*k^u̯i-k^u̯e

This indefinite pronoun is well attested across the Lycian corpus.

[D.S.]

Since the forms for the nominative and accusative singular (c. and n.) look the same, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two, since the syntax allows for either case in some contexts. E.g. in ti=tadi tike, it could be used either for the subject, ‘if anyone places’, or for the object, ‘if one places anyone’, a problem mentioned for example in Christiansen 2020a:244; cf. also Neumann 2007a:363f. and Melchert (DLL:67). A context with both overtly expressed can be seen in hrppi=(i)je me=i : tadi : tike : tike (TL 84.3; cf. Sideltsev & Yakubovich 2016a:103f.) ‘If anyone places anyone on top, …’.

There are some instances of tike that have been taken as nom./acc. sg. n., i.e. TL 131.3, 135.2 and N 314b.2:

ti=(i)je : (e)se xttadi : tike hruttla : ebeija (TL 131.3)

‘Whoever damages these hruttla here, …’

In this case, the pronoun tike ‘any’ cannot be taken to agree with hruttla ebeija (nom./acc. pl.), which is further specified with the denominative pronoun ‘these here’, but is rather to be analyzed as nom. sg. together with the relative pronoun ti-, reinforcing the free-choice relative value, i.e. ti-… tike ‘whoever’. The same applies for the following passages as well as the context involving the direct object mẽtẽ (TL 56.3, TL 118.5; pace Meriggi 1980b:245; cf. Sideltsev & Yakubovich 2016a:101).

tij=[adi ti]k[e t]ihe [zum͂]mẽ (TL 135.2)

‘Whoever does any kind of zum̃mẽ, …’

xupa ebehi tij=j=adi : tike zum͂mẽ : tihe (N 314b.2)

‘To his grave here, whoever does any kind of zum̃mẽ, …’

[D.S.]

For a new collation of the inscription TL 112, see Christiansen 2020a:242f.

[D.S.]

Torp 1898a:19 recognizes that tike is an indefinite pronoun with the approximate meaning ‘someone, something’ built on the relative pronoun, Lyc. A ti-. This has been widely accepted (see Pedersen 1945a:21, Laroche 1960a:174-177, Houwink ten Cate 1961a:71, Carruba 1978b:178, Meriggi 1980b:244f., Melchert (in DLL:67) and Neumann 2007a:363f.). The pronoun can be used on its own, i.e. tike ‘anyone’, with a negation, i.e. ne… tike ‘no one’ (N 324.34-35; cf. Laroche 1979c:74, Sideltsev & Yakubovich 2016a:101), or with an adjective, i.e. tike kbi ‘anyone else’ (cf. TL 49, TL 75.4, TL 109.4, TL 112.3, TL 149.7, TL 150.5, N 317.3) or kbi tike ‘id.’ (TL 88.3, TL 93.2, TL 101.3, TL 149.7, N 306.2, N 309b.3), or a substantive, i.e. tike arawã ‘any freedom’ (TL 135.2), tike kumalihe ‘any of the kumalihe’ (TL 26.19). For its combination with a relative pronoun, see under Forms above. One should also compare Sideltsev & Yakubovich 2016a:101f. for an overview, although they neglected the occurrences with the free-choice relative value, i.e. ti… tike (nom. sg. c.) ‘whoever (reinforced)…’ (TL 131.3; agreement between tike and hruttla not possible).

[D.S.]

This lexeme is attested 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).

[D.S.]

The sequence is wrongly divided as ne=ki=k(e)=epñ by Torp 1901b:33 and Meriggi 1980b:263. For the correct division as kike in comparison with Lyc. A tike, see Schürr 2001d:98, Schürr 2005a:141 and Melchert (DLL:117); agnostic Neumann 2007a:167.

[D.S.]

The indefinite pronoun kike modifies mlu… plluwi, i.e. ‘any Pinarean votive offering’.

                ne kik(e) epñ mlu xrau plluwi (TL 55.6-7)

                ‘I do not offer back any Pinarean votive offering …’

[D.S.]

This lexeme is attested in several texts, probably all coming from Sardis, which date back to 6^th through 4^th centuries BCE.

[I.Y.]

The present generally follows Gusmani 1964a:186. According to Gérard 2005a:36f., the stems qi- and qe- represent phonetic variants. This hypothesis would imply that the form qed=k should be added to the paradigm above. What falsifies it is the observation that *qid=k evolves into qi=k by a standard morphophonemic rule (see below), whereas qed=k is preserved; cf. further under the stem qe(si)=k, where the form qed=k is listed in this dictionary.

The forms of acc. sg. c. and nom./acc. sg. n. regularly go back to *qiν=k and *qid=k respectively: for the relevant phonological change, see Gérard 2005a:77. Against this background, the preservation of the nom. sg. c. ending -š is remarkable, especially given the fact that it also disappears before =k in polysyllabic forms. For the variation between qi- and qy-, see Gérard 2005a:36.

[I.Y.]

For the exceptional spelling qig?, instead of the expected qik, see Gérard 2005a:58. For qick as a possible erroneous spelling in lieu of qišk, see Gusmani 1980a:83.

[I.Y.]

The “generalizing” meaning had already been attributed to the combination of relative pronouns and =k in Littmann 1916a:35, while Gusmani 1964a:186 accepted it for the specific set of forms discussed in this lemma. In fact, it is possible to be even more specific: all the attested contexts feature qik in either modal relative clauses or negative clauses and therefore are compatible with the interpretation of its forms as polarity items (cf. Sideltsev & Yakubovich 2016a:99f.). In LW 54.4 and LW 24.8 the lexeme under discussion appears at the head of the noun phrase (‘anything’), while the remaining contexts feature it as modifier (‘any’).

[I.Y.]

The lexeme qik represents a combination of the inflected pronoun qi- and the indeclinable extension k, which is etymologically related to the clitic =k ‘and’ (cf. under qe(si)=k).

[I.Y.]

HEG I-K:615f.