17. Note on the etymology ofPGmc. +smitan and +smijXlz (E smite, , G schmeifJen, Schmied, etc.) *

The understanding of the regularities of Indo-European has long since progressed to a point where it might well be deemed likely that the easy problems have already been solved, so that future progress will, logically, tend to con­ tain mther big surprises. In this situation, we should not shrink back from saying out loud what we see, even if we know of no other case of that particular nature. In histori­ cal linguistics, we are after the truth about the linguistic past. If we permit ourselves only to say trivialities about that past, there is little point in searching for it in the first place (Jens Elmegard Rasmussen [\988] 1999: I. 340).

Abstract

The Proto-Germanic words +smitan (root +smit-, class I) 'to strike, throw' and +smijJaz 'smith' (with derived +smiJx5n 'to , smithy' and +smiJx5 'metal to be worked on, smi th' s work, jewelry, skilled work', root +smi P-) have no good Indo­ European etymology and are not connected to each other in the etymological dic­ tionaries. It is proposed that +smitan reflects a borrowed Semitic word derived from the root :f.md which means a certain kind of weapon for striking or throwing in Ugaritic and 'to strike' in Arabic, and which has what seems to be a related root :f.mt meaning 'to vanquish' in Ugaritic. It is further proposed, though with reserva· tions, that +smijJaz likewise reflects a Semitic loan-word based on the root form :f.mt, and that +smiJx1Z is thus etymologically related to +smitan.

17.1. PGmc. +smitan: The problem

A strong verb +smitan (class I) is well attested in Gothic and West Ger­ manic. l Several meanings seem to be attached to the verb: Goth. bi­ smeitan (only 3rd sg. indo pret. bismait) 'to anoint' and ga-smeitan (only 3rd sg. ind. pret. gasmait) translate Gk. €7nXPLEW 'to anoint, to besmear' (Lehmann 1986: s.v. *bi-smeitan). Since these are derived verbs, the meaning is likely to be a derived one too, and therefore Gothic does not tell us the meaning of the basic verb. r602 300 PGme. +smitan and +smij:>az

Fortunately, the simplex is also attested. Seebold (1970: s.v. l-ISMEIT-A-) gives 'schmeiBen, werfen' ('to fling, to throw') as the meaning of OFris. smUa; this is also the meaning of G schmeij3en. OE smitan is glossed 'to daub, smear, soil, pollute, defile' by Clark Hall and Meritt (1960: s. v.). This is indeed the meaning in the oldest occurrences (ca. 725, 1000) listed in the OED. But as early as ca. 1150 the simplex verb also occurs with that meaning which is the only one in the contemporary language: pu ofsloge vel smite (Canterbury Ps. iii. 8, cf. OED: s.v. smite st.Y.), i.e. 'you struck down or smote'. Given these divergent meanings in the oldest attestations it does not come as a surprise that opinions differ concerning the original meaning of the verb, namely, whether it is 'to throw' or 'to smear'. The OED writes: "The development of the various senses is not quite clear, but that of throwing is perh[aps] the original one." Seebold (1970: s.v. [-]SMEIT -A-) writes, "Die Bedeutung ist 'beschmieren, beschmutzen, beflecken' neben 'werfen'; Ausgangspunkt ist vermutlich das Bewerfen einer Hauswand mit feuchtem Lehm." [The meaning is 'to spread upon, sully, stain' alongside 'to throw'; the starting-point may have been the daubing of a building wall with moist clay (lit. "the be-throw­ ing of a house wall with moist clay", i.e. 'the throwing of moist clay upon a house wall'). f This is also the semantic reconstruction of Pfeifer et al. (1997: s. v. schmeijJen), who nevertheless assume a dental deriva­ tion from an Indo-European root *sme-, *smei- 'to smear, wipe, rub'. In my view we arrive at the original meaning by putting these two semantic proposals together: The meaning of throwing is at the semantic heart of the verb; daubing, i.e. originally the throwing of clay upon a wickerworked wall, is an applied meaning; more general meanings such as that of spreading any kind of substances on a surface or, on the con­ trary, more specialized meanings such as that of anointing or sullying have developed from this intermediate notion. Since the meaning in English has for centuries been that of hitting by striking, perhaps an even more basic meaning of the verb was that of hitting with an object by either throwing or striking.3 Note that not only to smite itself has the meaning of striking but also the derived verb to forsmite 'to smite in pieces, to strike down', first attested ca. 1205 (cf. OED: s.v.).41603 I conclude from all this that the original meaning is that of 'striking' or 'throwing', i.e. things one - typically though not exclusively - does with a weapon. This is the meaning which is best preserved in English smite andforsmite. The meaning of 'smearing' evident in Middle High German is secondary. A parallel can be seen in PGmc. +strfka- which preserves its original meaning in English to strike whereas in German streichen it has taken on the meaning of 'smearing'. G streicheln 'to PGmc. +smitan and+smipaz 301 stroke, fondle' too has moved away from the original basic meaning, as has E to stroke; however the noun Streich 'blow, stroke' preserves the original meaning within German.5 PGmc. +smitan has no clear etymology. This is in part due to the fact that the original meaning of the word is under dispute. Only if the original meaning is assumed to be that of 'throwing' is there any possi­ ble Indo-European connection at all, namely with Lat. mittere 'to let go, send, throw, hurl,.6 I will return to this etymology in section 17.3 below.

17.2. Semit. s,mt 'to vanquish', s,md 'to strike; weapon for striking or throwing'

In earlier publications I have suggested that Germanic strong verbs without etymology may be prehistoric borrowings from Semitic (V en­ nemann 1998c: 42, 2000b: 252), and for several verbs concrete Semitic etymologies have been proposed: +metan V 'to measure' (Vennemann 1995: 105f.)7, +wak(n)an VI 'to wake up' (Vennemann 1997a: 894f.), +plegan V 'to cultivate' (Vennemann 1998d), +dragan VI 'to drag' (Vennemann 2002b), +drepan V/IV 'to hit' (Mail , Laker, and Vennemann 2003). As for PGmc. +smitan, the following passage from the Ugaritic Baal Cycle (Smith 1994) opens up the possibility that the same may be done for this verb, too: r604

8 ht.°ibk 9 bClm.ht.°ibk.tmb~.ht.t~mt~rtk8 (Smith 1994: 319)

This passage is translated, vocalized, and metrically arranged by Smith (1994: 322) as follows:

9 Now your foe, Baal, hitta °iba-ka baclu-mi Now your foe may you smite, hitta °iba-ka timba~ Now may you vanquish your enemy. hitta ta~mit ~arrata-ka

Evidently Smith here translates the root mlt~ as 'smite', and the root ~mt as 'vanquish'. However, since E smite and vanquish are similar in meaning9 and are here used as stylistic variants for poetic purposes, one may speculate that the meaning of U garitic ~mt is not very distant from that of PGmc. +smitan. The thematic vowel in a root of the structure (no guttural as second or third consonant) and meaning (fientic, transitive) w of U garit. ~mt is regularly _i_. Cf. the following partial (singular) para- 302 PGmc. +smitan and +smij:mz digm of the short form of the prefix conjugation (Tropper 2000: 453- 455), which expresses the meaning perfective, viz. (a) "preterite" and (b) "jussive" (Tropper 2000: 431):

1st Q-a~mit 2nd m. t-a~mit f. t-a~mit-i 3rd m. y-a~mit f. t-a~mit

The long form of the prefix conjugation, which expresses the meaning imperfective or "present tense" (Tropper 2000: 431), differs from the short form only by adding a -u to suffixless forms and -n after suffixed vowels (Tropper 2000: 457). Since early Germanic did not have para­ digmatic prefixes of this sort, the Qa-, ta-, ya- etc. at the beginning of such verb forms were likely to be misinterpreted by the Germanic speakers as some sort of pronouns, leaving ~mit- as what appeared to be the verbal root. One way of integrating this abstracted root form into the early Germanic verb system was treating it as a class 1602 I root. The same would hold true for the root or root variant ~md- to be treated directly. 11 Krahmalkov (2000) has an entry $MD 'mace, club' used as an epi­ thet of Bacal in the expression bacal ~md 'Baal of the Mace'. He writes, "Reference is to the mace made for Baal by the god Kusar (K6thar) with which he smashes his enemies." Krahmalkov compares the root to Ugaritic ~md. Smith (1994) discusses this root ~md, which occurs several times in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, on pp. 330 and 338-340. He writes in particu­ lar:

The word s.md(m) refers to a weapon of some sort .... The nature of the weapon is not clearly understood although attempts to resolve the difficulty have been made on the basis of a variety of etymologies. Albright (1941: 16 n. 24a; TOl2 136 b. 0) compared Arabic s.amada, 'to strike' (Lane 1726-27).13 Neuberg (1950: 164) suggests the root *s.mt, 'to destroy,' and assuming Neuberg's view, GaIT (1986: 52) explains the variation in the final consonant as a phonological shift involving voicing. Ginsberg (1935: 328) and Rosenthal (1953: 72-83; cf. Good 1984: 80-81) relate the word to the root cjamada which refers to binding or tying. Ginsberg (1935: 328) identified s.md(m) with the two-pieced maces excavated at Ugarit. The weapon consists of two pieces, a head latched onto a handle, specifically in Ginsberg's words (1935: 328) "a mace with a stone head drilled through to adjust the wooden shaft, to which it is lashed tightly with thongs; and hence the name from the root s.md 'to bind.' Such mace heads are found frequently in excavations." PGmc. +smitan and +smipaz 303

Yadin (1970: 211-14) also relates ~mdm to iconographic evidence. According to Yadin, the two ~mdm symbolize double-lightning bound at the middle. Yadin appeals to depictions of the storm god holding double-lightning in his right hand .... A famous stele from Ugarit, sometimes called the 'Baal au foudre' [Baal of the Thunderbolt] stele and housed in the Louvre, depicts Baal wielding two weapons. The weapon in his right hand is sometimes characterized as a mace . ... In his left hand Baal holds 'tree-lightning' (Smith 1994: 338f.).

Whatever the exact nature of the weapon may have been, it can be in­ ferred from the text that it was one that did not have to be in the weapon-bearer's hands to be effective, i.e. it must have been a weapon suitable for throwing: r606

15 ... yrtq~.~md. bdbcl.km.nsr 16 [b~u]sbCth ... (Smith 1994: 319) 15 The ~eapon leaps from Baal's hand, yirtaqi~u ~amdu bacti bacli 16 Like a raptor from his [fin]gers. kama nasri [bi-~u~]buci:Hi-hu (Smith 1994: 323)14

Smith therefore accepts earlier suggestions according to which Baal's ~mdm made by Kotharl5 correspond with Zeus's "thunderbolts made by Cyclopes, the son [sic] of the craftsman-god Hephaistos"16, and thus have a meteorological character (1994: 340).17 Tropper (2000) has several roots of the forms !imd or !imt: !imd 'an­ schirren' ['to harness' J (p. 105), !imtls.md 'vertraglich ubergeben' ['to hand over, consign' J (pp. 464, 465), !imt 'vernichten' ['to annihilate, destroy, crush (adversaries),] (p. 554,560).18

17.3. Lat. mittere 'to let go, send, throw, hurl'

As I said at the end of section 17.1 above, the only Indo-European connection for PGmc. +smitan repeatedly offered in the etymological dictionaries (and only under the assumption that the basic sense is that of 'throwing') is with Lat. r607 mittere 'to let go, send, throw, hurl '19, which shows an initial s- after the prefix co(n)- in cosmittere (cf. Walde/Hofmann 1982: s.v. mitto, with references), which is normally committere 'to put together, unite, join'. Various reconstructions of the Latin root have been offered, according to assumed connections made within Indo-European and further deyelopments within prehistoric 304 PGmc. +smitan and +smipaz

Latin, none of them conclusive: *smeid-, *smeit-, *smid-, *smit-. I pro­ pose that Latin mittere has the same Semitic source as PGmc. +smitan: a word based on one of the root variants !imdl!imt, namely the stem with the thematic vowel i: -( a)!imid-I-( a)!imit-.

17.4. PGmc. +smijJaz 'smith', +smijJon 'to forge, smithy'

PGmc. +smitan 'to strike' and +smipaz 'smith', +smipon 'to forge, smithy' share obvious phonological and semantic properties."o Yet they cannot be etymologically connected within Indo-European-based Ger­ manic lexicology because of the difference in the final root consonants: There is no Germanic sound law that connects PGmc. +t and +p, or Pre­ Gmc. +d and +t. And indeed the etymological dictionaries I have con­ sulted for this purpose do not connect the two roots. Thus, if the two roots are to be connected etymologically this can only be done under the assumption that all of these words are members of a loan complex, for which such variation would not be unusual. In the case in hand, it so happens that exactly the same variation already occurs in the donor lan­ guage, if we assume that words based on the Central Semitic root vari­ ants !imd and !imt found their way into Pre-Germanic as superstratal loans. Indeed, as we see in Kluge/Seebold 1995: s.v. Schmied ['smith'], the noun +smijJ-a-z 'smith' does not have a clear Indo-European ety­ mology either. "AuBergermanisch vergleicht sich allenfalls gr. smtle f. 'Schnitzmesser'. Weitere Herkunft unklar" (Kluge/Seebold 1995: s.v. Schmied). !Outside Germanic there is, at best, one item to be compared: Greek smlle fern. 'carving knife'.1 Pfeifer et al. (1997: s.v. Schmied) add ("perhaps") Lith. smailits 'scharf, spitz(ig), zugespitzt' ['sharp, pointed'l and assume, on this evidence, an Indo-European root *smei-, 1608 *smai-, *smt-."I The OED (s.v. smith) does not propose any con­ nections outside Germanic. This suggests that we look for an external etymology, and we may suspect PGmc. +smipaz to be a Semitic loan­ word based on the root variant !imt. Both Kluge/Seebold (1995: s.v. Schmied) and the OED (s.v. smith) assume an original more general meaning of the word, such as 'artist, artisan, craftsman, skilled worker, in metal, wood, or other material'. Today the smith is, both in English and German, the metal smith, and I consider it likely that this was the original meaning and the motivation for the borrowing: A new type of profession as copper and then bronze workers became ever more important, especially for the manufacture of weapons."" The fact that in Gothic only aizasmipa2l '' (in 2 PGmc. +smitan and +smipaz 305

Tim. 4.14, with aiz neut., the only inherited term for 'metal ') is attested is not adverse to the idea: The Greek term to be translated (in 2 Tim. 4.14) was xaAKEvs, and since Greek XaAKoS is translated (in Mk 6.8) by Goth. aiz it seems natural that Wulfila specified Goth. +smips24 for this term. Since the word smith occurs frequently as a second element in combinations, such as black-, copper-, gold-, gun-, iron-, lock-, silver-, tin-, whitesmith (cf. OED: s.v. smith), it is understandable that the mean­ ing of smith by itself could obtain more general meanings. In English the history of the word is in harmony with r609 my proposal, because the earliest attestation (in Beowulf v. 1452) is wrepna smU) 'smith of weap­ ons' (OED: s.v. smith). The antiquity of the Germanic smith word is underlined by the ex­ istence of a related ablauting feminine noun, PGme. +smiJJtj. This word is reflected in ON sm{d and in OHG smida. The Old Norse word means 'kunstfertige Arbeit' fskilled work!, its Old Swedish reflex smidhe, 'smith's work' (de Vries 1977: s.v.). The Old High German word, how­ ever, means 'metal (to be worked on), jewelry'. The derived collective neutcr noun OHG gismidi means 'metal, metal tool(s), jewelry'; MHG gesmide refers to any kind of smith's work, such as metal tools, weap­ ons, armor, and NHG Geschmeide means '(set of) trinkets, jewels, (valu­ able piece of) jewelry' (Kluge/Seebold 1995: s. v. Geschmeide, Pfeifer et at. 1997: s.v. Geschmeide). Therefore, since in Old High German smida seems to be what a smid works on or creates by his work, and since the basic meaning of smida is 'metal', and the word is attested with this meaning very early (ca. 800), I consider OHG smida further support for my view that the original meaning of PGmc. +smipaz is 'metal smith', exactly as in Contemporary English and German.

17.5. OE smiite ~pure, refined (of gold)', ON smeittr 'enameled, in­ laid, enchased'

Heidermanns (1993: S.v. smaiti (I.e. PGme. +smaiti]) has an entry for an adjective which is only attested in Old English, smrete 'pure, refined (of gold)'zS, and which he relates to the strong verb *smeita-, i.e. POmc. +smitan, even though "die Bedeutungsentwicklung ist schwer zu verfol­ gen" [the semantic development is hard to trace I. He compares ON smeittr 'enameled, inlaid, enchased in metal', gultsmeittr 'enameled in or with gold'. ON smeittr is likewise compared to OE smiete and further to the reflexes of the Proto-Germanic strong verb +smUan by de Vries (1977: s.v.). While I agree that the semantic relationship is difficult, it is interesting to note that a connection is made by these etymologists be- 306 PGme. +smitan and +smipaz tween the verb PGmc. +smitan and a term relating to the activity of the +smijJaz, in his specialization as .

17.6. Problematic aspects of the new etymology

The etymological connection of PGmc. +smitan 'to strike' and +smijJaz 'smith' with the Semitic roots s.mt 'vanquish' and s.md 'to strike; weapon for striking or throwing' is not perfect. In the present section I will point out a number of problems. 1610 First, whereas Semit. s.md and s.mt may be variants of one and the same root (see section 17.2 above) and the same may be true of PGmc. +smit- (of +smitan) and +smip- (of +smipaz), there is no exact alignment between the final root consonants in the Semitic and Germanic words. Thus, while e.g. Arabic s.md 'to strike' and PGmc. +smit- 'to strike, throw' line up well, Ugarit. s.mt'to vanquish', if it is to be connected with PGmc. +smit- 'to strike, throw', shows the "wrong" consonant de­ gree. Perhaps this partial flaw is not very damaging, considering the fact that the confusion already seems to have existed in Semitic itself. Second, whereas the meaning of smithing is close to, and may well 26 derive from, that of smiting or striking , it is nevertheless a fact that the attested Semitic languages have several words for 'smith' but none de­ rived from s.md or s.mt. To ascribe such a word to the languages respon­ sible for the Semitic loan material in Proto-Germanic is thus hypotheti­ cal. This difficulty disappears if we follow the etymological dictionaries and dissociate the smith word from the smite word. Third, assuming a Semitic verbal root s.md as the source etymon of PGmc. +smit- makes it difficult to connect either +smitan 'to strike, throw' or +smipaz 'smith' with PGmc. +maitan VII 'to cut, hew' (Goth. 2 3rd plur. red. pret. maimaitun, Mk 11.8) as a mobile s variant. ? Since such a connection is not considered by Kluge/Seebold (1995: s.v. Schmied) and is explicitly rejected by Lehmann (1986: s.v. maitan), this may not be a shortcoming of my proposal. Lehmann's verdict is "ety­ mology doubtful" for PGmc. +maitan, Goth. maitan and "Definite relationships elsewhere not discovered" for +smitan in Goth. bi-smeitan, while for +smip- in Goth. piza-smipa Lehmann accepts the traditional connection with Greek OfLiAYJ 'knife' and the like and thus an Indo­ European etymology. Fourth, whereas in my etymologies of PGmc. +erpo 'earth' and +apal- 'nobility' I have assumed a sound substitution of Pre-Gmc. +th or PGmc. +p for Northwest Semitic S. (Northwest Semitic roots "rs., "s.I, cf. Vennemann 200la: 202), in the present paper I have assumed a sound PGme. +smitan and +smipaz 307 substitution of Gmc. +s for the same consonant. This, however, may not be problematical at all: In the earlier etymologies the substitution was prevocalic, a position where Pre-Gmc. +th and PGmc. +p were allowed; by contrast, in the present etymologies the substitution was word-initially before the consonant +m, a position where only Gmc. +s was allowed but not Pre-Gmc. +th or PGmc. +p (or any other consonant, for that matter). f611

17.7. Conclusion

The etymologies here proposed are of differential quality. The connec­ tion of PGmc. +smitan 'to strike, throw' with Central Semitic words de­ rived from the root s.md (variant s.mt) works well, both formally (sound structure and stem formation) and semantically. The etymological con­ nection of PGmc. +smipaz 'smith' with the same root on the other hand, though plausible on the grounds of phonological and semantic similari­ ties, is problematical inasmuch as no such connection seems to exist in Semitic itself, so that the traditional separation of PGmc. +smipaz 'smith' from PGmc. +smitan 'to strike, throw' remains a defensible position.

Notes

First published 2004 in: Adam Hyllested, Anders Richardt, Richardt Jorgen­ sen, Jenny Helena Larsson and Thomas Olander (eds.), Per asperaad asteriseos: Studia IndDgermanica in honorem lens Elmegard Rasmussen, sexagenarii ldibus Martiis anno MMIV, 601-613. Innsbruck: Institut fUr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck. 1. Cf. Seebold 1970: s.v. (-)SMEIT-A- 'schmeiBen' for the actually attested forms. According to the OED (s.v. smite st.Y.), the Scandinavian forms Swed. smita (smeta) , Norw. smita, Dan. smide are probably loan-words from Middle Low German. 2. I add my own translations in brackets. 3. That the meanings of striking (E to smite) and throwing (G sehmeifJen) may attach to one and the same word is also shown by the English verb to pelt (another word of obscure etymology!), which the OED glosses as follows: 'To strike with many or repeated blows (now, in Standard Eng., with some­ thing thrown); to assail with missiles. (The wider sense is still Sc. and 308 PGmc. +smitan and +smipaz

north. Eng.),' The bridging concept may be that of hitting, which is neutral in this regard. 4. The meaning of striking is also contained, and perhaps preseryed, in G SchmijJ 'durch die Mensur entstandene Narbe « 17. Jh.)' [a scar resulting from (a stroke of the sword receiyed in the face in) a student's duel (attested since the 17th century)], which is formally the zero-grade noun derived from the root of schmeijJen 'to throw'. Cf. Kluge/Seebold 1995: s.v. SchmijJ. 5. It comes as no surprise within my theory of a Semitic superstrate vocabu­ lary in Germanic that PGmc. +strika- too has no clear Indo-European ety­ mology; cf. Kluge/Seebold 1995: s.v. streichen, Seebold 1970: s.v. STREIK-A- 'streichen'. The same is true of PGmc. +streuka- (idem), which Seebold considers a variant of +strika- (cf. Seebold 1970: s.y. STREUK-A­ 'streichen'). I hope to propose a Semitic etymology for these Germanic strong yerbs on a later occasion. 6. Cf. Kluge/Seebold 1995: s.y. schmeijJen, Seebold 1970: s.y. (-)SMEIT-A-, Walde/Hofmann 1982: s.y. mitto. pfeifer et al. (1997: s.y. schmeijJen) and the OED (s.y. smite v.) draw no connection to similar Indo-European words at all. Ernout/Meillet (1985: s. Y. mitto), considering the meaning of Goth. bismeitan '€mxpt€tv, to anoint, to besmear' as basic, reject this connection because the Germanic verb «est trop loin pour Ie sense» [is too distant se­ mantically]. 7. Cf. the analysis of the noun Goth. mitaps 'measure' in Vennemann 2002a: 11. 8. Here Smith (1994: 320, ad line 9) notes that of three editions of the cunei­ form text one has a word divider after t~mt while two do not. 9. Note with regard to E smite that G werjen, a synonym of G schmeijJen 'to throw', has compounds niederwerjen 'to throw down, lay low, suppress' and unterwerjen 'to subdue'. Cf. also E to jorsmite 'to smite in pieces, to strike down' mentioned in section 17.1 above. 10. It is, in a not quite predictable fashion, sometimes -U-. In the environment of guttural consonants and with non-fientie meanings it is -a-. This system­ atic use of the thematic vowel was characteristic of the older Semitic lan­ guages (Trapper 2000: 453). The variation between i and u as thematic vo­ wels appears sometimes to have carried through into Germanic, e.g. in PGmc. +strika- and +streuka- (cf. note 5 above). If thematic a may be as­ sumed for the ~md root, this could explain +smat- in E to smatter and in E to smash, Norw. dial. smaska (if < +smat-sk-a-), both of which have no etymology (cf. OED: s.yv.). I L But cf. note 13 below. 12. I.e. Caquot et al. 1974. 13. Lane has stem I (the imperfect, or "present", stem in Arabic) for the mean­ ing 'strike' with u, -( a)~mud-. Lane also lists the verb having the imperfect PGmc, +smHan and +smipaz 309

with a and i, but there its meaning is closer to 'put', In Modern Arabic the mcaning 'strike' seems to be lost. Among the several meanings associated with the root ~md, that of 'handgemein werden, kampfen (, .. mit j-m)' [to engage in a fight (with s,o,), fight (against g,o,)] (cL Wehr 1985: s,v, ~amada) comes closest to the old meaning of 'strike'. 14, The difference in the bracketing (for reconstructed text) is Smith's, The reconstruction is certain, for nearly the same text (introduced by w-, Le. wa 'and', and with km, Le, kama 'like' omitted) occurs shortly afterwards (in lines 23-24, cr. Smith 1994: 319,323), 15. Smith gives this interpretation to the following passage:

11 klqmdm.ynJ:!t.wypcr. smthm ... (Smith 1994: 319) 11 Kothar fashions the weapons, k61aru ~amdemi yinJ:!atu And he proclaims their names wa-yapcuru simati-huma (Smith 1994: 322)

As for the form ~mdm, which may be either dual or plural, Smith, while citing contrary views, interprets it as dual: "Kothar fashions ~mdm, the dual form, hence two ~ma' (Smith 1994: 338), 16, The three Cyclopes that gave Zeus his thunderbolts were sons of Uranos arrl Gaia (Bes, Theogonia 139ff., 501-506) and weapon smiths and helpers of Bephaistos (Orph. Fragmentum [Kern] 179); cf. Cancik and Schneider (eds.) V1.l999: s,v. Kyklopen. 17. Interestingly the epithet also appears to oecur in Arabic: "This title perhaps survived vestigially in the Quran (surah 112), where the word appears as a title of Allah: allahu ~-~amadu, 'Allah is AI-~amad'" (Smith 1994: 340). 18. Concerning the latter ~mt, Tropper (2000: 554) gives what is either a second meaning for the same root or a different root of the same form: "Moglicher­ weise Iiegen aber auch zwei verschiedene W[urz:eln] vor ('J~mtl 'schweigen'; ~~mt2 'zugrunde gehenlrichten')." [It is also possible that there exist two different roots (~-!mtl 'to be silent'; ~-!mt2 'to perish/to ruin').] 19, Originally also 'setzen, steIlen, legen' [to put], cf. WaldefHofmann 1982: S.v. mitto, Note the meaning 'to put' for Arab. -(a)~mid-, note 13 above. The meaning of throwing of the Latin verb is evident in the derived adjective mfssilis, -e 'throwable, missile'. 20. This is expressed very succinctly in one of the meanings (2Ib) identified in the OED for the verb to smite: 'To strike with a hammer in doing smith­ work; now spec. to strike with the sledge.' The citations show this very well: A smyth of metal smytynge with an hamer (1388); The husband used to smite Jar Jimmy More the (1881); The smith , the assistant smites (1888). Note also Cursor Mundi 23238 (cf, OED: s.v, smith): 310 PGme. +smitan and +smipaz

Als it war dintes on a step! pat smythes smittes in a smepey.

21. Frisk 1991 and Chantraine 1984 (both s.v. GfLr/117) consider GfLrATj an in­ strument name in -ATJ like fL~ATJ 'surgical probe', XTJA~ 'cloven hoof, claw, talon, netting-needle, surgical tweezers', and likewise assume ("vermuten", "peut") a verbal root from which they also derive an Indo-European (!) *smi­ tu- (PGmc. > *smipu-, *smiOu-), even though the noun only exists in Germanic (and apparently never with the Verner variant). As for their recon­ structing a u-stem, the only possible evidence I know of is the genitive sin­ gular form smiOar alonside the more frequent sm/os in Old Icelandic (Guten­ brunner 1951: § 79) and the nominative plural smiOir alongside sm/Oar in Modem Icelandic. But since after the absorption of the u-stem nouns by the a-stem class some original a-stems acquired the -ar plural of the original u­ stems, just as the original u-stems acquired the -s genitive of the a-stems, the genitive singular form smiOar can hardly be considered proof of original u-stem membership of smior; and since in the nominative plural the suf­ fixes -ir and -ar may replace each other analogically, the plural doublet is no proof either. In Old High German and Old English the smith word is an a­ stern, and Gutenbrunner lists the Old Icelandic noun among the "reine a­ Stfammel" [pure a-stemsl Norwegian Saami (Lappish) smiOOa (de Vries 1977: s.v. smWf., section smiar m.) does not contradict this assumption. I mention in passing that a successful reconstruction of original u-stem membership of the smith word would be advantageous for a Semitic ety­ mology; cf. the analysis of PGmc. +mag-u-z 'boy' in Vennemann 2002a; 5. 22. That a word for the weapon-smith may be borrowed from a superstratum is shown by English armourer, borrowed like its base armour from Old French (first attested ca. 1400 and a. 1297, respectively, cf. OED: s.vv.). 23. With the n-stem +smip-on- 'smith' substituting for the a-stem +smip-a-z in composition; cf. Lehmann 1986: s.v. aizasmipa. 24. The simplex noun, PGmc. noun +smijJ-a-z, happens to be unattested in Gothic. 25. Cf. the entry smeat 'of gold: refined, pure' in the OED, attested between ca. 725 and a. 1225. The word is there characterized as "of obscure origin". 26. See note 20 above. 27. More precisely, such a connection is impossible with the root of PGmc. +maitan as a base. It is only possible with the assumption of s-los8 within Germanic. This is the proposal for PGmc. +smipaz (not +smitan) and +maitan in Southern 1999: 241 ("s-Ioss likely").