*meu̯s-
‘to satiate one’s hunger’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 322
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/mus-/
‘to satiate one’s hunger’1.1.1Derivatives
1.2 Palaic
mūš-/muš-
‘to satiate one’s hunger’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in two different Palaic texts. On the one hand, it is found in the category previously known as Palaic Hymn and Myth (CTH 752), now understood as the Palaic ritual for the disappearing deity. On the other hand, it is found in the Palaic festival text of Ziparwa with incantations (CTH 751).
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| 2sg. or 3sg. pres. ind. act. (?) | mu-ú-ši | KUB 35.165 obv. 25 | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
| mu-ú-ši | KUB 35.165 rev. 9’ | (CTH 751, OS or MS) | |
| ˹mu-ú˺[-ši] | KBo 48.178 l.col. 1’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| 3pl. pres. ind. act. | mu-ša-a-an-ti | KUB 32.18 i 7’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) |
| mu-ša-a-an-ti | KUB 32.18 i 9’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) | |
| mu-ša-a-an-ti | KUB 35.168, 6’ | (CTH 752, OS) | |
| [m]u-ša-an-ti | KUB 32.18 i 18’ | (CTH 752, OS or MS) |
For the interpretation of the form mūši as 2nd singular present see Yakubovich 2005c:115; cf. Carruba 1970a:64, Carruba 1972a:22, Melchert 1984b:36. Only the tense, diathesis and number of mūši are assured. Cf. the discussion under Meaning.
[D.S.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning ‘to satiate one’s hunger, to enjoy (yourself)’
Otten 1945-1951a:81 compares convincingly the Palaic passage “adānti ni=ppa=aš mušānti aḫuwānti ni=ppa=aš ḫašānti” with a Hittite passage recurring in various myths, e.g. “eder n=e ŪL išpiyer ekuiēr=ma n=e=za ŪL ḫaššikker” ‘They ate, but they did not satiate, they drank, but they did not quench their thirst.’ (KUB 17.10+ i 19’-20’). Thus, Pal. mūš-/muš- corresponds semantically speaking to Hitt. išpai-/i(ya)-(i) ‘to satiate one’s hunger’ (Kammenhuber 1955b:355f. n. 1, Kammenhuber 1959a:35; Carruba 1970a:64; Tischler 2008a:120).
The form mu-ú-ši has been interpreted as a 3rd singular present and its ending compared to the Hittite one of the ḫi-conjugation, i.e. -i (Kammenhuber 1959a:35). Melchert 1984b:36 (following a suggestion of Carruba 1970a:64) interprets mūši as a 2nd person singular form in the sentence "maš=pa=ši mūši" (KUB 35.165 rev. 9’) and argues that most of the verbal forms in the passage are in the 2nd person singular and refer to the addressed deity (withdrawn in Melchert 1994a:219, 220 for reasons not explicitly cited). He poses the semantics ‘to enjoy (yourself)’, because the satiating refers to the offerings that the deity is receiving, which seem to include, but not to be restricted to food.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to satiate one’s hunger’
Based on a rash grammatical interpretation of mūši as 3rd person singular, the verb was attributed to the ḫi-conjugation. The assignment to this conjugation remains a possibility, but it is no longer certain (see under Forms). Eichner 1975a:86 reconstructed from the putative Palaic 3rd singular present mūši the Proto-Anatolian pre-form *móu̯s-ei̯ with -s- belonging to the root and suggested an etymological connection with Greek μύω ‘to close the lips’ and ἀμυστί ‘without closing the mouth, at one draught’. Yakubovich 2005c:115 accepts the etymology of Eichner, but suggests an athematic stem, i.e. 2nd sg. pres. *mūs-si (with simplification), which is also attractive, but not entirely assured either. The problem lies in the simplification of the cluster *-ss- to -s-, which is expected from a Proto-Indo-European perspective, e.g. in *h1es-si > *h1esi, but appears to have been restituted in Hittite for instance in ēšši ‘you are’. Therefore, this restitution could be expected to occur in Palaic as well, although the status of geminate /-ss-/ in this language is obscure (Melchert 1994a:219). In the end, further evidence is needed before concluding on the grammatical interpretation of mūši.
Based on the comparison between the singular and the plural form, i.e. mūši : mušānti, Pal. mūš-/muš- is an ablauting verb. If it belongs to the ḫi-conjugation, then it reflects an o-grade of the root in the strong stems versus a zero-grade in the weak stems, i.e. *móu̯s- : *mus-´ (Eichner 1975a:86, Oettinger 1979a:448, Oettinger 1980a:45 n. 6, Melchert 1994a:226). However, based on the current data, which is not securely understood, the Palaic verb could be instead an athematic root present of the amphikinetic type or a root aorist, i.e. *méu̯s- : *mus-´, whence both possibilities must remain open; cf. Melchert 1994a:219, 226. The etymological connection with Hieroglyphic Luwian /musnuwant(i)-/, whose derivational base */mus-/ is cognate with Pal. mūš-/muš-, confirms the reconstruction of a verb *meu̯s- ‘to satiate one’s hunger’ for Proto-Anatolian.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The meaning of PAnat. *meu̯s- can be approximated as ‘to satiate (one’s hunger)’, cf. PAnat. Reconstruction. According to Eichner 1975a:86, Pal. mūs-/mus- is a ḫi-verb with resultative meaning and can etymologically be connected with Gk. μύω ‘to close (intr.)’, ἀμυστί ‘at one draught’. Eichner traces the meaning of the Palaic verb back to “(etwa) hat sich vollaufen lassen” which means that he takes the meaning found in Gk. ἀμυστί ‘(drinking) at one draught’ < ‘without closing one’s mouth’ as primary. The meaning ‘to close one’s mouth’ is therefore regarded here as original (cf. root etymology below).The fact that Gk. μύω ‘to close (intr.)’ can be applied to various entities (eyes, mouth, bivalve fish) does not necessitate the broader semantics ‘to close oneself (of the mouth, eyes, etc.)’.
The connection between the assumed primary meaning PIE ‘to close one’s mouth’ and PAnat. ‘to satiate (one’s hunger)’ ought to find an explanation in the kind of verbal stem formation of Pal. mūs-/mus- ‘to satiate one’s hunger’. Although the exact formation is unfortunately not definable (cf. PAnat. Reconstruction), there are only two possibilities: As a (resultative) ḫi-verb the meaning could be approximated as ‘to have one’s mouth closed’ > ‘to be satiate’. Alternatively, if the Palaic verb is a root aorist with perfective aspect, it should be paraphrased as ‘to close one’s mouth’ > ‘to (close one’s mouth in order to) chew/eat, to satiate one’s hunger’.
3.1.1Root etymology
The root PIE *meu̯s- on semantic grounds has to be interpreted as an aorist root meaning ‘to close one’s mouth’, cf. Gk. ἀμυστί ‘at one draught’ < ‘without closing the mouth’ which itself could be secondary though.It is synchronically well analyzable as ἀ- + μυσ + -τί, cf. Dor. ἀ-βοᾱ-τί ‘without summons’ (hapax, Pi.N.8.9), Gk. ἀν-αιμω-τί ‘without shedding blood’ (Il.17.363+), ἀν-ω-ϊσ-τί ‘unlooked for’ (Od.4.92), ἀ-στακ-τί ‘in floods < not in drops’ (S.OC.1251, 1646) etc. (Schwyzer 1939a:623).Formally, the root PIE *meu̯s- can be understood as an s-extended variant of PIE *meu̯-, or perhaps of a “proto-root” *mū̆-, cf. below.Since there are no derivatives showing full grade *meu̯-, PIE *meu̯- cannot be established on solid grounds. Rather, Pokorny’s (IEW:751f. s.v. 1. mū̆-, followed by, e.g., GEW II: 280, DELG:728f., EM:427, EWAia II:365) categorization as a sound imitating root seems to be more preferable. Cf. the physiognomic processes occuring, when the sound [mu(ː)] is produced.
The phonological shape of PIE *mū̆- reminds us of the word for ‘mouse’, viz. PIE *mūs-/*mus- (cf., e.g., IEW:752f., Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1995a I:449f.). This lexeme, however, should not be connected.Because the continuants of the root PIE *meu̯- (or *mū̆-) are related primarily to the aperture or closure of the mouth (cf. IE transmission above and IEW:751f.), the underlying root ought to be approximated as ‘to make /mu/, to round the lips’ whence the different notions like ‘to murmur’, ‘to close one’s mouth’ etc.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
If the source of sigmatized Gk. aor. ἔμυσε ‘closed itself’ (instead of †ἔμυε) is old, it can be equated with Pal. mūs-/mus- ‘to satiate oneself’, viz. PIE root aor. *méu̯s‑/*mus‑´ ‘to close ones mouth’.On the morphological interpretation of Pal. mūs-/mus- (ḫi-verb or root aorist), cf. PAnat. Reconstruction.
3.2.1Root etymology
As can be inferred from the evidence given in IEW:751f., various roots beginning with *meu̯- can be reconstructed. If the observations regarding the semantics above turn out to be correct, the root underlying PAnat. *meu̯s- ‘to satiate oneself’ is *meu̯- (or *mū̆-) which is enlarged by *-s, viz. PIE *meu̯-s- ‘to close one’s mouth’.On Gk. μύαξ ‘sea-mussel’ and Lat. mūrex ‘type of Muricidae’, cf. the comment on (?)PIE *mūs-eh2- ‘shell’ above.Thus, Anatolian provides further evidence for the root PIE *meu̯s- which is reconstructed by LIV²:444 based on Greek forms only.On the question whether the -σ- of some Greek forms belongs to the root originally or not, cf., e.g., GEW II:280, LIV²:444 with n. 1 s.v. ?*meu̯s-.
The validity of reconstructing a root shape PIE *mū̆-, however, is a matter of debate.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
(?)PIE *mū̆- ‘to close (one’s mouth)’,On this root, cf. the root etymology below.cf. PIE *mūko- ‘mute, dumb’ (OInd. mū́ka- ‘id.’ (VS+) [EWAia II:365, KEWA II:662, Böhtlingk 1855a V:847f., Monier Williams 1974a:787], Gk. μῡκός ‘(Gk.) ἄϕωνος, mute, dumb’ (Hsch. μ 1833, Latte) [GEW II:268, DELG:720, EDG:978f., LSJ:1152]Even more synonymous adjectives with different suffixes are attested in Greek, cf. Gk. μυττός, μυτής, μύδος, μύνδος, μυναρός, μύρκος, μυρικᾶς.), Arm. munǰ ‘mute, dumb’ (EDAIL:486f.), Lat. mūtus ‘id.’ (WH II:139f., EM:427, de Vaan 2008:398, OLD:1151), Gk. μύστης ‘who is initiated < who keeps his mouth/eyes shut’ etc. (GEW II:280, DELG:728, EDG:988, LSJ:1156)On Latv. musinât ‘to whisper, murmur’ (Ulmann 1872a:165), cf. GEW II:280, IEW:752.
Cf. also the possible evidence for PIE *smeu̯- ‘to smile; to sulk’ in IEW:967f. s.v. 1.(s)mei-, smeu-.IEW:751f.
(?)PIE *mūseh2(-k)- ‘shell’,It is possible to reconstruct the meaning of PIE *mūs-eh2(-k)- as ‘closing (shell)’ (> *mūsak-/_s, qua ‘laryngeal hardening’, cf., e.g., Olsen 2010a) or to connect it with PIE *mūs/*mus- ‘mouse’ which itself does not belong here. Cf. for the latter opinion IEW:753, GEW II:262f., EDG:973f. etc. Since sea-mussels (Gk. μύαξ) consist of two halfs and are closed regularly, it is semantically possible to connect at least the Greek lexeme with PIE *meu̯s- ‘to close (one’s mouth)’. Beekes (EDG:974) thinks that a connection “with μύω ‘to shut (oneself)’ is not very probable”.
Muricidae (Lat. mūrex), however, are snails which are not bivalve and, therefore, calling them ‘the closing/closed ones’ seems to be odd.cf. Gk. μύαξ, -ακος ‘(shell of a) sea-mussel; spoon (made from the shell)’ (Xenocr.ap.Orib.2.58.90+) (GEW II:262f., DELG:717, EDG:973f., LSJ:1150), Lat. mūrex ‘(shell of a) type of rock snail, (ModHG) Purpurschnecke’ (Lucil.1210+) (WH II:129, EM:422f., de Vaan 2008:396f., OLD:1147), MIr. murach ‘(?)shell-fish’ (eDIL s.v. murach)MIr. murach is probably a loan from Lat. mūrex ‘type of a rock snail’, cf. eDIL ibid.
Gk. μύω ‘to close (intr.), be shut (of the eyes [Il.24.637+], mouth [Pl.Phdr.251d+], bivalve fish [Ath.3.93f.] etc.)’,< *mus-i̯é/ó-, cf. LIV²:444 s.v. ?*meu̯s-. The root vowel of the present (μῡ́ω) and perfect (μέμῡκα) is long, cf. LSJ:1157. Starting from the perfect forms, avoidance of tribrachys (†μεμῠκα) in metrical texts is possible. The length in the present stem can be explained as secondarily extended from the perfect.(?)Gk. perf. μέμῡκα ‘to be shut’ (Il.24.420+)
GEW II:279–281, DELG:728f., EDG:988, LSJ:1157
Gk. ἀμυστί ‘at one draught’ (Hp.Int.12+)The noun ἀμυστίς ‘long draught (Alc.Suppl.4.20+); large cup (Ar.Ach.1229+)’ and the verb ἀμυστίζω ‘to drink at one draught’ (E.Cyc.565), cf. LSJ:88, are derived from the adverb. Gk. ἀμυστί, therefore, goes back at least to the 6th c. BCE.