artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i-

This word is only attested in a LNS ritual, probably written by the scribe Attanali (cf. Miller 2012a: 101, n. 11; 109; for this group of texts as ‘redacted’ in the manner of Arušna, cf. Miller 2010a and Miller 2012a).

[A.B.]

acc. pl. c.

ar-RI-li-ia-mi-uš

KUB 44.50 obv. i? 9’

(CTH 500, LNS)

The attestation follows CLL:7 and HW 2nd ed. A:297 (cf. Ünal 2007a:50, Ünal 2016a:78, 86 van den Hout 2006a:248, Miller 2010a:6; not in Laroche 1959a). The transliteration has been checked against the photo in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

The exact reading of the second sign RI in this form is unclear, because it could be used for the syllabic values ri or tal. According to E. Rieken (pers. comm.), the syllabic value tal for the sign RI is only rarely attested in position after -r- in the corpus of Hittite festival texts, but it cannot be excluded. While HW 2nd ed. A:297 and Ünal 2007a:50 assume arriliyama/i-, CLL:7 suggests a reading artalliyama/i- (cf. Miller 2010a:6). Ünal 2016a:78, 86 lists both possible words and Tischler 2008a:27 (cf. Tischler 2016a:32) remains undecided regarding the reading, cf. under Origin.

[A.B.]

No meaning has so far been proposed for this hapax. Only HW 2nd ed. A:297 assumes “(ein Gegenstand)”. The context of KUB 44.50 obv. i^? 9’ shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy has been taken into account):

^(9’)[… din]girMEŠ máš.gal udu.níta ar-RI-li-ia-mi-uš […]

^(9’)[… go]ds a goat, a ram (and^?) artal/riliyama/i-^(pl.) […]

The fragmentary context does not exactly show the function of artal/riliamiuš other than that it either is or belongs to a direct object. It could be a substantive, cf. HW 2nd ed. A:297, or an adjective (cf. Tischler 2008a:24, Tischler 2016a:27) describing either a preceding or a following noun.

If it is an adjective, it could either belong to a substantive that is lost in the following broken part of the line (cf. the photo in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv) or at the beginning of the next line, or to the preceding word ‘ram’. The fact that udu.níta appears without a Sumerographic plural marker (which is not obligatory, but still frequently used) makes it less probable that artal/riliamiuš (as a plural form) specifies this word.

If it is a noun, one could assume another animal relevant for the ritual since the Glossenkeilwort appears in a list with two sacrificial animals. HW 2nd ed. A:347f. lists a bird name ard/ta- attested in rituals, which may be connected if the interpretation as artalliyama/i- applies (cf. under Origin). In contrast, a connection to the similar looking Hitt. ^URURDUardala- ‘saw’, cf. the lemma in HW 2nd ed. A:348, is not only phonologically problematic (it shows a non-geminate -l-, which rather points to the Hitt. suffix -ala-) but also semantically less probable with regard to the context.

On the other hand, Tischler 2008a:24 (cf. Tischler 2016a:27) considers a connection with an object artalla- or arrila- that could denote a type of wool (cf. Haas 2002b:500) since it appears next to the Sumerogram síg in KBo 38.265++ obv. i 4’ (cf. Wegner 2002a:117). The exact reading of this word remains unclear and it is also not known if the preceding Sumerogram for ‘wool’ síg actually belongs to this word as a determinative. If so, the Glossenkeilwort could denote (as a substantive or substantivized adjective) a certain kind of sheep or wool, or qualify (as an adjective) some related noun in the broken part of the text (cf. under Origin).

Either way, this derivation would not only be morphologically plausible but also fit in the context with the sacrificial animals listed before this word. Hence artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i- probably means something like ‘of artalla/i- or arrila/i- (a type of wool^?)’, in this context probably a sacrificial animal or ritual item characterized by this feature of unknown meaning.

[A.B.]

The attested form is unambiguously Hittite, yet artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i- is assumed to be of Luwian origin by CLL:7, Tischler 2008a:27 and Tischler 2016a:32 (it also appears in the list of Luwianisms by van den Hout 2006a:248, but not in that by Melchert 2005a), Ünal 2016a:952 refers to this word as “artalliyaman-” in his list of Luwianisms (which does however not correspond to the attestation). One reason why scholars have assumed it to be a Luwianism is the gloss marker, and although its use does not constitute proof of a word´s Luwian origin (cf. Schwartz 1938a:75, 78 and Melchert 2005a:445), the vast majority of words provided with this marker are in fact of Luwian origin. Another point is that the text belongs to a certain group of rituals ‘redacted’ in the manner of the city of Arušna in Kizzuwatna (cf. Miller 2010a:510, Miller 2012a:95).

With regard to the stem formation, Tischler 2008a:24 (cf. Tischler 2016a:27) considers that ⁽SÍG^?)artalla- or ⁽SÍG^?)arrila- could be connected. If this is the base, artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i- could have been derived from this word with the Luwian suffixes -iya- (forming adjectives from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:197) and -ama/i- (forming adjectives of appurtenance from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:195). Accordingly, artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i- would be a Luwian loan word in Hittite.

The assumed base ⁽SÍG^?)artalla- or ⁽SÍG^?)arrila- (the word is not included in any of the etymological dictionaries and no etymology has yet been proposed for it) could be either of Luwian or Hittite origin (the actual base of artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i- would hence be either a Luwian word or a Hittite loan word in Luwian). With regard to the source word, a formation artalla/i- seems more probable than arrila-, yet the latter cannot be completely excluded. Still, for artalla/i- two productive suffixes are conceivable; either the Luwian suffix -alla/i- (forming adjectives from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:195) or the Hittite suffix -(a)t(t)alla- (forming common gender agent nouns, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:57). The base of this word could be either a Luwian noun *arta- which could be connected to a bird name arta- attested in Hittite (perhaps as loan or foreign word) or a Hittite verb *ar- (of unknown meaning). But the underlying meaning (or motive of designation, respectively) and origin of this word remains obscure and needs further research.

To conclude, if the above-described derivation with the Luwian suffix -ama/i- applies for artalliyama/i- or arriliyama/i-, it is most probably a Luwian loan word in Hittite.

[A.B.]