*(h₁)áu̯-/(h₁)uu̯-´

The forms are attested in Luwian incantations from the Tauriša tradition and festival fragments, i.e. the ašuša(tal)la-functionaries and the cult of Lallupiya.

[E.R.]

Contra CLL:267, the form a-wa at KUB 35.133 ii 24’ is clearly the sentence connective a- + particle =wa, not only showing a spelling different from a-a-wa ibid. ii 27’ and ii 41’, but also another position regarding ^DU AN ‘Storm-god of the Sky!’ (for the passage cf. now Melchert apud Oettinger 2004b:133). – Likewise, based on its spelling, the attestation of a-wa at KUB 35.79 iii 7’ belonging to the Tauriša tradition is probably to be analyzed as connective a + particle =wa (see also DLL:21; differently CLL:43).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Starke 1985b:280 reads ^D10-an a-wa-za-aš-ti in KUB 35.133 ii 24’, thereby differing from Melchert (CLL:43), who interprets a-wa and za-aš-ti as separate words. As pointed out under Forms, a-wa does not belong to the present lemma. – Reading a-um-ma at KUB 35.123 iv^? 5’ with Starke 1985b:251 against Otten 1953c:105 (a-la^?-ma), because the shape of the sign in question differs from LA ibid. iv 2’. – The form a-wa-aḫ-ḫa at KBo 29.34+ 17’, which can neither be read nor interpreted with any certainty within its fragmentary context, is possibly the 1sg. pret. ind. act. of awa- (Sasseville 2021a:343).

[E.R.]

The form āwa occurs twice in a fragment mentioning the ašuša(tal)la-functionaries in solicitations of the storm-god, who is addressed with a vocative: āwa ^D10 AN, (KUB 35.133 ii 27’, ii 41’; outdated reading in Starke 1990a:35). The assignment of the variant auwa in KUB 25.37+ ii 36’ (a-⸢la-a⸣-ti a-ú-wa za-am-pa) and KUB 35.125 2’ (a-ú-wa ⸢ma-a-an⸣), though not entirely assured, is likely, since in both cases auwa is followed by a sentence boundary, which also speaks for an analysis as a verb (cf. also CLL:43).

Serious doubts are voiced in the literature about whether the forms āwa (KUB 35.133 ii 27’, ii 41’) and auwa (KUB 25.37 ii 36’, KUB 35.125 2’) are to be classified synchronically as 2sg. impv. verbal forms ‘look!’ or interjections ‘behold, look here!’. A glance at the relevant literature reveals a distinct preference for the latter option (CLL:43, Starke 1990a:35, Shevoroshkin 1994a:158, 163, Tischler 2008a:33, Ünal 2007a:953, EDHIL:227). However, given the possible identification of at least one other verbal form in the same paradigm, namely the (substantivized) neuter participle aumma (KUB 35.123 iv^? 5’) and perhaps the 1sg. pret. awaḫḫa (KBo 29.34 17’), āwa and auwa should be regarded as partially grammaticalized 2sg. imperatives of awa-⁽ⁱ⁾. Synchronically, āwa and auwa may have been interpreted as frozen imperatives and thus interjections. Yet, their undoubted origin in 2sg. impv. verbal forms (cf. EDHIL:227) makes it difficult to believe that they were not seen as imperative verbal forms as well.

As for the other forms, the classification of aumma at KUB 35.123 iv^? 5 as a nominal form (following CLL:42 and tentatively Tischler 2008a:33) is based on its formal agreement with the preceding genitival adjective ^DP]irwa〈š〉ša ‘related to Pirwa’ (nom./acc. pl. n.). Either a -man- stem (thus tentatively CLL:42) or a substantivized participle in -mma/i- may be underlying (Sasseville 2021a:343). The context does not allow for a definitive decision, though a substantivized participle with a basic meaning ‘seen’ seems preferable here as opposed to postulating the existence of an unknown -man-stem. As said above, the form awaḫḫa is a highly speculative reading within a fragmentary context. If considered valid, the 1sg. pret. ending -a-ḫḫa fits the stem class of 2sg. imperatives in -a (see under Stem). The form awa has also been compared etymologically with the Hitt. particle eḫu (cf. HED E-I:252).

[E.R.]

The stem awa- is exclusively used in the active diathesis. It shows the full grade and, judging from the 2sg. impv. forms, belongs to the -a-⁽ⁱ⁾ verbal class. Its zero grade occurs so far only in the stem wi- ‘to see, to be seen, to appear’, formally and functionally both a middle and a passive.

[E.R.]

This lemma was written together with the intern Elia Weber.

This lexeme is found in an inscription on the Pajawa sarcophagus, which can be dated to the first half of the 4^th century BCE. Its participial form is also attested as a personal name, i.e. Uwẽmi (TL 109.2); see Neumann 2007a:413, Sasseville 2018a:312.

[D.S.]

Because the end of the line 4 is broken off, scholars have been tempted to restore t]-/uwetẹ, in order to retrieve the form tuwete ‘he set up’ (cf. Neumann 2007a:412). However, since the direct object is trm̃misṇ̃ ‘Lycia’, this restoration would make no sense (cf. the different readings in Schürr 2012b:27). Therefore, uwetẹ is considered here to be complete as it is (thus also Schürr 2012b:27f.).

Schürr 2009c:97 suggests restoring u[we]tẽ at N 333.5-6, although the restoration u[be]tẽ (ube-^(ti)) appears contextually just as likely. Pending further evidence, no restoration will be given preference over the other.

[D.S.]

The meaning ‘to favor’ obtained for Lyc. B uwe-^(ti) is also suitable for the passage of TL 40c:

              pajawa : ed[.....h] tideimi : ar[tum͂pa]rah : telẽzi[jehi] qla : trm͂misṇ̃ []uwete : teri s(e)=ẽn[e] ijetẽ erawazija : ebe[ij]a (TL 40c.1-8)

‘As Pajawa, child of Ed[ … ], favored Lycia for the military precinct of Artumpara, he bought these monuments here.’

This analysis implies that Pajawa helped Artumpara install his Persian army in Lycia or, in other words, that Lycia was favored by Pajawa as a place for Artumpara’s military precinct (contra Carruba 1978b:176, Schürr 2012b:28, Gehrisch 2018a:58). Therefore, Lycian A uwe-^(ti) means ‘to regard with favor’ or simply ‘to favor’ just like its Lycian B counterpart (Sasseville 2021a:380).

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

Based on his analysis of the passage surrounding TL 44d.7, Gusmani 1968c:10 n. 51 suggests translating uweti, of which Hercules is the subject, with ‘to favor’, since he took the direct object xñtabã as a title designating the Lycian king (considered here to be incorrect). Following the suggestion of Neumann 2007a:413 that the Lycian stem uwe- is cognate with Hitt. au(š)-/uw-^(ḫi) ‘to see’, Schürr 2009c:97-100 suggests that the same meaning applies to the Lyc. B verb uwe-^(ti) and especially to the personal name Masauwẽti ‘the gods shall see/favor (vel sim.)’. Sasseville 2018a:312 brings further contextual evidence that the subject of uweti at TL 44c.38 are the gods, and the direct object are the river-valleys, where Gergis performs a sacrificial rite. This contextual analysis supports the meaning ‘to regard with favor’ for Lyc. uwe-^(ti). The meaning is supported both from the contextual and the etymological perspective. See also the derivative ñtuwitẽni.

The meaning ‘to vow’ suggested by Shevoroshkin 1977a:136 (tentatively followed by Melchert (DLL:134)) in comparison with Greek εὔχομαι is contradicted by the context.

[D.S.]

1. Masauwẽti (PN) (Schürr 2009c:97f.)

1. ñtuwitẽni

This lexeme is found in two inscriptions from the Artemision in Sardis, both of which have been recently dated to the second half of the 6^th century BCE (Euler & Sasseville 2019a:134f.).

[D.S.]

Gusmani & Akkan 2004a:148 takes the form oḷl in LW 115.4 to belong to this verb, although it is preferable to assign it to the verb ol-^(t) with Sasseville 2021a:284.

[D.S.]

The verb ow- describes an action that can be done to or in a place and to an understanding between two parties.

Grumach 1934a:187 suggests on contextual grounds that it is a verbum dicendi and translates it with ‘to announce’ (followed by Heubeck 1959a:67, Gusmani 1961a:178, Gusmani 1964a:178, Gusmani 1980a:80, Yakubovich 2005b:76 n. 8, Gérard 2005a:129). The root was etymologically connected to Greek εὔχομαι ‘to pray’ (PIE *h₁eu̯g^u̯h-) by Shevoroshkin 1978a:235 (followed by Melchert 1994a:336). Sasseville 2021a:289f. offers a different perspective, i.e. the equation with Hitt. au(š)-/uw-^(ḫi) ‘to see’, CLuw. awa- ‘to see’, Lyc. uwe-^(ti) ‘to regard with favor’, which would suggest a similar meaning for Lydian ow-, fitting the contexts even better. The etymological approach is also more solid than using a root that is otherwise unattested in Anatolian.

[D.S.]

For the synchronic assessment of Lyd. ow- as a root verb of the unlenited mi-conjugation, which originally belonged to the ḫi-conjugation, see Sasseville 2021a:287-290.

[D.S.]

HED A:234-244, Oettinger 1979a:405-408.