See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299357316

On the etymology of ἡγέομαι

Article  in  Historische Sprachforschung · November 2014

DOI: 10.13109/hisp.2014.127.1.196

CITATIONS READS

0 249

1 author:

José Miguel Jiménez Delgado

Universidad de Sevilla
28 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nominative case and brachylogic syntax in Mycenaean texts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by José Miguel Jiménez Delgado on 13 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι*

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to revise the etymology of the Greek verb ἡγέομαι. It
has been derived from a verbal root *seh2g/ĝ-, and this point does not pose any special
problem. However, this derivation raises some morphosyntactic difficulties that are to be
addressed here.

1. Etymological proposals
1. Ἡγέομαι is one of the most frequent verbs in Ancient Greek. Its
meaning can be broken down into three main senses (LSJ): I. To go be-
fore, lead the way. II. To command, be the leader. III. To believe, hold.
The so far made etymological proposals can be divided into two
groups: those accepted by the etymological dictionaries, which take the
IE comparison as a starting point, and those made in order to overcome
some oddities of the former, which derive ἡγέομαι from verbal
governing compounds. As will be seen below, the latter pose their own
problems.
2. According to the etymological dictionaries (GEW, DELG, EDG),
ἡγέομαι is a derivative of the verbal root *seh2g/ĝ-, whose meaning is
related to hunting by LIV in accordance with the evidence produced by
the comparison: Lat. sāgiō ‘I perceive keenly’, sagāx ‘perceptive’, Got.
sokjan ‘to seek’, OIr. saigid ‘he seeks, searches’ point to an activity
related with tracking game confirmed by Hitt. šāgāi-/šāki- ‘omen’
(Kloekhorst 2008: s. u.), that is, a metaphorical trace, cf. Lat. sāgus
‘prophetic, prescient’ (De Vaan 2008: s. u.).
The semantic evolution in Greek is remarkable. On the basis of the co-
gnates from other IE languages, the primitive meaning of the root might
have been ‘to track (the game)’. Hence the meaning ‘to lead’ is easily
derived (‘to lead (the hunt)’)1, and so the mental sense of ἡγέομαι is a
metaphorical development of it: ‘to lead (mentally)’ > ‘to believe’.
–––––––
*
This paper is a “side effect” of a research stay at the Freie Universität Berlin during
the summer of 2012. I would like to express my gratitude to Michael Meier-Brügger,
who generously hosted me in Berlin, Rafael Martínez Vázquez, Helena Maquieira Ro-
dríguez, and Emilio Crespo Güemes for their critical remarks and encouragement. Need -
less to say the remaining mistakes are all mine.
1
“... la racine *sāg- indique la recherche attentive et pénetrante grâce à laquelle on
peut faire des plans de conduite.” (Meillet 1922: 84).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 127, 196-207, ISSN 0935-3518 (print), 2196-8071 (online)

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2014 [2016]
 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι 197

From a morphological point of view, ἡγέομαι would be an iterative

present formation of the verbal root *seh2g/ĝ- (LIV: s. u.). This dever-
bative formation may account for its contract inflection; however, an o
grade of the root should be expected (*soh2g-éi̯e-), as we see in
ποτέομαι : πέτομαι, σοβέω : σέβομαι, φοβέω : φέβομαι, φορέω : φέρω,
etc. (Chantraine 1991: § 287)2.
3. This morphological incongruity suggests that ἡγέομαι is not a de-
verbative of *seh2g/ĝ-. Besides, the iterative meaning does not seem
quite suitable for the attested senses (Sihler 1995: 504; Fortson 2004:
90). It is also striking that the simple present left no trace in Greek at all,
although this is not necessarily compelling, compare κροτέω, οἰδέω,
ῥοφέω, which are considered iterative formations by LIV and EDG: s.
uu.
An alternative solution was proposed by Szemerényi (1972: 306, n.
18)3, who interpreted ἡγέομαι as a secondary verb created on the com-
pounds of ἄγω ending in -ᾱγέτᾱς. These compounds are old, cf. Myc.
ku-na-ke-ta κυνᾱγέτᾱς and ra-wa-ke-ta λαϝᾱγέτᾱς (Jiménez 2015), and
tend to be substituted by compounds in -ᾱγός after Homer and by com-
pounds in -αγωγός from the fifth century BC onwards4. In his hypo-
thesis the problem is posed by the initial aspiration, which was ex-
plained by him on the analogy with the antonym ἕπομαι ‘to follow’. It is
indeed this analogy that may also explain the middle voice and the con-
struction with dative.
Szemerényi’s hypothesis was accepted by Tucker (1990: 170) on the
basis of the -έω verbs derived from verbal governing compounds. In
fact, she considers that in Greek only few remnants of the IE causative-
iterative formation in o grade with -éi̯e- suffix might have survived,
–––––––
2
LIV suggests the possibility of a generalisation of present ā vocalism, as it is regular
in the perfect, cf. λήθει : λέληθε, πήγνυμι : πέπηγα, τήκομαι : τέτηκα. Moreover, the
same generalisation is proposed for γηθέω, which according to LIV: s. u. *geh2dh- would
be an ā grade iterative formation on the analogy with the perfect γέγηθε (Tucker 1990:
27 considers it a denominative of γῆθος, in spite of the fact that this noun is only attested
in later Greek). Nevertheless, there are at least two Greek iteratives in ō grade alter-
nating with an ā grade present: πτοίεω from πταίω (*pi̯ eh2-), and πτώσσω from πτήσσω
(*pteh2k-, or *pi̯ eh2k-?, see Hackstein 1992). Compare ἔπτηχα (Att.), perfect of πτήσσω
which exhibits ā generalisation.
3
It was the semantic difference of the Greek verb with Lat. sāgiō, Gothic sokjan that
led him to reject this comparison. As pointed out by Meillet (cf. n. 1), the activity of
leading has a mental component that would explain their relation.
4
In later Greek some new compounds in -ᾱγέτᾱς were again created, cf. ἱππηγέτης
(Lyc. 767), κωμηγέτης (OGIS 97, II BC), ναυηγέτης (Lyc. 873), ποδηγέτης (Lyc. 385),
προκαθηγέτης (IG V.2 93, Tegea, II AD). See Chantraine (1956: 89).
198 José Miguel Jiménez Delgado

whilst the bulk of -έω verbs is to be included among the denominatives

(Tucker 1990: 123-161). Nevertheless, the derivation of ἡγέομαι should
rather be from a compound in -ᾱγός (κυνηγός), so as to explain the ab-
sence of the -τᾱ- suffix in it. On the other hand, Tucker agrees that the
initial aspiration is best explained by analogy with ἕπομαι.
4. The compound-deriving explanation by Szemerényi and Tucker has
its own shortcomings. First of all, Szemerényi proposed the derivation
of ἡγέομαι from -ᾱγέτᾱς in order to account for the short -ε- in de-
rivatives of ἡγέομαι, even though something like *ἡγετάω should have
been expected5, compare εὐχετάομαι, κυβιστάω6, ναιετάω7, ψευστάω
(Tucker 1990: 242-243; Leukart 1994: 171)8. Second, if a derivation
from -ᾱγός is preferable to that from -ᾱγέτης, Homer only knows one
compound in -ᾱγός (ὀχετηγός, Il. 21.257), and Mycenaean evidence is
not encouraging (Landau 1958: 170; Bader 1972: 159-160; Meissner &
Tribulato 2002: 310; see also the compounds in -a-ko discussed by
Waanders 2008)9. In the same vein, the -έω verbs derived from -ᾱγός
compounds are all post-Homeric, e.g. λοχηγέω (Hdt.), ξενᾱγέω (X., Pl.,
D.), στρατηγέω (Hdt.), etc.
On the other hand, the analogy with ἕπομαι could account for the
initial aspiration of ἡγέομαι, but its syntactic configuration can be ex-
plained independently:

–––––––
5
Or even *ἡγετεύω, cf. ἱκετεύω, ἰδιωτεύω, οἰκετεύω, etc. (Fraenkel 1906: 182-184);
*ἡγετέω would also be possible, cf. ἀρχηγετέω, κυνηγετέω, στρατηγετέω, but this last
formation is unknown to Homer (Sütterlin 1891: 78).
6
The agent noun κυβιστής is dubiously attested in a Delian vase inscription, but it is
rather due to the haplology of *κυβιστητής. At any rate, it might be a derivative from an
unattested verb *κυβίζω. See Tucker (1990: 223-224).
7
The agent noun *ναιέτης is unattested. If this fact is not by chance, it may have been
formed from the compound verb περιναιετάω.
8
Fraenkel (1910-1912: II.152) considers that these verbs stem from a collective for -
mation in -tā-, but this is a rare formation, cf. ἐσχατάω from ἔσχατα, ὀπτάω from ὄπτο-
(Tucker 1990: 248-249).
9
The only possible Mycenaean candidates for compounds in -ᾱγός are po-ma-ko (PY
Cn 45.13), ra-na-ko (KN Dx 988 = B 988), wa-da-ko (PY Cn 285.7), we-re-na-ko (TH
Fq 123.3, 240.5, 241.5, 258.4, we-na-ko in Gf 163.2). The first one is rather to be inter -
preted as a compound of ἄρχω, i.e. Ποίμαρχος, cf. IG IV 757.B.2. The second one is to
be read ka-ra-na-ko Κρᾱ́ναρχος (personal name or appellative). wa-da-ko could be read
either as Hϝᾱ́δᾱγoς or Hϝᾱ́δαρχος. we-re-na-ko is read, on the one hand, as /Wrēnāgos/
by Waanders (2008: 37), on the other, as a derivative with the suffix -ako- by García-
Ramón (2006: 44-45). Regardless, Szemerényi accepts the existence of -ᾱγός com-
pounds already in the second millennium, and explains their absence in Mycenaean texts
as well as in epic poetry by attributing the -ᾱγέτᾱς type to court Greek and the -ᾱγός
type to ordinary Greek. See also Leukart (1994: §48).
 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι 199

a. Motion verbs usually take middle voice as deponents (Allan 2001:

79). This is certainly the case of ἕπομαι, which may have been deponent
already in IE, compare Ved. sácate, Av. hacaitē, Lat. sequor, OIr.
sechithir. This middle situation is more precisely described by Kemmer
(1993: 100-101, 126-127) as a “chaining situation”, one type of reci-
procal middle that “comprises events involving a kind of chain of paired
relations in an ordered series of participants”10. The same is applicable
to ἡγέομαι with no need to invoke analogy11. As a matter of fact, this
verb usually involves motion both in I. and II. senses: Hom. Od. 1.125
ὡς εἰπὼν ἡγεῖθ’, ἡ δ’ ἕσπετο Πάλλας Ἀθήνη (So saying, he led the way,
and Pallas Athena followed); Hdt. 9.15.1 οὗτοι δὲ αὐτῷ τὴν ὁδὸν
ἡγέοντο ἐς Σφενδαλέας, ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ ἐς Τάναγραν (and these guided him
to Sphendalae and from there to Tanagra); Hom. Il. 16.169 πεντήκοντ’
ἦσαν νῆες θοαὶ, ᾗσι Ἀχιλλεὺς ἐς Τροίης ἡγεῖτο (Fifty were the swift
ships which Achilles, dear to Zeus, led to Troy).
Taking the motion meaning as the original one, middle voice is highly
convenient for a verb like ἡγέομαι. Furthermore, middle voice is also
highly convenient for the mental meaning of the verb (Allan 2001: 166,
n. 165), which has no relation with ἕπομαι. This meaning can be con-
sidered secondary, because it is absent from Homer and epic poetry,
whilst well attested in prose and drama. However, this absence may
probably be connected with genre12: comparable meanings are found in
other IE cognates, e.g. Lat. sāgīre ‘to perceive keenly’, Goth. (+)sokjan
‘to seek, argue, investigate’ (Streitberg 1910: s. u.; Lehmann 1986: s.
u.), and the semantic extension “to lead the way → consider” is a
natural one also seen in ἄγω and Lat. dūcō (Allan 2001: 166, n. 295).
In other words, the middle voice of ἡγέομαι is in accordance with the
etymological meaning of tracking, whether it is understood in terms of
motion or in mental terms.
b. The dative of ἕπομαι is a comitative one (Lasso 1968: 598). In the
case of ἡγέομαι, this would be the expected case for the beneficiary or
companion of tracking / guidance (Dat. commodi according to Schwyzer
1939: 29): Τρωσὶ ποτὶ πτόλιν ἡγήσασθαι (Hom. Il. 22.101), οἱ γὰρ
βλέποντες τοῖς τυφλοῖς ἡγοῦμεθα (Ar. Pl. 15). On the other hand,
–––––––
10
Cf. the English example given by Kemmer: The graduates followed each other up
onto the platform.
11
In fact, the chaining situation is typical of hunting verbs, cf. Lat. vēnor ‘I hunt’ and
sector ‘I follow, pursue (game)’, Lingala -benga-na ‘to hunt, chase’ (-na is a reciprocal
marker). Thus it would be consistent with its primitive reconstructed meaning.
12
It is also attested in lyric poetry, cf. Thgn. 1.282.
200 José Miguel Jiménez Delgado

ἡγέομαι is also construed with genitive from its earliest attestation

(LfgrE: s. u. B I3 ‘führen, der Führer sein m. Gen. Pl., selten Dat. Pl.’).
This construction is associated with II. ‘to command, be the leader’,
which is a stative meaning that denotes the status of the subject at the
head of some social group: Αἰτωλῶν δ᾽ ἡγεῖτο Θόας Ἀνδραίμονος υἱός
(Hom. Il. 2.638). The genitive construction is very frequent with verbs
conveying a social position of leadership, such as βασιλεύω, κοιρανέω,
στρατηγέω, etc. 13 At the same time, the construction with dative is also
possible in its stative sense, as it is the general case with verbs of ruling
(Lasso 1968: 589).
Accordingly, construction with dative is as suitable for ἡγέομαι as for
ἕπομαι, and construction with genitive would be the pendant of an
innovative stative sense. This stative sense is old, and separates the
semantics of both verbs.
5. To sum up, the existence of IE cognates is compelling for the ety-
mology of ἡγέομαι, even if its contract inflection remains obscure. This
contract inflection points to a denominative origin, which has been con-
nected with verb governing compounds of ἄγω, in spite of the fact that
ἡγέομαι cannot be drawn from -ηγέτης, and that the compounds in -ηγός
are documented after Homer except for one case (ὀχετηγός). Further-
more, this possibility encounters the problem of the initial aspiration,
which can be accounted for by analogy with ἕπομαι. The equivalence
with that verb must have been partial, because it can only be based on
the “chaining situation” proper to sense I. At the same time, middle
voice and dative construction are explainable independently. In any
case, a solution comprising the IE evidence along with its syntactico-
semantic configuration is desirable and, as will be shown, possible.

2. An (almost) new proposal

6. The morphosyntactic problems in the derivation of ἡγέομαι from
*seh2g/ĝ- would be solved if we put forward derivation from a thematic
agent noun ἡγός. This noun is very poorly attested; however, its some-
how peculiar formation and the plausibility of deriving ἡγέομαι from it
will be discussed, before looking into its scarce evidence. Finally, the
implications of this derivation for ἡγεμών will be addressed.
–––––––
13
Dative construction is not uncongenial to verbs of ruling, but this dative is a
locative one according to Brugmann (1911: 513; he also deems proper dative, p. 550, or
even instrumental, p. 534, conceivable with these verbs; Lasso 1968: 630 speaks of
locative-dative syncretism). In turn, the dative of ἕπομαι is comitative.
 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι 201

7. First of all, the unexpected vocalism of ἡγός – it should rather have

been an o grade derivative14 – is easily explained as an extension. The
long ā is also exhibited by τᾱγός, compare τᾱγή, πληγή, λήθη, etc. In
both cases, this vocalism would be a generalisation from the basic
verbal root, which renders e grade presents whose e was coloured and
lengthened by a following h2.
It is true that ἡγός is only attested in a III AD inscription (see below)
and has no IE pendant, but we can compare a similar name ἀγός so as to
check the antiquity of its formation. Ἀγός is a thematic agent noun of
ἄγω well attested in Homer. Besides, it has a pendant in OInd. ajá-
‘driver’, although they may be independent innovative formations in
view of the unexpected root grade15. In any case, even if ἀγός is an inno-
vation, it must be old, as the generalisation of verb vocalism in this type
of nouns is frequent already in Homer, compare ἀρχός (Hom.), σφαλός
(Epich.), ταγός (Hom.)16, ταρσός (Hom.). See Chantraine (1979: 12)17.
All cited forms have IE cognates exhibiting comparable formations:
ἀγός : ajá-; ἀρχός : Arm. arkʿay (< *arskā-ti-, cf. Matzinger 2000: 287-
288); σφαλός : Latv. spals, ME spale, ON spǫlr18; τᾱγός : ToB tāś
‘commander’ (according to Adams 1999: s. u., from *tāgyu- < *tóh2g-
yu-, “with the later substitution in Greek of the mildy productive -a ~ -ā-
ablaut in place of the moribund -a ~ -ō-”); ταρσός : Lat. torrus, Arm.
tʿaṙ.
8. Ἡγέομαι would then be a denominative from such a thematic agent
noun. The stative sense would be perfectly matching, since denomi-
native verbs in -έω express the condition proper to its base noun; thus
ἡγέομαι would originally have meant ‘to be the leader (of the hunt)’,
namely, a verb of ruling. Most verbs of ruling are denominatives from
agent nouns, cf. ἀνάσσω, ἀρχεύω, ἄρχω, βασιλεύω, δεσπόζω,
δυναστεύω, ἡγεμονεύω, κοιρανέω, λοχηγέω, προστατέω, στρατηγέω,
τυραννεύω, etc. On the other hand, it is well established that the -έω de-

–––––––
14
Sihler (1995: 119); Fortson (2004: 116).
15
Compare nāvājá- ‘boatman’ (Av. nauuāza-, but Greek ναυᾱγός), where the
expected o vocalism is found. The o grade thematic agent nouns were probably drawn
from compounds already in IE, see Hajnal (1994: 199, 210-211), Chantraine (1979: 8),
and Lühr (2008: I.189 on Greek; II.167-169 on Old Indian).
16
Aristarchus’ reading in Il. 23.160, where οἵ τ’ ἀγοί is also possible. Everywhere else
τᾱγός is attested (LSJ: s. u.).
17
The same extension is found in thematic nomina actionis derived from verbal roots
with a, cf. πάγος, πάλος, τάφος, also the feminine ones in -eh2, cf. ἀρχή, ταγή, etc.
(Chantraine 1979: 21-22).
18
According to EDG, Pre-Greek origin is also possible for σφαλός.
202 José Miguel Jiménez Delgado

nominative verbs formed on thematic nomina agentis are usually made

up out of compounds: βουκολέω, θεοπροπέω, ἱπποκομέω, etc. (Tucker
1990: 75). Otherwise, the suffixes -εύω and -yω are the most frequent:
ἀρχεύω, δαιτρεύω, ἀγγέλλω, ναυτίλλω, etc. (Tucker 1990: 116-117).
Nevertheless, there are at least two Homeric verbs attesting to formation
from simplicia: κοιρανέω ‘to be lord or master, rule, command’, derived
from κοίρανος ‘ruler, commander, lord’, and ὀπηδέω ‘to follow, accom-
pany, attend’, derived from ὀπηδός ‘attendant, companion’19. In all
cases the meaning is ‘I am X’ (X = base noun). At the same time, the
plausability of abstracting ἡγέομαι from the second part of a compound
is not supported by other simple -έω verbs probably formed in that man-
ner like ἀγρέω, μαχέομαι, φιλέω20, because they have no cognate in
other IE languages as ἡγέομαι does21.
The derivation of ἡγέομαι from ἡγός is quite possible from a morpho-
logical point of view. It may account for its contract inflection without
resorting either to irregular formations (iterative with e grade) or to
complex derivations (denominative from verb governing compounds).
From a syntactico-semantic point of view, we must concede that such a
denominative was a verb of ruling, a class of verbs with stative meaning
and genitive or (locative) dative construction, but usually active, cf.
ἡγεμονεύω. Thus, the contract form ἡγέομαι ought to have subsumed an
unattested simple one *ἥγομαι to which ἡγός corresponds22, incorpora-
ting its dynamic meaning (‘to lead the way’) and associated construction
(middle voice, dative of beneficiary/companion). The reasons for the

–––––––
19
This noun is unattested in epic poetry, where the attested form is ὀπάων (< *ὀπᾱ́-
ϝων, a psilotic derivative of ἔπομαι on the base of *ὁπᾱ́ ‘retinue’). Meier-Brügger (1991:
171-172) derives ὀπηδός from an adverb *ὀπηδόν. Beekes (EDG: s. u.) mentions the
possibility of an agent noun in -ηδών as the base form. The formation of κοίρανος is
also problematic as far as the suffix is concerned (DELG and EDG: s. u.). Notwithstan-
ding, the word is old, and it was substituted by substrate words such as ἄναξ, βασιλεύς.
The claim made by Tucker (1990: 111) that both κοιρανέω and ὀπηδέω may have been
interpreted as compounds for the purpose of derivation because of the uniqueness of
their suffixes is somewhat exaggerated. Both -ανος and -δός/δών are common enough in
Ancient Greek; see Chantraine (1979: 196-200 and 359-362).
20
See Tucker (1990: 168-170).
21
It is nevertheless conceivable that ἡγέομαι as well as κοιρανέω and ὀπηδέω were
derived on the analogy with -έω denominatives built on verb governing compounds
whose second member was a thematic o grade agent noun. See Tucker (1991: 167, 180).
22
Herodian’s ἡγῶ (3,1 434.2, 3,2 261.5 & 950.34 ed. Lentz) is significant. In any
case, ἠγούμαι is still deponent in Modern Greek.
 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι 203

conflation must remain obscure, but the similarity with ἄγω, both for-
mally and semantically, might have triggered it23.
9. The main problem of deriving ἡγέομαι from a thematic agent noun
ἡγός lies in the absence of this noun in Greek, with the exception of a III
AD Attic inscription (Hesperia 5: 95) where it appears twice in a poetic
composition (l. 18 ἡγός, l. 27 ἡγοί)24. It is difficult to evaluate this
testimony, which could be either an archaism or an innovation on the
analogy with ἀγός. At any rate, the virtual absence of ἡγός adds up to
that of *ἥγομαι. It must be remarked that this derivation was taken into
account by Ebeling in his Lexicon Homericum on the basis of previous
references to ἡγός, so s. u. ἡγέομαι: “Lobeck, Rh. 151 (sec. Herod. μον.
λ. 45, 15) fortasse ab ἀγός, melius τὸν ἡγόν, ὃ σημαίνει τὸν ἡγεμόνα E.
M. 390, 37”25. This etymology was founded on the existence of ἀγός as
well as the similar semantics of both ἡγέομαι and ἄγω. We cannot know
whether this similarity is connected with the eventual disappereance of
*ᾱγός and *ᾱγoμαι. Be that as it may, what is attested is the contract
verb ἡγέομαι, on one hand, and the agent noun ἡγεμών, on the other.
10. This proposal would also explain the formation of ἡγεμών in a ne-
gative way, since it opens the possibility of considering it an inde-
pendent formation. This noun exhibits a short ε that precludes its deri-
vation from ἡγέομαι given that long η should be expected, cf. δηλήμων,
νοήμων, πενθήμων, etc.26 Indeed, ἡγεμών is regularised in the personal
name Ἡγήμων/Ἁγήμων, which is especially frequent in epigraphic
texts27, see also Lys. 32.12, And. Myst. 122, D. 18.285. The short ε has
been explained, on the one hand, as the result of contamination of
ἡγέομαι with ἄγω (Specht 1932: 51 ff.), on the other, as the result of
analogy either with similar formations like κηδεμόν-, ἀκρεμόν-,
ἀγρεμόν- (Schwyzer 1939: 522), or with the compounds in -ᾱγέτᾱς

–––––––
23
For the semantic convergence of ἄγω with ἡγέομαι see Chantraine (1956: 91-92). It
is to be stressed that Meillet (1922: 83-85) considered ἀγός a psilotic form of ἡγός with
short ᾰ, like OIr. saigim, Lat. sagāx.
24
Oliver (1936: 101). The term ἡγός ‘leader’ in I.18 seems to refer to Apollo (p. 102).
25
Herodian’s quotation is as follows: Ἡγῶ. τὰ εἰς ͞γ͞ω λήγοντα ῥήματα ὁριστικὰ
δισύλλαβα, εἰ παραλήγοιτο τῷ ͞η, θέλει βαρύνεσθαι, θήγω, λήγω, τμήγω· τὸ δὲ ἡγῶ
περισπᾶται· ἔνθεν τὸ ἡγοῦμαι. τὸ δὲ αἴτιον πρόδηλον. (3,2.950.32-34 ed. Lentz). Lobeck
glosses this remark in the following way: “τὰ εἰς η͞ ͞γω
͞ βαρύνεται θήγω, λήγω· τὸ δὲ ἡγῶ
περισπᾶται· τὸ δὲ αἴτιον πρόδηλον, nimirum ὅτι ὄνομα ἔχει προκατάρχον τὸ ἀγός”.
26
This suffix is used to form deverbative nouns and adjectives (Chantraine 1979:
171), and its form is -ημων when added to an -έω verb (Chantraine 1979: 173).
27
On Ἁγήμων and other personal names in -μων in Dorian dialects see Bueno (2002:
800-813).
204 José Miguel Jiménez Delgado

(Szemerényi 1972: 306, n. 18). In fact, the same vowel is found in

ἀγρεμών, connected with ἀγρέω, and κηδεμών, a derivative of
κήδομαι28. The form κηδεμών is somehow expectable (ε = thematic
vowel), but ἀγρεμών is striking, because long η should be expected as in
the case of ἡγεμών29. The verb ἀγρέω ‘to take’ is most probably
connected with ἀγρός, and may have been derived from compounds
(Tucker 1990: 168-169). It is mainly attested in Aeolian, where short ε
forms are due to the athematic inflection of contract verbs proper to
Lesb. and Thess., cf. κατάγρεντον (IG XII.2 6.15, Mytilene, IV BC),
ἀγρεθέντες (SEG 36 752.33, Mytilene, IV ΒC), ἐφάνγρενθειν (IG IX.2
517.41, Larisa, 214 BC)30. This inflection might have been the source of
short ε instead of long η in ἀγρεμών. However, ἀγρεμών is attested in
non-Aeolic contexts (A. Fr. 141, Hsch., EM 13.56), and comparable
forms are also attested in non-Aeolic dialects, cf. Coan ἀγρεταί
‘(chosen) priestesses of Athena’, or the epithet of Apollo Ἀγρέτης in
Schwyzer 698 (Chios, III BC), directly formed on ἀγρός31. This
evidence allows us to explain the short ε of ἀγρεμών as the result of
confusion with αἱρέω, another contract verb exhibiting ε forms in its
paradigm. Both verbs are closely related32, compare αὐτάγρετος with
αὐθαίρετος, and also παλινάγρετος with παλιναίρετος. In the case of
αἱρέω, LIV posits an IE root *ser- ‘nehmen, ergreifen’ and a thematic
present *s-i̯e/o-. Hence αἱρέω may be a contract present on the analogy
with ἀγρέω, and, according to LIV, forms like Hom. ἐξαίρετος point to
unattested *αἴρω. Consequently, returning to ἡγεμών, it can be
concluded that the short ε keeps this noun away from ἡγέομαι and
points to direct derivation from the same verbal root *seh2g/ĝ- as ἡγός.

–––––––
28
Ἀκρεμών ‘bough, branch’ is an obscure denominative form derived from ἄκρος
according to Chantraine (1968: 172), but EDG deems a Pre-Greek origin possible. On
the other hand, the place of the accent in ἀγρεμών (also ἀγρέμων) is controversial, see
Chantraine (1979: 173) and EDG: s. u. The accent is recessive in the adjectives (Lühr
2008: I.185, 263), cf. δηλήμων, νοήμων, πενθήμων, etc.
29
The -e- vowel of κηδεμών as well as of ἡγεμών, ἀγρεμών is remarkable (Chantraine
1968: 173) in view of its normal absence, cf. ἀνοικτίρμων, ἀσπιδοφέρμων, αὐτορέγμων,
δαιτυμών, ἐγκύμων, φράδμων, etc.
30
The verb is also attested without any trace of Aeolic inflection by Homer and non-
Aeolic poets (LSJ; DGE). Att.-Ion. ζωγρέω (ζῶον + ἀγρέω) shows no trace of it either.
31
The use of ἀγρέτης referring to a ‘military leader’ is probably related with ἀγείρω,
cf. A.Pers.1002. See Chantraine (1956: 51-53).
32
See Chantraine (1956: 49-51). Influence from ἀγείρω is also possible up to the
point that some compounds in -ἀγρέτης are rather related to this verb, cf. ἱππαγρέται
‘three officers at Lacedaemon, who chose 300’ (X., etc.), μαζαγρέτᾱς ‘one who begs for
barley-loaves’ (Aristias 3), ἀγρέτης (see n. 31).
 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι 205

3. Conclusion
11. The easiest way to understand the etymology of ἡγέομαι along
with ἡγεμών is to derive them separately from *seh2g/ĝ-, that is to say,
they would be independent formations from the same verbal root,
ἡγεμών a direct one, ἡγέομαι from an agent noun ἡγός only attested in a
III AD inscription. This is in accordance with the IE evidence, as well as
with the syntactico-semantic configuration of ἡγέομαι. The hypothesis
of the derivation of ἡγέομαι from the compounds of ἄγω obscures the
relation between the terms at issue and with their cognates outside
Greek. Accordingly, the original present *ἥγομαι was substituted by
ἡγέομαι, and the agent noun ἡγός disappeared in favour of ἡγεμών. The
proximity to ἄγω / ἀγός, in form as well as in meaning, may have
triggered those substitutions.

References

Dictionaries:
Adams, Douglas Q. (1999): A dictionary of Tocharian B. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
DELG = Pierre Chantraine (1968-1980): Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue
grecque. Paris: Klincksieck.
DGE = Francisco Rodríguez Adrados et alii (1980-): Diccionario griego-español.
Madrid: CSIC.
Ebeling, Heinrich (1885): Lexicon Homericum. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
EDG = Robert S. P. Beekes with the assistance of Lucien Van Beek (2010); Etymolo-
gical dictionary of Greek. Leiden: Brill.
GEW = Hjalmar Frisk (1960-1972): Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidel-
berg: C. Winter.
Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008): Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon.
Leiden: Brill.
Lehmann, Winfred P. (1986): A Gothic etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
LfgrE = Bruno Snell et alii (1955-2010): Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
LIV = Helmut Rix et alii (2001): Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln
und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
LSJ = Henry G. Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones (19409): A Greek-English lexicon.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Streitberg, Wilhelm (1910): Gotisch-Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: C.
Winter.
de Vaan, Michiel (2008): An etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic
languages. Leiden: Brill.

Specific studies:
Allan, Rutger J. (2003): The middle voice in Ancient Greek: a study in polysemy. Am-
sterdam: Brill.
206 José Miguel Jiménez Delgado

Bader, Françoise (1972): “Le traitement des hiatus à la jointure des deux membres d'un
composé nominal en mycénien”, Minos 12: 141-196.
Brugmann, Karl (1911): Grundriss der vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen. II. Band: 2. Teil 2. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.
Bueno Pérez, María (2002): “Nombres de persona con sufijo en Corinto, Mégara y la
Argólide”, UAM dissertation.
Chantraine, Pierre (1956): Études sur le vocabulaire grec. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chantraine, Pierre (19913): Morphologie historique du grec. Paris: Klincksieck.
Chantraine, Pierre (1979): La formation des noms en grec ancien. Paris: Klincksieck.
Fortson, Benjamin W. (2004): Indo-European language and culture: an introduction.
Malden (MA) / Oxford / Carlton: Blackwell.
Fraenkel, Ernst (1906): Griechische Denominativa in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung
und Verbreitung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Fraenkel, Ernst (1910-1912): Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis auf -τήρ, -
τωρ, -της (-τ-). Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.
García-Ramón, José Luis (2006): “Zu den Personennamen der neuen Texten aus The-
ben”, in S. Deger-Jalkotzy & O. Panagl (eds.), Die neuen Linear B-Texte aus Theben.
Ihr Aufschluβwert für die mykenische Sprache und Kultur. Wien: Österreichische
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 37-52.
Hackstein, Olav (1992): “Eine weitere griechisch-tocharische Gleichung: Griechisch
πτῆξαι und tocharisch B pyäktsi”, Glotta 70: 136-165.
Hajnal, Ivo (1994): “Das Brugmannsche Gesetz in diachroner Sicht und seine Gültigkeit
innerhalb der arischen a-Stämme”, HS 107: 194-221.
Jiménez Delgado, José Miguel (2015): “The etymology of Myc. ku-na-ke-ta-i, Ion.-Att.
κυνηγέτης, and Myc. ra-wa-ke-ta, Dor. λᾱγέτᾱς”, Glotta 91: 116-128.
Kemmer, Suzanne (1993): The middle voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benja-
mins.
Landau, Oscar (1958): Mykenisch-griechische Personennamen. Göteborg: Almqvist &
Wiksell.
Lasso de la Vega, José S. (1968): Sintaxis griega. Madrid: CSIC.
Leukart, Alex (1994): Die frühgriechischen Nomina auf -tās und -ās. Wien: Österreichi-
sche Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Lobeck, Christian A. (1846): Rhematikon, sive Verborum graecorum et nominum ver-
balium technologia. Königsberg: Sumtu tratrum Borntraeger.
Lühr, Rosemarie (2008): Nominale Wortbildung des Indogermanischen in Grundzügen:
Die Wortbildungsmuster ausgewählter indogermanischer Einzelsprachen. Hamburg:
Dr. Kovač.
Matzinger, Joachim (2000): “Armenisch ark’ay ‘König’: Ein etymologischer Versuch”,
HS 113: 283-289.
Meier-Brügger, Michael (1991): “Zu griechisch ὀπηδός”, Glotta 69: 171-172.
Meillet, Antoine (1922): “A propos de gr. στρατηγός”, BSL 23, nº 70: 83-85.
Meissner, Torsten & Tribulato, Olga (2002). “Nominal composition in Mycenaean
Greek”, Transactions of the Philological Society 100/3: 289-330.
Oliver, James H. (1936): “The Sarapion monument and the paean of Sophocles”, Hes-
peria 5/1: 91-122.
Schwyzer, E. (1939): Griechische Grammatik. Erster Band: allgemeiner Teil- Laut-
lehre- Wortbildung- Flexion. München: C. H. Beck.
Sihler, Andrew L. (1995): New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. New York &
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Specht, Franz (1932): “Beiträge zur griechischen Grammatik”, Kuhns Zeitschrift 59: 31-
131.
 On the etymology of ἡγέομαι 207

Sütterlin, Ludwig (1891): Zur Geschichte der Verba denominativa im Altgriechischen.

Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.
Szemerényi, Oswald (1972): “The agent noun types lāwāgetās-lāwāgos”, Minos 12:
301-317.
Tucker, Elizabeth F. (1990): The creation of morphological regularity: early Greek
verbs in -έω, -άω, -όω, -ύω and -ίω. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Waanders, Frederick M. J. (2008): An analytical study of Mycenaean compounds: struc-
ture, types. Pisa & Roma: Fabrizio Serra.

Universidad de Sevilla José Miguel Jiménez Delgad o

Departamento de Filología Griega
y Latina
C/ Palos de la Frontera s/n
E-41004 Sevilla
jmjimdelg@us.es

View publication stats