mūtamut(i)-

The etymology of CLuw. mūtamut(i)- ‘pig’ is intertwined with the origin of the Hitt. cognates mūtā(i)-^(mi) ‘to root, dig in (the ground)’ (CHD L-N:335f., EDHIL:588) and mūdan- ‘pig food’ (CHD L-N:337, EDHIL:589). Oettinger 1979a:377 and Eichner 1979a:48-50 n. 14 (also Oettinger 2015d:276 n. 23) reconstruct the base mūta- as *muh₁-to- from the root *meuh₁- ‘to move’, which is judged semantically unsatisfying by Kloekhorst (EDHIL:588). For the etymology of Hitt. mūdā(i)-^(mi), Puhvel (HED M:195 with further literature) suggest an etymological connection with Skt. mū́tram and Av. mūθra- n. ‘urine’, i.e. a root *meu̯- possibly meaning ‘wet, dirt’ (IEW:741-743, KEWA III:663f.), which is semantically more promising.

Concerning the Lycian male name Medemudi (TL 110.1), Oreshko 2019c:176 claims that it is a reflex of the Luwian personal name ^fMudamudi, which is attractive at first sight. However, since the vowel -u- is not affected by the vowel harmony, one would have to assume a case of hypercorrect vowel harmony in the change *Mudemudi → Medemudi.  This is not impossible, but independence evidence is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

[D.S.]

It is difficult to identify a common semantic denominator for the Anatolian formations. The choice between the competing analyses ultimately hinges on the following question: was the verb reflected in Hittite mūtā(i)-^(mi) ‘to root, dig in (the ground)’ the source of the nouns ‘pig’ and ‘pig food’, was the noun ‘pig’ primary and the basis both of ‘pig food’ and of the verb (‘behave in a pig-like manner’), or are both ‘pig’ and ‘to root, dig in (the ground)’ derived independently from a root that had a different meaning originally? Since the Hittite verb belongs to a class that typically implies denominal origin (cf. the discussion in EDHIL: 588 s.v. mūtae-^zi), the latter two options may be slightly preferable. Under the root etymology proposed here, however, all three scenarios remain viable.

The root is reconstructed here as *meu̯d-, which yields words associated with dampness, dirt, and decay in several Indo-European languages. Words for ‘pig’ are notoriously difficult to etymologize (cf. Buck 1949a:160–164), but ‘dirt’ offers a reasonable semantic starting point; Hittite mūtā(i)-^(mi) ‘to root, dig in (the ground)’ could then derive from a sense ‘engage in dirt-related activities (vel sim.)’.

Several languages exhibit formations going back to a stem *mud-s-: Ancient Greek μυσός ‘foul, defiled, filthy’, Welsh mws ‘stale, rank, musty, moldy, damp, stinking, fetid’, Lithuanian mūsaĩ m. pl.‘layer of mold’. The underlying formation is probably a possessive derivative *mud-s-ó- (> Ancient Greek μυσός, Welsh mws) derived from a neuter s-stem *méu̯d-es- ‘decay, dirt’for the underlying derivational process see Höfler 2015b. The root *meud- may be an extension of *meu- (see IEW:741–743).

[S.H.]

Cuneiform Luwian mūtamut(i)- ‘pig’, Hittite mūtā(i)-^(mi) ‘to root, dig in (the ground)’, mūdan- ‘pig food’, Luwian in Hittite transmission mutmutāli- ‘rooting place of pigs, nuzzling area’.See EDHIL:588 and 589, HEG L-M:235–237.

Ancient Greek μῠδάω, aor. μυδῆσαι (Hsch.), ‘to be damp, dripping; to be damp, clammy from decay’ (Ion. poet., Plb. etc.), μῡδ-αλέος ‘wet, dripping; moldy’ (Il.+with metrical lengthening), μύδος m. ‘clamminess, decay’ (Nic.) μυδών, -ῶνος m. ‘fungous flesh in an ulcer’ (Poll.), μυσά· μιαρά, μεμιασμένα, μυσαρά (Hsch.) ‘foul, defiled, filthy’ (*mud-s-°).Cf., e.g., GEW II:263 s.v. μῠδάω.

Welsh mws ‘stale, rank, musty, moldy, damp, stinking, fetid’, Breton mous ‘ordures’ (‘garbage, dung’), Old Irish mosach ‘filthy, stinking, dirty’ (*mud-s-°).Cf., e.g., EDPC:281.

perhaps with s mobile: English smut, German Schmutz ‘filth, dirt, smut’, also Schmaus ‘feast of food’ (if from *‘pigs’ food’).Cf., e.g., Kluge & Seebold 2011a: s.vv. Schmutz, Schmaus.

Lithuanian mūsaĩ m. pl.‘layer of mold, skin on milk, on sauerkraut, on preserves’ (*mud-s-°).Cf., e.g., Smoczyński 2018a:831 s.v. mūsaĩ.