3,274,313
edits
βόλβιτον: Difference between revisions
1
(big3_9) |
(1) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{DGE | {{DGE | ||
|dgtxt=-ου, τό<br /><br /><b class="num">• Alolema(s):</b> [[βόλβιθος]], ὁ <i>PMag</i>.4.1439; [[βόλβυθον]] Hsch.; [[βόβλιτον]] Eust.1404.64<br />[[boñiga]], [[estiércol]] gener. de ganado vacuno usado c. fines medicinales, Hp.<i>Loc.Hom</i>.47, <i>Nat.Mul</i>.34, Archig. en Gal.13.173, cf. 14.366, Hsch., como abono, Thphr.<i>HP</i> 5.5.6, Dsc.2.167, como combustible <i>SB</i> 12695.28 (II d.C.)<br /><b class="num">•</b>[[excremento]] humano ἐν βολβίτοις κόπρου ἀνθρωπίνης LXX <i>Ez</i>.4.12, cf. 15, prob. Hippon.95.9, 138; cf. [[βόλιτον]]. | |dgtxt=-ου, τό<br /><br /><b class="num">• Alolema(s):</b> [[βόλβιθος]], ὁ <i>PMag</i>.4.1439; [[βόλβυθον]] Hsch.; [[βόβλιτον]] Eust.1404.64<br />[[boñiga]], [[estiércol]] gener. de ganado vacuno usado c. fines medicinales, Hp.<i>Loc.Hom</i>.47, <i>Nat.Mul</i>.34, Archig. en Gal.13.173, cf. 14.366, Hsch., como abono, Thphr.<i>HP</i> 5.5.6, Dsc.2.167, como combustible <i>SB</i> 12695.28 (II d.C.)<br /><b class="num">•</b>[[excremento]] humano ἐν βολβίτοις κόπρου ἀνθρωπίνης LXX <i>Ez</i>.4.12, cf. 15, prob. Hippon.95.9, 138; cf. [[βόλιτον]]. | ||
}} | |||
{{etym | |||
|etymtx=Grammatical information: n.<br />Meaning: <b class="b2">cow-dung</b>; (s. Rohlfs ByzZ 37, 54f.);<br />Other forms: <b class="b3">-ος</b> m. (Thphr.), <b class="b3">βόλβιθος</b> (PMag. Par.; after <b class="b3">σπύραθος</b>, <b class="b3">σπέλεθος</b> ?, s. Chantr. Form. 367); also <b class="b3">βόλιτον</b>, <b class="b3">-ος</b> (Cratin.); <b class="b3">βόλβιτα ἀφόδευμα βοός</b> H. (i.e. <b class="b3">βόλβις</b>), <b class="b3">βόλβυθον τὸ αὐτό</b> H.<br />Derivatives: <b class="b3">βολίτινος</b> (Ar.); <b class="b3">βολίταινα</b> cuttle fish, which smells badly (Arist.), also <b class="b3">βολβίτιον</b> (Gal.) and <b class="b3">βολβίς</b> (Epich.).<br />Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]<br />Etymology: "The usual assumption that <b class="b3">βόλιτον</b> arose from <b class="b3">βόλβιτον</b> through progressive dissimilation, is hardly convincing" (Frisk). But that <b class="b3">βόλβιτον</b> is euphemistical through the influence of <b class="b3">βολβός</b> (Frisk) is not very convincing either. To derive <b class="b3">βόλιτον</b> from <b class="b3">βάλλω</b>, <b class="b3">βόλος</b>, and <b class="b3">βολεών</b> [[Düngerhaufen]] leaves the formation unexplained. It is much more natural to assume variation in a Pre-Greek word, which is confirmed by the fact that the suffix <b class="b3">-ιτον</b> is known from there (Fur. 163; further 180, 187; further the <b class="b3">θ</b> and the <b class="b3">υ</b> are typical variations. I wonder whether the variation <b class="b3">β</b>\/zero, to which Furnée devotes a chapter, derived from a labial [l]: <b class="b2">*balʷ-it-</b>, on which see [[αὖλαξ]] and Beekes, Pre-Greek. - The discussions in Frisk and DELG are examples of the wrong approach of Pre-Greek words: explaining away the characteristics of Pre-Greek. | |||
}} | }} | ||