*u̯es-
‘pasture’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 1112
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lycian A
weh-
‘pasture (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This word is found in an inscription that is a bilingual decree of the Carian Satrap Pixodaros, who ruled between 340 and 335/34 BCE (see Bousquet 1986a).
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. | wehñ | TL 45b.3 (Xanthos) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
The inscription does not have word dividers, so that the separation in [ … ]eriti wehñ xñtaxa (thus Laroche 1979c:117), though entirely convincing, is a modern interpretation (cf. Neumann 2007a:422). Contra Gehrisch 2018a:100, the suggestion of emending to wehñ<ti>, in order to recover the name of the city of Phellos is neither convincing nor necessary.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
The semantic interpretation of the Lycian word weh- comes from the analysis of the city name wehñt(i)- ‘Phellos’ (cf. Lyc. B wesñtele/i- ‘Phellian’). Neumann (apud Heubeck 1985b:49) suggests an etymological equation with Hitt. weši- c. ‘pasture’. Thus, the meaning of the place name would be ‘having pastures’. Melchert (DLL:79) suggests that the missing base of the derivative in -ñt- is to be found in wehñ, attested in a fragmentary context. Although the semantics cannot be verified, Melchert’s approach is convincing, which is why the meaning ‘pasture’ for wehñ can be adopted tentatively.
[D.S.]
1.1.5Derivatives
- Wehñt(i)- (GN) (Neumann 2007a:415f.)
1.2 Hittite
weši-
‘pasture’1.2.1Literature / Comments
HEG W-Z:519-522.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘pasture’
The comparison of Lyc. A wehñ (also wehñt(i)- (GN) and Lyc. B wesñtele/i- ‘Phellian’) with Hitt. weši- c. ‘pasture’ allows for the reconstruction of a Proto-Anatolian substantive for ‘pasture’ (Heubeck 1985b:49). While the root must be reconstructed as *u̯es- (a diphthong root *u̯eis- is not possible on account of the Lycian vocalism; *ei̯ > Lyc. i), the stem formation is less clear. The i-stem seen in Hittite cannot be posited for the Lycian noun, which would then be expected to show an accusative singular in -i. Instead, the attested form may represent an original root noun secondarily transferred to another stem class. The Hittite agent noun formation wēštara- c. ‘herd’, if derived from the noun, would support this view. Therefore, the Hittite i-stem should not be projected back to Proto-Anatolian (pace EDHIL:1007). For a summary of the literature, see HEG W-Z:521.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The PIE root *u̯es- ‘to graze, pasture, consume, eat’ is attested both verbally and nominally. As far as the verbal stem formation is concerned, an ḗ/é-acrostatic present *u̯ḗs-/*u̯és- is reconstructed in LIV²:693f., although there are no direct traces of it in the individual languages apart from some lengthened-grade forms. The verbal stems attested rather point to different stem formations: Hitt. u̯ešii̯e/a-tta(ri) ‘to pasture (trans.), pasture (intrans.), graze’ < *u̯es-i̯e/o-,According to EDHIL:1007, this “probably is a denominal derivative, which would explain the fact that we find -e-grade in the root, which we normally would not expect in -i̯e/o-derived verbs (which go back to PIE *CC-i̯e/o-).” See also further below. Lat. vēscī ‘to feed on, eat; to enjoy’ < PItal. *u̯ēs-(s)ke/o- ← “*u̯es-ske/o-, with introduction of ē as (possibly) in Av. vāstra-, vāstar-. In view of the absence of verbal derivatives of the root outside Latin, this -ē- would probably have a nominal origin (e.g. from a root noun *u̯ēs, *u̯esos),” according to EDLIL:669. In LIV²:693f., Lat. vēscī is explained as an “[u]nklare Weiterbildung mit *-ske-” based on a PIE Narten present *u̯ḗs-/*u̯és-. In EDHIL:1008, the long ē in Lat. vēscī is explained as “just analogical after ēscō ‘to eat’”. Yet another explanation is considered in LIPP II:839 (with n. 4), 844, where Lat. vēscī is traced back to *u̯e-h1ed-sk̑e/o- ‘to bite off repeatedly’, a present in *-sk̑e/o- formed to the PIE root *h1ed- ‘to bite; to eat’ (LIV²:230f.).Similarly already WH II:769 (< *vē-ēscor). In EDLIL:669, however, such an etymology for Lat. vēscī ‘to feed on, eat; to enjoy’ is considered to be “unconvincing because of the semantic gap with ‘to enjoy’, and because of the passive conjugation of vēscor.” In Germanic, Goth. wisan ‘to feast, enjoy’, OE wesan ‘to feast’, etc. point to a thematic present PGerm. *u̯ese/a- < pre-PGerm. *u̯es-e/o-. – Among the nominal formations, Hitt. u̯ēštara- c. ‘herdsman’ seems to be a thematization of an already PIE agent noun *u̯ē̆́s-t(o)r- ‘herdsman’ preserved in OAv. vāstar- m. ‘id.’ (acc. sg. vāstārǝm Y 19.14, 27.13); cf. EDHIL:1008. OAv. vāstra- n. ‘pasture, food’ seems morphologically related as well.For Av. vāstar- m. ‘herdsman’ : vāstra- n. ‘pasture, food’, cf., e.g., Av. dātar- m. ‘giver’ : dāθra- n. ‘gift’ (Ved. dā́tar-, dātár- m. ‘giver’ : dātrá- n. ‘gift’). Other nominal formations do not reflect a lengthened-grade root *u̯ēs-; cf., e.g., Hitt. u̯eši- c. ‘pasture’ < *u̯és-i- (as per EDHIL:1007f.Alternatively, Hitt. u̯eši- can be connected with the PIE root *u̯ei̯s- ‘to sprout, blossom’ (LIV²:671f.); cf. HEG IV:522 with lit.), whence denominal u̯ešii̯e/a- ‘to pasture (trans.); to pasture (intrans.), graze’. Cf. also OIr. fess ‘food’ < *u̯es-teh2- (EDPC:417f.), ON vist ‘nutrition’ < *u̯es-ti- (LIV²:694 n. 1), and TochA wäsri ‘pasture’ < *u̯es-ri- (EDHIL:1007 s.v. u̯eši-).
[T.S.]