μῖσος and μισέω

There is agreement among Frisk (1960–1973: 243–244), Chantraine (2009: 678–679), and, in effect, Beekes (2010: 957) that the etymology of μῑσέω ‘hate’ (Hom. +) and μῖσος ‘(object of) hatred’ [A. +] has yet to be determined. Discovering the root ancestral to √μῑσ- depends on finding the source of the single intervocalic –σ– invariably so spelled in derivatives of this AtticIonic root. Since there are three kinds of clusters generally recognized as ancestral to Attic-Ionic –σ– (*–ss–, *–[dental]s–, *–t(h)j–), there are in principle numerous derivational possibilities. In practice, however, there is no Indo-European root phonologically, semantically, and morphologically adequate to justify any of the above-mentioned clusters.

In light of more recent research (Nussbaum 2013: 12–17), the set of clusters ancestral to –σ– may now include some cases of *–k(h)j–. Though these clusters are traditionally recognized as ancestral solely to geminates in –σσ– and –ττ– (Lejeune 1972: 104–105), there is some evidence that –σ– was the regular pandialectal treatment of tautosyllabic *–.k(h)j–. This treatment may be inferred from (1) some consistent singleton spellings (e.g. γλαυσόν . λαμπρόν [Hsch.] [< *glaukjó-] : γλαυκός ‘shining, grey’ [Hom. +]), (2) –σσ– beside –σ– (e.g. ὑπογλαύσσω ‘glance furtively’ [Call.Dian.54, Mosch.2.86], διαγλαύσσω ‘shine brightly’ [A.R.1.1281] : γλαύσουσιν . ἀντὶ τοῦ λάμπουσι [EM.233.19]; λεύσσω ‘look, gaze’ : λεύσω [< *leu.k-je/o-] : λευκός ‘white’ [Hom. +]), and even (3) a case of consistent –σσ– (ἆσσον ‘nearer’ in Attic, where it must reflect *ans₂on/s < *an.khjon/s [: ἄγχι]). Cases like Att. πρᾱ́ττω (: ἔπρᾱξα) = Ion. πρήσσω (: ἔπρηξα) ‘do’ < *prā.kje/o- are analogical to φυλάττω and φυλάσσω (: ἐφύλαξα) ‘guard’ <*phulăk.je/o-, etc.

Acceptance of *–.k(h)j– > –σ– allows the reconstruction of a Proto-Greek sequence *mī.kj– for √μῑσ-, for which I hypothesize a connection to √μῑκ- ‘little, small’. Beside μῑκρός, √μῑκ- forms various derivatives with post-radical –υ– (e.g. PN Μικυθος ́ [Hdt.170, etc.]; μῑκύθινον . τὸ μικρὸν καὶ νήπιον [Hsch.]) and –ι– (e.g. Μῑκίνας [D.S.17.113.1, etc.]). This substitutive family, not unlike that of √ἀργ- (e.g. ἀργ-ι–νόεις : ἄργ-υ–φος [Hom.]), includes an adjective μῑκκός ‘μῑκρός’ (Ar.Ach.909, etc.) evaluably interpretable as the derivative of a u-stem evidenced by post-radical –υ– (i.e. *mīkwó-; cf. πέλεκκον ‘axe-handle’ : πέλεκυς ‘axe’ [Hom.]; στεινός [< *stenwó-] : TN Στενύκληρος [Hdt.9.64.2]).

Correspondingly, I propose that the i-stem supported by this family’s post-radical –ι– was the base of a derived thematic adjective (i.e.             *(R)-i̯-ó-; cf. καινός [< *kn̥-i̯-ó-] : OIr. cain ‘fine’ < *kn̥n-i- ‘fresh’), which formed a *-i̯e/o- present (i.e. *(R)-i̯-é-i̯e/o-). Since this verb originally expressed the factitive meaning ‘make x small/little, lessen’, it is conceivable that it was used in the figurative, specifically estimative sense ‘think little of, disdain’ (cf. ἐχθαίρω ‘consider x (an) ἐχθρός, hate’ [Hom. +]; cf. Hitt. tepnu- ‘humiliate’ [: tepu- ‘little’] and PDE belittle, slight, etc.). These semantics produced a Greek *mī.kj-éje/o- ‘think little of, disdain, despise’ > μῑσέω ‘hate’, to which the later-attested μῖσος ‘hatred’ was back-formed.