*Peu̯KH-
‘to hate, despise’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 2047
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lycian B
puke-(ti)
‘to hate’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE, and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. ind. act. | puketi | TL 44c.46 (Xanthos) |
1.1.3Meaning
In the passage TL 44c.46, the subject of the action of puke-(ti) is the god Natri/Apollo, protector of Kaunos, while the direct object is the Lycian king Gergis. Shevoroshkin 1977a:142 n. 2 and Eichner 1993a:143 n. 122 compare etymologically Lyc. B puke-(ti) with the Hitt. pukk- attested only in the medio-passive meaning ‘to be repulsive (to a god)’ and suggest the same semantics for the Lycian B cognate. This can be contextually supported, since the action following puke-(ti) and performed by the god is kupri-(ti) ‘to love’, i.e. the opposite.
ñt(e)=ene puketi xbidewñni ulaxadi zrẽtẽni seb(e)=ẽn(e) ari kupriti turaxssali natri timlu mawate waxsadi wizttasppazñ (TL 44c.46-48)
‘The protector of Kaunos (scil. Apollo) despises him (scil. Gergis) because of the attacks, but he will love him in (due) time. He made the timlu-offering of Hystaspes for Apollo of Mount Thorax fourfold with waxssa.’
Pace Melchert (DLL:126) and Schürr 2016d:168, the verb does not have to represent a favorable action, especially if considering the ablativus causae ulaxadi ‘because of the attacks’. Thus, the semantic assignment obtained from the etymological perspective is contextually adequate. A different etymological approach is taken by Shevoroshkin 2014a:235, who suggests an etymological connection with PIE *bheu̯g- ‘to flee, to escape’ as a causative-iterative formation in *-éi̯e/o-, i.e. puke-(ti) ‘to rescue’. However, the Proto-Indo-European causative-iterative formations in Lycian are continued by the stem class -(e)i-(di) not -e-(ti). Therefore, his semantic assignment must be rejected; see under Reconstruction.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to hate, to despise’
Based on Lycian B puke-(ti) ‘to despise’, a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation can be reconstructed, whereas in Hittite pukk- ‘(med.) to be hated, repulsive’ only the medio-passive diathesis is attested. Thus, the equation of the two cognates calls for a Proto-Anatolian reconstruction of a root verb *Peu̯K-. At first sight, the root-final consonant should be reconstructed as voiceless because of the geminate -kk- in Hittite and -k- in Lycian B. However, the diphthong in the root should have triggered lenition of the following velar, i.e. med. *Péu̯k-o/to- > *Péu̯g-o/to- or ḫi-conj. *Póu̯k-/Puk-´ > *Póu̯g-/Puk-´, which creates a problem vis-à-vis the outcome that we have attested, i.e. Hitt. puggaru.One could assume that the variant of the weak stem was generalized in Lycian, but in Hittite this only happens with the strong stem (see Melchert 2012c:173 with further literature), which would leave the medio-passive form unexplained. The only solution left is that we are dealing with an extended root with a laryngeal, i.e. *Peu̯kH-, which would have blocked the effect of lenition and later assimilated to the preceding velar; cf. šakk-/šekk-(ḫi) ‘to know’ < *sókH-/s(e)kH-´. On the phonological development of this class of verbs see Melchert 2013e:145 with further literature. Therefore, a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation with a root extended with a laryngeal is reconstructed *Póu̯KH-/PuKH-´ ‘to hate, to despise’. Whether the velar consonant before the laryngeal was voiced or voiceless cannot be determined by the Anatolian data, since the former, i.e. *g, would have become voiceless due to a near assimilation with a following *h2 (cf. Hitt. mekki- < *meg̑h2-i-).
A connection to PIE *bheu̯g- ‘to flee, to escape’ as suggested previously (see HEG P:641f. with further literature and EDHIL:681) is not directly possible, unless one assumes an extended root with a laryngeal as indicated above. Kronasser 1952-1953a adduces the root *bheu̯g(h)- ‘to bend’ and suggests that it underlies the same root as *bheu̯g- ‘to flee, to escape’. According to him, the semantics of “bending” would have developed to “to despise” in Anatolian.
[D.S.]