*u̯émi̯e/o-
‘to find’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1426
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/wami(ya)-(di)/, wa/i-mi-LITUUS-
‘to find’1.1.1Transmission
The six attestations of the lexeme under discussion can be found in inscriptions from Amuq, Karkamiš, Malatya, Maraş, and Tabal, and one letter whose provenance is uncertain despite being found in Assur. The texts are dated to between the 12th and the late 8th centuries BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| 2sg. pres. ind. act. | /wami(ya)si/ | wa/i-mi-LITUUS-si | ASSUR letter f+g, §42 |
| 1sg. pret. ind. act. | /wami(ya)ha/ | wa/i-mi-LITUUS-ha | KARKAMIŠ A15b, §23 (Karkamiš) |
| MARAŞ 8, §3 (Maraş) | |||
| TELL TAYINAT 2, 1b§ii (Amuq) | |||
| 3sg. pret. ind. act. | /wami(ya)da/ | wa/i-mi-OCULUS(+?) | KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §3 (Malatya) |
| 3pl. pret. ind. act. | /wami(ya)nta/ | wa/i-mi-LITUUS-ta | KARABURUN, §6 (Tabal) |
The identification of 〈wa/i-mi-OCULUS(+?)〉 in KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §3 as belonging to the present lemma is due to Nowicki 1981a:255, who reads what may be a thorn-like addition to the shape of OCULUS (sign *25) as 〈+ra/i〉 (sign *383). While the form certainly belongs to the present lemma, Hawkins 2000a:292 disagrees about the reading of 〈+ra/i〉, since the rhotacism suggested by Nowicki for this form would be entirely unexpected in such an early inscription, and in addition to that, the thorn-like shape of the putative 〈+ra/i〉 points in the wrong direction compared to its other occurrences in the same inscription. It is not known what, if any, syllabic value OCULUS may have in the attested form, although Nowicki 1981a:255 suggests interpreting it in the same way as LITUUS in this case.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this lexeme is largely clear, save for the role played by the logogram LITUUS (sign *378). Hawkins 2000a:482 suggests reading it /a/, resulting in a stem /wami(ya)-/, cf. Sasseville 2021a:326f. In all other respects, the phonological shape is quite clear, because already Laroche 1950b:51 linked it to Hittite wemiye/a-(mi) ‘to find’ (followed by Hawkins 1975a:135, Oettinger 1979a:344 and others). In fact, the attestation in ASSUR letter f+g, §42, 〈wa/i-mi-LITUUS-si〉, served to identify the verbal ending of the 2sg. pres. act. (see Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:37).
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning ‘to find’ was first suggested for the present verb by Laroche 1950b:51, who connected it to Hittite wemiye/a-(mi) ‘to find’ right away (followed by Hawkins 1975a:135). Hawkins 2000a:482 notes that the logogram LITUUS is frequent in verbs of perception, Hawkins 2000a:131, 133 remains doubtful over the assigned meaning because of the context in KARKAMIŠ A15b, §23: [z]a-pa-wa/i “SCALPRUM”-su-na za-ma-ti-i-na-´ wa/i-mi-LITUUS-ha, meaning ‘but I found this stone (to be(?)) zammant(i)-’, with both /assun/ ‘stone’ and /zammantin/ showing acc. sg. c. inflection. However, since the meaning of /zammant(i)-/ has so far remained in the dark, the context cannot serve to call into doubt the meaning assigned to the verb. and Sasseville 2021a:326f. confirms that the meaning fits all available contexts in so far as they are understood. Thus e.g. in MARAŞ 8, §3: ta?-pa-wa/i ku+ra/i-ku-ma-na(URBS) FLUMEN.REGIO-ti-na (“VACUUS”)ta-na-ti-i?-na wa/i-mi-LITUUS-ha, approx. /anta?=ba=wa kurkuman habadin tanattin wami(ya)hha/, meaning ‘I found the Gurgum river-land empty’.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
If the logogram LITUUS should indeed be interpreted as an /a/ in the attested forms, then the verb stem is /wami(ya)-/, and the verb falls into the /-i(ya)-(di)/ class in HLuw. Such is suggested by the cognates in the other Anatolian languages with Hittite wemiye/a-(mi) and Lyd. fa-kat-wãmi-(d) (Sasseville 2021a:326f.).
[AH.B.]
1.2 Lydian
wãmi-(d)
‘to find, come across (vel sim.)’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in one inscription, found it the precinct of Artemis in Sardis.
[I.Y.]
1.2.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. act. | fakatwãmid | LW 22.14 (Sardis) |
1.2.3Meaning
According to Gusmani 1964a:119, the literal interpretation of fa-kat-wãmid is “to come across”, which in the context would mean ‘to be benevolently inclined’, while Carruba 1969a:73 also accepts ‘to come across’ as the contextual meaning. Yakubovich 2017b:282 prefers the meaning ‘to approach’. All solutions are compatible with the basic meaning ‘to find’, which is reached on etymological grounds.
[I.Y.]
1.2.4Stem
The stem is provided with the i-suffix and lenition of the inflectional ending in 3sg. present. The use of the vowel ã suggests that the stress is on the root; see Sasseville 2021a:332f.
[I.Y.]
1.3 Hittite
wemiye/a-(mi)
‘to find’1.3.1Literature / Comments
HEG U-Z:484-491.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to find’
Melchert 1994a:66 defends the idea of a univerbation of *au̯- (or *ū) with the verb *em (or better *h1em- ‘to take’; cf. LIV2:236). Kloekhorst (EDHIL:999) criticizes this approach from both the semantic and phonological perspective. In analogy to CLuw. awi-(di) ‘to come’ (< *au̯-h1ei̯-), we would expect the outcome in Luwian to be *awami(ya)-(di). Since HLuw. has /wami(ya)-(di)/, a root of the shape *u̯em- would seem a priori preferable, unless the preverb could have two different shapes, i.e. *au̯- und *u-; cf. the PIE reconstruction below. Tischler (HEG U-Z:489) points out, just like Kloekhorst, that the lack of a counterpart with the preverb *pe- speaks against the hypothesis of a univerbation, which is however considered here a weak counterargument. All three Anatolian cognates, i.e. Hitt. wemiye/a-(mi), HLuw. /wami(ya)-(di)/ and Lyd. fa-kat-wãmi-(d) point towards a Proto-Anatolian formation in *-i̯e/o- with accent on the root (and thus lenition of the ending), i.e. *u̯émi̯e/o-(di) (Sasseville 2021a:321, 326f.). For a list of outdated hypotheses, see HEG U-Z:489f.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
While the semantic assignment of Lydian wãmi-(d) and HLuw. /wami(ya)-(di)/ is to a large extent based on etymological considerations and the equation with Hitt. wemiye/a-(mi) ‘to find’, the Hittite verb is the only definitive source for the meaning of PAnat. *u̯ém‑i̯e/o‑. According to Pedersen 1938a:82 with n. 1, the original meaning of Hitt. wemiye/a-(mi) is ‘to grasp, partake of’, which is supported by the evidence. Especially the oldest texts provide a meaning that consists of the two notions ‘to find (by accident)’ and ‘to take (home, in possession)’, as is shown by the frequent legal phrases like takku X kuiški wemiyezi “If someone finds X” (cf. HEG U–Z:484f.). For example, in KBo VI 2+ iii 38, the subsequent castration of a ram (=an parkunuzi) obviously would take place in the finder’s home rather than right on the spot where it is found. This observation supports the semantic reconstruction as preverb *(a)u̯- ‘hither’ [lemma link] + root *h1em- ‘to take’.
A parallel for the semantic development from ‘to take, seize’ to ‘to find’ might be, prima facie, Lat. re‑perīre ‘to find (again)’ < *‘to seize again (Lat. re‑)’ ← parere ‘to seize; to give birth’ (PIE *perh3- ‘to provide’, LIV²:474f.). However, the notion of ‘finding’ in this case has to be attributed to a large extend to the preverb Lat. re- ‘again’, which is a meaning that is not attested for the preverb PIE *(a)u̯- [lemma link].Furthermore, Lat. reperīre is contrasted with invenīre insofar as the former rather means ‘to find (by looking), find again’ and the latter ‘to find (by accident), come upon’, cf. OLD²:1052, 1783. The meaning of Hitt. wemiya‑(mi), however, is closer to the one of Lat. invenīre ‘to find (by accident)’ than to ‘to find (by looking), find again’ (Lat. reperīre), which makes Lat. re‑perīre *‘to seize again/back’ not the best comparandum.
A better parallel is OIr. -gaib ‘to take’ beside OIr. fo-gaib* ‘to find, meet with; to get’.Cf. eDIL s.v. fo-gaib, fo-geib, Schumacher 2004a:318–324.The preverb/preposition OIr. fo(‑) ‘under’, originally ‘upwards (from below)’ (< PIE *úpo ‘upwards’, LIPP II:829–834) adds a similar notion to the simplex verb as is reconstructed for PAnat. *(a)u̯- ‘hither’ [lemma link], cf. OIr. fo-gaib* *‘(lit.) to take up’ → *‘to (find and) take up’ > ‘to find’ beside PAnat. *u̯-ém-i̯e/o- *‘(lit.) to take hither’ → ‘to (find and) take hither (i.e., in possession)’ > ‘to find’.For the horizontal direction in the context of finding, cf. ModHG auf-finden ‘(lit.) to find up; to find’. In these cases, the upward direction is used metaphorically to denote the appearance of something (from below), cf. ModE to bring sth. up. Similarly, the semantics ‘here, hither’ as proposed for PAnat. *(a)u̯- [lemma link] may denote the appearance of something previously invisible or unavailable, cf. ModHG herzeigen ‘(lit.) to show hither; to show’.Other than in the case of Lat. reperīre vs. invenīre (cf. the comment above), the aspect of finding by chance or by searching is not relevant in the case of OIr. fo-gaib* and PAnat. *u̯-ém-i̯e/o- ‘to find’ < *‘to take hither’.
3.1.1Preverb
On the preverb PAnat. *(a)u̯-, cf. [lemma link].
3.1.2Root etymology
The verbal root underlying PAnat. *u̯ém-i̯e/o- is continued in (at least) three further branches of Indo-European. The Anatolian evidence would make the root belong to a wider area than only the northern and western part of the IE-speaking world. While in Italic (or only in Latin?) the simple verb semantically developed a mercantile meaning (‘to buy’), the Latin prefix verbs as well as the continuants in Celtic and Balto-Slavic provide a meaning ‘to take’. Therefore, the root in question is unambiguously reconstructable as PIE *h1em- ‘to take’ (LIV²:236).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The outdated etymologies in HEG U–Z:489f. and Lubotsky’s proposal (in EDHIL:999) to connect the Anatolian verb with the root PIE *u̯en- ‘to overpower, win’ (LIV²:680f.) have to be dismissed.As Kloekhorst admits, the discrepancy in the root-final nasal between PAnat. *u̯em- ‘to find’ and PIE *u̯en- ‘to overpower, win’ is hard to solve. Besides, this connection is semantically less attractive than the one proposed here, cf. above.Considerably more promising is the reconstruction of a univerbation of the preverb PAnat. *(a)u̯- ‘hither’ [lemma link] and the root *h1em- ‘to take’. The objection uttered by HEG U–Z:489 (followed by EDHIL:999) that the semantic counterpart *pe ‘away’ + *h1em- ‘to take’ is not attested, is a rather weak counter-argument, especially because the following Italic evidence may be adduced: according to the communis opinio (cf. e.g., WH II:335, LIPP II:80), Lat. pōmum n. ‘fruit; fruit-tree’ (cf. also pōmus f. ‘fruit bearing tree; fruit’) goes back to a univerbation *po=h1m-ó- ‘what is/may be plucked’.Weiss 2010a:234 mentions as an alternative the reconstruction as “*po-ai-mo-” containing PItal. *ai- ‘to take’ (cf. PIE *h1ai̯- ‘to give; to take’, LIV²:229 and s.v. Lyc. A xe/i- ‘sacrifice’).This evidence is even more striking if the following derivational chain is accepted: Lat. pōmum ‘fruit’ < result noun (τόμος-type) *póh1m-o- ‘what is plucked’ ← secondary root *peh1m- ‘to take away, pluck’ ← univerbation *pe=h1em- ‘to take away’, which is exactly the formation demanded by HEG U–Z:489 and EDHIL:999. But even without the Italic evidence, it is absolutely possible to reconstruct an Anatolian verb with one of the two (at least slightly productive) preverbs attested in Anatolian, viz. PAnat. *(a)u̯- ‘hither’ [lemma link].
Since beside the indirect evidence for the counterpart *pe=h1em- ‘to take away’ (Lat. pōmum ‘fruit’), no comparanda are attested in the non-Anatolian IE languages, it is not advisable to trace PAnat. *u̯‑ém-i̯e/o- back beyond Proto-Anatolian.
3.2.1Preverb
On the preverb PAnat. *(a)u̯-, cf. [lemma link].
3.2.2Root etymology
The verbal root underlying PAnat. *u̯‑ém‑i̯e/o- is attested in Italic, Celtic, Baltic, and Slavic (and maybe in Tocharian). Since there is, except for the long vowel in Lat. pōmum ‘fruit’ (if < *póh1m-o-), no direct evidence for an anlauting consonant, the root is by default reconstructed with *h1- as PIE *h1em- ‘to take’ (LIV²:236).While the rhyming roots PIE *h1em- ‘to take’ (LIV²:236), PIE ?*i̯em- ‘to stretch out’ (LIV²:312) and PIE 1.*nem- ‘to apportion’ (LIV²:453) are normally separated from each other (cf., e.g., IEW:311 and LIV²:236, 312, 453), WH I:401 mention the possibility of explaining PIE 1.*nem- (in the sense ‘to take’) as a univerbation of the preposition *en ‘in’ and PIE *h1em- ‘to take’, i.e. **n-h1em- ‘to take in’, cf. also EDPG:387 (rejected by EWAhd VI:879) on PGerm. *nem‑e/a-, which is interpreted there as having been reanalyzed and dissimilated from *gam‑em‑e/a- ‘to take (*em‑) together (*gam‑)’. The former view (**n=em- ‘to take in’) might be morphologically comparable to the above-proposed etymology of *u̯em- ‘(lit.) to take hither’. For a highly speculative suggestion to etymologize PIE *h1em- (and 1.*nem-), cf. Lindeman 2003a.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Lat. emere ‘to buy’, °emere ‘to take’ (Enn./Plaut.+), pōmum n., pōmus f. ‘fruit; fruit-bearing tree’ (Cato+)Cf. Weiss 2010a:229–235 on the Umbr. divine name Puemun-.
Osc. 3pl. perf. act. emmens ‘to buy?’, Umbr. 3pl. conj. pres. pass. emantur ‘to buy?; to take, accept?’, etc.
WH I:400–402, 862, WH II:334f., EM:195f., 520, EDLIL:188f., 479, OLD²:665, Untermann 2000a:219–221
OIr. fo-eim, ar-foím, ar-eim ‘to receive, take’
EDPC:115, eDIL s.v. fo-eim , -foím, -fóem, ar-foím, ar-eim (2020-11-25), Schumacher 2004a:290–292
Lith. im̃ti ‘to take, grasp, seize’, Latv. jem̃t ‘id.’, OPr. īmt ‘to take’ (III)
ALEW 2.0 s.v. im̃ti (2020-11-23), EDBIL:200f., PKEŽ² s.v. īmt (2020-11-25)
OCS jęti ‘to take’, Russ. *‑jat’ ‘to take’, etc.According to LIPP II:97 n. 4, OCS uimati ‘to take away’ is a recent formation.
EDSIL:158, Vasmer III:500
Trautmann 1923a:103f.
TochB yämn(ā)-, TochA yom(ā)- ‘to achieve, reach’
DTB²:538f., Jasanoff 1978b:32, Malzahn 2010a:794–796According to Malzahn 2010a:796 (following DTB²:538), the Tocharian verbs should rather be connected with TochAB yām- ‘to make’ and thus with the root PIE ?*i̯em- ‘to stretch out’ (LIV²:312).