/skalda-(i)/
‘to scratch’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1538
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/skalda-(i)/, sà-ka-la-tà-
‘to scratch (?)’1.1.1Transmission
Attested four times, the evidence for this verb is restricted entirely to one text, viz. the EMİRGAZİ altars. The inscription dates to the Empire era in the second half of the 13th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. ind. act. | /skaldai/ | sà-ka-la-tà-i(a) | EMİRGAZİ 1A, §7 |
| EMİRGAZİ 1A, §16 | |||
| EMİRGAZİ 1A, §24 | |||
| EMİRGAZİ 1B, §24 |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation is tentative, because the reading order of the signs is somewhat unclear. While 〈sà-ka-la-tà-i(a)〉 is the generally preferred reading today, a strict top-to-bottom reading of the signs actually results in 〈sà-la-ka-tà-i(a)〉, and yet another option is chosen in Hawkins 1995a:88 with 〈sà-ka-tà-la-i(a)〉; for a discussion of the various suggestions cf. Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:528f. The present, preferred reading is based on the possible cognate CLuw. šakaldamma, a participial form of the same verb (Sasseville 2021a:358f.). On the rare use of the sign 〈tà〉 in a consonant cluster, see Sasseville 2021a:256 with further literature.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word has been discussed for some time not least due to the unclear reading, see Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:528f. for a summary. Despite the differing etymologies suggested over the years, most scholars agreed on the verb denoting a negative action, because it is mostly used in the protases of curse formula, describing something undesirable done to the stele bearing the inscription. The contextual analysis therefore strongly suggests an offensive action that damages the stone. For more detailed semantics, Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:530 adduce an etymological link with Hittite iškalla-(ḫi) ‘to slit’ (a different formation, see HED E:414f, HEG I:397f. and EDHIL:399) and hence arrive at their interpretation of the verb as ‘to scratch’. A similarly negative action seems indicated for the CLuw. cognate šakaldamma, although in a less clear context (Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:529).
[AH.B.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
šakalda-(i)
‘to scratch (?)’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in what appears to be a birth ritual in a mythological context.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| part. nom./acc. pl. n. | ša-kal-da-am-ma | KUB 35.108, 19’ | (CTH 765, MS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).
[D.S.]
1.2.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:529f. argue that the vowel a in the sign ša is mute, which the equation of Cuneiform Luwian ša-kal-da-am-ma with Hieroglyphic Luwian sà-ka-la-tà-i(a) shows. The sign sà is used in the HLuw. cognate, because the sibilant /s/ is followed by the velar /k/ and thus palatalized, i.e. [ʃ]. This indicates that the vowel a in ša should be empty (Rieken 2010b), i.e. /skalda-/. The previous assumption that ša-kal-da-am-ma is missing a sign ak (Rieken 2007a:295) is outdated.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
Based on a contextual analysis, Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:527f. show that the participle ša-kal-da-am-ma refer to burning objects that are negatively connoted. Using the combinatory evidence with HLuw. sà-ka-la-tà- and an etymological approach (see under Reconstruction), they suggest the meaning ‘to scratch’ (followed by Kölligan 2017a:70).
[D.S.]
1.2.5Stem
Starke 1990a:276 treats ša-kal-da-am-ma as an abstract noun in -man-/-mn-, whereas Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:527f. opt on contextual grounds for a participial formation.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Following an etymological reconstruction of Germanic *skelda- as *skel-dheh1- by Kölligan 2017a, Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:529f. argue that Luw. /skalda-(i)/ goes back to the same type of univerbation. The root *skelH- ‘to cut’ is already attested in Hittite iškalla-/iškall-(ḫi) ‘to slit’ and from an inner-Anatolian perspective, Luwian would have the “d-extended” root. On account of its ḫi-conjugation, the Luwian formation can be traced back to a Proto-Anatolian root verb in *dhóh1-/dhh1-´, for which see Sasseville 2021a:426, 430-434, 546.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
According to Kölligan 2017a, the PIE syntagm *skel(H)- dheh1- and the neo-root *skel(H)dh- based on it mean ‘to make a cut’. While Luw. /skalda-(i)/, which is considered to mean ‘to make cuts, to scratch’ (Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:524–530), is semantically very close to the original meaning, PGerm. *skelđe/a- < *skel(H)dh-e/o- has already developed a more metaphorical meaning ‘to scold, reproach’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
As argued by Kölligan 2017a, PGerm. *skelđe/a- ‘to scold, reproach’ < pre-PGerm. *skel(H)dh-e/o- is based on a secondary root *skel(H)dh-, which ultimately arose from an original syntagm *skelH- dheh1- ‘to make a cut’, a light-verb construction consisting of the root PIE *skel(H)- ‘to split, slit open’ (LIV²:552f.; cf. Hitt. iškalla-/iškall-(ḫi) ‘to slit’) and the light verb PIE *dheh1- ‘to put, place, lay, do’ (LIV²:136–138). For such light-verb constructions, cf., e.g., the root PIE *u̯elH- ‘to be strong, have power’ in Lat. valēre ‘to be strong’ < *u̯l̥H-eh1-i̯e/o-, while Lith. veldė́ti, véldu ‘to own, reign’ points to a dh-extended root variant that can ultimately be explained from a syntagm *u̯elH- dheh1- (Kölligan 2017a:63). As for the neo-root PIE *skel(H)dh-, its basic meaning was ‘to make a cut’, according to Kölligan 2017a. In Germanic, a semantic shift from ‘to make a cut’ > ‘to scold, reproach’ occurred, following a well-known semantic path (for specifics and examples, cf. Kölligan 2017a:64–66). In Anatolian, Luw. /skalda-(i)/, which is also based on PIE *skel(H)- + *dheh1-, is likely to mean ‘to make cuts, to scratch’, according to Rieken & Sasseville 2019a.
[T.S.]
4. Transmission
OHG skeltan ‘to scold, chide, reproach’, ModHG schelten ‘id.’, MLG schelden ‘id.’, etc.Cf., e.g., EDPG:442, Kluge & Seebold 2011a:800, Kölligan 2017a:63 and passim.