ḫašīra-

Eichner 1980a:127 n. 30 suggests an etymological connection with Skt. así- and Lat. ēnsis ‘sword’ and reconstructs Proto-Indo-European *h₂N̥si- followed by an extension in *-ro- for the Palaic lexeme (likewise Melchert 2010b:58). Melchert 1994a:214 assumes an original *n̥, which developed to Palaic /an/ followed by the loss of the nasal in front of /s/. However, as he himself concedes, there is no other data in Palaic to either prove or disprove this hypothetical development. The morphology of the word could be genuine Palaic and go back to a Proto-Anatolian form *HN̥s-i-ro-. However, since it is also attested in Hurrian, we might be dealing with a non-Indo-European word, especially if it is related to the Hurrian root ḫaš- ‘to be strong’; see under Origin.

[D.S.]

The i-stem reflected by Ved. así- and Lat. ēnsis means ‘sword’; Pal. ḫašīra- means ‘blade, dagger, knife’. Eichner 1980a:127 n. 30 sets up a meaning ‘knife, short sword’ for the i-stem noun. According to EIEC:561, its basic meaning was “large (offensive) knife, dagger, ?sword”.

Ved. así- m. ‘sword’ and Lat. ēnsis m. ‘id.’ can be derived from a common i-stem noun PIE *n̥si- ‘sword’ (IEW:771, EWAia I:145). Pal. ḫašīra- ‘blade, dagger, knife’, if related, could be a derivative in -ra- < *-ro- of the i-stem, with the initial ḫ- pointing to a PIE laryngeal, perhaps *h₂-; cf. Eichner 1980a:127 n. 30, who reconstructs the PIE word for ‘sword’ as *h₂N̥si- (cf. also EWAia I:145). However, the phonological development of Pal. ḫašīra-, which shows no traces of a nasal, is not beyond doubt: “if Pal. ḫašīra- ‘dagger’ reflects *Hn̥sí-ro- […], it implies *n̥ > *an. The loss of the nasal before */s/ in this example would contradict the Hittite development […], but there is no counterevidence in Palaic” (Melchert 1994a:214); cf. also Oettinger 1986a:34 n. 108 (“[…] doch ist die pal. Entwicklung von *ns noch unsicher”). There is also the possibility that Pal. ḫašīra- is a non-IE word, because it is also attested in Hurrian (see above, PAnat. Reconstruction). – The connection with Gk. ἄορ, gen. sg. ἄορ-ος n. ‘sword’, which, according to Nikolaev 2009a:463, could reflect a preform “*h₂n̥sr̥ or *h₂n̥sō̆r”, is uncertain. The Greek noun can alternatively be explained as a formation to the root *h₂u̯er- ‘to hang’ (cf. Gk. ἀείρω ‘to raise’, LIV²:290), with an original meaning *‘what hangs’ (cf. GEW I:117, EDG:112). Moreover, as pointed out in EDG:112, a sound sequence “*h₂ns- would have given Gr. ἀν-”. But an initial sequence *h₂n̥° is also problematic for Lat. ēnsis, because a preform *h₂n̥si- would in all likelihood have given pre-Lat. *ansi- > Lat. †ānsis – i.e., with coloring of *h₂n̥- to *(H)an-, according to the Latin Lex Rix; cf., e.g., PIE *h₂m̥b^hi(-) ‘around’ > PItal. *(H)ambi- > Lat. am(b)- (Meiser 1998a:106f.). Therefore, we either have to reconstruct a preform *h₁(e)nsi- (cf. EDLIL:190) or *h₂ēnsi- (cf. Nikolaev 2009a:463) for Lat. ēnsis. A laryngeal *h₁-, however, is excluded by the ḫ- of Pal. ḫašīra-. Thus, if the PIE word for ‘sword’ had a word-initial *h₂-, Lat. ēnsis is best derived from a lengthened-grade form *h₂ēnsi-. Together with Ved. así-, which points to a zero-grade form *h₂n̥sí-, this allows the tentative reconstruction of an ablauting paradigm *h₂ḗnsi-/*h₂n̥séi̯- (← ḗ/é-acrostatic *h₂ḗnsi-/*h₂énsi-?), which would then have been leveled to *h₂ēnsi-/*h₂ēnsei̯- in pre-PItal. (with generalized lengthened-grade) and to *h₂n̥sí-/*h₂n̥séi̯- in pre-PIIr. (with generalized zero-grade).

[T.S.]

Ved. así- m. ‘sword, sacrificial knife, butcher’s knife’ (RV+)As for Iranian, the assumption of a stem YAv. aŋhu- ‘sword’ (in YAv. aŋhuiiāt̰ Yt 13.46) seems uncertain; cf. EWAia I:145, Nikolaev 2009a:463 n. 4.

Lat. ēnsis m. ‘sword’ (Cato+)Cf., e.g., EDLIL:190.

?Myc. personal name a-i-qe-u ‘killing with a sword’Cf. Nikolaev 2009a:463 n. 4, with lit.; ?Gk. ἄορ, ἄορος n. ‘sword’ (Il.+)Cf., e.g., GEW I:117, Nikolaev 2009a:463, EDG:112.