*du̯ai̯a-
‘to fear’
- Language
- Proto-Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1875
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/kwaya-(i)/, kwa/i-i(a)-
‘to fear, revere’1.1.1Transmission
This hapax is attested in a single inscription from Malatya, dating to the 12th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| part. nom. sg. c. | /kwayammis/ | kwa/i-i(a)-mi-sa | KARAHÖYÜK, §12 (Malatya) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this lexeme is clear, because it is supported by the exact cognate CLuw. (GKW) kwaya-(i) ‘to fear’, which is likewise attested as a participle (cf. CLL:118, HED K:301-303, and Sasseville 2021a:346f.). Meriggi 1975a:321 identified the form attested in KARAHÖYÜK, §12 as a participle and connected it with the verb /kwissa-/ ‘to fear’.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning is assigned on the basis of the CLuw. cognate (see Laroche in DLL:58f.), and it is supported by the context in KARAHÖYÜK, §12: a-wa/i-mu (DEUS)TONITRUS POCULUM.PES.*67 LOCUS-tá LOCUS-tá kwa/i-i(a)-mi-sa *135(9)-di sa-tá, approx. /a=wa=mu Tarhunzas … allanta allanta kwayammis …-a/idi asta/, which probably means ‘For me, (the storm-god) Tarhunza was feared/revered in place after place with? …’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:290, 293). In the context, Hawkins favours the reverential aspect over outright fear, which is likely.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The verb is very probably a deradical formation in /-a-(i)/, although proof for this is only available in what appears to be the Ištanuwa Luwian variant dwaya-(i) ‘to fear’, see Sasseville 2021a:346f. following a suggestion by Laroche 1967a:50. The same root also provided the basis for the verb /kwissa-(i)/ ‘to fear’ (Meriggi 1975a:321).
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Compounds
1.1.7Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
duwayā-(i)
‘to fear, revere’1.2.1Transmission
The attestations are found exclusively in identical passages in the song incipits from the Ištanuwa ritual (MS). This Ištanuwa Luwian verb corresponds to the Empire Luwian verb kwaya-(i), for which see kwayamma/i- below.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. ind. act. | du-wa-ia-a-i | KUB 35.139 i 9’ | (CTH 773, MS) |
| du-wa-ia-a-e | KUB 35.139 i 10’ | (CTH 773, MS) | |
| ⸢du⸣-[wa-ia-a-i] | KUB 35.139 i 12’ | (CTH 773, MS) | |
| [du-w]a-ia-a-i | KBo 14.121 ii 5’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| du-wa-ia-a-i | KBo 14.121 ii 12’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| du-wa-ia-a-i | KBo 14.121 iii 9’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| du-wa-ia-a-i | KBo 14.121 iii 5’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| [du-wa-ia]-a-i | KBo 14.121 iii 7’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| [d]u-wa-ia-a-i | KBo 14.121 iii 12’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| [d]u-wa-ia-a-i | KBo 40.256, 6’ | (CTH 773, MS?) | |
| 2sg. impv. act. | du-wa-ia | KBo 64.185, 3’ | (CTH 771, NS) |
For the possible attestation in the imperative mood, see Sasseville 2021a:346.
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
The verbal form (thus classified in DLL:100, CLL:240, Carruba 1968a:15 n. 3, HHw:s.v.) occurs in the line of a song that is repeated several times in the Ištanuwa ritual: lalluwyawa tapāla duwayāi kuīš=ti(y)=appi wašša “he duwaya-s the thunder clouds belonging to Lallupiya, who are behind thee, rain?”. On etymological grounds, Sasseville 2021a:347 suggests that Ištanuwian duwayai corresponds to the 3sg. pres. act. of Empire Luwian /kuwaya-(i)/ ‘to fear, revere’ assuming that the acknowledged sound change *dw- > *tw- > kw- (Laroche 1967a:50) has not taken place in this dialect. Although by no means assured, the translation of duwayai taken together with wašša ‘rain (?)’ (see under Lemma) makes a good sense in the context of a rain song (cf. KUB 35.139 i 6’f. [ ] ḫamešḫi kuwapi ḫēun kar(a)pzi [ kiš]šan SÌR-RU “[ ] when, in spring, the rain sets in, [ ] sing [as fo]llows”). Therefore, Sasseville’s proposal is adopted here.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
For the assignment to the ḫi-conjugation, see already Carruba 1968a:15 n. 3, and further Sasseville 2021a:347, where duwayā-(i) is treated under the deradical verbs.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Compounds
1.3 Luwian (Glossenkeilwörter)
kuwayamma/i-
1.3.1Transmission
The assured attestations of the lexeme are found in two NH historical texts, one of which is a treaty or oath, while the other one is the Apology of Ḫattušili.
[E.R.]
1.3.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. n. | ku-wa-ia-am-ma-an-za |
KBo 4.14 ii 12 | (CTH 123, NS) |
| dat./loc. sg. | ku-wa-ia-am-mi |
KBo 4.14 ii 38 | (CTH 123, NS) |
| ku-wa-ia-mi |
KBo 4.14 ii 42 | (CTH 123, NS) | |
| ku-wa-ia-mi |
KUB 1.1 i 51 | (CTH 81, NS) | |
| ⸢ku⸣-wa-i〈a〉-mi |
KUB 1.5 i 23’ | (CTH 81, NS) | |
| unknown | ku-wa-ia-[ |
KBo 51.29, 5’ | (CTH 389, NS) |
The morphological analysis of ku-wa-ia-am-ma-an-za at KBo 4.14 ii 12 was hampered first by an erroneous segmentation as a Luwian participle kuwayamma/i- additionally marked with the Hittite participial formant -ant- and featuring a lack of agreement with neuter meḫur (Stefanini 1965a:40 and 55, HEG A-K:685, Kronasser 1966a:180, 258 and 481, HHw:s.v. and HW:357). A substantivization of this ungrammatical form was assumed in DLL:58f., HW:122 and 331. Only in 1973, Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:33f. n. 121 recognized the secondary ending -ša/-za attached to neuter singular forms. New confusion was then caused by Starke 1990a:267f., and passim, who interpretated -ša/-za as a neuter plural marker, but see CLL:118 for the singular interpretation now commonly accepted. – The assignment of ku-wa-ia-[ at KBo 51.29, 5’ is far from assured.
[E.R.]
1.3.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, except for KBo 4.14 ii 38. – For the emendation of ⸢ku⸣-wa-i〈a〉-mi at KUB 1.5 i 23’, see Starke 1990a:267f. and Sasseville 2021a:348.
[E.R.]
1.3.4Meaning
The earliest attempt that came close to the meaning now accepted was ‘of danger (?)’ suggested by Sturtevant & Bechtel 1935a:67. However, after Güterbock 1956a:139 n. 2 (followed in DLL:58f.) had plausibly claimed that the lexemes beginning with kuway- all belong to the same word family, it was obvious that the meaning of kuwayamma/i- is related to ‘worry, fear’. The contexts offer collocations with mēḫur ‘time’, thus ‘fearful times’ (HW:357, CLL:118, HED K:301, Fuscagni 2014a), but the morphological analysis as a participle seemed to argue rather for a passive meaning ‘feared’ (cf. HEG A-K:685, Otten 1981a:92, van den Hout 1984a:67f., CHD L-N:241, HHw:s.v.; ambiguous Stefanini 1965a:46 ‘di angoscia’ and Ünal 2007a:384 ‘fearful, frightning, dangerous?’). However, formations in -mma/i- are not limited to a participial function, but can also have a possessive meaning (see Melchert 2014a:207), which obviously applies here; hence ‘fearful’. Outdated Götze 1925a:74, Friedrich 1947a:304f., HW:122.
[E.R.]
1.3.5Stem
Luw. kuwayamma/i- ends in the mutated -mma/i- suffix with participial and possessive function (see under Meaning). Starke’s argues for a neuter stem in -mman-, but starts from erroneous premises, see van den Hout 1984a:67f.
[E.R.]
1.3.6Origin
For the Luwian origin of the entire word family, see under the lemma of kuwayata-(i).
[E.R.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to fear’
The comparison between Ištanuwa Luwian duwayā-(i) ‘to fear’ and Empire Luwian kwaya-(i) ‘id.’ allows for the reconstruction of a Proto-Luwian form *du̯ai̯a-(i), which can be transposed into Proto-Anatolian *du̯ói̯-/du̯i-´ ‘to fear’, i.e. a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation (Sasseville 2021a:346f., 436). Whereas the verb seems to have generalized the strong grade in Luwian, the weak grade can still be observed in the formation in /-ssa-(i)/, i.e. HLuw. /kwissa-(i)/. For the “d-extension” or in other words the univerbation with *dheh1-, see CLuw. kwayata-(i). The Indo-European etymology was discovered by Laroche 1967a:50.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
PIE *du̯ei̯- means ‘to get frightened, fear’ vel sim., cf. IEW:227 (“fürchten”), EIEC:198 (“fear”), LIV²:130 (“in Furcht geraten, erschrecken”), Watkins 2011a:22 (“To fear”).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Among the verbal formations derived from PIE *du̯ei̯-, a ḫi-conjugated root verb *du̯ói̯-/*du̯i-´ can ultimately be posited for Proto-Anatolian on the basis of Ištanuwa Luwian duwayā-(i) ‘to fear’ and Empire Luwian kwaya-(i) ‘id.’, cf. sub PAnat. Reconstruction. Several PIE verbal stems are also posited in LIV²:130, but almost none of them is directly preserved, with the majority of forms attested requiring some sort of reshaping. Noteworthy, however, seems the perfect PIE *de-du̯ói̯-/*de-du̯i-´, which regularly yielded Gk. Hom. Ion. 1sg. δείδω (< *de-du̯oi̯-h2e), 1pl. δείδιμεν (< *de-du̯i-me+n). Furthermore, a root aorist *du̯éi̯-/*du̯i-´ seems to be the common source of both Gk. (thematized) περὶ … δίε ‘was afraid’ and Arm. erkea-/erki- aor. midd. ‘to be afraid’ (Klingenschmitt 1982a:282, LIV²:130). Moreover, a desiderative stem *du̯éi̯-s-/*du̯i-s-´ can be reconstructed on the basis of HLuw. /kwissa-(i)/ ‘to fear’ and Gk. δείσομαι fut. ‘will be afraid’, as per LIV²:130. Finally, as argued by Sasseville 2021a:348, CLuw. /kwayada-(i)/ ‘to be an object of fear’ “goes back to an early univerbation of a noun *du̯ei̯-o- (or *du̯ei̯-eh2-) ‘fear’ + *dheh1- ‘to put’, i.e. ‘to put fear (out there)’ → ‘to be an object of fear’.” He adds that “the action noun /kwayada-/ c. ‘fear, respect’ must be considered a derivative of the verb /kwayada-(i)/ built by conversion”. The Luwian verb and noun also remind of the otherwise isolated form OAv. duuaēθā- f. ‘threat’, which could reflect a similar etymology if it goes back to pre-PIIr. *du̯e/oi̯(-h2)-dheh1-, consisting of a noun *du̯e/oi̯(-h2)- ‘fear’ + *dheh1-. The noun can either be a root noun *du̯é/ói̯- or an eh2-stem *du̯e/oi̯-eh2- (an o-grade form would also work for Luw. /kwayada-/), in the latter case with a suffix ablaut (*du̯e/oi̯-eh2- → *du̯e/oi̯-h2-). The quasi-equation of CLuw. /kwayada-(i)/ vb. ‘to be an object of fear’, /kwayada-/ c. ‘fear, respect’ and OAv. duuaēθā- suggests that the underlying syntagm *du̯e/oi̯(-h2)- dheh1- vel sim. ‘to put fear (out there), to cause fear’ dates back to PIE times. – Further nominal derivatives of PIE *du̯ei̯- are attested in Greek, where we find, e.g., the s-stem noun δέος n. ‘fear, alarm, affright’ (Il.+) < *du̯éi̯-os/es-, which served as derivational base of ἀ-δεής adj. ‘fearless’ (Il.+). The adjective δεινός ‘fearful, terrible, monstrous, etc.’ is ambiguous in terms of its origin, reflecting either a preform *du̯ei̯-nó- (as per Rix 1992a:93) or *du̯ei-es-nó- (cf. EDG:310). The latter could likewise be a derivative of the neuter s-stem δέος < *du̯éi̯-os/es-. In Latin, dīrus adj. ‘awful, dreadful, horrible’, a dialectal form, goes back to *du̯ei̯-ro- or *du̯ei̯(-)s-o- (with intervocalic *-s- > -r-). In the latter case, it can likewise be considered a derivative of the s-stem continued in Gk. δέος (i.e., *du̯éi̯-os/es- n. ‘fear’ → adj. *du̯ei̯-s-ó- ‘causing fear > awful, dreadful, horrible’); or, as argued in EDLIL:171, it was a derivative of the (neo-)root *du̯ei̯s- ‘to hate, be hostile’ (LIV²:131 s.v.), which is only attested in Indo-Iranian (Ved. dvéṣṭi ‘is hostile, hates’, OAv. daibišǝṇtī ‘they hate’ < pres. *du̯éi̯s-/*du̯is-´, cf. LIV²:131) and has often been regarded as an s-extended form of the root *du̯ei̯- ‘to fear’ (e.g., IEW:228, WH I:354). Yet, a closer connection between the two roots remains uncertain (LIV²:131 n. 1). Finally, there is also the possibility of relating *du̯ei̯- ‘to get frightened, fear’ and/or *du̯ei̯s- ‘to hate, be hostile’ to PIE *du̯o/i- ‘two(fold)’. Cf., e.g., Watkins 2011a:22 s.v. dwei-, who therefore posits an original meaning *‘to be in doubt, be of two minds’ for *du̯ei̯- (cf. also EIEC:198, EWAia I:770f., EDIV:82).
3.3Syntactic Reconstruction and Phraseology
A PIE syntagm *du̯e/oi̯(-h2)- dheh1- vel sim. ‘to put fear (out there), to cause fear’ might underly the formations CLuw. /kwayada-(i)/ vb. ‘to be an object of fear’, Luw. /kwayada-/ c. ‘fear, respect’, and OAv. duuaēθā- f. ‘threat’; cf. the above discussion sub Morphological Reconstruction.
[T.S.]
4. Transmission
OAv. duuaēθā- f. ‘threat’Cf., e.g., IEW:227, Bartholomae 1979a:763, LIV²:130 n. 1.
Gk. περὶ … δίε 3sg. them. aor. ‘was afraid’ (Hom.), δείδω, δείδιμεν perf. ‘fear’ (Hom.), δεινός adj. ‘fearful, terrible, monstrous’, also ‘awesome, strong, extraordinary’ (Il.+), δειλός adj. ‘cowardly, miserable’ (Il.+), δεῖμα n. ‘fear’ (Il.+), Δεῖμος m. ‘Fear’ (personified, Il.), δέος n. ‘fear, alarm, affright’ (Il.+), ἀ-δεής adj. ‘fearless’ (Il.+), etc.Cf., e.g., IEW:228, GEW I:354f. s.v. δείδω, 356–358 s.vv. δειλός, δεῖμα, δεινός, 367 s.v. δέος, 389f. s.v. δίεμαι, LIV²:130 with nn. 4 and 6, EDG:308 s.v. δείδω, 309f. s.vv. δειλός, δεῖμα, δεινός, 317 s.v. δέος, 332 s.v. δίεμαι.
Arm. erkea-/erki- aor. midd. ‘to be afraid’, erknčʻi- pres. ‘to be afraid’, erkiwł sbst. ‘fear’Cf., e.g., Klingenschmitt 1982a:78f., 282, Olsen 1999a:101f., LIV²:130 with n. 2f., EDAIL:267.
Lat. dīrus adj. ‘awful, dreadful, horrible’, dīrae sbst. f. pl. ‘bad omens’, Dīrae sbst. f. pl. ‘the Furies’Cf., e.g., WH I:353f., EDLIL:171.
TochB wi- ‘to frighten (tr.)’ (pres. 3pl. wīyäskeṃ), TochA wi(ā)- ‘to be frightened (intr.)’ (pret. ptcl. wiyo)Cf., e.g., LIV²:130, Malzahn 2010a:900f., DTB²:652.