*u̯ospeh₂-

The comparison between Luw. /waspa-/ and Hitt. waš(ša)pa- c. ‘garment, dress’ lead to the reconstruction of a Proto-Anatolian noun in *-eh₂- (due to the lack of i-mutation in Luwian), i.e. *u̯ospeh₂- (per Watkins 1969a:241, *-o- or *-eh₂-). Watkins 1969a connects it etymologically with Lat. vespillo ‘undertaker for the poorest classes’, which would speak for the reconstruction of a voiceless *p (followed by Melchert 1994a:151, 157, Kimball 1999a:444). Kloekhorst (EDHIL:985) states that the spelling wa-aš-ša-pa- speaks rather for a voiced (or lenis) *b^(h), i.e. /waSba-/. However, this is hardly cogent, given that the occasional generous spelling only aims at rendering the geminate fortis -šš- in the consonant cluster (cf. Kimball 1999a:444). In any case, Kronasser 1962c:184 and EDHIL:985 reconstruct *u̯os-b^ho-, adducing the suffix *-b^ho- (although a stem in *-eh₂- would be necessary here). From an inner-Anatolian perspective, it is very difficult to decide between *p or *b^(h) and, thus, the Indo-European evidence is required.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see HLuw. */wass-/.

Even though Latin uespillō means ‘undertaker for the poorest classes’ and is first attested in this meaning only in Martial (second half of 1^st c. CE), Watkins 1969a argues convincingly that the term goes back to much earlier times (compare the cognomen Vespillō, first attested in the person of Lucretius Vespillo who was aedile in 133 BCE) and that the original function of the uespillō in Roman funerary practice must have been that of dressing the corpse. Therefore, the basis of uespillō (and its rare variants uespa and uespula) can very well be the same *u̯osPeh₂- ‘garment’ that underlies Luw. /waspa-/ and Hittite waš(ša)pa- c. ‘garment, dress’. The Latin development of *uosp- to uesp- (as in uespillō) is regular, compare uoster ‘your’ > uester Meiser 1998a:84, Weiss 2020a:152.

Based on the semantics of Luw. /waspa-/, Hitt. waš(ša)pa- c. ‘garment, dress’, and Lat. uespillō ‘dresser of corpses’, a connection of *u̯osPeh₂- with the root *u̯es- ‘to cover; put on’ seems plausible. The further analysis, however, is debated. Kloekhorst in EDHIL:984f., for example, argues for a suffix *-b⁽ʰ⁾o-, though *-bʰo- is otherwise largely limited to color adjectives cf. [14004]Pinault 2022a. For *-bo- (or *-po-) there is no comparative evidence. Olsen 2016a therefore recognizes the underlying root as *u̯ebʰ- ‘to weave’ and analyzes *u̯ospo- as an o-grade derivative of an s-stem *u̯ébʰ-os n. ‘web’ (quasi *u̯obʰ-s-o-) implying an assimilation of *-bʰs- to *-ps- and subsequent metathesis to *-sp-. A different route was already suggested by Watkins 1969a:241 and further elaborated by Janda 2000a:84f. and 208f.: instead of interpreting *u̯osPeh₂- as containing a complex labial-initial suffix *-bʰo-, *-bo-, or *-po-, one can analyze it as a primary *-eh₂-stem derived from an enlarged root *u̯esP- ‘to cover (?)’. Janda finds evidence for such a root *u̯esp- in Gk. ὄσπριον n. ‘pulse, legume’ (Att.-Ion.), ὄσπρος ‘pea, chick-pea, etc.’ (Hsch. ο 1423 Latte-Cunningham), presumably named after their pods (cf. German Hülsenfrucht). The relationship between unextended *u̯es- ‘to cover’ and extended *u̯esp- ‘to cover’ would be comparable to *skel- (Gk. σκάλλω ‘I stir up, hoe’) and *skelp- (Lat. scalpō ‘I cut, carve, scrape, scratch’), or *dʰreu̯- (*dʰreu̯s- in Gk. θραύω ‘break in pieces, shatter’ with unexplained a-vocalism, Latv. druska ‘crumbs’), *dʰreu̯bʰ- (Gk. θρύπτω ‘break in pieces, break small’, Latv. drubazas pl. ‘small pieces, fragments, crumbs’), and *dʰreu̯p- (Latv. drùpu, drupt ‘crumble (itr.)’, drupas pl. ‘ruins’). For a formal analysis of Lat. uespillō as reflecting a compound with a second member *-tl̥h₂-o- see Olsen 2016a:96–102.

[S.H.]

Hittite waš(ša)pa- c. ‘garment, dress’, Hieroglyphic Luwian /waspa-/ c. ‘garment’, Luwian in Hittite Transmission waššapa- ‘garment, dress’

Latin uespillō, uispillō ‘undertaker for the poorest classes’ (Mart.+), later also ‘grave robber, a thief who steals the clothes from a corpse’, also known as uespa ‘id.’ (Paul. Fest.) and uespula ‘id.’ (Paul. Fest.)Cf., e.g., WH II:772, EM:728, EDLIL:670f.