*sedu̯ā-

Attested in a festival fragment and in a land donation grant (both MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	GIŠša-ad-˹du˺[-	KBo 24.114, 3’	(CTH 706, MS)
gen. sg./pl.	GIŠša-ad-du-wa-aš	KBo 5.7 rev. 1	(CTH 222, MS)

The attestations follow CHD Š:314 (cf. also Laroche 1951a:114, Friedrich 1952a:188, Ertem 1974a:163, Weitenberg 1984a:46, HEG L-S:957, and Ünal 2007a:623, Ünal 2016a:471; not included in HED), checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[Zs.S.]

Due to its determinative, it is clear that we are dealing with a plant (Kronasser 1962c:193 [cf. also below]; Tischler 2008a:166; but Riemschneider 1958a:349 left it untranslated) and due to its appearance in a land donation grant, in which there is a šadduwa-field, we have to deal either with a bush or tree (Laroche 1951a:114 [only ‘tree’, but see below, cf. also Kronasser 1962c:193], Ünal 2007a:623, Ünal 2016a:471, with question mark, cf. also below; Rüster & Wilhelm 2012a:235 left it untranslated but gave the meaning ‘tree’ in the glossary [Rüster & Wilhelm 2012a:252]) or with a garden vegetable (Laroche 1961b:86, but cf. above). According to CHD Š:314, the ten talents (GUN) of šadduwa- mentioned in KBo 24.114 suggest timber, but this is not necessarily so, cf. already Witczak & Zadka 2014b:132. The only clear aspect is that this context requires a cultivated plant, hence the frequent translation “Nutzpflanze” (Friedrich 1952a:188, Weitenberg 1984a:46, Neumann 1988a:261, and Ünal 2007a:623, Ünal 2016a:471 [all with question mark except Neumann]; Tischler 2016a:312).

Witczak & Zadka 2014b:133 cautiously propose that it may specifically refer to the ‘pomegranate’, but their argument that Hitt. ^GIŠšaddupala- of unknown meaning (HEG L-S:957; not included in the CHD) is a compound (cf. also Tischler 2016a:312) and “seems to include the same parts which appear in the reverse order in the Sanskrit compound phala-śāḍava-, also phala-ṣāḍava- m. ‘pomegranate tree’” does not hold water phonologically (on the etymologically obscure Sanskrit phála- ‘fruit’ see EWAia II:201 s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

The word has no etymology according to HEG L-S:958 (Kronasser 1962c:193 assumed a suffix -wa-, but the base remained unknown; it is not included in HED). It is not included in EDHIL implying a loanword, but it is not booked among the Luwianisms by Melchert 2005a or van den Hout 2006a.

Witczak & Zadka 2014b:133 propose a Luwian loanword in Hittite from Proto-Anatolian *sedg^wa- > “Luwoid” *sadwa- in order to be able to explain Greek σίδη ‘pomegranate’ as an Anatolian loan. However, as Simon 2018a:403 pointed out, *sadwa- cannot be the earlier form of šadduwa- due to their different dental. Instead, Simon 2018a:430 argues that Proto-Anatolian *sédwa- both regularly leads to Luwian šadduwa- (and thus, the Hittite word can be a Luwian loanword) and provides a suitable base for Greek σίδη and Sidetic *sidua-, which can now be supported also by Carian *sidba, see s.vv.

[Zs.S.]

Reconstructed from the Sidetic name of the city of Side preserved in her coin legends in adjectival form (‘Sidetan’) from the 4th c. BC (Atlan 1968a:67 and Nollé 2001a:644 contra Neumann 1968a:77, Neumann 1978b:872 [5th ‒ 4th c.]).

[Zs.S.]

nom. pl. c.	siduawniś	S10
	siduawn2iś	S10
	sidwawn2iś	S10
	siduawan2iś	S10

The attestations follow Ferrer Pérez 2020a (cf. also Atlan 1968a:Taf. If.), checked against the photographs of these papers. The grammatical definition follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:134, 136, Pérez Orozco 2020a:166.

[Zs.S.]

On the reading of the sixth sign (N6) of this word as ‹w› and not ‹j› as previously assumed proposed by Pérez Orozco 2003a:15f. see the discussion in Simon 2020e:201 n. 3 and Ferrer Pérez 2020a (its transcription as ‹v› introduced by Pérez Orozco 2020a is not followed here, since it is misleading, see the discussion in Simon 2021a). The alternation siduawniś / siduawn₂iś shows that the phonetic value of the signs N16 ‹n› and N25 ‹n₂› is identical and thus, the transcription ‹ñ› of the latter as a palatalized variant of ‹n› (Pérez Orozco 2007a:141) is not justified (see Simon 2019g:385 n. 5 and s.v. *tobVn₂re with discussion; thus, the new transcription ‹c› introduced by Pérez Orozco 2020a is false [see also the discussion in Simon 2021a] and it was not even applied to this case by himself, Pérez Orozco 2020a:169). Accordingly, the neutral transcription ‹n₂› proposed in Zinko 2016a:361f., 368 is followed here.

[Zs.S.]

Heubeck 1985c:120‒122 and Pérez Orozco 2003a:106 (implicitly already Darga 1967a:52) argued that the word underlying the Sidetic name of Side (now read as *sidua) means ‘pomegranate’, since the Greek name of the city is homonymous with the Greek word σίδη ‘pomegranate’ (i.e., it was translated by the incoming Greeks) and the city uses the pomegranate as the city’s symbol on her coins. Although it is possible that the Greek version of the name city is not a real translation but a simple folk-etymology, it would imply that the appearance of the pomegranate as the city’s symbol is also due to this folk-etymology or to a word-play (so Brixhe 1969a:71, cf. also Ferrer Pérez 2020a), but this is less probable since it would have been meaningless for the Sidetic speaking part of the population. Accordingly, it is more probable that *sidua indeed means ‘pomegranate’ (also Brixhe 1969a:71 admits that this interpretation cannot be excluded), which may be further supported by a possible Carian cognate for ‘pomegranate’, see s.v. *sidba.

[Zs.S.]

There is an old and general agreement that the name of the Carian city Σίβδα received her name from Greek σίβδᾱ ‘pomegranate’ (Pape & Benseler 1884a:1379; PWRE sv. Side; Huber 1921a:22; Brandenstein 1958a:87; Zgusta 1984a:560; Heubeck 1985c:121; Witczak & Zadka 2014a:118, Witczak & Zadka 2014b:133). This may be either the Greek spelling of a local toponym or the phonological adaptation of a local toponym or the translation of the local toponym or a folk-etymology or even an independent creation (the existence of city names based on the word for ‘pomegranate’ in the Aegeo-Anatolian region is very well attested for obvious botanical geographic reasons). However it may be, the Greek word itself is a loanword from an Anatolian language, more precisely from Carian *sidba on phonological grounds (see s.v.), which is sufficient to book this word as lemma. Nevertheless, both Doric σίβδᾱ and Ionic σίβδη are attested (see e.g. Witczak & Zadka 2014a:116) and since we are dealing with Ionic speaking Greeks in Caria, in case of the translation, folk-etymology or independent creation, one would expect †Σίβδη for the toponym. Accordingly, it is more probable that Σίβδα is the phonological adaptation of a local toponym (obviously supported by the similar sounding Greek word) meaning ‘pomegranate’.

[Zs.S.]

There is an old and widespread opinion that Ancient Greek σίδᾱ > σίδη and σίβδᾱ > σίβδη ‘pomegranate’ originate in an Anatolian language (Prellwitz 1892a:284; Hofmann 1949a:312; Carnoy 1959a:226; Brandenstein 1958a:86; Brixhe 1969a:771f.; Witczak & Zadka 2014b) based on Anatolian toponyms homonymous with these terms or with their derivatives (cf. below), although some scholars did not exclude the Pre-Greek origin either (Bossert 1950b:3; Pérez Orozco 2003a:106 [cf. also Pérez Orozco 2007a:132f.]; Ferrer Pérez 2020a:175). Nevertheless, it is treated as a word of unknown origin in the Greek etymological dictionaries (GEW II:703; DELG:1002; EDG:1329 [“Pre-Greek”], for outdated and further Pre-Greek “etymologies” see Witczak & Zadka 2014a:120f., add also Crepajac 1966a:253 and Heubeck 1985c:120) and the overviews of the Anatolian loanwords do not include this word (Jiménez Delgado 2008a; Yakubovich 2010d:113f., 146f., Yakubovich 2013a:118–120; Sh. Hawkins 2010a:224f.; Gasbarra & Pozza 2012a:189–196, Gasbarra & Pozza 2019a:57–70; Hajnal 2014a:110f., Hajnal 2018a:2041f.; Oreshko 2018a; Bianconi 2020a:139f.), with the exception of Simon 2018a:403, who accepts the Anatolian origin. Prellwitz 1892a:284 identified the source language as Carian (with question mark), but did not quote any evidence for this (Simon 2018a:403 claims that there is no evidence for the Carian origin, but this is only partly true, see below). The source of σίδη is Sidetic according to Bossert 1950b:3 and Darga 1967a:52 (due to the Sidetic town called Side), but the latter pointed out that the word may be a loan in Sidetic, too.

The Sidetic name of Side was *sidua, *sidwa and probably indeed meant ‘pomegranate’ (see s.v., there is absolutely no evidence for the claim of Witczak & Zadka 2014a:119, 121, 124, Witczak & Zadka 2014b:132f. that the Pamphylian city of Σίγγυα is Side, possibly reflecting its Sidetic name, see Billerbeck & Neumann-Hartmann 2016:169 n. 152 with refs.) and it could have regularly lead to σίδᾱ > σίδη (this clearly refutes the idea of Dressler 1965a:186 that σίδη goes back to *sibd-). However, the form *sidwa was not restricted to Sidetic: not only the Carian city-name Σίβδα points to a possible Carian form (see the discussion s.v. *sidba), but also σίβδᾱ > σίβδη itself: σίδᾱ > σίδη shows the regular Greek reflex of *sidwa; in other words, the foreign word underlying σίβδᾱ > σίβδη must already have had [b]. It is exactly the Carian language in which *sidwa regularly leads to *sidba (Schürr 2006a:118f., Schürr 2019d:12; Simon 2008b:460) adapted as σίβδᾱ to Greek phonology. It is unclear whether *sidwa- was already a Proto-Luwic form (thus allowing a very early Greek borrowing and from other regions, too), but if Luwian šadduwa- ‘an agri-/horticultural plant’ belongs here (see s.v.), then *sidwa- was not the Proto-Luwic form. Be that as it may, the most economical solution is that σίβδᾱ > σίβδη reflects the Carian form *sidba <*sidwa- and σίδᾱ > σίδη reflects the Sidetic form *sidwa.

The derivation of both forms from *sidwa- was proposed already by Brandenstein 1958a:87 and Pérez Orozco 2003a:106, Pérez Orozco 2007a:132f., the question is whether this form goes back to a form with a pre-dental nasal inspired by the allegedly related Aeolic form ξίμβα (but known only from Hesychius) also meaning ‘pomegranate’ and if so, how to explain then its ‹ξ›. This question is usually answered positively (see the literature quoted in Witczak & Zadka 2014a:121f., cf. Dressler 1965a:186: “offensichtlich dasselbe Wort”) and the issue led to different reconstructions: *śindu̯a <*śintu̯a (Brandenstein 1958a:87 [his latter form was rightly called “unsicher” by Neumann 1968a:82 pointing out the lack of evidence for a voiceless stop in the reflexes; Brixhe 1969a:71 calls Brandenstein’s reconstructed form “invérifiable”, but it is unclear, which one]), *śimda- (Heubeck 1985c:122), *sindwa- (Pérez Orozco 2003a:106 [with “una africada secundaria o una palatalización”], Pérez Orozco 2007a:132f.), *siCg^wā- and *k^w(u)-siCg^wā- (Witczak & Zadka 2014a:122‒124, Witczak & Zadka 2014b:134‒137). While the nasal might have disappeared in Sidetic regularly (cf. Pérez Orozco 2007a:132), it was preserved in Carian (and in the Greek transcription of Carian names) and since the Carian form does not contain any reflex of a nasal, there is no reason to assume a form *sindwa-. This also means that ξίμβα must be kept apart from this word and, accordingly, whatever the explanation of the ‹ξ› is, it does not influence the reconstructed form of σίδη and σίβδα and their Anatolian etymology.

[Zs.S.]