Av. <b class="b2">varǝk-</b> [[draw]]; one could assume <b class="b2">*h₂uelk-</b>. This is tempting, but must not be correct. If the Balto-Slavic words are isolated (there is further only Av. <b class="b2">vǝrǝc-</b>), the verb may be non-IE; also it is rather <b class="b2">*uelkʷ-</b>, which makes the connection with Greek impossible; further there is no trace of the verb in Greek, which has <b class="b3">ἔλκω</b> < <b class="b2">*selk-</b>. <b class="b3">εὑλάκα</b> can no longer be explained from different prothesis, <b class="b3">*ἐ-Ϝλακ-</b>. But <b class="b3">ἄλοξ</b> cannot be explained in this way: metathesis of <b class="b3">*αϜολκ-</b> would give <b class="b3">*αυλοκ-</b>; an after the F had disappeared, metathesis was no longer possible (only contraction to <b class="b3">*ωλκ-</b>). - I see no reason to reject <b class="b3">ὀλοκ-</b>. <b class="b3">ὦλαξ</b> was perhaps taken from a compound, like <b class="b3">ὁμώλακ-</b>, which would give <b class="b3">*ολακ-</b>. - Pisani JF 53, 29 derived <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b> from <b class="b3">αὑλός</b> and separated it from <b class="b3">ἄλοξ</b> etc., which is improbable. - The variants are strongly reminiscent of substr. words, as Beekes Dev. 40 held (withdrawn ib. 275-7). Variation of prothetic <b class="b3">ε</b>\/<b class="b3">α</b>\/<b class="b3">ο</b>\/<b class="b3">αυ</b>\/<b class="b3">ευ</b> is typical of substr. words, as is <b class="b3">κ</b>\/<b class="b3">χ</b> (<b class="b3">αὐλάχα</b>). So more probably we have to assume a substr. word. The start with the Homeric form was wrong: it is the only form that has no vowel between <b class="b3">λ</b> and <b class="b3">κ</b>, and is therefore suspect. If we assume labialised phonemes, like [[lʷ]], a reconstruction <b class="b2">*alʷak-</b> gives all forms: <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b> (by anticipation of the labial feature; which gives <b class="b3">ὦλαξ</b> by contraction), <b class="b3">ἄλοξ</b> (influence on the second vowel ; <b class="b3">ὀλοκ-</b> on both vowels), interchange <b class="b3">α</b>\/<b class="b3">ε</b> gave <b class="b3">εὐλακ-</b>; see Beekes Pre-Gr., and cf. <b class="b3">ἀρασχάδες</b> etc. Homer might have had <b class="b3">*κατ</b>' <b class="b3">ὠλακ(α</b>), which became unclear during the tradition.
|etymtx=-κος<br />Grammatical information: f.<br />Meaning: [[furrow]] (Trag., Com.).<br />Other forms: Also <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b> (Hes.), <b class="b3">ὦλκα</b>, <b class="b3">-ας</b> acc. sg., pl. (Hom.), Dor. <b class="b3">ὦλαξ</b> EM 625, 37and in <b class="b3">ὁμ-ώλακες</b> (A. R. 2, 396). Further <b class="b3">εὑλάκα</b> [[plough]] with the Lacon. fut. inf. <b class="b3">εὑλαξεῖν</b> (Orac. ap. Th. 5, 16); and <b class="b3">αὑλάχα ἡ ὕννις</b> H. and <b class="b3">*ὄλοκες</b> (cod. <b class="b3">ὀλοκεύς</b>) <b class="b3">αὔλακες</b> H.<br />Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]<br />Etymology: The relation between these forms was unclear. Solmsen Unt. 258ff. explained <b class="b3">ὦλκα</b> from <b class="b3">*ἄϜολκα</b> (<b class="b3">κατὰ ὦλκα Ν</b> 707 for original <b class="b3">*κατ</b>' <b class="b3">ἄϜολκα</b>); it is strange that this form did not live on. Beside <b class="b3">*ἀ-Ϝολκ-</b> the zero grade would give <b class="b3">*ἀ-Ϝλακ-</b> in <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b>. The root was supposed in Lith. <b class="b2">velkù</b>, OCS <b class="b2">vlěkǫ</b>, Av. <b class="b2">varǝk-</b> [[draw]]; one could assume <b class="b2">*h₂uelk-</b>. This is tempting, but must not be correct. If the Balto-Slavic words are isolated (there is further only Av. <b class="b2">vǝrǝc-</b>), the verb may be non-IE; also it is rather <b class="b2">*uelkʷ-</b>, which makes the connection with Greek impossible; further there is no trace of the verb in Greek, which has <b class="b3">ἔλκω</b> < <b class="b2">*selk-</b>. <b class="b3">εὑλάκα</b> can no longer be explained from different prothesis, <b class="b3">*ἐ-Ϝλακ-</b>. But <b class="b3">ἄλοξ</b> cannot be explained in this way: metathesis of <b class="b3">*αϜολκ-</b> would give <b class="b3">*αυλοκ-</b>; an after the F had disappeared, metathesis was no longer possible (only contraction to <b class="b3">*ωλκ-</b>). - I see no reason to reject <b class="b3">ὀλοκ-</b>. <b class="b3">ὦλαξ</b> was perhaps taken from a compound, like <b class="b3">ὁμώλακ-</b>, which would give <b class="b3">*ολακ-</b>. - Pisani JF 53, 29 derived <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b> from <b class="b3">αὑλός</b> and separated it from <b class="b3">ἄλοξ</b> etc., which is improbable. - The variants are strongly reminiscent of substr. words, as Beekes Dev. 40 held (withdrawn ib. 275-7). Variation of prothetic <b class="b3">ε</b>\/<b class="b3">α</b>\/<b class="b3">ο</b>\/<b class="b3">αυ</b>\/<b class="b3">ευ</b> is typical of substr. words, as is <b class="b3">κ</b>\/<b class="b3">χ</b> (<b class="b3">αὐλάχα</b>). So more probably we have to assume a substr. word. The start with the Homeric form was wrong: it is the only form that has no vowel between <b class="b3">λ</b> and <b class="b3">κ</b>, and is therefore suspect. If we assume labialised phonemes, like [[lʷ]], a reconstruction <b class="b2">*alʷak-</b> gives all forms: <b class="b3">αὖλαξ</b> (by anticipation of the labial feature; which gives <b class="b3">ὦλαξ</b> by contraction), <b class="b3">ἄλοξ</b> (influence on the second vowel ; <b class="b3">ὀλοκ-</b> on both vowels), interchange <b class="b3">α</b>\/<b class="b3">ε</b> gave <b class="b3">εὐλακ-</b>; see Beekes Pre-Gr., and cf. <b class="b3">ἀρασχάδες</b> etc. Homer might have had <b class="b3">*κατ</b>' <b class="b3">ὠλακ(α</b>), which became unclear during the tradition.
}}
{{mdlsj
|mdlsjtxt== [[αὖλαξ]]<br />a [[furrow]]: v. [[αὖλαξ]].
}}
}}

Revision as of 15:45, 9 January 2019

Click links below for lookup in third sources:
Full diacritics: ἄλοξ Medium diacritics: ἄλοξ Low diacritics: άλοξ Capitals: ΑΛΟΞ
Transliteration A: álox Transliteration B: alox Transliteration C: aloks Beta Code: a)/loc

English (LSJ)

οκος, ἡ,

   A = αὖλαξ (q.v.).

German (Pape)

[Seite 109] οκος, ἡ (von ἕλκω, vgl. αὖλαξ, ὦλξ), die Furche, Aesch. Ag. 987; Ar. Av. 234; dah. die Ritze, Wunde, ὄνυχος ἄλοκι νεοτόμῳ Aesch. Ch. 25; δορὸς ταχεῖα ἄλ. Eur. Herc. Fur. 161; βαθεῖα τραύματος ἄλ. Rhes. 790; ἄλοκα τέμνειν, von der Meerfahrt, Arion. 17. Bei den Trag. übertr. auf das Ehebett, gleichsam das Saatfeld des Menschengeschlechts, πατρῷαι ἄλοκες, des Vaters Ehebett, Soph. O. R. 1211; τέκνων ἄλοκα σπείρειν, Kinder zeugen, Eur. Phoen. 18. Auf den Geist übertr. sagt Aesch. βαθεῖαν ἄλοκα διὰ φρενὸς καρπούμενος Sept. 575.

Greek (Liddell-Scott)

ἄλοξ: οκος, ἡ, = αὖλαξ, ὃ ἴδε.

French (Bailly abrégé)

οκος (ἡ) :
1 sillon d’un champ ; champ ensemencé;
2 fig. sein fécondé ; semence qui féconde le sein de la mère;
3 sillon d’une égratignure.
Étymologie: R. Ἐλκ faire une traînée ; cf. ἕλκος, lat. sulcus.

Spanish (DGE)

v. αὖλαξ.

Greek Monolingual

ἄλοξ (-οκος), η (Α) (ομηρικός τύπος σε αιτιατική ενικού που απαντά και σε πληθυντικό ὦλκα, ὦλκας από άχρηστη ονομαστική ὦλξ)
1. το αυλάκι που σχηματίζει το αλέτρι
2. τραύμα που προκαλείται από νυχιά, γρατζούνισμα
3. το αυλάκι που σχηματίζει στη θάλασσα το πλοίο που ταξιδεύει
4. (στην ποιητ. γλώσσα) η συζυγική κλίνη που εννοείται μτφ. ως αγρός του ανθρώπινου είδους.
[ΕΤΥΜΟΛ. Αβέβαιης ετυμολογίας. Παράλληλος τ. της λ. αὖλαξ που μαρτυρείται στους τραγικούς και στον Αριστοφάνη. Συνήθως ο τ. ερμηνεύεται ως προϊόν μεταθέσεως από τη ρίζα ἀολκ- που απαντά στον ομηρ. τ. αιτ. ὦλκα (< -Fολκα) «αύλακα» — βλ. και λ. αὖλαξ.
ΠΑΡ. αρχ. ἀλοκίζω.

Greek Monotonic

ἄλοξ: -οκος, ἡ = αὖλαξ.

Russian (Dvoretsky)

ἄλοξ: οκος (ᾰ) ἡ
1) борозда Aesch., Arph.;
2) рубец; рана (νεότομος Aesch.; τραύματος ἄ. Eur.);
3) брачное ложе (πατρῷαι ἄλοκες Soph.): τέκνων ἄλοκα σπείρειν Eur. рождать детей.

Frisk Etymological English

-κος
Grammatical information: f.
Meaning: furrow (Trag., Com.).
Other forms: Also αὖλαξ (Hes.), ὦλκα, -ας acc. sg., pl. (Hom.), Dor. ὦλαξ EM 625, 37and in ὁμ-ώλακες (A. R. 2, 396). Further εὑλάκα plough with the Lacon. fut. inf. εὑλαξεῖν (Orac. ap. Th. 5, 16); and αὑλάχα ἡ ὕννις H. and *ὄλοκες (cod. ὀλοκεύς) αὔλακες H.
Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]
Etymology: The relation between these forms was unclear. Solmsen Unt. 258ff. explained ὦλκα from *ἄϜολκα (κατὰ ὦλκα Ν 707 for original *κατ' ἄϜολκα); it is strange that this form did not live on. Beside *ἀ-Ϝολκ- the zero grade would give *ἀ-Ϝλακ- in αὖλαξ. The root was supposed in Lith. velkù, OCS vlěkǫ, Av. varǝk- draw; one could assume *h₂uelk-. This is tempting, but must not be correct. If the Balto-Slavic words are isolated (there is further only Av. vǝrǝc-), the verb may be non-IE; also it is rather *uelkʷ-, which makes the connection with Greek impossible; further there is no trace of the verb in Greek, which has ἔλκω < *selk-. εὑλάκα can no longer be explained from different prothesis, *ἐ-Ϝλακ-. But ἄλοξ cannot be explained in this way: metathesis of *αϜολκ- would give *αυλοκ-; an after the F had disappeared, metathesis was no longer possible (only contraction to *ωλκ-). - I see no reason to reject ὀλοκ-. ὦλαξ was perhaps taken from a compound, like ὁμώλακ-, which would give *ολακ-. - Pisani JF 53, 29 derived αὖλαξ from αὑλός and separated it from ἄλοξ etc., which is improbable. - The variants are strongly reminiscent of substr. words, as Beekes Dev. 40 held (withdrawn ib. 275-7). Variation of prothetic ε\/α\/ο\/αυ\/ευ is typical of substr. words, as is κ\/χ (αὐλάχα). So more probably we have to assume a substr. word. The start with the Homeric form was wrong: it is the only form that has no vowel between λ and κ, and is therefore suspect. If we assume labialised phonemes, like , a reconstruction *alʷak- gives all forms: αὖλαξ (by anticipation of the labial feature; which gives ὦλαξ by contraction), ἄλοξ (influence on the second vowel ; ὀλοκ- on both vowels), interchange α\/ε gave εὐλακ-; see Beekes Pre-Gr., and cf. ἀρασχάδες etc. Homer might have had *κατ' ὠλακ(α), which became unclear during the tradition.

Middle Liddell

= αὖλαξ
a furrow: v. αὖλαξ.