*u̯e-dhéh1/dhh1-´
‘to build’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 1945
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Palaic
wite-
‘to build’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in the festival incantations for the Palaic pantheon.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 2sg. pres. ind. act. | ú-i-te-ši | KUB 35.165 obv. 23 | (CTH 751, OS or MS) |
| ú-i-te-ši | KUB 35.165 obv. 23 | (CTH 751, OS or MS) | |
| ú-i-ti-š[i] | KUB 32.17, 9’ | (CTH 751, MS?) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
Kammenhuber 1955b:365f. posits tentatively the meaning ‘to build’ for Pal. wite- in comparison with Hittite wete-/wet-(mi) ‘to build’. The context relates the relationship between the Sun-god(dess) and the king, in which the former is asked to perform wite- on the latter. Melchert 1984b:39f. brings contextual evidence for the meaning ‘to build’ by analyzing the string preceding the verb ti-i ú-i-te-ši, i.e. a-ru-u-na-am-pí, as arūn=am=pi and, thus, he translates the sentence as ‘You will build him high.’. This makes the semantic assignment of wite- as ‘to build’ more persuasive than before, as scholars analyzed a-ru-u-na-am-pí as arūnam=pi ‘the sea’ (pace Kammenhuber 1959a:22, EDHIL:1010). Therefore, we accept the semantic assignment ‘to build’. Carruba 1970a:76 adds Hittite wedā(i)-(mi) ‘to bring here’ as a comparison, which is not persuasive in respect to the verbal stem formation. Yakubovich 2005c:116 is not opposed to the semantics, but opens the possibility of relating Pal. wite- to the Proto-Indo-European root *u̯eid- ‘to see’ and posits a stative formation with the suffix -e- comparing Lat. vidēre. This etymological connection is less convincing because of the lack of Anatolian cognates for this root and because the Latin stative is a late formation; cf. LIV²:666 with further literature.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to build’
Various etymologies have been proposed for Hittite wete-(mi) ‘to build’ and now Palaic wite-. The most convincing one is the univerbation of the prefix *u̯e- with the verb *dheh1- ‘to put’ (thus Kronasser 1956b:202, Oettinger 1979a:129f., EDHIL:1010), which provides the best account for the inflection of the stem: The Hittite verb wete-(mi) reflects an accented full stem in the singular beside an unaccented zero-grade in the plural and belongs to the mi-conjugation, i.e. ú-e-te-ez-zi ‘he builds’ beside ú-e-da-an-zi ‘they build’ (*u̯e-dhéh1-ti/u̯e-dhh1-énti). This is the same stem as the one found in the suppletive verb tē-/tar-(mi) ‘to say’, e.g. tēmi ‘I put (into words), I say’ (*dhéh1-mi); likewise in peḫutē-(mi) ‘to bring thither’ (Oettinger 1979a:129). This stem reflects the root aorist of the Proto-Indo-European verb *dheh1- ‘to put’, while the one of Hitt. dāi ‘he puts’ belonging to the ḫi-conjugation reflects another stem formation, see under lemma PAnat. *dhóh1-/*dhh1-´ ‘to put’.
Other suggestions seeing an original root *u̯edh- do not take the verbal stem formation into consideration and are outdated. For a summary of these outdated hypotheses, see HEG W-Z:543.
Regarding the place of accentuation, Melchert 1994a:217 suggests that the accent retracted to the preverb, i.e. *u̯é-dheh1-, because we find the alternation -e/i- of the stem vowel in Pal. wite-. However, that the use of the sign with i-vocalism, i.e. ú-i-ti- instead of ú-i-te-, has any linguistic significance is not supported by the overall Palaic data. An Inner-Palaic retraction of the accent is possible, but cannot be proven yet. On the phonological development of *e > Pal. i in the environment *u̯_T cf. Wallace 1982-1983a:51f., Melchert 1994a:199.
In light of new inner-Lydian evidence, Lyd. da-wici- is no longer likely to be etymologically related to Hitt. wete-(mi) ‘to build’ and Pal. wite- ‘id.’.
[D.S.]