/kuttass(a)r(i)-/, (“SCALPRUM”)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-
‘orthostat’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, common
- ID
- 1550
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/kuttass(a)r(i)-/, (“SCALPRUM”)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-
‘orthostat’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested 14 times in inscriptions from Karkamiš, dating from the 10th or early 9th to the 8th century BCE. The fact that the attestations are limited to the region of Karkamiš is probably caused by the high level of monumentality of the surviving inscriptions from there; these types of texts offer the context for using the lexeme, cf. the discussion of the meaning below.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | /kuttass(a)ris/ | ˹“STELE”?˺ku-˹ta˺-sa5+ra/i-sa | ŞARAGA, §1 (Karkamiš) |
| dat./loc. sg. | /kuttass(a)ri/ | (SCALPRUM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-i | KARKAMIŠ A16b (Karkamiš) |
| (“SCALPRUM”)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-i | KARKAMIŠ A13d, §5 (Karkamiš) | ||
| nom. pl. | /kuttass(a)rinzi/ | (SCALPRUM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-zi | KARKAMIŠ A11a, §15 (Karkamiš) |
| acc. pl. | /kuttass(a)rinzi/ | [(SCALPR]UM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-zi-i | KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §23 (Karkamiš) |
| (SCALPRUM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-zi | KARKAMIŠ A11a, §23 (Karkamiš) | ||
| (SCALPRUM)ku-tá-sa5+ra/i-zi | KARKAMIŠ A18e, §5 (Karkamiš) | ||
| (SCALPRUM)[k]u-tá-sa5+ra/i-zi | KARKAMIŠ A27e, frag. 2, §4 (Karkamiš) | ||
| dat./loc. pl. | /kuttass(a)ranza/ | (SCALPRUM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-za | KARKAMIŠ A20a, §3 (Karkamiš) |
| (“SCALPRUM”)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-za | KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §24 (Karkamiš) | ||
| [ku-ta-]sa5+ra/i-z[a] | KARKAMIŠ A14a, §8 (Karkamiš) | ||
| unclear | [(SCALPRUM)]ku-ta-[...] | KARKAMIŠ A26b, l.1 (Karkamiš) | |
| SCALPRUM?-tá(-)[ | KARKAMIŠ A30a4 (Karkamiš) | ||
| SCALPRUM?-tá-x(-)[ | KARKAMIŠ A30a2 (Karkamiš) |
It cannot be fully ascertained whether the two fragmentary attestations KARKAMIŠ A30a2/a4 belong with this lemma or not; too little is left to judge.
Nowicki 1981a:266 attributed a word from KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §17 to the present lexeme, but the signs are now generally read in a different order, voiding the basis for his suggestion.
Another attestation may belong to the present lexeme, viz. 〈MAGNUS SCALPRUM+ra/i?〉 in TÜRKMEN-KARAHÖYÜK 1, §5, thus suggested by Peker 2020a:250 against Goedegebuure et al. 2020a:38.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word is reasonably secure, not least because of its Hittite/Luwian(?) cognate (dat./loc. sg.) NA4ku-ut-ta-aš-ša-ri. Starke 1990a:426-430 interprets the spelling as /kuttasri-/, which is possible. It is noteworthy that (almost?) all unbroken attestations use a determinative with full phonetic writing. Regarding the determinative, the change between STELE (sign *267) Or possibly only LAPIS (sign *267 without *268 inscribed)? Not enough is preserved in ŞARAGA, §1 to judge whether the presumed stone shape had the internal markings that differentiate the two signs. and SCALPRUM nicely illustrates some common principles behind the use of determinatives; STELE/LAPIS refers to the object or its material, while SCALPRUM indicates the tool the object is fashioned with (for the latter, cf. Payne 2018a).
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning assigned follows that established (without further comment) in Hawkins 1972a:102, building on an earlier suggestion by Bossert 1952a:509 and followed by most scholars since. Older or other interpretations saw the word meaning ‘wall’ (Meriggi in HHG:77) and ‘brickwork’ (Neumann 1988a:258), and semantically close to Hitt./Luw.(?) NA4ku-ut-ta-aš-ša-ri ‘masonry, orthostat’. Notably both are within the same semantic sphere as ‘orthostat’, i.e. purposefully erected vertical surfaces that can be adorned with inscriptions and depictions, often of deities. The frequent use of SCALPRUM (sign *268) for a logographic determinative was identified by Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1982a:96 as a semantic indicator used for words denoting stone objects. Starke 1990a:429 notes that it does not become fully clear from the attestations whether the carrier material was always stone, yet he suspects that this may be implied, or indeed expressed with the logogram SCALPRUM.
A semantically clear context is KARKAMIŠ A11a, §23: za-zi-pa-wa/i-tá (SCALPRUM)ku-ta-sa5+ra/i-zi *a-LOCUS-za (SA4)sá-ní-ti, approx. /zanzi=ba=wa=tta kuttass(a)rinzi allant=za sanidi/, meaning ‘(And if) he (scil. whoever intends harm to the installation) covers these orthostats, (i.e.) the place’ (cf. Starke 1990a:427, Hawkins 2000a:96, and the verb HLuw. /sann(a)i-(di)/).
On the importance of orthostats in the HLuw. region, see Aro 2003a:311.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
A common gender noun, this word is assumed to undergo i-mutation, although this is difficult to detect in the attested forms due to the vocalic ambiguity of the sign 〈+ra/i〉; only the attested dat./loc. sg. forms with additional 〈-i〉 at the end show that an a-stem noun is unlikely. Starke 1990a:429 hypothesizes that the HLuw. form is originally a derived adjective from an unattested noun */kuttassar-/ with later substantivization, which is unnecessary; see under Reconstruction. Neumann 1988a:258f. assumed a formation related to the Hittite nouns in -eššar/-ešnaš as the basis for the present lemma; he followed Kronasser 1966a:289 in regarding them as concretised verbal abstracts; but cf. under Reconstruction. In any case, the present base gave rise to the verb /kuttass(a)ri-/ ‘to furnish (with) (an) orthostat(s)’; see under Derivatives.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Considering the that the Luwian or Hittite word for ‘orthostat’ is likely to be a borrowed architectural term, one should be careful about analysing its morphology. Its appurtenance to the Hittite word kutta- ‘wall’ though is secured. If it goes back to the PIE root *g̑heu̯- ‘to pour’, the retention of the phoneme *g̑h- in the Luwian language could be used as an argument for a Hittite loanword into Luwian (thus Meriggi 1980a:314). However, the outcome of the palatalized velar in Luwian is still debated in its details; Kloekhorst 2010a:228f. and Melchert 2012a (cf. Kimball 1994c:82) assume its retention before back vowels, about which we are not convinced, and we would therefore take this as an argument against a genuine Luwian word; for further evidence, see Lyd. u-(d).
Melchert 2002e:300f. argues that Luw. /kuttass(a)r(i)-/ is a compound made of /kutta-/ ‘wall’ and /-ass(a)r(i)-/ ‘image’ (= Hitt. ēšš(a)ri- ‘image’), which is not impossible, but highly speculative. If BAD-eššar represents /kuttessar/, a formation in -eššar/n-, as defended in Tischler (HEG I-K:676f.), this would bring further evidence to the loanword hypothesis. Luwian would have borrowed the heteroclitic substantive and turned it into a common gender mutated stem; cf. mu-ki-SUPER+ra/i. Therefore, the attestation NA4ku-ut-ta-aš-ša-ri (KUB 26.92, 11’, NS letter) could be taken as the Luwian loanword from Hittite because of its a-vocalism. On the other hand, if BAD-eššar does not match (cf. HED K:297, Rieken 1999a:136 n. 630, EDHIL:499; BAD-eššar = /sahessar/), dat./loc. sg. NA4ku-ut-ta-aš-ša-ri could be genuine Hittite and represents a formation in -š(ša)ra-. In this case, a Luwian loanword from Hittite would be equally unproblematic. In any case, a genuine Luwian word as given in Melchert 2005a:451 (also Rieken 1999a:136 with further literature and Melchert 2003b:198f.) is by no means cogent and depends on the phonological outcome of *g̑(h) in Luwian, as point out above.
[D.S.]