*wli/jat

Reconstructed from well-attested Carian names from Egypt and in Greece, known also in Greek transmission as Υ/Ολιατος (Adiego 1992a:31, Adiego 2007a:339 [adding Οαλοαλος, which, however, does not belong here, see s.v. Carian *walwa-]; 428; Vernet Pons 2012a:149; Schürr 2017a:3, Schürr 2019d:4 [who cautiously adds Λιατος]; Melchert 2021b:110; contra Zgusta 1964a:529 §1627). Chronologically, they cover the period from the 7^th c. BC until the 1st c. BC/AD (for the specific dates see O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:9, 36: Adiego, Tiverios, Manakidou & Tsiafakis 2012a:195f.; Žába 1974a:194; LGPN V.B:261, 326, 418).

Dees 2021a:57 suggests that this names appears as Ulutue in Babylonian transmission, which is not possible as it leaves the ending °ue without explanation (besides, Dees falsely claimed that Simon 2016e:279f. identified Ulutue with Οαλοαλος, cf. also s.v . Carian *walwa- ‘lion’).

Finally, Melchert apud Maeir et al. 2008a:58 and Vernet Pons 2012a:148, 153f., 157f., Vernet 2017b:230f. suggest (and uncritically followed by Herda 2020a:19f.) that also Goliath (Glyt), a Philistine name preserved in Biblical Hebrew transmission, is identical to Wli/jat with a [w] → [g] sound substitution in Hebrew (the phonological explanation is given only by Vernet Pons, who does not quote Melchert). However,

1. no substitution is expected because [w] was not only present in Biblical Hebrew (pointed out already by Maeir et al. 2008a:58) but also fully regular in initial position, too;
2. accordingly, loanwords and foreign names with [w] were adapted with [w] in Biblical Hebrew (Lipiński 1997a:115);
3. the initial sound of the Carian name was [u], not [w] and there is no explanation, how [ul°] would have led to [gol°] (Vernet Pons 2012a:153 n. 17 claims that we are probably dealing with the defective notation of the vowel after [w], but ‹u› and ‹w› are basically spelling variants (Adiego 2007a:235) and Uliat in G 3 clearly shows that we are dealing with [u]);
4. the earlier form of the name did start with *[wal°], but there is no explanation how it would have given [gol°] (note that Vernet Pons’ analogies such as William ~ Guillaume and Guadalquivir < Wādī al-kabīr do not show sound substitution but a prothetic [g] due to the missing initial [w] in the borrowing language and in the former case a later loss of [w], i.e. *[wV-] > *[gwV-] > [gV-], but as pointed out above, this anaptyctic [g] has no phonological basis in the case of Biblical Hebrew and also the different vowels remain unexplained).

In other words, Goliath does not reflect this name.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg.	Wliat	E.xx 2
	Wljat	E.Th 7
	Uliat	G 3
gen. sg.	Wlj[a]tś	E.Mu 1
	Šarwljatś	E.Me 3

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:417, 428 and Schürr 2019d:4, checked against the photographs in O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl. IVb, IX, Žába 1974a:Fig. 323, and Adiego, Tiverios, Manakidou & Tsiafakis 2012a:197 Fig. 1 (no photograph of the Theban graffito has been published). Schürr 2019d:4 adds a question mark to E.Mu 1, without arguments. While the drawing indeed shows an ‹o› instead of an ‹a›, Adiego 2007a:110 rightly pointed out that the parallel forms guarantee the reading ‹wljatś›. The photograph (Žába 1974a:Fig. 323) shows that the letter is not readable anymore and thus, Adiego’s remark applies. For the names in Greek transmission see LGPN V.B:261, 326, 418.

[Zs.S.]

There are two approaches to the semantic definition of *wli/jat. First, Adiego 1992a:31, Adiego 1993a:174 compared it with Anatolian personal names such as Walawala, Waliwali and with Hittite walliwalli- ‘stark, mighty’, what he traced back to a root wala/i- ‘fuerte, violento’ (but his then derivation from *waliyant- became in the meanwhile obsolete from a phonological point of view, although still maintained by Vernet Pons 2012a:150, Vernet 2017b:231 ‒ Adiego and Vernet Pons attributed this comparison to Shevoroshkin 1984a [1986], but this is mistaken). Later, he also compared CLuw. wallant(i)- ‘fit, capable’ (Adiego 2007a:338, cf. also Vernet 2017b:231).

Second, Adiego 2007a:339 suggested another word family: Hitt. walli- ‘glory’, CLuw. walliya-[2581], HLuw. wa/iliya-[2583] ‘to exalt’ (for more precise meanings and forms see s.vv.). *wli/jat was connected to this family but with more precise morphological details also by Schürr 2019d:4 (comparing CLuw. *walliyatt- ‘Erhöhung’) and Melchert 2021b:111 (comparing CLuw. walliyatta/i- ‘*exaltation, praise’ allegedly attested in walliyattašša/i-, which, however, does not exist, see s.v.[2587]).

The first solution can be discarded: as Simon 2016e:279 with n. 59 and refs. pointed out, the origin of the quoted personal names is unclear (from a morphological point of view they can be Hattian, too) and Hittite walliwalliya- (this is the correct form) does not mean ‘stark’. It qualifies the winds and Ištar and its etymology is unknown (EDHIL:948f.) and thus, it is currently hardly conducive to any connection with *wli/jat.

Due to this unsolved etymological problem, the comparison with wallant(i)- (in fact a Luwian loan in Hittite, not Cuneiform Luwian, see s.v.) should be discussed separately: while it clearly cannot be etymologically identical to *wli/jat on phonological grounds, its stem may underlie it. However, neither the meaning of wallant(i)- is entirely assured (see s.v.) nor the meaning of the root *wall- leading to wallant(i)- ‘fit, capable ?’, the Glossenkeilwort niwalla/i- ‘innocent’ (see s.v.) and Luwian in Hittite Transmission niwallant(i)- ‘good-for-nothing’ (see s.v.). The usual explanation, *u̯elH-‘to be strong, active’ (see s.v.) is a possibility. This could be semantically fitting and lead to *wli/jat regularly with the suffixes -iya- and Carian -at (on this Carian suffix in this name see already Schürr 2017a:3).

Nevertheless, the second proposal, a connection with Luwian walli- ‘to raise’, walliya- ‘rising, honour’, etc. provides a semantically more ascertained etymology under the same morphological conditions and thus seems preferable.

[Zs.S.]