*g̑énu-/ĝnéu̯-
‘(animal) leg’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 564
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Palaic
ginu-
‘(animal) leg’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found on the Old/Middle Hittite copy of the festival for the Palaic pantheon as well as on a New Hittite fragment with Palaic incantations.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | ˹gi˺-nu(=kat) | KUB 35.165 rev. 13’ | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
| gi-nu(=kat) | KUB 35.159 ii 4’ | (CTH 753, NS) | |
| gi-nu(=kat) | DBH 46/2.101 4’ | (CTH 753, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
The Palaic lexeme ginu- is one of the sacrificial meats (Hitt. šuppa-) that is offered to the gods in the festival for the Palaic pantheon KUB 35.165 rev. 13’. Kammenhuber 1959a:31 and Carruba 1970a:59 compare Palaic ginu- with Hitt. genu- ‘knee’. In comparison with a passage from the Hittite festival for Ziparwa (CTH 750), which lists the same body parts as in the Palaic version in KBo 48.178 5’, Palaic ginu- can be equated with the GÌRMEŠ of the sacrificial animals offered (IBoT 2.71 + VSNF 12.20 ii 11’). Therefore, ginu- can be best translated as an ‘(animal) leg’. Differently, Eichner 2010a:52f. suggests that ginu(-kat) in KUB 35.165 rev. 13’ refers to the phallus of the animal, which is contextually unsupported.
[D.S.]
1.2 Hittite
genu-/ganu-
‘knee’1.2.1Literature / Comments
HEG I-K:487f., 552-554.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘(animal) leg’
The equation of Hitt. gēnu-/ganu- ‘knee’ and Pal. ginu- ‘(animal) leg’ is generally accepted (see HEG I-K:553, not addressed in EDHIL:467f.). The Proto-Anatolian quality of the initial velar cannot be determined based on Hittite and Palaic only, because *g/k and *g̑/k̑ fall together in these two languages. The reconstruction with *g̑ is chosen from an Indo-European perspective. The Palaic word reflects a root with an e-grade, although the exact quality of the vowel in the synchronic lexeme is obscured by the restrictiveness of the script, i.e. ge/i-nu- (Melchert 1994a:200). The Hittite form gēnu- shows occasional plene writing of the root vowel, which indicates an accented full grade. The form ga-nu-, which can be read phonologically as /knu-/ or /kanu-/, is never spelled with plene **ga-a-nu, which speaks, according to Kloekhorst (EDHIL:467f.), for a zero-grade, i.e. /knu-/. Therefore, he reconstructs a proterokinetic paradigm. Outdated Eichner 1979a:59 n. 58. The Hittite form ganu- has been wrongly taken as a Luwianism, which is not expected from an Indo-European perspective, since *g̑ would disappear in Luwian; see HEG I-K:487f. for a summary of the older literature on this topic.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The meaning ‘node, joint (of plants)’ (cf. ON kné, Gk. γόνυ) seems to be secondary. Therefore, PIE *g̑ón‑u‑/*g̑én‑u- is clearly reconstructable as denoting the body part ‘knee (of humans and animals)’.
3.1.1Root etymology
No secure connections can be established and thus no root is reconstructed here.Nevertheless, a connection with PIE *g̑en‑u- f. ‘jaw, cheek’ (cf., e.g., IEW:381f., EIEC:322, GEW III:61, WH I:593 with refs.) seems reasonable (cf. EIEC:336), because both body parts may be interpreted as angles and/or axles. A root PIE *g̑en- ‘to bend (vel sim.)’ may thus be reconstructed, cf. EDHIL:433f. on Hitt. kanen(ii̯e/a)‑zi ‘to bend’. According to Rieken 1999a:152 (following Oettinger 1981b:145, 149), also Hitt. kānint- ‘thirst’ belongs here (dismissed by EDHIL:436 as implausible).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The word for ‘knee’ is attested with different ablaut grades in the IE languages. While Anatolian shows proterokinetic ablaut (*g̑én‑u‑/*g̑n‑éu̯‑, cf. above), there are reflexes of o‑grade *g̑ón‑u- (Ved., Iran., Gk., Arm., Toch.) beside e‑grade *g̑én‑u- (Lat.) and zero grade with full‑grade suffix *g̑n‑éu̯- (Germ.) or double zero‑grade *g̑n‑u- (Av., Gk., Celt., Alb.). This scenario is reminiscent of PIE *dór‑u‑/*dér‑u- ‘wood’, in which case Anatolian continues the o‑grade, cf. PAnat. *dóru- ‘wood’. However, the PIE state of affairs is identical: the original acrostatic stem PIE *g̑ón‑u‑/*g̑én‑u‑Cf., e.g., EDPG:296, EWAhd V:637f., EIEC:336, differently EWAia I:585 (PIE *g̑ón‑u-/*g̑n‑u-).developed, as a CER(T)‑root, a secondary weak stem *g̑n‑éu̯‑,Cf., e.g., Rieken 1999a:296 n. 1417, and on the type Neri 2003:86–89.which furthermore led to the various stems attested in the respective branches. In the case of Proto-Anatolian, the new weak stem *g̑n‑éu̯- has been interpreted as belonging to a regular proterokinetic stem, to which the strong stem *g̑én‑u- has been built analogically.
3.2.1Root etymology
The root underlying PIE *g̑ón‑u‑/*g̑én‑u- ‘knee’ is clearly recognizable as PIE *g̑en‑. However, as long as its semantics cannot be determined for sure, no root is reconstructed here.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. jā́nu n. ‘knee’ (hapax in RV.10.15.6), °jñu, jñu° (in compounds)
EWAia I:584f., Grassmann 1996a:483, AiGr II,2:475
YAv. acc. sg. (secondary) žnūm, abl. pl. žnubiias(⸗čit̰) n. ‘knee’, zānu‑drājah- ‘showing the knee’s length’, Parth. zʾnwg /zānūg/ n., MPers. ʿšnwg /išnūg/ n. ‘knee’On the different reflexes of the anlauting cluster *g̑n in the compounds YAv. ā‑xšnu- ‘bis zu den Knien reichend’ and fra‑šnu- ‘(?)mit vorgestreckten Knien’, cf. ALF:102f.
Bartholomae 1904:311, 1010, 1717, ALF:132f., Durkin-Meisterernst 2004a:94
Arm. nom./acc. sg. cown‑r n. ‘knee’, pl. cowng‑/counk- ‘knees’
EDAIL:343f., Olsen 1999a:168
(?)OIr.(+) glún, du. glún n. ‘knee’
EDPC:162, de Bernardo Stempel 2011a:146, eDIL s.v. glúnOIr.(+) glún n. and Alb. gju ‘knee’ seem to belong here and may both go back to an extended proto‑form *g̑n‑u‑n- (PCelt. *‑ū- probably secondarily lengthened, cf. de Bernardo Stempel 2011a:146) with an unexpected dissimilatory change to *g̑l‑u‑n‑.
(?)Alb. gju m. ‘knee’ (Buzuku+)
Demiraj 1997a:190f., AED:137
TochA kanweṃ*, TochB keni* ‘knee(s)’
DTB²:205f., Carling 2009a:99