wezza-

Attested in a Hittite treaty and in a trilingual hymn (NS & LNS).

[Zs.S.]

3rd sg. pres. act.	ú-iz-za-i	KBo 5.4 rev. 41	(CTH 67, NS)
	ú-e-˹ez˺[-za]-i	KUB 4.8 obv. 9’	(CTH 314, LNS)

Attestations follow HEG U-Z:582 (cf. also Friedrich 1952a:256; Laroche 1959a:112; Melchert 1979a:265f.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. A restoration ú-e-˹ez˺[-za-a-]i in KUB 4.8 obv. 9’ is generally assumed to fill the lacuna (Laroche 1964a:71; Schwemer 2001a:192; Klinger 2010b:317; HEG U-Z:582), but only ú-e-˹ez˺[-za]-i in Melchert 1979a:265 (implicitly). However, the photographs rather support Melchert’s restoration, which is thus follwed here. ú-iz-za-i in KBo 5.4 rev. 41 is not 2nd sg., contra HEG U-Z:582, see Melchert 1979a:265. Melchert (cf. also Melchert 1977a:437) and HEG include also Hittite wiwidā- in this paradigm, which is not possible morphologically (see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

The contexts of this verb are identical to that of wiwidā- ‘to strike, press, urge, move somebody to do something’, thus see the discussion s.v. (which excludes additional meanings such as ‘verfolgen’ [HEG U-Z:582], ‘tourmenter’ [Tischler 2016a:444]).

[Zs.S.]

Laroche 1959a:111 and Starke 1990a:308 n. 1055 assumed a Luwian origin (latter comparing it with Hieroglyphic Luwian PES₂(-)wa/i-za- of disputed meaning, see s.v., followed by Oettinger 1986b:51 n. 50), while it was taken as Hittite in Melchert 1977a:437, Melchert 1979a:267 (but it “could be” Luwian according to CLL:271) and in HEG U-Z:581. It has not been included in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a.

Although the ending can be both Hittite and Luwian, there is in fact no compelling evidence for a Luwian origin, since etymologically speaking the word can be Hittite, too (Melchert 1977a:437, Melchert 1979a:267; HEG U-Z:582f.), for the reconstruction see s.v. Cuneiform Luwian widā(i)-.

[Zs.S.]