ܗܰܡܢܺܝܟܳܐ hmnykʾ hamnikā necklace
OP *hamyānaka- (Hinz 1975, 114), outcome of OIr. *ham-yāha-na-ka- necklace (Henning apud Rosenthal 1963, 59; Shaked 1994, 109 f.); see the previous entry. — Aram. Bibl. hmynkʾ necklace (Dan. 5:7, 16, 29). According to the traditional explanation, the two Syr. loanwords hmynʾ belt, girdle (← OIr. *ham-yāha-na-) and hmnykʾ necklace (← OP *hamyānaka-) trace back to the same Ir. model, with the only difference that hmnykʾ derives from a form enlarged with the suffix -ka-. Different etymological explanations have been proposed, but they seem unconvincing. Firstly Lagarde (GA 40, 38) called in doubt the above-mentioned etymon and suggested a connection with Arm. maneak, the rendering of Gr. μανιάκης golden necklace. Lagarde's hypothesis was followed by Schmitt 1967 and Belardi 1969, with the difference that they rightly hold that Gr. μανιάκης represents OIr. *manyaka-, an Iranian word connected with Av. maini-, OInd. māṇi- "neck, back of the neck", whereas Lagarde was convinced that the Gr. word was of Celtic origin. All the above-mentioned alternative etymological attemps depend on the need to separate the origins of the two Syr. words hmynʾ "belt, girdle" and hmnykʾ "necklace" on the basis of a presumed “too great semantic difference” (so Bevan 1892 and Belardi 1969, 200). But the connection with Gr. μανιάκης, Arm. maneak gives rise to a formal difficulty, namely the explanation of the initial h- appearing both in Syriac and Aramaic words for "necklace". This initial h-, simply disregarded by Lagarde, was qualified as “an inorganic h-” by Belardi (1969, 211 n. 1). This explanation seems inconsistent, first because there does not seem to exist in Syriac any example of inorganic h-, either in loanwords from Iranian or from other languages, even in loanwords from Greek, where h (in initial or internal position) represents the middle front vowels, namely Gr. ε, η, sometimes also rendered with aleph, yod or zero (for example, hstyn ← Gr. ἐστίν; see Nöldeke 1898 § 4B). In fact, Belardi quotes only two examples in order to confirm the presumed "inorganicness" of Syr. and Aram. h-, namely Aram. hykl palace ← Akkad. ēkallu ← Sum. É.GAL; and Aram. hlk tax, toll ← Akkad. ilku, where the initial h- is probably due to the influence of the Semitic vb. hlk "ivit". Second, as regards Aram. hykl "palace", the initial h- is not at all inorganic, but represents the correct and old rendering of Sumerian E2 of é-gal, which scholars do not yet interpret as a vowel, but as /ha/: see Kaufman 1974, 27; Gelb 1961, 25. In my opinion, there is little doubt that Syr. hmnykʾ and Bibl. Aram. hmynkʾ contain the rendering of the Ir. prefix ham- "together, with", and I consider very probable the hypothesis advanced by Henning, and accepted by Hinz, that Syr. hmnykʾ goes back to OIr. *ham-yāha-na-ka-, where the meaning of "object that surrounds together, embracing" seems adequate either for a necklace or a belt. This hypothesis is favoured by Gignoux (personal communication), according to whom hmnynʾ and hmnykʾ represent the same Iranian word, and the second is derived from the former by means of the diminutive suffix -ka- ● Gn 41, 42; Ez 16, 11; ES 3, 93D; JS in asd 99, 14; MS 2, 164 v 1378; AS 3, 20, 24; MiS 537b pu = Bh chr 152, 1 ◆ LS 177b; Lagarde GA 40, 98