wsta-

This noun occurs in three different inscriptions, all of which were found in Sardis. The burial inscription LW 3 dates back to the late 4^th century BCE, the fragmentary text LW 108 may be even later (late 4^th or early 3^rd century BCE). The dating of the poetic inscription LW 13 falls within the broad range of 5^th - 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

The case assigned to the relevant forms crucially depends on the assumptions about their meaning, see below. 

[I.Y.]

The spelling wstas in LW 108.2 represent an emendation for the attested wstws (Gusmani 1980a:141).

[I.Y.]

There is no consensus regarding the interpretation of this lexeme, but both interpretations current now days begin with the assumption that it belongs to the subject group, at least in LW 3. On the one hand, a suggestion was made that it refers to a family member (Meriggi 1935a:103), which further led to its interpretation as ‘heir’ inGusmani 1964a:228. On the other hand the sentence featuring wsta- in LW 3 was compared with the formula vivus fecit, frequent in Latin burial inscriptions, which let to the translation ‘alive’ (Vetter 1959a:17, 37). An attempt was subsequently made to corroborate this translation by analyzing wsta- by the reconstruction *h₂usto-, presumably implying its comparison with Hitt. ḫuiš- ‘to be alive’ (Melchert 1991a:135 n. 7). Both of these suggestions, however, essentially remain guesses, and it is not clear how one can argue for either of them at the expense of another one.

In order to approach the interpretation of wsta- systematically, one has to study the collocations featuring this lexeme and its derivative wastνun-. Of particular significance here is the coordinated phrase LW 13.2-3 ištaminliš wstaas datrosiš=k šarys, where datros(i)- apparently refers to some sort of transaction. On the paradigmatic level, LW 13.2 ištaminliš wstaas can be compared with LW 13.7 ištaminlaν qiraaλ, where qira- means ‘property’. To this one can add that the derivative wastνun- likewise appears in the immediate proximity of nouns designating material possessions. This vindicates the general interpretation of wsta- as an inanimate noun pertaining to economic terminology.

On the grammatical level, the interpretation of datrosiš=k as the accusative plural form in LW 13.3 implies the necessity of the same analysis in the case of wstaas. The accusative interpretation of wsta- also appears likely in LW 2, but essentially on semantic grounds, since an economic term is unlikely to function as subject at the beginning of a burial inscription. Judging by typological parallels, one is rather likely to find there reference to a person who incurred expenses or provided financial means for the construction of the burial. Hence the proposed tentative translation ‘expenses’, which does not exclude further modifications within the same broad semantic field, but receives a degree of further support from etymological considerations (see Reconstruction).    

[I.Y.]

Synchronically, this is an oxytonic a-stem, or perhaps an a/e-stem. A problematic issue that arises under the new interpretation is the absence of nasalization in acc.pl. wsta(a)s contrasting with its presence in acc.pl. amãs (see Lyd. ama-). Perhaps we are dealing here with a contrast between nominal and pronominal declensions.   

[I.Y.]

1. wastνun-

No etymology possible.

[I.Y.]