tukedre/i-

Neumann 1961a:55f. connects Lyc. tukedre/i- ‘statue’ etymologically with Hitt. tuekka-/tukka- c. ‘body, person’, which has been widely accepted. Regarding the derivation in Lycian, he suggests an abstract noun with a formation comparable to those in Hittite -ātar/-ann-. Semantically, he compares the Hittite formation DINGIR^LIM-niyātar /siuniyadar/ ‘divinity, image of a god’. However, the presence of i-mutation in the Lycian noun with an original neuter consonantal stem is puzzling. The mutation in the noun huwedre/i- ‘all’ can be accounted for due to its adjectival status, but that argument cannot apply to the noun tukedre/i-. Thus, we are dealing either with a total transfer of original heteroclitic neuter stems to the paradigm of i-mutation, or with an actual derivation in *-o- or *-i- from the original abstract noun in *-ādr̥, i.e. *tukādr- + -e/i- (+ vowel harmony). This must be left open for now.

The equation of the Hittite and Lycian cognates allows the reconstruction of a Proto-Anatolian substantive *tu̯ék-/tuk-´, whose ablauting paradigm is suggested by the Hittite lexeme tuekka-/tukka- c. (Melchert 1989b:31, Melchert 1994a:94, HEG T:427, EDHIL:885f.). The word is sometimes reconstructed with a vowel *a in the root from an Indo-European perspective (Neumann 1961a:56, Shevoroshkin 2012a:480, HEG T:404 with further literature), but this is not in harmony with the Hittite data. Regarding the stem formation, Melchert 1994a:100 assumes a secondary o-stem to an original root noun. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:886) argues on the other hand that the Proto-Anatolian form was a root noun, which would be supported from an Indo-European perspective. In Hittite, he assumes that there was gender confusion with the neuter based on cases such as NÍ.TE-ŠU ḫu-u-ma-an (KUB 7.16 v 14), which could be justified in his opinion if the stem was originally radical. Overall, there is general consensus that the Hittite a-stem tuekka-/tukka- c. represents a secondary transfer into the paradigm of a-stems. In the end, a root noun *tu̯ék-/tuk-´ meaning ‘body’ is reconstructed tentatively. On the etymological connection with the Hittite verb tukk- ‘to be visible’ see HEG T:404, EDHIL:886, 896f.

[D.S.]

The semantic connection of the meaning ‘statue’ (or ‘idol’), as attested in Lycian, with ‘body’ (cf. Hitt. tuekk(a)‑/tukk(a)‑) is trivial. The meaning of the Hittite verb tukk‑^āri ‘to be visible’ may serve as a starting point for a noun denoting the ‘visual appearance, body’ (< *‘what is visible’).
Ved. tvác- ‘skin (of living beings)’ is opposed to removed skin (of brought down animals) and thus, like Hitt. tuekk(a)‑/tukk(a)- ‘body’, denotes the ‘outward appearance’ of a being.If Ved. ā‑túc- ‘(?)sunset, dusk’ (hapax, RV.8.27.21) is related, it may be suggested that the meaning derives from something like ‘during (ā) a certain phenomenon (tuc‑), time of sunset’.

On the morphological analysis of the Lycian lexemes, cf. above. The primary nouns Hitt. c./n. tuekk(a)‑/tukk(a)- ‘body’ and Ved. tvác- f. ‘skin (of living beings)’ may, under certain circumstances (cf. EDHIL:885f.), be traced back to a mobile root noun PIE *tu̯ék‑/*tuk‑´ ‘what is visible, (outward) appearance’. The original gender, however, which vacillates in Hittite between genus commune and neuter and is feminine in Vedic, cannot be determined with certainty.EDHIL:885f. proposes an explanation of the inner‑Hittite developments and takes the genus commune as original.

Ved. tvác- f. ‘skin (of living beings), (rarely) body’ (RV+)
EWAia I:684, Grassmann 1996a:564

(?)Gk. σάκος n. ‘shield’ (Il.+)Beekes (EDG:1302 with lit.) proposes a Semitic loan, cf. Akk. saqqu, Hebr. śaq ‘cloth of hair, bag, morning dress’. This origin has at least to be assumed for Gk. σάκκος ‘cloth of hair; sack’. Furthermore, the “root”‑vowel Gk. ‑α- speaks against the affiliation with the Anatolian material.
GEW II:672, DELG:985, EDG:1302, LSJ:1581