*slÉi̯k̑/k-/slik̑/k-´
‘to approach (vel sim.)’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1893
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Palaic
šalikka-
‘to approach (as a prelude to speaking)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in a festival text for the Palaic pantheon.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. ind. act. | ša-li-ik-ka4-at | KUB 35.165 obv. 11 | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
Eichner 2010a:45 compares etymologically Pal. šalikka- with Hitt. šalika- ‘to touch, to approach (as a prelude to speaking)’ (CHD Š:100, 102). Contra Eichner (ibid.), the Palaic verb is not likely to refer to some kind of consecration gesture. The combination of the two verbs, i.e. parinat šalikkat, can be compared to the Hittite phrase pariparāi iyannāi ‘he blows (the horn) (and) goes’ attested in a Palaic ritual text (KUB 35.163 iii 20). Since the gods are being addressed in the Palaic text right after the verb šalikkat, it is more likely that the person is approaching, in order to speak to the gods or to simply make contact. Therefore, we can assume that the same semantics ‘to approach (as a prelude to speaking or as to make contact)’ are common to Pal. šalikka- and Hitt. šalika-.
[D.S.]
1.2 Hittite
šalika-
‘to touch, to approach (as a prelude to speaking)’1.2.1Literature / Comments
CHD Š:100-102.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to approach (vel sim.)’
The equation of Pal. šalikka- ‘to approach (as a prelude to speaking)’ with Hitt. šalika- raises some phonological problems. While the Hittite root-final consonant -k- is regularly spelled single, the Palaic hapax shows a geminate spelling of the corresponding consonant. Thus, if the root contained a heavy syllable such as a diphthong *-ei̯-, Hittite could have generalized the lenited variant of an accented full grade of the root. This goes against the reconstruction suggested by Kloekhorst (EDHIL:711), who assumes a pre-form *slei̯g̑- following a Proto-Indo-European etymology (cf. HED S:84-88). The use of the Palaic hapax calls for caution, although a pre-form *slei̯k̑/k- would be required from an inner-Anatolian comparative perspective.
Regarding the stem formation of the Palaic cognate, no reliable information can be drawn from it. The Hittite verb, however, shows a root verb of both the mi- and ḫi-conjugation as well as medio-passive forms. Thus, an amphikinetic ablauting root verb can be reconstructed as *slÉi̯k̑/k-/slik̑/k-´. Oettinger 1976c:131 reconstructs a Proto-Indo-European stative verb as the original formation and explains the root verb of the mi-conjugation as a late inner-Hittite transfer.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Because no direct cognate of the Anatolian material is attested, no PIE reconstruction will be given here.
3.1.1Root etymology
If the root underlying Lith. slíekas ‘earthworm’, etc. is reconstructed as PIE *slei̯k- (on which cf. below sub Morphological reconstruction), the original meaning of the root may be reconstructed as ‘to creep, crawl’. This meaning fits both the ‘(crawling) earthworm/snail’ in Baltic and the kind of movement of ‘to approach (slowly and carefully)’ in Anatolian.If, unlike the PAnat. Reconstruction above, the root is reconstructed with a root-final voiced velar, viz. PAnat. *slei̯g/g̑- (cf., e.g., EDHIL:711f.), it can be compared with OIr. ‑slig ‘to smear, beat’, OHG slīhhan ‘to creep’, etc. (cf. LIV²:566f.). The underlying root PIE *slei̯g̑- (‘to smear, stroke’, according to LIV²:566f.) would then have to be reconstructed as ‘to smear, stroke (Gk., Celt., Slav.); to creep (Germ., Anat.)’, with ‘to smear, stroke’ as the primary meaning. However, the secondary meaning ‘to creep’ must also have existed in PIE already. For a parallel, cf. ModHG streichen ‘to stroke’ alongside streichen ‘to creep, roam’, esp. in the noun Land-streicher ‘hobo, vagabond’ < *‘the one who roams the countryside’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Because no direct cognate of the Anatolian material is attested, no PIE reconstruction will be given here.
3.2.1Root etymology
Lith. sliẽkas m. ‘earthworm’, etc. may be traced back to (virtual) PIE *slei̯ko‑ ‘crawling, creeping’, but it is not clear whether the velar belongs to the root (*slei̯k‑o‑) or is part of the suffix (*slei̯‑ko‑). In the latter case, no direct root connection can be made between Baltic and Anatolian unless one considers the possibility of a “root extension” in Anatolian, i.e. PAnat. *slei̯‑k/k̑- ‘to approach’ (cf. the approach in IEW:662–664, esp. 663). If, on the other hand, the Baltic noun is a simple thematic formation (*slei̯k‑o‑), it might be connected directly to PAnat. *slei̯k/k̑- ‘to approach’, leading to the specification of the root-final consonant as a simple velar, viz. *slei̯k- ‘to crawl, creep’.
Since there are various roots with a similar shape (*sReR/I(C)‑) and meaning (±‘to smear’),Cf. in LIV²:566–571 alone: ?*slei̯b- ‘to grind, glide’, *slei̯g̑- ‘to smear, smoothen’, *slenku̯- ‘to glide’, *(s)leu̯bh- ‘to glide, slip’, ?*smeh1- ‘to stroke, rub’, ?*smei̯d- ‘to smear’, ?*smeu̯k- ‘to glide’. Furthermore, cf. IEW:662–664 and, e.g., Seebold 1970a:429.the Anatolian root verb is very likely related to the Baltic lexemes for ‘earthworm’ in one way or the other. Due to lack of more cognates, however, no final decision can be made regarding the antiquity and exact phonological shape of the root PAnat. *slei̯k/k̑- ‘to approach’.EDHIL:711f. and others reconstruct the root with a root-final voiced velar, viz. PAnat. *slei̯g/g̑‑, which might be equated with PIE *slei̯g̑- ‘to smear, smoothen’ (LIV²:566f.). For this possibility, cf. the comment on the Semantic reconstruction above.
[A.O.]