/huhadalla/i-/

Attested only once, this hapax legomenon can be found in an inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the late 10^th or early 9^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

nom. sg. c.

/huhadallis/

AVUS-ha-tà-li-sa

KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §2 (Karkamiš)

The adjective is derived from the noun /huhad(i)-/ ‘great-grandfather’, and its original meaning is therefore likely to have been ‘great-grandfatherly’. However, the context in KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §2 suggests that the denotation has become less narrow and either encompasses a broader ‘ancestral’ now or has shifted to that meaning entirely, because it is paired with /tadalla/i-/ ‘paternal’ without any mention of the intervening generation of /huha-/ ‘grandfather’. Apart from that, the clause is rather difficult to interpret due to a string of possessives (one pronoun, two adjectives, and one genitive) whose syntactic relationships are not yet fully understood: a-wa/i za-a-sa URBS+MI-ni-i-sa *a-mi-sá tá-tà-li-sa AVUS-ha-tà-li-sa ^I*447-nu-wa/i-ia-si *a-sa-tá, approx. /a=wa zas …-nis ammis tadallis huhadallis Ninuwiyassi asta/, possibly meaning ‘And this city of my father(s) (and) ancestor(s) was (that) of Ninuwiya’. Hawkins 2000a:103f. tentatively translates ‘This city of my father and grandfather [sic!] was Ninuwis(?)’s’.

[AH.B.]

Derived from /huhad(i)-/ ‘great-grandfather’, the present adjective is formed with the suffix /-alla/i-/, which builds adjectives of appurtenance. The suffix is no longer productive in HLuw. and only still present in a small number of lexemes, among them kinship terms such as /tadalla/i-/ ‘paternal’. In other forms, the function of the suffix has been taken over by /-i(ya)-/, and /tad(i)-/ ‘father’ and /huhad(i)-/ ‘great-grandfather are, in fact, two examples showing the shift directly, because both feature forms with /-i(ya)-/ as well: /tadalla/i-/ vs. /tadi(ya)-/ ‘paternal’, and /huhadalla/i-/ vs. /huhadi(ya)-/ ‘of great-grandfather, ancestral’ (see Bauer 2014a:163f.).

[AH.B.]

For the derivational base, see HLuw. /huhad(i)-/.

The lexeme is attested twice in a mythological text of the Kumarbi-Cycle (NS).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. pl. n.	ḫu-u-ḫa-da-al-la	KUB 33.106 iii 50’	(CTH 345, NS)
	[ḫ]u-ḫa-da-al-l[a]	KBo 26.65 ii 17’	(CTH 345, NS)

The first step of the semantic elucidation goes back to Güterbock 1946a:27, 78. His translation ‘großväterzeitlich’ is based on the coordination with annalla attalla “uralt, väterzeitlich” and the derivation from Hitt. ḫūḫḫa- ‘grandfather’; cf. EGIR-pa-at ḫé-e-eš-tén an-na-al-la at-ta-al-la ḫu-u-ḫa-da-al-la ˹É˺ ^NA₄KIŠIB^ḪI.A “Open them again, the ancient fatherly and grandfatherly storerooms!” (KUB 33.106 iii 50’f.). Despite the skepticism of Sturtevant 1947a:355, the interpretation has been generally accepted (CLL:71, HEG A-K:262, HED H:357, HW² Ḫ:639, Ünal 2007a:220, EDHIL:353).

However, comparison with Hieroglyphic Luwian suggests that /huhad(i)-/ is a substantival kinship term derived from, but not semantically identical with /huha-/ ‘grandfather’, the two being part of the list /tadin huhan huhadin huhadulin=ha/ “father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and forefather” (see under Lemma). As a consequence, CLuw. ḫūḫadalla/i- must refer either to the preceding generation, i.e. the ‘great-grandfather’ as in Hieroglyphic Luwian, or, more generally, to the ancestors as a whole. In the two Cuneiform Luwian passages, skipping mention of the grand-father between the father and the great-grandfather would not make sense, strongly suggesting that the meaning ‘ancestor’ is the most adequate one.

[E.R.]

While the recognition of the final suffix -alla/i- is undisputed, the preceding morpheme was classified variously as -att(i)- (Starke 1987a:260f., repeated in Starke 1990a:306, CLL:71), as -ant- (HEG A-K:262, HED H:357), as artificially built in the course of “the complete Hittitization of the translator” (HW² A:562; counter-argued in Beckman 1981a:211), and as formed in analogy with dadalla ‘fatherly’ occurring in the same line (Starke apud Oettinger 1986b:46, HW² Ḫ:639). However, the comparison with HLuw. /huhadalla/i-/ (see under Lemma) spelled with ⟨tà⟩ /da/ shows that the singleton -d- in Hittite transmission renders the word accurately (Rieken 2008b:642). The underlying suffix is presumably /-ad(i)-/; cf. PLuw. *Habā́d-.

[E.R.]

A Luwian background for the word was first considered by van Brock 1962a:135. Later Starke 1987a:100f. specified the suffix as Luw. -lli- (better -alla/i-) using it as a parallel for the personal name Ουαναλις ‘die Frauliche’. The word is now listed as Luwian in CLL:71 and EDHIL:353; for acceptance of the Luwian origin, see also Melchert 2005a:452 and Rieken 2008b:642. Other dictionaries seem to presuppose that ḫūḫadalla is a Hittite word, e.g. HED H:357, Ünal 2007a:220.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. ḫūḫa-.