*k̑ei̯-

If correctly identified as a form of the verb /zi-/ ‘to lie’, this lexeme is a hapax legomenon, attested once in Tabal in an inscription dating to the middle of the 8^th century BCE. The identification cannot be assumed with absolute certainty, because the context would also permit to see the form as an instance of the local adverb /zadi/, the old ablative/instrumental of the demonstrative pronoun /za-/ (Goedegebuure 2010b:78-80). Regarding the i-vocalism, Goedegebuure shows that, while rare, the adverb does appear as /ziri/ in the corpus (KARKAMIŠ A27e, frag. 2§4), which is clearly a rhotacised variant of /zidi/ and which appears in a context devoid of the syntactic ambiguity of KULULU 1, §16.

[AH.B.]

If the identification of the form is indeed correct, the meaning of this verb is not in doubt. While attested just once in HLuw., the root is a well-known mainstay in the vocabulary of the IE languages, and it is only because of the nature of the HLuw. texts that it does not appear more frequently there as well.

However, assigning this form to the verb ‘to lie’ hinges on three premises. Firstly, the verb zi-ti, clearly singular, is paired with /parna/ ‘houses’, a clear plural, yet a neuter noun, i.e. this incongruence in number is typical in the IE languages, evidenced in CLuw. for this very verb, and therefore not an issue. Secondly, the semantics of the verb seem to be at odds with what the noun can be deemed capable of, yet CLuw. appears to provide a matching passage, albeit in a fragmented context (CTH 770, KUB 35.68 x 8’). Thirdly, and this issue weighs heavily, zi-ti would be the only instance of an active ending used on a verb that is usually a prime example of medial-only inflection, unless one were to assume that zi-ti is a hypercorrect spelling of /ziri/, which would be the contracted form of the expected /ziyari/. As the form is attested in a late text, it is not entirely unreasonable to assume both a contraction and a hypercorrection, not least since the previous clause also features a contraction of /tarrawannadi/ to /tarraunnadi/. However, the context remains ambiguous as to the status of the word zi-ti: it may be an instance of the verb /zi-/, but an analysis as the local adverb /zadi, zidi/ is just as likely.

[AH.B.] [D.S.]

The verb is a root verb, i.e. the endings attach directly to the root, which is typical for this particular root. However, it cannot be denied that the choice of ending calls into doubt the identification of the word as a form of the verb /zi-/ ‘to lie’, the expected form would be /ziyari/, as evidenced in CLuw. This verb usually takes medial endings in the other Anatolian and indeed IE languages, yet the present form, zi-ti, features an active ending, which can only be explained if one is willing to assume both a contraction of /ziyari/ to /ziri/ and a subsequent hypercorrect spelling as zi-ti.

[AH.B.] [D.S.]

Attested in Luwian rituals in MS and NS.

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following CLL:282 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:115) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. On the problem of the ending variants see Yoshida 1990a:116f.

[Zs.S.]

Initially considered to be unknown (Laroche 1959a:115; Neu 1968a:12 with n. 1 [“sehr fraglich, ob überhaupt Verbum”]), the meaning of this word was established independently by Melchert 1987a:195f. and Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1988a:177f. as ‘to lie’ based on the context and since then this is the communis opinio (CLL:282 [he mentions “are laid (down)” and “is placed in a lying position” as alternative meanings in Melchert 2003c:146–148]; Haas 2003a:712, Haas 2004a:217; EDHIL:474, 862, 900; similarly van den Hout 2001a:168 [“are laid (down)”]; the word was not included in Tischler 2008a, Tischler 2016a and Ünal 2016a).

However, Francia 2014a:8 translated the sentence zāwi ziyar NUMUN^ḪI.A-na [p]ūnāta inzagān wašḫa of KUB 35.54 ii 31’-32’ (transliteration following Starke 1985b:67) as ‘ecco, c’è la semente tutta, gli arnesi, gli oggetti consacrati’. Considering that this sentence refers to the paraphernalia just handed over and beyond the etymological connection with Hitt. ki- ‘to lie’ the only argument for assuming the meaning ‘to lie’ is that the verb of this action was “katta ḫikzi” translated by Melchert 1987a:196, Melchert 2003c:147f. as ‘offers downward’, although it simply means ‘to hand over, to present’ (HW (2nd ed.) Ḫ:603), one might consider that zī- simply or also means ‘to be present, there is’, cf. already the translation of Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1988a:178 (“here are the seeds”), which would also fit its Hieroglyphic Luwian equivalent in KULULU 1 §16 (see s.v.). KBo 29.2 ii 9’ is a parallel text and thus it is not helpful. Although zīyari of KUB 35.68, 8’ appears in a fragmentary passage, its subject, parna ‘houses’, again tips the scale in favour of ‘to be present, there is’ (approx. “there are [the] houses”), since ‘to lie’ would result in the less meaningful sentence ‘(the) houses are lying’ (although not impossible in the sense of ‘to be located’, this cannot be decided since the text is broken after the “houses” and the verb).

[Zs.S.]

This lexeme is attested in various types of inscriptions. Most of the attestations are found in funerary inscriptions except for two, where one belongs to the Xanthos stele shortly after ascension of Artaxerxes II in 404 BCE (TL 44b.61) and the other one to the Letoon trilingual dated to 337 BCE (N 320.25).

[D.S.]

For the reading [s]ixani instead of [s]ijani in TL 128.2 see Melchert 1989b:27.

The variant of the 3^rd sg. in -tẽni beside regular -ẽni is explained in Melchert 1992c:195 n. 12. The form sitẽni cannot be plural (contra EDHIL:475), since the subject in N 320.25 is the relative pronoun =ti referring to the noun hlm̃mipijata, which could be singular or collective. In any case, the relative pronoun =ti cannot be subdued for the common gender plural form =tijẽi nor for the neuter plural form =tija. Thus, since =ti must be taken as singular, the verb sitẽni must be singular as well.

 [D.S.]

The semantics of this lexeme were elucidated by Thomsen 1899a:23-25 and were supported by Pedersen 1904a:204, Carruba 1977a:301, Melchert 1989b:26f., DLL:57. For a summary of the outdated literature see Neumann 2007a:325f. The verb si- is used frequently in funerary contexts, where it refers to the location of the deceased. It is also used to refer to the location of monuments (TL 44b.61); cf. Melchert 1992c:194f.

[D.S.]

For the medio-passive conjugation see Melchert 1992c.

[D.S.]

Attested in a funerary inscription of unknown date from Kemer, in the neighbourhood of Tralles (Caria).

[Zs.S.]

Attestations following Adiego 2007a:412 (cf. also Schürr 2001d:109 with n. 12; Duhoux 2008a:56–72; O. Henry 2007a:94–100 with n. 17; Kloekhorst 2008a:139–143), but, contra these authors, without sδi(a) and sδisa, for which see s.vv. (the inscription is lost and no photos are available, for drawings see Adiego 2007a:131 with refs.). Adiego 2007a:254, 289 n. 17 and Duhoux 2008a:68–70 cautiously entertain the possibility of a segmentation “siδia”, but unlike siδi, it does not yield a meaningful sentence, cf. below. The grammatical categorization follows Kloekhorst 2008a:139–143, see under Meaning.

[Zs.S.]

According to Adiego 2007a:412 we are dealing with a variant of sδi(sas), which is a noun used in funerary contexts (and thus ‘tomb’, ‘stela’ or similar, see the discussion s.v.), ‘tomb’ in this case (Adiego 2007a:290; cf. already Hajnal 1995b:20 [‘Grab, ein Grabteil, Grabstätte o.ä.’]). This is generally supported by Duhoux 2008a:70f. and O. Henry 2007a:100f., who would specify the meaning as ‘grave, burial’.

However, Kloekhorst 2008a:139–141 convincingly argued on contextual and formal grounds that the inscription C.Tr 2, an siδi artmi pauś parŋaq (on the reading of the last word see s.v. =q), means ‘here/underneath lie Artmi, (son) of Pau, and Parŋa’ (contra Adiego 2007a:289f.; Duhoux 2008a:60f., and Hajnal 1995b:20, note that Hajnal’s translation [repeated in Hajnal & Zipser 2017a:277 n. 5, without even mentioning Kloekhorst’s translation] is based on his misinterpretation of parŋa-q as ‘ich errichtete’ from *párnewā-ha, which is phonologically not possible, since ŋ continues *nC [Adiego 2007a:251; Kloekhorst 2008a:139], see the discussion s.v. parŋaq).

[Zs.S.]

Possible derivative:

1. sδi(a)

Rejected derivative:

1. sδisa

This lexeme is found in a Palaic ritual with bread offerings and in a Palaic mythological text both preserved on Old/Middle Hittite tablets.

[D.S.]

The lexical assignment of the form ki-tar-zi (KUB 35.164 ii 12’), which is here interpreted as ki-tar=zi (with reflexive particle =šši), is not assured; cf. Kammenhuber 1959a:18, Carruba 1970a:60, Yakubovich 2005c:119.

The appurtenance of the form ˹ki-i˺[(-) to this lexeme is not entirely assured. However, it is probable because of the locative ulānna ‘in the thickets’ occurring right before and the contextual reference to the vegetation god Telipinu. Thus, ‘he lies in the thickets’ makes good sense (Melchert 1984b:38); cf. Carruba 1970a:59.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz.

[D.S.]

Otten 1945-1951a:82 equates Pal. kītar with Hittite kitta(ri) ‘he lies’. He understands the context in the way that various things have been laid down, before the god is asked to eat, which makes the semantic assignment ‘to lie’ convincing (followed by Kammenhuber 1955b:82, Laroche 1955a:74f., Kammenhuber 1959a:18, Carruba 1970a:59, Eichner 2010a:45-48).  

[D.S.]

HEG I-K:568f., EDHIL:473-475