*h1ḗs-/h1és-
‘to sit’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1455
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/is-(ti)/
‘to sit’1.1.1Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
iš-(ti)
‘to sit’1.2.1Transmission
This newly discovered lexeme iš-(ti) is found in the festival text for the Storm-god of the Sky and the Sun-goddess of Arinna (ašušatalla-men), whereas its medio-passive counterpart ašar is found in an unclassified ritual fragment.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. ind. act. | iš-ta | KUB 35.133 ii 9’ | (CTH 665, LNS) |
| 3sg. pres. ind. med. | a-ša-a[r | KBo 7.68 ii 5’ | (CTH 764, NS) |
Whether the form eš-ša-an-˹ti˺ (KUB 35.133 iii 3) found in a fragmentary context belongs here is unprovable; cf. Melchert (CLL:93). Laroche 1959a:37 classifies eššanti together with ešti ‘?’, which, from a syntactic viewpoint, looks more like an adposition.
[D.S.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Otten 1953a:113 did not try to decipher the last sign of a-ša-x[ in KBo 7.68 ii 5’, whereas Starke 1985b:361 reads a-ša-w[a-, which unfortunately does not contribute to the elucidation to the sentence. Oettinger 2011a:168 reconsiders the reading of the broken sign and suggests instead the reading a-ša-a[r (followed by Melchert 2014f:255), which is supported by the comparison of the sign on the same fragment (iii 7’); as advocated by Sasseville 2021a:265.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
The meaning of the medio-passive form ašar with the reflexive pronoun =ti has been argued by Oettinger 2011a:168 (following a suggestion of Craig Melchert pers. comm.) to mean ‘he sits down’, which breathes sense into the context of a ritual feast. Sasseville 2021a:264f. argues that the verbal form iš-ta belongs to a root verb iš-(ti) meaning ‘to sit’, which likewise elucidates the context of a ritual feast. It is also used with the reflexive pronoun =ti, which seems unexpected for the stative sense ‘to sit (intr.)’, although each verb of the passage, i.e. azzašda ‘he ate’ and probably ‘he drank’ (lost in the lacuna), is constructed with the reflexive pronoun against what would be expected. The ablaut difference between iš- and aš- is explained below under Reconstruction.
[D.S.]
1.2.5Derivatives
ištardalla/i-1.2.5.1Uncertain Derivatives
1.3 Lycian A
*is-
‘to sit’1.3.1Derivatives
1.4 Palaic
ēš-(ti)
‘to sit (?)’1.4.1Transmission
This word is found in a festival text with Palaic incantations.
[D.S.]
1.4.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. ind. act.(?) | e-eš-ta[] | KUB 35.163 ii 17 | (CTH 753, NS) |
1.4.3Graphic Features
There is a break in the tablet right after the last sign of the word listed in the table above, which does not guarantee that the word is complete. However, its probable shape as verbal form makes it likely that the word ends with the sign -ta.
[D.S.]
1.4.4Meaning
The word ēšta was taken as a form of the verb āš-/aš- ‘to be’, which otherwise never shows e-vocalism in Palaic. Therefore, Kammenhuber 1959a:24 argues that ēšta must be a hethitized form in Palaic context (followed tentatively by Carruba 1970a:53), which is ad hoc, unparalleled and thus unpersuasive. A different approach would be to equate this root with the one of Hitt. ēš-/eš-(mi) ‘to sit’, which would be more likely considering the root vocalism. Since the Palaic context is obscure, this semantic assignment cannot be proven and remains uncertain.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to sit’
Adducing both the Hittite and Luwian evidence, i.e. Hitt. ēš-/eš-(mi) ‘to sit’, CLuw. ašar ‘to sit down’ and HLuw. /isnuwa-(i)/, Oettinger 2011a:168 reconstructs an original acrostatic verb *h1ḗs-/h1és- ‘to sit’, which would yield Hitt. ēš- and Luw. /is-/, whereas the medio-passive form ašar would continue a full grade *h1és-or, disproving the earlier reconstruction of a reduplicated formation *h1eh1s-, which would have yielded a geminate -šš- in Hittite and Cuneiform Luwian (thus also Melchert 2014f:254f., Melchert 2019b:366f. n. 27, contra EDHIL:252-255). Sasseville 2021a:264f. brings further evidence to the matter by adding the attestation išta ‘he sat’, the base of /isnuwa-(i)/ ‘to seat’, continuing an acrostatic *h1ḗs- with the regular sound law *ē > Luw. i. The pretonic change of *e > Luw. i does not exist: The only example Melchert 2019b:365-366 adduces as a potential one, i.e. /isnuwa-(i)/, is no longer valid because of the emergence of the Luwian acrostatic root verb /is-(ti)/ ‘to sit’.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The Core IE middle formations Ved. ā́ste, YAv. āste (and stative 3pl. ā̊ŋhāire), and Gk. ἧσται continue a stative/durative sense ‘to sit, be sitting’, which corresponds to the PAnat. active formation continued in Hitt. ēšzi ‘sits’.On the difference in voice, cf. below sub Morphological reconstruction.This meaning is thus also to be reconstructed for PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to sit’.Cf., e.g., Melchert 2014f:254 and, with different root shape and verbal formation (cf. below), LIV²:232.
3.1.1Root etymology
Since the root underlying the formations listed above is no longer reconstructed as PIE *h1eh1s- ‘to sit’ (LIV²:232),For the only possible reconstruction, cf. below.it is homophonous with PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’ (LIV²:241f.) and PIE 2.*h1es- ‘to throw, shoot’ (LIV²:242f.). The former may be ultimately identical to the root under investigation, hence *h1es- ‘to sit’ = 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’, which is semantically highly plausible, cf. the observations made by West 2016a.Cf. already hesitatingly Oettinger 2004g:493. In West’s view, PIE 1.*h1es- originally meant ‘to be there’ in an explicitly adessive sense, which, inter alia, is clear from the existence of the mihi est construction “X is there for me”. For a similar semantic change, cf. PIE *k̑i ‘here’ → PAnat. *k̑ei̯- ‘to be here’ > ‘to lie’ (cf. also PAnat. *k̑o-/k̑i-/k̑e- ‘this’).
According to Melchert 2014f:254, it is quite possible that beside the ordinary root present PIE *h1és‑/*h1s‑´ ‘to be there’ there was a verbal formation with durative/intensive sense, PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to abide, sit’. Therefore, no separate root is reconstructed under this lemma but the identity with PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’ is advocated.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Based on the evidence of Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, and Greek, an acrostatic present stem *h1ḗs-/*h1és- ‘to sit’ has to be reconstructed. In the case of Indo-Iranian and Greek, the strong stem *h1ḗs- may theoretically go back to PIE *h1éh1s- (as per LIV²:232). However, as is pointed out by Oettinger 2004g:490 (followed by Melchert 2014f:254f.), Luw. is- ‘to sit’ can only go back to a lengthened-grade form *h1ēs- and not to a form *h1eh1s-, cf. above sub PAnat. reconstruction. Therefore, a “Narten-present” *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- has to be reconstructed (as per Oettinger 2004g:490f., Melchert 2014f:254f.), which is derived from the root PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’.
Regarding the voice of the verb in question, Oettinger 2004g:491–494 (cf. also Melchert 2014f:254f.) proposes the reconstruction of an original acrostatic active stem *h1ḗs‑/*h1és‑ ‘to sit’ along with a corresponding reflexive full-grade stative/middle *h1és- ‘to sit down’, cf. Hitt. act. ēš‑zi ‘sits’ vs. midd. ēš‑a ‘to sit down’. In Core IE, the stative/middle formation adopted from the active not only its durative meaning ‘to sit’ but also its lengthened-grade root, thus PIE *h1és‑ ‘to sit down’ (eventive) → Core IE *h1ḗs- ‘to sit’ (durative). Subsequently, the formation was inflected like an ordinary middle, viz. 3sg. *h1ḗs-toi̯ > Ved. āste, YAv. āste, → Gk. ἥσται ‘to sit’.
To sum up, it is recommendable to reconstruct a primary “Narten-present” PIE *h1ḗs-/*h1és- ‘to sit’ together with a full-grade stative/middle PIE *h1és- ‘to sit down’.
3.2.1Root etymology
The root underlying Ved. ās-, Gk. ἥσ-, Hitt. ēš- used to be reconstructed as PIE *h1eh1s- ‘to sit’, cf. LIV²:232. However, since Luw. is- (< *ḗs‑) ‘to sit’ (Oettinger 2004g 2004) and as- (< *és‑) ‘to sit down’ (Oettinger 2011a) are considered to be related to these formations, a root shape *h1eh1s- cannot be maintained anymore. The only root form that is phonologically possible and semantically plausible (cf. above) is PIE *h1es-, which is identical to PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. ā́s- midd. ‘to sit, dwell, stay’ (RV+), YAv. āh- midd. ‘id.’, YAv. stative 3pl. ā̊ŋhāire (hapax, Y.9.23)
EWAia I:181, KEWA I:84, Grassmann 1996a:188–190, Bartholomae 1904:344f., EDIV:153f.
Gk. ἧμαι, 3sg. ἧσται midd. ‘to be seated, sit (still)’ (Il.+)The aspiration in ἧσ- is considered to be analogically taken over from the outcomes of the root PIE *sed- > PGk. *hed- ‘to sit down’ (LIV²:513–515) as Gk. ἕζομαι, ἵζω ‘to sit down’, cf., e.g., GEW I:634.
GEW I:633f., DELG:411f., EDG:518, LSJ:770, LSJSuppl:145
On the further transmission of the root, cf. PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’.