New Phrygian (-)τετικμενος, Hittite tekri and other descendants of PIE *dei̯ ḱ-*

New Ph ygian (-)τετικμενος, Hi i e ek i- and o he descendan s o PIE *dei -* Alexande Nikolae Ludwig-Maximilians-Uni e si ä München To C aig Melche , wi h g a i ude ABSTRACT This pape su eys he p e ious in e p e a ions o NPh yg. (-)τετικμενος and a gues in a o o a ansla ion ‘condemned’ and de i a ion om PIE *de- (Ved. diś-, Gk. δείκνυμι, La . dīce e). The p oposed oo connec ion inds suppo in he new e ymological solu ion o e ed o Hi . ek i- ‘de - oga ion, condemna ion’ < *do/e- i-. The hi d piece o e idence o he oo *de- used o exp ess he idea o censu e comes om PGmc. * eihan ‘ o accuse’. The sou ce o he seman ics is sough in Indo-Eu opean poe ic language; i is a gued ha he PIE oo *de- could be employed in e bal con- ex s ela ed no jus o p aise (Nikolae 2012), bu also o blame. KEYWORDS Indo-Eu opean, Ph ygian, Hi i e, Cel ic, Ge manic, e ymology, poe ic language 1. NEW PHRYGIAN (-)τετικμενος AND ITS ETYMOLOGY The pa iciple (-)τετικμενος is one o he bes a es ed New Ph ygian o ms (65x).1 I is a es ed in highly s anda dized maledic ion o mulae ha a e gene ally ag eed o desc ibe he a e o a iola o o he omb.2 The use o (-)τετικμενος can be illus a ed by he ollowing insc ip ions: * Iwould like o hank Robe o Ba is i, Giulio Imbe ciado i, C aig Melche , No be Oe - inge , Ma in Pe e s, Massimo Poe o, Zacha y Ro hs ein-Dowden, Da id Sasse ille, And ey Sidel se and Michael Weiss o e y help ul discussion and sugges ions; i goes wi hou saying ha hey may o may no ag ee wi h my conclusions. Iwould also like o hank he anonymous e iewe and he edi o . Ig a e ully acknowledge suppo om he Alexande on Humbold Founda ion. 1 See Ob ado -Cu sach 2020: 362–363. 2 The o m is mos ly ound a e he pa icle τι spelled as τι(τ)τετικμενος; i is once a es ed wi hou τι (22.2 Ob ado -Cu sach = 118 Haas, wi h ahype co ec spelling τετιοκμενος) and is wice ound wi h ατε-/ατι-. Haas (1966: 88), ollowed by Lubo sky (1989: 86–87), plausibly explained he gemina e as caused by he inal consonan o he p eceding pa - icle (* i e ikmenos). Ano he possibili y is o ake he τι om ap e ix *d()is (~ La . dis-), see Ob ado -Cu sach 2020: 110 and c . NPh . τιδρεγρουν ‘inedible, unpala able’ < *dis- dh egwh o- (Haas 1966: 67, c . Gk. τρέφω ‘ eed, b ing up’, u he compa ed by Adams 2005 o Sk . d(h) ākṣā- ‘g ape’, Toch. B aksiñ (nom.pl.) ‘ea s (o g ain)’, La e Kho anese d āṃśā- ‘mille ’, OI . de c ‘be y’ and Se bo-C oa ian d ên ‘co nel che y’). OPEN ACCESS 42 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 ιος νι σεμον | κνουμανε κακον | αδακετ, δεως | ζεμελως τιτετικ|μενος ειτου ‘Whoe e does ha m o his omb, le him be τετικμενος (in he sigh o ) gods and men’ (32.1 Ob ado -Cu sach = 93 Haas) ιος νι σεμον κνουμα|νε κακον δακετ αινι μανκα, τιε τιττετι|κμενος ειτου ‘Whoe e does ha m o his omb o s ele, le him be τετικμενος (by) Zeus’ (36.1 Ob ado -Cu sach = 26 Haas) AG eek insc ip ion ound in Çayı başı is widely assumed o con ain acalque o he Ph ygian o mula in he hi d line: τίς δὲ ταύτη θαλάμειν κακν ποσποιήσει, κατηραμένος ἤτω ‘whoe e does ha m o his ( une a y) chambe , le him be accu sed’3 The mo phological analysis o he o m (-)τετικμενος is no in doub : i clea ly is amiddle pa iciple made om a eduplica ed s em, mos likely pe ec .4 The mean- ing and he e ymology o he oo , howe e , ha e been much deba ed. Many solu ions ha e been p oposed, h ee o which ha e con inued o enjoy popula i y in con em- po a y schola ship. 1.1 The i s one is due o Ma s ande (1929: 296), acco ding o whom (-)τετικμενος ‘cu sed’ belongs wi h Old I ish ongid, · oing ‘swea s’, Middle Welsh yngu ‘ o swea ’. This e ymology was e i ed by Poko ny (1959: 1055) and mo e ecen ly esusci a ed in LIV2 615, whe e a oo * eg- ‘schwö en’ is se up on he s eng h o he Cel ic and Ph y- gian o ms.5 This econs uc ion is, howe e , bese wi h p oblems. As a as he Cel ic side o his equa ion is conce ned, he e is no ce ain y whe he he oo owel in · oing goes back o PIE *uo *o. In Welsh, * unge/o- and * onge/o- would ha e he same e lex,6 while he I ish p esen s em · oing is be e explained ei he om * unge/o- wi h egula owel lowe ing (H.Pede sen’s heo y)7 o om 3 Ob ado -Cu sach 2020: 607. 4 Ph ygian -μενο- clea ly e lec s he PIE middle pa iciple su ix, which may be econ- s uc ed ei he as *meno o as *-mh1no-, as sugges ed by Klingenschmi (1975: 163). Klin- genschmi was a he ime doub ul abou he Ph ygian su ix, bu he de elopmen *h1 > e/ C__C can cu en ly be suppo ed by se e al examples: δετουν ‘monumen ’ < *dhh1- o-, δεως ‘by he gods’ < *dhh1s-ōs, keneman ‘niche, sepulc um’ < *kenh1m n and pe haps ao . εκανες ‘dug’ < *k n h 1s- (see Lubo sky 1988: 15; Go bachο 2005: 211–2). 5 Sowa (2008: 115 n.42) hesi an ly ag ees wi h he LIV. 6 See Sch ij e 1995: 27–9 o P o o-B i ish aising o *ŏ o *ŭ be o e nasal + s op. 7 Pede sen 1909: 35, 41, 362: *u> *obe o e *ein he ollowing syllable i he in e ening consonan (s) was non-pala al (see also Sch ij e 1995: 50–52; be o e *oin he ollowing syllable he lowe ing in Goidelic is uni e sally accep ed: * ungo- > * ongo-). S übe (1998: 87) sugges s aneu aliza ion o phonemic opposi ion be ween /u/ and /o/ be o e ag oup o nasal + s op in I ish (*bunde i > ·boind), which would be he opposi e o he de elopmen in B i ish. OPEN ACCESS ALEXANDER NIKOLAE 43 * unge/o- wi h an analogical eplacemen o 1 sg. · ung : 3 sg. · uing by 1 sg. · ung : 3 sg. · oing (L.Joseph’s heo y)8 o om * enge/o- wi h aseconda y ull g ade (K.McCone’s heo y),9 a he han om amo phologically suspec o-g ade * onge/o- econs uc ed by Ma s ande .10 A oo * eg- ( > * og) will also accoun o Old I ish subj. ó ( < * ōx < * ogs ) and Co nish y ‘oa h’ ( < * ugo-).11 The supple i e pa s o he A e bo o his Cel ic e b,12 namely, p e . · e haig (whose e- eduplica ion is incompa ible wi h a oo wi h an in e nal u)13 and he e bal nouns e ech ‘ o eswea ing, enouncing’, dí hech ‘oa h o denial’ and é hech ‘ alse swea ing’, may go back no only o Ma s ande ’s * eg- bu also o he much be e a es ed * ek- ‘ o ake’ (P o o-Ge manic *þegja ‘ o ecei e, o ake’, Li huanian èk i ‘ o be p esen in abundance, o su ice’, LIV2 618).14 As apa allel, Schumache (2004: 632) ci es he seman ic de elopmen o PIE *h2emh3 ‘seize’ > G eek ὄμνυμι ‘swea ’, Sansk i ami- ‘inju e’ and ‘swea ’, explained by K.Ho - mann as ‘ es an assen zu Eidesleis ung’.15 The Cel ic e idence can hus be explained on he basis o wo oo s, * ek- and * eg- ( > * og-).16 8 Joseph (1990: 121–124) a gued ha 1 sg. · ung : 3 sg. · oing imi a ed he pa e n ound in 1 sg. ·biu : 3 sg. ·bei and ha he B III nasal p esen s going back o oo s wi h *umain ained i as he oo owel h ough he Ea ly Mode n I ish pe iod in some mss. (·buing, ·luing, · u- ing), bu see Sch ij e 1995: 52 on he la e poin . 9 McCone 1991: 42–7: * enge/o- > * onge/o- > * ōnge/o- > * onge/o- wi h Os ho ’s Law. The same explana ion is ad anced by McCone o as·boind ‘ e uses’ ( < *-bonde/o- < *-bōnde/o- < *-bonde/o- < *bende/o- < < *-bunde/o-, G eek πυνθάνομαι), bongid ‘b eaks’ (*-bunge/o-), o·loing ‘suppo s’ ( < *lunge/o-) and o· oind ‘ eddens’ ( < *-h1 undhe/o-). 10 The hypo hesis ha he o-g ade was impo ed om an (una es ed!) causa i e-i e a i e * og-ee/o-(LEIA T-108) does no ca y con ic ion. The LIV lemma u he men ions Gaul- ish oncsiíon ío, bu i is absolu ely no ce ain ha his o m (which does no necessa i- ly mean ‘who will swea ’) belongs o he same oo as Old I ish · oing; see he a gumen s agains he connec ion ad anced by Schumache 2004: 651. Sch ij e (1997: 181) compa es he oo o Old I ish ocad ‘chance, a e’, Middle Welsh ynghe , and he a e e b ocaid ‘ o (be) des ine(d)’ < * onk-ee/o- (see Schumache 1995). 11 See Joseph 1990: 118–20. As o he u he o igin o Cel ic * og, wo heo ies ha e been p oposed. Lindeman (1999) a gued ha his oo is a e lex o PIE *h1egwh- ‘solemnly p oclaim’ wi h ap e e b *(h2)d, while Schumache (2004: 650–1) poin ed ou ha syn- ch onically he e bal noun o he simplex ongid is lug(a)e‘oa h’ (Welsh llw, Co nish ly < *h2lugo-) and posi ed acon amina ion be ween PIE * ek- ‘ex end ( he hand), ecei e’ and PIE *h2legh- ‘(ö en lich) e künden’ (Hi i e ḫaluga- ‘message’, Go hic liugan ‘ o lie’, Sla - ic *lъga i ‘id.’. Th ough he c ossing o P o o-Cel ic * ek- and *log-, anew oo * og- has eme ged. 12 See Veselino ić 2003: 166. 13 See McCone 1991: 45. 14 Compa e he meaning o p e . con· e haig ‘possesses, comp ises’, unless he la e is ela - ed o he oo * ag- o Old La in agō, pe . con igi (Joseph 1990: 118). 15 Ho mann 1969: 209. Fo hand ges u es in ol ed in aking an oa h see Ka z 1998. 16 Adi e en and less plausible e ymology o · oing was p oposed by E.P.Hamp apud Koch 1992: 257, ollowed by Schulze-Thulin 2001: 215: Hamp compa ed Cel ic * onge/o- o La in ongē e ‘nōsse’, Oscan anginúd ‘dec ee’, PDE hink (PIE * eng(h)-, see Kümmel 2016). OPEN ACCESS 44 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 The e idence o apu a i e PIE oo * eg- ‘ o swea ’ om which Ph ygian (-)τετικμενος could be de i ed is hus e y unce ain, bu he e is an addi ional se i- ous weakness on he Ph ygian side, namely, he pu po ed de elopmen o *e o Ph y- gian -i- in he medial syllable on which Ma s ande chose no o commen .17 Li le as we know abou he phonology o Ph ygian, i ce ainly did no beha e like La in wi h espec o i s owels. In ac , Ph ygian owels a e su p isingly s able, bo h in Old and New Ph ygian, c . keneman ‘niche, sepulc um’ < *kenh1m n ,18 acc. sg. ma e an ‘mo he ’ < *mah2 e n , ege oy ‘?’,19 e c. This poin is made pa icula ly clea by he hema ic owel in such ex emely well-a es ed o ms as 3 sg. αββερετοι / -τορ ‘b ings’ < *(ad)bhe e o / - o o αδδακετ (ac .), αδδακετορ (mid.) ‘pu s’ < *(ad-)dheh1ke / - o . This phone ic di icul y seems o be a al o Ma s ande ’s analysis. 1.2 The second solu ion was p oposed by Haas (1966: 88), who connec ed (-)τετικμενος wi h he oo o G eek στίζω ‘ o b and’ and o e ed a ansla ion ‘b andma k ’ (=G eek ἐστιγμένος). This e ymology was jus i iably c i icized by Heubeck (1987: 74) on he g ounds o seman ics. O el (1997: 59) accep ed Haas’ solu ion au e de mieux bu appa - en ly sha ed Heubeck’s conce ns and sough o imp o e on Haas’ idea by ansla ing (-)τετικμενος ειτου by ‘le him be s uck’ (1997: 68), po en ially oying wi h apa allel in New High Ge man luchen ‘cu se, swea ’ om *pleh2g- ‘ o s ike’ (G eek πλήσσω). Bu he basic meaning o PIE *(s) eg- is ‘ o be sha p’, and e en i s ansi i e e lexes in he daugh e languages show meanings closely ela ed o he idea o sha pness, c . Old No se s eikja ‘ oas (on aspi )’ o La in īns īgā e ‘u ge on (wi h agoad)’. I would be ha d o imagine ha he o iginal meaning o Ph ygian (-)τετικμενος e e ed o aconc e e ac ion such as ‘s ing’ o ‘pie ce’. 1.3 Finally, aconnec ion be ween (-)τετικμενος and PIE *de- ‘show’ was p oposed by Meis e (1909: 318 n.1), who posi ed ameaning ‘(zu Bes a ung) zugesp ochen / angezeig ’.20 Meis e ’s e ymology was adop ed by se e al schola s.21 This e ymology 17 Acco ding o he dossie in Ob ado -Cu sach (2020: 362–3), he o m is spelled wi h <ι> in six y ins ances, while wo ou lie s wi h <ει> and <ιο> can be easily explained as i acis- ic con usions; gen. pl. τιτετουκμενουν (33.1 Ob ado -Cu sach = 28 Haas) is abi p oblem- a ic, bu in he wo ds o Sowa (2007: 90 n.43) “dü e ehe phone ische U sachen haben als eine analogische o-S u e.” 18 See Ob ado -Cu sach 2020: 126. 19 Janda (1997: 276) sugges s ‘e ec s’ (*h1ge -, G eek ἐγείρω ‘wake up’, Albanian ng e ‘ aise’). This e ymology, howe e , is incompa ible wi h he his o ical phonology o Ph ygian ad- op ed in his pape (*g > k); ano he possibili y is ha ege oy is a ull-g ade middle oo ao is made om he oo *he - ‘b ing, ake’ (LIV2 177). 20 Meis e iewed he spelling ττετικμενος wi h an ini ial gemina e as p e ixed wi h aze o g ade o *(h2)ad- ‘ o’ and di ec ly compa ed La in addīcō, G eek ἐπιδείκνυμι, bu his is un- necessa y, see n.2. 21 See Bon an e 1946: 89; Diakono & Ne oznak 1985: 137; Neumann 1988: 4; Lubo sky 2004: 235 (who also accep s B ixhe’s emenda ion ιστεικετ o ansmi ed ισγεικετ (Ob ado - Cu sach 6.1 = Haas 88), analyzing he o m as e ymologically ela ed o G eek ἐκδείκνυμι, OPEN ACCESS ALEXANDER NIKOLAE 45 aces bo h seman ic and phonological di icul ies, and ye Ibelie e ha his is he co - ec solu ion. F om he o mal iewpoin , he ad an age o his e ymology is i s abili y o deal e ec i ely wi h he p oblem o -i- in he medial syllable o (-)τετικμενος. Howe e , he p oposed explana ion hinges on amuch- exed aspec o Ph ygian phonology: (-)τετικμενος can only be de i ed om weak pe ec s em *de-di i PIE oiced s ops in his language u ned in o oiceless s ops (*d > ). While i has always been widely ag eed ha PIE oiced aspi a ed s ops became oiced s ops in Ph ygian, he ou come o PIE *d and *g has been deba ed; he once popula Lau e schiebung heo y aking *d, *g o Ph ygian , kwas e ec i ely esusci a ed by Lubo sky (2004), who iden i ied Ph ygian ios, ie(i), ian as e lexes o PIE *de-. Fo PIE *d he ansi ion o Ph ygian is u he sugges ed by 3 sg. imp . οουιτετου ‘may he ind’ (< *ed-) and he p e e b i(s) < *d()is, while *g > kis made likely by Ph ygian βεκος ‘b ead’ om he same oo as G eek φώγω ‘bake’ and PDE bake,22 ekun ‘idol?’ < *e ǵom23 and knaik- ‘woman, wi e’ < *gwneh₂ik-.24 In he pas decade new a gumen s ha e been ad anced in a o o an uncondi ioned de oicing o PIE unaspi a ed s ops in Ph ygian: he Old Ph ygian o m pe es ‘ ee ’ (< *ped-es) was iden i ied by Kloekho s (2015), Old Ph ygian o in was plausibly analyzed by Ligo io (2016) as a e lex o *dh3- i- ‘gi ’ (G eek δόσις), Old Ph ygian o e un was en a i ely aken om *do u- by A.Lubo sky apud Häm- mig 2013: 150 n.52, and unclea Old Ph ygian ekise and e e ekse iy we e compa ed o G eek δέκομαι ‘accep ’, PIE *de- by Tamsü Pola , Pola & Lubo sky (2020: 51); o Old Ph ygian mekas ‘g ea ’ (< *me-h2-)25 see he discussion by Ob ado -Cu sach (2016). I is impo an o emphasize ha he ecen iden i ica ions in pa icula a e ex emely en a i e, and he de oicing o PIE oiced den als and ec als in Ph ygian is no uni- e sally accep ed.26 On he balance, ne e heless, he e idence o de oicing o PIE unaspi a ed oiced s ops in Ph ygian appea s s ong enough o allow he de i a ion o τετικμενος om *de-di.27 bu i emains unclea why he inal consonan o he p e e b was no assimila ed o he ini ial den al o he oo ). 22 See Panagl & Kowal 1983: 186–7. 23 See Ma zinge 2005: 386–90, who pos ula es aneu aliza ion o oice dis inc ion a e / /. 24 See Ligo io & Lubo sky 2018: 1823–4. Woodhouse (2006, 2009) ad oca ed a(condi ioned) de oicing o PIE unaspi a ed s ops in Ph ygian, bu his sound laws would no allow one o de i e (-)τετικμενος om *de-. 25 In his case he adjacen la yngeal may ha e played a ole, c . he unexpec ed e lex o PIE *d in Tocha ian AB kä ā- ‘s ew’ (no *kä sā-) < *(s)kedh2-, G eek σκίδνημι, unless he de el- opmen *d > in his Tocha ian e b is due o he adjacen nasal (bu all examples o his de elopmen ea u e pos -nasal de oicing, c . AB spän ā- ‘ us ’ < *spend- (La in spondē e) and see Hacks ein 2017: 1324). 26 See he de ailed ejoinde o Lubo sky 2004 by Ma zinge (2006). Sowa (2008: 28 n.15), Go bacho (2008: 95) and Woudhuizen (2021: 4–5) a e likewise skep ical o he de oic- ing o PIE oiced s ops in Ph ygian. 27 New Ph ygian <ε>δικες, ansla ed by O el (1997: 333, 369, 422) as ‘de o ed, dedica ed’ and de i ed om *de-, is in all likelihood un ela ed and may go back o PIE *dhe(h)- ‘build up, ashion’, as Iin end o discuss elsewhe e. OPEN ACCESS 46 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 The seman ic di icul y appea s mo e se ious: he meaning o New Ph ygian (-)τετικμενος seems a he di e en om ha o PIE *de-, adi ionally glossed as ‘ o show’ o , in he o mula ion o E.Tichy, “ o b ing some hing ha one sees onesel o he op ical no ice o ano he h ough e bal o non e bal means”.28 This p oblem has no gone unno iced (c . e.g. R.Gusmani: “il senso è ben di e so”),29 and Iam no con inced by Lubo sky’s use o G eek διαδικάζω ‘judge’ and καταδικάζω ‘condemn’ as pa allels:30 hese e bs a e de i ed om δίκη ‘ ule, jus ice, judgmen ’, which is an inne -G eek o ma ion,31 and hus ep esen aspeci ically G eek de el- opmen .32 The p oblem o he seman ic ela ionship be ween New Ph ygian (-)τετικμενος and PIE *de can be eassessed in he ligh o new insigh s abou he usage o his PIE oo . Based on some well-known ac s abou Ge manic and anew analysis o Hi i e ek i-, Iwill a gue ha he oo *de was used o deno e i upe a i e e bal ac s and ha his use o he oo makes he con ex ually plausible meaning ‘condemned’ o (-)τετικμενος en i ely unp oblema ic om he e ymological iewpoin . 2. ANEW COMPARISON The undispu ed e lex o PIE *de in Ge manic is * eihan ‘ o accuse’ (c . Old High Ge - man zīhan ‘ o inc imina e’, Old Ph ysian īgia ‘id.’, New High Ge man Anzeige ‘legal complain ’, e c.).33 Su p isingly, hese o ms ha e no , o my knowledge, igu ed in he discussion o New Ph ygian (-)τετικμενος.34 The signi icance o his g oup o cog- na es is clea : bo h Ge manic * eihan and he Ph ygian o m e e o some hing bad. In addi ion, he e is a hi d piece o e idence o he oo *dei used in asimila ashion. Con a y o he handbooks, which do no lis any Ana olian e lexes o PIE *de-, we may in ac ind ahi he o un ecognized cogna e in he Hi i e wo d ek i-. This wo d is scan ily a es ed: i is ound in a ocabula y lis whe e [ ]ek iš is ound alongside ma kiyawa ‘disapp o al, ejec ion’ and anda=kan impauwa , ul ima ely om anda impai- which no mally e e s o dep ession35 (KBo 26.10 i 10 = KBO 26.11 e .? 8),36 as well as in a an alizing MS agmen (CTH 832) whe e we ead =]mu=kan 28 Tichy 1979: 171. 29 Gusmani 1958: 890. 30 Lubo sky 1998: 420 n.22; 2004: 235; simila ly An osso 2017: 15. 31 Sk . diśā- ‘di ec ion, egion’ is adi ionally— and igh ly— iewed as an independen o - ma ion (see e.g. Dieu 2016: 141–2). 32 I seems equally unlikely ha Ph ygian ik- adop ed he meaning o G eek δικ- as he e- sul o G eek-Ph ygian language con ac . 33 See he discussion by Ho mann 1972–1973: 73–75. 34 One excep ion is Neumann (1988: 4): “τετικμενος „ e u eil [?]“, wenn zu indoge manisch *de-, IEW 188 ., deu sch „zeihen“.” 35 Kloekho s 2008: 863 ansla es impaḫuwa as ‘making abu den’, p obably assuming un- a es ed ac i i e *impaḫḫ as he de i a ional base, bu see HW2 4.56. 36 Ed. by Scheuche 2012: 584–7. The Sume ian and Akkadian equi alen s a e los . Be- ween [ ]ek iš and ma kiyawa he ocabula y lis has ḫa eššanza, which may ha e been OPEN ACCESS ALEXANDER NIKOLAE 47 ek in pa[ ā (KBo 16.48+KBo 31.221 6’) a e walae ‘ hey s uck’.37 Beside hese ag- men a y and obscu e con ex s he wo d was un il ecen ly known only om he Deeds o Suppiluliuma (CTH 40.IV.1.A), whe e i is ound in he speech o Daḫamunzu, he queen o Egyp : KBo 5.6 e . iii 14–15 (NH): ÌR=YA=ma=wa nūwān pa ā dai nu=wa =an=za=kan LÚMUTI=YA iyami e-ek- i=[w]anami ‘Iwill no ake one o my subjec s and make him my husband. I ea ek i-’38 I has been no iced ha asimila idea is ep ised a ew lines la e (iii 54–i 2), whe e he queen says ha i she had w i en o a o eign king abou ha ing ason om his mésalliance, i would be ashame o he and o he coun y (ammel=ya KUR-eaš epnuma ). The adi ional assump ion has he e o e been ha he wo ds ek iš and epnuma ‘humilia ion, de oga ion, shame’ belong o he same seman ic ield, and ek iš has been ansla ed as ‘de ilemen ’.39 Anew con ex came o ligh hanks o joins made by Mille (2008: 121–24). Ou wo d is ound in ale e , possibly sen by he Hi i e g ea king o he Assy ian used he e in a igu a i e meaning e e ing o men al heal h (‘wil ed’) a he han li - e al ‘d ied up’. 37 Ed. by G oddek 2011: 39, who iden i ies he agmen as ei he belonging o ale e om aHi i e king (l. 11’ dUTUŠI = mu in l. 6’) o con aining aquo e om such ale e . 38 naḫ(ḫ)- can be cons ued ei he wi h acc. (in which case wo d- inal -n in ek in has been assimila ed o encli ic wa) o da . (see CHD L–N 339–340). 39 ‘Be leckung’: J.F ied ich, H.Gü e bock, H.K onasse (see he e e ences in Kloekho s 2008: 863–64); ‘on a’: del Mon e 2009: 113. E.Neu (apud Tischle 1993: 302), ollowed by Rieken 1999: 210–211, sugges ed aclosely ela ed meaning ‘Kennzeichnung’ based on he pu po ed e ymological ela ionship wi h Hi i e ekkuššiye/a- ‘ o show’ and G eek τέκμαρ ‘sign’, bu he G eek wo d mos likely goes back o he same oo *kwe- as in Vedic kāś- ~ cakṣ- ‘appea ; obse e; e eal’, see Nussbaum 2014; o Hi i e akku- / ekku- ‘show’ see Sasse ille 2019. Puh el (2007: 285–86) a gued o ‘deg ada ion, s igma’ and de i ed ek i- om PIE *(s) eg- (G eek στίγμα ‘b and’, Vedic ej- ‘ o be sha p’). The ollowing dissen ing opinions a e on he eco d: Kloekho s (2008: 864) op ed o he meaning ‘deposi ion, e- mo al om powe ’ ( om *de-2 ‘ oss, hu l’), bu see he pe suasi e c i icisms by Alexan- d o & Sidel se (2009[2011]: 63–64) and G oddek (2011: 42), who poin s ou ha KBo 31.221 6’ (p obably spoken by aHi i e king) is p oblema ic o Kloekho s ’s in e p e a ion (no e ha he con ex o be discussed p esen ly in he main ex (KBo 18.28+) could no ha e been known o Kloekho s p io o he comple ion o his dic iona y); B eye (2010) a gued ha ek i- means ‘shameless woman, p os i u e’ and is aloanwo d om Egyp ian ꜣ-kꜣ . ‘ ul a’ (see Alexand o & Sidel se 2009[2011]: 65 and G oddek 2011 o ac i ical assessmen and B eye 2013 o a esponse); Manas e Rame (ms.) posi s he meaning ‘ ying-up (o he womb)’ ( o he Deeds o Suppiluliuma con ex ) / ‘ ying-up (o he a ge )’ ( o KBo 18.28+), de i ing he o m om PIE *(s) eg- ‘co e ’. Fo Melche 2021: 384 n.13 “[i s] o igin emains unclea .” OPEN ACCESS 48 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 g ea king.40 The sende , esponding o he add essee’s ea lie insul s, is accusing him o a ea y iola ion; in line 8’ o he le e he i s pa aph ases he add essee’s wo ds: (8’) [kiša]n=pa kui DU11-ši āššweni=m[a]n=wa=kan man ṬUPPU MĀMĪT DÙ-weni ‘Why do you say in his same way: “I (only) we made he oa h ea y in a iendly manne ?”’ Righ a e his he sende says, likely e e ing o a assal who was esponsible o he misunde s anding be ween he wo pa ies:41 (9’) [nu] e-ek- i-in kuin e-ek- i-i[š-ke-z]i ‘Wha ek i is he ek i-ing?’ I is clea ha he adi ional ansla ion does no wo k he e. Alexand o & Sidel - se (2009[2011]) in hei discussion o he exceedingly di icul beginning o his ex (4’–12’) analyzed he clause nu ek in kuin ek iškezi as a( he o ical) ques ion ‘wha slande is he hu ling?’. This ansla ion is me ely p o isional, as he au ho s hem- sel es admi ; o ou pu poses i is su icien o no e ha his ph ase clea ly deno es aspeech ac o some kind.42 Impo an , oo, is he igu a e ymologica ha is pa icula ly o en ound in Hi i e wi h e bs o speaking: c . memiyanus memai ‘speaks wo ds’ (KUB 15.31 i18+) o ukmain ukzi ‘conju es aconju a ion’ (KUB 12.58 i33). Ou side o Ana olian one may compa e English sing asong, Vedic śas ím śam sa ‘sing p aise’ (RV 4.3.3) o G eek ἀρὰς ἀρᾶσθαι ‘ o hu l cu ses’ (Soph. OC 952). I is no un easonable o specula e ha he assal who ek in ek iškezi was speaking ill o some o he people in ol ed in he ea y. The ansla ion ‘accusa ion’, ‘condemna ion’ is a leas compa - ible wi h he agmen a y a es a ions o he wo d ek i- and would i pa icula ly nicely he passage ci ed ea lie om he Deeds o Suppiluliuma: he queen o Egyp is a aid o wo ds o de oga ion o disapp o al. 40 CTH 190: KBo 18.28+KBo 50.73+Bo 3626 (NH/NS); ed. Mille 2008: 121–24, ans. Alex- and o & Sidel se 2009[2011]: 60. Fo he add essee o he le e see also Yamada 2011: 207–209. 41 I is impo an o emphasize ha no ce ain y in he in e p e a ion o his ex has been achie ed. 42 C . Melche 2017: 179. In ansla ing ek in ek iškezi as ‘hu ls aslande ’ Alexand o & Sidel se (as well as o he Hi i ologis s ci ed p.c.) may ha e been in luenced by apossible e ymological connec ion wi h he o he oo *de- ‘ o hu l, o h ow’ (G eek ao . δικέ/ό- ‘ h ow’, Kho anese dīśś-), c . G eek διαβάλλω ‘ ep o e’. Bu while “ o hu l slande ” is a eg- ula idiom in Ame ican English, i does no ha e o ha e been accep able in Hi i e. In ad- di ion, he e ymological connec ion wi h *de- ‘ o hu l’ is se iously comp omised by he ac ha he e b ek iške/ais adenomina i e e b made om ek i- (con as G eek ἀρὰς ἀρᾶσθαι ci ed abo e, whe e ἀράομαι is adenomina i e e b made om ἀρᾱ ‘cu se, imp e- ca ion’ < *h2e - ‘speak solemnly, cu se’, see n.56 below). OPEN ACCESS ALEXANDER NIKOLAE 49 Phonologically and mo phologically, no hing s ands in he way o de i ing ek i- (< e-ek- i>) om he o-g ade o he oo *de.43 In P o o-Ana olian, he e lex o he PIE oiceless *- would be leni ed a e an accen ed diph hong,44 and hen he diph- hong would be monoph hongized.45 In Ana olian, i is amode a ely p oduc i e su ix o ming ac ion / esul nouns di ec ly om e bal oo s, c . Hi i e SÍGkiš i- ‘skein o ca ded wool’ om ke/iš- ‘ o comb’ o zē i- ‘ i ed clay cup’ om zē- ‘ o be cooked done’.46 Howe e , in he absence o any o he aces o PIE *de- in Ana olian, ek i- is bes analyzed as an inhe i ed o ma ion going back o *do/e- i-,47 i sel asubs an i iza- ion o passi e de e ba i e *d(e) ó o he ype *sk/id ó- (Ved. chid á- ‘spli ’, Gmc. *skid a- ‘po ous’, La . šk id s ‘ hin’).48 I he p oposed e ymology is co ec ,49 Hi i e 43 Kloekho s (2008: 864) has al eady sugges ed *de- as he e ymon, bu since he ope a ed wi h ameaning ‘deposi ion, emo al om powe ’, he chose he oo *de-2 ‘ o h ow’ (see n.39). 44 C . Palaic ki-i- a-a ‘is lying’ < *e- o , Luwian i- i ‘he goes’ < *h1éi- i, Hi i e e-ḫu ‘come!’ < *h1e-h2o (Eichne 1973: 55). 45 E-g ade *deg i- migh be ano he op ion, since a e aden al no aising o P o o-Ana olian *ē < *e o /i/ is expec ed. Kloekho s (2008: 100) en a i ely sugges s ha he ollowing ela could ha e igge ed aising jus as he p eceding ela did, ci ing Hi i e ša-li-i-ga / slīga/ ‘he ouches’ < *sle-oin suppo o his hypo hesis, bu seconda ily oo -accen ed ze o-g ade *sli-ois jus as possible. In he absence o aconsensus abou he e lexes o PIE *e in Hi i e, o-g ade *do i- may be phonologically easie . 46 See Melche 1999: 365–68; 2021: 384–385. 47 An example o ade e bal de i a i e o his ype a es ed in mo e han one b anch is Ve- dic ádh i- ‘cas a ed (male)’, G eek Hsch. ε 696 ἐθρίς ‘cas a ed am’, ι 400 ἴθρις ‘eunuch’; his compa ison is no uni e sally accep ed (see e.g. Thieme 1954: 50–52), bu was e- cen ly esusci a ed by le Feu e 2021: 320–321. The o iginal oo apophony in de e bal i-s em-subs an i iza ions canno be econs uc ed wi h ce ain y bo h because he ex- amples a e sca ce and because he oo ablau could always ha e been aligned wi h ha o he de i a ional basis o he e b (see he ollowing oo no e); he e idence o o he i- s em de e ba i e subs an i es appea s o sugges ac os a ic declension (see Rau 2010: 181; Nikolae 2014: 262 n.27), and so does he e idence o he much be e a es ed subs an i - iza ion o p ima y adjec i es (*h2e ó- ‘sha p’ → *h2ó/é- i-‘sha pness, sha p hing’), mak- ing *do/e i- amo phologically plausible econs uc ion. 48 Fo subs an i iza ion o de e ba i e o-adjec i es c . *iH- o- ‘ben ’ (Ge manic *ī a- ‘wi e’, Old I ish ía ‘c ooked’) → *iH- i- ‘wha is ben ’ (G eek ἴρις ‘ ainbow’), *dhegwh- o- ‘bu ning, bu ned’ (G eek τέφρα ‘ashes’) → *dhegwh- i- ‘wha is bu ning, bu n’ (La in eb is ‘ e e ’), *s eh2- o- ‘s ill, igid’ (Sla ic *s a ъ ‘old’, Li huanian s ó as ‘ hick, s ou ’, pe haps Old No se s ó ‘big’) → *s eh2- i- ‘wha is hick’ (Li huanian s õ is ‘ hickness’), o *nh3- o- ‘known; knowing’ (La in gnā us) → *nh3- i- ‘wha is known; knowledge’ (→ Gk. γνωριμός ‘known’). An inhe i ed (and possibly p o o ypical) example in Ana olian may be Hi i e ēd i- ‘ ood’ < *h1ed- i- (pe haps, *h1o/ed- i- wi h ablau le eled a e he e b) ← *h1ed- o- ‘wha is ea en’ (Li h. ėd à ‘ ood’). 49 See n.39 abo e o al e na i e solu ions ha ha e been p oposed. I should be no ed ha he wo d ek i- can in heo y go back o aple ho a o o he oo s, none o which, howe e , seem o me o o e aseman ically plausible connec ion. OPEN ACCESS 56 CHATREŠŠAR 2/2021 Tu can, I. (1982) Di e e ai e dans le ocabulai e des ins i u ions indo-eu opéennes, in: É udes indo-eu opéennes 1, 3–21. Veselino ić, E.M. (2003) Supple ion im i ischen Ve b, Hambu g: Ko ač. Wa kins, C. (1993) Some Ana olian wo ds and o ms, in: G.Meise (ed.) Indoge manica e I alica: Fes sch i ü Helmu Rix zum 65.Gebu s ag [IBS 72], Innsb uck: Ins i u ü Sp achwissenscha de Uni e si ä Innsb uck, 469–478. Weiss, M. (2018) On he p ehis o y o La in iūs, in: M. de Ma ino (ed.), The Compa a i e My hology Today: Mülle , F aze , Dumézil. Pe spec i es om he Pas o he Fu u e. A i del P imo Con egno del Comi a o Scien i ico di Speaking Souls— Animae Loquen es, Roma: Ago a, 1–14. Woodhouse, R. (2006) Condi ioned de oicing o mediae in Ph ygian, in: S udia E ymologica C aco iensia 11, 157–191. — (2009) De oicing o PIE mediae in Ph ygian, in: His o ische Sp ach o schung 122, 208–227. Woudhuizen, F. (2021) The Ph ygian language: an upda e, in: K a ylos 66, 1–17. Yamada, M. (2011) The second mili a y con lic be ween “Assy ia” and “a i” in he eign o Tukul i-Ninu a I, in: Re ue d’Assy iologie e d’a chéologie o ien ale 105, 199–220. OPEN ACCESS