*k^u̯ódi

This lexeme is attested 14 times in inscriptions from Tabal, Emirgazi, Konya, Karkamiš, and Cilicia, dating from the second half of the 13^th to the early 7^th century BCE. 

[A.P.]

Some attestations for this lexeme are difficult to distinguish from those for the temporal and conditional adverb HLuw. /kwari/ ‘if, when, while’. The Forms section of both lexemes therefore contain first a table with reasonably secure attributions, followed by a second table listing those attestations whose meaning is harder to gauge.

indecl.	/kwadi/	kwa/i-ti	EMİRGAZİ 2, §6 (Emirgazi)
			YALBURT frag. 3, §10 (Konya)
			KARKAMIŠ A15b, §14 (Karkamiš)
			KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §24 (Cilicia)
			KARATEPE 1 (Ho.), §24 (Cilicia)
		kwa/i-a-ti	KARKAMIŠ A11a, §8 (Karkamiš)
			KARKAMIŠ A11a, §6 (Karkamiš)
		kwa/i-ri+i	KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §75 (Cilicia)
			ASSUR letter a, §8 (Assur)
		kwa/i+ra/i	BOHÇA, §8 (Tabal)
			BOHÇA, §12 (Tabal)

At EMİRGAZİ 2, §6, the reading is uncertain as to whether it is 〈kwa/i-ti〉 or 〈kwa/i-i〉. The transliteration by E. Masson 1979b:14 shows 〈i〉, but it is difficult to make out on the stone.

Semantically uncertain attestations:

		kwa/i-ti	KIRŞEHİR, §13 (Tabal)
			KARKAMIŠ A21, §11 (Karkamiš)
			HİSARCIK 1, §3 (Tabal)
		kwa/i-˹ti˺	KARKAMIŠ A24a2+3, §4 (Karkamiš)
		kwa/i+ra/i-i	KARKAMIŠ A27p, l.2 (Karkamiš)
		kwa/i+ra/i	KARKAMIŠ A15a, §7 (Karkamiš)
			KARKAMIŠ A17c, §5 (Karkamiš)
		ku-ti-i	POTOROO, 5a (unknown)

The attestation at POTOROO, 5a must be deemed somewhat uncertain. The lack of context for this inscribed object (which only survives as a cast) makes an interpretation difficult.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The word was first deemed a subordinating conjunction by Bossert 1949a:116 in the context of the bilingual KARATEPE 1 inscription, where it is used to translate a differently constructed Phoenician clause.He viewed it as introducing a final clause, which fits the KARATEPE 1 context perfectly, but does not do justice to all of the other attestations. Later, it was re-categorised as a grammatically more flexible adverbial, and this interpretation is generally followed, cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:207 (and CLL:117 for CLuw.). Originally the abl./instr. of the relative and interrogative pronoun (see the discussion of the stem below), the word has left the paradigm and undergone a semantic shift into the adverbial domain.

In BOHÇA, the word is used twice a few clauses apart from each other, and §8 runs: á-mu-wa/i kwa/i+ra/i wa/i+ra/i-ia-ia, approx. /ammu=wa kwadi warriyaya/, i.e. ‘(Indeed, (the storm-god) Tarhunt helps no-one), as he helps me’, and the same is said of the stag-god Runtiya several clauses down.

Because of the spelling issues caused by rhotacism, the attestations of the present lexeme have frequently been confused with HLuw. /kwari/ ‘if, when, while’, e.g. by Oshiro 1988b:9f.; cf. the comments on this by Morpurgo Davies 1982-1983a:247 n. 7 However, a sizeable portion of attestations cannot be attributed with certainty to either lexeme at any rate, mostly because of unclear or broken contexts.

[AH.B.]

The morphology of this lexeme has been elucidated by Goedegebuure 2010b:86, who identifies it as the old abl./instr. of the relative and interrogative pronoun /kwa/i-/ ‘who, which’, i.e. ‘(from) whom, which, where’.Outdated are the analyses that regard the form as an original dat./loc. sg. of the relative and pronoun, thus e.g. Oshiro 1988b:9. With this she builds on earlier work by van den Hout 1995b:136 n. 106, in which he noted that the CLuw. cognate kuwadī(n) ‘as, how’ was an adverbial ‘where’ and not the dat./loc. sg. of the interrogative pronoun. Also, Hawkins 2000a:336 and – more formally – Melchert 2003b:191 incl. n. 19 had identified the abl./instr. form of the relative and interrogative pronoun in its original pronominal function in BOYBEYPINARI 2, §4b, see under HLuw. /kwa/i-/ ‘who, which’. After exiting the paradigm, the word under discussion has undergone a categorial and semantic shift towards a full adverbial.

See also /kwadi=ha/.

[AH.B.]

The word is attested in rituals from MS to NS.

[A.B.]

ku-wa-ti-in	KBo 29.6 obv. 22’	(CTH 762, NS)
	KBo 29.6 obv. 25’	(CTH 762, NS)
	KBo 29.6 obv. 27’	(CTH 762, NS)
	KBo 29.6 obv. 30’	(CTH 762, NS)
ku-wa-ti-⸢in⸣	KBo 29.16 obv. ii? 8’	(CTH 761, NS)
ku-wa-ti-i-in	KUB 35.54 rev. iii 25’	(CTH 758, MS)
ku-wa-ti- ⸢i?⸣[-in?	KBo 29.16 obv. ii? 8’	(CTH 761, NS)
ku-wa-a-ti-in	KUB 35.54 obv. ii 42’	(CTH 758, MS)
ku-wa-a-ti	KUB 35.16 obv. ii 9’	(CTH 760, NS)
ku-wa-ti	KUB 35.102 rev. iv 6	(CTH 766, MS)
	KUB 35.107 rev. iii 9’ (2x)	(CTH 764, MS)
	KBo 29.60, 6’	(CTH 762, NS)
[ku-w]a-ti	KUB 35.103 rev iii 7	(CTH 766, MS)

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:60 and CLL:117. The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The form ku-wa-ti appears in rev. iv 6 of KUB 35.102 (instead of obv. 6 as in CLL:117).

For the dat.-loc. forms of the relative pronoun written with geminated -tt- see under the lemma kwī-/kwatt-.

[A.B.]

The form in KUB 35.53 rev. iii^? 3’ is read and restored as ku-wa-ti-⸢i⸣[-in (with plene i) by Starke 1985b:64, similarly Yakubovich (personal communication): ku-wa-ti-i[-in. However, according to the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, the damaged sign after TI cannot be identified with certainty.

[A.B.]

The forms of kwāti(n), kwatī(n) are based on the stem of the relative / interrogative pronoun kwī-/kwatt-. In the older literature the forms with geminated -tt- (kwatti) were not separated from kwāti(n), kwatī(n) (cf. Laroche 1959a:60 and HEG A–K:698–699). Nevertheless, it is clear from the contexts that this form has a different function than the relative pronoun and is used as an adverb (cf. CLL:117–118, Goedegebuure 2010a:300, Goedegebuure 2010b:84–85 and HED K:231); hence, the forms written with geminated -tt- representing kwatti are treated separately as dat.-loc. forms under the Lemma kwī-/kwatt-.

One function (of which already Laroche 1959a:60 was aware, although he did not distinguish between these forms) that separates kwāti(n), kwatī(n) from kwatti is its use in equations / similes. For instance, in the purification ritual KBo 29.6 something is crushed ‘like flour with the millstone’: ku-wa-ti-in za-am-mi-ta-a-ti-is na4ḫa-ra-a-ti. Sometimes kwāti(n), kwatī(n) is used in correlation with the relative adverb apāti(n) ‘thus’ (KUB 35.54 obv. ii 42–45, KUB 35.102 obv. 6–7, KUB 35.103 rev. iii 7; cf. Beckman 1983a:228, Starke 1990a:51, HED K:231, CLL:117, Melchert 2003b:207 and Goedegebuure 2010b:85). According to Melchert 2003b:207, this construction corresponds to Hittite maḫḫan (…) apeniššan ‘as (…) thus’ (cf. Goedegebuure 2010b:85, n. 26). By contrast, kwatti is not attested with apāti(n).

In addition, Laroche 1959a:55 considers the use of kwāti(n), kwatī(n) as an interrogative with the meaning ‘how?’ in KUB 35.107 rev. iii 9’ (cf. CLL:117 and Melchert 2003b:191). This is quite possible as the context of the mythological passage shows: A deity responsible for human body parts has not been invited to an important feast and attacks the human head. The sun god notices that, looks at Kamrušepa and says: za-a-ni-wa ku-wa-ti ^dKam-ru-še-pa a-wa ku-wa-ti na-a[-wa …?]. Since the Luwian text is unclear, the similar Hittite version of this passage (KBo 9.127, 12’) has to be taken account of (the transliteration follows Starke 1985b:241; and Groddek 2007a:319, cf. also Torri 2010a:384): [an-da iš-ta-m]a-aš-ta um-ma ^dutu a-na ^dKam-ma-ru-še-pa in-i-wa ku-⸢it⸣ ‘[having he]ard (that), the Sun god (said) to Kamrušepa as follows: “What is that?”. The sun god apparently wants to know what the cause of the problem is. This is encoded in Hittite with a distal demonstrative ini- and the interrogative pronoun kwit, i.e. ‘What is that?’ (cf. Groddek 2007a:320). In the Luwian version the question is more elaborate: za-a-ni-wa ku-wa-ti ^dKam-ru-še-pa (voc.) ku-wa-ti na-a[-wa …?] “How/why is that so, o Kamrušepa, how/why not […]?” The adverb kwāti(n), kwatī(n) appears twice within this direct speech part, once with the form za-a-ni (probably an adverb with the meaning ´so´, cf. under the Lemma CLuw. zāni) and once with the negation nā[wa. For both instances an interrogative function is plausible. Moreover, they exhibit a kind of rhyme pattern that encloses the vocative.

To conclude, the extant contexts point to a functional spectrum of kwāti(n), kwatī(n) as an adverb of comparison ‘as, like’ and as an interrogative ‘how/why?’.

[A.B.]

It is now generally accepted that kwāti(n), kwatī(n) arose as an adverb from the lexicalization of the abl.-instr. forms of the relative pronoun (cf. Goedegebuure 2010b:84–89, Goedegebuure 2010a:299f. with n.3, Melchert & Oettinger 2009a:56, Yakubovich 2015b:15) and not on the dat.-loc.sg. (as assumed earlier, e.g. in CLL:117).

Goedegebuure 2010b:86f., 83 assumes that the forms with final -in may reflect a combination of the ablative ending -ati and the ending -(i)n attested in Hieroglyphic Luwian ablative-instrumentals of the demonstratives za- and apa- (cf. Goedegebuure 2007a and Goedegebuure 2010a:299f. with n. 3).

[A.B.]

This lexeme is found once in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91), and 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.]

indecl.	kudi	TL 55.1 (Antiphellos)
		TL 44c.37 (Xanthos)
		TL 44c.45 (Xanthos)
		TL 44c.61 (Xanthos)

The conjunction kudi is regularly placed before the verb (thus also Schürr 2005a:141).

[D.S.]

Meriggi 1938a:145 translates kudi as ‘with which’ or even ‘where’ both on syntactic grounds and on etymological grounds, comparing Lyd. kud ‘where’ (‘where’ followed by Heubeck 1959a:42, Schürr 2005a:141, Schürr 2016d:162, Gehrisch 2018a:82f., 108, Sasseville 2018a:312, but Melchert 1994a:303 and DLL:118 ‘with which’, Shevoroshkin 2002a:228 ‘with whom’). To translate kudi as a local conjunction (and not as a relative pronoun in the instrumental case) is supported by its occurrence with nouns indicating places, i.e. xbadiz kudi ‘the river-valleys, where…’ (TL 44c.37), qle… kudi… (TL 44c.60-61) ‘to the precincts, where…’.

[D.S.]

The attestations of this lexeme are confined to Sardis. The tonic variant kud occurs in a variety of burial inscriptions, while the clitic variant =kud is attested once in an inscription found in the precinct of Artemis. The inscription LW 1 is usually dated to the early 4^th century BC, while the rest of the relevant texts are not properly dated.

[I.Y.]

The sequence puk=it kud išt ešλ wãnaλ pλtarwọ[d] in LW 1.6 corresponds to (’)w(?) lqbl zy prbr l-m‘rt’ ‘or with respect to the paribāra- to the grave’ in the Aramaic version of the bilingual. As already seen in Lidzbarski 1917a:125 and Danielsson 1917a:6 n. 1, the only plausible counterpart to the Aramaic relative particle zy is kud. There is, however, no need to translate kud as ‘what, which’ in this passage, pace Vetter 1959a:11, because the interpretation of pλtarwọ[d] as the nominal form is conducive to translating the Lydian passage as ‘or (the place) where the pλtarwo- with regard to the grave is’.

The other contexts, to the extent they are understood, support the interpretation of kud as a relative adverb. Thus, in LW 5.2, it may be ‘where’ (thus Melchert 1992a:31f.), while combination kud=ãk is likely to mean ‘when’. The possible Anatolian cognates of the element under discussion also plead for its adverbial meaning (see under Reconstruction). The formal deictic counterpart of kud may be epad ‘here’ (Gérard 2005a:99).

[I.Y.]