*mér-/mr̥-´

Lycian martti : marñti continues an amphikinetic root verb showing an a-vocalism in the root. This vocalism cannot have developed directly from a Proto-Indo-European full e-grade. Therefore, one must posit a generalization of the zero-grade of the root from the weak onto the strong stems, i.e. *mér-ti : *mar-énti (< *mr̥-énti; for the required environment of the vocalization of *r̥ cf. 1pl./2pl. *mr̥-u̯éni/*mr̥-téni) → *már-ti : *mar-énti (for a parallel see Melchert 1994a:313). Based on the absence of evidence from another Luwic language, it is not possible to tell whether this paradigmatic levelling had already taken place in Proto-Luwic.

The 3^rd person plural form in -ñti spelled with the sign for vocalic <ñ> /n̥/ shows that the syncope was recent (cf. Melchert 1994a:294, 309, 313). This fact indicates that the accentual pattern of the strong stems spread onto the weak stems in Pre-Lycian, i.e. marñti /már-n̥ti/ ← *mar-énti.

The root verb is not yet attested in Luwian, but derivatives of this verbal base can be found, e.g. /maratta-/ n. ‘order, request’, /maraT(i)-/ c. ‘id.’. The semantics of the Lycian verb compared to the ones of the Luwian derivatives lead us to reconstruct a Proto-Luwic verb meaning ‘to order’. Melchert 1992b:45 n. 9 takes the a-vocalism in Lycian martti tentatively as an analogical spread coming from the one environment subject to the vowel harmony, i.e. the 1^st person singular preterit *mer-xa → *mar-xa. This is hard to believe due to the fact that most verbal endings end either in /e/ or /i/. Thus, one would rather expect the spread to be with the vowel /e/ instead of /a/. Hajnal 1995a:111 omits the Luwian data and reconstructs a root *merH-u̯- for Lyc. mar-^(ti). This must be rejected on phonological grounds, since the Luwian language would preserve traces of the glide *-u̯-.

[D.S.]

According to Kimball 2017a:213–216, the PAnat. root *mer- ‘to order, request’ most likely continues PIE 2.*(s)mer- ‘to receive one’s portion’ (LIV²:570).Whether PIE 1.*(s)mer- ‘to think of, remember’ (LIV²:569f.) and 2.*(s)mer- ‘to receive one’s portion’ (LIV²:570) are related to each other, cannot be discussed here, cf. IEW:970 (cited by LIV²:570 n. 1 s.v. 2.*smer- without further discussion) and Kimball 2017a:216.
As can be seen sub Transmission above, the cognates descending from this root – sometimes with metaphorical transfer – belong to the semantic sphere of ‘dividing, sharing, receiving/giving a portion’. The Anatolian root *mer- ‘to order, request’ thus underwent a semantic change that can be explained either as

1. ‘to give/assign a part/a task’ (cf. Gk. μερίζω ‘to divide’) → ‘to allot, pronounce, instruct’ (via the performative action of ‘allotting an allotment’), cf. the similar development in ModHG (einen Befehl) er-teilen ‘to issue (an order)’,Cf. similar ModGk. dial. κρένω ‘to speak, say’ < Gk. κρίνω ‘to judge’ (from PIE *kreh₁(i̯)- ‘to sieve, separate’, LIV²:366f.), cf. Buck 1915a:140. Kimball 2017a:214f., furthermore, adduces Gk. νόμος ‘custom, law’ beside νέμω ‘to allot, distribute’. or as
2. ‘to take/receive a part’ (cf. Lat. mereō ‘to receive’) → ‘to request an allotment’ > ‘to demand’, cf., e.g., Gk. αἴτημα ‘request, demand’,Cf. also Gk. αἰτέω ‘to ask (for), demand (an allotment); to postulate, assume’; both are derived from *aito- ‘part, allotment’. Further derivatives are Osc. gen. sg. aeteis ‘part (of a possession)’ (*ai̯-tei-s, cf. Untermann 2000a:55f.), Gk. αἶσα ‘decree, dispensation; one’s lot, destiny; share in sth.’ (< *ai̯-t-i̯a-).which belongs to αἴνυμαι ‘to take’ from PIE *h₁ai̯- ‘to give; to take’ (LIV²:229; cf. on the root Lyc. A xe/i- ‘sacrifice’).Cf. Buck 1949a:1270. For the etymological connection of these, cf. GEW I:41, 44, 47.

As pointed out in the section Semantic Reconstruction above, it is advisable to connect PAnat. *mer- ‘to order, request’ with PIE 2.*(s)mer- ‘to receive one’s portion’ (LIV²:570). The variant with s-, on the one hand, is required for some Greek forms,Cf. Gk. perf. med. εἵμαρτο (< *se-smr̥-), adj. ἄμμορος (< *n̥-smor-), Aiol. perf. act. ἔμμορε (< *se-smor-).while Willi 2014b plausibly affiliates continuants of an s-less variant of the root, cf. PIE *mer-i̯o- ‘young man, warrior’ (Gk. μεῖραξ, Ved. márya-, YAv. mairiia-) < ‘receiving one’s portion (of the loot)’. Therefore, the root, which is reconstructed by LIV²:570 as 2.*smer-, should rather be represented as 2.*(s)mer-.

[A.O.]

No direct cognates attested.

Indo-Iranian
PIIr. *mári̯a- m. ‘young warrior’, cf. Ved. márya- ‘young man, warrior’, YAv. mairiia- adj./sbst. ‘treacherous; rascal (m.)’Cf. also OPers. /marīka-/ ‘follower, subject’.
EWAia II:329f.,KEWA II:596f.,Grassmann 1996a:1010f.,Bartholomae 1904:1151f.

Greek
Gk. μείρομαι ‘to receive as one’s portion (Il.+); (perf. act.) to obtain one’s share (of) (Il.+); (perf. pass., impersonal) it is allotted (B.+)’
Gk. μεῖραξ f./m. ‘young girl, lass (Com.+); (later) boy, lad (Aret.+)’
Gk. μέρος n. ‘share, portion; part’ (h.Cer.+)
GEW II:195f., 196f., 212, DELG:678, 678f., EDG:921f., 922, 933, LSJ:1093, 1104f.

Italic
Lat. mereō ‘to receive as one’s wage; deserve’ (Naev.+)Lat. marītus ‘married’ etc. (cf. OLD²:1188) could perhaps be connected with PIE *mér-i̯o- (cf. Ved. márya- ‘young man’, Gk. μεῖραξ ‘girl, boy’) and/or OLith. martì ‘girl, bride; woman’ (cf. ALEW I:618f.), W morwyn ‘girl’, merch ‘daughter’ (cf. EDPC:267 s.v. *merkā) etc. On Lat. marītus and some of the other forms, cf. Vine 2011a:265f.
WH II:75f., EM:399, EDLIL:374f., OLD²:1212f.