=we / =uwe

The particle =we and its orthographic variant =uwe are well attested across the Lycian corpus.

[D.S.]

indecl.	we	TL 44a.16 (Xanthos)
		TL 44b.50 (Xanthos)
		TL 45a.6 (Xanthos)
		TL 45b.5 (Xanthos)
		TL 65.22 (Isinda)
		TL 91.3 (Myra)
		TL 102.3 (Limyra)
		TL 118.6 (Limyra)
		TL 131.5 (Limyra)
		N 320.34 (Xanthos)
		N 324.28 (Xanthos)
		N 348.13 (Aloanda)
	w(e)	TL 44c.12 (Xanthos)
	wa	N 320.22 (Xanthos)
	ụẉẹ	TL 29.14 (Tlos)
	uwe	TL 29.16 (Tlos)
		TL 92.3 (Myra)
		TL 106.2 (Limyra)
		TL 118.2(x2) (Limyra)
		TL 128.2 (Limyra)
		TL 139.3 (Limyra)
	uwa	TL 54b.3 (Phellos)

The attestations se=waj=aitẽ (N 320.22) and me=uwa : xudalijẽh◊ (TL 54b.3) are cases of vowel harmony with the following word (Laroche 1979c:71). For the attestation of =uwe in the sequence meuweseriqe, see Schürr 2001e:136. The sequence seuwãni (N 317.2) must be, with Melchert (DLL:75), taken as se=uwã=ni despite the unexplained vowel harmony for expected *se=uwẽ=ni (cf. se=uwe=ni found in the same sentence in TL 118.2).

The particles =we and =uwe, which have so far been dealt with as separate lexemes in the literature, are taken here together as one, because they both occur in the same position within the particle chain and are used in identical manner. Contra Hajnal 1995b:105 n. 83 (followed by Melchert in DLL:77), there is nothing syntactical supporting the idea that =uwe should be considered a preverb. On the contrary, its restricted position within the particle chain speaks against it. Therefore, we are simply dealing with an orthographic variant of the particle =we. See the following comparisons:

               ti=wej=e … (TL 118.6) vs. ti=uwe ... (TL 128.2)

               se=we … (TL 44a.16, TL 131.5) vs. se=uwe … (TL 139.3)   

               se=we=ne … (TL 45b.5, N 320.34, N 348.13) vs. se=uwe=ni … (TL 118.2)

               se=we=hri … (N 324.28), se=we=n͂te … (TL 45a.6) vs. se=uwe=hri … (TL 118.2)

               me=w(e)=ẽnẽ … (TL 44d.62, Lyc. B) vs. me=uwe … (TL 29.14, 16, TL 55.3 (Lyc. B))

               tuwi=be=w(e)=ẽnẽ … (TL 55.5, Lyc. B) vs. hri=be=uwe … (TL 106.2)

The sequence se=we=nepe can hardly be segmented as s(e)=e=we=nepe, in order to recover an enclitic direct object because of the sequence ti=wej=e, where the enclitic pronoun seems to be following the particle =we. Due to the lack of more examples, however, this claim remains tentative and awaits further evidence.

[D.S.]

A summary of the outdated literature from the 19^th century and the beginning of the 20^th century on the particle =uwe, often believed to be a pronoun, can be found in Houwink ten Cate 1961a:79, Carruba 1969b:96 and Neumann 2007a:411. Later, different perspectives were suggested, e.g. Carruba 1969b::96-100 (and Carruba 1985b:83, 95) “(u)we is a particle of direct speech”, Meriggi 1978c:264 “uwe is a conditional particle”, Jasanoff apud Melchert 1986a:114f. “uwe is a term of relationship”, Hajnal 1995b:105 n. 83 (followed by Melchert in DLL:77) “uwe is a preverb”, Houwink ten Cate 1961a:79f. and Gehrisch 2018a:45 “uwe is a conjunction meaning ‘furthermore’”, Lebrun 2006a “=uwe is a dat. pl. pronoun”). As shown under Forms above, there is no functional distinction between =uwe and =we. Regarding the particle =we, Melchert (DLL:78) defines it as a particle of uncertain meaning, which is the most honest assessment (thus also Laroche 1979c:71 and Schürr 2018b:85 for Lyc. B, contra Gusmani 1968c:15 n. 74 for Lycian B =we “particle of direct speech”). Pending a larger analysis of the particle =we/=uwe and its function(s), nothing more will be offered here.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is well attested across the Lycian B corpus.

[D.S.]

indecl.	we	TL 55.2 (Antiphellos)
	w(e)	TL 44d.62 (Xanthos)
		TL 55.5 (Antiphellos)
	uwe	TL 44c.44 (Xanthos)
		TL 44c.58 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.55(x2) (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.60 (Xanthos)
		TL 44d.61 (Xanthos)
		TL 55.3 (Antiphellos)

Alternatively, ẽmu=we=te could be read as ẽm(u)=uwe=te (TL 55.2); cf. Meriggi 1963a:15, Neumann 2007a:420 and Shevoroshkin 2014a:231.

[D.S.]

The meaning and functions of the Lycian B particle =uwe and =we have been treated together with their Lycian A counterpart in the literature, for which see the Lycian A lemma above.Contra Gusmani 1968c:15 n. 74 for Lycian B =we “particle of direct speech”. Contra Schürr 2005a:154, who guesses that the meaning of =uwe is “always”.

[D.S.]

An origin from the disjunctive particle *=u̯e has often been suggested in the literature (see e.g. DLL:78), which is entirely possible (see its apocopated form in Lyc. neu), although a proper functional analysis of the Lycian particle =we / =uwe in all contexts is still missing.

[D.S.]