/assu-/
‘stone (monument)’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, common
- ID
- 1415
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/assu-/, (“SCALPRUM”)á-su-
‘stone’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme is attested eight times in the HLuw. corpus, and the relevant inscriptions can be found in the south and south-east of the HLuw. area in the Commagene, Tabal, and Karkamiš. All texts date to the 9th and 8th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | /assus/ | (“SCALPRUM”)á-su-sa | TÜNP 1, §2 (Karkamiš) |
| acc. sg. | /assun/ | “SCALPRUM”-su-na-a | KARKAMIŠ A6, §27 (Karkamiš) |
| “SCALPRUM”-su-na | KARKAMIŠ A15b, §23 (Karkamiš) | ||
| SCALPRUM-su-na | NİĞDE 1 (Tabal) | ||
| SCALPRUM-na | CEKKE, §28 (Karkamiš) | ||
| “SCALPRUM” | KARABURUN, §6 (Tabal) | ||
| dat./loc. sg. | /assuwi/ | “SCALPRUM”-wa/i | MALPINAR, §2(a) (Commagene) |
| abl./instr. | /assuwadi/ | “SCALPRUM”-su-wa/i-ti-i | KARKAMIŠ A6, §27 (Karkamiš) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The evidence for this lexeme displays the full range of possible spelling variants, always involving the logogram SCALPRUM (*268). In most attestations, the logogram covers part or all of the stem, but the full attestation in TÜNP 1 facilitates a secure interpretation.
While all attestations of /assu-/ include the logogram SCALPRUM (*268) in their spelling, this word is not the only one in HLuw. to contain this particular logogram. Rather, it can also be found with many other words besides, among them /kuttassar(i)-/ ‘orthostat’, /mana-/ ‘mina’ and more, sometimes in combination with other logograms such as CAPUT (*10).
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The present meaning was first suggested by Hawkins 2000a:127, not least because of the attributive use in KÖTÜKALE, §3, see HLuw. /assuwi(ya)-/(?) ‘of stone’; see under Derivative. Earlier interpretations viewed /assu-/ to mean ‘pillar’ vel sim., cf. e.g. Laroche 1960c:140, but a more general ‘stone’ seems rather more likely in the face of the form found in KÖTÜKALE, §3 modifying the noun /harwin/ ‘road’, there attested as 〈SCALPRUM-na VIA-na〉. Simon 2010b:252 suggests ‘stone (monument)’ vel sim.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The word is a common gender u-stem noun (cf. e.g. Weitenberg 1984a:300). A tentatively suggested link with Hittite aku- ‘stone’ (Hawkins 2000a:127) has since been refuted, see Simon 2008a:23 n. 10.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
āššu-
‘stone (monument)’1.2.1Transmission
The word is attested once in a NS copy of possibly the MH dupaduparša ritual of Kuwatalla and Šilalluḫi.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. | NA4a-aš-šu-uš[ | KBo 29.6 obv. 30 | (CTH 762, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
For the reading with final -uš, see CLL:38 (contra Starke 1985b:130 with -i[š?], who assumed that u-stems generally feature i-mutation).
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
NA4āššuš functions as an apposition that determines the kind of kumma- ‘sacred object’ in KBo 29.6 obv. 30: zaš=pa kuwatin kummaš NA4aššuš [urannuwammiš(?)] kummaya=tta urannundu [ … ] ‘As this pure object, the stone (monument), [is magnified(?)], let the [lord of the ritual and …] magnify the kummaya-!’ Apart from the determinative NA4 for stone objects, it is the equation with HLuw. (“SCALPRUM”)á-su- ‘stone’ (see under Lemma) that gave rise to the interpretation (see CLL:38, followed in HHw:s.v. ‘Säule’, Simon 2008a:23 n. 10, Simon 2010b:259, Simon 2013a:9 n. 19; not listed in DLL:34).
[E.R.]
1.2.5Compounds
- fAššui-wašḫa- (PN) (Melchert 2015a:412)
1.2.6Derivatives
1.2.6.1Uncertain Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The etymological connection of CLuw. āššu- (HLuw. á-su-) with Hitt. NA4aku- (formerly interpreted as ‘stone’, but now as ‘sea-shell’; cf. Hoffner 1978a:245), which was considered by Hawkins 2000a:155f. and repeated in Plöchl 2003a:22, is impossible for both semantic and phonological reasons. There is no way to equate Hitt. /g/ with Luw. /ss/ (see already Simon 2008a:23 n. 10). The gemination of the /-ss-/ in Luwian speaks either for an assimilation of the first laryngeal + *-s-, e.g. *(h1)éh1s-u- (cf. Melchert 1994a:78), or for the result of Čop’s Law, i.e. *(h1)ésu- > *(h1)éssu-.
[E.R.] [D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Generic words for ‘stone’ are usually named after their physical properties, cf. Buck 1949a:50–52.Two examples are the well-known nouns PIE *h2ék̑-mon- ‘stone’ (: PIE *h2ek̑- ‘sharp’, LIV²:18–22, NIL:287–300) and PGerm. *staina- ‘stone’ (: PIE *sti̯eH- ‘to stiffen’, LIV²:603).Since no derivational base or root in this semantic sphere are available for the current lemma, it may be suggested that PLuw. *ássu- ‘stone’ denoted originally a more specific type of stone.
It might be assumed that an *ássu-stone was ‘placed, set’ to fulfill a specific purpose, as is implied, e.g., by HLuw. /assuwi(ya)‑/(?) ‘(road) of stone’. There is, for example, evidence that the root PIE *sed- ‘to sit down’ (NIL:590–600) underlies terms for ‘(monuments) set up’, cf., e.g., OAv. hadǝma- n. ‘pedestal’.Roots meaning ‘to stand’ can also be used for ‘monuments’ and ‘stones’, cf. Lat. statua ‘statue < *what is set up’, SCr. stánac (kȁmēn) ‘(placed) rock’ as well as Lyc. A sttala- ‘engraved stone, stele’ (: PIE *steh2- ‘to stand’, NIL:637–658).Assuming a connection with PIE *h1es- ‘to be there; to sit’ (cf. PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to sit’ and PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’), we may reconstruct PLuw. *ássu- with a meaning ‘stone which is set (on a certain spot for a certain purpose)’, thus interpreting it as a substantivized attribute of a word for ‘stone’,Cf. the above-mentioned SCr. stánac (kȁmēn) ‘(standing) stone’ (Skôk III:327).viz. pre-PAnat. *h1és-u- ‘placed, set’.
3.1.1Root etymology
For the underlying root, cf. PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to sit’ and PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
One of the phonological interpretations sub PAnat. reconstruction (PAnat. *h1ésu-) is in line with the semantic reconstruction and the resulting connection with the root PIE *h1es- ‘to be there; to sit’ proposed above.Alternatively, PAnat. *h1ésu- may be connected either with PIE *h1é(h1)s‑u- ‘good’ (NIL:239–243, PAnat. *(h1)e(h1)s- ‘(to be) good, dear’) or with PIE 2.*h1es- ‘to throw, shoot’ (LIV²:242f.). The former possibility would make no good sense, but may still be connected etymologically via PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’ > (1) ‘to be close, dear’, (2) ‘to sit, be placed’ (PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to sit’), cf. for a parallel PIE *k̑ei̯- ‘to be near’ > (1) ‘to be close, dear’, (2) ‘to lie’. On the other hand, the connection with PIE 2.*h1es- ‘to throw, shoot’ (LIV²:242f.) would indicate the use of PLuw. *ássu- as a ‘sling stone’, which is not backed up by the data, however.PAnat. *h1ésu- ‘set, placed’ may be interpreted as a (proterokinetic) u-stem adjective pre-PAnat. *h1és‑u-/*h1s‑éu̯- ‘having a setting/position, (being) placed’ derived from an (acrostatic) u-stem abstract pre-PAnat. *h1ós‑u‑/*h1és‑u- ‘setting, position’.
[A.O.]
3.2.1Root etymology
For the underlying root, cf. PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to sit’ and PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’.
4. Transmission
No direct cognates are attested. Cf. PIE *h1ḗs‑/*h1és- ‘to sit’ and PIE 1.*h1es- ‘to be there’ for further transmission.