*u̯ozzeimmo/i-

Within the Cuneiform Luwian corpus, the verb is found only once in a NS birth ritual fragment.

[E.R.]

part. nom. pl. c.

˹wa-az-za-im-mi-in-zi˺

KUB 35.144, 2’

(CTH 765, NS)

Although the upper part of virtually every sign of the word is broken off, the reading is clear (see Starke 1985b:229).

[E.R.]

The fragmentary context does not lend itself to a semantic interpretation of the word, but the participle could belong to a verb in either -ā(i)-^(di) or -(a)ī-^(di). The former would be derived from the a-stem noun wazza- attested in Hittite transmission (thus tentatively HEG W-Z:459f.; Melchert (pers. comm.), contra CLL:269: “cognate of HLuw. wa/i-za- ‘drive’?”). Based on the meaning of wazza- ‘request’ (see under Lemma), a semantic interpretation as ‘to request, pledge’ with a participle ‘requested, pledged’ is possible. Another possibility is a denominal possessive in -āimma/i- ‘having a request, plea’ → ‘requested, wanted’ vel sim. without an intervening verb. If, however, the stem is wazz(a)ī-^(di), a denominative derivative built from wazza- ‘plea’ would give rise to the same meaning, as would a deradical iterative stem in -(a)ī-^(di).

Etymological considerations involving Lyc. wezzeimi, whose meaning is not assured (see under Lemma), are of no use in terms of semantics, but see under Stem.

[E.R.]

For a classification of the stem, which is not possible on account of the ambiguity of wazzaimma/i-, only etymological considerations can help. A comparison with Lycian wezzeime/i-, if entertained, would narrow down the options listed under Meaning to /wazz(a)i-^(di)/. However, caution is appropriate here due to the dearth of semantic clues.

[E.R.]

This lexeme is found in a dedicatory inscription on a statue.

[D.S.]

acc. sg. c.

ẉezzeimi

TL 51.3 (Xanthos)

For the interpretation of wezzeimi as accusative singular, see the discussion under Meaning.

[D.S.]

In the literature, it has been debated whether wezzeimi in TL 51 is an attribute of tideimi ‘child’ or the actual name of the child, and the same question arose with the following word tehluse: Meriggi 1980b:219 interprets tehluse as a personal name with wezzeimi as its attribute (likewise Neumann 2007a:425; outdated Carruba 1977a:307f.). Differently, Melchert (DLL:107) takes wezzeimi as the name of the child, and tehluse as a title in apposition to the personal name. A third analysis is offered by Schürr 2012a:122 (and Schürr 2017-2018a:262),  taking wezzeimi as the personal name of the child in the accusative and tehluse as the personal name of the beneficiary in the dative singular. Furthermore, he points out that the word tehlu[s] appears within a similar context in TL 44b.43-44, i.e. the production and dedication of a statue. This observation calls into question whether tehluse can really be a personal name; see under lemma.

From an etymological perspective, it was suggested by Shevoroshkin (apud Neumann 2007a:425) that wezzeime/i- could be related to the Luwian root /wazz-/ ‘to desire, request’, and the meaning ‘beloved’ would be adequate as an attribute to the child. Needless to say, if wezzeime/i- turns out to be a personal name, the same meaning obtained by the etymological approach would be acceptable for the underlying noun. However, the syntax of the passage can be clarified by comparing similar inscriptions. Such a passage is found in TL 28, in which one finds the word kbatru ‘daughter’ in the accusative singular instead of tideimi ‘child, son’. The unambiguous accusative singular ending of the a-stem noun kbatra-, i.e. kbatru, makes it clear that tideimi in TL 51 should likewise be taken as an accusative singular.

                ñt(e)=ene putinezi tuw[ete] prijabuhãmah kbatru (n^?…^?) mlttaimi … (TL 28.1-3) (cf. Tekoğlu 2017a)

                ‘Putinezi set it (scil. the statue) up as (his) mlltaimi daughter …’

                ñt(e)=ene qarñnaxa tuwẹ[te] qñtbeh tideimi ehbi ẉezzeimi … (TL 51.1-3)

                ‘Qarñnaxa, (child) of Qñtbe, set it (scil. the statue) up as his wezzeimi child…’

A newly found inscription, parallel to TL 28, does not use the word mlttaimi, but the possessive pronoun ehbi ‘his’ instead:

                [ñt(e)=ene] putin[e]zi tuwete [prija]buhãmah kbatru ehbi [..(5)..]tiweh tezi (Tekoğlu 2017a)

                ‘Putinezi, (child) of Prijabuhãma, set it (scil. the statue) up as his daughter for the sarcophagus of …tiweh.

Furthermore, it is important to notice that in inscriptions TL 28 and TL 51, the child-words are followed by adjectival formations in -e/aime/i-. This reduces the chances that wezzeimi and mlttaimi are the names of two children, coincidentally built with the same suffix (otherwise unattested for personal names), and renders a different analysis much more likely, viz. as genuine adjectives. Although this leaves the children nameless within these inscriptions,  parallel cases in Lycian inscriptions likewise omit the names of the children, e.g. TL 4.3, TL 143.5, N 309d. In sum, the meaning ‘beloved (?)’ for wezzeime/i- is the best option and is accepted here tentatively.

[D.S.]

Lycian wezzeime/i- could be the participle of a verb wezz(e)i-^(di) or a denominal formation from a base *wezze/i- c. or *wezze- n. The action noun found in Luw. /wazza-/ c. would yield Lyc. *wazza- c. (see also wzzai(je)-), a common gender stem in -a-, from which a possessive adjective in -aime/i- would be expected. Therefore, on morphological grounds, the assumption of a causative iterative in -(e)i-^(di) is more likely.

[D.S.]