*gu̯hén-/*gu̯hn-´
‘to strike’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1860
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/kwan-/, kwa/i-na-
‘to carve (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This word is found in an inscription dated to the early 11th century BCE (Hawkins 2000a:302). Its interpretation as verb is however tentative.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 1sg. pret. ind. act. | /kwanha/ | kwa/i-na-ha | İSPEKÇÜR, Side A §3 (Malatya) |
1.1.3Meaning
The word kwa/i-na-ha is found in a fragmentary context. Hawkins 2000a:302 interprets it as an indefinite pronoun in the accusative singular common gender, i.e. /kwinha/ ‘any’. This is possible but unlikely on graphic grounds, because the -n- is always dropped in front of the particle =ha in the definite pronoun, i.e. kwa/i-(i)-ha (see under lexeme). Yakubovich (pers. comm.) suggests instead a verbal form in the 1st person preterit and assigns the meaning ‘to carve’ based on etymological connection with /kwananalla-/ ‘carver’ (followed by Sasseville 2021a:266). The direct object of kwa/i-na-ha is *202, a logogram hiding a word, which refers to a construction, into which an inscription can be carved (see Hawkins 2000a:292f.). Therefore, the semantic assignment proposed by Yakubovich is very plausible.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Derivatives
1.2 Lycian A
qa-(ti)
‘to strike, beat’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in curse formulas attested mostly in grave inscriptions found in eastern Lycia.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| 3pl. pres. ind. act. | qãñti | TL 90.5 (Myra) |
| TL 94.2 (Myra) | ||
| TL 134.4 (Limyra) | ||
| TL 149.10 (Rhodiapolis) | ||
| N 306.4 (Ҫağman) | ||
| qañt[i] | TL 95.3 (Myra) | |
| qãñ[ti] | N 309d.19 (Myra) | |
| qãti | TL 89.3 (Myra) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
The
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
The verb qa-(ti) is a punishable action that can be done by a human agent (itlehi trm̃mili ‘the Lycian itlehi-group’, e.g. N 306.4 et passim) and by personified oaths (TL 149.10). Its iterative form qas-(ti) is found in a Greek-Lycian bilingual inscription (TL 56), where it is rendered with Greek ἐπιτρίβω ‘to destroy’, and thus translated as ‘to destroy’. Therefore, a similar meaning for the base of the iterative, i.e. qa-, is assigned (thus Heubeck 1989a:54, Hajnal 1995a:161 n. 180, Schürr 1997c:127f., Melchert (DLL:54)). The exact nature of the destructive action can be elucidated by means of the comparative method. The root of the Hittite and Luwian cognates, i.e. kwen- and /kwan-/ respectively, pertains to the action of striking (see under the respective lemma). Therefore, the Lycian verb qa-(ti) must mean ‘to strike’ or ‘to beat’. It is possible that the verb has acquired the meaning ‘to destroy’, which would be supported by the derivative qanuwe-(ti) ‘to cause to be destroyed’; cf. DLL:54. The semantic assignment of ‘to judge’ based on a false etymological connection with Hitt. ḫanna-(i) ‘to judge’ is outdated see Neumann 2007a:298f. with further literature and see under Reconstruction below.
[D.S.]
1.2.5Stem
The verb qa-(ti) is an athematic root verb. This verbal stem class in Lycian takes a 3rd plural present ending in -ñti; cf. mar-(ti), xul-(ti) (Sasseville 2021a:276). The nasalization of the -a- in qã- is simply due to the ending which begins with a nasal. Therefore, the stem is assigned as qa- (thus Sasseville 2021a:276; cf. Neumann 2007a:298, contra Hajnal 1995a:161 n. 180, Schürr 1997c:127f., Melchert (DLL:54)).
[D.S.]
1.2.6Derivatives
1.3 Lydian
qãn-(t)
‘to destroy (vel sim.)’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme occurs once in a burial inscription that was found in Sardis and is datable to the late 6th-early 5th century BCE.
[I.Y.]
1.3.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. act. | fišqãnt | LW 54.2 (Sardis) |
1.3.3Meaning
This verbal form occurs in the protasis of a curse formula, and therefore is likely to represent a destructive action. The meaning assignment ‘to destroy’, offered in Gusmani 1964a:127 with reference to Carruba 1959a:29, implied the comparison with Lyd. wcpaqẽnt, which in turn was assigned to the same root as Hitt. kuen-/kun-(mi) ‘to kill’, cf. Gusmani 1964a:224 with reference to Heubeck 1959a:44f. If is fair to say that both the basic meaning ‘to destroy’ and the comparison with Hitt. kuen-/kun-(mi) ‘to kill’ are still commonly accepted nowadays, Lyd. wcpaqẽnt is now widely regarded as belonging to a different root (see Lyd. paqẽni-(t)).
The contextual nuances of the suggested meaning are not fully clear. The curse formula of LW 54 is unique in a sense that it the perpetrator functions there as a subject not only in the protasis but also in the apodosis. There are reasons to think that the curse is directed at the future owners of the grave, who are threatened with the loss of burial rights for its mismanagement (cf. Lyd. kaprdoki-(d)). It is not very likely that a future owner could be interested in the complete destruction of his burial complex; one can rather envisage his attempt to efface the inscription and the associated relief for the purpose of inscribing his own name and/or carving his own image. But even if the translation of f-iš-qãnt deserves modification in context, these nuances are possibly rendered by the prefix iš- and therefore have nothing to do with the basic meaning of qãn-.
[I.Y.]
1.3.4Stem
Extrapolating information from the Hittite cognate kuenzi, one can assign Lydian qãnt to roots stems (thus Sasseville 2021a:285). The problem of this solution is the irregular vocalism of the Lydian form: one would rather expect the development into *-qẽnt in a closed syllable. In order to overcome this difficulty, an analogical scenario is offered in Melchert 1992a:43f. and defended in Sasseville 2021a:285.
[I.Y.]
1.4 Hittite
kwen-/kun-(mi)
‘to strike, kill’1.4.1Literature / Comments
Oettinger 1979a:117-119, HEG K:604-606, EDHIL:485f.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to strike’
The connection between Hittite kuen-/kun- and Lydian f-iš-qãn-(ti) was suggested by Heubeck 1959a:44f. and generally accepted (HEG K:605, Melchert 1994a:349). Lycian qa-(ti) was added to this root by Hajnal 1995a:161 n. 180, 221 and accepted by Melchert (DLL:54). Later, on Yakubovich 2011a:264 (and Yakubovich 2014a:293, 294 n. 1) adduced the Luwian root verb /kwan-/ found securely at least in /kwananalla-/ c. ‘stone-mason’.
As Melchert 1994a:60 points out, the assumption that Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirates and voiced stops fall together in Proto-Anatolian was based on the absence of positive evidence for their retention, but that new evidence altering this conclusion could be found at any time. Therefore, considering the fact that PAnat. *gu̯- yields Luwian /w/ and Lycian . However, Sasseville 2021a:266 n. 11 points out that more Luwian examples have recently emerged, which would speak for the development of PIE *gu̯h- > Luw. w; cf. also CLuw. ū- ‘to drink’ (PIE *h1egu̯h-). Differently, Melchert 2012a:213 tries to operate with the blocking of the deocclusion of the initial voiced labiovelar by the following nasal: *gu̯hén-ti/gu̯hn-énti > *u̯én-ti/ku̯n-énti followed by a paradigmatic leveling of the initial consonant in favor of the weak stems. Regarding Lyc. A qa-(ti), we must assume that the nasal was vocalized in the 1st or 2nd person plural and spread to the 3rd plural after the initial consonant *ku̯- had been generalized, i.e. 2pl. *u̯n̥-tténi / 3pl. *ku̯n-énti >> *ku̯a-tténi / *ku̯n-ánti >> *ku̯atténi / *ku̯ánti. The explanation of an anaptyxis in Lycian offered by Melchert (ibid.) is less attractive especially regarding the strong levelling in favor of the plural in root verbs of the mi-conjugation, as shown in Sasseville 2021a:291.
For a possible s-extension *gu̯hen-s-, see Luw. /kwanza(i)-(di)/, and for the related Proto-Luwic root *u̯on- ‘rock-carving’, see Lyd. wãna- (under Reconstruction) as well as the numerous Luwian derivatives.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PIE *gu̯hen- means ‘to strike’, whence secondarily ‘to slay, kill’ (e.g., IIr., Gk., Arm.) and ‘to drive, chase, persecute’ (BSl.). Cf. LIV²:218 with n. 1 and, furthermore, IEW:491, EIEC:548, Watkins 2011a:36.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The PIE root *gu̯hen- ‘to strike’ lives on in a variety of verbal and nominal formations. As for the verbal formations, a root present PIE *gu̯hén-/*gu̯hn-´ can be found in most IE languages, with direct reflexes in Anatolian (e.g., Hitt. kuenzi/kunanzi, Luw. /kwan-/, Lyc. qa-(ti), Lyd. qãn-(t)) and Indo-Iranian (Ved. hánti/ghnánti, YAv. jainti/+-γnǝṇti). Other languages continue reshaped forms based on the root present – cf., e.g., Gk. θείνε/o- < *gu̯hén-i̯e/o-, Lat. -fendere ← 2sg. impv. fende < *gu̯hn̥-dhí (= Ved. jahí, YAv. jaiδi), as per LIV²:219 n. 4), Arm. ǰne- < *ǰine- < *gu̯hén-e- (LIV²:219 n. 2), and others; cf. LIV²:218f. A reduplicated thematic aorist is preserved in Gk. ἔπεφνον, which perhaps is equitable with YAv. -jaγnat̰, cf. LIV²:218f. with n. 10. – As far as the nominal formations are concerned, a verbal adjective *gu̯hn̥-tó- is attested in several languages (Ved. hatá-, YAv. jata-, Gk. -φατός). An abstract noun *gu̯hn̥-ti- ‘striking, slaying’ lives on in Ved. á-hati- f. ‘non-killing’, YAv. paiti.jaiti- f. ‘striking back, defense’, and PGerm. *ǥunþi- f. ‘fight’ (ON guðr, gunnr, OE gūđ, etc.). The ā-stem noun Gk. φονή f. (usually pl.) ‘carnage, blood shed’ (Il.+) could be etymologically related to Lyd. wãna- c. ‘(rock-carved) grave’, thus continuing an already PIE stem *gu̯hon-eh2-. For further formations, cf., e.g., IEW:491–493.
3.3Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
The root *gu̯hen- ‘to strike, kill’ forms part of the formulaic phrase *(é-)gu̯hen-t ogu̯him ‘he slew/killed the serpent’, which can be found in dragon-slaying myths in various IE languages. For a detailed treatment and discussion, cf. Watkins 1995b.
[T.S.]
4. Transmission
Ved. hán-/ha-´, ghn-´ pres. ‘to strike, kill’ (RV [3sg. ind. hánti, 3pl. ind. ghnánti, 2sg. impv. jahí, ptcl. ghnánt-, etc.]+), jíghna- redupl. pres. ‘id.’ (3sg. ind. midd. jíghnate, part. midd. jíghnamāna- [RV+]), hatá- adj. ‘stricken, slain’ (RV+), hántar- m. ‘the one known to have slain’ (RV+), hantár- m. ‘slayer’ (RV+), á-hati- f. ‘non-killing, non-manslaughter’, etc.
YAv. jan-/ja-, γn- pres. ‘to strike, kill’ (3sg. ind. jaiṇti, 3pl. ind. xni-γniṇti for +-γnǝṇti [Yt 10.133], 2sg. impv. jaiδi, ptcl. γnaṇt-, etc.), YAv. jata- adj. ‘stricken, slain’, YAv. jaṇtar- m. ‘slayer’, OPers. jantar- ‘id.’, YAv. paiti.jaiti- f. ‘striking back, defense’, etc.Cf., e.g., IEW:491f., EWAia II:800f., ALF:199–205, LIV²:218.
Arm. ǰne- pres. ‘to slay’, ?ǰnǰe- pres. ‘to efface, wipe clean; to annihilate, destroy’, gan sbst. ‘beating, whipping, blow’, ǰin sbst. ‘staff, stick for beating’Cf., e.g., IEW:492, Klingenschmitt 1982a:154 (ǰnǰe-), Olsen 1999a:872 (gan), LIV²:218f. with n. 2, EDAIL:198 (gan), 558f. (ǰin, *ǰinǰ-).
ON gunnr, guðr f. ‘fight’, OE gūđ f. ‘id.’, OHG gudea gen. sg. f. ‘of the fight’ (Lay of Hildebrand), etc.Cf., e.g., IEW:492, Lühr 2000a:42, EDPG:196, EWAhd IV:683–686.
OCS gŭnati, 1sg. ženǫ pres. ‘to chase, persecute’, Russ. gnat’ ‘to chase, drive, persecute’, SCr. gnȁti ‘to chase, persecute’, etc.; OCS goniti, 1sg. gonjǫ pres. ‘to chase, persecute’, Russ. gonít’ ‘to persecute’, SCr. gòniti, 1sg. gȍnīm ‘to chase, persecute’, etc.Cf., e.g., IEW:493, LIV²:218, EDSIL:177, 197.
TochB käsk(ā)- ‘to scatter (violently)’Cf., e.g., Hackstein 1995a:200, LIV²:218f. with n. 9, DTB²:189, Malzahn 2010a:596.