*k^u̯ibe

Melchert 2002d:230 connects etymologically HLuw. /kwiba/ ‘indeed, certainly’ with Lyc. A tibe and Lyc. B kibe ‘or’. He assumes the original function of theses adverbs to be interrogative. Morpurgo Davies 1975a:164 cites a typological parallel for the development of an interrogative pronoun to a disjunctive particle.

The Proto-Luwic unitary word *k^u̯ibe is composed of the neuter form of the relative pronoun *k^u̯i- and the adversative particle =be/pe; cf. Morpurgo Davies 2011a:211 n. 5. Since within Luwian the lexeme kwa/i-pa is only attested in Hieroglyphic Luwian, one cannot be certain of the lenis/fortis quality underlying the sign . Melchert 2002d:230 interprets the labial stop in HLuw. kwa/i-pa to be fortis, i.e. /k^wippa/, based on the assumption that the Cuneiform Luwian adversative particle =(p)pa ‘but’ is spelled mostly double. A careful examination shows that it is the other way around; the single spelling is more frequent (Kloekhorst 2014b:594). However, it is difficult to determine the exact quality with the enclitic particle; cf. the situation with e.g. Hitt. =(k)kan.

The choice of the lenited variant for Luwian kwa/i-pa is based on the comparative analysis with Lyc. A tibe and Lyc. B kibe; cf. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a:11 n. 18.

[D.S.]

a) HLuw. REL-i-pa /kwiba/ is employed as an affirmative-evidential particle ‘indeed, certainly’ (Goedegebuure 1998a, Melchert 2002d). HLuw. REL-i-pa /kwiba/ matches formally (and partly functionally) with Latin quippe (causal interrogative pronoun in OLat. quippi-nī ‘why not?’, and affirmative-evidential particle, cf. Schrickx 2011a:107–141) and Homeric Greek τίπτε ‘why?’ (interrogative pronoun, and rhetorical question).

b) Lycian A tibe, Lycian B kibe ‘or’ are employed as disjunctive particles (Morpurgo Davies 1975a, Morpurgo Davies 2011a, Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 2010a).

a) All three particles, HLuw. REL-i-pa ‘indeed, certainly’, Hom. Gk. τίπτε ‘why?’, and Lat. quippe, particle of corroboration ‘by all means, for sure’, continue interrogative PIE *k^u̯id=pe? (LIPP II: 623), made up of the interrogative *k^u̯id ‘what, why?’ and the local-deictic particle *pe ‘there’ of distal and contrastive meaning, as otherwise continued in the Tocharian pronoun B sam-p, som-p, tam-p ‘that one (there)’.
Phonologically, deriving Lat. quippe from PIE *k^u̯id=pe poses no problems. Already in PIE, *k^u̯id=pe would have yielded *k^u̯it-pe by voicing assimilation, and in Latin the dental plus labial cluster would have undergone assimilation to a geminate labial: PIE *k^u̯id=pe > *k^u̯it-pe > Lat. quippe; cf. *tod=pro/per > *tot=pro/per > Old Latin topper (Ennius) ‘speadily, forthwith’, and *adpetō > *atpetō > appetō. Note however that word boundary may prevent the assimilation, cf. e.g. Latin utpote. By contrast, the assimiliation takes effect in old compounds and old univerbations. Alternative proposals fail to convince, thus for instance Brugmann’s proposal (Brugmann 1931a:618): quippe < *quī=pe < *k^u̯ih₁=pe by the littera rule, because Brugmann’s putative *quī-pe > *quĭ-pe would have undergone proclitic shortening like quō=que > quŏ=que. Proclitic shortening antedates the littera rule so that under Brugmann’s theory *quĭpe with single -p- ought to have been expected.

Hom. Gk. τίπτε derives straightforwardly from *k^u̯id pe by voicing assimilation and dental metathesis (Schwyzer 1938a:184 n. 1). The dental metathesis is in accordance with the positional constraint of dentals which are inadmissible before velars and labials. Schwyzer’s proposal works formally, and the equation of Gk. τίπτε and Lat. quippe is phonologically impeccable. An alternative explanation of τίπτε as an allegro variant of τί ποτε was suggested by LSJ:1796 s.v. τίπτε, DELG, and Rix 1992a:18, but it is hard to understand why traces of a putative allegro-form τίπτε would be wanting in later Greek, e.g. in Plato’s dialogues, given that both τί and πότε remain in living use in later Greek, and even more so in light of the fact that Plato attempts to imitate spoken Greek. Yet another, and likewise unconvincing explanantion for τίπτε has been proposed by Lillo 1992a:15–19. Lillo argues for a derivation of τίπτε from *k^u̯id k^u̯e, but Lillo’s proposal is formally and functionally questionable. Formally PIE *k^u̯id k^u̯e ought to result in †τίττε, cf. PIE *Hi̯od-k^u̯id > (Hom.) Gk. ὅττι, *Hi̯od-k^u̯ōs > ὅππως. Functionally, we ought to expect *k^u̯id k^u̯e to function as an indefinite pronoun ‘anything’, in accordance with Lat. quisque, Skt. kaśca, Goth. ƕazuh; on PIE *ku̯is=k^u̯e ‘any’ and the function of the particle PIE 3.*=k^u̯e, cf. Opfermann 2019.

b) Lyc. A tibe, Lyc. B kibe ‘or’ derive from a PIE interrogative phrase *k^u̯id pe? in the sense of ‘and what there/then, or how about?’. For the grammaticalization path leading from ‘what’ to ‘or’, see below syntactic-pragmatic reconstruction.

a) HLuw. REL-i-pa /kwiba/ and Lat. quippe (like quīn, Fleck 2008a) are handbook cases of the so-called interrogative-to-conjunction shift in Indo-European, and exemplify the transition of a causal interrogative clause into an evidential-causal particle (why? > ‘indeed’) and eventually into a causal conjunction (why? > ‘because; for’); for a collection of examples of why? > ‘because; for’, see Hackstein 2004b:182, Hackstein 2004a:263f., 266f., Hackstein 2017b:7f.

 b) Lyc. A tibe, Lyc. B kibe ‘or’ derive from a PIE interrogative phrase *k^u̯id pe? in the sense of ‘and what there/then’, ‘but how about?’; ‘Or (how about): …’, which served originally as an epexegetic stimulus question, see Hackstein 2004b:168f., 181. Lat. quippe, the cognate of Lyc. A tibe, Lyc. B kibe ‘or’, still occurs occasionally as an epexegetic stimulus question ‘but what?’ amplifying immediately following polar or wh-questions, cf. e.g. Quippe? Quid enim facilius est quam probari …? ‘But what? What would be easier to prove …?’ (Cic.Caec. 55)
To encode the disjunctive conjunction ‘or’ Anatolian uses two strategies, either the interrogative-to-disjunction shift (‘what’ > ‘or’) or the negation-to-disjunction shift (Neg > ‘or’).

a) Homeric τίπτε ‘why?’
Schwyzer 1938a

a) quippe₁ ‘what, why?’ and as causal-explicative particle
Schrickx 2011a

b) quippe₂ ‘and what there/then’, ‘but how about?’ (as epexegetic stimulus question prefacing polar and wh-questions)