tuta-

The etymology suggested by Shevoroshkin 1977a:139, i.e. the connection of tuta- with Hitt. tuzzi- ‘army’ and PIE *teu̯teh₂- ‘crowd’, still holds. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:908) adopts a different etymology for Hitt. tuzzi-, which is not necessary (cf. also HEG T:502f.). The i-stem in Hittite vs. the a-stem in Lycian simply implies an original thematic formation, out of which Hittite has probably made an i-stem and Lycian an a-stem (< *-eh₂-).

[D.S.]

The meaning of the PIE lexeme underlying Lyc. B tuta- ‘community, crowd’ can safely be reconstructed as ‘people, community’. A military connotation, as it is proposed by, e.g., Puhvel 2015a:47,Cf. also Puhvel 2019a:54: “[Hitt.] tuzzi- […] etymologically echoes force (cf. Vedic távas- ‘might’)”. Besides the fact that the substantival s‑stem “Vedic távas- ‘might’” is not attested directly (cf. Lyd. tawsa- ‘great’), the root PIE *teu̯h₂‑, which underlies Ved. adj.(!) tavás- ‘mighty’, etc., is reconstructed with the meaning ‘to agglomerate (intr.), thicken’ (cf. PAnat. *TEu̯li̯eh₂- ‘assembly’).is not attested for Lycian B and does not need to be reconstructed for PIE, either. The meaning ‘army’ of the Hittite lexeme may well be secondary. Wodtko (in ALEW 2.0 s.v. tautà [2022-01-28]) considers the connection of late-PIE *teu̯tā ‘people’ and PIE *teuh₂- “schwellen, stark werden” to lack formal (but cf. below) and semantic reasoning. However, a word for ‘people’, ‘community’ or ‘crowd’ may well be derived ultimately from a verbal action ‘to fill, agglomerate’ vel sim., cf., e.g., CLICS³ Subgraph CROWD (2022-02-09) and items such as Gk. πλῆθος, πληθύς n. ‘crowd, people’ (GEW II:537f.), OHG folc ‘people, crowd, army’ (EWAhd III:451–454), both of which are derived from PIE *pleh₁- ‘to fill up, become full’ (LIV²:482f.). For the lexeme under investigation the same semantic development is proposed by Zimmer 1987a:326 reconstructing “Volksmenge” and connecting the root PIE *teu̯h₂‑ ‘to agglomerate (intr.), thicken’.Cf. PAnat. *TEu̯li̯eh₂- ‘assembly’ on the semantics of this root.

Based solely on the non-Anatolian material (cf. above), it is recommended to reconstruct PIE *teu̯téh₂- ‘people’. The Verner reflex of PIE *‑t- as PGerm. *‑đ- (cf. PGerm. *þeu̯đō) points to the oxytone accentuation of the preform. Furthermore, most cognates either directly reflect PIE *‑eu̯- (cf. PGerm. *þeu̯đō) or are ambiguous regarding the root vowel (cf. Osc. τωϝτο < *teu̯tā or *tou̯tā, cf. Weiss 2020a:112). Differently, Baltic unambiguously shows the reflex of PIE *‑ou̯‑ which Petit 2000a:143 tentatively explains as analogically replacing *‑eu̯- resembling the o‑grade of toga‑type ā‑stems. In sum, there is slightly more evidence in favor of an original e‑grade (cf. Germ., Gaul divine name Teutates, personal names attributed to Greek)Cf. EIEC:417 and EWAhd II:686 for further adducable names.than of an o‑grade (only Balt.). Lyc. B tuta- ‘community, crowd’ requires the accent on the suffix and is indecisive regarding the root ablaut, cf. above. Therefore, it is possible to add Lyc. B tuta- ‘community, crowd’ to the reflexes of the stem PIE *teu̯téh₂- ‘people, community’.
The further analysis is not commonly agreed upon as the collection of proposals in EWAhd II:687f. and the aporia in ALEW 2.0 s.v. tautà (2022-01-28) shows. However, the connection with the root PIE *teu̯h₂- ‘to agglomerate (intr.), thicken’ may, contra ALEW 2.0, be regarded not only semantically (cf. above) but also morphologically appropriate, cf., e.g., already IEW:1084f. and most recently Bichlmeier & Zimmer 2022a:248 with ref. to Zimmer 1987a:326. None of the adduced cognates attests any reflex of a root final laryngeal of a form *teu̯h₂-teh₂‑. The possible Indo-Iranian and Greek lexemes do not show laryngeal reflexes but are not securely attributable, either. The Italic and Celtic data is not unequivocal concerning the reflex of the sequence PIE *‑eu̯h₂t‑, cf. Zair 2012a:225–243 for Celtic and Schrijver 1991a:285–288 for Latin. Additionally, Italic shows syncope in certain environments which further obscures the phonological shape of the pre-form. The Baltic evidence speaks against a root final laryngeal and points to an aniṭ-root because otherwise acute intonation would be expected, cf. Kim 2018c:1981. Finally, loss of a laryngeal in this position is absolutely regular in Germanic. In view of this situation, PIE *teu̯h₂-teh₂- may or may not be a possible pre-form of Osc. touto, etc. The connection with the root PIE *teu̯h₂- ‘to agglomerate (intr.), thicken’ (LIV²:639f.) is thus taken here as only tentative.A proposal that deserves to be investigated further is to assume already PIE loss of the root final laryngeal which could be a case of (Sandell’s and) Byrd’s extended version of Szemerényi’s Law that describes fricative loss also word-internally in a tautosyllabic cluster *VRF, cf. Byrd 2015a:110–112, Byrd 2018a:2060. However, while in, e.g., PIE *u̯erh₁=d^hh₁‑o- > *u̯erd^hh₁o- ‘word’ the tautosyllabicity is obvious, the sequence *teu̯h₂teh₂- is probably syllabified as */teu̯.h₂teh₂/ which means that the laryngeal belongs to the following syllable. It might nevertheless be hypothesized that the word/stem may under certain assumptions be syllabified as */teu̯h₂.teh₂/ which would lead to the loss of the laryngeal. However, there are some counterexamples for the preservation of the laryngeal in PIE *eu̯H (cf. Ved. brávīti ‘speaks’ < *mléu̯h₂ti) and even more in PIE *eRF (cf. Ved. janitár‑, Gk. γενετήρ, Lat. genitor ‘progenitor’ < *g̑enh₁ter‑).

[A.O.]

Sogd. twδʾk ‘heap, mass’, etc.In view of the unambiguous PIE status of PIE *teu̯téh₂- ‘people’ it is more likely that the semantically deviant Indo-Iranian lexemes are of secondary origin and do not directly belong here.
Gharib 1995a:392, Zimmer 1987a:326, 329 n. 54, 55, 56

Only personal names like Τευταμίδης (Il.), etc.
GEW II:887, GEW III:184, DELG:1111 s.v. Τεύταμος, EDG:—, Zimmer 1987a:329 n. 52

Osc. touto (TB 9), τωϝτο (ST Me 1, Me 2, Me 3), etc., Umbr. tuta, tota, etc. (IgT) ‘community, (Lat.) civitas’, Venet. te[.]u[.]ta (Ca 13/MLV 163, cf. also Ca 24/MLV 203, 70/MLV 200), dat. sg. (?)[te.u.ta].i. (Ca 6/MLV 151), (?)teuters (Pa 14/MLV 148)
EDLIL:618f., Untermann 2000a:779–781, Zair 2016a:226, Lejeune 1974a:339, Zimmer 1987a:328 n. 48f.

OIr. túath ‘people, country’, MW tut ‘people, country’, MBret. tut ‘people’, etc., Gaul divine name Teutates, etc.
EDPC:386f., LEIA T:164, eDIL s.v. 1 túath (2022-02-02), Zair 2012a:235, Zimmer 1987a:328 n. 47, on Celtic river names containing the root in question, cf. Bichlmeier & Zimmer 2022a:246–250

OLith. tautà ‘people’, Lith. (outdated) Tautà ‘Germany’, Latv. tàuta ‘people’, OPr. nom. sg. tauto ‘land’On the root vowel of PBalt. *touta‑, cf. Petit 2000a:142f. 
EDBIL:461, ALEW 2.0 s.v. tautà (2022-01-28), PKEŽ² s.v. tauto (2022-01-31), Zimmer 1987a:328 n. 50

Germ.-Lat. tribal name Teutoni, Goth. þiuda ‘(Gk.) ἔθνος, people’, ON þióþ ‘people’, OHG diota f. ‘people’, etc.
EDPG:540, EWAhd II:684–688, Zimmer 1987a:329 n. 51

For derivatives of the root PIE *teu̯h₂- ‘to agglomerate (intr.), thicken’, cf. the lemmata Lyd. tawsa- ‘great’ and esp. PAnat. *TEu̯li̯eh₂- ‘assembly’.