*d^hei̯g̑^h-s-

Rieken 2002b:410 suggests for CLuw. tiššā(i)- and tiššummi- an etymological connection with the Indo-European root *dei̯g^h- followed by a verbal “s-extension”, i.e. *dei̯g^h-s-, which would account for the geminate -šš‑ < *-g^hs- (followed by Melchert in DCL:s.v.). For the correct shape of the root *d^hei̯g̑^h- see under PIE below. This would make the root shape tišš- strictly Luwian (or Luwic). Some derivatives such as tiššā(i)- (*d^hig̑^hs-éh₂-i̯e/o-) and tiššalla/i- (*d^h(e)i̯g̑^hs-é-lo-) suggests that there was an unattested noun *tišša-, which may have come from an unattested root verb. The Lycian and Lydian evidence is tentative (see above) and requires that the sequence *-g^hs- yields Lycian A -s- (just like *-sk̑-) instead of -h-.

[D.S.]

The root *d^hei̯g̑^h- is very interesting in that it allows us to glimpse into the artisanal habits of the speakers of early Indo-European. What is clear from the continuants in the table above is that *d^hei̯g̑^h- was used to refer to specific activities involving clay and earth. The first of these is the kneading and molding of clay, directly attested in Gothic digan ‘to knead, mold from clay’, Lithuanian žiedžiù, žiẽsti ‘form, mold in clay, make pots’, Latin figulus ‘potter’, Tocharian B lwaksā-tsaika ‘potter’, and Tocharian A kuntis-tsek ‘potter’. The kneading of dough – similar in plasticity to clay – is reflected in Proto-Germanic *daigaz ‘dough’ and Proto-Slavic *dě̄žà f. ‘kneading trough’. A semantic broadening to ‘to mold, shape, form (in general)’ is evident in Latin fingō, -ere, fīnxī, fictum ‘to shape (also of clay), fashion, touch’, Tocharian B tsikā- ‘to form, shape (vessels, among other things)’, and in Iranic (e.g., Parthian dys- ‘to shape, form, build’).

The second activity is the application of layers of clay to a surface, i.e. ‘to smear, plaster (with clay)’. This is attested in Vedic DEH ‘to anoint, smear, plaster’ and Latvian zìežu, zìest ‘smear, spread something thick, plaster with clay’. Since one important and widespread method of constructing walls was wattle and daub, in which a woven structure was plastered with clay or similar substances, it is not surprising that the root *d^hei̯g̑^h- yields words for ‘wall’ in various branches: Proto-Slavic *zidŭ, *zĭdĭ ‘wall’, Old Prussian seydis ‘wall’, Ancient Greek τεῖχος n. and τοῖχος m. ‘wall’, Oscan feíhúss (acc. pl.) ‘walls’. Compare also the meaning of Proto-Slavic *zĭdati ‘to build (a wall)’.

A potential third activity is the heaping up of earth – e.g., to form a dam or a mound – as reflected in Vedic saṁ-díh- f. ‘heap, mound, wall’, dehī́- f. ‘mound, bank, rampart, surrounding wall’, Young Avestan uz-daēza- m. ‘wall, dam’, Armenian dizanem, aor. edēz ‘to heap up, pile up’, dēz ‘heap, pile’. This may be the meaning that eventually produced words for larger defensive structures such as city walls (Ancient Greek τεῖχος, τοῖχος; Middle Persian diz ‘fortress’, etc.). One can also imagine, however, that the meaning ‘(clay-plastered) wall’ was extended to encompass larger fortifications.

Whether through ‘to build (a wall)’, through ‘to heap up (a larger structure)’, or through ‘to shape, form’, derivatives of the root also came simply to mean ‘to build’: Celtiberian inf. ambi-tinkounei ‘to build’, Old Church Slavonic zьdati, ziždǫ ‘to build’, Young Avestan inj. 3sg mid. uz-dišta ‘erected’, Parthian dys- ‘to shape, form, build’.

Is it possible to determine which of these meanings was basic for *d^hei̯g̑^h-? Meiser 1993a:301–305 argues for the originality of ‘to smear, to apply a viscous substance in layers’ (as seen in Vedic), from which would follow ‘to heap up (layers of earth, etc.)’ (Armenian dizanem, etc.) and ‘to model (something) plastically’ (Latin fingere, etc.). This interpretation, however, underappreciates the close association with clay found in most of the relevant formations. Moreover, in 1993 Meiser was not yet aware of the Anatolian derivatives of this root, which also mean ‘to shape, mold’.

We therefore assume that the basic meaning of *d^hei̯g̑^h- was ‘to shape a moldable substance, to knead (especially clay)’, with an extension already in Proto-Indo-European to ‘to mold, shape, form (in general)’. Another – likely also ancient – extension led to other clay-related activities such as ‘to smear, plaster (with clay)’.

An advantage of this assumption is that a basic meaning ‘to shape a moldable substance, to knead (especially clay)’ accounts naturally for the adjective Proto-Germanic *daigaz ‘soft, pliable (of metal)’ (Old Norse deigr, Icelandic deigur; see Heidermanns 1993a:145), which appears to be an inherited τομός-type adjective (on which see Nussbaum 2017a). In addition, Old Irish dingid ‘to press, thrust’ may also preserve the original meaning of the root.

[S.H.]

Cuneiform Luwian *tišš- ‘to shape’ (Luwian Gloss wedge word /tiššā(i)- ‘to shape, mold’, Cuneiform Luwian tiššatwa- n. ‘fabrication’, Luwian in Hittite transmission tissatwa- ‘fabrication, lie’, teššummi- ‘beaker’), Lycian A tisẽne/i- c. ‘(a sarcophagus)’.

Vedic DEH ‘to anoint, smear, plaster’ (subj. pári … déhat RV, ptcpl. dihaná- RV, prs. degdhi Kauś, aor. adhikṣan JB, etc.), saṁ-díh- f. ‘heap, mound, wall’, deha- m. ‘body’, dehī́- f. ‘mound, bank, rampart, surrounding wall’, etc.Cf., e.g., EWAia II:746f. s.v. DEH, Werba 1997a:195 s.v. dih, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.

Young Avestan prs. subj. 3pl pairi-daēzaiiąn ‘must build an enclosure’, inj. 3sg mid. uz-dišta ‘erected’, uz-daēza- m. ‘wall, dam’, pairi.daēza- m. ‘enclosure’, Middle Persian diz ‘fortress’, Parthian dys- ‘to shape, form, build’, etc.Cf., e.g., EWAia II:746f. s.v. DEH, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, EDIV:52f. s.v. *daiz (*dais), NIL:118f.

Ancient Greek τεῖχος n. and τοῖχος m. ‘wall, city-wall, earthworks’ (Il.+), Mycenaean to-ko-do-mo /toik^hodomos/ ‘wall-builder’.Cf., e.g., GEW II:865f. s.v. τεῖχος, DMic II:359f. s.v. to-ko-do-mo, NIL:118f.

Latin fingō, -ere, fīnxī, fictum ‘to shape, fashion, touch’, figulus ‘potter’, figūra f. ‘shape, form’; Umbrian imp. fiktu ‘shall shape’, Faliscan fifiked ‘shaped’, Oscan 2sg fut. perf. fifikus ‘will have conceived of’, feíhúss (acc. pl.) ‘walls’.Cf., e.g., EDLIL:221f. s.v. fingō, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.

Armenian dizanem, aor. edēz ‘to heap up, pile up’, dēz ‘heap, pile’.Cf., e.g., Olsen 1999a:204, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.

Celtiberian inf. ambi-tinkounei ‘to build’, subj. 3sg ambi-tiseti; Old Irish dingid ‘to press, thrust’, con·utaing ‘to build’, etc.Cf., e.g., Schumacher 2004a:276–278, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.

Gothic digan ‘to knead, mold from clay’, Proto-Germanic *daigaz ‘dough’ (Gothic daigs, English dough, German Teig, Old Norse deig, etc.), *daigaz ‘soft, pliable (of metal)’ (Old Norse deigr, Icelandic deigur).Cf., e.g., Seebold 1970a:151, EDPG:87 and 95, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.

Tocharian B tsik^ā- ‘to form, shape (vessels, among other things)’ (subj. 3sg tsaikaṃ, prt. 3pl tsaikānte, prt. ptcpl. tsatsaikau), A tsik^ā?- ‘to form, shape’ (prtp. ptcpl. tsātseku), B lwaksā-tsaika ‘potter’, A kuntis-tsek ‘potter’.Cf., e.g., Adams 2013a: s.v. tsik-, Malzahn 2010a:991f., LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-.

(with metathesis *d^hei̯g̑^h- >> *g̑^hei̯d^h-) Lithuanian žiedžiù, (žiẽsti) ‘form, mold in clay, make pots’, Latvian zìežu, (zìest) ‘smear, spread something thick, plaster with clay’, Old Prussian seydis ‘wall’.Cf., e.g., ALEW II:1509 s.v. žiẽsti, Smoczyński 2018a:1737 s.v. žiẽsti, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.

(with metathesis *d^hei̯g̑^h- >> *g̑^hei̯d^h-) Proto-Slavic *zĭdati ‘to build (a wall)’ (Old Church Slavonic zьdati, ziždǫ ‘to build’, Slovene zídati, zídam ‘to build a wall’, Bulgarian zídam ‘lay bricks’, etc.), Proto-Slavic *zidŭ, *zĭdĭ ‘wall’ (Old Church Slavonic loc. sg. zъdě m., Serbo-Croatian zȋd m., Czech zed’ f., etc.).

(without metathesis) Proto-Slavic *dě̄žà f. ‘kneading trough’ (Czech díž, díže, Russian dežá ‘kneading trough’, Serbo-Croatian díža, dȋžva ‘milk pail’, etc.).Cf., e.g., EDSIL:551f. s.v. *zьdati, 544 s.v. *zidъ, *zьdь, 106 s.v. *dě̄žà, LIV²:140f. s.v. *d^heig̑^h-, NIL:118f.