woskij

Hapax in the so-called Shorter Strategos Votive Inscription from Side, dated by Nollé 2001a:630 to the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd c. (see there for discussion).

[Zs.S.]

dat. sg.

woskiji

S4, 3

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 checked against the photographs in Darga 1967a:Res. 8 (= Neumann 1968a:Taf. I.2 = Brixhe 1969a:Planche II), and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:426 Fig. 21.5. Eichner 1988b:46 n. 9, Pérez Orozco 2007a:135, and Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420 cautiously identify it as a dat. sg., which fits the context, see under Meaning. Nollé 2001a:639 mentions the theoretical possibility that this sequence in fact consists of more than one word, but no further investigation has been done and a further segmentation does not seem necessary, see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

On the reading of the first sign (N6) of this word as ‹w› and not ‹j› as previously assumed proposed by Pérez Orozco 2003a:15f. (contra Schürr 2016b:150f.) see the discussion in Simon 2020e:201 n. 3. On the reading of its sixth sign (N7) as ‹j› instead of ‹w› as previously assumed see the discussion s.v. iśtratageja. The reading of the fourth sign (N23) as ‹k› by Pérez Orozco 2003a:106 is not accepted by Schürr 2016b:150 n. 7 (“unklar”) and Rizza 2019a:546 (“speculative” and “uncertain”). See the discussion s.v. *kuar for the merits of the reading ‹k› and why it is followed here.

[Zs.S.]

The interpretations of this word diverge widely. Eichner 1988b:45f. saw the recipient of the votive offerings in it and thus, a divine name (presented as a fact by Zinko & Zinko 2019a:420, without mentioning Eichner or the alternative views). Nollé 2001a:639 n. 54 rejected the interpretation of Eichner 1988b:46f. n. 9 as being based on a false reading, but Eichner’s literal interpretation (see s.v. †asba) became obsolete only with the new readings of ‹w, k, j› (see under Graphic features), and its basic tenet, a divine name, is still possible (Simon 2020e:200 and cf. below). Nollé 2001a:639 himself understood it as either the object or the recipient of the votive offering. Pérez Orozco 2007a:131f., 136, 139 cautiously suggested ‘ceremonia, ritual?’ and translated it as “en ceremonia” based on the proposed etymological connection with Luw. wašḫa- ‘sacralized object vel sim.’ (see s.v.) as a derivative in -iya-. Simon 2020e with refs. argued that this is a short votive inscription, in which the subject is followed by three words only (ośad, woskiji, and anaϑemataś ‘votive offering’, see the discussion s.v.) that should be the expected typical components of a votive inscription (the object and the recipient of the offering as well as an adverb or a verb), and considering their endings, ośad should be an adverb or a verb (both have been suggested, see s.v.) and woskiji the recipient, in dat. sg. (which makes Pérez Orozco’s translation less probable). While recipients other than a divinity (e.g., a temple) cannot be fully excluded, Simon argues that Eichner’s proposal as a divine name can be supported with Pérez Orozco’s formally fitting derivation of woskiji from *wašḫiya- ‘*pertaining to wašḫa-’, since the related Luwian term, wašḫaya/i- (see s.v.) is indeed used as a divine epithet, specifically that of the protective god, ^DLAMMA known as Kuruntiya in Luwic speaking regions and widely venerated in 1st mill. Southern Anatolia (the usage of epithets instead of the name of the divinity, or even already as an independent divinity, is a cross-culturally well-known phenomenon). woskiji may continue *wašḫiya- (as proposed by Pérez Orozco), a form semantically identical to wašḫaya/i-, just with a formally different suffix or even wašḫaya/i- itself, considering the existence of Sidetic syncope (the precise rules of which are still elusive, but a syncope would lead to *waskja/i-, which would in turn regularly give *woskj, which would logically trigger a prop-vowel leading to woskij).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 24 November 2020