*suu̯ā́dr̥/n-

The lexeme is attested exclusively in texts of the Ištanuwa Festival.

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg. n.	šu-wa-a-ta[r]	KUB 17.33 iv 12’	(CTH 772, LNS)
nom./acc. pl. n.	[š]u-wa-at-ra	KBo 4.11 obv. 40	(CTH 772, NS)

The attribution of šu-wa-a-ta[r] in KUB 17.33 iv 12’ is not entirely assured, because the space between preceding wa-an-ni-iš and šu-wa-a-ta[r] points rather to a single word wa-an-ni-iš-šu-wa-a-ta[r]. However, this defies any analysis and, therefore, is listed here.

[E.R.]

In spite of the doubts raised by Starke 1985b:340f. fn. 168, the reading of initial šu- seems obvious; cf. the shape of ⟨šu⟩ in the same line.

[E.R.]

While the nom./acc. pl. n. ^DUGšuwatra and ^DUGšuwatri as well as the oblique stem ^DUGšuwatn- in Hittite transmission is consistently marked with the determinative DUG and interpreted as ‘storage jar’ (see under Lemma), šuwātar (pl. [š]uwatra) in Luwian context is attested without determinative and probably has a more abstract meaning ‘fullness’, especially in the incipit in KBo 4.11 obv. 40. The latter is based on the formal analysis as an abstract noun in -tar/-tn- derived from the verb šuwa-‘to fill’ and corroborated by the concretized meaning extracted from the Hittite context (Starke 1990a:465f. for the semantics, followed by CLL:198 and HEG Š:1237f.).

[E.R.]

Pace Starke 1990a:465f., the suffix, which is spelled consistently with singleton -d/t- and can be equated with -dr- in Lycian A huwedre/i- ‘all’ (see under Lemma), has to be separated from productive -ttar/-t(ta)n- /-tar/-tn-/ and, following Melchert in CLL:198, interpreted as /-dar/-dn-/.

[E.R.]

The lexeme is attested exclusively in texts of the Witašši- and Ḫuwaššanna-festivals, beginning from the MH period.

[E.R.]

Starke 1990a:465 interpreted the ^DUGšuwatra as ‘storage vessels’, based on the determinative DUG and the fact that, in KBo 29.65, the vessels are opened and various food products are taken out. This is confirmed by the meaning of the cognate verb CLuw. šuwa- ‘to fill’, the equivalent of Hitt. šuwa- ‘to fill’ (see under Lemma).

[E.R.]

The nom./acc. pl. n. in -tra^(ḪI.A) and the oblique stem in -tn- are indicative of the heteroclitic inflexion (see Starke 1990a:435-442). However, Melchert (CLL:198) rightly points out that the consistent spelling with single -t- in both CLuw. šuwatar (in Luwian transmission) and šuwatra/šuwatn- as well as -d- in the Lycian A cognate huwedre/i- ‘all’ (from ‘belonging to fullness’) cast serious doubts on the assignment of the word to the productive class of -ttar/-t(ta)n- stems in Luwian (thus Starke 1990a:465f.). Instead, we have to assume that we are dealing with a rare instance of the suffix of -ātar /-adar/ (formally parallel to the Hittite class of denominative nouns in -ātar/-ann-).

[E.R.]

The combination of the nom./acc. pl. n. in -tra^(ḪI.A) (also transferred into “Hittite” -tri^ḪI.A) with the oblique stem in -tn- (with preserved cluster) leaves no doubt about the Luwian origin of the word (see Starke 1990a:435-442 for the inflection of the stem class).

[E.R.]

This lexeme is well attested in curse formulae in grave inscriptions across Lycia.

[D.S.]

For the restauration of ḥu[wedr…] see Neumann 2007a:107.

[D.S.]

The meaning of Lycian huwedre/i- was discovered by Laroche 1967a:55f. following the decipherment of the Lycian word mãhãi ‘gods’, which it very often modifies. The scholar compares the Lycian expression mãhãi huwedri with  Greek  θεοῖς πᾶσιν ‘all the gods’ also found in the curse formulae of grave inscriptions (followed by Heubeck 1982a:109, DLL:26, Christiansen 2009a:46; hesitant Neumann 2012a:390). Starke 1990a:467 adduces further evidence from a comparative perspective with Luwian; see under Reconstruction. A comparative analysis with Lycian B uwedre/i-, which offers a larger variety of contexts, renders the semantics assignment certain.

[D.S.]

Starke 1990a:467f. suggests that the Lycian lexeme under discussion is a stem in -i(je)-, i.e. huwedr-i(je)-. Melchert (DLL:26) rejects Starke’s assumption based on Lycian B uwadra, which he takes as a form of uwedre/i-. However, the form uwadra is interpreted here as belonging to a different lexeme. Nevertheless, Melchert’s assumption that huwedre/i- is simply a mutated stem is surely correct. Although neuter stems do not undergo i-mutation, it is likely that the abstract noun *suwadar ‘fullness’ was secondarily adjectivized in a grammaticalization process. Having become an adjective meaning ‘all’, its transfer to the paradigm of i-mutated stems would be motivated. However, the lack of attested neuter forms of the adjective huwedre/i- still hinders a reliable interpretation of its synchronic nominal stem class.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is found in both Lycian B inscriptions, i.e. on the inscribed pillar of Xanthos dated shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE. (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

nom. sg. c.	uwedri	TL 44d.54 (Xanthos)
nom. pl. c.	uwedriz	TL 44d.14 (Xanthos)
	[u]we{:}dṛiz	TL 55.5 (Antiphellos)
acc. pl. c.	uwedrịs	TL 44c.35 (Xanthos)

Pace DLL:134, uwadra belongs to a different lexeme; see uwadra- ‘herd of cattle’.

[D.S.]

For the attestation of TL 44c.35, Kalinka 1901a:43 reads uwedrịṣ. The letter ị can still be see in his autography, whereas there was no reliable  reading possible in the case of the last letter (and even less in Schmidt 1968a:Taf. VII, 4). However, the new photo published by Schürr 2016d:151, 153f. shows clearly that the letter s can still be seen. According to the context, one expects the Lyc. B accusative plural ending in -iz or the Lyc. A one in -is. In this case, the Lycian A ending seems to have been preferred; cf. under Origin. For the attestation of TL 55.5 see Schürr 2005a:127.

[D.S.]

Starke 1990a:121 and Melchert (DLL:134) equate Lyc. B uwedre/i- with Lycian A huwedre/i- used in a similar manner and assume that the former is borrowed from the latter (followed by Schürr 2005a:154, Neumann 2007a:412, Schürr 2016d:175). The Lycian B word modifies the words for gods and deities, e.g. uwedriz… masaiz ‘all the gods’ (TL 44d.14), as well as the word for sacrifice, i.e. uwedri urasla ‘each (or the entire) big sacrifice’ (TL 44d.54). The formula trqqiz ki=kikiti seb(e)=uwedriz… masaiz (TL 55.5) ‘which the Storm-god and all the other gods make him pay’ can be equated to  Homeric τῶ σε Ζεὺς τείσατο καὶ θεοὶ ἄλλοι (Od. 9.479) ‘thus Zeus and the other gods made you pay’. Thus, the semantics of Lyc. B uwedre/i- are contextually supported. On a syntactic level, whenever the head noun is in the plural, the translation ‘all’ is used for uwedre/i-, but if it is in the singular, the meaning ‘each’ or  ´entire´ can be used.

[D.S.]

For a discussion of the stem see Lycian A huwedre/i-.

[D.S.]

The Lycian B word uwedre/i- ‘all, each’ has been borrowed from Lycian A huwedre/i- (Starke 1990a:121 n. 436, DLL:134). Otherwise, Lycian B would be expected to show *suwedre/i-. The Lycian A sound h was absent in the Lycian B dialect, whence it is not kept, i.e. uwedre/i- (Schürr 1997b:60).

[D.S.]

Hapax from one of the Greek-Sidetic bilinguals from Side of unknown date (but before the period of emperor Claudius, when the block was re-used, Nollé 2001a:633).

[Zs.S.]

dat. pl. (sg.?)

tue[…]

S2

The attestation follows Pérez Orozco 2007a:136 checked against the photos of Bossert 1950b:Lev. II and Bean 1965a:Fig. 1. See under Meaning for its grammatical definition.

[Zs.S.]

On the transcription ‹t›, the precise phonetic value of which still needs further research, see s.v. *ubat (its transcription as ‹š› introduced by Pérez Orozco 2020a is not accepted here, see the detailed discussion in Simon 2021a). Schürr 2016b would read ‹u› as ‹w›, which is not supported here, see the discussion in Simon 2020e:201 n. 3.

[Zs.S.]

Since the only words preserved in the Sidetic version of the inscription beyond the name of the donor are tue[…] preceded by the word masara, which is generally supposed to mean ‘gods [dat. pl.]’ (see s.v.), and the Greek version has “(…) ἀνέθηκεν (…) θεοῖς πᾶσι”, two different interpretations (and etymologies) have been proposed by Ševoroškin 1975a:160 (setting aside the proposals in the earlier research based on obsolete readings): First, tue[…] is the equivalent of ἀνέθηκεν and, accordingly, means ‘set up’ presenting a cognate of Luwian tūwa- ‘to put, place’, etc. (identically, but without reference to Ševoroškin, Woudhuizen 1984-1985a:123 and Zinko 2016a:370 [“am ehesten”]). Second, masara tue[…] is the equivalent of θεοῖς πᾶσι and, accordingly, tue[…] means ‘all’ (followed by Nollé 2001a:234; Pérez Orozco 2007a:136f., Pérez Orozco 2020a:166f. [with question mark]; Nikolaev 2017a:219f.; see already Neumann 1961a:41 [implicitly]). However, as pointed out by Nollé 2001a:634 (and followed by Nikolaev 2017a:219f.), θεοῖς πᾶσι does not mean ‘to all gods’ but ‘to All Gods’ being an actual cult name, the Sidetic equivalent of which would be masara tue[…] (this practically excludes the alternative proposal of Pérez Orozco 2020a:166 n. 103, a Sidetic equivalent of εἰκόνα, a possible cognate of Lycian A tukedre/i- ‘statue’). If masara indeed means ‘gods’, and this is very probable (see s.v.), then the latter analysis is clearly more probable and, accordingly, it is followed here. This translation implies a dative plural for tue[…], although strictly speaking, as pointed out already by Bossert 1961a:116, the Greek phrase could also have been expressed by a collective term in Sidetic and thus, in dative singular (also Eichner 1988b:46 n. 9 assumes dat. sg., albeit with question mark).

[Zs.S.]