ḫalāl(i)-

Amply attested in Luwian rituals (MS and NS).

[Zs.S.]

The attestations follow CLL:46 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:38, who, however, wrongly separated a noun “ḫalal” ‘purity’ and an adjective ḫalali- ‘pure’, Friedrich 1966b:49, and HED H:13) checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. The restorations follow Starke 1985b:69, 89f., 102 based on contextual grounds. Melchert accepts the restoration of [ḫa-l]a-ạ-lị[-iš] in KUB 35.30 ii^? 12’ of Starke 1985b:103 (cf. already Laroche 1959a:38), but the traces visible on the photo and the hand copy allow identifying a sign LI at best, and since the text is otherwise broken off, no restoration can be given (also contra Starke 1985b:80).

[Zs.S.]

There is a general and justified agreement regarding the meaning of this word on contextual grounds (Laroche 1959a:38; Götze 1963a:61; Carruba 1982b:4; Starke 1990a:62, 108 n. 295, 300; HED H:13, CLL:46; van den Hout 2001a:182; Rizza 2007a:79; Tischler 2008a:39, Tischler 2016a:58; Sideltsev 2014a:863; Ünal 2016a:955).

[Zs.S.]

1. ḫalalannu-

There is a widespread view that ḫalāl(i)- represents a loanword from Semitic, although the details are debated (Otten 1953a:110 n. 10; Laroche 1959a:38; HED H:13 [“probable”]; del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2003a:360; Dardano 2018b did not include this word, but the reason might have been the circumstance that she discusses only Akkadian loanwords, despite its title), the only exception is Starke 1990a:62, 492 n. 1804 who treats it as an adjective derived by -al-, without any argument, although his explanation is excluded already by the different vocalism of the suffix (note that Starke consistently misspells the adjective as “ḫalal(i)-”). Otten 1953a:110 n 10. cautiously suggested the Hebrew root hll ‘shine’ as a cognate (on phonological grounds), while on semantical grounds he (as well as Laroche 1959a:38) compared Akkadian ellum ‘pure, clean’ (HED H:13 made no decision; del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2003a:360 connected it with Ugaritic ḥll, a cognate of the Akkadian word, cf. below). Götze 1963a:61f. (followed by Friedrich 1966b:49 and HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:18), however, rejected both etymologies, in the case of Hebrew hll due to the semantics and the phonology, and in the case of ellum due to the phonology. Goetze’s rejection is fully justified in the Akkadian case and although the semantic change implied in the Hebrew case has parallels (HED H:13), it remains unknown how Semitic [h] would have been substituted in Luwian.

Having said that, Akkadian ellum has obviously more fitting semantics and the solution appears in nuce already in HED H:13, who treated it as a “(West) Semitic” loanword and in the short reference of del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2003a:360: Akkadian ellum originates in the Semitic root *ḥll (on this root see Bron & Cohen & Lonnet 2010a:870‒872) the first consonant of which was not lost in the 2nd millennium West Semitic languages, i.e., in those Semitic languages that were geographically the closest to Luwian. In other words, a West Semitic *ḥalāl ‘clean’ (cf. also Arabic ḥalāl , on the vocalisation pattern see Fox 2003a:179‒186) is a perfect source for the Luwian word (the Semitic word could have been perceived as nom.-acc. sg. or pl. n. and thus, easily adopted into the Luwian declension). It is difficult to determine the precise origin of this word: the root is attested in the 2nd millennium only in Ugaritic ḥll ‘desacralization, purification’ and mḥll ‘desacralizer’ (del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2003a:360, 537 with refs.) and maybe as an Amorite loan in Mari Akkadian, if J.-M. Durand’s etymology of ḫulīlum ‘the name of a festival or ceremony’ (Durand 1984a:135 n. 36 with ref., cf. also Jacquet 2007a:276f., and not “ḫalīlum” as quoted by del Olmo Lete & Sanmartín 2003a:360) from the same root is correct, which has, however, a completely different and semantically more fitting explanation, too (see the discussion in Streck 2000a:99 with refs.). Needless to say, any unattested West Semitic language spoken in Syria could have been the source (the origin of the Luwian rituals in which this word is attested not helpful, either, since they are not of Syrian origin).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 October 2020

Attested in a Hittite ritual in NS.

[Zs.S.]

The attestations follow CLL:46 (with the case of ḫa-la-li-en-zi corrected, see under Origin; cf. also HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:46 and HED H:13) checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. For possible further cases see the restoration proposals of H. M. Kümmel 1967a:10, 33f. (followed by HED H:13, but see the criticism in Yakubovich 2010d:30 n. 18) as well as of Lebrun 1996a:48 and Wegner 2002a:213f.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general and justified agreement regarding the meaning of this word (H. M. Kümmel 1967a:34; HEG A-K:126, Tischler 2008a:39, Tischler 2016a:58; HED H:13; CLL:46; HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:18; Lebrun 1996a:49, 55; Wegner 2002a:206, 214, Wegner 2004a:93; Strauß 2006a:88 n. 331; Ünal 2007a:145, Ünal 2016a:139; Yakubovich 2010d:30), cf. the discussion s.v. Cuneiform Luwian ḫalāl(i)-.

[Zs.S.]

Although one may assume that Hittite directly borrowed this word from a Semitic language (note that it was not included among the Semitic loanwords of Hittite by Fronzaroli 1956a, Mayer 1960a, and Dardano 2018b [although she discussed only Akkadian loanwords, despite the title]), the Luwian ending in ḫa-la-li-en-zi clearly demonstrates that we are dealing with a Luwian word in Hittite, as observed long ago (Götze 1963a:61; H. M. Kümmel 1967a:34; HEG A-K:126; HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:46; CLL:46; Tischler 2008a:39, Tischler 2016a:58; Yakubovich 2010d:30; Ünal 2016a:139; accordingly included in the list of Luwianisms of van den Hout 2007a:254, but not in that of Melchert 2005a). Interestingly enough, ḫa-la-li-en-zi is an accusative plural and thus, shows an Empire Luwian ending (cf. Yakubovich 2010d:30, not “fehlerhaft” as Starke 1990a:108 n. 296 could rightly claim at that time). Since, however, it is attested in a ritual from the Hurrian milieu (a ritual for Teššup of Manuzziya, CTH 703), it is paralleled by many Empire Luwian loanwords in Hittite of non-Luwian but Hurrian origin: they probably did not belong to spoken Empire Luwian but were transmitted to it only as termini technici under the influence of the Kizzuwatna texts (see in detail Simon 2020c). For its ultimate Semitic origin see the discussion s.v. Cuneiform Luwian ḫalāl(i)-.

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 26 October 2020