*gei̯b^h- or *h₁ḗp-?

Güterbock 1961a:93 n. 42 connects the word family of Luw. ipama/i- with the verb ippattarišša-⁽ⁱ⁾, now translated as ‘to distrain, take possession’. This is possible under the assumption that there was an acrostatic paradigm *h₁ḗp-/h₁ép-, which caused the lenition of the labial consonant in the strong grade, but not in the derived instrument noun due to a displacement of the accent, e.g. *h₁ēp-é-tro-. This would allow us to posit an etymological connection between the Luwian root *ip- with negative semantics in the derivatives such as ‘left’, west’ and CLuw. āp- ‘to seize’ (Hitt. ēpp-/app-^(mi)).

The Lydian root *if- found in various derivatives has been connected to Hitt. ēpp-/app-^(mi) ‘to seize’ (Melchert 1997a:42 n. 12) despite the phonological problems left unaddressed. The Lydian vowel -i-, like Luwian, should go back to either *-i- or *-ē- and the -f- to a *-b^(h)- or lenited *-p-.Cf. for example Lyd. pife- ‘to grant’ vis-à-vis Lyc. pibije- ‘to give’ and Lyd. kofuλ ‘water’ vis-à-vis CLuw. ḫāp(i)- ‘river’. Therefore, the immediate cognate that emerges is not CLuw. āpp-, but rather CLuw. *ip(a)- (ipama/i- ‘perverted (?)’) (thus Sasseville 2021a:185f.). Regarding the semantics, Sasseville ibid. assumes that the original meaning of ‘to seize (with the left-hand)’ is anchored in the root *ib-, as in the derivatives ipal(i)- ‘left-hand’ and iparwašša/i- ‘western’, whence the connection with the root *h₁ep- ‘to seize’. This perspective however requires the existence of lengthened grade *h₁ḗp- of either nominal or verbal origin; see PAnat. *h₁ép-/h₁p-´ ‘to seize’. Evidence for this acrostatic type has already been suggested for Hittite epurā(i)-^(mi) ‘to move earth, build a siege ramp’ < *h₁ḗp-ur-eh₂-i̯e/o- with lenition by Eichner 1973a:79f. (also adducing ipulli- n. << * h₁ḗp-u-d^hlo- of uncertain meaning; cf. HW 2nd ed. I:73) and Oettinger 1979a:367.

On the other hand, since the root variant /ib-/ with the semantics of ‘left, west’ is only attested in Luwic, it is possible, albeit unprovable, to trace it back to a root *gei̯b^h- (thus Starke 1990a:508f. with Indo-European cognates, Melchert 1994a:254) with loss of initial *g (or *g̑); see De Vaan (EDLIL:259f.) for the tentative reconstruction of such a root. However, taking the Hittite cognates seriously, this root etymology should be dismissed.

[D.S.]

If the formations listed above in the table belong to one and the same root *gei̯b^h- (which is not certain), the basic meaning of this root would have to be something negative such as ‘crooked, twisted; having a physical defect; weak (vel sim.)’. The semantic overlap of Cuneiform Luwian ipal(i)- ‘left (hand)’ and Norwegian keive ‘left hand’ is striking. It is not uncommon for words referring to ‘left’ or ‘left hand’ to be derived from roots with a negative meaning: compare Latin laevus ‘left, awkward’ < *‘crooked’ (cf. laevī [sc. bovēs] ‘cows with downward bent horns’, quoted by Servius), English left from Old English left ‘weak’, or Italian stanco ‘tired’ and Old Italian mano stanca ‘left hand’, Romanian stâng ‘left’ (see Buck 1949a:865–867 for more examples, and 864f. for ‘straight, correct, right; stronger’ > ‘right’). The development of ‘left’ to ‘western’ is at least also found in Ancient Greek σκαιός ‘left’ and ‘western’.

Based on the semantics, the affiliation of Cuneiform Luwian *ip(a)- (ipama/i-) ‘perverted, sinister (?)’, ipal(i)- ‘left (hand)’, iparwašša/i- ‘western’ with *gei̯b^h- ‘crooked, twisted; having a physical defect; weak (vel sim.)’ is attractive. As this root probably had a Caland profile, formations in *-mo- (perhaps CLuw. ipama/i-, unless this reflects *-mn-o-), *-lo- (CLuw. ipal(i)-), *-ro- (Latin gibber, -era, -erum), and *-o- (Norwegian keiv < *goi̯b^h-o-) are expected (see Rau 2009a:71f.).

As discussed above under Reconstruction Proto-Anatolian *gei̯bh or *h₁ḗp-?, another possibility is that *ip- is from *h₁ēp-, the stem of the Narten present *h₁ḗp-ti ‘seizes’ (see PAnat. *h₁ép-/h₁p-´ ‘to seize’; note that for ippattarišša-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to distrain, take possession’ this is the more plausible hypothesis from a semantic perspective). On the analogical spread of lengthened grades from Narten present or aorist stems to nominal formations see Höfler 2014a.

[S.H.]

Cuneiform Luwian *ip(a)- (ipama/i-) ‘perverted, sinister (?)’, ipal(i)- ‘left (hand)’, iparwašša/i- ‘western’, etc.See above.

Latin gibber, -era, -erum ‘crook-backed, hunch-backed, hump-backed’ (Varro+), gibber, -is m./n. ‘hunch, hump’ (Lucil.+), gibbus ‘hunched, humped, gibbous’ (Cels.+), gibbus m. ‘hunch, hump’ (Juv.+)The geminate might be due to the “littera rule” (viz. *gīb- ~ gĭbb-..Cf., e.g., WH I:597 s.v. gibber, EDLIL:259f. s.v. gibber.

Norwegian keiv ‘crooked, twisted’, keive f. ‘left hand’ (cf. Danish kejtet ‘awkward, clumsy; left-handed’, kejthåndet ‘left-handed’).Cf., e.g., IEW:354.

Lithuanian geibùs ‘weak, clumsy’, geibstù, geĩbti ‘become weak, die’, Latvian ģibstu, ģibt ‘faint’, ģèibstu, ģèibt ‘perish, die’, ģeĩba ‘dizziness; clumsy, weak person’, ģaĩba f. ‘fool’.Cf., e.g., LEW I:143 s.v. geĩbti, IEW:354.