tamma(/i)-
‘cut, incision’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 1686
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
tamma(/i)-
‘cut, incision’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is a hapax legomenon attested in a Luwian ritual following a mythological narrative about the wrath of a deity (for a recent comprehensive edition and commentary of the text see Steitler 2017a:387-399; cf. also Starke 1985b: 236-242, Groddek 2007a: 317-326 and Torri 2010a: 384-388).
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. pl. or coll. | ta-am-ma | KUB 35.107 iii 20’ | (CTH 764, MS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
Following Meriggi 1980a:363, Melchert (CLL:203) considers the interpretation of tamma as a neuter nom./acc.pl of the participle of the verb ‘to take’, despite contextual problems (accepted in Tischler 2008a:162 and perhaps implicitly in HEG III:6). Also on phonological grounds, this cannot be accepted because the verb la- ‘to take’ and its reduplicated stem lala- are consistently represented with a lateral. Moreover, the attested participlelaimma/i- shows a different stem formation. In contrast, Starke 1990a:329 suggests a connection with a hypothetical Luwian stem *tamma/i- ‘other’ (probably assuming a cognate of Hittite dam(m)ai- ‘other’) in adverbial use. However, this would ignore the syntactic parallelism with the preceding and following sentences, which consist of a particle chain, a predicative noun in the accusative referring to the object, the preverbs anda or annan in tmesis, an object noun and a verb. Thus, the formtamma functions as the object (Melchert 1998b:217). As shown by Steitler 2017a:387-39 (building on Melchert 1988b:2017), the context describes the fashioning of substitute head for the ailing head of the patient. It is made of a vessel filled with water, which probably pours from two holes representing weeping eyes, and representations of the nose, ears and hair. The nose is incised (kuš(a)i-), which implies that tamma, the object of the verb, are incisions (Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:531f.; accepted by Steitler 2017a:399).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The form tamma is ambiguous towards the stem, which may be either a nom./acc. pl. of a thematic stem tamm(a)- or a coll. of a mutated stem tamm(i)- c. or a non-mutated stem tamma- c. Since we do not expect tamma- c. (< *-eh2-) to lose its stem final vowel when the adjectival -i(ya)- suffix is attached (cf. tammi(ya)- under Derivatives and see Reconstruction), the most economical assumption is an originally thematic stem (of unknown gender).
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
If the lexical assignment is correct, tamm(a)- (or tamm(i)-) belongs to the root *tamm- < *temh1- ‘cut’ and goes back to an abstract noun *tómh1-o- of the tómos type.
[E.R.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
According to LIV²:625, the PIE root *temh1- (or *(s)temh1-, cf. sub Morphological Reconstruction) means ‘to cut’. From this primary meaning, which is best reflected by Gk. τέμνω ‘to cut’, most secondary verbal and nominal meanings can be explained (cf. LIV²:625 and below sub Morphological Reconstruction).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The root is reconstructed in LIV²:625 as PIE *temh1- ‘to cut’, the root-final laryngeal h1 being suggested, e.g., by the verbal adjective Gk. τμητός ‘cut, shaped by cutting’ < *tm̥h1-tó-; cf. also Gk. τέμενος n. ‘separated piece of land, precinct, holy area’ if from *témh1-nos-. However, if several words denoting ‘mouth; ear’ (cf. Hitt. ištama(n)-/ištamin- ‘ear’, CLuw. tummant- ‘id.’, Gk. στόμα ‘mouth’, YAv. staman(a)- ‘mouth [of a dog]’, etc.) are related as well, the root has rather to be reconstructed as *(s)temh1-, i.e. with an s-mobile; cf. the discussion s.v. PAnat. *st(m̥)(H)mEn- ‘ear’.
[T.S.]