The paper analyzes Ch. 24 of the 11th book of Aelian’s De natura animalium devoted to the so-called sea-leopard (πάρδαλις) and the oxyrrhynchus fish, both living in the Red Sea. Aelian compares the body colour of the sea-leopard to the mountain leopard, i. e. the snow leopard or the ounce (Panthera uncia Schreber, 1775). This comparison clearly demonstrates that the sealeopard is to be identified with the sand tiger shark or the spotted ragged-tooth shark (Carcharias taurus Rafinesque, 1810). This fish usually resides and hunts in the depths of the sea, but also swims to the coast and sometimes attacks the swimming people. The attacks of sand tiger sharks must have taken place in ancient times, so the fish was easily recognizable not only by the Greeks but also by the inhabitants of the Red Sea’s seashore. The Greek ichthyonym ὀξύ(ρ)ρυγχος refers to five different species of fish, but Aelian uses it to denote an oriental kind of shark existing in the Red Sea (NA 11, 24). The oxyrrhynchus shark has an elongated mouth, golden eyes and white eyelids, i. e. nictitating membranes, typical of sharks belonging to the order Carcharhiniformes. Its tail is oblong in shape and its fins are black and white. There are also pale and green parts of its body. On the basis of Aelian’s description it is possible to suggest that the unknown fish should be identified with the bignose shark (Carcharhinus altimus S. Springer, 1950).
The goal of the article is to review Dariusz R. Piwowarczyk’s recent works (2016; 2017; 2017 [bis]; 2019) on the origin of the Latin fifth declension, as well as to demonstrate the correctness of the dual explanation (Witczak 2015) not discussed or even mentioned by Piwowarczyk. The author is convinced that Latin, like other Indo-European languages, once had a separate dual number which disappeared in the pre-literary period. The loss of the dual number disturbed the declension system existing at the time and caused the need for the creation of a new declension class (the fifth declension). The laryngeal phoneme *h1 formed the basic dual ending in the Indo-European languages. Proto-Indo-European animate nouns of consonant stems created a strong form in the dual number, demonstrating the ending *-eh1 (hence IE. *-ē and Latin *-ē-), whereas inanimate nouns had a weak form (PIE. *-ih1, hence Lat. -ī in vīgintī ‘twenty’ and the oblique stem *-iē-, attested in Lat. aciēs, māteriēs etc.). Proto-Latin dual forms ending in *-ē (< PIE. *-eh1) referring to animate nouns, as well as dual forms ending in *-ī (< PIE. *-ih1) referring to inanimate nouns, underwent the process of collectivization and singularization: most of them gained the status of typical singularia tantum and then formed a separate class of nouns which had -ē- as the common feature. It is finally suggested that a large group of originally dual nouns (especially the so- called dualia tantum) formed the Latin fifth declension
This article argues that Greek σφαδᾴζω ‘struggle, toss one’s body about’ is etymologically related to Proto-Iranian *zgad- ‘to ride, gallop’ and *zganda- ‘messenger’, the source of loanwords σαγγάνδης and ἀσγάνδης in Greek. Iranian nominal stems *zgandá- ‘rider, mounted messenger’ and *zgánda- ‘riding’ (reflected in Sogdian non-finite forms) suggest the reconstruction of a Proto-Iranian root *zgand-, the zero-grade form of which is found in tudáti-type verbal stem *zgadá-ti ‘rides, gallops’ (*zgad- < *zgn̥d-). The correspondence between Greek σφ- and Iranian *zg- is unproblematic, since these are regular reflexes of PIE *sg wh - in both languages, compare Younger Avestan zgərəsna- ‘round, circular’ vis-à-vis Greek σφαῖρα ‘sphere, ball, globe’. Importantly, in its earliest attestations Greek σφαδᾴζω is used to refer to horses that are prancing, struggling, and moving violently: the application of the verb to human agony is demonstrably secondary. The Greek verb is best analyzed as a denominative *σφαδαι-ιζω derived from an unattested adjective *σφάδαιος, itself made from a nominal stem *σφάδη or *σφαδή, cf. ματᾴζω ‘speak foolishly’ ← μάταιος ‘foolish’ ← μάτη ‘foolishness’; the underlying unattested noun, whether *σφάδη ‘kicking, tossing’ or *σφαδή ‘kick, toss’, is based on a thematic verbal stem *σφαδε/ο- ‘to kick, toss, move swiftly (of horses)’ identical in origin with Proto-Iranian *zgadá- ti. On the basis of these forms, a new PIE root *sg whend- / *sgwhn̥d- ‘to move quickly (of horses)’ can be reconstructed
This article examines the Greek noun σαγγάνδης ‘messenger’ which is attested in two lexica, dated to the Roman or early Byzantine periods: the Cambridge Rhetorical Lexicon by an anonymous author and Difficult Words in the Attic Orators by Claudius Casilo. In both works, σαγγάνδης appears together with three words of likely Iranian provenance: ὀροσάγγης ‘benefactor of the Persian king; bodyguard’, παρασάγγης ‘parasang; messenger’ and ἄγγαρος ‘messenger, courier; workman, labourer’. The word σαγγάνδης is analysed in comparison with ἀσγάνδης/ἀστάνδης ‘messenger’ occurring for the first time in Plutarch’s works and closely linked to the Achaemenid administration. According to the hypothesis put forward in the present paper, both σαγγάνδης and ἀσγάνδης (with its secondary variant ἀστάνδης) are connected to Manichaean Middle Persian/Parthian ižgand ‘messenger’, Sogdian (a)žγand/(ɔ) žγand/ž(i)γant ‘id.’, Jewish Aramaic ʾîzgaddā ‘id.’, Syriac izgandā/izgaddā ‘id.’, Mandaic ašganda ‘helper, assistant, servant; the Messenger’, and go back to Old Persian *zganda- or to early Middle Persian/early Parthian *žgand- (or *zgand-) with the original meaning ‘mounted messenger’. The reconstructed noun is derived from the Proto-Iranian root *zga(n)d- ‘to go on, gallop, mount’, attested in Avestan (Younger Avestan zgaδ(/θ)- ‘to go on horseback, gallop’) and in some Middle and Modern Iranian languages. The original form of the loanword in Greek was probably *σγάνδης which then underwent certain transformations
The present article aims to elucidate an interesting narrative that forms a portion of Aelian’s paradoxographic work Περὶ ζῴων ἰδιότητος (On the Characteristics of Animals, Lat. De natura animalium). The passage under discussion describes some horned animals of oriental origin that were involved in the annual fighting contests during a one-day competition held on the initiative of a “great king of India” — probably Chandragupta (4th–3rd c. BC), the founder of the Maurya dynasty. Aelian’s chapter (NA 15, 15) was perhaps taken from Megasthenes’s Ἰνδικά (Description of India). The passage includes two hapax legomena referring to two species of animals: †μέσοι† and †ὕαιναι†. The first of these should be identified with the Ladakh urial (Ovis orientalis vignei Blyth); cf. Prasun məṣé ‘ram, urial’ (< Vedic mēṣá- m. ‘ram’). Aelian’s exact description of the horned animals called †ὕαιναι† clearly demonstrates that the alleged “striped hyena” (Gk. ὕαινα) must represent the chinkara, i. e., the Indian gazelle (Gazella bennettii Sykes). The Indo-Aryan term for ‘chinkara’ (Ved. hariṇá- m ‘Indian gazelle’, hariṇī́- f. ‘female gazelle’; cf. Pa. and Pk. hariṇa- m., hariṇī- f.) suggests that the corrupted form in Aelian’s passage should be emended as ὑάριναι [hyárinai]. This seems a near-optimal adaptation of the Pali or Prakrit appellative háriṇā pl. ‘chinkaras’
This paper examines the form διεπρήστευσε, obelized in the editions of Herodotus. There have been two ways of interpreting the form: some scholars have taken it to refer to an act of speech, while others have sought here a verb of motion. Both groups of scholars proposed a variety of conjectures, some of them addenda lexicis and none of them commanding immediate acceptance. After a review of various solutions that have been proposed to-date, this paper argues in favor of retaining the reading of the paradosis and analyzing (-)πρηστεύω as a verb of quick motion. The verb is argued to be an Ionic colloquialism (or even Herodotus’ own Augenblicksbildung), derived from the root of πίμπρημι in its original meaning ‘to blow’ (of which ‘to burn’ is a secondary development) via an agent noun πρηστήρ / *πρήστης, cf. μνηστεύω ‘woo’: μνηστήρ ‘suitor’ or δυναστεύω ‘hold power’: δυνάστης ‘person with power’. The proposed translation ‘blasted, dashed’ is supported by typological parallels for the semantic development ‘to blow’ → ‘to move (impetuously)’, such as Old English blǽstan ‘to blow; to move impetuously’ or Russian dut’ ‘to blow; to dash, to rush’. Interestingly, Hittite (parip) parāi-, the cognate of Gk. πίμπρημι, may show the same semantic development: ‘to blow’, ‘to ignite fire by blowing’ > ‘to move swiftly’.