*zóH-/*zH-´⁽ⁱ⁾

The Anatolian word-initial sound written with z- shared by Hittite, Luwian and Lycian can go back to either *ti̯, *tu̯ or *Ts. The decision between them depends on the Proto-Indo-European etymology; see below. Schindler (apud Oettinger 1979a:447) suggests an etymological connection with Gk. δαΐ ‘in battle’ and reconstructs *ds-eh₂^­-. Against the phonological development in Greek see EDHIL:1020. Instead, Kloekhorst (EDHIL:1020) reconstructs *ti̯eh₂- ‘to mark’, which is phonologically possible, but the connection is not assured. Suggestions reconstructing a root with initial *di̯- are impossible, if one compares Hitt. siu(n)- < *di̯(e)u̯-; cf. HEG W-Z:602-604.

[D.S.]

Judging from Hitt. zāḫ-ⁱ/zaḫḫ-, the basic meaning of the PIE root *ti̯eh₂- is ‘to hit, beat’. In Greek, there are potential root-related formations, whose meanings are all compatible with this basic meaning (see above sub 1. Transmission).

Verbally, the PIE root *ti̯eh₂- ‘to hit, beat’ is only attested in Anatolian, cf. Hitt. zāḫ-ⁱ/zaḫḫ- ‘to hit, beat’ < PIE *ti̯óh₂-/*ti̯eh₂-Somewhat differently EDHIL:1020: *ti̯óh₂-/*tih₂-´, but cf. LIV²⁺ s.v. *ti̯eh₂- n. 2: “Der hethitische schwache Stamm zahh- ist wohl leichter aus *ti̯eh₂- zu erklären als aus *tih₂-, es könnte also (pace Kloekhorst) ursprünglicher o/e-Ablaut vorliegen.” and Hitt. zaḫḫii̯e/a-^zi ‘to battle (sb.)’ < PIE *ti̯eh₂-i̯e/o- (cf. LIV²⁺ s.v. *ti̯eh₂-).Differently EDHIL:1020, where Hitt. zaḫḫ- is explained from *ti̯_ǝh₂-, a remodeling of an original weak stem form *tih₂- “on the basis of verbs like ḫāši/ḫaššanzi, aki/akkanzi, u̯āki/u̯akkanzi” (EDHIL:1020). Outside Anatolian, the root might be found in some Greek noun formations that are compatible with a root meaning ‘to hit, beat’; cf. Janda 2005b, EDHIL:1020, LIV²⁺ s.v. *ti̯eh₂- and see above sub 1. Transmission. – Phonologically, the Anatolian sound written 〈z〉 in Hitt. zāḫ-ⁱ/zaḫḫ- ‘to hit, beat’ etc. cannot only be derived from PIE *ti̯, but also from PIE *tu̯ or *Ts. *di̯, however, is excluded by forms such as Hitt. šiu(n)- < *di̯(e)u- (see also above, Proto-Anatolian Reconstruction). Schindler apud Oettinger 1979a:447 proposes a root *dseh₂-, which would be an extension of *das- (perhaps in Gk. Hom. δαΐ dat. sg. ‘in the battle’).Kloekhorst, EDHIL:1020 is against a derivation of Gk. δαΐ from a stem *das-: “This is quite improbable as the a of das- requires *h₂ or a vocalized nasal.” For *das- : *ds-eh₂-, cf., e.g., PIE *men- ‘to think’ : *mn-eh₂- ‘to think, remember’ (Gk. μνῆμα, Dor.  μνᾶμα n. ‘memorial, remembrance, record’), cf. LIV²:435f. and 447 with n. 1. However, the etymology of Gk. δαΐ is by no means clear, cf., e.g., EDG:296.

[T.S.]

perhaps σῆμα n. ‘sign, mark’ (< *‘what is carved’ vel sim.), σῶμα n. ‘corpse, body’ (< *‘what has been killed’), σῖτος m. ‘grain, food’ (< *‘what has been threshed’)For these approaches, cf. Janda 2005b, EDHIL:1020, LIV²⁺ s.v. *ti̯eh₂-.