maneo.

Disputed. * De Vaan argues that the term probably continues a stative term due to the meaning "remain." Thus, he reconstructs Proto-Indo-European *m̥néh₁yeti (“to remain”), a stative verb from *men- (“to stay, stand still”) + *-éh₁yeti. However, Schrijver argues that the expected outcome of a zero-grade form *m̥néh₁yeti would be Proto-Italic *menē-. * Schrijver suggests that that the term may have borrowed the /-o-/ from the perfect form *memon-. Though, De Vaan notes that there is no other conclusive evidence in any Indo-European language for this perfect form. Regardless, Schrijver posits that the term would have then undergone the unrounding of *mo- to *ma-. De Vaan argues that it is unclear why maneō would have undergone such unrounding but not moneō. Schrijver, however, suggests that—unlike moneō—the term was not causative and therefore lacked any analogical pressure to restore the o-vocalism. * An alternative hypothesis proposed by Sihler maintains that the term developed from the pre-form Proto-Italic *menēō and added an /a/ according to the model of terms such as Latin habeō, although De Vaan argues that there is no sufficient reason for supporting such a development. This theory is further problematic as there are many other stative verbs with e-vocalism, such as sedeō (“to sit”) or teneō (“to hold”). De Vaan explains the perfect form mānsī as derived from the perfect passive participle mānsus, which he argues replaced earlier *mantos. According to De Vaan, this older form may be the source of Latin mantō. Rix traces the perfect form back to a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist *mḗn-s-t, whence also perhaps Ancient Greek ἔμεινα (émeina). Related to Persian ماندن (mândan, “to remain”) and Ancient Greek μένω (ménō, “to remain”).