*ménnu-
‘fertile (?)’
- Language
- Proto-Luwic
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 774
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
mannu-
‘the fertile, potent, manly condition (vel sim.)’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme is attested once in a NS Luwian incantation and twice in the incipits of the songs in the OH Festival of Ištanuwa.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. c. | ma-an-nu-un | KBo 4.11, 52 | (CTH 772, NS) |
| ma-an-nu-un | KBo 4.11, 58 | (CTH 772, NS) | |
| nom./acc. sg. n. | ma-an-nu | KBo 13.260 ii 27 | (CTH 766, NS) |
The assignment of mannun to same lemma as mannu is based solely on the identical phonological shape of the words and the rareness of u-stems in Luwian (CLL:138, Weitenberg 1984a:292, Starke 1990a:396-399). Pace Starke 1990a:397, the most economical interpretation of mannun is an acc. sg. c. His own analysis as nom./acc. sg. n. with -un < *-uwan is prompted by his assumption that u-stems feature i-mutation (for the opposing view now generally accepted, see CLL:iv).
[E.R.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Readings checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
While the attestations of mannun are found in unintelligible context, the incantation containing the neuter form mannu offers several syntactically parallel sentences that are relatively well understood and show the structure “Let them give X to those related to X”, as seen in the immediately preceding clause ḫattayanza=wa ḫatta piyandu ‘let them give violence to those related to violence’. Accordingly, the dat./loc. form mannawanza must mean something like ‘(those) related to mannu-’. In addition, it is probable that, in a sequence with ḫuitta- ‘ability to run, speed’ and ḫatta- ‘violence’, mannu- is another designation for a desirable bodily condition. This is corroborated by the attestation of its derivative mannustarr(i)- together with annarumaḫi(t)- ‘strength, virility’ and arrai(ya)- ušš(i)- ‘long years’ within the same context (KBo 29.17 iii 5’-7’, see under Meaning of Lemma mannuštarr(i)-), pointing to a similar meaning. An interpretation of mannu- as an abstract ‘the fertile, potent, manly condition (vel sim.)’ would be in line with these facts. Although taken by itself this meaning assignment is not beyond doubt, it is highly significant that the attestations of the members of the entire word family fit into the range of meanings suggested here.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
There is no doubt that mannu- belongs to the class of -u- stems. However, it is a matter of dispute as to whether the stem still shows an ablaut alternation -u-/-aw- in the suffix. Based on combinatory arguments layed out s.v. mannawa/i- under Stem, the dat./loc. pl. form mannawanza, which is Melchert’s prime example for the continuing use of the ablaut alternation in Luwian (CLL:138; no longer mentioned in Melchert 2003b:186f., or in Yakubovich 2015b), is to be understood as a derivative of mannu- rather than an inflected form. Accordingly, Starke’s (Starke 1990a:396f.) split of the two lexemes is followed here and, contra Melchert (CLL:138), no inflectional ablaut of the suffix is assumed, neither here nor anywhere else in Luwian. Thus, nothing stands in the way of assuming for mannu- a non-ablauting u-stem abstract noun.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Lycian A
*mñnu-
‘fertile (?)’1.2.1Compounds
- erimñnuha- (PN) (Schürr 2005a:145, Neumann 2007a:69, 222)
1.2.2Derivatives
- mñnuhe- (PN) (Schürr 2005a:145, Neumann 2007a:222)
1.3 Lycian B
*mñnu-
‘fertile (?)’1.3.1Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘fertile (?)’
By comparing the Luwian u-stem mannu- with Lyc. *mñnu- attested as the base of the personal name mñnuhe-, we can reconstruct a Proto-Luwic u-stem *ménnu- (with Čop’s Law) meaning ‘fertile condition (vel sim.)’. In Lycian, the root vowel was syncopated due to a rightward accent shift, which may have occurred during the further derivations, i.e. *ménnu- → mñnú-he- (or mñnu-hé-). For the semantic evidence of the Lycian materials see under mñnusa-(ti) ‘to make into something fertile (vel sim.)’.
[D.S.]
For the lemma head see PLuw. *men(H)-o-.
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Frequently, PIIr. *mánu- m. ‘man, human being; Manu’ as well as PGerm. *man(‑n)- m. ‘man, human being’ etc. are derived from the root PIE 1.*men- ‘to catch a thought’ (LIV²:435–437, LIV²+ s.v. 1.*men‑ [2019-04-17]), cf., e.g., IEW:700, EWAhd VI:87.44–50. The term for ‘man, human being’ would thus mean the ‘thinker’, denoting the rational being (in contrast to animals).
However, if the Anatolian word family pointing to ‘(male) fertility, virility’ is related (as per Rieken pers. comm.), the above-mentioned etymology of PIIr. *mánu- etc. does not make sense anymore. The proposal emerges that PIE *món‑u‑/*mén‑u- ‘fertility (Luw.); human being (IIr.)’ and pre‑PGerm. *mon‑én- ‘human being’ belong to the root PIE 3.*men- ‘to protrude’, cf. EWAhd VI:87.50–88.3 (referring to Jensen 1951a).Jensen 1951a:246f. (followed by Kähler 1952a) assumes that the Germanic and Indic lexemes originally meant ‘standing upright’ (: ?3.*men‑), which makes the upright (bipedal) humans different from the bent (quadruped) animals. He adduces only one semantic parallel (ibid. 246), and Kähler 1952a adds another.
Yakubovich 2010d:236 (with n. 35) tentatively connects CLuw. mannitt(i)- ‘fertility’ with Lat. magnus ‘large’ (< “*mъg’no‑”). On the root PIE *meh2- ‘big’, cf. Yakubovich 2010d and Nikolaev 2014a.
In view of the semantics of Luw. mannu- ‘(male) fertility, virility’, an original meaning ‘protrusion (abstract), erect penis (concrete)’ is assumed for PIIr. *mán‑u- (and PGerm. *man(‑n)‑). The metonymical transfer from ‘protrusion’ to ‘penis’ and further to ‘man, male person’ is trivial, cf. for the latter change Lat. pēnis ‘penis’ : Hitt. pešna- ‘man, male’.For more correspondences between ‘man; male’ and ‘protrude’ via ‘penis’, cf. DatSemShift 2.0 and Buck 1949a:258, and, e.g., ModE prick ‘sting; penis’. For the connection of Lat. mālus ‘mast, pole’ and Lat. mās, maris ‘man; male’ < *‘penis’, cf. Schrijver 1991a:167f.Subsequently, in Indo-Iranian (and Germanic) the meaning ‘man’ was broadened to the generic term for ‘human being’ (Ved. mánu- ‘man, human being’).While the semantic narrowing from ‘human being’ to ‘male person’ is not seldom (cf. Buck 1949a:81), there are some examples for the opposite development, cf. Gk. φώς ‘man, human being (m./f. in E.Hel.1094)’, OE weor‑old ‘(human) era; humankind; world’ from OE wer ‘man, husband’ (< PIE *u̯iH‑ró- ‘(young) male person’, cf., e.g., Ved. vīrá- m. ‘man, hero’ [NIL:726–729]). On the other hand, it is also possible that the generic meaning ‘human being (m./f.)’ developed from ‘(descendant of the) divine progenitor’, viz. PIIr. divine name *Mánu(š)- (and WGerm.-Lat. Mannus) < ‘penis’.
In sum, the following semantic developments may be assumed:
*men- ‘to protrude’
→ *món‑u‑/*mén‑u- (abstract) ‘protrusion’
> ‘potency (of the penis)’ > ‘fertility, virility’ (Luw. mannu‑)
> ‘(potent) penis’
1. > ‘male person’ > ‘human being’ (PIIr. *mánu‑), ‘progenitor (of man)’ (PIIr. *Mánu‑) or
2. > ‘genitor’ > ‘progenitor (of man), (divine name) Manus’ (PIIr. *Mánu‑)Cf. also PGerm. *man(‑n)- ‘progenitor (of the Germanic peoples), (divine name) Mannus’.→ ‘human being, mankind (as descending from Mánu)’ (PIIr. *mánu‑)
3.1.1Root etymology
On the basis of formations like PIE *mn̥‑tó- ‘protruding (part of the face), chin’, *mn̥‑ti- ‘protrusion (of landscape), mountain’, Lat. ēminēre ‘to protrude’, etc., the underlying root can be reconstructed as PIE 3.*men- ‘to protrude’. Thus, at least three homophonous roots *men- existed side by side:
1.*men- ‘to catch a thought’ (LIV²:435–437, LIV²+ s.v. 1.*men‑ [2019-04-17]),
2.*men- ‘to stay, wait’ (LIV²:437, LIV²+ s.v. 2.*men‑ [2019-04-17]), and
3.*men- ‘to protrude’ (?3.*men- in LIV²:437).
Connecting these three roots would imply complex additional assumptions.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
If the semantic reconstruction as presented above is correct, Luw. mannu- ‘fertility, virility’ has a direct cognate in PIIr. *mánu- ‘man; (divine name) Manu’ and can be traced back to a PIE u‑stem. While Luw. mannu- ‘fertility’, as expected, lacks inner-paradigmatic ablaut, Ved. mánu- ‘Manu; human being’ attests suffix accentuation only three times.Loc. sg. manó [+ ádhi] in RV.8.61.2, 9.63.8, 9.65.16 vs. máno in RV.8.51.1, 8.52.1 (Vālakhilya).Thus, it may be proposed that the PIE u‑stem was acrostatic, viz. a PIE abstract noun *món‑u‑/*mén‑u- ‘protrusion’.The weak stem pre‑PIIr. *mén‑u- is generalized throughout the paradigm, the suffix shows ablaut only in a few cases in Vedic.
The individualized n‑stem PGerm. *man(‑n)- ‘human being’ < pre‑PGerm. *mon‑én‑/*mon‑n‑´ ‘the erect one’ must be derived from an o‑grade formation pre‑PGerm. *mon‑ó- ‘protruding, erect’.
3.2.1Root etymology
The underlying root is phonologically reconstructable as PIE *men‑, which makes it homophonous with at least two other PIE roots of the same phonological shape, viz. 1.*men- ‘to catch a thought’ (LIV²:435–437, LIV²+ s.v. 1.*men‑ [2019-04-17]) and 2.*men- ‘to stay, wait’ (LIV²:437, LIV²+ s.v. 2.*men‑ [2019-04-17]). Thus, the root in question is cited as 3.*men- ‘to protrude’ (cf. ?3.*men- in LIV²:437).
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. mánu‑, loc. sg. manó (3x in RV) m. ‘human being (m./f.), mankind; (divine name) Manu, ancestor of men’ (RV+)
EWAia II:309f., KEWA II:575f., Grassmann 1996a:997
PIIr. *manuš- m. ‘human being (m./f.), ancestor of men’, cf. Ved. mánuṣ- m. ‘id.’, YAv. manuš.čiθra- personal name ‘descendant of *Manuš’
EWAia II:309f., KEWA II:575f., Grassmann 1996a:998, Bartholomae 1904:1135
Germanic
PGerm. *man(‑n)‑/*man‑n- m. ‘human being (m./f.)’, cf. Goth. manna ‘id.’, WGerm. (Latinized) divine name Mannus ‘ancestor of the German tribes’ (Tac.Germ.2.2), Run. mąR (ca. 700 CE), ON maðr, mannr ‘man, human being (m./f.)’, OS mann ‘human being (m./f.), man, husband’, OE mann, man, monn ‘human being (m./f.), man, hero’, etc.
EDPG:353f., GED:244, de Vries 1977a:374f., Holthausen 1934a:215, EWAhd VI:84.10–88.25 s.v. man¹EDPG ibid. connects the word for ‘man’ with the PIE word for ‘earth’, PIE *dhég̑h-om-.
(?)Balto-Slavic
PSlav. *mon‑g(u̯)i̯o- ‘man, human being (m./f.)’, cf. OCS mǫžĭ ‘(Gk.) ἀνήρ, man’, Russ.(+) muž ‘man, husband’, SCr. mȗž ‘husband’EIEC:366f. connects the Slavic words with Alb. mëz ‘colt, donkey’s foal’ (Demiraj 1997a:267, AED:265, Matzinger 2005b:36), thus disconnecting it from our root.
EDSIL:330, Vasmer II:169f., Trautmann 1923a:169
Root ?3.*men- ‘to protrude’
LIV²:437, IEW:726
PIE
PIE *mn̥‑tó- ‘protruding (from the face)’, cf. Lat. mentum n. ‘chin’ (Plaut.+) (WH II:72f., EM:398, EDLIL:373), MW mant ‘gums, jaw’ (EDPC:256), OHG(+) mund m. ‘mouth’ (EDPG:376f., GED:261, de Vries 1977a:386, EWAhd VI:606.10–608.46)
(?)PIE *mén‑ti‑/*mn̥‑téi̯- f. ‘protrusion (of landscape)’, cf. YAv. acc. sg. maitīm f. ‘protrusion (of mountains)’ (hapax, V.3.20) (Bartholomae 1904:1112 s.v. ²matay‑), Lat. mōns, ‑tis m. ‘mountain’ (Naev.+) (WH II:108f., EM:412f., EDLIL:388, OLD²:1244)The unexpected o‑grade (and gender) of Lat. mōns m. ‘mountain’ is usually explained by contamination of *mn̥‑ti- and *mon‑i̯o- (vel sim.), cf. EDLIL:388.
Italic
Lat. ē‑minēre, prō-minēre ‘to stand out, project’ (Plaut.+)
WH II:90, EM:403f., EDLIL:380 s.v. minae, OLD²:664, 1633