marišš-(i)
‘to destroy with the mari-weapon’
- Language
- Palaic
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 2555
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Palaic
marišš-(i)
‘to destroy with the mari-weapon’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in Palaic incantations of the festival for the Palaic pantheon.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 2sg. pres. act. | ma-ri-eš-š[a-t]i | KUB 32.17 + KUB 35.167 obv. 15’/2’ | (CTH 751, MS?) |
| [ma-ri-iš]-˹ša-ti˺ | KBo 48.178 iv 1’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| 3sg. pres. act. | ma-ri-iš-ši | KUB 35.165 rev. 9’ | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
The form marišši must be taken as 3rd singular due to the imperfective suffix -šš- (Carruba 1970a:64, Melchert 1994a:220, contra Melchert 1984b:35).
The form ma-ri-eš-š[a-t]i /marissti/ is glossed as 3rd singular present by Carruba 1970a:64, Oettinger 1979a:510. However, if the verb marišš- belongs to the ḫi-conjugation, for which marišši speaks, the ending -ti is better taken as 2nd singular present.
[D.S.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. A third attestation is perhaps to be found in KUB 35.165 obv. 25, where the upper part of four signs are still visible, i.e. […]x-x-x-x[…]. Based on a contextual comparison with KUB 35.165 rev. 15’, one would expect the verb ma-ri-iš-ši to occur there (Kammenhuber 1955b:367). Kammenhuber 1955b (loc. cit.) suggests tentatively the restoration ˹ma-ri-iš˺-š[i ]. Carruba 1970a:16 does not follow Kammenhuber 1955b’s reading and attempts the reading x-x-ši-ti, but concedes that it is highly hypothetical and prefers to leave it at x-x-x-x. We will refrain here from making any more tentative interpretations.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
According to the context, whichever god performs marišš-(i) on the curse, he will be able to satiate his appetite (referring to the meal prepared by men). Therefore, a verb of destroying is adequate for marišš-(i). Kammenhuber 1959a:23 suggests the meaning ‘to cut (into pieces)’ based on an etymological connection with Hittite marriye/a-(mi), which was thought to mean ‘to cut (into pieces)’ (followed by Carruba 1970a:64, Carruba 1972a:22). The Hittite verb is now translated as ‘to melt (down), to dissolve’ (CHD L-N:180f.), which is still appropriate for the semantics of the Palaic verb. In KUB 35.165 rev. 9’, the direct object of marišš-(i) is lālan tartan ‘uttered (evil) gossip’. Melchert 1994a:79 translates Pal. marišš-(i) as ‘to crush’, whereas Sasseville 2019a:25 has ‘to destroy’, but, in the end, it depends on the etymological assignment of the root. It is here suggested that it is related to the Hittite word GIŠmāri- ‘(a type of weapon)’ (see under Reconstruction and see Opfermann, Sasseville & Süssenguth 2022a for the meaning ‘Germ. zerhacken’) and, therefore, ‘to destroy with the mari-weapon’, is a more neutral translation.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The etymological connection of Kammenhuber 1959a:23 between Palaic marišš-(i) and Hittite marriye/a-(mi) can hardly be upheld, because the Palaic verb lacks a geminate -rr- (based on words such as Pal. ārra-, the gemination is expected to be kept). A different approach is to assume that marišš-(i) is an imperfective formation in -šš- derived from a denominative *mariye/a-. The base of this denominative could be the same as the one found in Hittite māri- c. (weapon) (cf. CHD L-N:183, HEG L-M:133, HED M:66-69), i.e. Pal. *māri-. The semantics of the denominative would be an offensive action performed with a weapon, which would be in agreement with the semantics for Pal. marišš-(i) obtained from the context, i.e. a verb of destroying; cf. CLuw. tūr(i)- c. ‘spear’ → tūrā-(ti) ‘to pierce with a spear’. Moreover, the action of marišš-(i) is performed by a god in the Palaic context, while we know from Hittite context that the weapon GIŠmāri- can be carried by a god (KUB 38.2 ii 24-26, CHD L-N:183, HEG L-M:133). The Hittite lexeme GIŠmāri- c. had no established etymology so far, but cf. EDHIL:557, HED M:66-69, HEG L-M:133, but see now Opfermann, Sasseville & Süssenguth 2022a, who defends the meaning ‘scimitar’. For Proto-Anatolian, it is possible to reconstruct a substantive *mō̆ri- c., which may come from a root *mer-, or from a root *(h2)meh1-, i.e. PAnat. *(h2)moh1- + *-ro- + *-i-; see under Proto-Indo-European below.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Under the assumption that Pal. marišš‑(i) is ultimately derived from a noun, reconstructable as Pal. *māri‑ ‘(weapon)’ < PAnat. *mō̆ri‑, which is continued in Hitt. GIŠmāri‑ and perhaps NINDAmāri‑ (cf. PAnat. reconstruction above), it is necessary to clarify the meaning of Hitt. (GIŠ)māri‑. This noun occurs in ceremonial and mythological contexts (cf. for the attestations CHD L–N:183f.) and is interpreted in the literature as meaning either ‘spear (vel sim.)’ (cf. EDHIL:557, CHD L–N:183f., HW² H:210) or ‘scimitar (vel sim.)’ (Alp 1983a:43 n. 49, HED M:66).The noun NINDAmāri- probably denotes a type of bread that looks like a GIŠmāri‑.The latter interpretation is recently advocated for by Opfermann, Sasseville & Süssenguth 2022a as the conclusion of their archaeological, philological and etymological study. While the etymologies proposed so far are unlikely in one way or another,For short discussions and references, cf. Opfermann, Sasseville & Süssenguth 2022a:117-120.the connection with the root PIE *h2meh1- ‘to mow’ (LIV²:279) is most promising. The semantic development from ‘to mow, harvest by cutting’ to ‘scimitar (vel sim.)’ (Hitt. GIŠmāri‑) can either be construed via an agricultural tool for mowing/cutting, viz. ‘sickle, scythe’ or directly from ‘cutting/sharp tool’ to ‘cutting/sharp weapon’.The former seems more likely in view of the fact that Hitt. GIŠmāri- is attested also in KBo. 2.8 iii 18´f. in the context of an agricultural festival (ezen4 urudušu.kin ‘festival of the sickle’, KBo 2.8 iii 4´), cf. Opfermann, Sasseville & Süssenguth 2022a:117.
3.1.1Root etymology
The root PIE *h2meh1- ‘to mow’ is known from Greek (cf. Gk. ἀμάω ‘to mow, cut’), Germanic (cf., e.g., OE māwan ‘to mow’) and probably Hittite (cf. Hitt. ḫamesḫa(nt)- ‘springtime’ if < *‘(season of) mowing’, cf. EDHIL:279–281). The meanings of Hitt. GIŠmāri- ‘scimitar (vel sim.)’ and Pal. marišš‑(i) ‘to destroy with a *māri‑, ?to cut, ?chop’ are only based on the presented etymology and obviously do not add independent evidence to the reconstruction of the root. Starting from Greek and Germanic, one can deduce the meaning ‘to harvest (by cutting off)’ (LIV²:279).The root PIE *met- ‘to mow’ (LIV²:442, attested in Italic and Celtic) could also belong here, cf. LIV²:442 n. 1 s.v. ?1.*met- and also IEW:703.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
If the presumed derivational base of Pal. marišš‑(i), PAnat. *mō̆ri‑ (> Hitt. gišmāri- ‘scimitar [vel sim.]’) belongs to the root PIE *h2meh1- ‘to harvest (by cutting off)’ (LIV²:279), the anlauting laryngeal was lost via de Saussure’s Law (*HRo > *Ro) in the o-grade stem *h2móh1-ri- (with, as is expected, analogically leveled weak stem *h2méh1‑ri‑) ‘harvesting or cutting tool’.For a more detailed discussion, cf. Opfermann, Sasseville & Süssenguth 2022a:119f.
3.2.1Root etymology
The root underlying Gk. ἀμάω ‘to mow, cut’, PGerm. *mēan- ‘to mow’, probably Hitt. ḫamesḫa(nt)- ‘springtime’, and maybe PAnat. *mō̆ri‑ ‘cutting/harvesting tool’ is reconstructed as *h2meh1-. While the anlauting laryngeal *h2- is required by the “prothetic” vowel ἀ- in Greek, the root final laryngeal *‑h1- can be deduced from the long vowel *‑ē- in Proto-Germanic.The Greek reflex -α- instead of -ε- in ἀμάω can be explained via assimilation (or “Alpha-Harmonie”, cf. LIPP I:99), cf. LIV²:279 n. 1 s.v. *h2meh1-.Both laryngeals show reflexes in Hitt. ḫamesḫa(nt)- ‘springtime’ < *h2meh1‑sh2o-, cf. Starke 1979a:249f., EDHIL:281. Thus, the phonological shape of the root is reconstructed as PIE *h2meh1- ‘to harvest (by cutting off)’ (LIV²:279).
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
OE māwan ‘to mow’, OHG māen ‘to tear out, mow’
EDPG:360, EWAhd VI:10.33–12.24, Kluge & Seebold 2011a:592f.
TochB mātre* adj. ‘sharp’DTB²:481. The affiliation of this lexeme to the root in question is highly doubtful, as Giulio Imberciadori (pers. comm.) discusses in his PhD thesis s.v.