*Hu̯ed-r̥/n-

‘animal’

Language
Proto-Anatolian
Grammar
subst
ID
1369

1. Individual Anatolian Languages

1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian

/hwidar-/, (LEO)hwa/i-tara/i-

‘animal’

1.1.1Transmission

A hapax legomenon, this lexeme occurs once on an inscription from Maraş, dating to the end of the 9th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

1.1.2Forms

nom./acc. pl. /hwidra/ (LEO)hwa/i-tara/i MARAŞ 1, §11 (Maraş)

1.1.3Graphic Features

1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation

Despite a mere one attestation in HLuw., the phonological form of this lexeme is well-known because of its cognates, the likewise once attested CLuw. ḫuitar ‘wild animal’ and the much more frequently occurring Hittite ḫuitar/ḫuitn- ‘game, wild animal’.

[AH.B.]

1.1.4Meaning

The meaning given for the present lexeme relies mainly on the etymological connection with CLuw. ḫuitar ‘wild animal’ and Hittite ḫuitar/ḫuitn- ‘game, wild animal’. This is supported contextually, for the word occurs together with the deity Runtiya, the god of wild life, which puts it into the same context as the semantically and morphologically very similar /hwisar/ ‘beast’ (see under lemma). In the MARAŞ 1 inscription, the author states that the god Runtiya of the Open Country grants him /hwidra/, but the text breaks off in the next clause, providing no further clues.

[AH.B.]

1.1.5Stem

A neuter noun, the present lexeme is an abstract in /-ar/ derived from the root /hwid-/, which can be found in the likewise derived forms /hwidni(ya)-/ ‘game’ and /hwidissamma-?/ ‘life’ as well as cognates in several other Anatolian languages, including a larger group of words in CLuw. and also the word family around Lycian B qidr(e)i-(di) ‘to hunt(?)’ (see under lemma).

Luw. /hwidar/ is generally assumed to show stem allomorphy /hwidar-/hwidn-/ (see e.g. Melchert 1993g:83 for CLuw.), because the Hittite cognate ḫuitar/ḫuitn- ‘game, wild animal’ is clearly heteroclitic. However, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that HLuw. /hwidar/ is indeed (still?) heteroclitic. None of the relevant paradigmatic slots with /-n-/ are attested, and the very similar noun /hwisar-/ ‘beast’ does not show the alternation (any longer?). Only the nominalised adjective /hwidni(ya)-/ ‘game’ provides evidence that /hwidar/ must have been an r/n-heteroclitic stem at some point, because it is derived from the weak stem /hwidn-/.

[AH.B.]

1.1.6Derivatives

  1. /hwidni(ya)-/

1.2 Cuneiform Luwian

ḫuitar

‘wild animal’

1.2.1Transmission

The Luwian form is transmitted in a fragment classified as a NS ritual text in the Konkordanz at Hethitologie Portal Mainz.

[E.R.]

1.2.2Forms

nom./acc. sg. ḫu-u-i-tar-ša Bo 4143 i? 3’ (CTH 670, NS)

The word is cited after Starke 1990a:560.

[E.R.]

1.2.3Meaning

With the lexeme attested in an unpublished fragmentary context (see Starke 1990a:560), its semantic interpretation is based exclusively on that of ḫuitar/ḫuitnaš in Hittite context (assured through context in the Muwatalli prayer KUB 6.45 iii 15-17 and the probable correspondence in the Adad Trilingual KUB 4.4 i 10-12 with Akk. būlu ‘animal’; cf. HED H:352 and HW2:670 with references.

[E.R.]

1.2.4Stem

On account of the attested derivative ḫuitnaimma/i- ‘hunted down’ and ḫuitar/ḫuitnaš in Hittite context, it is commonly assumed that the oblique case forms are built from *ḫuitn- and the stem thus features r/n-heteroclisy (Starke 1990a:560).

[E.R.]

1.2.5Derivatives

  1. ḫuitnaimma/i-

1.2.6Origin

The linguistic assignment of ḫuitarša at Bo 4143 i? 3’ to Luwian relies on the extension with the Luwian secondary ending -ša (see Starke 1990a:560).

Also the regular Luwian preservation of word internal -tn- in ḫuitar/n- ‘wild animal’ (contrasting the assimilation seen in the Hittite abstract suffix -ātar/-annaš) induced several scholars to suspect a Luwian loan word behind all attestations of the word in Hittite context; thus Neumann 1964b:49f. with n. 11, Oettinger 1979a:117, Starke 1990a:560. However, Tischler (HEG A-K:270, followed by Weitenberg 1984a:110) pointed out that -tn- may have been kept for reasons of morphological transparency vis-à-vis the nom./acc. sg. ḫuitar. Moreover, the case of ḫuitar/n- is not wholly isolated within Hittite, as there is the genuinely Hittite word utne ‘land, country’ with a preserved -tn- cluster, but without any source for paradigmatic leveling. Finally, Puhvel 1986a:54-57 (repeated in HED H:352-355) suggested an etymological connection of ḫuitar/n- ‘wild animal’ with ON vitnir ‘creature’ (< *Hu̯edni̯os). He concluded that inherited /dn/ with voiced stop does not undergo assimilation and, therefore, a preserved cluster -tn- cannot be used in this case for any proof of Luwian origin (accepted in Rieken 1999a:304-306 and EDHIL:355f.; undecided CLL:83; phonologically inacceptable Carruba 1966a:19 n. 27). In the absence of conclusive evidence for the Luwian origin of ḫuitar/ḫuitn- in Hittite context, it is assumed here that the word was also inherited into Hittite.

[E.R.]

1.3 Lycian B

*qidr-

‘(wild) animal’

1.3.1Derivatives

  1. qidr(e)i-(di)
  2. qidrala-
  3. qidrasa-

1.4 Hittite

ḫuitar/n-

‘wild animal’

1.4.1Literature / Comments

Lit: Starke 1990a:561f., HED H:352, EDHIL:355 and HW2:669-671.

[E.R.]

2. Reconstruction

2.1Reconstruction ‘animal’

With the equation of Hitt. ḫuitar/n-, CLuw. ḫuitar/n- (though the n-stem is found so far only in derivatives) and Lyc. B *qidr-, a Proto-Anatolian heteroclitic *Hu̯ed-r̥/n- can be reconstructed (thus Rieken 1999a:304-306). Rieken (ibid.) suggests reconstructing a Proto-Anatolian acrostatic paradigm *Hu̯ḗd-/Hu̯éd-, which is possible, but not verifiable, since the Luwian and Lycian -i- must not absolutely go back to *ē, but may instead originate in *e between labial glide w and dental. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:356) reconstructs instead a paradigm of the shape *h2éi̯d-r/*h2u̯id-n-ós, which is not supported in any way; cf. the lemma head.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see PAnat. *Hu̯ed-.

Cross-references