akτa-
‘the dead (?)’
- Language
- Lydian
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 2003
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lydian
akτa-
‘the dead (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in two inscriptions that have not been dated accurately. The inscription LW 12 is a metrical one.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
|
nom. sg. |
akτas |
||
|
dat. sg. |
akτaλ |
Gusmani 1972c:158 (and Gusmani 1975b:18) treats akτas as nominative singular (likewise Schürr 2006b:1577), although an accusative plural would be formally possible.
[D.S.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
The word has been interpreted instead as a particle chain, i.e. ak=τ=as, which became obsolete when a new attestation emerged with the discovery of the inscription LW 80 (Gusmani 1980a:30).
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
In LW 12, akτaλ agrees in case and number with wãnaλ ‘(rock-carved) grave’. No meaning is suggested in Gusmani 1972c:158. The suffix -τa- derived from the root ak- has been recognized but treated as an adjectival suffix (Melchert 1994a:334). Melchert 1994a:356 connects the root ak- to Hitt. āk-/akk-(ḫi) ‘to die’ and suggests the meaning ‘of the dead (?)’ for akτa- (hesitantly followed by EDHIL:168). However, the Lydian suffix -τa- corresponds morphologically to Lycian -aza- c., which creates substantives denoting individuals (Schürr 2006b:1577, Sasseville 2021a:110 with the historical grammar). Therefore, akτa- should not be treated as an adjective modifying wãna- c., but rather as a noun ‘the dead one’ (thus Schürr 2011a:77) standing either in apposition (less likely) or in an asyndetic relation to it, i.e. wãnaλ akτaλ ‘to the grave (and) to the dead one (?)’ (cf. Lyc. A lataza- c. ‘member of the dead’), or even in a different case function ‘in the grave for the dead’ (Schürr 2006b:1577). The etymological suggestion of Melchert remains persuasive, considering that the lexeme occurs in a funerary context.Yakubovich (pers. comm.) suggests the meaning ‘burial (?)’, which is not supported from a morphological perspective.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
If the etymological connection with Lyd. akτa- c. ‘the dead (?)’ and Hitt. āk-/akk-(ḫi) ‘to die’ is correct (Melchert 1994a:332), an agent noun in *-é-ti̯eh2- can be posited for pre-Lydian (equating a virtual Luwian *akkazza-), i.e. transposed *ak-é-ti̯ā- (with analogical left or right-shift of the accent and syncope in Lydian). The Hittite root verb of the ḫi-conjugation would continue a Proto-Anatolian pre-form *(h1)ók-/(h1)k-´(i) (EDHIL:168; cf. Oettinger 1979a:403). Differently, Melchert 2012c:181f. suggests an original root of the shape *nek̑- (with Indo-European cognates), in which the zero-grade *n̥k̑- would have yielded *ak- and spread to the strong stem (i.e. PAnat. *nók̑-/n̥k̑-´). This scenario cannot be excluded based on the current state of research and should be considered seriously.An original voiced velar *g (as per Melchert 1994a:332) in the root is not likely, since it is expected to disappear in Luwic (including Lydian). On the lenition of the root-final consonant in Hittite verbs of the type -āC1-/-aC1C1-(ḫi), which is necessary here to account for the Hittite paradigm (e.g. āki ‘he dies’), see Melchert 2012c, Kloekorst 2014a and the summary in Sasseville 2021a:388-400.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The meaning of the root underlying Lyd. akτa- c. ‘the dead one(?)’ and Hitt. āk‑/akk‑ (ḫi) ‘to die’ can readily be derived from ‘to disappear’. Although they are formally not unambiguous,Alternatively, the lexemes Ved. áka- n. ‘unhappiness, pain’ (TS+), Av. aka- ‘bad, evil’, etc. (cf. EWAia I:39) can theoretically be traced back to a root PIE *h1ek- which is a phonologically possible source for the Anatolian material. However, since there are no further cognates attested, and the connection with the well-attested root PIE *nek̑- ‘to disappear, get lost’ is available, the latter is preferred here.these lexemes are connected with the root PIE *nek̑- ‘to disappear, get lost’ (LIV²:451f., LIV²+ s.v. *nek̑-)
3.1.1Root etymology
While various formations derived from PIE *nek̑- are semantically related to ‘death’,Cf. Gk. νέκυς ‘corpse’, Lat. nex ‘death’, Lith. našlỹs ‘widower’, etc. Thus, e.g., IEW:762 reconstructs the meaning “leibliche Todesvernichtung”, cf. also Thieme 1952a:12.others point to a less concrete meaning ‘to disappear’.Cf., e.g., TochA, TochB näk- ‘(midd.) to fall ruin, disappear’ and Ved. NAŚ ‘to get lost, disappear’.Therefore, the underlying root is reconstructed as PIE *nek̑- ‘to disappear, get lost’ in LIV²:451f. and LIV²+ s.v. *nek̑-.Cf. Thieme 1952a:12–14 on the difference from PIE *mer- ‘to disappear, die’. Since in Anatolian the latter means only ‘to disappear, vanish’ and thus cannot be reconstructed as ‘to die’ for PIE, Thieme’s findings can be attributed to Core IE only.However, since only the Tocharian middle shows the intransitive meaning ‘to disappear’ as well as the Hittite provides a ḫi-verb and the Indo-Iranian present is not a root formation, it might be proposed that the root meaning ‘to disappear, get lost’ actually was limited to the middle voice, which served as the basis for the causative meaning ‘(act.) to make disappear, destroy, harm’, attested in the Tocharian activeAccording to LIV²:452 n. 6, the assignment of active voice and causative meaning in Tocharian is secondary.and in the ‘regular’ causative formation continued in Ved. nāśáya‑(ti) ‘to destroy’, Lat. nocēre ‘to harm’, MPers. vi-nāθ-aya- ‘id.’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Since no direct cognates of Lyd. akτa- c. ‘the dead one(?)’ are attested outside Anatolian, no further reconstruction is provided.
3.2.1Root etymology
If Lyd. akτa- c. ‘the dead one(?)’ and Hitt. āk‑/akk‑ (ḫi) ‘to die’ are connected with Lat. nex ‘(agonizing) death’, Ved. náśya- ‘to perish’, etc.,On an alternative proposal, cf. the first comment above.the underlying root is PIE *nek̑- ‘(midd.) to disappear, get lost’. The Indo-Iranian outcome of the root final consonant proves the palatal character of the velar of PIE *nek̑- ‘to disappear, get lost’ (LIV²:451f. and LIV²+ s.v. *nek̑-).
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. pres. náśya‑ ‘to perish, disappear’, Av. pres. nasiia- ‘id.’, YAv. nasu- ‘body, corpse’, OPers. vi-nāθ-aya- ‘to harm, devastate’, etc.
EWAia II:28f., Kulikov 2012a:569f., Bartholomae 1904:1055f., 1057f., 1451, Bartholomae 1906a:200, Schmitt 2014a:219f.
Gk. Hom. νέκῡς, post-Hom. νέκῠς ‘corpse (Il.+); (adj.) dead (S.+)’, νεκρός ‘corpse (Il.+); (adj.) dead (Pi.+)’ etc.
GEW II:299f., DELG:741, Papanastassiou 1994a:31, EDG:1003f., LSJ:1165f., 1166
OPhryg. dat. sg. noktoy (B-06), NPhryg. acc. sg. νουκτον (29.1[114]) ‘(?)violation’
Obrador-Cursach 2020a:312
Lat. nex, necis ‘(agonizing) death’ (Naev.+), necāre ‘to kill’ (Enn., Plaut.+), nocēre ‘to harm, injure’ (XII+); (?)Umbr. 3sg. impv. II ninctu ‘?’ (VIb.60, VIIa.49)
WH II:153–155, EM:439f., EDLIL:407f., 411, Untermann 2000a:497f.
OIr. éc, MW angheu, etc. ‘death’
EDPC:37f., de Bernardo Stempel 1999a:97
TochA, TochB näk- ‘(act.) to destroy, lose; (midd.) to fall ruin, disappear’
DTB²:355f., Malzahn 2010a:681f., Hackstein, Habata & Bross 2019a:116