From: stlatos
Message: 68404
Date: 2012-01-23
>Assuming these are related (probably the best choice), PIE * x+mYèyt.+ \ mYèyt.+x+ , not * smeid-, would be my choice. The order of cp. for x+ doesn't matter, like many C order. The t.x > tH > t is better than positing -d- with no ev. (d vs t could result from x+ vs +x, but it needn't since C>CH and CH>C by x were opt. for all IE).
> The original sense of PIE *smeid- is very likely retained in Modern English <smite>. (Pokorny did not recognize this as a distinct root, and Mallory & Adams cite it as 'smear', clearly a derived sense.) Reflexes include Gothic <ga-smeitan> 'to strike', <bi-smeitan> 'to besmear'; Old English <smi:tan> 'to strike, smite, injure', <be-smi:tan> 'to besmear'; Old High German <smi:zan> 'to strike, hit', <bi-smi:zan> 'to defile'; Modern HG <schmeißen> 'to throw, hurl; fling (a door) shut, slam'. Derivatives such as OE <smitte> 'spot, stain, smut', Middle HG <smitze> 'id.', OE <smittian> 'to blemish, infect' suggest an intermediate sense, 'to afflict (crops) with blight', between 'to strike' and 'to besmear' in the older Germanic languages. The Italic sense-development leading from *smid-n-óh2 to <mitto:> would be something like 'strike (with a missile)' > 'throw (a missile), shoot (an arrow)' > 'send out'. The sense of <schmeißen> renders such a development plausible.
>