*st(m̥)(H)mEn-
‘ear’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 1643
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/tumman(t)-/
‘ear’1.1.1Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
GEŠTU-
‘ear’1.2.1Transmission
Both attestations come from parallel passages in the Luwian ritual against the illness of the head and the eyes (from MS onward). Cf. also CLuw. tumman(t)- n. ‘ear’ in Hittite transmission.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| gen. adj. nom./acc. sg. | UZUGEŠTU-za | KUB 35.88 iii 16’ | (CTH 766, NS) |
| gen. adj. nom./acc. pl. | GEŠTUḪI.A-ša | KUB 35.89, 13’ | (CTH 766, MS) |
Melchert (CLL:232) proposes an emendation as GEŠTU-za at KUB 35.89, 13̂, a form that would show correct agreement with the head noun GIG-za (nom./acc. sg. n.). Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe that the scribe had a neuter plural in -ašša in mind (cf. also the plural determinative ḪI.A). – Contra Starke 1990a:133, there is no positive indication for a Luwian reading of GEŠTU-an at KUB 8.83, 4’ (see already CLL:232).
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The reading of GEŠTU ‘ear’ as /tumman(t)-/ is based on the evidence of tum-ma-a-an in Hittite transmission (see under Lemma) and the derivatives tūm(m)anti(ya)-(ti) ‘to hear’ and tummantiya- c. ‘obedience’ (semantic interpretation since Bossert 1956a:205-208; further references are listed in the individual lemmata).
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
For the logogram GEŠTU, see Rüster & Neu 1989a:no. 317.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Derivatives
tummantiya-1.2.5.1Rejected Derivatives
1.3 Luwian in Hittite transmission
tumman(t)-
‘ear (?)’1.3.1Transmission
This lexeme is found in a festival text.
[E.R.]
1.3.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. or pl. | tum-ma-a-an | KUB 35.4 ii 5’ | (CTH 670, NS) |
Melchert (CLL:232) considers tum-ma-a-an to be a neuter plural form (probably on account of the plene spelling thought to render the reflex of a lengthened grade, see Melchert 2003b:187, Yakubovich 2015b:7), but admits that a singular form is equally possible.
[E.R.]
1.3.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.3.4Meaning
The fragmentary context of the syllabic spelling does not allow any conclusions regarding the meaning or the grammatical form, but tummān is fully compatible with what can be expected for the nom./acc. sg. or pl. n. of tumman(t)- ‘ear’ reconstructed from its derivatives (DLL:99, Starke 1990a:133f., CLL:232, HEG T/D: 432, EDHIL:412).
[E.R.]
1.3.5Stem
If the semantic assignment is correct, the stem is neuter tumman(t)- with loss of final -t in auslaut position, as posited in Starke 1990a:133f., followed in CLL:232, HEG T/D:432, EDHIL:412. Outdated DLL:99, following Bossert 1956a:208 with erroneous morphological analysis of tummantetta at KUB 35.43 ii 8; see, instead under Lemma tūm(m)anti-(ti) ‘to hear’.
[E.R.]
1.4 Lycian A
*tm͂mãt-
‘ear (?)’1.4.1Compounds
- esitm͂mãta- (PN)? (Neumann 2007a:79)
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘ear’
CLuw. tummant- n. ‘ear’ has been etymologically compared to Hitt. ištaman-/ištamen- c. ‘ear’ (Oettinger 1982a:235, Melchert 1994a:73f., HEG T:432, EDHIL:412f.). The Lycian word adduced by Neumann is still too unsecured to be of any historical value. The Luwian vowel -u- of the root has been explained as an anaptyptic vowel, arising from sequence *sth3mn̥-t- and colored to u (Oettinger 1982a:235, Melchert 1994a:73f., EDHIL:412f.), but withdrawn in Oettinger 2003a:147f. (followed by Melchert 2007-2008a:184). The presence of a laryngeal influencing the vocalic outcome of *m̥ in CLuw. tummant- (cf. the derivatives for plene tūm(m)ant-) /túmmant-/ (or even /tḿ̥mant-/) < *sth3mn̥-t- is possible, especially if one compares PAnat. *septm̥ as Luwian šap(pa)tam(m)-. The suggestion Oettinger 2003a:149 of simple u-anaptyxis adducing other Hittite examples (šummittant- ‘axe’, šumumaḫḫ-(i) ‘to unite’, teššummi- ‘cup’) does not account for the distribution with the word for ‘seven’ nor for the frequent u-plene in the derivatives of tummant-, although the different types of u- and a-vocalization of resonants in Luwian is still an unsettled issue. A different approach is to assume that the -ū- represents an accented vocalic *ḿ̥; cf. Luw. ú-um-ma-ia < *ḿ̥-moih1-eh2 (see CLuw. ūmmaya-). As for the word for ‘seven’, the absence of u-vocalism or, in other words, the presence of a-vocalism might be due to the unaccented vocalic *m̥. Under these circumstances, the root *(s)temh1- ‘to cut’, i.e. < *stḿ̥mant- < *stm̥h1-mEn-t-, defended by Oettinger 2003a:147-149 would be phonologically plausible. Nonetheless, it remains difficult to posit the specific shape of the root based on these data alone; cf. the Proto-Indo-European lemma below. Oettinger 2003a:149 interprets tummān as a collective form (cf. Melchert 2007-2008a:184), reconstructing *stm̥h1-ṓn(t)-, which is formally possible, but the interpretation and the value of the attested form, which is found in a fragmentary context pertaining to gardeners, is dubious; see under lemma.
The morphological divergence between the Luwian and the Hittite cognates has been attributed to an original neuter stem in *-men-, which would have received a dental extension in Luwian, whereas in Hittite it would have simply been transferred to the common gender class of n-stems (Oettinger 1982a:235, EDHIL:411f.; cf. Oettinger 2003a:149 and Melchert 2007-2008a:184 for an ablauting paradigm).
[D.S.]