*h₁eí̯-/h₁i-´

This lexeme is attested 15 times in the HLuw. corpus, and the inscriptions can be found in most of the HLuw. area. In terms of dating, the inscriptions range from the earliest in the second half of the 13^th century to the latest in the early 7^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

The form “PES₂”-tà^-i in SULTANHAN, §15 is often regarded as a form belonging to a different verb: /awi-^(di)/ ‘to come’, which happens to be used in the preceding clause and usually involves the logogram PES (*90). However, the use of PES₂ (*93) instead of PES (*90) in “PES₂”-tà^-i suggests that it should be regarded as a form of /i-^(di)/ ‘to go’ instead, because the latter generally relies on PES₂ as is evident in the above table. Still, it should be kept in mind that PES and PES₂ only differ by being mirror images of one another and therefore switch orientation with the direction of reading from one line to the next in the HLuw. boustrophedon style.

Additionally, “PES₂”-tà^-i from SULTANHAN, §15 has traditionally been read as /idi/ and analysed as a 3sg. pres. act. with future meaning. The same analysis was suggested for the verb in the preceding clause, “PES”-wa/i+ra/i as /awidi/, which belongs to /awi-^(di)/ ‘to come’, cf. still Weeden 2018a:334 following Hawkins 2000a:466. Yet the context calls for both verbs to be preterite instead of present tense, and they should be read /ida/ and /awida/ respectively; the spellings permit both interpretations in either case.

[AH.B.]

This lexeme constitutes a basic level term and is one of the most central verbs of motion. A collection of the forms was first undertaken by Laroche 1958a:99-101, who also separated out those forms that belong to similar looking but unrelated verbs. He followed Meriggi 1957a:202f. in identifying the verb as ‘to go’.

In HLuw., the verb is frequently paired with preverbs that change its meaning, e.g. ARHA i- /ahha i-/ ‘to go away’, VERSUS i- /tawiyan i-/ ‘to go against / toward’, etc.

[AH.B.]

This lexeme is a root verb with lenited endings, for which see Sasseville 2021a:301.

[AH.B.]

1. /awi-^(di)/ ‘to come’

The verb is attested in Luwian incantation rituals and the Ištanuwa festival more than 20 times, mostly but not exclusively in MS manuscripts.

[E.R.]

For i-ia-a (KUB 25.39, 27’), tentatively assigned to this lemma by Puhvel (HED:I 328; sceptical Oettinger 1979a:349 n. 185), see under iya-. – The assignment of the form i-li (KBo 4.11 rev. 44) to this verb as 3sg. pres. act. follows Yakubovich 2017d. It is supported by the co-occurrence with KASKAL ‘path’.

[E.R.]

Attestations checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz, except for Privat 40. – Restoration [i-t]i in KBo 29.9 obv. 13 following Yakubovich (pers. comm.).

[E.R.]

Paradigm, meaning and syntax of ī-^(di) were elucidated by Laroche 1958a:99-101, based on Meriggi’s (Meriggi 1957a:202f., 207f.) earlier analysis of KUB 35.103 iii 1-3. The latter had misunderstood the syntax of the passage, but arrived at the correct meaning ‘to go’. Laroche then pointed to the intransitive use of ī-, its combination with locatival expressions, and the serialization construction well-known from Hittite pai- ‘to go’ (see also van den Hout 2010a:201f.). The semantic interpretation is generally accepted (Laroche 1959a:53; CLL:85; Oettinger 1979a:561; Starke 1990a:164 et al.; HEG:A-K 335; HED:I 335; HED:PA 39; EDHIL:375f.) and confirmed by the straightforward etymological connection with PIE *h₁ei̯-; see under Origin.Outdated Otten 1953a:80-83.

[E.R.]

The verb is one of the few remaining root verbs in Luwian, showing the expected lenited endings after its long root vowel (Oettinger 1979a:561; Morpurgo Davies 1982-1983a:257, 261; Sasseville 2021a:296-298, 301).

[E.R.]

1. awī-^(di)

2. ^mParāiuna- (PN) (see Neumann 1976a:143; unconvincing counter-arguments in Starke 1990a:550)

1. iunāḫi(t)-

This lexeme is found across the Palaic corpus.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz.

[D.S.]

The suggested restoration of [i-i]a-an-za in KUB 35.165 obv. 7, yielding a participial form of the verb ‘to go’, is supported by the context (followed by Sasseville 2019a:27); see under meaning.

[E.R.]

The verb ī- ‘to go’ in Palaic was first recognized in the imperative form i-ú, which was equated with Hitt. eḫu ‘come!’ (Carruba 1970a:58). Melchert 1994a:198f. adduces the preterit form cliticized to the particle chain, i.e. a=ant=ienta ‘they came in, they entered’ (followed by Yakubovich 2005c:118), as well as the 1^st plural form iwini ‘we go’. The participial form [i-i]a-an-za suggested here by Rieken is added to this lexeme. This assignment is motivated by the context:

                mān=ti marḫānz(a) mān=t[i iy]anz(a) [a=]apa ariye (KUB 35.165 obv. 7-8)

                ‘Whether you have come as a guest or have wandered by, pick them (scil. bread) up!’

In this passage, it is argued that Zaparwa addresses the gods gathered at the feast and gives them the signal to start eating the bread (Sasseville 2019a:27). The form [iy]anz(a) stands in opposition to marḫānz(a) ‘to come as a guest’, which means that the former must refer to the gods, who have not been explicitly invited as guests, but happen to come by.

[D.S.]

Based on CLuw. ī-^(di), the Palaic verb ī- should inflect likewise according to the lenited mi-conjugation. However, no attestations of the relevant Palaic forms have yet been found.

[D.S.]

1. idāraši-

HW (2nd ed.) I:1, EDHIL:375f. The attestations of the active diathesis of the Hittite verb ‘to go’ are archaisms and few in number. Soon after attestation sets in, Hittite ī-^(mi) was replaced by the deponent iye/a-^(MP) ‘to go’ (HED E-I:329, EDHIL:375).

[D.S.]