u-

Amply attested in Memphis, from c. 660-620 until 550-500 (Kammerzell 1993a:169, 171) and perhaps from Silsilis of unknown date.

[Zs.S.]

nom.-acc. sg. n. ?	ue	E.Me 3
		E.Me 5
		E.Me 28
		E.Me 42
		E.Me 51
nom.-acc. pl. n. ?	w	E.Me 13
	wa	E.Si 2

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:425f., checked against the photographs in O. Masson & Yoyotte 1956a:Pl. II, IX and O. Masson 1978a:Pl. V.1, XIII.1, XX.1, XXIV.1 (no photograph of E.Si 2 is available). The broken part of E.Me 29 may contain [ue] and not [upe] due to its length (Adiego 2007a:57 with ref.), although the traces (see O. Masson 1978a:Pl. XIII.2) do not fit. The form w is included here following Melchert’s plausible identification as a postposed demonstrative (Melchert 2010f:180). There is no reason to assume an abbreviated form in it, contra Adiego 2007a:272, 425 (see already Hajnal 1997a:198). While a mistake cannot be excluded (Adiego also counts with this possibility, cf. also Duhoux 2008a:92), it is remarkable that it appears with upa and not with upe. Since upa must be morphologically different from upe, perhaps a nom.-acc. pl. n. (see s.v.), one may assume that this explains the specific form of w as well. The expected form, wa, seems to be attested in E.Si 2, but since the inscription is completely opaque, this cannot be proved (also Melchert 2010f:182 himself, who proposed this idea, calls it “too dubious” [his other candidate, ya in C.Ka 8 is not possible on phonological grounds]).

It is debated whether this word is independent or a variant of u/wpe ‘stela’ (cf. Adiego 2007a:426, 429: “not clear”; Duhoux 2008a:86f.). Schürr 1992a:141, Schürr 1993a, Schürr 2010c:190f. argued that they are identical, since Carian -p- may drop in intervocalic position (“vielleicht nicht abwägig” according to Hajnal 1997a:198). However, his alleged evidence does not include other cases for intervocalic position (qarpsi- / qarsio[? and p(a)rp- / par(a)- [his claim that a Sproßvokal appeared preceding the -p- before its loss, is simply ad hoc]) and there is no evidence that the forms with and without -p- indeed belong together (cf. also s.vv. p(a)rp- and par(a)-).

Although this explanation was “attractive” for Adiego 2007a:426, 430, he rightly called it ad hoc and claimed that “the evidence adduced is not convincing”, without specifying any problem (cf. also Duhoux 2008a:92f.). Later he still considered the evidence for “insufficient” and “ad hoc” and did not exclude that we are in fact dealing with two different words, see under Meaning (Adiego 2010b:164, Adiego 2019a:29). Inspired by the practically identical contexts, both Hajnal 1997a:198 n. 11 and Yakubovich 2005a:241 attempted to save the identity of upe / ue and in the same way, i.e. by arbitrarily assuming that Carian ‹p› is phonetically [β]. According to Hajnal, this would provide a “lautgesetzlicher Übergang” from upe to ue (needless to say, no sound law has been proved only by re-baptizing the sounds involved), while according to Yakubovich, in case of ue, [β] was wrongly perceived as a secondary epenthetic consonant. Ad hoc phonetic definitions, however, do not prove the identity of these words. Finally, Melchert 2010f:181 also pointed out that an “unexplained irregular intervocalic loss” is not an appropriate argument and thus, he also counts with two different words, see under Meaning.

All in all, since the identity of upe and ue can only be maintained by ad hoc explanations, we are dealing with two different words.

[Zs.S.]

For those who identify ue with upe (see the references above), it of course means the same, i.e. ‘(funerary) stela’ or similar. Those who separate these words suggested two interpretations: Melchert 2010f:180f. saw a demonstrative pronoun in it (referring to the tomb and to the stela of the deceased), while Adiego 2019a:29–31, admitting this possibility (Adiego 2019a:31 n. 25, but without references), cautiously proposed ‘I am’ (referring to the u-vocalism of the 1sg. personal pronoun in Anatolian). Although contextually speaking both are possible, the demonstrative pronoun has the advantages that, first, it allows a combination with w, which is a demonstrative pronoun (in congruence with upa) and, second, it does not leave unexplained morphological issues (i.e., how to explain °e in ue, if it is a first person personal pronoun). Its precise meaning in view of Carian san ‘this’ (see s.v.) obviously requires further research.

[Zs.S.]