*u̯ḗn-/u̯én-

Taking the Hittite verb wēn-/win-^(mi) ‘to copulate’ (+ imperf. uwanšike/a-^(mi)) into consideration, the Luwian cognate winal- ‘instrument to push, pole’ (< *u̯ēn-ó-lo-; cf. Rieken 2009b:152, the Hittite noun would have yielded a stem in -āli- n.) and Lyd. winta- ‘(lit.) a place where the man takes his wife in a sexual manner (?)’, a basic meaning ‘to push, thrust’ can be assigned to the PAnat. root verb *u̯ḗn-/u̯én-^(ti) (outdated Oettinger 1979a:120f.; cf. Oettinger 1992a:242 n. 16, contra Melchert 2012a:212f., who assigns Luwian winal- to the root *g^u̯hen- ‘to strike’, which is semantically unattractive, see under lemma). No root-final laryngeal can be assigned to this root based on Luw. winal-, which would otherwise show a gemination of the -n- (contra EDHIL:999f.).

It is important to notice that there might be different roots with the shape *u̯en- from an Indo-European perspective (see below). For potential cognates of these roots in Hittite, see Oettinger 2021b, and in Carian see βάνδα, unδo[..]tλ and *ynem.

[D.S.]

The PAnat. reconstruction of the meaning of the root in question is crucially dependent on the exact semantics and etymological affiliation of Luw. u̯enal- ‘(instrument to push, support)(?)’ (vel sim.), Luw. winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (vel sim.), and Hitt. wēn‑/win‑^(mi) ‘to copulate’. While the meaning assignment of Luw. u̯enal- ‘(instrument to push, support)(?)’ (vel sim.), which is attested only in a fragmentary context, is tentative and based mainly on the etymological connection with Hitt. wēn‑/win‑^(mi) ‘to copulate’, thus < ‘to thrust, push repeatedly (vel sim.)’.Such a development is trivial, as e.g. ModE to bump, to poke, to stick show, cf. OED online s.vv. Furthermore, “[p]erhaps for no other notion is there such a boundless wealth of both euphemistic and vulgar expressions” (Buck 1949a:278 s.v. HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE). On the iterative-durative notion of ‘Narten’ formations, cf. Melchert 2014f with ref.On the other hand, the meaning of Luw. winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (vel sim.) is securely determinable, as is the one of Hitt. wēn-/win-^(mi), which refers to (legally questionable) sexual intercourse in the Laws (cf. HEG U–Z:491). Furthermore, if Hitt. uwanšike/a‑^(mi) ‘to subjugate, enslave’ (HEG U–Z:493) is taken into consideration, this sexual intercourse has to be interpreted as non-consensual or violent.If this is the case, the interpretation of Lyd. winta- ‘bed camp/chamber(?)’ from ‘a place where the man takes the woman sexually’ might be questioned: vulgar words for ‘to copulate’ do not seem to undergo semantic amelioration, cf. Ital. fottere ‘to fuck’ (vulg.) and the other Romance continuants of Lat. futuere ‘id.’, which still are vulgar in use. Therefore, Lyd. winta- ‘bed camp/chamber(?)’ may rather be compared with Gk. εὐνή ‘place to lie, bed’ < ‘strewing’ (cf. Ziegler 2004a:7–11), and can thus be derived from PIE *h₁u̯en- ‘to scatter, spread’ (LIV²⁺ s.v. *u̯enh₁- → *h₁u̯en-).In this scenario, the underlying verbal meaning is best reconstructed as PAnat. ‘to thrust, push’ (cf. above sub PAnat. Reconstruction) and, contra LIV²:682f., no connection with PIE *u̯enH- ‘to become fond of’ is advisable.It is questionable, whether the root PIE ?*u̯enT- ‘to copulate with’ (LIV²:684) has to be reconstructed (based solely on some Hittite forms). This, however, is a matter of inner-Hittite philology and etymology, cf. EDHIL:1000, 1001 on the relevant form Hitt. ú-e-en-ti-er (KUB 5.9 ii 43).
While it is possible to connect Hitt. wēn-/win-^(mi) ‘to copulate (non-consensually)’ and uwanšike/a‑^(mi) ‘to subjugate, enslave’ with the similar looking root PIE *u̯en- ‘to overwhelm, win’ (LIV²:680f.), Luw. winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (vel sim.) semantically does not fit to this root.
Summing up, the root PIE *u̯en- ‘to pierce, wound’ is the best candidate to maintain the connection of Luw. winal- ‘(punting) pole’ (vel sim.), u̯enal- ‘(instrument to push, support)(?)’ (vel sim.), Hitt. wēn-/win-^(mi) ‘to copulate (non-consensually)’, and, rather unlikely, Lyd. winta- ‘bed camp/chamber(?)’, on which cf. the comment above.

Since no exact cognates are attested, no PIE reconstruction is provided.

(?)Arm. vandem ‘to drive away, destroy’
EDAIL:592EDAIL:592 doubts the connection with PIE *u̯en- because PIE *u̯- is expected to end up as Arm. g‑, cf. Arm. get ‘river’ < *u̯ed° (cf. PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/u̯éd‑n- ‘water’), gitem ‘to know’ < *u̯óid-h₂e ‘id.’, etc. (Schmitt 2007a:69f.). However, Schmitt 2007a:70 also notes the development PIE *u̯ > Arm. v, w, exemplified by vaṙem ‘to burn, light’ ~ Lith. vìrti ‘to cook’ (differently, ALEW 2.0 s.v. vìrti (2021-10-25) without mention of the Armenian verb). Arm. vandem ‘to drive away’ is thus ambiguous and may even be a loan (from Iranian?), cf. EDAIL:592 with lit. and Macak 2017a:1065.

MW gweint ‘I pierced’; W ym-wan ‘to fight’It seems to be possible to connect these with PIE *g^u̯hen- ‘to strike’ (LIV²:218f.), cf., e.g., EDPC:32f., Schumacher 2004a:362–368.
EDPC:32f., Schumacher 2004a:362–368

(?)OIr. indeóin, etc. ‘anvil’
eDIL 2019 s.v. indeóin (2021-10-25), Henry 1900a:13It remains a matter of debate whether PCelt. *u̯entā- ‘place, town’ (EDPC:413), which is most prominently attested in place names like OBrit. Venta, MW Gwent but also in MW cad-went ‘battle(field)’ belongs here or not. On the one hand, there are parallels for the connection of words for geographical units and verbs meaning ‘to pierce, strike’ like Fr. point ‘place’ : Lat. pungere ‘to prick, pierce’ (cf. Opfermann 2016a:119) and Lat. locus ‘place’ : PIE *slek- ‘to hit’ (ibid. pp. 110–119). On the other hand, PCelt. *u̯entā- ‘place, town’ is usually connected with Alb. vend ‘place, land’, which like Alb. Tosk vë, Gheg vẽ ‘to put, place’ rather belongs to PIE *h₁u̯en- ‘to scatter, spread’, cf., e.g., Ziegler 2004a:6, Schumacher & Matzinger 2013a:1006f.

Goth. wunds* ‘wounded’, etc.
EDPG:587f., Orel 2003a:474, Heidermanns 1993a:696f., GED:413