aitãta
‘eight(teen)’
- Language
- Lycian A
- Grammar
- num
- ID
- 2093
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lycian A
aitãta
‘eight(teen)’1.1.1Transmission
This word is found in a grave inscription.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
|
indecl. (?) |
aitãta |
Although aitãta could be inflected in the nominative/accusative neuter plural (see Melchert 2000b:60f.), it is also possible that the -a represents the default indeclinable form; cf. Lyc. B trija, Lyc. A sñta.
[D.S.]
1.1.3Meaning
The word aitãta modifies puwa ‘goats’, which are supposed to be handed over as a penalty fee. It was recognized very early as a number, though first connected to 6, i.e. ‘sixty’, by Savelsberg 1878a:33, later to 8, i.e. ‘eighty’, by Meriggi 1936b:266, both from an Indo-European perspective. The association with the number ‘8’ has gained a larger following, although scholars still hesitate as to which one of the 8-containing numerals below 100 it refers to, i.e. ‘eight’, ‘eighteen’, ‘eighty’; see Lyc. A nun͂tãta for the literature. Christiansen 2020a:249 translates ‘eight(?)’ with due reservation. The lower numbers 8 or 18 are better supported from a contextual and comparative perspective with similar Greek inscriptions from Anatolia, see Lyc. A kbisn͂tãta, and are adopted here as the most likely options until further evidence emerges.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Lycian aitãta ‘eight(een)’ necessitates a preform *og̑t-V-nteh2, in which the voiced velar *g̑ before *-i̯- (*ok̑t- as a direct pre-from is not possible phonologically, since it would have yielded Lyc. *est-; pace Melchert 1994a:313, Hajnal 1995a:159 n. 172). While the outcome *i̯ (< *g̑) disappears before vowels, it was retained here before the consonant -t-, yielding a diphthong *ei, colored to ai due to vowel harmony; cf. Meriggi 1936b:268, Melchert 1994a:313, Hajnal 1995a:159 n. 172, Carruba 1999a:158. Thus, the change from *k̑ (expected from the PIE perspective) → *g̑ might be analogical; for a similar change in Greek see the PIE lemma below.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
According to the considerations above sub Meaning, Lyc. A aitãta most likely means ‘8’ or ‘18’ and is thus presumably a derivative of the PIE numeral ‘8’.On the phonological (and morphological) shape, cf. below. Cf. the comparable formation Lyc. A nuñtãta ‘nine(teen)’.The superficial equation with Lith. aštuõntas, etc. ‘8th’ (< *ok̑tōnto‑) is unlikely both semantically – in the case of Lycian A, an ordinal does not fit the context, which requires rather a cardinal number – as well as morphologically, cf. below. Therefore, no PIE reconstruction is provided for Lyc. A aitãta.
3.1.1Derivational base
Based on the likely morphological reconstruction of the numeral ‘8’ as an original dual formation,According to Fritz & Meier-Brügger 2020a:240, this fact is being discussed but cf., e.g., Lipp 2009a I:89: “das nur unter dem spezifierendem Ansatz der Dualform *h2ok̑tóh1 einer sinnvollen morphologischen Analyse zugänglich ist”.the underlying stem is supposed to denote something that is associated with the number ‘4’. The most promising approach is the connection with Av. *ašta‑ ‘palm, hand’ vel sim.,On the assumed reconstruction as an a‑stem, cf. the comment above. Based on the two attested compounds, viz. YAv. ašti.masah- ‘one hand(‑breadth) thick’ and uz-ašti- ‘width of 8 fingers’ (< *‘having the *ašta- upwards’ [cf. Klingenschmitt 1968a:239] or ‘having more *ašta-, super-*ašta‑’ [cf. Henning 1942a:235]), it is recommended to interpret the simplex cautiously as ‘palm, hand’ vel sim. and not primarily as a length unit. This does not mean that the Avestan simplex never denoted a length unit but that the evidence for such a meaning is too scarce.comparable to Gk. παλα(ι)στή, παλάμη, Lat. palma, etc. ‘hand, four fingers’ breadth’ = 4 Gk. δάκτυλοι, Lat. digiti, etc. ‘finger, a finger’s breadth’.On further etymological proposals for the numeral ‘8’, cf. Blažek 1999a:271f.Av. *ašta‑ ‘palm, hand’ may further be connected to the root PIE *h2ek̑- ‘(to be) sharp, pointed’ (LIV²:261, NIL:287–300, cf. CLuw. ḫazzuwan(i)-):Differently, e.g., de Vaan 1997a [2000]:241 who reconstructs an i‑stem YAv. ašti- as an abstract PIE *h2n̥k̑‑ti- ‘reaching, stretching’ (cf. Skt. áṣṭi- ‘id.’) derived from the root PIE *h2nek̑- ‘to reach’ (282–284). However, the semantic part of his etymology is not clear: “‘stretching’, which is the position of (twice) the four fingers of a hand without the thumb” (ibid.).*‘set of points (i.e. fingers without the thumb, which is, in terms of pointedness, different from the other fingers)’Another fourfold entity in connection with the hand are the knuckles (cf. Blažek 1999a:335), most pointy when the hand is clenched.> ‘hand (four fingers broad)’.For another source of a numeral denoting the hand without the thumb, cf. PAnat. *mi̯éu̯‑/*mi̯u‑´ ‘four’ < ‘the small hand (i.e. without the thumb, thus showing the four long fingers)’ derived from the root PIE *mei̯- ‘to decrease (intr.), fade’ (LIV²:427).Therefore, the preform of the numeral ‘8’ as a dual formation can be tentatively paraphrased as ‘both sets of pointed fingers/knuckles, both hands without the thumbs’.However, cf. below on the phonological problems of this solution in Anatolian.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
According to Lipp 2009a I:288f. n. 76, Lyc. A aitãta – in his view ‘eighty’ – goes ultimately back to a collective in *‑Vntā, derived from *h2ok̑tóh1 ‘8’, hence “‘Acht-heit’ = ‘acht Dekaden’”.Cf. the comparable formation Lyc. A nuñtãta ‘nine(teen)’.Since there are no exact equations outside Anatolian, no PIE reconstruction is provided. The possible, purely formal equation with Lith. aštuõntas, etc. ‘8th’ (< *ok̑tōnto‑), however, is semantically (cf. above) as well as morphologically unconvincing. The Lithuanian ordinal introduced the nasal secondarily from its neighbors septiñtas ‘7th’ (cf. PAnat. *septm̥ ‘seven’) and deviñtas ‘9th’ (cf. PLuw. *nun- ‘nine’], both of which show an etymological nasal.In fact, the first intrusion of a nasal into the Balto-Slavic numeral ‘8’ happened in the cardinals, cf. aštuonì ‘8’ after septynì ‘7’ and devynì ‘9’ (ALEW 2.0 s.v. aštuonì). Anyway, in relation to OLith. sẽkmas ‘7th’ and ãšmas ‘8th’, septiñtas ‘7th’ and aštuõntas, aštúontas ‘8th’ are secondary, cf. ALEW 2.0 s.vv. sẽkmas, ãšmas.
3.2.1Derivational base
According to, e.g., Blažek 1999a:268–271 (followed by Lipp 2009a I:89–92), the PIE numeral ‘8’ is a dual formation (cf. also Winter 1992a:13) based ultimately on the root PIE *h2ek̑- ‘(to be) sharp, pointed’ (LIV²:261, NIL:287–300).Criticism comes from de Vaan, as carried out in detail by de Vaan 1997a [2000]:241, reflected also in Beekes & de Vaan 2011a:238 and EDLIL:424. He does not assume an o-grade or a dual ending. Fortson 2010a:146 reconstructs only “*ok̑tō(u̯)” without comment and Weiss 2020a:393 writes two question marks after “*h3ek̑tó‑h1e” and adds that “*ok̑tṓ/*ok̑tṓu̯ may be an old dual.”This assumption seems plausible in view of the similar looking lexeme Av. *ašta‑ ‘palm, hand’, if it can be connected.On its form and meaning, cf. above.The preform of the PIE numeral ‘8’ can thus be reconstructed as PIE *h2ok̑to‑h1 ‘both hands without the thumbs’.On the internal structure of the o‑stem PIE *h2ok̑to- ‘hand, palm’, cf. Lipp 2009a I:89–92 with an intermediary abstract noun *h2ok̑‑ét‑/*h2ok̑‑t‑´ ‘tip’ (on the type, cf. Ved. vāghát- m. ‘institutor of a sacrifice’).However, *h2 is expected to be conserved in Lycian A (cf., e.g., Lyc. A xuga- < PAnat. *Héu̯h‑eh2‑/*HuH‑éh2- ‘grandfather’), unless one considers the loss of any laryngeal in front of *‑o- plausible (as per EDHIL:75). Since this sound law is not accepted in this dictionary, this etymology has to be regarded as very tentative.Cf. Lipp 2009a I:288 n. 76 who alternatively proposes a post-PAnat. (pre-PLyc.) dissimilation.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. aṣṭā́, aṣṭáu (RV+), YAv. ašta, etc. ‘8’
Ved. aśītí- f., YAv. aštaiti ‘80’
(?)YAv. compound member °ašti‑/ašti° ‘hand, palm’ in YAv. ašti.masah- adj. ‘one handbreadth thick’ and uz-ašti ‘(Pahl.) čigōn 8 angust, length of 8 fingers’ (F. 734)The original stem class of the compound member YAv. °ašti‑/ašti° cannot be determined for sure because as a first member of the possessive compound ašti.masah-, the ‑i- may be of Caland-like origin and uz-ašti, on the other hand, can be interpreted as a nominalization of an a‑stem *uz-ašta- ‘having the a. upwards’ or ‘having more a., super-a.’, cf. Grestenberger 2017 on “Bahuvrīhi-i” in Vedic. Therefore, the underlying simplex of ašti.masah‑ and uz-ašti may in fact be an a‑stem YAv. *ašta‑.
EWAia I:142, 137, Grassmann 1996a:144f., Bartholomae 1904a:260, 261, 262, 410, Blažek 1999a:263f., Emmerick 1992a:170, 174f., Emmerick 1992b:299f., 310, Lipp 2009a I:89–92, Klingenschmitt 1968a:239
Gk. ὀκτώ, Boiot. ὀκτό, Lesb. ὄκτο, Elean ὀπτώ (καὶ δεκά) (IvO 18, Minon, IED 25, around 400 BCE, Olympia), Heracl. hοκτώ, Thess. ὄττου (SEG 26.672, early 2nd c. BCE, Larisa, et passim) ‘8’
Gk. ὄγδοος (Il.+), Old Corinthian [ὀγ]δόϝα (IG IX,1² 1.152,f, early 6th c. BCE, Kalydon) ‘8th’On various proposals for explaining the form of the Greek ordinal, cf. Blažek 1999a:265f. with lit. The most likely explanation of the voiced consonant cluster seems to be analogical influence from Gk. ἕβδομος ‘7th’ vel sim., cf., e.g., Schwyzer 1939a:595, Waanders 1992a:380.
GEW I:374f., 346, GEW III:160, 159, DELG:790f., EDG:1066, 1044, LSJ:1196, LSJSuppl:226, 223, Waanders 1992a:373, Blažek 1999a:265f.
owt‘ ‘8’
EDAIL:631, Winter 1992b:350, Blažek 1999a:265
OPhryg. dat. sg. otuvoi (vetei) ‘(in the) 8th (year)’On the aporetic interpretation of this grapheme sequence, cf. Obrador-Cursach 2020a:322.
Obrador-Cursach 2020a:322, Blažek 1999a:265
Lat. octō ‘8’ (Plaut., Enn.+)The length of the second ‑o- is not proven independently from the Latin perspective, cf. OLD²:1362.
Lat. octāvus ‘8th’ (Caecil., Cato+), praenomen Osc. gen. sg. Úht[aveís] ‘Octāvī’ (Venafrum 1), gentilicium Úhtavis ‘Octavius’, borrowed as Etr. f. personal name uhtavi (Capua 33/Cp 36, 3rd c. BCE, Capua, etc.)The form ο(h)ταϝισ (Laos 3/Lu 63) is not read this way anymore but [σ]τατ̣ισ, cf. Zair 2016a:30.
WH II:199f., EM:457f., EDLIL:424f., OLD²:1362, Bakkum 2009a:247 (on Faliscan), Heidermanns 1999a:310, Coleman 1992a:396, Blažek 1999a:266
OIr. ochtN, OW oith, OBret. eith ‘8’
EDPC:304, Falileyev 2000a:124f., 153f., Greene 1992a:510, 540, Blažek 1999a:266f.
Goth. ahtau (Lk 2.21, 9.28), Crim. Goth. athe, ON átta, OHG ahto ‘8’
OHG ahtodo ‘8th’; Goth. ahtudin, ON átti ‘8th’
EDPG:6, 7, Orel 2003a:5, GED:12, de Vries 1977a:17, EWAhd I:121–123, Ross & Berns 1992a:588f., Blažek 1999a:267
Lith. aštuonì, Latv. astuȏņi ‘8’, Jatv. aktiſ ‘(Pol.) osiem, 8’; OCS osmĭ, Russ. vósem’, etc. ‘8’
Lith. aštuñtas, aštuõntas, Latv. astuôtaĩs ‘8th’; OCS osmŭ, Russ. vos’mój, etc. ‘8th’
EDBIL:64f., EDSIL:378f., 379, ALEW 2.0 s.vv. aštuonì, ãšmas, Vasmer I:231, 232, Comrie 1992a:758–760, Blažek 1999a:267f.
Alb. tetë ‘8’
AED:453, Demiraj 1997a:385, Neri in DPEWA s.v. tetë (2021-09-13), Hamp 1992a:914f., Blažek 1999a:266
TochA okät, otäk, TochB ok(t) ‘8’
TochA oktänt*, TochB oktante ‘8th’
TochA oktuk, TochB oktaṅka ‘80’
DTB²:115f., 116, Carling 2009a:81, 83, 86, Winter 1992c:110–112, Blažek 1999a:268