*h1óh1/3-es-/*h1eh1/3-s-´

The Proto-Anatolian word for ‘mouth’ can be reconstructed based on Hitt. aiš-/išš- n. and Luw. āšš- n. (HEG A-H:6f., HED A:15f., EDHIL:166f.). To account phonologically for the outcome of Hitt. aiš- n., Rieken 1999a:185-187 reconstructs a proterokinetic neuter s-stem, in which the loss of the internal laryngeal would have led to a secondary diphthong, i.e. *h₃éh₁-es- > *ó-is- > aiš- (likewise EDHIL:167, although he assumes the root to be *h₁eh₃- instead, which is more likely, since *h₃ is retained in word initial position in Anatolian). Thus, the vowel -a- in the Hittite word would come from a colored e-grade. However, Melchert 2010b:59 (with further literature) argues from an Indo-European perspective that the root does not have a third laryngeal and, thus, reconstructs an acrostatic neuter s-stem with an o-grade in the strong stem, i.e. *h₁óh₁-s-. Then, he assumes an anaptyxis between the obstruent and the sibilant in Pre-Hittite, i.e. *h₁óh₁-s- > *áh₁is- > aiš.

Considering both the Hittite and Luwian cognates, we can equate the Luwian vowels a-a-aš- with the ones of Hitt. a-i-iš-. The explanation of anaptyxis offered by Melchert is highly tentative, since it cannot be supported independently neither for Hittite and nor for Luwian concerning the sequence *-h₁- and *-s-. Assuming that the first laryngeal disappears word internally relatively early, we can assume that the suffix *-es- lies behind Hitt. -iš- and Luw. -aš- (thus Rieken ibid.). Thus, if there is no third laryngeal in the root an o-grade of the root must be reconstructed. Differently, Simon 2010b:263 interprets the hyperplene writing in CLuw. a-a-aš-ša to represent the glottal stop combined with a long -ā- continuing PIE *h₁. However, this explanation fails to account for the morphology of both the Hittite and Luwian data combined.

The geminate -ss- seen in the Hitt. oblique form išš- and Luw. āššanta can be explained as the assimilation of the root-final laryngeal with the -s- of the suffix as long as this one is in the zero-grade, i.e. *-Hs- > /-ss-/ (EDHIL:167, Melchert 2010b:59). Differently, Rieken 1999a:186 assumes that the geminate -ss- in Luwian reflects an accented suffix followed by Čops’ Law. However, it is preferable to equate the Hittite and Luwian geminates to a common phenomenon. Thus, Čops’ Law cannot be used.

In sum, based on Hittite and Luwian evidence only, we reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian paradigm with an o-grade of the root in the strong cases, i.e. *HóH-es-, and e-grade of the root combined with zero-grade of the suffix in the weak cases, i.e. *h₁eh_1/3-s-´.

[D.S.]

PIE *h₁óh₁(-)s-/*h₁eh₁(-)s-´ means ‘mouth’ (NIL:387, EIEC:387).

For the details of the reconstruction, esp. regarding the quality of the initial and medial laryngeal as well as the accent and ablaut pattern of the word, cf. Melchert 2010b (older literature in NIL:387–390, esp. nn. 1–2). He reconstructs the word for ‘mouth’ as a neuter acrostatic s-stem or root noun (Melchert 2010b:59): nom./acc. sg. *(h₁)óh₁(-)s (Hitt. /ā́i̯s/ or /ái̯is/, Lat. ōs), gen. sg. *(h₁)éh₁(-)s-e/os. As argued by Melchert 2010b:59, “[t]he accent in the weak stem was shifted to the ending already in PIE, hence *(h₁)eh₁(-)s-é/ós” (cf. Hitt. /iss-V́/< *ess-V́ < *h₁eh₁(-)s-V́, with assimilation of *-h₁s- to Hitt. /-ss-/, cf. Melchert 2010b:59., Ved. ās-´). For this kind of inner-paradigmatic accent shift in acrostatic nouns, cf. Schindler 1972a:32, Schindler 1975a:7. According to Melchert 2010b:59, another possible neuter s-stem noun, likewise a body part term, with o/e-ablaut of the root could have been the PIE word for ‘ear’, which on the basis of forms such as Gk. οὖς and Lat. auris can be reconstructed as PIE *h₂óu̯s-os/*h₂éu̯s-es- vel sim., cf. NIL:339–343 (alternatively, it could have been a root noun, cf. Melchert 2010b:59). The root etymology of PIE *h₁óh₁(-)s- ‘mouth’ and its basic meaning are not clear.

[S.S.], [T.S.]

Ved. ā́s- n. ‘mouth, face’ (RV), only instr. sg. āsā́ ‘with the mouth, face to face, present’, abl. sg. āsáḥ and in compounds like an-ā́s- ‘without mouth’ (RV), sv-ā́s- ‘with a beautiful mouth’ (RV), ādaghná- ‘reaching to the mouth’ < *ās-d° (RV); extended stems: Ved. āsán- (e.g., loc. sg. āsán(i), instr. sg. āsnā́, etc. [RV+]) and āsyà- n. ‘mouth, throat’ (RV+). – Av. āh- n. ‘mouth’ (gen. sg. OAv. ā̊ŋhō, instr. sg. OAv. ^ǝ̄ǝā̊ŋhā, YAv. ā̊ŋha)Cf. EWAia I:181f., ALF:138, NIL:387f., 389 nn. 4–5, Gotō 2013a:35. 

Lat. ōs, gen. sg. ōris n. ‘mouth, face, front’ (Liv. Andr., Enn.+); derivatives: e.g., Lat. ōra f. ‘edge; bank, shore, coast’ (Enn.+), Lat. ōstium n. ‘door(frame), entrance; mouth of a river’ (Plaut.+)Cf. WH II:218f., 224f., 228, NIL:387f., 389 nn. 6, 11, 389f. nn. 14–15, EDLIL:436.

OIr. á ‘mouth’, gen. sg. á in fer há ‘man of the mouth’, i.e. ‘tooth’Cf., e.g., NIL:387, 389 n. 7, EDPC:44.

ON óss m. (a-stem), ósi m. (n-stem) ‘mouth (of a river)’; OE ōr n. ‘beginning, origin; front, forehead’, ōra m. ‘edge; bank, shore’Cf., e.g., NIL:387, 389 n. 8, EDPG:394f.

Lith. úostas m., dial. also uõstas m., uostà f. ‘mouth of a river, estuary, port, harbor’; Latv. uosts m., uosta, uõsta, uôsta f. ‘mouth of a river, estuary’Cf., e.g., NIL:388, 389f. n. 14, EDBIL:481f.