*mend-
‘‘harm, slander (vel sim.)’’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 4056
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
*mant-
‘slander (?)’1.1.1Derivatives
1.2 Lycian A
mẽte-
‘harm (?)’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in grave inscriptions.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | mẽtẽ | TL 56.3 (Antiphellos) |
| TL 72 (Kyaneai) | ||
| TL 118.5 (Limyra) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
For a new collation of the inscription TL 118, see Christiansen 2020a:252f.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
In the bilingual inscription TL 56, the Lycian phrase se=ije=ti=edi : tike : mẽtẽ is rendered by Greek ἐὰν δέ τις ἀδικήσηι ἢ ἀγοράσηι ‘whoever does (it) wrong or buys (it)’, which implies that mẽte- refers to a kind of unjust action done towards the grave (thus translated by Thomsen 1899a:9 as “harm, damage”, followed by Gusmani 1962a:167, Meriggi 1978c:263, Shevoroshkin 1969a:267 “cf. PIE *mend-”, Bryce 1986a:76 “offence”, Eichner 1986b:205 n. 5 comparing Lyd. mẽtli-, Innocente 1986a “cf. Luw. mantalla/i-”, Melchert in DLL:39, Rieken 1999a:43, Neumann & Zimmermann 2003a:191, Neumann 2007a:214, Gehrisch 2018a:112). The precise nature of the harm done, however, remains unclear.
[D.S.]
1.2.5Stem
Formally, the noun mẽtẽ could represent either a neuter noun in -e- or a non-mutated common gender noun in -e- c. However, the former is more likely, since the latter, according to Sasseville 2021a:206-21, would represent a more complex chain of suffixes matching Luwian and Palaic -aḫ- + -i-.
[D.S.]
1.3 Lydian
*mẽt-
‘harm (?)’1.3.1Derivatives
1.4 Palaic
*manza
‘(unknown)’1.4.1Compounds
1.4.1.11. Uncertain Compounds
I. manzakilba-
1.5 Hittite
manza
‘(something negative)’1.5.1Literature / Comments
Lit.: CHD L-M:179
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘harm, slander (vel sim.)’
The Hittite word manza, denoting something negative, and the Luwian word mantalla/i- ‘related to slander (vel sim.)’ have been etymologically connected with Lyc. mẽtẽ and Lyd. mẽtlid (mẽtrid) both referring to some kind of harm (HEG L-N:128f., HED M:61, EDHIL:555, Rieken 1999a:42f.). If we take the Hittite word manza seriously, we would be dealing with a consonantal stem *mend- c. On the other hand, Lyc. mẽtẽ, if it is a thematic neuter stem, would rather speak for a Proto-Anatolian neuter base *mend-o-. Therefore, the actual stem formation of the base should be considered tentative.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Since it is unclear whether the Vedic (mindā́- f. ‘bodily defect, fault, blemish’), Tocharian (mentsi ‘sorrow, grief, misery’; mān(t)s(ā)- ‘be sorrowful’), and some of the Celtic forms (Middle Welsh mann ‘place’; Old Irish mind ‘a distinguishing badge or emblem of honour or rank; crown, diadem, etc.’) belong here, a precise specification of the root semantics of *mend- is difficult, especially since there appears to be no evidence for a primary verbal or adjectival formation (except – potentially – for Tocharian B mān(t)s(ā)- ‘be sorrowful’). What is evident, however, is that the root referred to some negative action or quality.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Two main hypotheses have been proposed regarding the root underlying the formations listed in the table above. One line of thought interprets it as an enlarged form of *men-, namely *men-dh(h1)- (thus cautiously EDLIL: 372 s.v. mendum; EDPC: 264 f. s.v. mendu-). This, however, would exclude Vedic mindā́- as a potential cognate. The alternative (and the interpretation preferred in this dictionary) is to reconstruct a root *mend- with some negative meaning (‘to do harm, to blemish’, vel sim.). This analysis accounts for nearly all the formations in the table above.
The prehistory of the Tocharian forms (Toch. B mentsi ‘sorrow, grief, misery’; mān(t)s(ā)- ‘be sorrowful’, connected by Blažek 1997a with most of the formations listed above) is more complex. While ts is the regular reflex of inherited *d (cf. *dr̥- > B tsär- as in 1 sg tsremar ‘I am separated’; cf. Vedic dar- ‘split’, etc.), the cluster *-nd- seems to have developed into -nt- (Malzahn 2010a:742, 968), although no unambiguous example conclusively demonstrates this change. Depending on whether this sound law is valid, the noun mentsi ‘sorrow, grief, misery’ may either directly continue *mond-mn̥ or *mēnd-mn̥ (for the development of *-men-stems in Tocharian see Malzahn 2005a), or it may have been remodeled from *menti by analogy with the associated verbal forms containing -ts-, mān(t)s(ā)- ‘be sorrowful’. This verb, in turn, has traditionally (though semantically not very convincingly) been attributed to the root *menth2- ‘to churn’. Yet regardless of which reconstruction is adopted to account for the thematic class II present 3sg meṃṣtär (either *mont(h2)-i̯e/o-, *mēnt(h2)-s-(e/o)-, or similar), the class VI present 3sg mantsanatär, or the class V subjunctive 3pl māntsantär, the root *menth₂- could equally well (or equally poorly) be replaced by *mend-, which would account for the attested forms just as satisfactorily (or just as unsatisfactorily; see Malzahn 2010a:748f. for a discussion).
[S.H.]
4. Transmission
Hittite manza ‘(something negative)’, Lycian A mẽte- n. ‘harm (?)’, Cuneiform Luwian mantālla/i- ‘related to slander, slanderous (vel sim.)’, Lydian mẽtl(i)- (mẽtr(i)-) ‘harm (?)’.Cf., e.g., Rieken 1999a:42f., HEG L–M:128 s.v. manza, EDHIL:555 s.v. mant-.
(?) Vedic mindā́- f. ‘bodily defect, fault, blemish’ (if for *mandā́- after nindā́- f. ‘blame, defamation’).Cf., e.g., EWAia II:356 s.v. mindā́-.
Old Irish mennar ā, f. ‘spot, blemish’, Middle Welsh mann ‘spot, speck, blemish, stain’. Perhaps also Middle Welsh mann ‘place’, Old Irish mind ‘a distinguishing badge or emblem of honour or rank; crown, diadem, etc.’Cf., e.g., EDPC:264f. s.vv. *mendrā and *mendu-.
(?) Tocharian B mentsi ‘sorrow, grief, misery’, mān(t)s(ā)- ‘be sorrowful’ (3sg meṃṣtär Prs II, mantsanatär Prs VI).Cf., e.g., Malzahn 2010a:748f.; Adams 2013a s.vv. mentsi and mänts-.

