*d^hu-d^heu̯-

The equation between the Hittite verb duddu-^(mi) ‘to have mercy’Against the view that Hitt. duddu- was a primary nominal formation, before it became a verbal formation, see Oettinger 1979a:231, contra Kronasser 1966a:479, 510. and Luw. (in Hitt. Tr.) duddunti ‘id.’ and the derivative dudummani-^(ti) ‘to have mercy’ allows for the reconstruction of a Proto-Anatolian reduplicated root verb of the mi-conjugation *Tu-Teu̯-.Pace Oettinger 1979a:231, a root ablaut *-o-/zero would require a verb of the ḫi-conjugation.. The tenuis character of the initial dental of the non-reduplicated syllable is found in Hittite, whereas Luwian dudummani-^(ti) (with *-mn̥ + *-i̯é/ó-) shows (if not graphically suppressed) the lenis quality (duddunti with the geminate -dd- in Hittite context is not entirely reliable, since it may have been hittitized), which may have secondarily replaced the tenuis one (cf. e.g. *pipiya-⁽ⁱ⁾ and *tatariya-⁽ⁱ⁾). On the other hand, it could be Hittite that has analogically replaced the original voiced/lenis dental by the fortis one (Melchert 1994a:19) and, drawing from the Indo-European etymology discussed above, this is the path that we take by reconstructing the root as follows: *d^heu̯-, i.e. PAnat. *d^hu-d^heu̯- > CLuw. *dudu-, Hitt. duddu-^(mi) (with analogical replacement).

On the secondary emphatic character of the long sequence duwaddu beside duddu, both having been secondarily nominalized, see Oettinger 1979a:231 and HEG T:477, 479.

[D.S.]

If the formations listed above all belong to one root *d^heu̯-, the underlying meaning can be reconstructed as ‘be or act favorable towards’.

The idea that Hittite duddu-^(mi) ‘to have mercy’ and the other Anatolian cognates belong together with Vedic dhvasrá- ‘supporter, one who favors’ (RV 10.40.3), Ossetic Digor rævdawun, rævdud, Iron rævdawyn, rævdyd ‘caress, comfort, lull to sleep’, and the family of Latin faueō ‘be favorably inclined towards, favor, approve’ to a root *d^heu̯-, was proposed by Bailey 1960a. However, rather than combining these etyma with formations that belong to an Iranian root *dauH ‘smear, rub (on)’ (on which see EDIV:68f.), it might be preferable to assume a separate root *d^heu̯- ‘to favor’ for our group of words.

Of all these formations, the family of Latin faueō, fāuī, fautum ‘be favorably inclined towards, favor, approve’ is certainly the most straightforward match (especially semantically) of Hittite duddu-^(mi) ‘to have mercy’ and the remaining Anatolian material. Note that fauēre does not have an obvious etymology otherwise (see EDLIL:206 s.v. faveō for other etymological proposals). The change *ou̯ to *au̯ is regular according to Thurneysen-Havet’s Law (see Vine 2006a). An older ⁽*⁾fouēre < *d^hou̯-éi̯e- might be preserved in the imperative foue ‘caress me!’ found on a golden statuette of a weasel from the 3^rd c. BCE (CIL I² (2), 573, Praeneste). If we accept the existence of a PIE root *d^heu̯- ‘be or act favorable towards’ based on the Anatolian and Latin evidence, it becomes possible to recognize Vedic dhvasrá- (RV 10.40.3) < *d^hu̯-es-ró- (formally derived from an s-stem *dhéu̯-es- in the same way that *u̯l̥k-es-ró- ‘having ability, power’ > Hitt. ulkiššara- ‘skilled, experienced, able’ is based on *u̯élk-es- ‘ability, power’ > OAv. var^əcah- n. ‘vital energy’) and ādhavá- (RV 10.26.4) as avatars of this root as well, meaning ‘supporter, one who favors’ and ‘caresser’, respectively (see Bailey 1960a:9 and 12 for a justification), even if these words are traditionally assigned to different roots and the passages they appear in are interpreted and translated in another way (see, e.g., Jamison & Brereton 2014a where the terms are rendered as ‘occulted’ and ‘to stir up’ Compare also the commentary in Jamison & Brereton 2020a ad loc.). The Ossetic evidence, too, fits nicely to the semantics proposed here for *d^heu̯-, though the forms are hopelessly ambiguous with respect to their formal prehistory (see Abaev II:385 s.v. rævdawyn, I:83f. s.v. avdæn, I:348f. s.v. dawæg).

For a summary of other etymological proposals for the Anatolian material see HEG T:477f.

[S.H.]

Hittite duddu-^(mi) ‘to have mercy’, dudduške/a- and duddunu- ‘to have mercy on’, Luwian in Hittite transmission duddu- ‘to have mercy on’ (see above), Cuneiform Luwian dudummani-^(ti) ‘to have mercy’.

Vedic dhvasrá- ‘supporter, one who favors’ (RV 10.40.3), ādhavá- ‘caresser’ (RV 10.26.4).Cf., e.g., Bailey 1960a:9, 12, EWAia I:800 s.v. DHVAṀS.

Ossetic Digor rævdawun, rævdud, Iron rævdawyn, rævdyd ‘caress, comfort, lull to sleep’ (*fra-abi-dau̯- or *fra-du̯ā-), Digor avdænæ, Iron avdæn ‘cradle’ (*ā-dau̯ana-), Digor idawæg, Iron dawæg ‘guardian genius’ (*abi-dau̯aka- or *vi-dau̯aka-).Cf., e.g., Bailey 1960a:10f., Abaev II:385 s.v. rævdawyn, I:83f. s.v. avdæn, I:348f. s.v. dawæg.

Latin faueō, fāuī, fautum ‘be favorably inclined towards, favor, approve’, fautor, fauitor ‘supporter, partisan’, faustus ‘fortunate, favorable’, fauor ‘good will, inclination’, Umbrian fons ‘favorable’ (*fou̯-ni-).Cf., e.g., Bailey 1960a:12; EDLIL:206 s.v. faveō for other etymological proposals, Untermann 2000a:302 s.v. fons for Umbr. fons.