*mō̆s/*mā̆s

Based on Hittite maši- ‘how many/much’, Pal. māš ‘as much (as)’, and possibly Lyd. =mas ‘as much as (?)’, a Proto-Anatolian conjunction *mō̆s (or *mā̆s) can be reconstructed. Melchert 1984b:34-36 affirms that the deictic particle -i was added to the Hittite conjunction and received secondary inflection, whence maši- (followed byEDHIL:564). The plene spelling in Palaic māš is attested only once, which is not necessarily indicative of a long vowel, although it is expected to carry an accent, which may have caused lengthening of the vowel. Moreover, the lack of syncope in the possible Lydian cognate =mas could serve as evidence for an original long vowel. However, since the cliticization of the original conjunction may have been recent in Lydian, it is difficult to rely entirely on this observation. More evidence from the Indo-European perspective would be welcome. For further etymological proposals, see HEG L-M:158-160, HED M:96f.

[D.S.]

LIPP II:518 (following Melchert 1984b:36) interprets Pal. maš ‘as much (as)’ and the basis of Hitt. maš‑i- ‘how(ever) many/much’ as continuing PIE nom. sg. c. *mó-s ‘who(?), which(?)’, which is semantically not likely.Cf., furthermore, Melchert’s explanations of various conjunctions ending in *‑(V)m as petrified neuter, masculine and even feminine accusative forms (ibid. n. 20), which are now outdated, cf., e.g., LIPP I:137f. with nn. 5f. on *‑m and LIPP I:60 on petrified nominatives. On Melchert’s now revised view of the ablative-instrumental ending *‑m, cf. Melchert & Oettinger 2009a:55f. et passim.Rather, it is advisable to take the *‑s as the (modal) adverbial ending *‑s, on which cf. LIPP I:167–173. As listed below sub Morphological reconstruction, there are four phonologically possible forms that may be interpreted differently in terms of their morphology. Their semantic evaluation leads to a reduction of possible forms: for purely semantic reasons allative **mo-o‑s (> *mōs) should be excluded. Furthermore, the highly hypercharaterized modal **ma-a-s (> *mās) as well as modal/instrumental **ma-h₁-s (> *mās), which equally exhibits three adverbial endings in a row, are ruled out.Hypercharacterization per se is not a problem (cf. LIPP I:37), but on methodological grounds it seems reasonable to prefer semantically equivalent formations that are less redundantly characterized.What regards the remaining three possibilities, no definite decision can be made:

1. modal pronoun *ma ‘how(?)’ + modal ending *‑s > *mas
2. pronominal stem *mo- + modal ending *‑s > *mos
3. pronominal stem *mo- + instr. ending *‑h₁ + modal ending *‑s > *mōs

All three reconstructions show the meaning ‘how(?)’, which can plausibly account for the meaning ‘how much(?)’; cf. the exact cognates Hitt. ku̯ez ‘how’ vs. Lat. quot ‘how much/many’ (Hackstein 2007a:143–147). Thus, the form under investigation can be reconstructed as (pre‑)PAnat. *mas or *mō̆s ‘how (much)(?)’.

Pal. maš ‘as much (as)’, Hitt. *mas ‘how(ever) many/much’ and possibly Lyd. =mas ‘as much as(?)’ could phonologically go back to four different preforms:

1. *mas < *ma-s < *ma ‘how(?)’ + modal ending *‑s
2. *mās < *ma-a/h₁-s < *ma ‘how(?)’ + modal ending *‑a or instr. ending *‑h₁ + modal ending *‑s
3. *mos < *mo-s < pronominal stem *mo- + nom. sg. ending *-s or modal ending *‑s
4. *mōs < *mo-h₁/o‑s < pronominal stem *mo- + instrumental ending *‑h₁ or allative ending *‑o + modal ending *‑s

Four out of seven interpretations are excluded on semantic grounds, which leaves three possibilities, cf. above sub Semantic reconstruction. While on semantic grounds no decision can be made, the modal adverb *ma-s seems to be more plausible than the others because the basis *ma ‘how(?)’ is already attested, viz. as the emphatic particle (pre‑)PAnat. *=ma, which goes back to an indefinite modal adverb PIE *ma ‘somehow’. Therefore, although the formations PIE *mo-s and *moh₁-s remain possibilities, the conjunctional adverb is tentatively reconstructed as (pre‑)PAnat. *mas ‘how(?)’.

No direct cognates are attested.