*péu̯-/pu-´
‘to carve’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 3805
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/pu-(di)/
‘to engrave’1.1.1Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
*pū-(di)
‘to engrave’1.2.1Derivatives
1.2.1.1Uncertain derivatives
1.3 Lycian A
pu-(di)
‘to engrave, inscribe’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in various funerary and dedicatory inscriptions.
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| 3sg. pret. act. | pudẽ | TL 87.4 (Myra) |
| TL 78.5 (Tyssa) | ||
| pude | N 324.3 (Xanthos) | |
| 3sg. pret. act.(?) | pud[e?] | N 325.1-2 (Xanthos) |
| 3pl. pret. act. | puñtẽ | TL 114.2 (Limyra) |
| 3pl. pret. act.(?) | pu[ñte?] | TL 44b.20 (Xanthos) |
The assignment of the form pud[ to this lexeme is tentatively suggested by Neumann 2007a:289 and Schürr 2007b:112f.Pace Schürr 2007b:114, there is no attestation puñti in N 304.14.
The Lycian word putu does not belong here (contra Hajnal 1995a:126, Schürr 2007b:114); instead see puta-.
Schürr 2007b:122f. argues for the restoration of the same verb at TL 44b.20, but this is far from assured.
[D.S.]
1.3.3Meaning
When the trilingual inscription was discovered, in which the Lycian verb ppuweti was rendered with Greek ἐγγέγραπται ‘inscribed’, Laroche 1979c:71 consequently assumed that the verb pude as in atrã pude erb[bina] meant ‘to engrave’. Heubeck 1985a:42f. followed the idea that pu-(di) is etymologically related to Lyc. ppuwe-(ti) ‘to inscribe, write’ and noted that the non-reduplicated root verb pu-(di) is only attested in the preterit, whereas ppuwe-(ti) is found only in the present, recalling the core Indo-European distribution between reduplicated presents and root aorists. The meaning assigned to pu-(di) is accepted by Hajnal 1995a:126, 157 n. 162, which he also translates properly as ‘to inscribe, write’ in the funerary contexts where a personal name stands as direct object, i.e. se=i=(e)pñ=pudẽ : idãxre : maxah : xahbu : xili (TL 78.5) ‘Idãxre inscribed thereafter Xili, grandchild of Maxa.’. The assigned meaning has received wide acceptance (Melchert in DLL:52f., Eichner 2007a:107 n. 17, Giusfredi 2009a:62, Gehrisch 2018a:125, Christiansen 2020a:210 (but translated as ‘to enroll/admit’ on page 212), Sasseville 2021a:309). All other suggestions are either outdated or to be rejected; cf. Houwink ten Cate 1961a:95 “to admit”, Schürr 2001e:132 n. 4 “to join”, Shevoroshkin 2014a:240 “to adjoin”, Yakubovich (apud Rieken 2018a:343 n. 3) “to lift” and see Neumann 2007a:289 for a summary of the older literature.
[D.S.]
1.3.4Stem
For the stem formation as a lenited root verb, see Hajnal 1995a:126 and Sasseville 2021a:304f., 309.
[D.S.]
1.3.5Derivatives
1.4 Hittite
kappuwe/a-(mi)
‘to count, provide’1.4.1Literature / Comments
HW 2nd ed. K:121-127
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘to carve’
Rieken 2018a:343-345 associates the root of HLuw. /puballa-/ ‘to write’ with the one of Lyc. ppuwe-(ti) ‘to write’ and Hittite kappuwe/a-(mi) ‘to count’ (< *km̥-pu-i̯é/ó-, HED K:71, skeptic EDHIL:440; on the preverb, see also PAnat. *=kom), maintaining the comparison with Lat. computāre, and reconstructs a Proto-Anatolian root *peu̯- meaning ‘to carve, engrave’ (cf. already Giusfredi 2009abut with some outdated interpretations). The Lycian root verb pu-(di) also belongs here and goes back to a root verb of the mi-conjugation, i.e. *péu̯-/pu-´, whereas Lyc. ppuwe-(ti) goes back to a reduplicated verb of the ḫi-conjugation (see under lemma), i.e. *pu-póu̯-/pu-´ (cf. HLuw. /puballa-/ < */pubu̯alla-/; with possible analogical lenition of the non-reduplicated syllable (if CLuw. pupulā[ belongs here), which did not happen in Lycian however). Furthermore, Lycian shows a deradical formation in -h- (< *-(h1)s-), i.e. puh-(ti) (see under lemma), which provides a rich set of parallel (de)radical derivations for the Anatolian data.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
The reconstruction of a root *peu̯- ‘to cut, carve’ (cf. Rieken 2018a:342, “ritzen, kerben”) is rather uncertain, as it is based solely on Anatolian and Latin evidence. All the Latin formations seem ultimately derived from the adjective putus ‘pure, clean’ (hence putō, -āre *‘to clear out, clear up’ > ‘to prune (trees), trim; clear up’), which does not necessarily derive from *pŭ-tó- but could instead stem from *ph2u-to- (with metathesis from *puh2-to-) and be connected to pūrus ‘pure, clean’ (from *puh2-ro-). However, the near-perfect correspondence between Hittite kappuwe/a-(mi) ‘to count’ and Latin computāre ‘to calculate, reckon’ may lend some support to the idea that both word families originate from the root *peu̯-. The picture is further complicated by the existence of the Tocharian verb B putk(ā)- ‘to divide, separate, distinguish’ (e.g., Prs. VII mid. 3sg. puttaṅktär), A putkā- ‘id.’ (e.g., Prs. VII mid. 3pl. pūtäṅkāntär; see Malzahn 2010a:727f.), which points to a preform *put-ske/o- and may thus serve as evidence for a distinct root *peu̯t- ‘to cut’.
[S.H.]
4. Transmission
Hieroglyphic Luwian /puballa-/ ‘to write’, Lycian A pu-(di) ‘to engrave, inscribe’, puh-(ti) ‘to engrave, inscribe’, Hittite kappuwe/a-(mi) ‘to count’, pul- n. ‘lot’.See EDHIL:440 s.v. kappuu̯e/a-zi.
Latin putō, -āre ‘to prune (trees), trim; clear up, settle; count, believe’ (Plaut.+), putus ‘pure, clean’ (Plaut.+), amputāre ‘to cut off’ (Lucil.+), computāre ‘to calculate, reckon’ (Plaut.+).Cf., e.g., EDLIL:502 s.v. putō, -āre.