*u̯(o)i̯s-éi̯e/o-

With five attestations across three different grammatical forms, this verb can be deemed reasonably well-attested. The attestations span the time from the late 10^th or early 9^th century to the 8^th century BCE and are found in the Karkamiš and Tell Ahmar region as well as in Tabal.

[AH.B.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.	/wisidi/	(PES2)wa/i-si-ti	TELL AHMAR 5, §17 (Tell Ahmar)
		(“PES2”)wa/i-si-ti	ADANA 1, §4 (Karkamiš)
		PES2-si-ti	KARKAMIŠ A31+frag, §10 (Karkamiš)
3sg. pret. ind. act.	/wisida/	(“PES2”)wa/i-si-tà	İSTANBUL 2, A2 (Tabal)
3pl. pret. ind. act.	/wisainta/	(PES2)wa/i-sà-i-ta	KARKAMIŠ A12, §3 (Karkamiš)

The form 〈wa/i-sà-tá〉, found in AKSARAY, §1b, does not belong here (cf. [10630]Sasseville 2021a:224f.). It is possible that 〈wa/i-sà-tá〉 is an attestation of the root verb /wis-/, otherwise unattested in HLuw., serving as a basis for the present lexeme. However, the context of AKSARAY, §1b is too fragmented to permit a reliable part of speech classification, let alone further morphological or semantic analysis.

[AH.B.]

In HLuw., the spelling of the verb features almost consistently the logogram PES₂, which generally occurs with verbs such as ‘to walk, to run’ and points to a basic meaning of the verb within the same semantic field. Still, a better grasp of the meaning seemed long out of reach until Melchert 2003b:193 presented not only the link between this HLuw. lexeme and its CLuw. cognate /wis(a)i-/, but also offered a re-evaluation of the CLuw. verb, which had previously been thought to mean ‘to crush, to oppress’ (see e.g. Starke 1990a:549; and still HEG W:529). Between the two variants of Luwian, it has therefore been possible to arrive at a meaning that fits all contexts, i.e. ‘to emerge’. However, it must be said that several of the HLuw. attestations appear in fragmented passages and do not themselves contribute to a more detailed understanding of the word (İSTANBUL 2 being a case in point), and nor are they able to serve as a test for the suggested meaning.

[AH.B.]

The verb is built with the allomorph /-i-/-ai-/, which is seen in many Luwian verbs, and shows remnants of an earlier ablaut (Melchert 1997b:134f.).

[AH.B.]

Amply attested in Luwian rituals and spells (from MS until NS).

[Zs.S.]

1sg. pret.	ú-i-ši-ḫa	KUB 35.110, 7’	(CTH 765, NS)
3sg. pret.	ú-i-ši-ta	KUB 35.70 ii 20	(CTH 762, NS)
		KUB 35.74, 5’	(CTH 762, NS)
		KBo 9.141 i 14’	(CTH 761, MS)
		KBo 22.143 i 5	(CTH 761, NS)
		KBo 29.6 obv. 19’	(CTH 761, NS)
		KBo 29.63 ii? 3’	(CTH 762, NS)
	ú-i-ši-˹ta˺	KUB 35.106, 9’	(CTH 766, MS)
	ú-i-˹ši˺-ta	KUB 32.81 + KUB 32.10, 2’	(CTH 761, MS?)
	ú-i-˹ši˺[-ta]	KUB 35.71 ii 1	(CTH 759, MS)
	˹ú-i-ši˺-ta	KUB 32.9 obv. 3	(CTH 761, MS)
	˹ú-i-ši˺[-ta]	KUB 35.16 ii 8’	(CTH 760, NS)
3pl. pret.	ú-i-ša-in-[ta]	KBo 29.25 ii? 2’	(CTH 764, MS)
	˹ú˺-i-ša-i-in-ta	KBo 29.25 ii? 11’	(CTH 764, MS)
	[ú-i-]˹ša˺-i-in-ta	KBo 29.25 iii? 12’	(CTH 764, MS)
unknown	ú-i-˹ši˺[	KUB 35.98, 13’	(CTH 770, NS)

The attestations follow CLL:270 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:111; HEG U-Z:529) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. Restorations follow Starke 1985b:94, 186, 225f. CLL:270 doubts the appurtenance of [ú-i-]˹ša˺-i-in-ta in KBo 29.25 iii^? 12’. See the discussion under Meaning if ú-wi₅-ši-da in KUB 25.39 iv 12 belongs here. According to CLL:270 the 3sg. form “MUST be medio-passive” due to the 3sg. nom. c. enclitic pronoun =aš attested together with this verb, but this pronoun shows only that this is an unaccusative-intransitive verb (see under Meaning).

[Zs.S.]

Although it was originally left untranslated (Laroche 1959a:111, also in Ünal 2016a:976), Starke 1990a:549 proposed the meaning ‘to press’, which was generally followed (CLL:270; Tischler 2008a:228 [here with question mark], Tischler 2016a:442, HEG U-Z:529). The problem with this proposal is that it fits the attestations neither grammatically nor semantically. This can be best illustrated by the passage Starke used as his argument, KUB 32.9 obv. 1–3 (transliteration following Starke 1985b:87 [including the restorations based on parallel passages], the translation is that of Starke 1990a:549):

⁽¹⁾ [nu-za ^MUNUSŠ]U.GI iš-na-aš pár-ku-i[n ta-lu-up-pí-in da-a-i na-an-ša-an A-NA BE-EL SISKUR.SISKUR] ⁽²⁾ [A-NA R]A-MA-NI-ŠU an-da ta-m[a-aš-zi nu ^MUNUSŠU.GI te-iz-zi] § (3)[za-ú-i-i]a-aš ú-i-ši-ta ḫa-la-a-[li-iš] ta-lu-up-pí-i[š]

‘Die ‘Alte’ nimmt einen reinen Teigklumpen und drückt ihn an den Körper des Ritualherrn. Dann sagt die ‘Alte’: ‘Siehe, er, der reine Teigklumpen, drückte.’

Although Starke 1990a:549 claims that this verb “korrespondiert” with the Hittite verb tamāšš- ‘to press’, not only can these verbs correspond to each other but also describe two subsequent events. Starke assumed the first possibility, but the resulting translation does not make sense. More seriously, we are dealing with an unaccusative-intransitive verb clearly shown by the 3sg. nom. c. enclitic pronoun =aš (cf. in general Melchert 2011b, for its intransitivity see already Kammenhuber 1986a:98 [although with improper translation: ‘handelte, reinigte’], ignored by Starke), which, accordingly, cannot mean ‘to press’. Hence, the verb rather refers to the next event in the form of an intransitive verb, for which the idea of Yakubovich (pers. comm.) ‘to emerge’ fits reasonably well (the translation would accordingly be approx. ‘the clay lump has emerged’).

KBo 29.6 obv. 19’f. presents a similar case: as the translation of Sideltsev 2014a:861, 865 shows, ‘to appear’ is the contextually fitting term and not ‘to press’ (transliteration following Starke 1985b:129):

^(19’) za-ú-i-ia-ta ú-i-ši-ta ša-pí-i[a]-ša-an-za wa-ar-ra-an[(-)…] ^(20’) ḫa-a-ša-ti a-ú-i-im-ma-an (…)

‘It has (just) appeared, warran[ of cleansing agent. [It^?] has come from the bone.’

Most of the remaining passages are either too fragmentary or not (yet) understood (KBo 29.25 ii^? 11’; KBo 29.25 iii^? 12’; KBo 29.63 ii^? 3’), but KUB 25.39 iv 11f. presents a special problem (transliteration following Starke 1985b:330):

⁽¹¹⁾ (…) ku-wa-la-na-al-li-in-tar ⁽¹²⁾ la-al-ḫi-ia-an ḫa-ad-da-ia ú-wi₅-ši-da (…)

Starke 1990a:550 translated it as ‘Es drückte den Feldzug gewaltig’ and explained it as ‘Der Feldzug erwies sich als außerordentlich schwierig’. Starke’s first translation does not make much sense and the explanation, although semantically fitting, cannot be reconciled with the grammatical structure of the sentence. It is clear that we are dealing here with a transitive verb (literally ‘(s)he/it …-ed the military campaign violently’), which implies that we are dealing with a different lexeme. This may be supported by the different spelling practice, too, since wiši- / wišaī- is always spelled with ú-i- and never with ú-wi₅- (as per above). This is analogous to the Hittite spelling practice. which also differentiates between wV- and ú-wV- (Kloekhorst 2006a:80, EDHIL:25). Likewise, the semantics of the sentence, which requires ‘pursue vel sim.’ support the separation.

Finally, the verb appears twice (KUB 35.110, 7’ and KUB 35,98, 13’) with the preverb parī ‘forth, away’ (see s.v.), but the context is in both cases fragmentary, thus nothing more can be said.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 29 April 2020

This lexeme is found in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

1sg. pres. ind. act.	wisiu	TL 44c.56 (Xanthos)
3sg. pres. ind. act.	wisidi	TL 44d.4 (Xanthos)

This lexeme has been recognized rightly as a verbal form by Gusmani 1968c:12 n. 63 (followed by DLL:134). Differently, Neumann 2007a:426 interprets the two forms listed in the table as nominal forms, i.e. wisiu as acc. sg. and wisidi as abl./instr. However, there is no parallel for an abl./instr. in -idi in Lycian. Moreover, the relative pronoun ki=, which is attached as a proclitic to a verb in Lycian B (as opposed to enclitic in Lycian A), occurs immediately before wisiu. Thus, the two forms must be taken as verbal.

[D.S.]

Melchert 1994a:292 equates etymologically the Lycian B verb wis(e)i-^(di) with CLuw. wiš(a)ī-^(di), a perfect morphological match. The meaning of CLuw. wiš(a)ī-^(di) has been argued to be ‘to appear, emerge’, and it is used intransitively. These semantics work equally well for the Lycian B lexeme. The first attestation is found within the discourse of the assembly of gods supervised by the Storm-god, which means that the verbal form of the 1sg. pres. wisiu must refer to a speaking deity. Since wisiu is the first occurrence of a 1^st sg. verbal form in the poem, it is expected that the speaking deity would be identified, whence utetu ñtelija, used right after wisiu, is interpreted as ute=tu ñtelija (= Hitt./Luw. ^dAntaliya-) ‘says (the deity) Antaliya to him’. Further, the intransitivity of wisiu expected from an etymological perspective leads us to interpret the relative pronoun ki= as nominative singular ´this one, to whom I appear´ (instead of accusative singular, contra Schürr 2016d:176), by assuming case attraction followed by omission of the demonstrative pronoun, to whose case the relative is attracted, if emphatic: A syntactic phenomenon common in Ancient Greek (Smyth 1920a:567).

nepe ki=wisiu ute=tu ñtelija : pidritẽni : pirli : murẽnedi : tuburiz : uplesiz : si=ke tesi : arppaxus : ẽti : tm͂pewẽti (TL 44c.56-58)

‘Doesn´t (this one), to whom I appear, says (the deity) Antaliya to him, pidri-s for the pirli and for this oath here tuburiz uplesiz within the tm̃pewẽti of Harpagos?’

The idea that the gods can appear before the king is found in Hieroglyphic Luwian, where the cognate /wis(a)i-^(di)/ is used. This contextual parallel supports the etymological approach of the Lycian verb.

mu-pa-wa/i-´ (DEUS)TONITRUS-sa (DEUS)kar-hu-ha-sa (DEUS)ku+AVIS-pa-sa-ha PRAE-na (PES₂)wa/i-sà-i-ta (KARKAMIŠ A12, §3)

‘The Storm-god, Karhuha and Kubaba appeared before me.’

In summary, the semantic assignment posited for Lyc. B wis(e)i-^(di) is both contextually and etymologically supported.

[D.S.]

Despite the lack of a plural attestation, where the allomorph -ei- is expected, the verb surely belongs to the verbal stem class in -(e)i-^(di) (cf. CLuw. wiš(a)ī-^(di)).

[D.S.]