/hwisar-/, (LEO)˺hwa/i-sa5+ra/i-
‘beast’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 2662
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/hwisar-/, (LEO)˺hwa/i-sa5+ra/i-
‘beast’1.1.1Transmission
The present lexeme is attested four times, with the relevant inscriptions located in south in Tabal and the south-east in Amuq and Tell Ahmar. They date to between the late 10th and 8th centuries BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| abl./instr. | /hwisaradi/ | “LEO[”]x-x-x-ti | TULEIL 1, l. 1 (Amuq) |
| nom./acc. pl. | /hwisara/ | (“ANIMA.LEO”)hwa/i-sa5+ra/i | BOHÇA, §5 (Tabal) |
| ˹(LEO)˺hwa/i-sa5+ra/i-´ | BULGARMADEN, §7 (Tabal) | ||
| poss. adj. nom./acc. pl. n. | /hwisarassa/ | (LEO)hwa/i-sà+ra/i-sa | ALEPPO 2, §5 (Tell Ahmar) |
Hawkins 2000a:237 assumes the form in ALEPPO 2, §5 to represent /hwisar=sa/, i.e. nom./acc. sg. with the neuter particle /=sa/ attached. This seems unlikely in the context if one accepts the interpretation of the preceding word as /kwaya/, nom./acc. pl. n. of the relative pronoun, because the two words are likely to show grammatical agreement in this existential relative clause.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The explicit spelling in HLuw. is further supported by cognates in Hittite ḫuiš-/ḫuš-(mi) ‘to live, to survive’ and its derivatives (see e.g. HEDH:332-341). Regarding the HLuw. attestations, it should be noted that the root-final sibilant is twice spelt with 〈sa5〉 (sign *327), but once with 〈sà〉 (*104). The latter sign is commonly assumed to represent a palatalised sibilant, conditioned by a preceding /i/ or /u/ or following /k/, but was only consistently used in this way during the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, see Rieken 2010b:659. That explains the appearance of 〈sà〉 (*104) in ALEPPO 2, which dates to the late 10th or early 9th century BCE, whereas the 8th century inscriptions from Tabal, i.e. BOHÇA and BULGARMADEN, no longer adhere to the older spelling rule and use a different member of the SA group instead, in this case 〈sa5〉 (*327).
The spelling of the present lexeme as well as the other members of the word family always involve the sign LEO (*97, also transcribed as BESTIA).
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning ‘beast’ was first suggested by Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1979a:399f., who noticed that the noun could be used in a context together with the deity Runtiya, the god assigned to wild life. Use of the sign LEO (*97, also: BESTIA) supports this interpretation, which fits the contexts of all attestations known so far.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The present lexeme is a neuter noun in /-ar/, built on a root /hwis-/ that can be found in the root verb in Hittite ḫuiš-/ḫuš-(mi) ‘to live, to survive’, cf. e.g. EDHIL:353f.
A direct cognate link with HLuw. /hwidar/ ‘animal’ cannot be upheld, but the semantic and morphological proximity of /hwisar/ and /hwidar/ is undeniable, cf. the remarks in Rieken 1999a:304f., 410 n. 2067 and EDHIL:354-356.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Whereas the two Luwian roots /hwid-/ and /hwis-/ with similar semantics were often placed together (see e.g. Melchert 1994a:240, Rieken 1999a:304f.), it is preferable to separate them a priori (cf. HLuw. */hwid-/). The latter can be formally equated with ḫuiš-/ḫuš-(mi) ‘to live, to survive’ (Rieken 1999a:304f., EDHIL:353f.) and a root *h2u̯es- ‘life’ can be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian. The HLuw. /hwisar-/ ‘beast’ appears to continue a heteroclitic formation, in which the r-stem would have been generalized in Iron Age Luwian. The n-stem of the oblique cases can still be seen in the derivatives LEO-sa-na-mi-zi and (LEO)hwa/i-sá-na-ma-ia. Therefore, we reconstruct, though based on Luwian only, the existence of an heterocliticon *h2u̯es-r̥/n-. The i-vocalism of the root can be attributed either to a lengthened grade or to the sporadic sound change *e > i between *w_s (Melchert 1994a:262).
The attribution of Lyd. wsta- to this root has become problematic due to the growing consensus on the retention of the laryngeal as Lydian k or in this case q (< *h2u̯), although solid examples of the latter development are lacking.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The connection of the root under investigation, PIE *h2u̯es- ‘to dwell, remain’ with a noun meaning ‘beast’ is possible in two ways: either the ‘beast’ is interpreted as a ‘being’, cf. ModHG Lebewesen ‘living being, creature’. Another, more speculative motivation might be that a ‘(wild) beast’, in opposition to domesticated animals, ‘dwells (in the wild)’ and ‘(is supposed to) remain (where it is, viz. outside human settlements)’. The former proposal (‘being’ > ‘animal’) is more likely.
3.1.1Root etymology
PIE *h2u̯es- means ‘to dwell’: “Wohl primär ‘weilen, bleiben’, spezielleres ‘übernachten’ ist wohl erst sekundär aus Fügungen mit Wörtern für ‘Nacht’ abgelöst” (LIV²:293 n. 0 with lit.), cf., e.g., Gk. νύκτα(ς) ἄεσα “spent the night(s)” (cf. Od.19.342, 3.151,490, 15.40).Cf. also EIEC:171: “Distribution assures PIE status. The underlying semantics may have derived from a PIE ‘to spend time’ (with an accusative of time) which variously developed into ‘be’, ‘dwell’ or ‘pass the night’”.Another semantic development can be observed in, e.g., Anatolian and Germanic: ‘to dwell’ > ‘to be, exist, live’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
No exact cognates of HLuw. /hwisar‑/ ‘beast’ is reconstructable which is why no further reconstruction is provided.
3.2.1Root etymology
On the basis of IIr. (Ved. vása-, Av. vaŋha-) and Germ. (PGerm. *wese/a-), a PIE thematic present stem *h2u̯és-e/o- can be reconstructed. According to LIV²:293f., the thematic presents of the individual languages are remodeled from an original athematic root-present *h2u̯és-/*h2us-´, cf. Hitt. ḫuišzi ‘lives, stays alive’, “doch R(z) hus- nur im Adj. huswant- ‘lebendig’ belegt” (LIV²:293 n. 1). Furthermore, Gk. ἰαύω and TochB subj. wṣi- point to a i̯e/o-present PIE *h2us-i̯é/ó- (LIV²:293). A PIE s-aor. *h2u̯ḗs‑s‑/*h2u̯és‑s- can be reconstructed from Ved. avātsīt, Gk. ἄεσα and perhaps also Arm. agaw. Finally, there is evidence in favour of a causative-iterative PIE *h2u̯os-éi̯e/o- (> Ved. vāsáya-, Arm. goy and perhaps OIr. fo(a)id).
Regarding the phonological structure of the root, the anlaut PAnat. *H- as well as the Greek “prothetic” vowel α- provide clear evidence for the reconstruction of the second laryngeal. In most cases, the forms point to the full-grade II, viz. PIE *h2u̯es- ‘to dwell’.Only some forms, as e.g. Arm. aor. agaw point to PIE *h2eu̯(s)- which can, however, be explained differently, cf. LIV²:294 with refs.
[C.S.], [T.S.], [A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. VAS ‘to spend the night, dwell’ (RV+), YAv. pres. vah- ‘to dwell, stay’; Ved. vasatí- f., etc. ‘dwelling, nest, abiding’ (RV+), OPers. nom. sg. n. ā-vahanam ‘place, settlement’
EWAia II:531f., Grassmann 1996a:1232f., Gotō 1987a:295, EDIV:202f., Bartholomae 1904a:1394, Schmitt 2014a:145
Gk. ἰαύω ‘spend the night’ (Il.+);With secondary reduplication, cf. Hackstein 1995a:220f. with lit.Gk. aor. νύκτα(ς) ἄεσα “spent the night” (Od.+), Gk. αὐλή ‘open court, courtyard’ (Il.+), etc.
GEW I:706, 25, 186, GEW III:19, DELG:454, 24, 139f., EDG:574f., 25f., 169, LSJ:816, 29, 276
Arm. 3sg. aor. agaw ‘spent the night’; pres. go- ‘to be, exist’ (Bible+); Arm. goy ‘that which exists; possession’ (Bible+)
EDAIL:221, Klingenschmitt 1982a:260, Olsen 1999a:89
OIr. pres. fo(a)id ‘stays overnight, stays’; OIr. fut. ‑fifea ‘will stay overnight’, OIr. fess, feiss ‘spending the night’
EDPC:428, 417f., de Bernardo Stempel 1999a:444
Goth.(+) wisan ‘to be, remain, stay’; pret. Goth.(+) was ‘was, remained, stayed’
Goth. wists, etc. ‘essence, nature’, OHG wesan ‘existence, nature’, ModHG Lebe‑wesen ‘creature, living being’ (16th c.+)
EDPG:582, 583, Orel 2003a:458, 459, GED:405f., Seebold 1970a:561f.
TochB wäs- ‘to stay, remain, live’, wṣeñña ‘dwelling (place)’, TochA waṣt, TochB ost ‘house’
DTB²:649f., 134, Hackstein 1995a:218–221, Klingenschmitt 1994a:407 n. 165, Malzahn 2010a:897f.