*TEu̯li̯eh₂-

Comparing Hitt. tūliya- c. with Luw. tūliya- and Lyc. *tulija- (→ tulijele/i-), one may reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian substantive *TEu̯li̯eh₂- with the meaning ‘assembly’. The assignment of a stem in *-eh₂- is not entirely assured, because the Luwian noun is only attested in the genitival adjective, i.e. tuliyašša/i-, whereas the Lycian one is only found in derivatives like tulijele/i- (equating a virtual Luw. *tūliyalla/i-). Nevertheless, it is the most attractive one, if one compares other Luwian nouns in -iya- c. On abstract nouns in -i̯-eh₂- derived from verbs in *-i̯e/o-, see Sasseville 2020c. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:897f.) posits a root final laryngeal, seeing the -l- as an extension because of the regular Indo-European root shapes which forbid two root-final resonants, which is fine. However, the assignment of the laryngeal might be problematic, if the preform would have been *TuH-l-, we would expect the laryngeal to be kept before -l-; cf. ^GIŠmāḫla- c. ‘branch of a grapevine’, puḫla- c. (attribute of a gate) (HEG P:639f.). This could be remedied by assuming that the laryngeal in this root was dropped in a different word formation and that it is here analogical. To avoid the problem of root shape, one could posit that the root is *Tu̯el- and that the formation in *-i̯eh₂- was accompanied by the zero-grade of the root, thus *Tul-. Further evidence is needed from the comparative perspective.

[D.S.]

Usually (cf., e.g., EDHIL:897f.), the Anatolian material is connected with Lith. tū́las ‘a certain, some, many’, etc. and thus ultimately derived from the root PIE *teu̯h₂- ‘to swell’ (LIV²:639f., cf. Lyd. tawsa- ‘great’), which is a semantically plausible proposal. Based on the Anatolian, Vedic (‘brush’ etc.) and perhaps Greek (‘swelling; cushion’) and Italic (‘gushing stream’) comparanda,The Greek and Latin formations do not unambiguously attest a long ‑ū- (< *‑uH‑) in the first syllable, which is why they do not necessarily contribute to the reconstruction.a verbal adjective PIE *tuh₂‑lo- ‘agglomerated, bunched’ can be reconstructed.On the stem form, cf. below.

The morphological analysis of the preform of Luw. tūliya- ‘id.’, etc. depends on the shape of the underlying root, because if the root contained a laryngeal (as PIE *teu̯h₂- does) the liquid cannot be part of the root (not **teu̯h₂l‑), but must be interpreted as part of the derivational morphemes, i.e. *Tou̯H-li̯eh₂- (> *Tou̯-li̯eh₂‑, cf. below). Another scenario leading to a segmentation *TEu̯‑li̯eh₂- would involve a root *teu̯‑, which is not attested elsewhere, cf. LIV², IEW.The root *(s)teu̯- ‘to beat’, as reconstructed by Pokorny (IEW:1032–1034), is not attested without extensions (cf., e.g., PIE *(s)teu̯p- ‘to strike’) and therefore not unequivocally reconstructable. Moreover, it does not fit semantically.Otherwise, if the root is interpreted as ending in a liquid, the primary suffix would be *‑i̯o‑: *TEu̯l-i̯o- → PAnat. *TEu̯l‑i̯‑eh₂-. However, roots like *teu̯l‑ (schematically *CeIR- with I = i̯, u̯; R = l, r, m, n) are not attested (cf. LIV²:703–709). The required root form *TEu̯l- might be explained via Schwebeablaut (*tu̯el- → *teu̯l‑), which is not motivated, though. The most economical solution, therefore, is to analyze the liquid as part of the suffix complex, which suggests a root *teu̯- or *teu̯H‑.Differently, HEG T,D:430f., GEW II:942f. and EDHIL:897f. assume a root extended by *‑l-, which, as noted above, would result in an unacceptable root structure **teu̯l‑.The material listed above sub Transmission can be divided into lexemes beginning with *tŭl° ([?]Gk., [?]Ital., Celt., Germ., Alb.) and *tūl° (Ved., [?]Gk., [?]Ital., BSl.). The former group may be interpreted as attesting either a formation *tu-lo- (: root *teu̯‑) or a formation based on a secondary root *tu̯el‑. The remaining material is best explained as continuing a sequence *‑uH‑, viz. *tuH-lo- (Ved., BSl.), (?)*tuH‑leh₂- (Gk.), (?)*tuH‑l‑n‑(i)i̯o- (Ital.). Therefore, PAnat. *TEu̯(H)-li̯eh₂‑ is best compared with the latter group, although a relation of the material pointing to *tul° with a short vowel is not totally excluded.One possible explanation might be that the laryngeal got lost in certain formations (due to de Saussure’s Law vel sim.), which gave rise to a new root *tul‑ (full-grade unattested).As a tentatively reconstrucable formation underlying PAnat. *TEu̯(H)-li̯eh₂‑, one might propose PIE *tuh₂‑lo- ‘agglomerated, bunched’. By derivation, this form developed an o‑grade, i.e. *tou̯h₂-, which preconsonantally led to the loss of the laryngeal, whence PAnat. *tou̯-li̯eh₂- ‘assembly’.

On the root PIE *teu̯h₂- ‘to agglomerate, thicken’, cf. Lyd. tawsa- ‘great’ and below.

Ved. tūlam ‘panicle, brush, tuft, reed, cotton’ (AV+)
EWAia I:662, KEWA I:520

Gk. τύλη f. ‘swelling, callus; cushion’ (Sappho+)
GEW II:942f., DELG:1143f., EDG:1517, LSJ:1833The quantity of the first vowel differs (ῠ and ῡ): short ‑ῠ- from the 5th c. BCE onwards, long ‑ῡ- only late (1st c. CE+), cf. LSJ:1833.

Lat. m. tullius ‘gushing stream, cascade’ (Enn. apud Fest.)Semantically, WH II:714 compares ModHG schwellen ‘to swell’ : Schwall ‘gush’.
WH II:714, EM:706, EDLIL:—, OLD²:2187

MIr. sbst. tul, (older) taul ‘protuberance; boss of a shield; forehead’
EDPC:—, de Bernardo Stempel 1999a:94, Lucht 2007a:275 n. 27, eDIL s.v. 1 tul, taul, tel, til (2019)OIr. tul, taul is supposed to be a contamination of (unrelated) *tal‑u/o- ‘forehead’ and *tul- ‘swelling, boss of a shield’ (W twlch ‘round mass, hill, nipple’ ← PIE *tu̯el- ‘to swell’), cf. Lucht 2007a:275 n. 27 with lit.

ON þollr ‘tree, log; man’, Ic. þollur ‘peg; thole’, OE þoll ‘thole’, MLG dolle, dulle ‘id.’, etc.; ModHG (Palatine, etc.) Dollfuß ‘swollen foot, clubfoot’
EDPG:550, de Vries 1977a:615f., PfWB s.v. Doll-fuß (2021-04-19)

Lith. tū́las ‘a certain, some, many’, OPr. adv. tūlan ‘much’
EDBIL:474, ALEW 2.0 s.v. tū́las (2021-03-01), PKEŽ² s.v. tūlan (2021-03-12)
SerbCS tylŭ ‘(back of the) neck’, etc.
EDSIL:503

Alb. tul ‘piece of meat (boneless); bulge; pulp (of fruit); soft part of the bread, (ModHG) Krume’
Demiraj 1997a:390f., AED:468