*áHreh₂-

In the Cuneiform Luwian corpus, the attestation of the rhyming formula āḫra- waḫra- is limited to texts of the Kuwattalla tradition (probably from MS onward).

[E.R.]

The attestation as listed follow CLL:s.v. with minor modifications; see also Kammenhuber 1985a:78-88. – The assignment of the common gender is based on the lack of the secondary ending -ša/-za and the nom. sg. a-aḫ-ra-aš at KUB 60.48 ii 8’ in Hittite transmission, assuming that the magic formula was borrowed verbatim without a transfer in gender as would be possible in normal appellative nouns.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Yakubovich 2017d restores a-aḫ-ra-〈an〉 at KUB 35.45 iii 24’, but this is not necessary given the firm collocation of the rhyming formula, cf. ḫuḫḫa ḫanniš ‘grandfather (and) grandmother’ at KUB 17.29 ii 6 (see Rieken 2005c:99f.). Another instance of āḫra waḫran is found at KUB 9.34 iii 22’ in Hittite transmission.

[E.R.]

CLuw. āḫra- occurs only together with waḫra- in a rhyming formula. The word pair denotes an evil that the ritual client spits out together with other evils in the course of the ritual. The central part of the formula is āḫran waḫran tappatta tāparu tātariyamman “he spat out āḫra- waḫra, tāparu, curse, perjury.” As Rosenkranz 1952a:51f. pointed out correctly, the semantics of āḫra- can be deduced more precisely from its derivative CLuw. āḫraman-. The -m(ma)n- stem is translated in the present dictionary as ‘state of painfulness’, which leads to an interpretation ‘pain’ for its base word āḫra-; cf. also Meriggi 1957a:209 (‘das Ach [und Weh]’), CLL:4 (‘pain, woe’ or sim.), Hutter 2003a:262 (‘pain’), Ünal 2007a:8f. (‘pain, sorrow’), HHw:s.v. (‘Weh, Leid, Pein’); different Kammenhuber 1985a:78, followed in Hutter 1988a:81 (‘Unreinheit’); still without gloss Otten 1953a:92f., DLL:23, HEG A-K:5, HW²:46.

[E.R.]

The common gender stem does not feature i-mutation. Therefore, it belongs to the -a- stem nouns, which accords well with its abstract meaning. The suffix -ra- would be derived from an interjection *aḫ (cf. NHG ach!), see under Reconstruction.

[E.R.]

1. āḫraman-

Within Hittite transmission, several occurrences of the rhyming formula āḫra- waḫra- are found in the Tunnawiya ritual with its strong affinities to the Luwian rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition. The other attestations come from ritual fragments of unknown attribution.

[E.R.]

The attestations as listed follow CLL:s.v. with minor modifications; see also Kammenhuber 1985a:78-88.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – An emendation of a-aḫ-ra at KUB 9.34 iii 22’ as a-aḫ-ra-〈an〉 is not needed in the fixed collocation of the rhyming formula (see also āḫra waḫran in the Cuneiform Luwian corpus). The same phenomenon is seen in ḫuhha ḫanniš ‘grandfather (and) grandmother’ at KUB 17.29 ii 6 (Rieken 2005c:99f.).

[E.R.]

The rhyming formula āḫran waḫran is transferred unchanged to the Hittite context, where it is either the direct object of allappaḫḫ-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to spit’ (corresponding to Luw. tappa- ‘to spit’) or cited as the incipit of an incantation.

[E.R.]

For the stem formation, see āḫra- in Luwian transmission.

[E.R.]

The Luwian origin of āḫra- is not in doubt due to its attestation in Cuneiform Luwian context and the Tunnawi ritual abounding with Luwianisms (Otten 1953a:92f., Meriggi 1957a:209, DLL:23, HW²:46, CLL:4, Hutter 2003a:262, Ünal 2007a:8f., HHw:s.v.).

[E.R.]

This lexeme is found in a Palaic festival text.

[D.S.]

The sequence -kat in a-ar-ra-kat is here taken as an enclitic demonstrative pronoun (following Melchert 1984b:28-30); see under lemma ka-. For the diverging view that -k- in -kat represent a separate morpheme and -at the instrumental ending cf. Starke 1990a:71-74, 72 n. 165, Eichner 2010a:51-53.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

A priori, there are two possible interpretations for the semantics of ārra-:

(A) The word a-ar-ra=kat is the direct object of lukī- ‘to break (into pieces)’, which takes various breads as direct object in another context. The attestation of a-ar-ra=kat in KUB 35.163 ii 21’ is preceded by a Hittite passage, which makes mention of a type of bread (NINDA.ÉRIN), which is picked up by the Old Woman (KUB 35.163 ii 11’-12’). Afterwards, the palace official is holding the ritual material of clay, which he brings to the royal couple and rotates over them. Then, the Hittite passage ends by saying that while the palace official performs the cleansing rotation, the Old Woman utters the Palaic speech. Since the Old Woman is probably still holding the bread, while she speaks in Palaic, it is possible that a-ar-ra-kat refers to the NINDA.ÉRIN, i.e. a-ar-ra-kat lu-u-ki-it ‘This ārra-bread (she) broke into pieces.’.

(B) The word a-ar-ra=kat could represent something bad that is being treated within the ritual. Carruba 1970a:51, 77 and likewise Melchert (CLL:4, Melchert 1994a:219) suggests a connection with CLuw. āḫra- c. ‘pain, woe’ comparing also Pal. wārra- with CLuw. waḫra- c., which is very attractive. Furthermore, Melchert (CLL: loc. cit.) also adduces Hittite āi- and wāi-. If the comparison is correct and Palaic ārra- could mean ‘pain’, then the first sentence of the incantation would mean a-ar-ra-kat lu-u-ki-it ‘This pain (he/she) broke into pieces.’ or ‘This pain (he/she) removed.’. This would be in accordance with the rest of the passage, which says that mother and father will purify something. No meaning is offered in Carruba 1972a:53.

Overall, the second interpretation has more support and is here preferred.

[D.S.]