*(s)toṷb-éi̯e/o-

This lexeme is attested from the empire period down to the Iron Age period.

[D.S.]

1sg. pres. ind. act.	/tubiwi/	tu-pi-wa/i	KARATEPE 1 Hu.,§70 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 Hu., §64 (Cilicia)
		[tu]-pi-wa/i	KARATEPE 1 Ho., §52 (Cilicia)
3sg. pres. ind. act.	/tubidi/	(“*273”)tu-pi-ti-í	KAYSERİ, §7 (Tabal)
		tu-pi-ri+i	SULTANHAN, §51 (Tabal)
		*273-pi?-ti	KULULU 8, (Tabal)
1sg. pret. ind. act.	/tubiha/	tu-pi-ha	KARKAMIŠ A5a, §4 (Karkamiš)
3pl. pret. ind. act.	/tubainta/	(*273)tu-pa-i-ta	ANCOZ 8, §7 (Commagene)
Unknown		[t]u-pi+ra/i	BURUNKAYA, §2? (Tabal)
Unmarked		tu-pi	YALBURT fragment 1, 7 §5 (Western Anatolia), YALBURT fragment 3, 12 §2 (Western Anatolia), YALBURT fragment D, 2 §1 (Western Anatolia), EMİRGAZİ, §10 (Tabal)

The unknown form of BURUNKAYA (12^th BCE) could be either a 3sg. pres. /tubidi/ or 3sg. pret. /tubida/, but as Goedegebuure 2010b:77f. points out, the rhotacized form of /d/ does not appear until the 9^th century BCE. She suggests a 3^rd singular present middle form in /-ari/, i.e. /*tubiy-ari/, with a reduction of the sequence -iya- > -i-. For a contextual criticism see Simon 2012d:100.

[D.S.]

Regarding the decipherment of the sign *273, Durnford 2010a:60f. interprets the picture as an anvil and assigns the syllabic value u. For criticisms, cf. Giusfredi 2013a:677, Simon 2013c:829. For further literature on the various interpretations of the sign L.273 see Marazzi 1990b:190f., Oreshko 2013a:397-400.

[D.S.]

Meriggi 1951a:93 suggests the meaning ‘to hit’ based on contextual and etymological evidence with Greek τύπτω ‘to hit’, cf. Meriggi 1957a:211, Melchert 2002a:137. The verb is used within a curse formula, where the agent is a god and the patient is the offender expressed in the accusative. It is also used with a weapon (ASCIA(-)na-pa- ‘axe’) expressed in the instrumental, see KAYSERİ, §7. In this case, the verb has the meaning ‘to strike’ and the formation with the causative-iterative suffix expresses the continuous process of striking until the patient dies, which Starke 1990a:478 translates in German as ‘erschlagen’. Within the same semantic field, the verb is used within a context, where the agent is a human and the patient a divine being ((DEUS)masat(i)- ‘?’), see KARKAMIŠ A5a, §4. Furthermore, the verb /tub(a)i-^(di)/ is used as a verb of writing with the particle /=tta/, both with or without the preverb /anta/. The object of the incising is someone’s name, which is used in the accusative, see KARATEPE 1 Hu. §70, §64, ANCOZ 8, §7. In these instances, the process of striking repeatedly into the stone may be rendered by the more precise meaning ‘to incise’ or ‘to inscribe’ (Hawkins 2000a:502, Giusfredi 2009a:65 n. 15).

[D.S.]

The verb is attested in ritual texts, among them MS and NS manuscripts of the šalli aniur ´great ritual´ (CTH 761, 762) and a MS incantation for the moon (CTH 766).

[A.B.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.	du-⸢ú-pí⸣-ti	KUB 35.21 rev. 20’	(CTH 761, MS)
	(du-ú-pí-)]⸢ti⸣	KBo 29.7 1’	(CTH 761, MS?)
	du-ú-p[í(-ti)	KUB 35.28 obv. i 1’	(CTH 761, NS)
3pl. pres. ind. act.	du-]pa-in-ti	KBo 9.145 r. col. 3’	(CTH 770, NS)
3sg. pret. ind. act.	du-ú-pí-t[a?	KUB 35.103 rev. iii 13	(CTH 766, MS)

Participle

nom. sg. c.	du-ú-⸢pa⸣-im-mi-i-iš	KUB 32.8 rev. iii 28’	(CTH 759, NS)
	du-ú-⸢pa⸣-i[m(-mi-i-iš)	KUB 32.8 rev. iii 29’	(CTH 759, NS)
acc. sg. c.	(du-)p]a-⸢a⸣-im-mi-in	KUB 35.25 rev. 10´´	(CTH 761, MS)
	du-ú-pa-i-mi-in	KUB 32.8 rev. iii 12’	(CTH 759, NS)
		KUB 32.8 rev. iii 13’	(CTH 759, NS)
	du-ú-pa-im-mi-in	KUB 32.8 rev. iii 18’	(CTH 759, NS)
	du-ú-pa-im-mi-⸢in⸣	KUB 32.8 rev. iii 19’	(CTH 759, NS)
	du-u-pa-im-⸢mi⸣-in	KUB 35.77 obv. ii 7	(CTH 759, NS)
	du-pa-a-⸢im⸣-m[i(-in)	KUB 35.50 3´	(CTH 759, NS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:99 and CLL:235. The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (no photo available for KUB 35.50). Additionally, the restorations by Starke 1985b:86, 96, 102, 119, 132, 175 and 223 have been taken into account.

[A.B.]

The basic meaning of this verb is ‘to hit / to strike’; cf. Laroche 1959a:99; Starke 1990a:478f.; CLL:235; HEG T, D:448f., Tischler 2008a:204; Tischler 2016a:387 (‘frapper, cogner; punir’). The participle appears several times with the local adverb zanda ‘down’ (KUB 32.8 rev. iii 12’,13’, 18’,19’, 29’; KUB 35.50 3’) referring to a vertical movement.

Depending on the context, the meaning can differ slightly. For instance, in KUB 32.8 rev. iii 26’–29’ the tongue and the hand are afflicted (cf. Carruba 1982a:44; Kammenhuber 1985a:95f.). Additionally, a more abstract meaning ‘to punish’ is assumed by Starke 1990a:478 with n. 1748 (cf. HEG T, D:448f.) for ritual contexts.

[A.B.]

Possible derivatives:

1. dupiyal(a/)i-

Rejected derivatives:

1. dūpaduparša-, dupiduparša-
2. dūdupa(-)
3. dupaun[

The numerous attestations of the lexeme tub(e)i-^(di) are found mostly in curse formulas on grave inscriptions.

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.	tubidi	TL 74.4 (Hoiran), TL 83.15 (Arneai), TL 80.3 (Kaş), TL 93.3 (Myra), TL 102.3 (Limyra), TL 139.4 (Limyra), N 314b.4 (Kızılca)
3pl. pres. ind. act.	tubeiti	TL 57.8 (Antiphellos), TL 72 (Kyaneai), TL 88.5 (Myra), TL 101.4 (Limyra), TL 118.3 (Limyra), TL 135.2 (Limyra), N 317.4 (Limyra)
3pl. pret. ind. act.	tubei[te]	TL 44b.19 (Xanthos)

Lycian tub(e)i-^(di) was related etymologically to HLuw. /tub(a)i-^(di)/ ‘to strike repeatedly’ by Meriggi 1951a:93 and compared by Laroche 1958a:98f. to the Greek phrase ἡ Λητὼ αὐτὸν ἐπιτρίψει (TL 56) ‘Leto will annihilate him.’. The semantic approach has been generally accepted, cf. Morpurgo Davies 1982-1983a:252f., Hajnal 1995a:144, DLL:72. A new version of a Greek-Lycian bilingual inscription was published in 2003 (Neumann; Zimmermann 2003a:191), where Lyc. tubeiti equates Gr. ἀπολέσειαν, cf. Christiansen 2009a:45 n. 10. The equation speaks for a meaning ‘to destroy’ for tub(e)i-^(di) rather than simply ‘to strike’, although the concept of the repeated striking is implied. The verb is used within curse formulas addressed to the potential offender. The agent of the act of destroying is either a deity or powerful groups within the Lycian community. The patient on the other hand is the potential offender and he is expressed in the accusative.

For an extensive philological analysis of the Lycian curse formulas see Christiansen 2009a. For an overview of the outdated literature regarding the semantics of tub(e)i-^(di) see Neumann 2007a:334f.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is attested on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, which is dated shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.

[D.S.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.

tubidi

TL 44d.12 (Xanthos)

The agent of the action is the Storm God and the patient is an abstract noun mrsxxa- c. ‘deceit, falsehood’. The attributed meaning is based on Lycian A (DLL:132). Melchert 2015c:161 n. 7 translates ‘to strike’, but the meaning ‘to destroy’ would be more appropriate not only on morphological grounds, but also on pragmatic grounds, since the patient is an abstract noun.

[D.S.]

This verb was often assumed as a source of borrowings into different languages.

Steinbauer 1999a:384f. (cf. already Vetter 1940a:220) suggested deriving Etruscan tupi ‘punishment’ from the Lycian verb or from a form of a related language. The meaning of the hapax tupi is based on Ta 7.71 (Pallottino 1978a:348; Rix 1991b/I:179; Meiser 2014a:291), where the inscription tupi sispeś appears on the wall painting of the Tomba dell’Orco next to an almost completely destroyed figure (only the foot is preserved), which is reconstructed as Sisyphos. Nevertheless, the meaning of the Etruscan word is not established. The suggestion ‘rock’ (Fiesel & Groth 1932a, based on the similarity with Latin tofus and the expected presence of a rock in the depiction; maintained by Fiesel 1935a:247 n. 4 [without arguments]; followed by Danielsson apud Fiesel 1935a:247 n. 4 and Pallottino 1988a:487 with question mark, but note Pallottino 1978a:348 [without meaning]) was rejected by Cortsen 1934a, Cortsen 1935a:179, since the presence of the rock is not assured being a sheer reconstruction; the phrase ‘the rock of Sisyphos’ would be meaningless to the visitor if one is not familiar with this myth or has no deep knowledge of Roman literature, and according to him the meaning ‘the punishment of Sisyphos’ (first suggested by Pauli 1909-1915a) reflects the sense better than ‘the rock of Sisyphos’ (followed by Vetter 1940a:220). Hammarström-Justinen 1936a:471 (who pointed out that contra Cortsen the story of Sisyphos must have been generally known) suggests instead ‘Betrug’ based on related myths and the assonance with Greek θωπεύω ‘to flatter’ (rejected by Vetter 1940a:220, without arguments). Note that the meaning ‘suffering’ (suggested by Corssen 1874a:380, although based on false Indo-European etymologies) is equally possible. Finally, since Sisyphos is only reconstructed there, Buffa 1934a argues that the depiction does not refer to his story and tupi is the name of a divinity or demon (sispeś being his/her epithet; rejected by Cortsen 1935a:179, without arguments). But even if the meaning ‘punishment’ turns out to be correct, one cannot exclude the possibility of an onomatopoeic word.

The Armenian verb top‘em ‘to beat with a beetle’ was also treated as a loanword, in this case from the Luwian form (Greppin 1978a:119, Greppin 1980b:205, Greppin 1982a:71). This was rejected by Simon 2013b:116 with ref. pointing out that the Armenian verb is either inherited or onomatopoeic.

Gorbachov 2005a:45, 49 with n. 14 (republished with slight modifications in Gorbachov 2008a:100f., 106) cautiously suggests that Old Phrygian tubeti ‘chop (down)^?’ can be a loanword from the Luwian verb. Although the verb shows /b/ instead of /p/ (from PIE *(s)teu̯p-), which would be conducive to the loanword hypothesis, since this is a feature of the Anatolian languages (see under Reconstruction and Proto-Indo-European etymology), one cannot exclude the possibility of an onomatopoeic word. Moreover, this word is attested only in the Vezirhan inscription (line 9) where its segmentation is not clear, i.e. tubeti or tubetiv (Neumann 1997a:23; for the former Brixhe 2004a:61; for the latter Hämmig 2013a:130, 139 n. 30, 142 with discussion; this problem was neglected by Gorbachov 2005a:45 = Gorbachov 2008a:100f.). Accordingly, its meaning is not clear either (if its form is tubeti, then it is a verb according to Neumann 1997a:23; Brixhe 2004a:61; also Hämmig 2013a:143 suggests that tubetiv is a verb, perhaps with the meaning ‘schädigen, krank/invalide Machen, töten’). All in all, the loanword hypothesis cannot be accepted at the current state of research.

[Zs.S.]