New Phrygian (-)τετικμενος, Hittite tekri and other descendants of PIE *dei̯ ḱ-*
Abstract
41
Full text
New Phrygian (-)τετικμενος, Hittite tekriand other descendants of PIE *dei -* Alexander Nikolaev Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München To Craig Melchert, with gratitude ABSTRACT This paper surveys the previous interpretations of NPhryg. (-)τετικμενος and argues in favor of atranslation ‘condemned’ and derivation from PIE *de- (Ved. diś-, Gk. δείκνυμι, Lat. dīcere). The proposed root connection finds support in the new etymological solution offered for Hitt. tekri- ‘derogation, condemnation’ < *do/e-ri-. The third piece of evidence for the root *de- used to express the idea of censure comes from PGmc. *teihan ‘to accuse’. The source of the semantics is sought in Indo-European poetic language; it is argued that the PIE root *de- could be employed in verbal contexts related not just to praise (Nikolaev 2012), but also to blame. KEYWORDS Indo-European, Phrygian, Hittite, Celtic, Germanic, etymology, poetic language 1. NEW PHRYGIAN (-)τετικμενος AND ITS ETYMOLOGY The participle (-)τετικμενος is one of the best attested New Phrygian forms (65x).1 It is attested in highly standardized malediction formulae that are generally agreed to describe the fate of aviolator of the tomb.2 The use of (-)τετικμενος can be illustrated by the following inscriptions: * Iwould like to thank Roberto Batisti, Giulio Imberciadori, Craig Melchert, Norbert Oettinger, Martin Peters, Massimo Poetto, Zachary Rothstein-Dowden, David Sasseville, Andrey Sideltsev and Michael Weiss for very helpful discussion and suggestions; it goes without saying that they may or may not agree with my conclusions. Iwould also like to thank the anonymous reviewer and the editor. Igratefully acknowledge support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. 1 See Obrador-Cursach 2020: 362–363. 2 The form is mostly found after the particle τι spelled as τι(τ)τετικμενος; it is once attested without τι (22.2 Obrador-Cursach = 118 Haas, with ahypercorrect spelling τετιοκμενος) and is twice found with ατε-/ατι-. Haas (1966: 88), followed by Lubotsky (1989: 86–87), plausibly explained the geminate as caused by the final consonant of the preceding particle (*tit tetikmenos). Another possibility is to take the τι from aprefix *d()is (~ Lat. dis-), see Obrador-Cursach 2020: 110 and cf. NPhr. τιδρεγρουν ‘inedible, unpalatable’ < *disdhregwhro- (Haas 1966: 67, cf. Gk. τρέφω ‘feed, bring up’, further compared by Adams 2005 to Skt. d(h)rākṣā- ‘grape’, Toch. B traksiñ (nom.pl.) ‘ears (of grain)’, Late Khotanese drrāṃśā- ‘millet’, OIr. derc ‘berry’ and Serbo-Croatian drên ‘cornel cherry’). OPEN ACCESS
42 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 ιος νι σεμον | κνουμανε κακον | αδακετ, δεως | ζεμελως τιτετικ|μενος ειτου ‘Whoever does harm to this tomb, let him be τετικμενος (in the sight of) gods and men’ (32.1 Obrador-Cursach = 93 Haas) ιος νι σεμον κνουμα|νε κακον δακετ αινι μανκα, τιε τιττετι|κμενος ειτου ‘Whoever does harm to this tomb or stele, let him be τετικμενος (by) Zeus’ (36.1 Obrador-Cursach = 26 Haas) AGreek inscription found in Çayırbaşı is widely assumed to contain acalque of the Phrygian formula in the third line: τίς δὲ ταύτη θαλάμειν κακν ποσποιήσει, κατηραμένος ἤτω ‘whoever does harm to this (funerary) chamber, let him be accursed’3 The morphological analysis of the form (-)τετικμενος is not in doubt: it clearly is amiddle participle made from areduplicated stem, most likely perfect.4 The meaning and the etymology of the root, however, have been much debated. Many solutions have been proposed, three of which have continued to enjoy popularity in contemporary scholarship. 1.1 The first one is due to Marstrander (1929: 296), according to whom (-)τετικμενος ‘cursed’ belongs with Old Irish tongid, ·toing ‘swears’, Middle Welsh tyngu ‘to swear’. This etymology was revived by Pokorny (1959: 1055) and more recently resuscitated in LIV2 615, where aroot *teg- ‘schwören’ is set up on the strength of the Celtic and Phrygian forms.5 This reconstruction is, however, beset with problems. As far as the Celtic side of this equation is concerned, there is no certainty whether the root vowel in ·toing goes back to PIE *uor *o. In Welsh, *tunge/oand *tonge/owould have the same reflex,6 while the Irish present stem ·toing is better explained either from *tunge/owith regular vowel lowering (H.Pedersen’s theory)7 or from 3 Obrador-Cursach 2020: 607. 4 Phrygian -μενοclearly reflects the PIE middle participle suffix, which may be reconstructed either as *meno or as *-mh1no-, as suggested by Klingenschmitt (1975: 163). Klingenschmitt was at the time doubtful about the Phrygian suffix, but the development *h1 > e/ C__C can currently be supported by several examples: δετουν ‘monument’ < *dhh1to-, δεως ‘by the gods’ < *dhh1s-ōs, keneman ‘niche, sepulcrum’ < *kenh1m n and perhaps aor. εκανες ‘dug’ < *k n h 1s- (see Lubotsky 1988: 15; Gorbachοv 2005: 211–2). 5 Sowa (2008: 115 n.42) hesitantly agrees with the LIV. 6 See Schrijver 1995: 27–9 for Proto-British raising of *ŏ to *ŭ before nasal + stop. 7 Pedersen 1909: 35, 41, 362: *u> *obefore *ein the following syllable if the intervening consonant(s) was non-palatal (see also Schrijver 1995: 50–52; before *oin the following syllable the lowering in Goidelic is universally accepted: *tungo- > *tongo-). Stüber (1998: 87) suggests aneutralization of phonemic opposition between /u/ and /o/ before agroup of nasal + stop in Irish (*bundeti > ·boind), which would be the opposite of the development in British. OPEN ACCESS
ALEXANDER NIKOLAEv 43 *tunge/owith an analogical replacement of 1 sg. ·tung : 3 sg. ·tuing by 1 sg. ·tung : 3 sg. ·toing (L.Joseph’s theory)8 or from *tenge/owith asecondary full grade (K.McCone’s theory),9 rather than from amorphologically suspect o-grade *tonge/oreconstructed by Marstrander.10 Aroot *teg- ( > *tog) will also account for Old Irish subj. tó ( < *tōxt < *togst) and Cornish ty ‘oath’ ( < *tugo-).11 The suppletive parts of the Averbo of this Celtic verb,12 namely, pret. ·tethaig (whose e-reduplication is incompatible with aroot with an internal u)13 and the verbal nouns fretech ‘foreswearing, renouncing’, díthech ‘oath of denial’ and éthech ‘false swearing’, may go back not only to Marstrander’s *tegbut also to the much better attested *tek- ‘to take’ (Proto-Germanic *þegja ‘to receive, to take’, Lithuanian tèkti ‘to be present in abundance, to suffice’, LIV2 618).14 As aparallel, Schumacher (2004: 632) cites the semantic development of PIE *h2emh3 ‘seize’ > Greek ὄμνυμι ‘swear’, Sanskrit ami- ‘injure’ and ‘swear’, explained by K.Hoffmann as ‘fest anfassen zur Eidesleistung’.15 The Celtic evidence can thus be explained on the basis of two roots, *tekand *teg- ( > *tog-).16 8 Joseph (1990: 121–124) argued that 1 sg. ·tung : 3 sg. ·toing imitated the pattern found in 1 sg. ·biur : 3 sg. ·beir and that the B III nasal presents going back to roots with *umaintained it as the root vowel through the Early Modern Irish period in some mss. (·buing, ·luing, ·tuing), but see Schrijver 1995: 52 on the latter point. 9 McCone 1991: 42–7: *tenge/o- > *tonge/o- > *tōnge/o- > *tonge/owith Osthoff’s Law. The same explanation is advanced by McCone for as·boind ‘refuses’ ( < *-bonde/o- < *-bōnde/o- < *-bonde/o- < *bende/o- < < *-bunde/o-, Greek πυνθάνομαι), bongid ‘breaks’ (*-bunge/o-), fo·loing ‘supports’ ( < *lunge/o-) and fo·roind ‘reddens’ ( < *-h1rundhe/o-). 10 The hypothesis that the o-grade was imported from an (unattested!) causative-iterative *tog-ee/o-(LEIA T-108) does not carry conviction. The LIV lemma further mentions Gaulish toncsiíontío, but it is absolutely not certain that this form (which does not necessarily mean ‘who will swear’) belongs to the same root as Old Irish ·toing; see the arguments against the connection advanced by Schumacher 2004: 651. Schrijver (1997: 181) compares the root of Old Irish tocad ‘chance, fate’, Middle Welsh tynghet, and the rare verb tocaid ‘to (be) destine(d)’ < *tonk-ee/o- (see Schumacher 1995). 11 See Joseph 1990: 118–20. As to the further origin of Celtic *tog, two theories have been proposed. Lindeman (1999) argued that this root is areflex of PIE *h1egwh- ‘solemnly proclaim’ with apreverb *(h2)d, while Schumacher (2004: 650–1) pointed out that synchronically the verbal noun of the simplex tongid is lug(a)e‘oath’ (Welsh llw, Cornish ly < *h2lugo-) and posited acontamination between PIE *tek- ‘extend (the hand), receive’ and PIE *h2legh- ‘(öffentlich) verkünden’ (Hittite ḫaluga- ‘message’, Gothic liugan ‘to lie’, Slavic *lъgati ‘id.’. Through the crossing of Proto-Celtic *tekand *log-, anew root *toghas emerged. 12 See Veselinović 2003: 166. 13 See McCone 1991: 45. 14 Compare the meaning of pret. con·tethaig ‘possesses, comprises’, unless the latter is related to the root *tagof Old Latin tagō, perf. contigit (Joseph 1990: 118). 15 Hoffmann 1969: 209. For hand gestures involved in taking an oath see Katz 1998. 16 Adifferent and less plausible etymology of ·toing was proposed by E.P.Hamp apud Koch 1992: 257, followed by Schulze-Thulin 2001: 215: Hamp compared Celtic *tonge/oto Latin tongēre ‘nōsse’, Oscan tanginúd ‘decree’, PDE think (PIE *teng(h)-, see Kümmel 2016). OPEN ACCESS
44 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 The evidence for aputative PIE root *teg- ‘to swear’ from which Phrygian (-)τετικμενος could be derived is thus very uncertain, but there is an additional serious weakness on the Phrygian side, namely, the purported development of *eto Phrygian -iin the medial syllable on which Marstrander chose not to comment.17 Little as we know about the phonology of Phrygian, it certainly did not behave like Latin with respect to its vowels. In fact, Phrygian vowels are surprisingly stable, both in Old and New Phrygian, cf. keneman ‘niche, sepulcrum’ < *kenh1m n ,18 acc. sg. materan ‘mother’ < *mah2tern , egertoy ‘?’,19 etc. This point is made particularly clear by the thematic vowel in such extremely well-attested forms as 3 sg. αββερετοι / -τορ ‘brings’ < *(ad)bhereto / -tor or αδδακετ (act.), αδδακετορ (mid.) ‘puts’ < *(ad-)dheh1ket / -tor. This phonetic difficulty seems to be fatal for Marstrander’s analysis. 1.2 The second solution was proposed by Haas (1966: 88), who connected (-)τετικμενος with the root of Greek στίζω ‘to brand’ and offered atranslation ‘brandmarkt’ (=Greek ἐστιγμένος). This etymology was justifiably criticized by Heubeck (1987: 74) on the grounds of semantics. Orel (1997: 59) accepted Haas’ solution faute de mieux but apparently shared Heubeck’s concerns and sought to improve on Haas’ idea by translating (-)τετικμενος ειτου by ‘let him be struck’ (1997: 68), potentially toying with aparallel in New High German fluchen ‘curse, swear’ from *pleh2g- ‘to strike’ (Greek πλήσσω). But the basic meaning of PIE *(s)tegis ‘to be sharp’, and even its transitive reflexes in the daughter languages show meanings closely related to the idea of sharpness, cf. Old Norse steikja ‘roast (on aspit)’ or Latin īnstīgāre ‘urge on (with agoad)’. It would be hard to imagine that the original meaning of Phrygian (-)τετικμενος referred to aconcrete action such as ‘sting’ or ‘pierce’. 1.3 Finally, aconnection between (-)τετικμενος and PIE *de- ‘show’ was proposed by Meister (1909: 318 n.1), who posited ameaning ‘(zur Bestrafung) zugesprochen / angezeigt’.20 Meister’s etymology was adopted by several scholars.21 This etymology 17 According to the dossier in Obrador-Cursach (2020: 362–3), the form is spelled with <ι> in sixty instances, while two outliers with <ει> and <ιο> can be easily explained as itacistic confusions; gen. pl. τιτετουκμενουν (33.1 Obrador-Cursach = 28 Haas) is abit problematic, but in the words of Sowa (2007: 90 n.43) “dürfte eher phonetische Ursachen haben als eine analogische o-Stufe.” 18 See Obrador-Cursach 2020: 126. 19 Janda (1997: 276) suggests ‘erects’ (*h1ger-, Greek ἐγείρω ‘wake up’, Albanian ngre ‘raise’). This etymology, however, is incompatible with the historical phonology of Phrygian adopted in this paper (*g > k); another possibility is that egertoy is afull-grade middle root aorist made from the root *her- ‘bring, take’ (LIV2 177). 20 Meister viewed the spelling ττετικμενος with an initial geminate as prefixed with azero grade of *(h2)ad- ‘to’ and directly compared Latin addīcō, Greek ἐπιδείκνυμι, but this is unnecessary, see n.2. 21 See Bonfante 1946: 89; Diakonoff & Neroznak 1985: 137; Neumann 1988: 4; Lubotsky 2004: 235 (who also accepts Brixhe’s emendation ιστεικετ for transmitted ισγεικετ (ObradorCursach 6.1 = Haas 88), analyzing the form as etymologically related to Greek ἐκδείκνυμι, OPEN ACCESS
ALEXANDER NIKOLAEv 45 faces both semantic and phonological difficulties, and yet Ibelieve that this is the correct solution. From the formal viewpoint, the advantage of this etymology is its ability to deal effectively with the problem of -iin the medial syllable of (-)τετικμενος. However, the proposed explanation hinges on amuch-vexed aspect of Phrygian phonology: (-)τετικμενος can only be derived from weak perfect stem *de-di if PIE voiced stops in this language turned into voiceless stops (*d > t). While it has always been widely agreed that PIE voiced aspirated stops became voiced stops in Phrygian, the outcome of PIE *d and *g has been debated; the once popular Lautverschiebung theory taking *d, *g to Phrygian t, kwas effectively resuscitated by Lubotsky (2004), who identified Phrygian tios, tie(i), tian as reflexes of PIE *de-. For PIE *d the transition to Phrygian t is further suggested by 3 sg. impv. οουιτετου ‘may he find’ (< *ed-) and the preverb ti(s) < *d()is, while *g > kis made likely by Phrygian βεκος ‘bread’ from the same root as Greek φώγω ‘bake’ and PDE bake,22 vrekun ‘idol?’ < *erǵom23 and knaik- ‘woman, wife’ < *gwneh₂ik-.24 In the past decade new arguments have been advanced in favor of an unconditioned devoicing of PIE unaspirated stops in Phrygian: the Old Phrygian form petes ‘feet’ (< *ped-es) was identified by Kloekhorst (2015), Old Phrygian totin was plausibly analyzed by Ligorio (2016) as areflex of *dh3-ti- ‘gift’ (Greek δόσις), Old Phrygian torvetun was tentatively taken from *doruby A.Lubotsky apud Hämmig 2013: 150 n.52, and unclear Old Phrygian tekiset and eveteksetiy were compared to Greek δέκομαι ‘accept’, PIE *de- by Tamsü Polat, Polat & Lubotsky (2020: 51); for Old Phrygian mekas ‘great’ (< *me-h2-)25 see the discussion by Obrador-Cursach (2016). It is important to emphasize that the recent identifications in particular are extremely tentative, and the devoicing of PIE voiced dentals and tectals in Phrygian is not universally accepted.26 On the balance, nevertheless, the evidence for devoicing of PIE unaspirated voiced stops in Phrygian appears strong enough to allow the derivation of τετικμενος from *de-di.27 but it remains unclear why the final consonant of the preverb was not assimilated to the initial dental of the root). 22 See Panagl & Kowal 1983: 186–7. 23 See Matzinger 2005: 386–90, who postulates aneutralization of voice distinction after /r/. 24 See Ligorio & Lubotsky 2018: 1823–4. Woodhouse (2006, 2009) advocated a(conditioned) devoicing of PIE unaspirated stops in Phrygian, but his sound laws would not allow one to derive (-)τετικμενος from *de-. 25 In this case the adjacent laryngeal may have played arole, cf. the unexpected reflex of PIE *d in Tocharian AB kätā- ‘strew’ (not *kätsā-) < *(s)kedh2-, Greek σκίδνημι, unless the development *d > t in this Tocharian verb is due to the adjacent nasal (but all examples for this development feature post-nasal devoicing, cf. AB späntā- ‘trust’ < *spend- (Latin spondēre) and see Hackstein 2017: 1324). 26 See the detailed rejoinder to Lubotsky 2004 by Matzinger (2006). Sowa (2008: 28 n.15), Gorbachov (2008: 95) and Woudhuizen (2021: 4–5) are likewise skeptical of the devoicing of PIE voiced stops in Phrygian. 27 New Phrygian <ε>δικες, translated by Orel (1997: 333, 369, 422) as ‘devoted, dedicated’ and derived from *de-, is in all likelihood unrelated and may go back to PIE *dhe(h)- ‘build up, fashion’, as Iintend to discuss elsewhere. OPEN ACCESS
46 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 The semantic difficulty appears more serious: the meaning of New Phrygian (-)τετικμενος seems rather different from that of PIE *de-, traditionally glossed as ‘to show’ or, in the formulation of E.Tichy, “to bring something that one sees oneself to the optical notice of another through verbal or nonverbal means”.28 This problem has not gone unnoticed (cf. e.g. R.Gusmani: “il senso è ben diverso”),29 and Iam not convinced by Lubotsky’s use of Greek διαδικάζω ‘judge’ and καταδικάζω ‘condemn’ as parallels:30 these verbs are derived from δίκη ‘rule, justice, judgment’, which is an inner-Greek formation,31 and thus represent aspecifically Greek development.32 The problem of the semantic relationship between New Phrygian (-)τετικμενος and PIE *de can be reassessed in the light of new insights about the usage of this PIE root. Based on some well-known facts about Germanic and anew analysis of Hittite tekri-, Iwill argue that the root *de was used to denote vituperative verbal acts and that this use of the root makes the contextually plausible meaning ‘condemned’ for (-)τετικμενος entirely unproblematic from the etymological viewpoint. 2. ANEW COMPARISON The undisputed reflex of PIE *de in Germanic is *teihan ‘to accuse’ (cf. Old High German zīhan ‘to incriminate’, Old Phrysian tīgia ‘id.’, New High German Anzeige ‘legal complaint’, etc.).33 Surprisingly, these forms have not, to my knowledge, figured in the discussion of New Phrygian (-)τετικμενος.34 The significance of this group of cognates is clear: both Germanic *teihan and the Phrygian form refer to something bad. In addition, there is athird piece of evidence for the root *dei used in asimilar fashion. Contrary to the handbooks, which do not list any Anatolian reflexes of PIE *de-, we may in fact find ahitherto unrecognized cognate in the Hittite word tekri-. This word is scantily attested: it is found in avocabulary list where [t]ekriš is found alongside markiyawar ‘disapproval, rejection’ and anda=kan impauwar, ultimately from anda impaiwhich normally refers to depression35 (KBo 26.10 iv 10 = KBO 26.11 rev.? 8),36 as well as in atantalizing MS fragment (CTH 832) where we read =]mu=kan 28 Tichy 1979: 171. 29 Gusmani 1958: 890. 30 Lubotsky 1998: 420 n.22; 2004: 235; similarly Anfosso 2017: 15. 31 Skt. diśā- ‘direction, region’ is traditionally— and rightly— viewed as an independent formation (see e.g. Dieu 2016: 141–2). 32 It seems equally unlikely that Phrygian tikadopted the meaning of Greek δικas the result of Greek-Phrygian language contact. 33 See the discussion by Hofmann 1972–1973: 73–75. 34 One exception is Neumann (1988: 4): “τετικμενος „verurteilt[?]“, wenn zu indogermanisch *de-, IEW 188f., deutsch „zeihen“.” 35 Kloekhorst 2008: 863 translates impaḫuwar as ‘making aburden’, probably assuming unattested factitive *impaḫḫ as the derivational base, but see HW2 4.56. 36 Ed. by Scheucher 2012: 584–7. The Sumerian and Akkadian equivalents are lost. Between [t]ekriš and markiyawar the vocabulary list has ḫateššanza, which may have been OPEN ACCESS
ALEXANDER NIKOLAEv 47 tekrin pa[rā (KBo 16.48+KBo 31.221 6’) after walaer ‘they struck’.37 Beside these fragmentary and obscure contexts the word was until recently known only from the Deeds of Suppiluliuma (CTH 40.IV.1.A), where it is found in the speech of Daḫamunzu, the queen of Egypt: KBo 5.6 rev. iii 14–15 (NH): ÌR=YA=ma=wa nūwān parā dai nu=war=an=za=kan LÚMUTI=YA iyami te-ek-ri=[w]anami ‘Iwill not take one of my subjects and make him my husband. Ifear tekri-’38 It has been noticed that asimilar idea is reprised afew lines later (iii 54–iv 2), where the queen says that if she had written to aforeign king about having ason from this mésalliance, it would be ashame for her and for the country (ammel=ya KUR-eaš tepnumar). The traditional assumption has therefore been that the words tekriš andtepnumar ‘humiliation, derogation, shame’ belong to the same semantic field, and tekriš has been translated as ‘defilement’.39 Anew context came to light thanks to joins made by Miller (2008: 121–24). Our word is found in aletter, possibly sent by the Hittite great king to the Assyrian used here in afigurative meaning referring to mental health (‘wilted’) rather than literal ‘dried up’. 37 Ed. by Groddek 2011: 39, who identifies the fragment as either belonging to aletter from aHittite king (l. 11’ dUTUŠI = mu in l. 6’) or containing aquote from such aletter. 38 naḫ(ḫ)- can be construed either with acc. (in which case word-final -n in tekrin has been assimilated to enclitic wa) or dat. (see CHD L–N 339–340). 39 ‘Befleckung’: J.Friedrich, H.Güterbock, H.Kronasser (see the references in Kloekhorst 2008: 863–64); ‘onta’: del Monte 2009: 113. E.Neu (apud Tischler 1993: 302), followed by Rieken 1999: 210–211, suggested aclosely related meaning ‘Kennzeichnung’ based on the purported etymological relationship with Hittite tekkuššiye/a- ‘to show’ and Greek τέκμαρ ‘sign’, but the Greek word most likely goes back to the same root *kwe- as in Vedic kāś- ~ cakṣ- ‘appear; observe; reveal’, see Nussbaum 2014; for Hittite takku- / tekku- ‘show’ see Sasseville 2019. Puhvel (2007: 285–86) argued for ‘degradation, stigma’ and derived tekrifrom PIE *(s)teg- (Greek στίγμα ‘brand’, Vedic tej- ‘to be sharp’). The following dissenting opinions are on the record: Kloekhorst (2008: 864) opted for the meaning ‘deposition, removal from power’ (from *de-2 ‘toss, hurl’), but see the persuasive criticisms by Alexandrov & Sideltsev (2009[2011]: 63–64) and Groddek (2011: 42), who points out that KBo 31.221 6’ (probably spoken by aHittite king) is problematic for Kloekhorst’s interpretation (note that the context to be discussed presently in the main text (KBo 18.28+) could not have been known to Kloekhorst prior to the completion of his dictionary); Breyer (2010) argued that tekrimeans ‘shameless woman, prostitute’ and is aloanword from Egyptian tꜣ-kꜣr.t ‘vulva’ (see Alexandrov & Sideltsev 2009[2011]: 65 and Groddek 2011 for acritical assessment and Breyer 2013 for aresponse); Manaster Ramer (ms.) posits the meaning ‘tying-up (of the womb)’ (for the Deeds of Suppiluliuma context) / ‘tying-up (of the target)’ (for KBo 18.28+), deriving the form from PIE *(s)teg- ‘cover’. For Melchert 2021: 384 n.13 “[its] origin remains unclear.” OPEN ACCESS
48 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 great king.40 The sender, responding to the addressee’s earlier insults, is accusing him of atreaty violation; in line 8’ of the letter he first paraphrases the addressee’s words: (8’) [kiša]n=pat kuit DU11-ši āššweni=m[a]n=wa=kan man ṬUPPU MĀMĪT DÙ-weni ‘Why do you say in this same way: “If (only) we made the oath treaty in afriendly manner?”’ Right after this the sender says, likely referring to avassal who was responsible for the misunderstanding between the two parties:41 (9’) [nu] te-ek-ri-in kuin te-ek-ri-i[š-ke-z]i ‘What tekri is he tekri-ing?’ It is clear that the traditional translation does not work here. Alexandrov & Sideltsev (2009[2011]) in their discussion of the exceedingly difficult beginning of this text (4’–12’) analyzed the clause nu tekrin kuin tekriškezi as a(rhetorical) question ‘what slander is he hurling?’. This translation is merely provisional, as the authors themselves admit; for our purposes it is sufficient to note that this phrase clearly denotes aspeech act of some kind.42 Important, too, is the figura etymologica that is particularly often found in Hittite with verbs of speaking: cf. memiyanus memai ‘speaks words’ (KUB 15.31 i18+) or ukmain ukzi ‘conjures aconjuration’ (KUB 12.58 i33). Outside of Anatolian one may compare English sing asong, Vedic śastím śam sa ‘sing praise’ (RV 4.3.3) or Greek ἀρὰς ἀρᾶσθαι ‘to hurl curses’ (Soph. OC 952). It is not unreasonable to speculate that the vassal who tekrin tekriškezi was speaking ill of some of the people involved in the treaty. The translation ‘accusation’, ‘condemnation’ is at least compatible with the fragmentary attestations of the word tekriand would fit particularly nicely the passage cited earlier from the Deeds of Suppiluliuma: the queen of Egypt is afraid of words of derogation or disapproval. 40 CTH 190: KBo 18.28+KBo 50.73+Bo 3626 (NH/NS); ed. Miller 2008: 121–24, trans. Alexandrov & Sideltsev 2009[2011]: 60. For the addressee of the letter see also Yamada 2011: 207–209. 41 It is important to emphasize that no certainty in the interpretation of this text has been achieved. 42 Cf. Melchert 2017: 179. In translating tekrin tekriškezi as ‘hurls aslander’ Alexandrov & Sideltsev (as well as other Hittitologists cited p.c.) may have been influenced by apossible etymological connection with the other root *de- ‘to hurl, to throw’ (Greek aor. δικέ/ό- ‘throw’, Khotanese dīśś-), cf. Greek διαβάλλω ‘reprove’. But while “to hurl slander” is aregular idiom in American English, it does not have to have been acceptable in Hittite. In addition, the etymological connection with *de- ‘to hurl’ is seriously compromised by the fact that the verb tekriške/ais adenominative verb made from tekri- (contrast Greek ἀρὰς ἀρᾶσθαι cited above, where ἀράομαι is adenominative verb made from ἀρᾱ ‘curse, imprecation’ < *h2er- ‘speak solemnly, curse’, see n.56 below). OPEN ACCESS
ALEXANDER NIKOLAEv 49 Phonologically and morphologically, nothing stands in the way of deriving tekri- (<te-ek-ri>) from the o-grade of the root *de.43 In Proto-Anatolian, the reflex of the PIE voiceless *- would be lenited after an accented diphthong,44 and then the diphthong would be monophthongized.45 In Anatolian, ri is amoderately productive suffix forming action / result nouns directly from verbal roots, cf. Hittite SÍGkišri- ‘skein of carded wool’ from ke/iš- ‘to comb’ or zēri- ‘fired clay cup’ from zē- ‘to be cooked done’.46 However, in the absence of any other traces of PIE *de- in Anatolian, tekriis best analyzed as an inherited formation going back to *do/e-ri-,47 itself asubstantivization of passive deverbative *d(e)ró of the type *sk/idró- (Ved. chidrá- ‘split’, Gmc. *skidra- ‘porous’, Latv. šk idrs ‘thin’).48 If the proposed etymology is correct,49 Hittite 43 Kloekhorst (2008: 864) has already suggested *de- as the etymon, but since he operated with ameaning ‘deposition, removal from power’, he chose the root *de-2 ‘to throw’ (see n.39). 44 Cf. Palaic ki-i-ta-ar ‘is lying’ < *e-tor, Luwian i-ti ‘he goes’ < *h1éi-ti, Hittite e-ḫu ‘come!’ < *h1e-h2o (Eichner 1973: 55). 45 E-grade *degrimight be another option, since after adental no raising of Proto-Anatolian *ē < *e to /i/ is expected. Kloekhorst (2008: 100) tentatively suggests that the following velar could have triggered raising just as the preceding velar did, citing Hittite ša-li-i-ga / slīga/ ‘he touches’ < *sle-oin support of this hypothesis, but secondarily root-accented zero-grade *sli-ois just as possible. In the absence of aconsensus about the reflexes of PIE *e in Hittite, o-grade *dorimay be phonologically easier. 46 See Melchert 1999: 365–68; 2021: 384–385. 47 An example of adeverbal derivative of this type attested in more than one branch is Vedic vádhri- ‘castrated (male)’, Greek Hsch. ε 696 ἐθρίς ‘castrated ram’, ι 400 ἴθρις ‘eunuch’; this comparison is not universally accepted (see e.g. Thieme 1954: 50–52), but was recently resuscitated by le Feuvre 2021: 320–321. The original root apophony in deverbal ri-stem-substantivizations cannot be reconstructed with certainty both because the examples are scarce and because the root ablaut could always have been aligned with that of the derivational basis or the verb (see the following footnote); the evidence of other istem deverbative substantives appears to suggest acrostatic declension (see Rau 2010: 181; Nikolaev 2014: 262 n.27), and so does the evidence of the much better attested substantivization of primary adjectives (*h2eró- ‘sharp’ → *h2ó/é-ri-‘sharpness, sharp thing’), making *do/eriamorphologically plausible reconstruction. 48 For substantivization of deverbative ro-adjectives cf. *iH-ro- ‘bent’ (Germanic *īra- ‘wire’, Old Irish fíar ‘crooked’) → *iH-ri- ‘what is bent’ (Greek ἴρις ‘rainbow’), *dhegwh-ro- ‘burning, burned’ (Greek τέφρα ‘ashes’) → *dhegwh-ri- ‘what is burning, burn’ (Latin febris ‘fever’), *steh2-ro- ‘still, rigid’ (Slavic *starъ ‘old’, Lithuanian stóras ‘thick, stout’, perhaps Old Norse stórr ‘big’) → *steh2-ri- ‘what is thick’ (Lithuanian stõris ‘thickness’), or *nh3-ro- ‘known; knowing’ (Latin gnārus) → *nh3-ri- ‘what is known; knowledge’ (→ Gk. γνωριμός ‘known’). An inherited (and possibly prototypical) example in Anatolian may be Hittite ēdri- ‘food’ < *h1ed-ri- (perhaps, *h1o/ed-riwith ablaut leveled after the verb) ← *h1ed-ro- ‘what is eaten’ (Lith. ėdrà ‘food’). 49 See n.39 above for alternative solutions that have been proposed. It should be noted that the word tekrican in theory go back to aplethora of other roots, none of which, however, seem to me to offer asemantically plausible connection. OPEN ACCESS
56 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 Turcan, I. (1982) Dire et faire dans le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes, in: Études indo-européennes 1, 3–21. Veselinović, E.M. (2003) Suppletion im irischen Verb, Hamburg: Kovač. Watkins, C. (1993) Some Anatolian words and forms, in: G.Meiser (ed.) Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65.Geburtstag [IBS 72], Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 469–478. Weiss, M. (2018) On the prehistory of Latin iūs, in: M. de Martino (ed.), The Comparative Mythology Today: Müller, Frazer, Dumézil. Perspectives from the Past to the Future. Atti del Primo Convegno del Comitato Scientifico di Speaking Souls— Animae Loquentes, Roma: Agora, 1–14. Woodhouse, R. (2006) Conditioned devoicing of mediae in Phrygian, in: Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 11, 157–191. — (2009) Devoicing of PIE mediae in Phrygian, in: Historische Sprachforschung 122, 208–227. Woudhuizen, F. (2021) The Phrygian language: an update, in: Kratylos 66, 1–17. Yamada, M. (2011) The second military conflict between “Assyria” and “atti” in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I, in: Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 105, 199–220. OPEN ACCESS