wrato/u-
‘(a priestly office) (?)’
- Language
- Lydian
- Grammar
- subst, common
- ID
- 1392
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lydian
wrato/u-
‘(a priestly office) (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme occurs three times in poetic inscriptions from the Sardis cemetery (5th/4th? c. BCE), and once in a dedicatory inscription from the Middle Kaystros valley and datable to the 16th regnal year of King Artaxerxes (number uncertain).
[I.Y.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | wratos | LW 13.9 (Sardis) | |
| LW 13.11 (Sardis) | |||
| dat. sg. | wratuλ | LW 11.3 (Sardis) | |
| wra<t>uλ | LW 41.4 (Falaka) |
The forms in the table above do not belong with certainty to the same lexeme; see the discussion below. The paradigm given here is ultimately based on the proposal by Brandenstein 1931a:69.
[I.Y.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
The emendation wra<t>uλ was offered by Brandenstein 1931a:68 n. 3 based on the observation that the sequence au does not otherwise occur in Lydian texts. The alternative hypothesis of Gusmani 1964a:228 implies that au instead of the expected o reflects archaizing orthography. Since LW 41 is not a poetic inscription, I regard the second hypothesis as less likely.
[I.Y.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The alternation between the vowels o and u does not have good synchronic parallels in the Lydian corpus (cf. Gusmani 1964a:31). Historically, however, it can be interpreted as a vestige of the ablaut alternation *ou̯ ~ *u. If wratos and wratuλ belong to the same paradigm, it must have featured the full grade of the suffix vowel in the nom.sg. and its zero grade in the dat.sg., i.e. it was hysterokinetic.
[I.Y]
1.1.4Meaning
The view of Meriggi 1935a:107 that wratos must denote a person was followed by Gusmani 1964a:227f. and Schürr 1997a:210 n. 23. If one factors in LW 4.4 wra<t>uλ artimulλ, this narrows down the range of possible choices to someone related to or representing Artemis. The other Lydian noun occurring in the phrase ‘X of Artemis’ is šiwraλm(i)- ‘prosecutor’ (Sasseville 2018c) which clearly refers to a temple office in one of its attestations. It is furthermore possible that šiwraλm(i)- and wrato/u- are genetically related (see the discussion below under stem formation). It seems therefore likely that wrato/u- denotes another temple or priestly office, although the validity of this hypothesis naturally depends on whether the paradigm of the lexeme under discussion was correctly put together.
[I.Y.]
1.1.5Stem
The stem wra-to- likely contains the same suffix as sfa-to-, ẽn-wνa-to-, iš-kup-to-, and karf-to- (Gusmani 1964a:43f., Sasseville 2021a:180-183). What complicates this hypothesis is the dat. sg. wratuλ contrasting with ẽnwνatoλ, iškuptoλ. If one wishes to consider wratos and wratuλ as paradigmatic forms of the same lexeme, one must assume that wra-to- preserves the archaic hysterokinetic ablaut, whereas the paradigms of ẽn-wνa-to- and iš-kup-to- reflect analogical leveling. For a Hittite hysterokinetic paradigm matching Lyd. wrato/u-, cf. the case of Hitt. harnāu- / harnu- ‘birthing chair’ (EDHIL:310-311).
The synchronic accent of wrato/u- must have been on the suffix. Just as the Lydian noun sfa-to- is related to the base verb fa-sfe͂n(a)- or better to the noun sfẽn(i)-, so the noun wra-to/u- may be related to a hypothetical stem *wre͂n(i)-, comparable to CLuw. warann(i)-(On the suffix, see Sasseville 2017a:136).
[I.Y.]