*pód-/pd-´
‘foot’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 493
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/pad(i)-/, PES-
‘foot’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is only attested in the Iron Age period. Its earliest attestation is found in MARAŞ 4 dated to the reign of Halparuntiya (mid. 9th c.).
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. pl. | /padinzi/ | (“PES”)pa-ti-zi | MARAŞ 4, §13 (Maraş) |
| PES-zi | KARABURUN, §8 (Tabal) | ||
| nom./acc. coll. | /pada/ | (“PES”)pa-tà | SULTANHAN, §6 (Tabal) |
| (“PES”)pa-lá/í-´ | KARKAMIŠ A15b, §12 (Karkamiš) | ||
| dat. pl. | /padanz/ | (“PES”)pa-tà-za | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §22 (Cilicia), KARATEPE 1 Ho., §22 (Cilicia) |
| […]p[a-t]à-za | BOR, §9 (Tabal) | ||
| (“PES”)pa+ra/i-za | SULTANHAN, §9 (Tabal) | ||
| abl./instr. | /padadi/ | (“PES”)pa+ra/i-ri+i | ASSUR letter f+g, §24 |
The attestations (“PES”)pa-tà and (“PES”)pa-lá/í-´ have been taken as dative singular so far (Hawkins 2000a:466 and 131 respectively). This renders the awkward sense that people are referring only to one foot instead of their two feet, i.e. the expected “dual”. Moreover, in each of these two contexts, there is nothing forcing a dative interpretation and precluding an accusative. In the first instance, pa-tà should be the direct object of the verb la+ra/i-, which takes an object in the accusative also in its other attestations, cf. BULGARMADEN, §4; MALPINAR, §10.
wa/i-ti-i | mara/i-wa/i-li-sá-´ [|] (“PES”)pa-tà | ARHA-´ | la+ra/i-ta (SULTANHAN, §6)
“The corn-field has lara. away its feet.”
In the second case, it depends on the syntactic interpretation of the phrase /tuwammin d/la-(i)/, lit. "to take set up", which occurs in two different passages:
wa/i-mu-tá (DEUS)ku+AVIS-pa-pa-sa | (“PES”)pa-lá/í-´ PONERE-mi-i-na | tà-i
(KARKAMIŠ A15b, §12)
wa/i-mu-ta DEUS-ni-zi-i (LITUUS)á-za-mi-na COR-ni-na a-ta tu-wa/i-mi-na-´ la-ta |
wa/i-li?-ia-wa/i-ti-na (KULULU 4, §9)
In the first sentence, one is forced to assume that the enclitic pronoun referring back to the statue (mentioned in the previous sentence) has been dropped in spite of the participle /tuwammin/, which is expected to agree with it (Hawkins 2000a:131, Payne 2012a:86).
[D.S.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
The word […]p[a-t]à-za (BOR, §9) is read with the sign <tá> instead of <tà> in Hawkins 2000a:520 and Giusfredi 2010b:246. In Laroche 1960c:53 and Meriggi 1951a:82, the sign <tà> is read. Only the right part of the sign is preserved, which could be compatible with both L.29 <tá> and L.41 <tà>. While there is no attestation of L.29 within the BOR inscription, an example of L.41 is found in §5, which corresponds approximately to the damaged sign. From a phonological perspective, one expects the word for ‘foot’ to be spelled with L.41, which represents the lenited alveolar (Rieken 2008b:643). Therefore, the sign L.41 is here restored.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
Hrozný 1933a:62 n. 4 assigns the meaning ‘foot’ to the lexeme /pada/i-/, which is determined by a logogram picturing a foot, and compares the Proto-Indo-European root for ‘foot’ *ped- (followed by among others Gelb 1942a:26, Laroche 1960c:53, HHG:96, Payne 2010a:149). In KARABURUN, §8, the lexeme /pada/i-/ appearing once together with the word for ‘eye’ must represent a body part that can be eaten by the gods. Thus, the meaning ‘foot’ is also contextually supported.
[D.S.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
pāta-
‘foot’1.2.1Transmission
Amply attested in Luwian rituals from MS until LNS.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | pa-ta-a-aš | KUB 25.37 ii 28’ | (CTH 771, NS) |
| dist. pl. | [pa-a-ta-an]-ta | KUB 35.88 ii 8 | (CTH 766, NS) |
| coll. pl. | GÌRMEŠ-ta | KUB 35.103 iii 12 | (CTH 766, MS) |
| GÌRḪI.A-˹ta˺ | KBo 29.49 obv. 3’ | (CTH 759, NS) | |
| dat./loc. pl. | pa-a-ta-an-za | KUB 9.6 iii 16’ | (CTH 759, LNS) |
| abl./instr. | pa-ta-ti | KBo 9.145, 8’ | (CTH 770, NS) |
| GÌRḪI.A-ti | KUB 35.100 obv. 2’ | (CTH 766, MS) | |
| nom. sg. c. / abl./instr. | pa-ta-˹aš˺/˹ti˺ | KBo 29.25 iii 6’, 7´ | (CTH 764, MS) |
| pa-˹ta˺[-aš/ti] | KBo 29.25 iii 5’ | (CTH 764, MS) | |
| gen. adj. nom./acc. sg. n. | pa-a-ta-aš-ša-an-za | KUB 32.8+5 iii 17’ | (CTH 759, NS) |
| unknown | pa-a-˹ta˺[ | KBo 29.56, 5’ | (CTH 766, MS) |
Attestations following CLL:173 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:81; HEG L-S:532, and HED Pa:199) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. Melchert questions the appurtenance of pa-ta-a-aš in KUB 25.37 ii 28’ (cf. also EDHIL:654) and pa-ta-ti in KBo 9.145, 8’, but formally speaking nothing excludes these (the contexts are unclear). The fragmentary context of KUB 29.25 iii 5’-7’ does not allow to decide which form is to be read. Restoration in KUB 35.88 ii 8 follows Starke 1985b:226 based on the context, thus it is possible, but not assured. The terminology of the plurals provisionally follows CLL:173, although it requires further research.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘foot’
There is general agreement regarding the meaning due to its clear contexts (Laroche 1959a:81; Starke 1990a:26, 29, 47, 54, 62f., 100, 135f.; CLL:173; Reichardt 1998a:79; van den Hout 2001a:181; HEG L-S:532, Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269; Hart 2004a:344f.; EDHIL:653; Goedegebuure 2010a:303; HED Pa:199; Ünal 2016a:967) and also the meaning of the Sumerographic spelling is doubtless (Carruba 1982a:47; Watkins 1986a:60, Watkins 1987a:425, Watkins 1995b:147; Hajnal 2003c:49 n. 79; Yakubovich 2010d:125, Yakubovich 2012a:328, Yakubovich 2013b:163f.).
The only question is if the genitival adjective appears substantivized in the meaning ‘toenail’ (as HEG L-S:532, Tischler 2008a:142, Tischler 2016a:269 suggested, similarly also Taracha 2000a:154) or ‘toe’ (as García Trabazo 2014a proposed). However, as analysis of the passage shows, this is not the case (Simon 2015c:col. 707 with discussion).
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Derivatives
1.2.4.1Rejected Derivatives
1.3 Lycian A
pede(/i)-
‘foot’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested on the Xanthos stele, which was inscribed shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE.
[D.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| abl./instr. | pededi | TL 44a.35 (Xanthos) |
1.3.3Meaning
The meaning ‘foot’ was suggested by Laroche 1960a:169, who connected it etymologically with Cuneiform Luwian pa-ta-ti (abl./instr.) ‘foot’. He referred to the phrase izredi pededi ‘with hands (and) feet’ for contextual evidence, cf. Neumann 2007a:264. Melchert 2002c:248 n. 32 accepts Laroche’s etymological connection and suggests for the asyndetic construction the metaphoric meaning ‘with total devotion’.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘foot’
The equation of Hittite pada- c., CLuw. pāta- c., HLuw. /pad(i)-/ and Lyc. pede/i- c. all meaning ‘foot’ allows us to reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian word for ‘foot’: The Hittite root vowel -a- speaks for the reconstruction of an o-grade, i.e. *pod-. Regarding its stem, it was assumed based on Indo-European evidence that it was originally consonantal and that Hittite thematized it (Rieken 1999a:19). Kloekhorst [
The mutated status of HLuw. /pad(i)-/ and Lyc. pede/i- does not contradict the reconstruction of a Proto-Anatolian root noun. Regarding the apparent non-mutated stem of CLuw. pāta-, Kloekhorst (ibid) points out rightly that none of the adduced nominative singular forms that would speak against the i-mutation are secured; cf under lemma. There are also potential traces of an old dual in CLuw. GÌRMEŠ-ta and HLuw. pa-tà, which fell synchronically together with the collective number. For the root verb built on the same root as the one for ‘foot’ see *pEd- ‘to fall’.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
*pō̆́d-/*ped-´ is “essentially pan-IE and clearly the PIE designation for ‘foot’” (EIEC:209). Literally, PIE *pód- means *‘treader’ and is a formation to the PIE root *ped- ‘to tread; to fall, sink’ (LIV²:458). In Baltic and Slavic, *pō̆́d-/*ped-´ was replaced by other words (Lith. kója, Latv. kãja ‘foot, leg’Cf., e.g., ALEW I:512f., OPr. nage ‘foot’Cf. Lith. nãgas m., nagà f., Latv. nags m. ‘finger-/toenail, claw, hoof’.; OCS noga, Russ. nogá, Cz. noha, SCr. nòga, etc.Cf., e.g., EDSIL:354f., ALEW II:681f.). In Celtic, the usual word for ‘foot’ is PCelt. *treget- > OIr. traig, MW troet, OBret. MBret. troat, etc.Cf., e.g., EDPC:389. For other words for ‘foot’ in the IE languages, cf. Buck 1949a:243f.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The PIE word for ‘foot’ is usually reconstructed as an o/e-ablauting root noun *pō̆́d-/*ped-´ (cf. Schindler 1972a:33, NIL:530 n. 2). The paradigm (nom. sg. *pṓd-s, acc. sg. *pód-m̥, gen. sg. *ped-és, nom. pl. *pód-es, acc. pl. *ped-ḿ̥s, etc.) is best preserved in IIr. (PIIr. *pād- : *pad-) – cf. Ved. nom. sg. pā́t, acc. sg. pā́d-am (YAv. pāδǝm)With ā < PIE *o, according to Brugmann’s Law., gen. sg. pad-áḥ (YAv. paδō), nom. pl. pā́d-aḥ, acc. pl. pad-áḥ (YAv. paδō), etc. In other IE languages, either the o- or the e-grade root was generalized (cf. Lat. pēs, ped-is, PGerm. *fōt-, Gk. πούς, πoδóς, Arm. otn). Differently Kloekhorst 2014a:161, who sets up an e/Ø-ablauting root noun *péd-/*pd-´ (nom. sg. *péd-s, acc. sg. *péd-m̥, gen. sg. *pd-és, etc.), which already in PIE times was remodeled to *péd-/*ped-´, with introduction of the full-grade root of the strong stem into the weak stem. Since this happened, according to Kloekhorst 2014a:161, at an early stage of PIE “when the vowels *e and *o were still allophones of each other, the outcome of the *e when transferred to an unaccented syllable would automatically have been *o” (i.e., PIE *péd-/*ped-´ > *péd-/*pod-´). In late PIE, this gave a paradigm with nom. sg. *pḗd-s (< *péd-s by monosyllabic lengthening), acc. sg. *péd-m̥, gen. sg. *pod-és, etc., which “can account for all attested languages” (Kloekhorst 2014a:161). However, as far as IIr. is concerned, such a scenario seems less economical than the reconstruction of a paradigm *pód-/*ped-´, which explains the acc. sg. Ved. pā́dam (YAv. pāδǝm) by regular sound change (PIE *pódm̥ > Ved. pā́dam, as per Brugmann’s Law). A late-PIE paradigm *péd-/*pod-´, on the other hand, would require the assumption of an analogy: PIE acc. sg. *péd-m̥ > PIIr. *pád-am, which was remodeled to Ved. pā́dam, “[w]ith vocalism taken over from the nom. sg. form pā́t” (Kloekhorst 2014a:161 n. 80). Another problem remains the reconstruction of an original weak stem *pd-´, for the existence of which Kloekhorst refers to compounds such as Ved. upa-bd-á- ‘noise of going’ (with -bd- assimilated from *-pd-). There are, however, no traces of an uncompounded stem *pd-´. Therefore, it is more likely that the form *-pd- was only licensed in the second member of compounds, and a simple stem *pd-´ never existed.
[T.S.]
4. Transmission
Indo-Aryan:
Indo-Aryan: Ved. pád- m. ‘foot’ (RV+ [nom. sg. pā́t, acc. sg. pā́dam, instr. sg. padā́, gen. sg. padáḥ; nom./acc. du. pā́dā; acc. pl. padáḥ, loc. pl. patsú, etc.Cf., e.g., AiGr III:235f., EWAia II:77f., with lit., NIL:526, 530 n. 2)
Iranian:
YAv. pad- m. ‘foot’ (acc. sg. pāδǝm; nom./acc. du. pāδa; acc. pl. paδō, instr. pl. paδǝbiias-ca)Cf., e.g., EWAia II:77f., with lit., ALF:139f., NIL:526, 530 n.2, OPers. pāda- m. ‘id.’Cf. Ved. pā́da-: secondary thematic stem by reanalysis of acc. sg. pā́d-am as pā́da-m, cf. EWAia II:77, NIL:526, 530 n. 3.
Gk. Att. πούς, Dor. πῶς, also πóς, gen. sg. πoδóς m. ‘foot’ (Il.+)Cf., e.g., GEW II:587f., NIL:531 n. 6, with discussion and lit.
Arm. otn ‘foot’ (gen./dat. sg. otin, loc. sg. y-otin, etc.; nom. pl. otk‘< *pód-es, acc. pl. ots< *pód-n̥s, gen./dat. pl. oticʻ, abl. pl. y-oticʻ, etc.)Cf., e.g., Olsen 1999a:175, NIL:526, 531 n. 7, EDAIL:534f., each with discussion and lit.
Lat. pēs, gen. sg. pedis m. ‘foot’ (Enn., Plaut., Cato+); Umbr. abl. sg. peři, persi ‘pede’Cf. Untermann 2000a:522f., EDLIL:462., NIL:527, 532 n. 15–16.
?Galat. nom. pl. ādes ‘feet’ (Hsch.)Cf., e.g., NIL:527, 531 n. 9, EDPC:136; ?OIr. áit(t) f. ‘place, position; accommodation’< ?*pōd-dh(h1)-i- ‘place (to set foot on)’, cf. NIL:527, 531 n. 8.; OIr. ís prep. ‘under, beneath’, OW is prep. ‘id.’< loc. pl. *pḗd-su ‘at the feet’, cf. NIL:527, 532 n. 17, EDPC:131.
Goth. fōtus, ON fótr, OE fōt, OS fōt, OHG fuoz, etc.< PGerm. *fōt-; cf., e.g., NIL:527, 531 n. 10, EDPG:152.
TochA pe m., TochB paiyye m. ‘foot’Cf. DTB²:432, Winter 2005a:60f., NIL:527, 531f. n. 12, with lit.; TochA posac, posaṁ adv./postpos. ‘beneath, next to’Cf. NIL:527, 532 n. 13, with lit.
Alb. (për-)posh prep. ‘beneath’, adv. ‘downwards’, poshtë adv. ‘below, down(wards)’Cf. NIL:527, 532 n. 18, with discussion and lit.
pātiyalla/i-