Back to Beekes: αἰδώς and the Failure of the PIE Abstraction
1. The Data Greek Cannot Explain
In the Cham Albanian dialect, the expression “u di” (standard “u gdhi”) means “it dawned / it became day.” This is not a poetic metaphor but an ordinary, living usage.
u di
→ impersonal, intransitive
→ literally: “it became known / it became visible”
→ semantically: light appeared; darkness ended
u gdhi
→ from gdhihem / gdhi, “to dawn; to wake into daylight”
→ more concrete, but semantically equivalent
The decisive point—systematically ignored in Greek-centric etymology—is that di here does not mean “to know” in a modern cognitive sense. It preserves an archaic semantic identity:
di = to see = to become visible
light → visibility → consciousness
This is not speculative reconstruction; it is direct linguistic evidence, still functioning in a living Balkan language. Cham Albanian thus exposes the pre-abstract layer from which later philosophical meanings were derived—and subsequently obscured.
The Root “di” and the Semantic Mechanics of αἰδώς
The key to understanding αἰδώς lies not in speculative Proto-Indo-European roots, but in a living semantic structure preserved in Albanian. At its core is the symbolic-semantic root “di”, which underlies knowing, day, god, and sun. Albanian alone preserves this root transparently:
di – “to know”
di – “to dawn”
dit(ë) – “day”
diell – “sun”
drit(ë) – “light”
ndiej – “to feel, to sense”
The unifying principle is clear: “di” = visibility, illumination, awareness. Albanian encodes the cognitive and perceptual foundation of human experience, where light, vision, and knowledge are inseparable.
Greek and Latin, by contrast, abstracted away this structure. Latin dio (“god”) and Greek notions of light, knowledge, or divinity are reconstructable only through speculative etymology. Albanian preserves the living mechanics: the interplay between visibility and cognition, exposure and concealment, desire and avoidance.
The Albanian Verb ndiej and the Perceptual Continuum of di
The Albanian verb ndiej (“to feel, to sense”) derives from Proto-Albanian *n-di-e- / (a)n-di-e-, an extension of di, encoding perception and awareness. It extends the semantic axis of di from external visibility to internal sensation. What is first seen and known becomes felt. Albanian thus preserves a complete perceptual continuum rather than isolated abstractions.
Morphological and Semantic Development:
Root: di (Proto-Albanian) – perception, visibility, awareness
Extension: (a)n-di-e- → ndiej
Core meaning: “to feel, to sense, to experience internally”
Related forms:
ndjenjë (noun) – “feeling; emotion”
ndihem (reflexive) – “to feel oneself; to feel well/unwell”
These forms demonstrate that feeling and emotion in Albanian are grounded in perception, not treated as abstract, autonomous phenomena.
2. Greek αἰδώς and the Collapse of the PIE Explanation
Greek αἰδώς (aidos) denotes an unstable and internally conflicted semantic field: shame, reverence, respect, modesty, fear before others. Beekes, correctly sensing the difficulty, labels the word as etymologically uncertain, while cautiously citing a possible derivation from PIE h₂eysd- (“to praise, to honour”).
This proposal fails on two counts.
Formally, the phonology does not work. A root h₂eysd- should yield something like *αἰζώς in Greek—a form that simply does not exist. This is not a minor irregularity but a structural mismatch. Beekes admits this, yet the hypothesis continues to circulate by inertia rather than evidence.
Semantically, the explanation is even weaker. Praise and honour do not account for shame, fear of exposure, and withdrawal. These are not peripheral meanings but central to αἰδώς. The PIE abstraction cannot explain why a word for “honour” should simultaneously denote the urge to hide.
Greek retains the noun αἰδώς but loses the internal mechanics
Semantic Axis Diagram: Albanian vs. Beekes’ PIE Model
ALBANIAN (Vertical Axis)
SUN / LIGHT
| diell, dritë
VISIBILITY
| di, u di / u gdhi
KNOWLEDGE
| di
FEELING / INTERNAL EXPERIENCE
| ndiej, ndjenjë
SOCIAL–AFFECTIVE STATES
| Honour / Respect → movement toward other
| Shame → withdrawal from visibility
GREEK αἰδώς
(compressed semantic fossil)
Greek etymology here explains nothing; it merely renames the problem.
3. The Semantic Structure Greek Fossilized
The core problem is methodological. Greek philology treats αἰδώς as a unitary abstraction because Greek has already collapsed its internal structure. Albanian, by contrast, has not.
a) Shame = Invisibility
Albanian di (“to know; to appear; to be visible”), historically linked to diell (“sun”), encodes visibility as a primary cognitive state. With the privative prefix a-, we obtain adi-:
adi- = not appearing, not being visible
This is not moral theorizing but experiential reality. Shame is the impulse not to be seen, not to be exposed to the gaze of others. Fear is secondary; invisibility is primary.
Greek αἰδώς preserves this meaning but no longer explains it.
b) Honour = Desire Toward the Other
The positive pole of αἰδώς—respect, reverence, honour—is equally transparent in Albanian:
ai = “he; the other”
do = “to want; to desire; to love”
Honour is not an abstract virtue but an orientation of desire toward the other. One honours what one values. Respect is not imposed; it is willed.
Again, Greek retains the result while erasing the mechanism.
4. What αἰδώς Really Is
Under this analysis, αἰδώς is not a single PIE inheritance but a semantic compression of two opposed experiential forces:
Shame → withdrawal from visibility (adi-)
Honour → desire toward the other (ai + do)
Greek preserves the compressed noun; Albanian preserves the semantic machinery that makes the compression intelligible.
The contradiction inside αἰδώς—honour and shame—is not accidental. It reflects a pre-philosophical cognitive structure that Indo-European reconstruction, obsessed with abstract roots, is structurally incapable of recovering.
5. Conclusion: The Cost of Ignoring Albanian
Beekes is right to doubt the formal validity of h₂eysd-. But stopping there is an act of methodological timidity. The alternative is not “unknown origin,” but recognizing that Albanian preserves archaic semantic oppositions that Greek has neutralized.
This is not nationalism, and it is not romanticism. It is a question of linguistic survival. Greek gives us polished abstractions; Albanian gives us the working parts.
Ignoring Albanian does not make Greek etymologies safer—it makes them incomplete.
Comments
Post a Comment