*h1ói̯h1-/h1ih1-´
‘to take’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1658
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/iya-(i)/
‘to take, buy’1.1.1Compounds
1.1.2Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
iya-(i)
‘to take’1.2.1Transmission
The verb is attested just once in a single NS copy of the OH Ištanuwa festival.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| 2sg. impv. act. | i-ia-a | KUB 25.37 i 27’ | (CTH 771, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
The word is attested within a list of 2sg. impv. forms in the incipit of an Ištanuwa song: li-lu-u-wa ta-a-in mi-mi-en tu-u-wa-a li-lu-u-wa-a li-lu-u-wa i-ia-a na-an-na-a l[i- … ] (KUB 25.39 i 26’f.). The translation of Sasseville 2021a:515f. as “Pour the oil, mimin, place (it), pour (it), pour (it), iya (it), lead(?) (it) [ … ]” can be complemented by recognition of the form iyā as the 2sg. impv. of the verb iya-(i) ‘to take’, also continued in several other lexemes within Cuneiform Luwian 
yašḫant(i)-, 
()yašḫanduwant(i)-, piya-(i)) and other Luwic languages. Accordingly, the two final words can be rendered as “take (and) lead!”, which may or may not be a serial construction.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
Like its well-attested compound piya-(i), iya- is a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation (cf. also the non-lenited forms of its Lycian cognate ije-(ti) (with stem final -e-), which point to an originally ḫi-conjugated verb).
[E.R.]
1.2.6Compounds
1.2.7Derivatives
1.3 Lycian A
ije-(ti)
‘to buy’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in a grave inscription from Xanthos and probably also in another grave inscription of Tyssa; cf. under graphic features.
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. ind. act. | ijetẽ | TL 48.4 (Xanthos) |
| TL 78.2 (Tyssa) | ||
| [i]jetẽ | TL 78.4 (Tyssa) |
The attestation TL 40c.6 ijetẽ could belong here (cf. Neumann 2007a:149). However, since the end of previous line is broken off it is possible that the beginning of the word (-)ijetẽ is incomplete. For example, the restoration [p]ijetẽ remains a possibility.
[D.S.]
1.3.3Graphic Features
Instead of the sequence (e)pñne ˹p˺ijetẽ (Kalinka 1901a:66, Friedrich 1932a:76) and (e)pñne : ijetẽ (thus Arkwright apud Kalinka 1901a:66, Melchert 2001f, DLL:28, hesitant Melchert 1989b:44 n.36) in TL 78.2, Schürr 2001e:131 n. 3 reads (e)pñnerijetẽ recognizing the verb eri(je)-(ti) ‘to raise’ (likewise Schürr 2007b:116). Schürr (loc. cit.) adduces the contextual parallelism of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos (TL 44b.19-24), where the verb erije- co-occurs with pu-(di) just like in TL 78. However, without a new collation or any available pictures, no decision can be made here. Likewise, the restoration of the attestations [i]jetẽ found in the same inscription two lines later is dependent on the interpretation of TL 78.2; cf. Schürr loc. cit.
[D.S.]
1.3.4Meaning
By analyzing the context of the inscription TL 48 referring to the transaction of a tomb, Melchert 1989b:43 assigns to Lycian ije-(ti) the meaning ‘to buy’. He brings further support from the etymological perspective by equating the Lycian verb with HLuw. /iyassa-(i)/ ‘to buy’ (thus DLL:28, Schürr 2004b:193f., Neumann 2007a:149f.).
[D.S.]
1.3.5Compounds
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to take’
The comparison of CLuw. iya-(i) ‘to buy’ (seen also as the base of HLuw. /i(ya)ssa-(i)/) and Lyc. A ije-(ti) ‘to buy’ yield a Proto-Luwic verb *ii̯a-(i) ‘to buy’. This verb would belong to the ḫi-conjugation as it is shown by the Lycian stem -e-(ti) (cf. Morpurgo Davies 1982-1983a:263f., Jasanoff 2010b:149 n. 23, Sasseville 2015a:287). Melchert 1989b:44 compares the two Luwian and Lycian verbs with Greek αἴνυμαι ‘to take’ and Toch. A e- / Toch. B ai- ‘to give’ and assigns a Proto-Anatolian pre-form *(h1)ai̯-. Independently from an Indo-European etymology, the Proto-Anatolian root could be reconstructed with as *h1oi̯h1- instead. No second or third laryngeal can be reconstructed that would be lost in initial position before a vowel; cf. Melchert 1994a:72-74. Sasseville 2021a:431f. claims that the root should have ended with a *h1, which would account for the stem class of verbs in -āi-/-i(ya)-(ḫi), originating in roots of the shape *CVi̯h1-, and thus posits tentatively *(h1)ai̯(h1)- as the PAnat. root, although *h1ói̯h1-/h1ih1-´ would be the expected pre-form from the morphological perspective; cf. the PIE lemma.
Luwian /iya-(i)/ and Lyc. A ije-(ti) are also attested in the univerbated Luw. /piya-(i)/ and Lyc. pije-(ti) respectively, which equate to the Hittite verb pāi-/-i(ya)-(ḫi) ‘to give’. This implies that Hittite must have known the simplex at one time but lost it. See PAnat. *pói̯h1-/-ih1-´.
[D.S.] [A.O.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The verb under investigation means ‘to buy’, which is easily derivable from the more general notion ‘to take’ via ‘to take in trade’; cf., e.g., Buck 1949a:817–819 for sources of words meaning ‘to buy’ and ‘to sell’. Therefore, an original meaning ‘to take’ can be reconstructed for the formation being investigated here.For the stem formation and the underlying root, cf. below sub Morphological reconstruction.
3.1.1Root PIE *h1ai̯-
LIV²:229 reconstructs for the root PIE 1.*h1ai-, which is generally assumed to belong here (cf. PAnat. reconstruction), the meanings ‘to give’ and ‘to take’ (“geben; nehmen”). Since ‘to take’ is expressed in Greek and Tocharian by the use of the (reflexive) middle ‘to give to oneself’ (cf. LIV²:229 n. 3), the (active) meaning ‘to give’ may be regarded as primary. This primary meaning of the active formations stands beside the meaning ‘to take’ not only of its middle counterparts (Gk., Toch.), but also possibly of the Anatolian ḫi-formation *ii̯a-(i) ‘to buy’ < ‘to take’. Such a combination of reflexive ḫi-verb beside active mi-verb is paralleled by the synonymous root PIE *deh3- ‘to give’ (LIV²:105f.), cf. Sasseville 2021a:543.The ḫi-verb Luw. /la‑(i)/ [lemma link] means ‘to take’ while the mi-verb Lyc. A da‑(di) [lemma link] and the Core IE aorist root *deh3- show the primary meaning ‘to give’; cf. also Jasanoff 2003a:211.Therefore, the root under investigation ought to be reconstructed as PIE *h1ai̯(h1)- ‘to give’.
3.1.2Root PIE *Hi̯eh1-
In case the underlying root is rather PIE *h1i̯eh1- ‘to throw’ (LIV²:225, cf. below), the semantic development is, once arrived at ‘to give’, identical to the one proposed for PIE *h1ai̯(h1)- above: reflexive ḫi-verb ‘to give to oneself’ > ‘to take’. While the semantic change ‘to throw’ > ‘to give’ may seem counterintuitive at first, an intermediate meaning ‘to put’ may be supported by the semantic path leading to PAnat. *h1i̯ǣ́‑/*h1ih1‑´(di) ‘to do, make’: ‘to throw’ > ‘to put (± by throwing)’ > ‘to do, make’.For a parallel of the shift ‘to put’ > ‘to do, make’, cf. the Germanic and Italic continuants of PIE *dheh1- ‘to put, place’. Furthermore, cf. the CLICS³ subgraph PUT (2021-02-11) for colexifications of ‘to throw’ ~ ‘to put’ and of ‘to put’ ~ ‘to give’.Alternatively, a semantic development ‘to throw’ > ‘to send’ (cf. Hitt. piye‑(mi) ‘to send there’, uye‑(mi) ‘to send here’, belonging to the same root) > ‘to give’ may be assumed. Thus, a connection of the verb under investigation with PIE *h1i̯eh1- ‘to throw’ (LIV²:225) seems semantically plausible.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The ḫi-verb PLuw. *ii̯a-(i) ‘to buy’ is commonly derived from the root PIE 1.*h1ai̯- ‘to give’ (LIV²:229), cf. PAnat. reconstruction. As expected, the strong stem PAnat. *(h1)ói̯(h1)- was lost in the varieties of the Luwic languages in which the verb is preserved, and only the weak stem Luw. iya‑(i), Lyc. A ije-(ti) ‘to buy’ is still attested.The strong stem of the verb is not attested in Ištanuwa Luwian, where it would probably be preserved, cf. Sasseville 2021a:426f.
However, there is another root connection that may be mentioned here. Theoretically, the root PIE *Hi̯eh1- ‘to throw’ (LIV²:225) could likewise underly the formation under investigation: a ḫi-verb pre-PAnat. *h1i̯óh1‑/*h1ih1‑´ would also regularly develop to PLuw. *(y)ai‑/*iya‑, cf. Sasseville 2021a:429–437.Especially the structure of the weak stem, *h1ih1‑´, resembles the weak stem of the prototype *Cói̯h1‑/*Cih1‑´.The attested weak stem Luw. iya‑(i), Lyc. A ije-(ti) ‘to buy’ would be in accordance with such an etymology.
3.2.1Root PIE *h1ai̯-
If the root underlying TochB ai- ‘to give (act.); to take (midd.)’, Gk. midd. αἴνυμαι ‘to take’, etc. was attested only in Core IE, it would be clearly reconstructed as PIE *h2ei̯- ‘to give’ (thus hesitantly Malzahn 2010a:543).In this case, it would be rather unproblematic to connect Gk. οἶτος ‘fate, doom’ < ‘what is allotted, given’ as per EDG:1063. However, also *h1ói̯-to- (and *h1ói̯h1-to‑ via de Saussure’s Law) could be a possibility.However, if PLuw. *ii̯a-(i) ‘to buy’ is to be connected, the root needs to be reconstructed as PIE *h1ai̯- ‘to give’, because the Anatolian data does not show any reflex of anlauting *h2.Cf. LIV²:229 (1.*h1ai̯‑), Watkins 2011a:1 (*ai̯‑), LIPP II:81 (*ai̯‑), etc.According to Sasseville 2021a:429f., roots of the stem class in PLuw. *‑ai‑/*‑iya‑ prototypically end in PIE *‑i̯h1‑, which he (pp. 431f., cf. above) also applies to PIE 1.*h1ai̯-, thus cautiously proposing a root shape *h1ai̯(h1)‑ ‘to give’.
3.2.2Root PIE *Hi̯eh1-
Alternatively, the verb under investigation may be derived from the root PIE *Hi̯eh1- ‘to throw’ (LIV²:225). An anlauting laryngeal is recommended by the long reduplication syllable of Attic /hī(i̯)ēmi/ < *(H)i̯i-Hi̯eh1‑ (cf. Peters 1976a) and may furthermore be specified as *h1 in case of a relationship with PLuw. *ii̯a-(i) ‘to buy’ due to the lack of any laryngeal reflex. In this scenario, the root may thus be reconstructed as PIE *h1i̯eh1- ‘to throw’.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Avestan
YAv. aēta- ‘fitting portion, penalty’YAv. aētahmāiiuš ‘guilty’ does not contain aēta- ‘punishment’ but the demonstrative aēta-, cf. EDG:40 with ref.
Bartholomae 1904:11f.
Greek
Gk. αἴνυμαι ‘to take’ (Il.+), Myc. personal name A3-nu-me-no /Ai̯numenos/, Gk. αἶσα ‘share, lot; (divine name)’ (Il.+), etc.
GEW I:41, 44, GEW III:22, 23, DELG:36, 38f., EDG:40, 43, 1063, LSJ:40, 42, DMic I:137, Bartoněk 2003a:412
(?)Gk. οἶτος ‘fate, doom’ (Il.+)
GEW II:370f., DELG:788, EDG:1063, LSJ:1210
Italic
Osc. gen. sg. aeteis (TB), gen. pl. a]íttíúm (CA B 28) f. ‘part, portion (of a possession)’
Untermann 2000a:55f.Umbr. 3sg. impv. aitu, aitu, 3sg. impv. aituta (IgT) do, contra Untermann 2000a:71f., not belong here, cf. Weiss 2010a:233 n. 332 and 106 n. 23, resp. According to Weiss 2010a:233f., Lat. pōmum ‘tree fruit’ as well as the divine names Umbr. Puemun- and Lat. Pōmōna could derive from PItal. *po+ai-mo- ‘taken away’, thus belonging here. Cf. PAnat. *u̯émi̯e/o‑(di) ‘to find’ on Lat. pōmum < *póh1m‑o- ‘what is plucked’.
Tocharian
PToch. *āi̯-, cf. TochB ai- ‘to give (act.); to take (midd.)’, TochA e- ‘to give’
DTB²:106f., Malzahn 2010a:542f., Hackstein 1995a:252–255
On this root, cf. PAnat. *h1i̯ǣ́‑/*h1ih1‑´(di) ‘to do, make’