niwisw(i)-
‘impious, unholy’
- Language
- Lydian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- adj
- ID
- 1830
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lydian
niwisw(i)-
‘impious, unholy’1.1.1Transmission
The majority of forms are attested in Sardis, either in texts of curse formulae accompanying burial inscriptions, or in legal texts. The exception is the form niwiswa, which occurs in an inscription that is found in the Lower Hermos valley. The majority of the relevant inscriptions cannot be accurately dated, except for LW 8, which can be more precisely dated to the end of the 5th century BCE.
[I.Y.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. c. | niwisscν | LW 6.5 (Sardis) | |
| niwiscν | LW 7.6 (Sardis) | ||
| LW 8.10 (Sardis) | |||
| LW 10.24 (Sardis) | |||
| LW 23.3 (Sardis) | |||
| n[iwiscν] | LW 9.9 (Sardis) | ||
| dat. sg. | niwislλ | LW 24.10 (Sardis) | |
| nom./acc. pl. n. | niwiswa | LW 44.17 (Manisa) |
The form niwiswa is cautiously considered as a separate lemma in Gusmani 1964a:176f., while the accusative forms are treated as a separate lexical unit in Melchert 1997a:34. There are, however, no compelling reasons to split the paradigm listed above on formal grounds: cf. the paradigm of wisw(i)- and the phonological discussion below. A more serious problem is whether one can consider the forms that syntactically behave as nouns vs. adjectives as instances of the same lemma. The forms in LW 23.3 and LW 24.10 are clearly not associated with any nouns, and therefore can be regarded as nominal on syntactic grounds (the adverbial interpretation is also possible in the former case). On the other hand, LW 7.5-6 fak=aν wisiš niwiscν warptokid and similar curse formulae are likely to feature double accusative construction involving the clitic pronoun and niwis(s)cν, which is compatible with its adjectival interpretation (the adverbial interpretation is also possible). Similar problems concern wisw(i)-. The one-lemma solution is tentatively implemented in both cases because it does not seem always possible to distinguish between the elliptical use of adjective and true substantivization, or between the accusative of respect and adverbial derivatives.
[I.Y.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
The spelling niwisscν with the geminate -ss- in LW 7.5 may reflect pseudo-historical orthography or graphic analogy (cf. wissiš) rather than phonetic reality.
[I.Y.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The form niwiscν may represent the outcome of a morphophonemic change in earlier *niwissν < *niwissiν < *niwiswiν. A different solution is entertained in Schürr 2006b:1576, where the stem is reconstructed as niwisc‑. This, would, however, unnecessarily complicate the historical account of other forms belonging to the paradigm. For dat. sg. niwislλ, cf. e.g. nom. sg. prafršiš vs. dat. sg. prafrlλ (LW 23.7).
[I.Y.]
1.1.4Meaning
Whatever meaning one can assign to niwisw(i)-, it must be the opposite of wisw(i)-. The main argument for the translation ‘unholy’ is the passage in LW 24.9-10, where something becomes niwisw(i)- as a result of defilement. But in the curse formulae both wisw(i)- (assuredly) and niwisw(i)- (arguably) are applied to persons and so the translation ‘pious’ / ‘impious’ would fit better than ‘holy’ / unholy’.
No credence accrues to the attempts of Brandenstein 1929a:281 and Haas 1962a:186f. to present the forms wisw(i)- and niwisw(i)- as rough synonyms. The translation ‘injustice’, implied in Schürr 1997a:210 is possible for some contexts but cannot be assumed for all of them (cf. the discussion above under Forms).
[I.Y.]
1.1.5Stem
The stem niwisw(i)- is a synchronic derivative if wisw(i)- formed by means of the negative morpheme ni-; cf. nikumẽk, niqašll(i)-, and niqes(i)=k and see further under wisw(i)-.
[I.Y.]
For the second part of the compound see Lyd. wisw(i)-.