*móu̯H-/muH-´
‘to move’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 3523
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/muwa-(i)/, mu-wa/i-
‘to control, conquer’1.1.1Transmission
Attested twelve times in the corpus, this verb can be found throughout the HLuw. era with the Yalburt evidence dating to the 13th century BCE, and Sultanhan and Kayseri dating to the 8th century BCE. The geographical distribution is equally extensive, stretching from Western Anatolia to Amuq in Northern Syria.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. act. | /muwai/ | mu-wa/i-i | SULTANHAN, §32 (Tabal) |
| FORTIS-wa/i-i | KAYSERİ, §11 (Tabal) | ||
| 1sg. pret. act. | /muwahha/ | mu-wa/i-ha | YALBURT frag. E, §2a |
| YALBURT frag. 3, §5 | |||
| (ARMA)[m]u-wa/i-ha | YALBURT frag. 1, §2b | ||
| 3sg. pret. act. | /muwatta/ | mu-wa/i-ta | SULTANHAN, §44 (Tabal) |
| (ARMA)FORTIS-tá | KARADAĞ 1, §2 (Tabal) | ||
| mu(wa)-tá-a | KIZILDAĞ 4, §2c (Tabal) | ||
| (ARMA)mu(wa)-tá | KIZILDAĞ 4, §2b (Tabal) | ||
| ARMA | KOCAOĞUZ, §1 | ||
| 3pl. pret. act. | /muwanta/ | (FORTIS)[m]u?-ta | JISR EL HADID frag. 1, §b (Amuq) |
| FORTIS-tá | YALBURT frag. E, §3b |
Sasseville 2021a:353 argues for the form 〈mu-wa/i-ta〉 from SULTANHAN, §44 to belong to a different verb, viz. the factitive /muwa-(ti)/ ‘to strengthen’, whose exact cognate is attested in Lycian. In fact, this verb may be attested in HLuw. after all, in the inscription KÖYLÜTOLU YAYLA, possibly §4 (?), as 〈(ARMA)mu-wa/i-ti〉, but the reading of that text is very uncertain even regarding clause boundaries; cf. also the discussion at HLuw. /muwa-/ ‘power, might’.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The various attestations of this lexeme offer rich evidence regarding its phonological interpretation. In fact, the corpus holds the whole range of spellings from uncomplemented logograms found in the inscriptions dating to the second millennium BCE to fully syllabic renditions in the late inscriptions as well as partly logographically written versions with and without logographic determiners. The phonological interpretation therefore rests on a good basis and can be taken as secured.
The attestations also show that the verb /muwa-(i)/ can include the logograms ARMA (*273) or FORTIS (*28) or both, a spelling variation that is somewhat unusual.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Already known from Hittite, the basic semantics of the word family around /muwa-/ have long been clear (see HED M:196-200 with literature), yet the precise meanings of its various members have been difficult to ascertain (cf. the discussion in HEG L-M:238-243). The textual evidence for /muwa-(i)/ proves that it is a transitive verb, requiring an accusative object. It also allows for a dative reflexive at least in the Yalburt inscription (dating to Empire times), probably with ethical function. But in contrast to Hittite, where the equivalent verb tarḫ- has an obligatory reflexive, HLuw. /muwa-(i)/ does not mandate a reflexive. Rather, its presence or absence may indicate a difference in meaning, which Melchert 2013a:310 attributes to HLuw. calquing a Hittite expression in this case. Sasseville 2021a:352-354 suggests ‘to brutalise’ for the non-reflexive meaning and, following Melchert 2013a:310, ‘to overpower, to conquer’ for the contexts with a reflexive pronoun. A typical passage is SULTANHAN, §44: wa/i-tà NEG2-a hwa/i-sa-ha mu-wa/i-ta, approx. /wa=ada na kwisha muwatta/, meaning ‘(Whoever held this place,) no-one controlled it’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:467).
The verb is also attested in CLuw., but always denotes exercising control over something, which may include overcoming something (thus e.g. Frotscher 2012a:167).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The verb /muwa-/ is classified as a root verb, using the endings of the ḫi-conjugation, and thus belongs to the class in /-a-(i)/, see Sasseville 2021a:352-354.
Especially as an element in compounds, the lexeme /muwa-/, probably as a nominal rather than a verbal stem, is extraordinarily frequent in PNs in Asia Minor during both Ancient Anatolian as well as Hellenic times (see already Houwink ten Cate 1961a:166-169).
[AH.B.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
mūwa-(i)
‘to overpower’1.2.1Transmission
All attestations are found in rituals of the Kuwattalla and Tauriša traditions (from MS onwards).
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. act. | mu-u-wa-i | KUB 35.24 obv. 5’, 6’, 7’, 8’, 9’ | (CTH 761, MS) |
| KUB 35.25, 7’ | (CTH 761, MS) | ||
| KUB 35.43 iii 6’, iii 11’ | (CTH 761, NS) | ||
| mu-u-w[a-i] | KUB 35.56, 4’ | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| 3pl. pres. act. | mu-u-wa-an-ti | KUB 35.89, 15’ | (CTH 766, MS) |
| 3pl. impv. act. | ⸢mu-u⸣-[wa-an-du] | KUB 35.50, 7’ | (CTH 759, NS) |
| [mu-u-w]a-an-du | KUB 35.50, 9’ | (CTH 759, NS) |
The restoration of muwandu at KUB 35.50, 7’ and 9’ follows DCL:s.v.
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, except for KUB 35.50, 7’ and 9’.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
Although the relation between muwa- ‘(overpowering) might, feistiness’ vel sim. (see under Lemma) and the verb mūwa-(i) seems clear, the meaning of the latter remained uncertain at first due to contextual problems (without translation DLL:72, Rosenkranz 1952a:23, Otten 1953a:45). However, where the context is sufficiently preserved, the verb combines with the reflexive pronouns =ti (sg.) or =maš (pl.). This is important, because over the last decades, scholars have agreed that the verb =ti/=maš mūwa-(i) represents a calque of Hitt. =za tarḫu- ‘to conquer, overpower, vel sim.’; see Starke 1990a:487, HED M:199, Hawkins 1992a:262 and Hawkins 1995a:71, CLL:151, HHw:109, Yakubovich 2010a:167 n. 12, EDHIL:589, Melchert 2013a:310 (but implausible ibid. n. 10), Schürr 2017b:31 n. 3, Sasseville 2021a:48; earlier, but without argument Mittelberger 1963a:87, Oettinger 1979a:564). The assumed meaning concords well with the sole informative context: [n]āwa=ti=ata man[n]aḫunnati mūwai ... [m]annaḫunnati=ti=ata zaš mūwai “With the nose, he does no longer master it (i.e., the defilement). ... This one masters it with the nose” (KUB 35.24 obv. 6’ and 9’).
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
The 3sg. pres. act. form mūwai played an important role in the recognition of the “ḫi-conjugation” in Luwian and is frequently cited as one of the prime examples (Rosenkranz 1952a:77 and Rosenkranz 1965b, Otten 1953a:45, Morpurgo Davies 1979a:580f. and 602). Additionally, Sasseville 2021a:48 and 339 emphasizes that the verb differs in meaning and stem formation from Lyc. B muwa-(ti) ‘to strengthen’ and should be analyzed as a root verb.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to move’
Weiss 1996a suggests connecting the root of mūwa-(i) with the one of Hitt. mūri- ´grapes´, going back to a root *meu̯h1/3- ‘(be) abundant, reproductively powerful’ (see PIE lemma below). Differently, Valério 2023a connects the root of Luwian mūwa-(i) with the one of Hitt. māu-/mu-(ḫi) ‘to fall’ (and with its s-extension maušš-(mi); see EDHIL:564f., CHD M:211-213) and to the PIE root *m(i̯)eu̯h1- ‘to move’, which is formally possible, despite the strange semantic developments it would imply.[+For a list of outdated etymologies, HED M:199; cf. EDHIL:590 “no clear etymology”.] However, his reconstruction of the ablauting verb is flawed (contra Valério 2023a:273), since a verb of the ḫi-conjugation has an o- and not an e-grade in the singular, thus *móu̯h1-/muh1-´. For the semantics of the root, he argues based on the Luwian data that the root meant originally ‘to drive, push’, which is possible, but not cogent. Based on a survey of the Indo-European data shown below, preference is given over to the root suggested by Weiss.
Concerning the identity of the laryngeal of the root adopted here, the root verb offers various options, since any laryngeal would drop in this position. With the comparative evidence, *h1 is the more likely option, although *h3 remains viable as long as its fate before -r- (as in mūri- ´grapes´) is not secured.
A Proto-Luwic noun derived from the verb can also be reconstructed; see CLuw. mūwa- with the Lycian material.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The assumption of a root *meu̯h1/3- ‘(be) abundant, reproductively powerful’ goes back to Weiss 1996a, who adduces all the mentioned forms in the table above except for Vedic mūrá- (added here under the premise that it means ‘powerful (vel sim.)’) and some of the Anatolian evidence. The addition of the root verb CLuw. mūwa-(i) ‘to overpower’, HLuw. /muwa-(i)/ ‘to control, conquer’ to the dossier suggests that the root meaning was ‘be powerful (reproductively or otherwise)’. The notion of ‘abundance’ would then be a semantic development restricted to the adjective *muh1/3-ró-, which may have occurred via ‘powerful’ (cf. Vedic bhū́ri- ‘abundant, numerous’ and ‘strong, mighty’) or via ‘reproductively powerful’ (cf. Latin ūber, -eris ‘fruitful, productive’ and ‘full, rich, copious’), see also *muH-ri- ‘a cluster of grapes’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The existence of a root verb in Luwian (CLuw. mūwa-(i) ‘to overpower’, HLuw. /muwa-(i)/ ‘to control, conquer’) will help to establish the status of the root *meu̯h1/3- ‘be powerful (reproductively or otherwise)’ as a canonical PIE verbal root. Apart from the verb, there is comparative evidence for an o-grade *-o- or *-eh2-stem *mou̯h1/3-o-/-eh2- ‘might, power’ (Luw. in Hitt. transm. mūwa- ‘an awe-inspiring quality’ perhaps ‘(overpowering) might, feistiness’, HLuw. /muwa-/ ‘power (?), might (?) ’, Lyc. B muwa- ‘strength (vel sim.)’), an adjective *muh1/3-ró- ‘abundant; reproductively powerful’ and its i-stem substantivization *múh1/3-ri- ‘abundance’ (see *muH-ri- ‘a cluster of grapes’), and an adjective *muh1/3-tó- ‘reproductively powerful’ (substantivized as Latin mūt(t)ō, -ōnis m. ‘penis’, Old Irish moth ‘penis; male, man’).
[S.H.]
4. Transmission
Luw. in Hitt. transm. mūwa- ‘an awe-inspiring quality’ perhaps ‘(overpowering) might, feistiness’, CLuw. mūwa-(i) v. ‘to overpower’, HLuw. /muwa-/ ‘power (?), might (?) ’, HLuw. /muwa-(i)/ v. ‘to control, conquer’, HLuw. /muwida-/ c. ‘procreative power (?), progeny (?)’, Lyc. B muwa- ‘strength (vel sim.)’, Lyc. B muwa-(ti) v. ‘to strengthen (vel sim.)’, HLuw. /nimuwizza-/ c. ‘son’, Lyc. B mur(i)- c. ‘bunch, grapes (?)’, CLuw. mur(i)- c. ‘a cluster of grapes (?)’, Hitt. mūri- c. ‘cluster of grapes or other fruit’.
(?) Vedic mūrá- if ‘powerful (vel sim.)’ in RV 3.43.6d (said of hárayas ‘fallow bays’ which are also br̥hántas ‘lofty’, sú-sammr̥ṣṭāsas ‘well-curried’, and vr̥ṣabhásya ‘of the bull [= Indra]’)EWAia II:367 s.v. mūrá-2 envisages an identification with mūrá-1 ‘silly’, or a connection with the root MĪV qua ‘rushing’, endorsed by Grassmann 1996a s.v. 2. mūrá.
Ancient Greek μῡρίος ‘numberless, countless, infinite; immense’ (Il.+), pl. μύριοι ‘ten thousand’ (Hes.+).Cf., e.g., GEW II:271f. s.v. μῡρίος, Weiss 1996a:207–209, EDG:981f. s.v. μῡρίος.
Latin mūtō, -ōnis (also muttō) m. ‘penis’ (Lucil., Hor., gloss.), mūtōnium, muttōnium (Lucil.), mutūnium (inscr.), mutinium (Priap.) ‘id.’, mūtīnus ‘phallic’ (Lucil.), mutūniātus ‘having a large penis’ (Priap., Mart.), Mutinus Titinus, Mutunus Tutunus ‘a phallic deity worshipped by Roman brides’ (Varro, Fest., Paul. Fest., Tert.).Cf., e.g., WH II:138 s.v. 2. mūtō, Weiss 1996a:211f., EDLIL:398 s.v. mūtō/mūttō.
Old Irish moth ‘penis; male, man’ (*mŭto- < *muhx-tó-), perhaps Old Irish múr ‘abundance’.Cf., e.g., Weiss 1996a:209, EDPC:282 s.v. *muto-; múr ‘abundance’ is connected with Greek μῡρίος in GEW II:271f. s.v. μῡρίος, but explained as a metaphorical extension of the homophonous múr ‘wall’ by Celticists such as Vendryes in LEIA M, N, O, P:76, see Weiss 1996a:206 note 29.
muttawann