āmša-⁽ⁱ⁾

Comparing Hitt. ānš-^(ḫi) (and ānš-^(mi)) with Pal. āmša-⁽ⁱ⁾ and CLuw. āmmašš-^(ti) all meaning ‘to wipe’, we may reconstruct two verbal root formations, i.e. one of the ḫi- and one of the mi-conjugation. There is also probably a deradical formation in -i(ya)-^(di) (< *´-i̯e/o-) attested in CLuw. ammašši(ya)-^(di), although the synchronic data is not secured. It is interesting to point out that the assimilation of -mš- > -nš- occurs only in Hittite, whereas Palaic retains the original nasal. On the possibility of a Luwian dissimilation, which would not tell us what the original nasal was, see for example the reconstruction under CLuw. ḫamš(i)-. Based on a new etymological suggestion (see below), no root with a-vocalism, but rather a regular root verb of the mi-conjugation, i.e. *éms-/m̥s-´ (> Hitt. ānš-^(mi), CLuw. āmmašš-^(ti)), and ḫi-conjugation, i.e. *óms-/m̥s-´ (> Pal. āmša-⁽ⁱ⁾, Hitt. ānš-^(ḫi)), with paradigmatic leveling in each relevant case, are reconstructed.

Melchert 1988b:212 n. 3 suggests a Proto-Anatolian reconstruction *am-s- with a root vowel *a, excluding a *h₂ because its retention would be expected (followed by Sasseville 2021a:545 as *ám(H)s-). Melchert 1994a:164 however rejects his earlier etymology, because he expects that only an accented *ó would yield a plene spelling in Luwian (i.e. āmmašš-). Contrarily, Kloekhorst (EDHIL:182f.) assumes that *h₂ can be lost before *o and, therefore, reconstructs a root of the shape *h₂emh₁- ‘to mow, reap’ (+ s-extension). This root is reconstructed here as *h₂meh₁- (see under Pal. marišš-⁽ⁱ⁾), although the difference could simply be explained as schwebe-ablaut; but see under the PIE lemma below for a rejection of this etymology. Kloekhorst further suggests an etymological connection with Hitt. ḫanišš­-^(mi) ‘to plaster, paint’, by assuming a paradigmatic split (EDHIL:285f., HEG H:148 “no etymology”), which is not convincing; despite the pragmatic differences, it might be better to connect the latter with ḫān-^(ḫi) ‘to draw water’ and ^DUGḫaniššā- ‘(a vessel)’ (see Rieken 1999a:227). No etymology is given by Puhvel (HED A:74-76) or in HW 2nd ed. A:96.

[D.S.]

Deriving the Anatolian verb for ‘to wipe’ from the PIE root *h₂meh₁- ‘to mow’ (thus, e.g., EDHIL:182f. s.v. ānš-ⁱ) is rather unwarranted, both from a semantic as well as a phonological point of view (e.g., the absence of *ḫ-, the unclear fate of *h₁ between *m and *s). Instead, Proto-Anatolian *óms- (thus, e.g., Melchert 1994a:164) might belong to a PIE root *mes-. The LIV²:441 lists two verbal formations under the root *mes- ‘to extend one’s arm’ (“den Arm ausstrecken”): Greek μαίομαι ‘to touch, feel, examine’ and Lithuanian mãsinu, mãsinti ‘to attract, entice’. Together with the Anatolian evidence, one may reconstruct a basic meaning ‘to touch with one’s hands’.

To account for Proto-Anatolian *óms- instead of *mós-, one needs to assume that from the weak stem *m̥s- of an ablauting verb *mós-, *m̥s-, a new strong stem *óms- with apparent schwebeablaut was created, matching the position of the prop vowel that would have developed in the (unattested) weak stem *m̥s- > *anz-. Such novel root allomorphs are not infrequent with roots of a shape *ReC-. Greek μαίομαι, for example, is also best explained as a compromise form: *m̥s-i̯é- developed to *as-i̯é- but was remodeled to *mas-i̯é- based on the (unattested) full grade *mes-.

[S.H.]

Hitt. ānš-^(ḫi) (and ānš-^(mi)) ‘to wipe’, CLuw. āmmašš-^(ti) ‘to wipe’, Pal. āmša-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to wipe’. Cf., e.g., EDHIL:182f. s.v. ānš-ⁱ

Gk. (ἐπι-)μαίομαι, Aeol. μάομαι, fut. (-)μάσσομαι, aor. (-)μάσσασθαι ‘to touch, feel, grasp, examine’, in pres. also ‘to seek to attain’ (Il.+), ἀπροτίμαστος ‘untouched, undefiled’ (Il.), perhaps μήλη f. ‘surgical probe’ < *maslā. Cf., e.g., GEW II:161f. s.v. μαίομαι, II:225 s.v. μήλη, EDG:892f. s.v. μαίομαι, LIV²:441 s.v. *mes- (without Anatolian).

Lith. mãsinu, mãsinti ‘to attract, entice’. Cf., e.g., LIV²:441 s.v. *mes- (without Anatolian).