tēk-
‘to flow’
- Language
- Palaic
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1117
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Palaic
tēk-
‘to flow’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in the festival for the Palaic pantheon.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| part. nom. sg. c. | te-e-ka-an-za | KBo 19.153 iii 7’ | (CTH 751, NS) |
| [te-e-k]a-an-za | KBo 19.153 iii 19’ | (CTH 751, NS) | |
| te-ga!-a-an-za | KBo 19.152 i 12’ | (CTH 751, MS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the Photographs in the Konkordanz. The attestation found in KBo 19.152 i 12’ is spelled as <te-ta-a-an-za>, i.e. with the sign <ta> instead of expected <ga> or <ka>. Carruba 1972a:45 assumes that an original copy must have had the sign <ga>, which was falsely read by the scribe as <ta>, because of the following sign <a> beginning with a vertical wedge. The suggested emendation of Carruba is accepted here (also followed by Watkins 1978a:310), because the passage is the same as the one found on fragment KBo 19.153.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
The word tēkanz(a) in all three attestations describes an action performed by the river (ḫāpna-) and is followed by an action with a dagger. Carruba 1972a:45 suggests an etymological connection with Hitt. tēkan ‘earth’ and posits the meaning ‘buried’, i.e. ‘the river is buried’. On the other hand, Watkins 1978a:310f. interprets the passage as an illustration of the animal sacrifice being performed and expects the river to be used metaphorically for blood (followed by Sasseville 2019a:24). This is also supported by the mention of a dagger immediately following the action of the river. His semantic assignment is superior to the one of Carruba; cf. Melchert 1994a:193.
[D.S.]
1.1.5Stem
The participial form in -ant- alone is not enough to attribute this lexeme to any verbal stem class.
[D.S.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.6.1Uncertain Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to flow’
Watkins 1978a:311 suggests an etymological connection with the Proto-Indo-European root *teku̯- ‘to flow’ (see LIV²:620f., possibly found in Hitt. watkuzzi ´to jump (out of), to flee´ see EDHIL:990 with further literature) and assumes that the original shape of the root was *tek-. In order to account for the lenition in the Palaic verb te-e-kV- reflecting /tḗg-/, Eichner (apud Wallace 1982-1983a:52) suggests that this verb was originally a Narten present with lengthened e-grade in the singular and short e-grade in the plural, i.e. PA *tḗg-/tékk-. Then, the lenited variant of the singular forms would have been levelled out within the paradigm. This hypothetical reconstruction is entirely plausible in formal terms but has been criticized by Melchert 1994a:193 as being entirely ad hoc.
[D.S.]