/hanti(ya)-/
‘first’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- adj
- ID
- 1100
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/hanti(ya)-/, FRONS-ti-
‘first’1.1.1Transmission
This lemma is attested six times, with four attestations originating from the same inscription in Tabal. These and the letter found in Assur all date to the 8th century BCE. The evidence from Malatya dates to the 11th or 10th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | /hantis/ | FRONS-ti-sa7 | TOPADA, §21 (Tabal) |
| acc. sg. c. | /hantin/ | FRONS-na | IZGIN 1, §12 (Malatya) |
| 1-ti-na | ASSUR letter b, §4 (Assur) | ||
| abl./instr. | /hantiyadi/ | FRONS-ti-ia+ra/i | TOPADA, §21 (Tabal) |
| poss. adj. nom. sg. c. |
/hantiyassis/ | FRONS-ti-ia-sí?-sa | TOPADA, §19 (Tabal) |
| poss. adj. instr. | /hantiyassadi/ | FRONS-ti(ras.)-ia-sa5+ra/i | TOPADA, §21 (Tabal) |
TOPADA is well-known for its many idiosyncratic signs and variants, cf. the extensive lists in Hawkins 2000a:32, 460f. Thus, the rare sign *456 is associated only tentatively with a value 〈sí?〉, mostly on the basis of its attestation in TOPADA, §19 (Hawkins 2000a:457), and the question mark accompanying it here therefore signifies uncertainty regarding its phonetic value, not the actual identification of the sign on the inscription.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
For a lack of fully syllabic attestations, the phonological interpretation of this lemma rests on its belonging to the word family around HLuw. /hant(a)-/ ‘face’ (see under lemma), a link that is strongly supported by use of the logogram FRONS (*26). This interpretation is backed up by the CLuw. cognate ḫanti(ya)- ‘of the forehead; first’ (see Starke 1990a:129 and Melchert 1993g:53). Evidence for the latter half of the word is more plentiful and gives a good impression of its case forms and the shape of its possessive adjective, formations that are reflected in many other HLuw. words as well.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Because of its transparent link with /hant(a)-/ ‘face’, the meaning of the present lemma has been clear for quite some time, see Starke 1990a:125-132, but esp. p. 129 and more recently Oettinger 2007b:544, 546.
In two contexts in the TOPADA inscription, the adjective appears in possessive adjectival form, i.e. /hantiyassa/i-/, to mark the adjective itself as the possessor, each time in combination with the regular, un-marked adjective. The relevant phrases are FRONS-ti-ia-sí?-sa FRONS-ti-sa7, i.e. /hantiyassis hantis/ ‘first of the first’ (§19) and FRONS-ti(ras.)-ia-sa5+ra/i FRONS-ti-ia+ra/i, i.e. /hantiyassari hantiyari/ ‘with the first of the first’ (§21).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
An adjective, the word is derived from the noun /hant(a)-/ ‘face’ by way of the frequently used suffix /-i(ya)-/. In possessive contexts, the adjective /hanti(ya)-/ can show possessive marking of the stem by attaching the suffix /-assa/i-/, resulting in a stem /hantiyassa/i-/. All forms, adjective and possessive adjective alike, undergo i-mutation, as is expected and clearly visible in the collection of forms above.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Luwian in Hittite transmission
ḫanti(ya)-
‘of the front, first’1.2.1Transmission
The word is attested in various NH texts, an inventory, an oracle report, and a prayer.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | ḫa-an-ti-iš | KUB 42.78 ii 18’ | (CTH 504, NS) |
| KUB 17.10 ii 30’ | (CTH 324, MS) | ||
| ḫa-an-di-eš | KUB 6.2 obv. 28 | (CTH 570, NS) | |
| nom. pl. c. | ḫa-an-te-eš | KUB 31.127 iii 38’ | (CTH 372, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz. – Reading of ḫa-an-di-eš at KUB 6.2 obv. 28 following Melchert, pers. comm. (against HW 2nd ed.:Ḫ 157). Reading and assignment to this lemma following HW:350; see also Rieken et al. 2009n with references. – Melchert (pers. comm.) tentatively lists ḫa-an-te-eš at KUB 31.127 iii 38’ as nom. sg. c. of ḫant- ‘forehead, front’.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning ‘of the forehead, of the front, subst. headband; preeminent, first’
The basic meaning of ḫanti(ya)- ‘related to the forehead, related to the front part, foremost, first’ can be deduced from word formation (ḫant- ‘forehead, front’ + relational suffix -i(ya)-; cf. Starke 1990a:129, CLL:53, Oettinger 2007b:544, Yakubovich 2016b:477). However, the lexicalized meanings of the substantivizations are quite diverse. They range from a kind of ornament in KUB 42.78 ii 18’ (Košak 1978a:112f.: ‘fronts’, Siegelová 1986a:462f.: ‘Frontteile’, CLL:53 and EDHIL:287-289: ‘headband’) to persons of a preeminent social status in KUB 31.127 iii 38’ (Rieken 2017b: ‘Erste’, coordinated with ‘companions’).
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
For the morphological analysis of the forms as nom. sg. and pl. respectively of the relational adjective ḫanti(ya)-, borrowed from Luwian, see under Meaning and Origin.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Compounds
- Ḫantitaššu (PN) (Laroche 1966a:no. 276)
1.2.7Derivatives
1.2.8Origin
The assignment of the cited forms to the relational adjective ḫanti(ya)- and its substantivizations (rather than the base ḫant-) yields plausible semantic interpretations. Under the assumption that the forms are Luwian in origin and, accordingly, feature i-mutation, the scenario is coherent (cf. Starke 1990a:129, CLL:53).
Alternatively, if we are dealing with a Hittite i-stem, ḫanti- > **ḫanzi- would have been restored as ḫant- throughout the paradigm under the influence of the base word. As for the derivational chain, this would require an adjectival a-stem **ḫant-a- derived from the root noun ḫant-. From **ḫant-a-, an abstract i-stem could have been build, which was concretized as two different lexemes. In addition, the putative adjective ḫanti(ya)- in KUB 6.2 obv. 28 was restored likewise. Though not impossible, the second solution is less attractive as it requires many more steps than the loanword hypothesis.
[E.R.]
For the lemma head see PAnat. *Hant-.