witpan(i)-
‘(unknown)’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 671
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
witpan(i)-
‘(unknown)’1.1.1Transmission
The sole attestation of the lexeme is found in a NS copy of the dupaduparša ritual of Kuwattalla.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. | ú-i-it-pa-ni-im(=) | KUB 35.39 ii 28’ | (CTH 759, LNS) |
The exceptional acc. sg. c. in -im- is caused by assimilation, preceding the conjunction -pa- (Garrett and Kurke 1994a:76).
[E.R.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The context of witpan(i)- describes the destruction of an adversary by an analogical curse. He should be treated the same way as two pieces of reed that ritual client and expert pressed and broke apart in the preceding performance of the ritual (arḫa duwarnanzi). The construction with double accusative (wītpanim=pa=an widāindu) opens up several possibilities for syntactic interpretation, which are discussed by Garrett and Kurke 1994a:76f. (with reference to Melchert 1984a:158 and Watkins 1986b:326): depictive, resultative, cognate accusative (pseudo-etymological or genuine) and partitive apposition. They decide for partitive apposition (“may they smash his w.”, literally ‘may they smash hin, i.e. his w.’) and conclude that we are dealing with a body part. Based on a Vedic parallel, Garrett and Kurke interprets wītpan(i)- as ‘testicles’. This is very well possible, but none of the alternatives, syntactic or semantic, is excluded and their solution highly speculative. Therefore, no meaning assignment is attempted here.
[E.R.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
While Melchert 1984a:158 does not suggest any etymology and, apud Garrett and Kurke 1994a:79 n. 11, rather hypothetically toys with an analysis *u̯o/eiT-Po-no/i- on formal grounds, Garrett and Kurke, ibid., speculate that wītpan(i)- “reflects a virtual form *u̯í-dhbh-a/ono- and would originally have meant ‘(having) two little one(s)’ or the like.” Etymological cognates are seen in PIE *(d)u̯i- ‘two’ and the root *dhebh- ‘(be) little’. This is far from obvious and, given the insecure status of the semantic interpretation, of little help.
[E.R.]