*stóbh-/stbh-´
‘to block’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 2882
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/taba-(i)/, (*261)ta-pa-
‘to block’1.1.1Transmission
This hapax is attested in a single inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the 10th or early 9th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3sg. pres. ind. act. | /tabai/ | (*261)ta-pa-i | KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §13 (Karkamiš) |
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word is reasonably secure, because it is supported by etymological links, cf. Melchert 1994a:163, 270 (also in DLL:61f.), who connects the word to Lycian tebe-(ti) ‘to defeat’ and Hittite ištāp-/ištapp-(ḫi) ‘to block’.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
Even though the word is a hapax legomenon, it occurs in the apodosis of a curse formula and has hence long been clear to denote a damaging action (see e.g. Hawkins 2000a:111). With the elucidation of the cognates Lycian tebe-(ti) ‘to defeat’ and Hittite ištāp-/ištapp- ‘to block’, the meaning could be narrowed down further. In KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §13, the verb occurs modified with the preverb /anta/: POST+RA/I-wa/i-sà-ti-pa-wa/i kwa/i-sa za-a-ia DEUS.DOMUS(-)ha-tà a-tá (*261)ta-pa-i, approx. /apparawisanti=ba=wa kwis zaya …-hada anta tabai/, meaning ‘(He) who shall afterwards block up these temples’ (cf. also Payne 2012a:75).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The verb belongs to the class in /-a-(i)/, see Sasseville 2021a:361, who also points out that the cognate Hittite ištāp-/ištapp- ‘to block’ shares the same stem formation.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Lycian A
tebe-(ti)
‘to defeat’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested on three datable Lycian inscriptions. TL 29 is an inscription mentioning Idrieus (son of Hekatomnos, satrap of Caria and Lycia from 351/50 until 344 BCE) and Alexander the Great, dated to ca. 330 BCE (see Bryce 1986a:49, Wagner 2011a:155f.). TL 44 is the pillar of Xanthos, dated stylistically to around 400 BCE and contextually to shortly after the ascension of the Persian emperor Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.). Finally, TL 104 is the inscription on the relief-adorned grave of Tebursseli, dated to the reign of Perikle in the first half of the 4th century BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:75).
[O.B.]
1.2.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. ind. act. | tebete | TL 44a.44 (Xanthos) |
| TL 44a.48 (Xanthos) | ||
| TL 104b.3 (Limyra) | ||
| 3pl. pret. ind. act. | tebẽtẽ | TL 29.10 (Tlos) |
| inf. | tabãna | TL 44a.52 (Xanthos) |
| tebãna | TL 44a.55 (Xanthos) |
Lyc. A tebe-(ti) is always construed with the preverb ese.
[O.B.]
1.2.3Meaning
Ever since Schmidt 1881a:451, a martial meaning has been assumed for Lyc. A tebe-(ti). Given that the direct object is typically a personal name, a translation ‘to defeat’ is most appropriate (assumed in e.g. Morpurgo Davies 1982-1983a:263, Hajnal 1995a:120 n. 141, van den Hout 1995c:156, similar meanings in e.g. Torp 1901a:24 ‘schlagen’, Shevoroshkin 1969a:262 ‘verletzen’, DLL:61 ‘overwhelm, conquer’). See especially the translations of TL 44a in Sasseville 2021c.
[O.B.]
1.2.4Stem
Lyc. A tebe-(ti) is an unleniting e-stem verb (Sasseville 2021a:377).
[O.B.]
1.3 Hittite
ištāp-/ištapp-(ḫi)
‘to block, enclose’1.3.1Literature / Comments
HW 2nd ed. I:263-268
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to block’
The root reconstruction of Hitt. ištāp-/ištapp-(ḫi) and its cognates HLuw. /taba-(i)/ ‘to block’ and Lyc. tebe-(ti) ‘to defeat’ is debated. Whereas HED I:474f., HEG I:432f., EDHIL:415f. reconstruct a root of the shape *step- (for the semantic and phonological difficulties on Indo-European grounds, see EDHIL ibid.), Melchert 1994a:162f. (and Melchert 2012c:180) prefers a link to PIE *stembh(H)- (Skt. stabhnā́ti ‘fastens’, LIV²:595f.), explaining the nasal away through analogical restructuring and the lenition vs. fortition in the singular and plural as an analogical process of the verbal type in -āC-, -aCCanzi. Sasseville 2021a:392 adduces instead the PIE *stebh- (Lith. stabau͂ ‘to stop, prevent’, LIV²:588) and uses the same analogical explanation to account for the fortis e.g. in the Hitt. 3pl. ištappanzi and in the derivatives (e.g. Hitt. ištappulli- n. ‘lid’ << *stbh-ú-dhlo-For the reconstruction of the Hittite suffix -ulli- n., see Čop 1966-1968a:54, Rieken 2009b:152, Melchert 2014d:210)) thus based on the weak stem. The last root is chosen here for reasons of simplicity; the Anatolian data does not show any trace of a nasal sound in the root. Therefore, a root verb of the ḫi-conjugation is reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian, i.e. *stóbh-/stbh-´ ‘to block’.
[D.S.]