*uba-⁽ⁱ⁾

This lexeme is attested 14 times in inscriptions from Tabal, Commagene, Karkamiš, the Amuq, and Malatya, dating from the 10^th to the 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The above list may not be complete, since the verbs /uba-⁽ⁱ⁾/ and HLuw /uppa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to bring, send’ are easily confused when not preceded by a determinative and attested in semantically inconclusive contexts, as HLuw. is unable to convey their differing phonology on the graphemic level. Cf. also Yakubovich 2005a:245 and Simon 2019i:893f.

In fact, the form attested at ŞIRZI, §7 may belong here or with /uppa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to bring, send’; both meanings fit the context. The meaning of the form at KIRÇOĞLU, §2 is likewise ambiguous.

Yakubovich 2016a:88 and Payne 2017c:109 comment on the use of AEDIFICIUM for the logographic determinative in ARSLANTAŞ, §2.

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

The basic semantic domain of this verb is reasonably clear, and various scholars have suggested similar translations.E.g. ‘to present’ (Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1978a:113); ‘to dedicate’ (Morpurgo Davies 1980a:126); ‘to grant, give’ (Melchert 2004a:371); ‘to bring about’ vel sim. (Yakubovich 2016a:88); ‘to donate, found’ (Sasseville 2021a:363). Because of their indistinguisable spellings, the two verbs /uba-⁽ⁱ⁾/ and /uppa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ have been difficult to tell apart, a problem noted by Hawkins 1972a:109 (see also Starke 1990a:520 n. 1921),In fact, Hawkins 2000a:260 suggests combining all forms of the two verbs into a single lexeme, but that approach seems ill-advised, cf. Melchert 2004a:372 and Yakubovich 2005a:243f. See Simon 2019i:893 for a brief summary. and the attestations without logogram confound the issue further. As noted by Melchert 2004a:372, /uba-⁽ⁱ⁾/ cannot be combined with directional adverbs; only /ahha/ ‘back, away’, whose meaning is not necessarily directional, appears to be a possible preverb.

The meaning can be observed in TOPADA, § 15: *274-ia-pa-wa/i FEMINA.MANUS-za/i-ha SERVUS-sa (“PES”)u-pa-ta_x, approx. /…-ya=ba=wa wanatta-niwaranninzi=ha hudarlahi=sa ubatta/, meaning ‘He granted the booty and the girls as servants (of a household)’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:453 and Simon 2019i:894).

[AH.B.]

Belonging to the class in /-a-⁽ⁱ⁾/, this verb represents a simple deradical formation, see Sasseville 2021a:363-365.Note that Sasseville 2021a:363-365 attributes the attested forms differently across the graphemically largely identical verbs /uba-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to found, grant’ and /uppa-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to bring, send’.

[AH.B.]

In accordance with its general meaning, the verb occurs in ritual texts from the Lower Land and the Tauriša traditions as well as in Ištanuwa festival texts (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

For the graphic distinction from ūppa-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to carry, move’, see under Meaning.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The confusion between upa-⁽ⁱ⁾ (spelled ú-p°) and ūppa-⁽ⁱ⁾ (spelled (u-)up-p°) in the early literature (Rosenkranz 1952a:53, Meriggi 1957a:221, DLL:102, Carruba 1972a:9, Meriggi 1980a: 351) prevented a successful elucidation of the meaning beyond a very broad approximation with ‘to provide, give, send’. Only in 1990, Starke 1990a:520 n. 1921 drew attention to the difference in spelling and suggested an equation with HLuw. u-pa- and Lyc. ube-^(ti), which he translated as ‘to donate’. The subsequent discussion of the Cuneiform Luwian contexts together with the derivatives and cognates led Melchert (CLL:242, Melchert 1994a:265, Melchert 2004a:370–2, Melchert 2019c:571, DCL:s.v., followed in HHw:186, HEG U:82f., EDHIL:923) to assume synchronic ‘to dedicate, present, grant, furnish’, whereas Yakubovich 2005a:243-251 (and Yakubovich 2010d:233f.) advocated ‘to found, establish, provide’. Sasseville 2021a:363f. opts for a diplomatic ‘to donate, found’. The translation ‘to provide’ is chosen here as the most general one, since in the relevant Cuneiform Luwian passages the identifiable objects are future days, blissful fullness, vitality and life to be granted by the gods (KUB 35.133 ii 28’-30’) and, more concretely, salt provided by a river (KUB 35.54 iii 17f.).

[E.R.]

While the forms attested in Cuneiform Luwian are ambiguous as to their stem class, Sasseville 2021a:363f. classifies the verb as a ḫi-verb on account of its Lycian match ube-^(ti), but cf. also the agnostic stance in DCL:s.v.

[E.R.]

1. upati(t)-
2. upatitalla/i-
3. ubadinnum
4. upaḫil(i)-
5. upaššallā(i)-^(mi)

This lexeme is found in a few dedicatory inscriptions from Xanthos and Tlos as well as on the inscribed pillar tomb of king Gergis at Xanthos.

[D.S.]

Contra Carruba 1978a:864 n. 13 and Heubeck 1981a:161, the word -ubedẽ (N 320.6) does not belong here, especially since it does not exist as such, but should instead be read tubedẽ (see Lyc. tube-^(di)). Contra Schürr 2012a:118f., there is no imperative form (u)be attested in TL 44b.37f. (partially withdrawn in Schürr & Dönmez 2015a:142), which would create syntactic problems.

On the apparent “unmarked” form ube (in ñtube = ñt(e) ube) and the interpretation of the context, see Sasseville 2021a:374f. (contra Yakubovich 2005a:249f. who takes ñtube as a noun, rendering the syntax of the whole passage impossible by leaving the direct object qlã without a predicate for instance) and Hyland 2021a:267 with n. 39 for a summary of the earlier interpretations. For the post-verbal position of the conjunction terñ, which also speaks for ñtube as a verb, see Sasseville 2021c.

The restoration of u[be]tẽ, (the inscription it occurs in was published in Tekoğlu 2002-2003a) is suggested here, although no alteration is proposed in Christiansen 2019b:92.

On the restoration of ub[ẽte], see Schürr 2007b:122 (followed by Sasseville 2021a:379). Cau 2003b:58 n. 24 restores a 3sg. form ub[ete], taking Trbbẽnimi as the subject, although it does not belong to the same clause. Instead, it is preferable to take (a)tãnãi ‘the Athenians’ as the subject and the indirect object =i as referring anaphorically to Trbbẽnimi.

[D.S.]

Laroche 1967a:56f. translates Lyc. ube-^(ti) on both contextual and etymological grounds, comparing Luw. /uba-/ ‘X’, with ‘to offer, dedicate’ (followed by Carruba 1978a:864 n. 13, Starke 1990a:520 n. 1921, Melchert 2004a:371, DLL:75, Neumann 2007a:398f., Vernet 2018a:368f., Gehrisch 2018a:180, Sasseville 2021a:379 “to donate”). In 311, it takes xruwata ‘(thank) offerings’ as a direct object, in TL44c.13 telẽzijehi qlã ‘military precinct’ and in TL 44b.12 wazzisñ ‘(a military troop)’. These three instances are all used in dedicatory or diplomatic contexts.

[D.S.]

On the stem class in -e-^(ti), see Sasseville 2021a:374-376, 379.

[D.S.]

1. uba-

Hapax in a votive inscription of unclear provenance (its 6^th c. date is not assured [Gusmani 1978c:67, not “late 6th – 5th century BC”, contra Adiego 2019a:32], on its probable Egyptian origin see the refs. s.v. san).

[Zs.S.]

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:432, checked against the photographs in Gusmani 1978c:Tafel I & II. Its segmentation is assured by word-dividers. While most scholars assume a preterite form (Melchert 1993d:78f., Melchert 2002b:309; Melchert 2010f:183, Melchert 2021b:108; Adiego 1994d:240, 281f. but 432f. left the question open, Adiego 2010b:171f., Adiego 2019a:32 n. 38; Schürr 1999b:30; Yakubovich 2005a:248; Simon 2008b:461, Simon 2020d:409; Gander in Çörtük & Gander & Holler 2018a:116; Loiacono 2019a:88), Hajnal 1995b:17 opts rather for a present form. Both solutions are possible from a contextual point of view, however, Simon 2021b argues that *ti leads to τ in Carian, which in turn implies that we are dealing with a preterite form (Simon 2021b:59).

[Zs.S.]

Based on the context and its formal closeness to Lycian ube- ‘offer’, there is general agreement since the identification by Melchert 1993d:78f. (cf. also Melchert 2002b:309, Melchert 2010f:183, Melchert 2021b:108) that ýb- means ‘to dedicate, donate’ (followed by Adiego 1994d:240, Adiego 2007a:281f., 432 (but here only “probably a verb”), Adiego 2010b:171f., Adiego 2019a:32 n. 38; Hajnal 1995b:17; Schürr 1999b:30, Schürr 2022a:145f.; Yakubovich 2005a:248 [‘place’]; Simon 2008b:461, Simon 2020d:409; Gander in Çörtük & Gander & Holler 2018a:116 [cautiously]).

It was only Janda 1994a:179 who did not assume a verb but either a particle chain (“nun”, comparing the Lydian 3rd person nom.-acc. n. enclitic pronoun -ad) or a noun (comparing CLuw. upatit- ‘land grant’ from ‘*Stiftung’). While semantically both are possible, the last word of the sentence, pjdl meaning ‘gift, offering’ (contra Janda’s ‘hat gegeben’, see s.v.) excludes the second proposal. The comparison with the Lydian form requires the object, ork, to be neuter (as pointed out by Janda himself), which is, however, not the case (s.v.). Although a particle chain cannot a priori be excluded, the suggestion of a formally and semantically fitting verb is clearly superior to a chain of unknown particles.

[Zs.S.]