*mi̯éu̯-/mi̯u-´
‘four’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- num
- ID
- 1440
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/mawa(/i)-/, 4-wa/i-
‘four’1.1.1Transmission
Attested eight times, the numeral ‘four’ can be found in inscriptions, letters and pithoi found in Karkamiš, Tabal, Tell Ahmar, Assur, and Altıntepe. All relevant texts date to the 8th century BCE, a fact which should be attributed to chance.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. pl. | /mawinzi/ | 4 | CEKKE, §9 (Karkamiš) |
| KULULU lead strip 3, side 1 reg. 1 (Tabal) | |||
| acc. pl. | /mawinzi/ | “4”-wa/i-zi | ARSLANTAŞ, §6 (Tell Ahmar) |
| 4-zi-i | ASSUR letter f+g, §28 (Assur) | ||
| 4-zi | ASSUR letter a, §10 (Assur) | ||
| ASSUR letter c, §9 (Assur) | |||
| dat./loc.pl. | /mawanz/ | 4 | KULULU lead strip 2, obv. §10 (Tabal) |
| unclear | /maw.../ | 4 | ALTINTEPE pithoi, pithos 1 (Altıntepe) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
For the most part, this lexeme is represented by the number sign for ‘four’, which consists of four vertical lines usually arranged in pairs of two one below the other, but all four lines next to one another can also be found in the corpus; thereby HLuw. writing imitates the vertical wedges used in cuneiform, arranging them in the same fashion. The number sign is sometimes followed by syllabic complements representing the case ending or more, first correctly identified by Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:48. While HLuw. offers only one instance of a syllabic spelling covering at least part of the stem (in ARSLANTAŞ), this serves as a link to the forms found in CLuw., of which a handful occur in fully syllabic spelling 〈ma-a-u-wa-〉 rather than using the much more frequent number sign for it (cf. e.g. Carruba 1979a:192). The phonological interpretation can therefore be taken as reasonably secure.
The HLuw. number sign ‘four’ with its four vertical strokes has by various scholars been taken as the acrophonic basis for the HLuw. sign 〈mi〉 (*391), which consists of two pairs of short diagonal strokes next to one another, much in the way of modern inverted commas. Thus, Kloekhorst (EDHIL:571f.) suggested to read HLuw. ‘four’ as /miwa-/, and Hawkins 2003a:174 has argued against reading *391 as anything but 〈mi〉 except in a handful of names. Building on Güterbock 1998a:203, Yakubovich 2008c:24f. puts forward the hypothesis that the acrophonic derivation of the sign stems from Hittite miwa- ‘four’ rather than Luwian /mawa-/ due to extensive bilingualism, thereby voiding the need for reading the same in HLuw. as opposed to the evidence from CLuw. Cammarosano 2016a:81, in contrast, argues that while *391 does represent 〈mi〉 as a syllabogram, it should be read 〈MAx〉 when used as a phonetic indicator, e.g. in AUDIRE+MAx- /tumma(n)ti-/ ‘to hear’. This view is contested by Weeden 2014a:84, 90f.; he makes a case for dispensing with additional phonetic values for signs that are employed for aesthetic reasons against their usual reading, esp. for personal names on seals.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this numeral is self-evident from its spelling. As is usual with numerals in HLuw., these are comparatively rare in nearly all of the corpus, but occur in great frequency in just a handful of texts, most prominently in the KULULU lead strips, which list allocations of goods and house occupancy, and the ASSUR letters recording the trading of items among other things.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The numeral inflects as an adjective and is hence expected to show i-mutation, although the spelling does not permit to prove this allomorphy beyond cavil.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
māuwa(/i)-
‘four’1.2.1Transmission
The lexeme is found in the Kizzuwatnean rituals of Kuwattalla and Puriyanni, from Middle Hittite onwards.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. pl. c. | 4-zi | KBo 9.145, 6’ | (CTH 770, NS) |
| abl./instr. | ma-a-u-wa-a-ti | KUB 35.54 iii 10 | (CTH 758, MS) |
| ma-a-u-wa-a-˹ti˺ | KBo 29.36, 3’ | (CTH 763, MS) | |
| ma-a-u-wa-ti | KUB 35.21 rev. 4’ | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| 4-ti | KUB 35.33 iii 7’ | (CTH 762, NS) | |
| 4-ti | KUB 35.43 ii 12 | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| 4-ti | KUB 35.43 iii 24 | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| ˹4˺-ti | KUB 32.14 + KUB 34.62, 6’ | (CTH 761, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
As noticed already by Otten 1953a:27f., the interchange of the abl./instr. forms māuwāti and 4-ti in consistent combination with pārtāti, since interpreted as the abl./instr. of pārt(i)- ‘leg’ (cf. CLL:171), leaves no doubt about their semantic equivalence.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
Although fully syllabic spellings are attested only for the ablative in -āti, there can be little doubt that the numeral in adjectival use follows the inflection with i-mutation.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Derivatives
1.2.6.1Rejected Derivatives
1.3 Luwian in Hittite transmission
māwā-
‘four’1.3.1Transmission
The Luwian word is attested only once in Hittite transmission in an MS itinerary text containing further Luwianisms.
[E.R.]
1.3.2Forms
| dat./loc. pl. or gen. pl. | ma-a-wa-a-aš | KBo 62.5, 12 | (CTH 230, MS) |
For the syntactic interpretation of mawaš in 4 PÚḪI.A ŠÀ.BA šiwammalitaš āššandaš mawaš aššaraš as gen. pl., cf. Lorenz & Rieken 2007a:468f., 478: ‘4 springs, among (them the springs) of the bitter-sweet mouths of the four women.’ Differently Melchert (e-mail January 21, 2019), who translates ‘4 springs, among the four bitter-sweet mouths the a.-one is first,’ but offers no convincing explanation for the position of the numeral after its head noun.
[E.R.]
1.3.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photograph for edition (Lorenz & Rieken 2007a).
[E.R.]
1.3.4Meaning
Identity with CLuw. mauwa(/i)- ‘4’ is assured by the mention of 4 springs two lines earlier, to which the ‘four bitter-sweet mouths’ refer.
[E.R.]
1.3.5Stem
Within Hittite, the Luwian loanword is inflected as an a-stem. However, no forms of the nom. c. or acc. c. are attested, where one might expect i-mutation.
[E.R.]
1.4 Lycian A
*mu-
‘four’1.4.1Derivatives
1.5 Lycian B
*mawa-
‘four’1.5.1Derivatives
1.6 Sidetic
*mewa
‘four’1.6.1Derivatives
Possible derivative:
1.7 Carian
muo
‘four’1.7.1Transmission
Hapax in a stele with a priest list (among others) from Hyllarima, the Carian heading is dated to 320 or 320/319 (Adiego 2019b:20–22).
[Zs.S.]
1.7.2Forms
| dat. pl.? | muoτ | C.Hy 1, 2 |
The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:386 checked against the photograph in Laumonier 1934a:347 Fig. 26. The ending -τ and thus this form were previously identified as genitive plural (Laumonier 1934a:350; Schürr 1992a:146; Hajnal 1995b:15 n. 9 [only as genitive]; Adiego 2002a:17, Adiego 2007a:319, 386), but Melchert 2010f:185 argued for dative plural, to which also Adiego 2019b:25f. joined. Simon (Simon forthcoming), in contrast, argues for an ablative ending on semantic and formal grounds.
[Zs.S.]
1.7.3Meaning ‘four’
This meaning is convincingly identified by Adiego 2019b:18-20, 25f. on contextual grounds (superseding the “guess” of Melchert 2010f:185f. as ‘mighty’ [cf. Luwian mūwa- ‘might, power’, see s.v.] based solely on phonetic similarity). Since it appears in the phrase ‘in the fourth year’, there is the legitimate question if we are dealing with a cardinal or with an ordinal. However, as Adiego 2019b:26 points out, it is possible that these two categories were not formally different anymore in Carian in all the cases. Since no suffix can certainly be identified in muo and cardinals can also be used as ordinals in many languages (type “lesson five”), muo is booked here as cardinal.
[Zs.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘four’
Comparing Hitt. miyuwa-/miyawa- ‘four’ (spelled 〈mi-e-wa-〉 or 〈mi-i-ú-wa-〉 and once 〈mi-e-ia-wa-〉), CLuw. māwa(/i)-, Lyc. A *mu- and Lyc. B *mawa-, a Proto-Anatolian numeral of the shape *mi̯eu̯- should be reconstructed. The loss of -i̯- in Luwic probably happened in the sequence -C_u-, which would come from the zero-grade of the formation, i.e. *mi̯u- (for this potential sound law see Sasseville 2021a:132. On the other hand, Eichner 1992a:78 assumes that the glide in Luwic was dropped intervocalically in the oblique cases of the u-stem, i.e. *mei̯-aw- > mewa- > mawa-. However, for the retention of the glide between different vowels in Luwian see Rieken 2005b.), i.e. *mi̯éu̯-/mi̯u-´ > *mi̯éu̯-/mu-´ >> (+ levelling) méu̯- + *-o- or *-ā- > Luw. māwa(/i)-, Lyc. A *mu- and Lyc. B *mawa-. Most scholars reconstruct a u-stem formation and, thus, do not treat the -u- as being part of the root (EDHIL:571f., HED M:118, HEG L-M:178f.), although from an Anatolian perspective, the -u- may have been reanalyzed as part of the root. Since the numeral is not synchronically a u-stem, *mi̯éu̯-/mi̯u-´ was either further derived with *-o- or *-eh2- or simply transferred to one of the two stem classes within the Proto-Anatolian stage.
For a possible cognate in Lydian, see Lyd. arsmawa-(d).
The reconstruction of the root varies strongly in the literature: Carruba 1979a:196f. suggests a connection with the root of Hitt. māi-/-i(ya)-(ḫi) ‘to grow’, whereas Kloekhorst (EDHIL:571f.) prefers a connection with the root *meh1- ‘to measure’, and Tischler (HED L-M:178f.) and Carruba 1999c:152 with the root *mei̯- ‘to diminish’ See the Proto-Indo-European lemma below.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Kloekhorst (EDHIL:572) advocates an etymology originally proposed by Hamp 1994–1995a:61f., who connects the Anatolian numeral ‘4’ with the root PIE *meh1- ‘to measure’. In this case, the underlying stem would mean ‘measured’, whence ‘square’, cf. HED 6 M:118f. with putative comparanda from Vedic and Latin. Although this etymology may be semantically plausible, it is phonologically not unproblematic,Kloekhorst assumes in EDHIL:572 that the *‑i̯- in this formation results from a strategy to avoid the hiatus caused by the loss of *h1: *meh1‑(e)u- → *mei̯‑(e)u-, cf. also EDHIL:570 on Hitt. mē(i̯)an- < *meh1‑on. Cf. also above sub PAnat. reconstruction.which is why this proposal is refused here.
Another etymology is provided by Carruba 1979a:195f., who connects the numeral ‘4’ with the Hittite verb māi‑/‑i(ya)‑(ḫi) ‘to grow’ (cf. PAnat. *mói̯h1‑/*mih1‑´(i)) and reconstructs an original meaning ‘grown; many, much’. In his view, this meaning would make the numeral ‘4’ fit in between ‘3’ (< “oltre”, cf. *terh2- ‘to pass’, LIV²:633f.) and ‘5’ (< “tutto quanto”). However, in this dictionary, the numeral ‘3’ is traced back, if at all, to ‘the protruding (finger)’ (cf. PAnat. *téri-/tri-´ ‘3’), while the etymology of PIE *penku̯e ‘5’ is still being debated, cf., e.g., Blažek 1999a:225–229, LIPP II:506 n. 6. Therefore, the numeral series proposed by Carruba can hardly be maintained, which in turn weakens his argument for the semantic interpretation of the PAnat. numeral ‘4’.
Thirdly, as assumed by Heubeck 1963b:201f.,“Eine letzte Vermutung sei hier nur als Frage angeschlossen” (ibid. 201). He is followed by, e.g., GED:257, Eichner 1992a, Blažek 1999a:201, HEG II L–M:178f., and most recently Bjørn 2020a:57.the Anatolian numeral ‘4’ may have been formed to a root meaning ‘to diminish, decrease’, thus suggesting a basic meaning ‘little (hand, without the thumb)’ > ‘four (fingers)’ vel sim. This claim may be substantiated, e.g., by typological material from Papuan languages, cf. Blažek 1999a:201 with refs., who moreover adduces the Latin and Lycian subtractive way of writing the number 4, viz. “1 less than 5, 5–1” in Lat. 〈IV〉 and Lyc. 〈I<〉.Blažek 1999a:201, however, advocates a slightly different semantic concept which is illustrated by Aghu (Papuan) sigiane ‘4; (lit.) little finger’, viz. naming the numeral ‘4’ after the fourth finger which at least in the case of Papuan Aghu would be the little finger. However, if the (pre-)PIE numeral *tréi̯‑/*tri- ‘3’ is indeed named after the middle finger (< *‘protruding’, cf. PAnat. *téri-/tri-´ ‘3’), the little finger is not the fourth but the fifth (or first) finger. Rather, the fourth finger would then be the ring finger (or the forefinger). This means that in this scenario the origin of the numerals ‘3’ (if < *‘protruding [finger]’) and ‘4’ (if < *‘little [finger]’) would have to go back to different temporal stages and/or cultural sources with different ways of finger counting, cf. Pika, Nicoladis & Marentette 2009a, who study, inter alia, the difference in finger counting between English-speaking Canadians (mainly starting with the forefinger) and Germans (mainly starting with the thumb). Since there is no further evidence for the counting strategy of the Proto-Anatolians (or their predecessors), the proposal to connect the numeral ‘4’ with a certain finger is entirely ad hoc. This objection, on the other hand, cannot be raised against a connection of the numeral ‘3’ with the middle finger (cf. PAnat. *téri-/tri-´ ‘3’), because in two out of three possible ways of finger counting – starting with (1) the thumb or (2) the little finger vs. (3) the forefinger – the middle finger is the third one.It therefore seems most promising to interpret the Anatolian numeral ‘4’ as a derivative from the ‘little’ hand, viz. PAnat. *méi̯u-/*mi̯éu̯- ‘the hand without the thumb, thus showing the four long fingers’.This reconstruction, if valid, would imply that the (pre-)Proto-Anatolians started finger counting with the forefinger or the little finger but not with the thumb which in this scenario is the fifth finger. In combination with the etymology of the numeral ‘3’ one may hypothesize that the (pre-)Proto-Anatolians, like, e.g., the English-speaking Canadians (as per above), started counting with the forefinger, because the thumb is excluded by ‘4’, if it is not used twice (as ‘1’ and ‘5’), and the forefinger is excluded by ‘3’.
3.1.1Root etymology
The only formation of the underlying root that is securely reconstructable for PIE is a causative nasal present *mi‑néu̯‑/*mi‑nu‑´ ‘to diminish, decrease’. Since causative nasal presents are usually built upon intransitive roots, the bare root ought to be reconstructed as PIE *mei̯- ‘to decrease (intr.), fade’ (LIV²:427).It may also be an adjectival root ‘small’, which, however, is not supported by the attested derivations (no Caland-like behavior, no primary adjectives). On the root shape (aniṭ or seṭ) and thus the type of nasal present (infix-present vs. nu-present), cf. the Morphological reconstruction below.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Sub PAnat. reconstruction, which is based on the Anatolian material alone, morphonological considerations recommend the reconstruction of a root *mi̯eu̯- ‘4’, but no derivatives of such a root can be found outside Anatolian.
However, a u-stem *méi̯-u-/*mi̯-éu̯- built to a root *mei̯- may still account for the Anatolian data. Based on the semantic observations made above, it is most plausible to reconstruct an original meaning ‘little’, which must have been an attribute of a word for ‘hand’. This fits the fact that PAnat. *méi̯-u-/*mi̯-éu̯- c. ‘4’ shows proterokinetic ablaut as do adjectival u-stems and additionally exhibits common gender inflection as does the normal word for ‘hand’, PAnat. *g̑hésor-. The phrase nom. sg. *g̑hésōr méi̯us ‘little hand’ therefore is grammatical.
A nominal o/e-acrostatic u-stem PIE *mói̯-u-/*méi̯-u- ‘smallness’ vel sim.Cf. already the assumption of Frisk: “älter u-Stamm?” (GEW II:198).may be reconstructed as the derivational base of the externally derived adjective PIE *moi̯‑u̯‑ó- ‘having smallness, small’ (TochB, ON) as well as of the internally derived proterokinetic adjective PIE *méi̯‑u‑/*mi̯‑éu̯- ‘provided with smallness, small, little’. The latter would be continued in the comparative *méi̯‑u̯‑(i)i̯os- ‘less’ (Gk.)The proto-form of Lat. nimis ‘too much’ is usually reconstructed as *ne=mi-is ‘not less’, cf., e.g., Weiss 2020a:379. However, since *mei̯- is not a Caland-root, which would show a deradical comparative, there may be good reason to trace Lat. nimis back to a preform containing the u-stem adjective (i.e., *ne=m(e)iu̯-is-), which would also end up as OLat. *nimīs (with regular loss of *u̯ between like vowels) > Lat. nimis (with iambic shortening).and in what ultimately became the Anatolian numeral *méi̯-u-/*mi̯-éu̯- ‘4’.The nominal forms containing a nasal (Lat. minor ‘smaller’, PGerm. *minniz ‘less’, OCS mĭńii ‘smaller’, etc.) are influenced by the nu-present in different ways, cf., e.g., EWAhd VI:442f., Nussbaum apud Weiss 2020a:384 (on Lat. minor).
3.2.1Root etymology
The root underlying the formations collected sub Transmission above is usually reconstructed as a seṭ-root PIE *mei̯H- ‘to decrease (intr.), fade’ (LIV²:427) or *mei̯h2- (EDHIL:572). However, the evidence in favor of a root-final laryngeal, viz. Hitt. mēḫur ‘time’ (as per EDHIL:567f.) and Ved. minā́ti ‘to diminish, harm’ (as per LIV²:427), is weak.The other Vedic present stem, mī́yate ‘to fade’, does not necessarily show the reflex of a laryngeal, because long vowels in this position are even expected in formations based on aniṭ-roots, cf. Kulikov 2012a:8f.As regards the former, Kloekhorst’s derivation of Hitt. mēḫur ‘period of time’ from *mei̯h2-u̯r̥ ‘small unit of time’ (EDHIL:567f.) is semantically problematic.He compares the time unit ModE minute (which also belongs to the root in question). However, Hitt. mēḫur denotes a rather long period of time in already Old Script texts, cf. “a. (recurring) time of the year, season” (CHD L–N:239). For the time being, it is therefore recommendable to stick to Eichner’s reconstruction as PIE *mēh2-u̯r̥ (cf. Eichner 1973a, “rechte, passende Zeit; Zeit für etwas” [ibid. 72]).Counter-evidence against the root-final laryngeal may come from the nu-present attested in Greek and Italic which does not show any reflex of a laryngeal.Cf. also the circumflex intonation of Lith. maĩlius ‘something small’.More importantly, a nu-present is not expected in seṭ-roots but in aniṭ-roots ending in a resonant like PIE *mei̯-. There is furthermore a scenario available that possibly explains the change of an original nu-present Ved. *minóti ‘to diminish, harm’ to the actually attested nā-present minā́ti (pers. comm. Albert Zasada),Three homophonous nasal presents of the shape minóti would be expected in Vedic: (1) ‘to attach, erect’ (Ved. 1.may-, PIE 1.*Hmei̯- ‘to attach’, LIV²:426, LIV²+ s.v. 1.*mei̯- → *Hmei̯- [2019-04-17]), (2) ‘to change’ (Ved. 2.may-, PIE 2.*h2mei̯- ‘to change; to exchange, modify’, LIV²:426, LIV²+ s.v. 2.*mei̯- → *h2mei̯- [2019-04-17]), and, belonging to the root under investigation, (3) ‘to diminish, harm’ (Ved. mayi-, PIE *mei̯- [instead of *mei̯H-] ‘to decrease, fade’, LIV²:427). To avoid this homonymy, the verbs 2.may- ‘to change’ and mayi- ‘to diminish, harm’, which are both negatively connotated and in some way destructive, may have been differentiated from the positively connotated and constructive verb 1.may- ‘to attach, erect’ by a shift in the type of nasal present to a nā-present. Therefore, neither 1.minā́ti ‘to diminish, harm’ nor 2.minā́ti ‘to change’ are likely to count as absolute proof of a respective seṭ-root. A good parallel with a similar root structure can be found in rhyming Ved. kṣay- ‘to destroy’, which also exhibits negatively connotated, destructive semantics and an unexpected nā-present Ved. kṣinā́ti ‘to destroy’; cf. also aniṭ Ved. say-, sinā́ti ‘to tie, bind’ (Kümmel 2000a:548f.).which reduces the evidential value of Ved. minā́ti ‘to diminish’ in favor of a seṭ-root.
If the evidence Ved. minā́ti ‘to diminish’ is indeed outweighed by the counter-evidence against a root-final laryngeal, it is recommendable to reconstruct the root underlying PIE *méi̯‑u‑/*mi̯‑éu̯- ‘small’ as PIE *mei̯- ‘to decrease (intr.), fade’.Cf. also Weiss 2020a:379, but without discussion.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
PIE adj. *moi̯-u̯-ó- ‘small’, cf. ON mjórr ‘slim, narrow’ (EDPG:349, de Vries 1977a:399), TochB maiwe ‘young, little’ (DTB²:509)
Lat. nimis ‘too much’ (Andr.+)
WH II:169, EM:441, EDLIL:409, Weiss 2020a:379, OLD²:1296
PIE
PIE nu-pres. *mi-néu̯-/*mi-nu-´ ‘to diminish, decrease’, cf. Ved. minā́ti ‘to diminish, harm’ (RV+) (EWAia II:316f., Grassmann 1996a:1044–1046),On the different stem formation (nā- instead of nu-present), cf. the Root etymology below sub Morphological reconstruction.Gk. μινύθω ‘to lessen, curtail; (intr.) to become smaller/less’ (Il.+) (GEW II:242, DELG:704, EDG:955f., LSJ:1135), Lat. minuere, Osc. inf. menvum ‘to decrease’ (hapax, ST Cp 37) (WH II:92f., EM:404f., EDLIL:381f., OLD²:1225, Untermann 2000a:471)
Indo-Iranian
Ved. mī́yate ‘to fade, disappear’ (RV+)
EWAia II:316f., Grassmann 1996a:1044–1046
Italic
Lat. comp. minor, ‑us ‘smaller’ (Lex XII+, Plaut.+), Osc. comp. min[s ‘less’ (hapax, TB 10)
WH II:92f., 169, EM:404, 441, EDLIL:381f., 409, Weiss 2020a:379, OLD²:1224, 1225f., 1296, Untermann 2000a:477f.
Germanic
PGerm. *minniz ‘less’, cf. Goth. mins, ON minnr, OHG min ‘id.’
EDPG:369, GED:256f., de Vries 1977a:388, EWAhd VI:440–443
Balto-Slavic
Lith. maĩlius ‘something small’, Latv. maĩle ‘small fish’
LEW I:395, ALEW 2.0 s.v. (2020-11-05)
OCS mĭńii, Russ. mén’šij ‘smaller, less, younger’, OCS mĭnje, Russ. ménee adv. ‘less’
EDSIL:341, Vasmer II:117