*melH-(u)-
‘to mill, grind’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 2815
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
malḫu-
‘to crush, break’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in various Luwian ritual texts.
[O.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. ind. act. | ma-a-la-ḫu-u-ta | KUB 35.107 iii 2´ | (CTH 764, MS) |
| part. nom. sg. c. | ma-al-wa-a-am-mi-i[š] | KBo 29.63 ii 4´ | (CTH 762, NS) |
| ma-al-wa-a[m-mi-iš] | KUB 35.70 ii 21 | (CTH 762, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
All forms have been checked against the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).
[O.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Every attestation of CLuw. malḫu- is fragmentary and does not provide any basis for semantic interpretation. The meaning of the reduplicated variant mammalḫuwa-(i) is relatively secure however, and its semantics are transferrable to the unreduplicated form (without the distributive semantics provided by the reduplication, see Sasseville 2021a:351). A translation ‘to crush, break’ is thus consensual and coherent with the Hittite comparandum in malla-(i) ‘to grind’ (thus in e.g. Melchert 1988b:215f., CLL:132, Jasanoff 2003a:64 n. 127, HED M:24f., Frotscher 2012a:151, Dempsey 2015a:226, Sasseville 2021a:194).
[O.B.]
1.1.5Stem
On the basis of the attested forms, the stem type of CLuw. malḫu- is uncertain. The 3sg. pret. attestation indicates a u-stem and lenition of the endings. However, the form does not constitute solid grounds for stem assignment, see. e.g. the strange spelling with -la- instead of the expected -al- (cf. Sasseville 2021a:194). Lenited endings also run counter to the stem type we would expect on account of the reduplicated form mammalḫuwa-(i), which is rather ḫi-conjugating. Hence, it is more likely, but still not confirmed, that malḫu- is ḫi-conjugating as well.
The Luwian form seems to be continuing a u-extended root in contrast to the Hittite cognate malla-(i) ‘to grind’ (cf. Melchert 1988b:215f., HED M:24f., Sasseville 2021a:194).
[O.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to mill, grind’
Hittite shows mainly the stem types, i.e. a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation malla-/mall-(ḫi) (< *mólH-/ml̥H-´ (Frotscher 2012a:171f., Oettinger 2013-2014a:164, Sasseville 2021a:391-395); cf. Jasanoff 2003a:70f. who reconstructs the type as PIE *mólH-/mélH- insteadOutdated Oettinger 1979a:277f.) and a deradical formation in -iye/a-(mi), i.e. malliye/a-(mi) (< *mélH-i̯e/o-, although it is often taken as a New Hittite innovation, see e.g. Jasanoff 2003a:65 and EDHIL:547f.), whereas CLuw. shows a u-extension malḫ-u- ‘to crush, break’, also in its reduplicated stem mammalḫuwa-(i) (< *mé-mElH-u-, after Melchert 1994a:258, Oettinger 2012c:244 and see LIV²:433). The Hittite 3rd present forms in -ai (mallai) show that the root ended either with *h2 or *h3 (EDHIL:548, Sasseville 2021a:394f., contra Jasanoff 2003a:65 and Oettinger 2013-2014a:164), which cannot be determined based on the Anatolian data alone (pace LIV²: 432f. n.1, the Cuneiform Luwian evidence is no longer probative, since -h3 is now expected to be kept in this position just like *h2), although a *h2 remains highly probable to keep the distinction with the root *melh3- (see LIV²:433) and CLuw. *malḫa-.
Considering the various types of formation found between Hittite and Luwian, it is difficult to reconstruct one single stem formation based on more than one Anatolian language and, therefore, we leave the Proto-Anatolian verb as *melH-(u)- ‘to mill, grind’. However, considering the root verb of the ḫi-conjugation in Hittite and the reduplicated ḫi-conjugated formation in CLuw., it is tempting to see the pattern *mólH-/ml̥H-´ → *mé-molH-/ml̥H- (with secondary u-extension in CLuw.).
The Hittite noun mēmal- n. ‘groats’ also belongs here and is reconstructed as a reduplicated root noun *mém(o)lH- (Oettinger 2012c:244 with further literature).
[D.S.]
lūlu