tese-
‘oath’
- Language
- Lycian
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 2733
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Lycian A
tese-
‘oath’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in various grave inscriptions as well as 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.). It is also found in the trilingual inscription of the Letoon, dated to 337 BCE.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| dat./loc. sg. | tesi | TL 4.4 (Telmessos) |
| TL 38.8 (Xanthos) | ||
| TL 39.7 (Xanthos) | ||
| TL 42b.2 (Xanthos) | ||
| TL 47.3 (Xanthos) | ||
| TL 50.1 (Xanthos) | ||
| TL 114.1 (Limyra) | ||
| TL 114.3 (Limyra) | ||
| TL 115.1 (Limyra) | ||
| TL 115.3 (Limyra) | ||
| N 341.5 (Xanthos) | ||
| N 342b.3 (Tlos) | ||
| N 344.2 (Xanthos) | ||
| nom./acc. pl. | tasa | TL 31.4 (Kadyanda) |
| N 320.31 (Xanthos) | ||
| tas[a] | TL 41.4 (Xanthos) | |
| ta[sa] | TL 75.5 (Tyberissos) | |
| [tas]a | TL 44b.25 (Xanthos) | |
| erg. pl. | tesẽti | TL 149.10 (Rhodiapolis) |
| teseti | TL 135.2 (Limyra) |
For the grammatical function of tesi as dat./loc. sg. ‘under oath’, see Christiansen 2020a:178 (contra Neumann 2007a:351, Gehrisch 2018a:20 et passim). Although it is true that tasa could be a collective to a common gender stem in -e/i-, the ergative ending speaks for a neuter gender noun (as emphasized in DLL:63). The argument voiced by Schürr 2018c against the existence of the ergative suffix in Lycian is unconvincing: While it is true that a possessive derivation in -nt(i)- could have been derived from the word for ‘oath’, the fact that the agreeing adjective in tesẽti trm̃milijẽti likewise takes this suffix proves the ergative status. His ad hoc attempts to explain this away are not accepted here.
[D.S.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
The previous assumption that tesimiñti was a compound based on the putative Greek word τουξομενδυος can now be dismissed, since the Greek sequence has since been revealed to be a ghost word and is instead to be read του Σομενδιος (see Christiansen 2020a:178 with further literature).
Schürr 2007b:115 suggests restoring tas]a mere itehe in TL 44b.25, by comparing the phrase tasa mere ebette in N 320.30f. (followed by Serangeli 2016a:63f.), which is possible, but tentative.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of Lycian tese- became clear when the Letoon trilingual inscription was found, in which Lyc. aitẽ tasa is rendered by Greek ἐποιήσαντο ὅρκους ‘they made oaths’ (Laroche 1979c:73). Immediately, tesẽti ‘oaths (as agents)’ was compared to Hitt. linkiyanteš ‘oaths (as agents)’ with respect to the ergative suffix (Bryce 1976a:185 following a pers. comm. of Houwink Ten Cate, followed by Garrett 1990b:275, Melchert (DLL:63), Christiansen 2020a:230, 233).
[D.S.]
1.1.5Derivatives
-
tesm͂me/i- (DN) (Eichner 1993b:240 n. 30, contra Neumann 1979a:270, Neumann 2007a:351)
1.2 Lycian B
tese-
‘oath’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in the inscription of 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.]
1.2.2Forms
| dat./loc. sg. | tesi | TL 44c.35 (Xanthos) |
| TL 44c.57 (Xanthos) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
The segmentation of siketesi has been considered problematic in the literature, for which see Lyc. B si.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
The recognition of the word for ‘oath’ in Lycian B si=ke tesi is elaborated under Lyc. B si. For the broader context, see now Sasseville 2021d.
[D.S.]
1.2.5Stem
For a discussion of the stem tese- n., which is highly debated in the literature, see under Lycian A tese- n. One should also compare the Lyc. B tesẽni.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Carruba 1977a:311f. suggests a connection with Hitt. takš-(mi) ‘to unite’, which is semantically adequate (followed by Garrett 1990a:275f.). Melchert 1994a:314 reconstructs simply *dók̑so-, which is phonologically fine, though left without further explanation. The retention of the -s- instead of -h- in Lycian, speaks for an original consonant cluster (Hajnal 1995a:79), which would support the connection with Hitt. takš-(mi). The Hittite adverb takšan ‘together’ could be taken as a petrified accusative singular neuter, matching Lycian tese- n., i.e. *Taks-o- n. (or *Toks-o-, with or without palatalization of the velar *k; cf. *-sk̑e/o- > Lyc. -s-(ti)). For the semantics, cf. Hitt. takšul- n. ‘agreement, settlement, peace(-treaty)’. This approach would render it unnecessary to posit an original n-stem for the Hittite adverb takšan, for which there is no cogent evidence (pace HEG T:43-45). Another potential cognate is Lyd. tesast(i)- ‘right’, but cf. below under the Proto-Indo-European lemma.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
On the possible origin of the meaning ‘oath’ in a verb denoting an action of handicraft like ‘to tie/weave together’, cf. Gk. ὅρκος ‘oath’ from PIE *serk- ‘to tie/sew together’ (cf. HLuw. /sark(u)‑/ ‘to make shoes (?)’). Therefore, the meaning of the τόμος-noun Lyc. tese- ‘oath’ can well be connected with Hitt. takšan ‘together’ and Hitt. takš‑(mi) ‘to unite, put together’.On the meaning, cf. EDHIL:814 referring to Kimball 1999a:258.On the other hand, the connection with the word for ‘right’ (cf. Lyd. tesast(i)- ‘right’), although attractive on first sight, cannot be established due to the lack of adequate parallels in, e.g., Buck 1949a:1438 s.v. oath.The only possible pathway extractable from Buck 1949a is via ‘right’ → ‘what is right, law’ (cf. Germ. Recht ‘right, justice, law’) → ‘to swear’ (cf. Lat. iūrāre ‘to swear’ ← iūs ‘law’) → ‘oath’ (cf. Lat. iūs iūrandum ‘oath’). However, without at least one intermediate step attested, this solution has to be dismissed as speculative until further evidence emerges.
3.1.1Root etymology
The meaning of the underlying root PIE *teks- may be reconstructed as ‘to join, connect’, which is based on a more concrete meaning represented by the unextended root PIE *tek- ‘to weave, plait’ (LIV²:619f.) as in Arm. t‘ek‘em ‘to twist, warp’ and still observable in Lat. texere ‘to plait, braid, weave’ et sim.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
According to EWAhd II:501, PGerm. *þaχsa- ‘badger’, which theoretically could be compared to the resultative o‑stem PAnat. *tókso‑ ‘what is joined, connected’, should rather be taken as a secondary back formation from the n‑stem agent noun PGerm. *þaχsan‑ ‘who is joining, connecting’.This name of the badger is plausible insofar as “der Dachs wäre […] durch den Dachsbau – er lebt in einem mit Moos und Laub ausgepolsterten Kessel, zu dem mehrere Röhren führen – charakterisiert” (EWAhd II:500).Therefore, due to the lack of non-Anatolian cognates no PIE reconstruction is discussed.
3.2.1Root etymology
The phonological shape of the root underlying Lyc. tese- ‘oath’ and Hitt. takšan ‘together’ can be reconstructed as PIE *teks- ‘to join, connect’ (cf. LIV²:619f.). Sometimes its reflexes are mixed up with the reflexes of the root PIE *tetk̑- ‘to produce, manufacture’ (LIV²:638f.). E.g., Gk. τεκτών ‘craftsman’, Ved. takṣan- ‘carpenter’, etc.Since the development of intervocalic *‑tk̑- in Latin is not entirely clear (Lat. ursus ‘bear’ < *h2r̥tk̑o- provides an example for *‑rtk̑V‑ > Lat. ‑rs‑ but not *‑Vtk̑V‑), contamination of both roots in Latin cannot be ruled out, cf. Meusel 2019a:464 n. 1129, 471 n. 1145. As Weiss 2020a:42 points out, *h2r̥tk̑o- first gave PIt. *urkso- and only secondarily Lat. ursus because primary *‑rs- should have been assimilated to ‑rr‑, cf. Lat. terrēre ‘to terrify’ < *ters‑ei̯e/o- (Weiss 2020a:187). This means that Lat. texere can very well go back also to *tetk̑- ‘to produce, manufacture’.have to be separated from the root under investigation and are rather to be connected with PIE *tetk̑- ‘to produce, manufacture’ (LIV²:638f., cf. Lipp 2009a I:344f.).The Toch. B participle taktsāntsa (U 5208 a7–a8), first introduced by K. T. Schmidt apud EWAia I:614 with the meaning “einer, der etwas kann”, should rather be connected with Toch. B taksa- ‘to destroy, smash’, cf. Friis 2021a:5.According to LIV²:619f., *teks- is a verbal stem (athem. desiderative → root present) still showing desiderative semantics at least in Hitt. takš‑(mi) “unternehmen, vereinbaren, bereiten” and OPers. hamataxšatā “bemühte sich, strebte, kooperierte”. However, since the affiliation of the OPers. form is not beyond doubt (cf. above) and Hitt. takš‑(mi) rather means ‘to put together’ (cf. Kimball 1999a:258), the interpretation of *teks- as former desiderative is questionable. The root final *‑s- can rather be categorized as an example of s‑extension as attested in PAnat. *dmaH-s- ‘to (op)press’, etc.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
OPers. ham-ataxšatā ‘to cooperate’For alternative etymological proposals, cf. LIV²:620 n. 3 on which Schmitt 2014a:253f., and EDIV:385.
Schmitt 2014a:253f., EDIV:384f.
Arm. t‘ek‘em ‘to twist, warp’, t‘el ‘thread’, (?)hiwsn ‘carpenter’, (?)hiwsem ‘to weave, plait’, etc.
Olsen 1999a:200, 127, EDAIL:285f., 410f.
MHG dehsen ‘Flachs schwingen, Flachs brechen’,On the possible connection with PIE *tetk̑- ‘to hew, carve’, which, according to LIV²:638f., rather means ‘to produce, manufacture’, cf. EWAhd II:564, 565f.OHG dehsa ‘ax, (Lat.) ascia; distaff’, OHG dahs, MLG das, etc. ‘badger’While ON þáttr ‘strand, thread’, OHG tāht ‘wick’ may be traced back to PGerm. *þēhta- and furthermore be connected with PIE *tek- ‘to weave, plait’, Kroonen (EDPG:533) points out that Elfd. tą̊t requires PGerm. *þanhtu‑ being appropriate for the other cognates, too.
EDPG:531, EWAhd II:563–568, 496–501