*(h1)lō̆́mn̥/*(h1)l̥mEn-
‘name’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 1304
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/alaman-/, á-lá/í-ma-
‘name’1.1.1Transmission
This noun is attested 53 times in the HLuw. corpus. Its occurrences can be found in texts ranging from the 12th century BCE in Malatya to the latest inscriptions from Cilica, dating to the early 7th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | /alaman=za/ | á-lá/í-ma-za | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §74 (Cilicia) |
| ANCOZ 12, §3 (Commagene) | |||
| TELL AHMAR 6, §29 (Tell Ahmar) | |||
| BOROWSKI 3, §10 (Tell Ahmar) | |||
| İSKENDERUN, §6 (Maraş) | |||
| HAMA 4, §8 (Hama) | |||
| á-la/i-ma-za | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §75 (Cilicia) | ||
| á-lá/í-ma-za-a | ANCOZ 6 (Commagene) | ||
| TELL AHMAR 6, §10 (Tell Ahmar) | |||
| KARKAMIŠ A6, §29 (Karkamiš) | |||
| á-la/i-ma-za-a | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §70 (Cilicia) | ||
| á-lá/í-ma-zá | KARKAMIŠ A18e, §3 (Karkamiš) | ||
| á-la/i-ma-za4 | KARATEPE 1 Ho., §63 (Cilicia) | ||
| á-lá/í-ma-zi! | KÖTÜKALE, §5 (Malatya) | ||
| á-la-ma-za | ADANA 1, §5 (Karkamiš) | ||
| KARKAMIŠ A13a-c, §4 (Karkamiš) | |||
| a+ra/i-ma-za | SULTANHAN, §46 (Tabal) | ||
| dat./loc. sg. | /alamani/ | á-lá/í-ma-ni-i | TELL TAYINAT 2, 11 (Amuq) |
| á-lá/í-ma-ni | BOYBEYPINARI 2, §19 (Commagene) | ||
| *a-la-mi-ní | KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §1 (Malatya) |
The above table does not include all 53 occurrences of this noun from the corpus, but care has been taken to illustrate the breadth of spelling variation also within the same text, as well as the geographical and temporal distribution of the word across the texts. Broken attestations have been left out.
In KARKAMIŠ A13a-c, §4, Hawkins 2000a:168 reads 〈a-⸢tax⸣-ma-za〉 at a time when the signs *319 and *172 were still interpreted as 〈ta4, ta5〉, cf. the discussion regarding the phonological interpretation below. Subsequent scholarly progress has made it possible to reinterpret the partially broken second sign of the attested form as an instance of 〈la〉 (sign *176), as noted in Hawkins, Tosun & Akdoğan 2013a:4.
In fact, the old interpretation of the signs *319 and *172 and the then generally accepted reading of the HLuw. word for ‘name’ as /ataman-, adaman-/ vel sim. caused most scholars Only Laroche 1950b:50f. and E. Masson 1979a:233 connected it with Hittite laman- ‘name’. to overlook the attestation of the word in KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §1, see e.g. Nowicki 1981a:253f. (followed by Hawkins 2000a:291) who interprets it as ‘at the moment’. This misunderstanding was also facilitated by the erstwhile HLuw. spelling rule of ‘initial-a-final’, a practice investigated only a little later by Hawkins 2003b:159-161 himself.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this lemma has caused much discussion among scholars for two reasons. Firstly, /alaman-/ is almost throughout spelt with the signs *319 or *172 in second position and, together with evidence from personal names, the word eventually paved the way for the reinterpretation of these signs as 〈la/i〉 and 〈lá/í〉 respectively (see Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:201, 203); the signs were previously read as 〈ta4〉 and 〈ta5〉 and prior to that only with i-vocalism (cf. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1975a:132). This research development is acknowledged in Hawkins, Tosun & Akdoğan 2013a:4, who proceed to point out the spelling used in ADANA 1, §5: 〈á-la-ma-za〉, fully supporting the previously deduced interpretation of the word as /alaman-/. The new interpretation has also made it easier to connect the HLuw. word to its cognates in the other Anatolian language, first and foremost Hittite laman- ‘name’. The connection had been made previously, but always entailed scholars having to explain the putative unusual phonological development, cf. e.g. Tischler in HEG L-M:27f.
Secondly, /alaman-/ also shows consistent spelling with 〈á〉 (sign *19) for its onset, which has led scholars to speculate about the quality expressed by that sign as opposed to the other main 〈a〉 (sign *450) and the etymological consequences, see e.g. Kloekhorst 2004a, Kloekhorst 2006a, and Simon 2013a.
Finally, KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §1 alone spells the word 〈*a-la-mi-ní〉, i.e. with 〈mi〉 instead of the usual 〈ma〉. This is due to the age of the inscription, which was created at a time when sign *391 could also be used to represent the phonetic value /ma/ besides the usual /mi/ (Yakubovich 2010d:291 following Güterbock 1998a:203).
Outdated are the views recently expressed in van Quickelberghe 2013a:259f.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Despite the long-standing uncertainty about the phonological form of /alaman-/, the meaning of the word has been clear from early on, not least because it occurs several times in the KARATEPE bilingual inscription and translates Phoenician šm ‘name’ throughout, thus see Bossert 1950-1951a:285-287. Note that Bossert’s puzzlement over some of the attested spellings should be attributed to the misinterpretation of a number of signs at that point in HLuw. studies.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The word is a well-known neuter n-stem in the Indo-European languages and maintained as such also in HLuw., as far as can be stated on the basis of the available data. In the nom./acc. sg., the form is enlarged by the neuter particle /=sa, =za/ as expected (cf. Melchert 2003b:186f.).
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Compounds
- /Astuwalamanza-/ (PN) (cf. Yakubovich 2010d:92, Zehnder 2010a:51, Neumann 1983a:146f., Kronasser 1956a:204f.)
1.2 Lycian A
alãma-
‘name’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in a grave inscription, datable to the reign of Perikle (first half of 4th c. BCE).
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom./acc. pl. n. | aḷãma | TL 83.8 (Arneai) |
Eichner 2005a:26 adds the words adm̃mahi and adm̃medi to this lemma (following a tentative suggestion in DLL:1), which would be attractive if the reading with ḍ was correct; cf. under Graphic Features. In any case, the meaning of these two words cannot be verified; see under lemma.
[D.S.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
The reading with ḷ follows Kalinka 1901a:67, Friedrich 1932a:77. A different reading with ḍ has been suggested in Laroche 1979c:71 n. 36, Neumann 1984b:91 n. 8 and Melchert (DLL:1), although it was motivated by the comparative evidence with HLuw. á-ta5-ma- ‘name’. This suggestion is no longer tenable, since the sign 〈ta5〉 has been reinterpreted as 〈lá/í〉 (Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:203). Thus, the reading aḷãma is now preferred, see Melchert 2007-2008a:184 n. 6
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
The meaning ‘name’ for Lyc. alãma was suggested by Laroche 1979c:71, who compared the Hieroglyphic Luwian cognate, á-lá/í-ma- ‘name’, then still read á-ta5-ma-. This is contextually supported, since alãma refers to what is inscribed on the tomb vis-à-vis the family members, i.e. their names. This semantic assignment has been widely accepted and can be considered secure (Eichner 2005a:26, Neumann 2007a:12, DLL:1, Gehrisch 2018a:128).
[D.S.]
1.2.5Stem
On this type of stem formation, see recently Martínez Rodríguez 2018a:276-278.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘name’
On the basis of Hitt. lāman-/lamn- n., HLuw. /alaman-/, á-lá/í-ma- and Lyc. alãma- ‘name’, a Proto-Anatolian neuter men-stem can be reconstructed. The shape of the root would be difficult to analyse based on the Anatolian data alone, but it seems fairly clear that all three Anatolian languages show an l-consonant, which is taken as the result of dissimilation from an Indo-European perspective. In order to account for the initial sequence al- seen in Luwic, Melchert 2007-2008a:184 n. 6 (modifying Melchert 1994a:82f.), adduces the vocalization of the nasal *l̥ > *al. The diverging outcome of the initial sequence of the Hittite cognate would then have been caused by the generalization of a different grade. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:518) takes the initial á- in HLuw. and a- in Lyc. to be the direct reflex of the initial *h1 and thus reconstructs an initial glottal stop in Proto-Anatolian (further defended by Simon 2013a:16).
The root shape and accentual paradigm are debated, see Melchert 2007-2008a:184 with further literature. Whereas the position of the accent of the strong cases is secured, the one of the weak cases could be either on the suffix or on the ending, i.e. PAnat. *(h1)lō̆́mn̥/*(h1)l̥mén- or *l̥mn-´. As to the vowel of the root, either an o- or an a- could be reconstructed based on the Anatolian data. The vowel *o is chosen here (from the coloring of *h3) because of the Indo-European perspective. Furthermore, the phenomenon of dissimilation has to be applied to account for PAnat. *l in the root instead of expected *n.
For a new derivative, see CLuw. lammaur/n-.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
As for the root underlying the PIE men-stem noun *h1/3nē̆́h3-mn̥ n. ‘name’, Casaretto 2004a:273 proposes a connection with PIE *h1/2neh3- ‘to reprehend, reprimand, blame’. According to LIV²:282, however, this root is to be reconstructed as *h2neh3-, the word-initial h2 of which would make it difficult to maintain the connection with the PIE word for ‘name’, which either had word-initial h1 or h3. In EDHIL:282–285, however, the same root is reconstructed as PIE *h3neh3- (in Hitt. ḫanna-i/ḫann- ‘to sue; to judge’, Gk. ὄνομαι ‘to blame, treat scornfully’). If this is correct, the word for ‘name’ can be etymologically related and has to be reconstructed with word-initial h3 as well (i.e., PIE *h3nē̆́h3-mn̥).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Morphologically, many forms attested in the IE languages allow the reconstruction of a (proterokinetic) neuter men-stem with nom./acc. sg. *h1/3néh3-mn̥ – cf., e.g., Ved. nā́ma, YAv. nąma, Lat. nōmen, Arm. anown, and Hitt. lāman (with word-initial dissimilation).According to Kloekhorst (EDHIL:518), both word-initial *h1- and *h3- are possible as far as the Anatolian languages are concerned. Gk. ὄνομα points to pre-PGk. *h1/3ń̥h3-mn̥ with zero-grade root, presumably in analogy to an original weak-stem form *h1/3n̥h3-mén-.If the preform was *h1ń̥h3-mn̥, it regularly gave PGk. *énoma (cf. perhaps *ἔνυμα in the proper names Ἐνυμακρατίδας, Ἐνυμαντιάδας), which finally developed to ὄνομα via vowel assimilation (e–o > o–o). TochA ñom, TochB ñem point to pre-PToch. *nēm°. According to Beekes (EDG:1084f.), who reconstructs a proterokinetic paradigm *h3néh3-mn̥/*h3n̥h3-mén-, the pre-PToch. form “perhaps derives from a preform *h3neh1-m- by dissimilation of the second h3”. If the first laryngeal, however, was h1, one could either assume an assimilation pre-PToch. *h1néh3-m° > *h1néh1-m° (h1–h3 > h1–h1) or a metathesis pre-PToch. *h1néh3-m° > *h3néh1-m° (cf. EIEC:390). Others prefer the reconstruction of an ḗ/é-acrostatic paradigm *h1nḗh3-mn̥/*h1néh3-mn- to account for the Tocharian vocalism (cf. Neri 2005a, EWAhd VI:809). The Celtic and Balto-Slavic words for ‘name’ (PCelt. *anmen-, PBSl. *inmen-) point to PIE *h1/3n̥h3-men-,Cf. EDPC:38, EDSIL:212, EDBIL:556f. which may have originally been the weak stem of the PIE paradigm (in case of a proterokinetic paradigm *h1/3néh3-mn̥/*h1/3n̥h3-mén-). Such a stem form can also be reconstructed for the Albanian forms, with Alb. Gheg émënë, Tosk émërë < PAlb. *émìnë < *á(n)meno-, a secondary thematic stem backformed to the regular athematic nom./acc. pl. *á(n)men-a < PIE *h1/3ń̥h3-men-h2 (cf. Matzinger 2006a:170). There are, however, also traces of a weak stem *h1/3n(e)h3-mn- in Indo-Iranian (cf. Ved. instr. sg. nā́mnā, dat. sg. nā́mne, etc. < PIIr. *nāmn- < *HnaH-mn- < pre-PIIr. *h1/3neh3-mn-) and in Germanic (cf. Goth. gen. pl. namne, dat. pl. namnam, acc. pl. namna < PGerm. *namn- < pre-PGerm. *nomn- < *nōmn-In pre-PGerm. *nōmn- > *nomn-, the long vowel was shortened according to Osthoff’s Law. < *h1/3neh3-mn-).Cf., e.g., Casaretto 2004a:273 n. 910. This might have originally been the weak stem of an amphikinetic (collective?) noun stem *h1/3néh3-mōn/*h1/3n(e)h3-mn-´, for the strong stem of which cf., e.g., PGerm. nom./acc. sg. *namōn and nom./acc. pl. PIIr. *HnáHmān > Ved. nā́mā, OAv. nāmąm (cf. Neri 2005a:236). For further discussion and lit., cf. the thorough study by Neri 2005a. For the root etymology, cf. the discussion above sub Semantic Reconstruction.
[T.S.]
4. Transmission
Ved. nā́man- n. ‘name’ (RV+; nom./acc. sg. nā́ma, instr. sg. nā́mnā, dat. sg. nā́mne, etc.; nom./acc. pl. nā́mā̆, nā́māni, instr. pl. nā́mabhiḥ, gen. pl. nā́mnām, etc.); Av. nāman-, nąman- n. ‘name’, OPers. nāman- n. ‘id.’ (nom./acc. sg. YAv. nąma, OPers. nāmā̆; nom./acc. du.? OAv. nāmǝ̄nī, YAv. nāmǝ̄ni; nom./acc. pl. OAv. nāmąm, gen. pl. OAv. nāmanąm)Cf., e.g., EWAia II:35–37, ALF:142–144, Gotō 2013a:41.
Arm. anown ‘name’ (Bible+)Cf., e.g., Olsen 1999a:132f., EDAIL:96f.
Lat. nōmen, gen. sg. nōminis n. ‘name’ (Plaut.+); Osc. numneís (gen. sg.), num(nud) (abl. sg.), Umbr. numem, nome (nom./acc. sg.), etc.Cf., e.g., Untermann 2000a:500f., EDLIL:412f. with further lit.
OIr. ainm n. ‘name’, OW anu m. ‘id.’, MW enw m. ‘id.’, etc.Cf., e.g., EDPC:38 with further lit.
Goth. namo n. ‘name’, ON nafn n. ‘id.’, OE nama m. ‘id.’, OS namo m. ‘id.’, OHG namo m. ‘id.’, etc.Cf., e.g., Casaretto 2004a:273, EDPG:382f., EWAhd VI:803–810.
OCS imę, gen. sg. imene n. ‘name’, Russ. ímja, gen. sg. ímeni n. ‘id.’, SCr. ȉme, gen. sg. ȉmena n. ‘id.’, etc.Cf., e.g., EDSIL:212.
TochA ñom, TochB ñem ‘name’Cf., e.g., DTB²:288f. with further lit.
Alb. Gheg émënë, Tosk émërë n. ‘name’Cf., e.g., Klingenschmitt 1982a:68 n. 6, Matzinger 2006a:59, 81, 170.