*(s)teṷp-
‘to strike’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 288
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tub(a)-/, tu-pa-
‘to strike’1.1.1Transmission
The verb /tub(a)-/ is a hapax legomenon and is attested in the inscription KULULU 5, which is dated to the 8th century BCE.
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3pl. impv. act. | /tubantu/ | tu-pa-tu | KULULU 5, §9 (Tabal) |
1.1.3Meaning
The instance of the verb /tubantu/ occurs in a curse formula, where the gods are the agent of the action and the offender is the patient expressed with the accusative case. The act of striking in this occurrence may or may not be lethal. Considering the causative-iterative formation /tub(a)i-(di)/ ‘to strike down’, the verb /tub(a)-/ probably expresses a single hit.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Stem
The instance of /tubantu/ cannot be attributed to the same verbal stem class as the one of /tub(a)i-(di)/, since the 3rd plural imperative active form of /tub(a)i-(di)/ would be /*tubaintu/, cf. Hawkins 2000a:487. The verbal stem remains uncertain, as long as the 3rd singular present is not found. The possibilities are an athematic root verb, a ḫi-verb or a factitive.
[D.S.]
1.1.5Derivatives
Rejected derivatives:
1.2 Lycian A
*tub-
‘to strike’1.2.1Derivatives
1.3 Lycian B
*tub-
‘to strike’1.3.1Derivatives
1.4 Carian
*tub-
‘to strike (?)’1.4.1Derivatives
1.5 Lydian
*istup-
‘to strike (?)’1.5.1Derivatives
1.6 Hittite
*tup-
‘to strike (?)’1.6.1Literature / Comments
The lexeme tupra- (c./n.) ‘palpitation(?)’ is a hapax legomenon and has been etymologically connected by Oettinger 2001b:461 with the Luwian and Lycian root for ‘to strike’.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to strike’
The root final consonant of the present lemma and of its derivatives has been reconstructed with the aspirated voiced labial stop *bh (Melchert 1994a:242), but also with a voiceless labial stop *p (Hajnal 1995a:127). If the root was *(s)teṷbh-, then the phonological development is straightforward and needs no further discussion. On the other hand, if the root was *(s)teṷp-, then the lenition has to be explained. It does not matter whether the monophthongization of *-eṷ- > *-ū- had already happened, when Eichner’s lenition rules were in effect. However, it is crucial that the root was accentuated at either time, thus *-éṷ- or *-ū́-. Since the causative-iterative derivation in *-éi̯e/o- was accented on the suffix, the lenition of the root *(s)teṷp- cannot have occurred in this verbal formation (contra Hajnal 1995a:127). Instead, the lenition must have occurred within the base found in HLuw. /tub(a)-/ from which an iterative in *-éi̯e/o- was built.
If the Lydian personal name Istupeλm(i)- does belong here, it would bring further evidence for the voiceless quality of the initial dental stop and the presence of the s-mobile, which cannot be recovered on the basis of HLuw. /tub(a)-/ and the derivatives such as CLuw. dūp(a)i- and Lyc. tub(e)i-. It might also bring evidence for the reconstruction with *p instead of *bh, i.e. *(s)teṷp-. For the phonetic and phonological difficulties of the Lydian grapheme p see Gérard 2005a:66, 72 and Melchert 1994a:330, 356.
If the Hittite lexeme tupra- belongs here, it would represent a nominal formation in -ra- (< *-ro-/-reh2) derived from the root *tup-. The quality of the labial stop cannot be determined based on this single attestation. Upon more attestations, a constant spelling tu-up-ra-, i.e. without the spelling variant *tu-up-pa-ra- would point towards a lenited /b/. But, if the stress was originally on the root, a lenition could have occurred in Proto-Anatolian. On the other hand, if some attestations of this type, i.e. *tu-up-pa-ra-, would occur, then it could serve as evidence for the reconstruction *(s)teu̯p- with the voiceless labial stop. For further literature see: HEG T/D:448f., Carruba apud Mascheroni 1979a:356 n. 17.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The Core IE languages attest neither a primary verb like HLuw. /tub-/ ‘to strike’ nor any other formation which can be securely equated with Anatolian material.On Gk. 1.στύπος n. ‘stump, trunk’ and Gk. 2.στύπος n. ‘sound of thunder’, cf. HLuw. /tubas(sa)-/.
3.1.1Root etymology
The meaning of the root PIE *(s)teu̯p- is ‘to strike’ (cf. LIV²:602f.). This verbal action is telic and, therefore, PIE *(s)teu̯p- ‘to strike’ has to be classified as an aorist root. This assumption is supported by the fact that the reconstructable present stems PIE *(s)tup-i̯é/ó- and PIE (?)*(s)tup-é/ó- (cf. above) are secondarily derived.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Because no athematic verbal formation based on the root PIE *(s)teu̯p- can be reconstructed based on the non-Anatolian languages (cf. LIV²:602f.), the primary verb HLuw. /tub-/ ‘to strike’ cannot be traced back into the proto-language.The same is true for the other stems attested in Anatolian. On the possible equation of HLuw. /tubas(sa)-/ ‘battle’, perhaps Car. *tubassi and Gk. 2.στύπος n. ‘sound of thunder’, Gk. 1.στύπος n. ‘stump, trunk’, cf.HLuw. /tubas(sa)-/.However, taking into consideration that PIE *(s)teu̯p- is an aorist root (cf. above), the primary formation HLuw. /tub-/ ‘to strike’ can tentatively be interpreted as a continuation of the root aorist PIE *(s)téu̯p‑/*(s)tup- ‘to strike’.
3.2.1Root etymology
The onset of the root in question can be reconstructed rather unanimously as providing s mobile and a voiceless dental plosive.For s-less forms cf., e.g., Gk. τύπτω ‘to poke, stab’, for s-containing forms cf., e.g., Lat. stupēre ‘to be(come) numb, stunned’. The Lydian personal name Istupeλm(i)-, if it belongs to this root etymologically, would be the only inner-Anatolian evidence for anlauting *s-, cf. Lyd. Istupeλm(i)-.
Kölligan 2007a:320f. n. 914 notes the possibility of the phonological root structure *k(s)teu̯p- (cf. similarly PIE *pster- ‘to sneeze’, LIV²:494f.) which would allow the inclusion of Gk. κτυπἐω ‘to crash, thunder’.Semantic considerations recommend the connection with Gk. τύπτω ‘to poke, stab, beat’ etc. (cf. IE transmission above). Thus, the coda of the root is voiceless and, therefore, the root is reconstructed as PIE *(s)teu̯p- ‘to thrust, hit, beat, strike’ (LIV²:602f.).Consequently, Gk. στυφελός ‘rough, hard, harsh’, Gk. στυφελίζω ‘thrust, push; shake, scatter; mistreat’ (Il.+), etc. (cf. GEW II:815, DELG:1067, EDG:1418f., LSJ:1658, LfgrE IV:250f.) remain etymologically obscure. If the aspirated labial in Greek had developed from the sequence *-ph2-, viz. *stup-h2-eló- (?← *stup-éh2- ‘beat, strike’), the following vowel had become -α- (†στυφαλός), but not remained -ε-, cf. Gk. οἶσθα < *u̯oid-th2e. Pokorny (IEW:1032–1034) solves this problem by root extensions (PIE *(s)teu̯- + *-p-, *-bh-, etc.) which remains a possibility. Furthermore, auslauting *-p- or *-bh- (or *-b-) could be interpreted as allomorphic variants leading to the emergence of different parallel roots. Cf. also Hester 1965a:376f.
[C.S.] [A.O.]
4. Transmission
PIE *(s)tup-i̯é/ó- ‘to strike’, cf. Gk. τύπτω, aor. ἐτύπη ‘to poke, stab, beat with a weapon or a stick’ (GEW II:945f., DELG:1145f., EDG:1518f., LSJ:1835f., LfgrE IV:674–676),Gk. τύπτω is part of a Greek suppletive paradigm, cf. Kölligan 2007a:303–321.Alb. °typ ‘to beat’ in për-typ ‘to chew, ruminate’, Alb. sh-typ ‘to crush, mash, squash’ (AED:323, 444, 471, Matzinger 2006:123, Schumacher & Matzinger 2013a:861, 999)AED:471 (unnecessarily) derives Alb. °typ from typth ‘little hammer’, deminutive of PAlb. *tupa- ‘beater, striker’ (nomen agentis). Under such an assumption Alb. °typ is not inherited but an inner-Albanian formation.
LIV²:602f., IEW:1034
(?)PIE *(s)tup-é/ó- ‘to beat’, cf. OInd. tupáti ‘to injure, hurt; kill’ (Dhātup.) (EWAia III:250, KEWA I:512f., Monier Williams 1974a:378, Böhtlingk 1855a 3:359), RussCS tŭpati ‘to palpitate’ (EDSIL:—, Vasmer III:120)
IEW:1034
(?)PIE *(s)tup(V)ro- ‘(pertaining to) beating, chopping vel sim.’,This formation is tentatively reconstructed mainly due to the obvious phonological and morphological similarities. However, the semantic differences advise against the proposed connection.cf. Hitt. tupra- c./n. ‘palpitation(?)’ (hapax, cf. above), Ved. adj. tūpará- ‘hornless, blunt’ (AV+) (EWAia I:661, KEWA I:518f.), Lat. stuprum ‘dishonor, illicit sexual intercourse’ (Plaut.+) (WH II:609f., EM:659, EDLIL:593, OLD:1832)
IEW:1034
OInd. tumpáti, tópati etc. ‘to hurt’ (Dhātup., Bhaṭṭikāvya [7th c. CE])
KEWA I:512f., Monier Williams 1974a:378, Böhtlingk 1855a 3:359
OInd. pra-stumpati ‘to butt with the horns’ (gramm.)
KEWA I:512f., Böhtlingk 1855a 3:359
Iran. *staup- ‘to overcome, defeat’, cf. Parth.(+) ʿstwb- ‘to conquer, defeat’
EDIV:367, LIV2+ s.v. *steu̯p- (2017-03-25), Nyberg 1974:180
Arm. t‘mbrim ‘to become numb, to harden (of hearts, cf. Mark 6:52)’
EDAIL:—
The Celtic forms W ystum f. ‘bend, form’, Bret. stumm ‘id.’ are better related to *(s)teu̯g- ‘to start to move violently’ (LIV²:602), cf. Schumacher 2000a:183. On semantic concerns, cf. below on PGerm. *stūpēn- ‘to stoop’.
A different view, though, is given in EDPG:488 where the connection of the Celtic material with the PIE root *(s)teu̯p- ‘to strike’ is upheld.
For an alternative solution, cf. the comment on Gk. 3.στύπος n. s.v. HLuw. /tubas(sa)-/.
OHG stobarōn ‘to be shocked, (Lat.) obstupēre’ (MH, 9th c.)On the semantics, cf. the comment on Lat. stupēre ‘to be(come) numb, stunned’ above.
Latv. staũpe ‘footprint (of a horse)’, staupains ,well-trodden‘
Ulmann 1872a:279
Latv. stubens ,stump, tree without the upper part‘, stuburis ,tree stump‘
Ulmann 1872a:284
(?)Russ. stópka ‘wooden nail in the wall’, CS stǫpa ‘pestle’ (14th c. CE),Borrowed from a Germanic language, cf. MHG stampe ‘stamper’.(?)Russ. tópot ‘stamper’, RussCS tŭpŭtŭ ‘(Gk.) ψόφος, noise’ etc.
Vasmer III:19, 34f., 122