*dóm-o-
‘building, house (vel sim.)’
- Language
- Proto-Luwic
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 245
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tam(i)-/, tá-mi-, AEDIFICIUM
‘building(?)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested once as an appellative in the KIRŞEHİR letter (late 8th BCE) and perhaps once in a personal name. It may also hide behind the logogram AEDIFICIUM in BABYLON 1 (10th-9th BCE).
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | /tamin/ | tá-mi-na-´ | KIRŞEHİR letter, §7 (Tabal) |
| gen. sg. | /tamasi/ | “AEDIFICIUM”-si-i | BABYLON 1, §7 (Aleppo) |
Notice that these two words are interpreted differently in other lemmata, see AEDIFICIUM and /ta(m)m(i)-/.
[D.S.]
1.1.3Meaning
The word tá-mi-na-´ is left untranslated by Akdoğan; Hawkins 2010a:6 and Melchert 2014a:134. Akdoǧan and Hawkins suggest tentatively a participle of the verb /ta-(i)/ ‘to stand’, but this does not shed any light on the context. Another more likely interpretation is to take the word tá-mi-na-´ as the direct object of the verb PUGNUS.PUGNUS ‘to hold’. The word tá-ti-na, which is taken to be a substantive by Akdoğan & Hawkins (ibid.) and Melchert ibid., can instead be interpreted as a relational adjective in -i(ya)-, thus tadi(ya)-‘of the father, paternal’. The attributive adjective thus precedes the head noun, which is the more common word order in Hieroglyphic Luwian, cf. Bauer 2014a:229-235. The attributive participle ARHA sa-mi-na ‘abandoned’ might breathe more sense into the context, if it modifies the word for ‘building(?)’ rather than the one for ‘father’. A tentative translation of the sentence (§7) would be: “And maintain again the abandoned paternal building!” (Yakubovich pers. comm.). For further evidence for the existence of the lexeme /tam(i)-/, see below under Compound and under Lyc. A m̃me/i-.
It is not certain, whether the lexeme /tam(i)-/ hides behind the logogram AEDIFICUM in BABYLON 1. For the logogram AEDIFICIUM and the context see Hawkins 2000a:393.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Compounds
- /Uradam(i)-/, MAGNUS+ra/i-tà-mi- (PN) (Yakubovich 2017a:40)
1.2 Lycian A
m̃me/i-
‘building, house (vel sim.)’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is only attested on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, which is dated shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. | m̃mi | TL 44c.6 (Xanthos) |
| dat./loc. pl. | m̃me | TL 44c.19 (Xanthos) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
The word m̃me is written as one sequence with the preposition ñte ‘inside’. Neumann 2007a:253 chooses to read ñtlm̃me with instead on account of the word epewẽtlm̃mẽi in N 320.6. His lexical comparison is unsatisfaying. Until a new collation is available and contextual evidence is presented, the reading with is kept here.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
The meaning was suggested by Hajnal 1995a:161 n. 178 based both on the context of the instance in TL 44c.6 as well as on a comparison with its obvious derivative m̃mije-, where the semantics of ‘to build’ (vel sim.) are appropriate. His assignment is followed by Melchert (DLL:42). For an overview of older and outdated hypotheses, see Neumann 2007a:232.
[D.S.]
1.2.5Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘building, house (vel sim.)’
Lycian A m̃me/i- is connected to the root *dem- ‘to build’ also found in HLuw. /tama-(di)/ ‘to build’ and Lyc. A m̃ma(i)- ‘to install’, tãma- ‘building’ (vel sim.), see DLL:42, 60. By comparing Lyc. A m̃me/i- ‘building, house (vel sim.)’ and HLuw. /tam(i)-/ ‘building (?)’, one may reconstruct a ‘τόμος’-type noun, i.e. PIE *dóm-o-. The syncope in Lycian must have been caused by a secondary shift of the stress to the following syllable, i.e. *dómo- → *dmó- → m̃me/i-, cf. Melchert 1994a:319 and the Lycian lexeme hlm̃me/i-. The exact steps of the assimilation process *dm- or late *tm- > Lyc. m̃m- are unclear, see Eichner 1983a:60 n. 61. Hajnal 1995a:161 n. 178 connects Lyc. A m̃me/i- to the PIE root *mei̯- ‘to fasten’ and suggests a derivative in *-mo-. However, his hypothesis is made less economic and thus implausible by the comparative analysis with Luwian.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
For PIE *dóm-o- the meaning ‘building, house’ can be reconstructed already for the proto-language, because it is firmly attested in five branches and indirectly attested in Celtic. As a nomen rei actae of the τόμος-type, PIE *dóm-o- ultimately meant ‘what is built’.
As Buck 1949a:459 points out, outside of Germanic (cf. PGerm. *haima-), “one’s own dwelling house [i.e. home] is commonly expressed by the words for ‘house’”. Therefore, the PIE lexeme could cover the semantic range from ‘building (in general)’ over ‘house (in particular)’ to ‘home (with an emotional connotation)’, cf. also Mallory and Adams 2006:205, 206.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The nomen rei actaeDifferently, e.g., GEW I:408f. and EDG:347 assume a derivative (or extension) of the root noun (or the u-stem), which is unnecessary in view of the broad and already Anatolian attestation.PIE *dóm-o- ‘house’, which is attested in five to six branches, shows morphological and/or phonological pecularities in some individual languages.
Ved. dáma- is nearly exclusively attested in the singular, esp. in the loc. sg. dáme (46/49 in the RV). Since the frequent adverbial use of expessions meaning ‘in the house, at home’ is conceptually inherent (cf. cognate Lat. domī ‘id.’ and similar PSlav. *dȍma ‘id.’), the Vedic state of affairs is not unusual.Meier-Brügger 1977a:160 (followed by EWAia I:687) regards these attestational facts as problems which he tries to solve by assuming secondary status of Ved. dáma- (and Lat. domus). An instructive parallel in favour of the special status of the locative (singular) in words meaning ‘house’ is provided by Attic Greek οἴκοι ‘at home’ which – beside some place name forms like Ἰσθμοῖ ‘in Isthmos’ – preserves the otherwise lost thematic locative, cf. Rix 1992a:139. Additionally, cf. ModHG zu Hause ‘at home’ preserving the old dat. sg. ending -e.
The reason for Brugmann’s Law not operating in this case (not Ved. †dā́ma-) is not entirely clear.Cf. Nikolaev 2010a:63 n. 26. One explanation could be a late formation of this stem (< *demo-). Another possibility is analogical introduction of the guṇa from the root noun Ved. gen. sg. dăN, gen. pl. dămā́m, cf., e.g., Ved. plavá- ‘swimming’ < *plou̯-ó-. Note that in Vedic there are very few derivatives of the root *dem- attested. On an extensive overview of Brugmann’s Law in Indo-Iranian a-stems, cf. Hajnal 1994b. Furthermore, cf. Volkart 1994a:2f. with n. 6 for various proposals.
Lat. domus has forms of the 2nd and 4th declension, viz. o-stem and u-stem forms, and shows feminine gender. As Meier-Brügger 1977a:163 points out, the gender is the main reason, why Lat. domus acquired u-stem forms.That the u-stem declension is secondary and not inherited (as per WH I:369 etc.) is shown by the late attestation of such forms. Only from the 1st c. BCE onwards such forms are attested, cf. Meier-Brügger 1977a:159 with refs. in n. 1. Cf. also Weiss 2011a:252f. with n. 13 on Lat. nurus (o-stem → u-stem) ‘daughter-in-law’, which is morphologically comparable.The feminine gender itself has to be regarded as secondary and was probably influenced by the late-PIE feminine gender of the root noun.
PSlav. *dȍma ‘at home’ is isolated in Slavic and goes back to an instr. sg. of the o-stem (< PIE *dóm-o-h1), which itself is well attested in the Baltic languages (cf. PBalt. *nama-). Since no better explanation for PSlav. *dȍma is available,“[W]e would not expect to find the old Isg. ending of the o-stems in a u-stem”, EDSIL:112. A different interpretation is offered by Meillet (cf. WH I:369), viz. < loc. sg. *domō(u̯) and therefore belonging to a u-stem.it has to be interpreted as a relic form. Therefore, a Balto-Slavic preform BSl. *domo- can be reconstructed.
Combining the non-Anatolian evidence with PLuw. *dómo- ‘building’, it is highly advisable to reconstruct PIE *dóm-o- ‘house’.Cf. already IEW:189, Weiss 2011a:271, KEWA II:19, but differently Mayrhofer in EWAia I:687 who obviously was convinced by Meier-Brügger’s views (Meier-Brügger 1977a).
For the derivational base see PAnat. *dem-.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. dáma- m. ‘house, living place’ (RV+)I see no reason, contra EWAia I:697 following Meier-Brügger 1977a:163, why loc. sg. dáme and acc. sg. dámam ought to be ascribed to the root noun paradigm, cf. on the endings AiGr III:41, 96.
EWAia I:697, KEWA II:19, Grassmann 1996a:577 s.v. 1. dáma
PCelt. *dōmó/ā- ‘retinue’, cf. OIr. dám f. ‘company, party, following’, W daw m., MBret. deuff m. ‘son-in-law’, OCorn. dof ‘(Lat.) gener’ (gl.)On these vr̥ddhi formations, cf. Zair 2012a:149. On OIr. dom ‘house, home’, cf. Weiss 2017a:62–70 who plausibly considers it to be the continuant of the o-stem.
EDPC:88f., eDIL s.v. dám
PSlav. *dȍma adv. ‘at home’, cf. OCS doma, Russ. dóma, Cz. doma, SCr. dȍma ‘id.’.
EDSIL:112, Trautmann 1923a:44, Vasmer 1953a I:361
PBalt. *nama- ‘house, dwelling’,Contra EDBIL:328 this is not a u-stem. The Baltic forms show an anlauting nasal instead of a plosive, which is at best be explained by dissimilation, cf. ALEW II:685. Compounds like namũ-darỹs (← *damũ-darỹs) could well be the starting point of this development, cf. WH I:861, Smoczyński 2007a:416. Vasmer 1953a I:527, however, connects the Baltic words with Gk. νέμω ‘to live, inhabit; to herd livestock’.cf. Lith. nãmas ‘house; (pl.) home’, Latv. nams ‘hut, house’
ALEW II:684–686, EDBIL:328, Smoczyński 2007a:416