*udnéi̯h2
‘land’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 1886
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/wattani(ya)-/, REGIO-ni-ia-
‘country, area’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme is attested approx. 40 times in the HLuw. corpus. The inscriptions were found throughout most of the HLuw. area, and the texts date between approx. 1200 and the early 7th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
The attestation in KARKAMIŠ A16a, §1 is to be taken with caution, as several pieces of this severely fragmented inscription no longer exist and are poorly documented, cf. Hawkins 2000a:190f.
In YALBURT frag. 4, §3, Hawkins 1995a:67 reads 〈REGIO-ní-zi/a〉, but the second sign of the word is difficult to identify; Poetto 1993a:33 reads 〈na5〉 instead.
[AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The current phonological interpretation resulted from an extended scholarly discussion, with the first proposition made by Hawkins 2000a:97 who suggested reading the form */utni-/. This was altered by Yakubovich 2010d:237 into */wadni-/ and has since been changed to /wattani(ya)-/ based on a CLuw. wattani(ya)-, cf. Yakubovich 2019a:552, whose meaning had been opaque for a long time, cf. CLL:267.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The original identification of the meaning was achieved via the logogram REGIO (sign *229), see Sayce 1881a:299, in his study of the Tarkondemos seal. The assigned meaning quickly found acceptance, cf. Meriggi 1934a:136 and later Bossert 1956b:41, whereas the uncovering of the underlying phonological shape took longer, see the discussion above. The lexeme is not just attested in many inscriptions, but also in many seals. In the inscriptions, the word can be used to denote both ‘country’ and ‘land, area’.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The word is a neuter gender noun as becomes obvious from the attestations. On the synchronic level, it appears to be a derivation in -i(ya)-, but it is historically more complex, see under Reconstruction.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Compounds
The word is not just attested as a simplex, but frequently occurs as the first member of the compound REGIO.DOMINUS ‘country lord’, whose phonological interpretation was recently suggested by Yakubovich 2019a:554 n. 67 to be /wattani-niya-/.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
wattani(ya)-
‘land, country’1.2.1Transmission
The two instances with syllabic spelling are found in a festival text and in the Ritual for the Sick Child (both NS).
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | wa-at-ta-ni-ia-an | KBo 13.260 iii 15’ | (CTH 766, NS) |
| dat./loc. sg. | wa-at-ta-ne-i | KUB 35.133 ii 24’ | (CTH 665, LNS) |
| gen. adj. nom. pl. c. | KUR.KURḪI.A-zi | KUB 35.114, 2’ | (CTH 770, NS) |
The form wa-at-⸢ta-an⸣ (KBo 7.68 iii 19) in highly fragmentary context is wholly unclear. It could be the 2pl. impv. act. of a verb *wa- or the acc. sg. of a neuter watta(n)- (the latter is apparently assumed in DLL:110 and CLL:267, listing wattanei and wattan together); differently Starke 1990a:525 n. 1940. – Contra CLL:267, wa-at-ta-ni-ia-an at KBo 13.260 iii 15’ clearly belongs to the present lemma (see under Meaning). – Assignment of KUR.KURḪI.A-zi at KUB 35.114, 2’ to this lemma is not assured due to the logographic spelling, but if correct, the common gender form can only be built from a genitival adjective (with suffix -i(ya)- or -ašša/i-), but not the neuter base noun itself.
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The use of the sign NE (KUB 35.133 ii 24’) in Luwian context is unique, but probably not accidental, since the correspondence between Hitt. utne- ‘land, country’, spelled ⟨ut-ne-e⟩, and Luw. ⟨wa-at-ta-ne-i⟩ was surely transparent to the scribes.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
The semantics of this word have been elucidated by Melchert (apud Oettinger 2004b:133; published 2010) and Yakubovich 2010a:236-238. The former contributed a coherent translation of KUB 35.133 ii 24’ (24’)DU AN a-wa za-aš-ti wa-at-ta-ne-i (25’)az-za-aš-ti-is wa-a-šu ú-ut-ti-iš wa-a-šu “Storm-god of Heaven, in this here country you shall eat well, you shall drink well,” while the latter was able to make sense of KBo 13.260 iii 13’-15’, a passage about the removal of the impurity and its transfer to the enemy: (13’)a-at-ta a-ad-du-wa-an-za (14’)pa-ri-ia-an ad-du-wa-li-ia-an (15’)wa-at-ta-ni-ia-an up-pa-an-na-an-du “Let them carry the evils over to an evil land” (literally: over to the land related to the evil). For the first time, it was possible to assign a common meaning to the two words that are built from the same stem. Outdated attempts (partly splitting the lemma into two) in Carruba 1968a:16 (2pl. impv. act. verb form) and Carruba 1972a:79; Oettinger 1979a:535 (‘in water’); Meriggi 1980a:258 (‘banquet’) followed in CLL:267, HHw:s.v., HEG U-Z:434; Starke 1990a:565 (2sg. impv. act. of putative wattani-(ti) ‘to speak magically’); no translation in DLL:110.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
Following Melchert (apud Oettinger 2004a:133), the acc. sg. in -iyan demands an underlying stem in -i(ya)- substantivized in the neuter gender.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Compounds
- URUKizzuwatna (Laroche 1979c:67, Yakubovich 2010a:237)
1.3 Hittite
utnē-
‘land’1.3.1Literature / Comments
HEG U:143-151.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘land’
The Hittite word utnē- n. ‘land’ has been connected with the PIE root for ‘water’, i.e. *u̯ed-, and explained as a derivation from the locative stem *u̯éd-en- ‘(land) in the water’ with thematization in *-o- and the collective of a hysterokinetic i-stem within the Caland’s system, i.e. *ud-n-éi̯-h2 (Oettinger 2014a:311f. According to him, the thematic stem in *-o- would be preserved in the compound’s second member of the Luwian city name Kizzuwatna., building on Schindler 1975a:9, Melchert 1984a:72f., Oettinger 2004b:133; cf. EDHIL:933f. *(h3)ud-n- The lack of assimilation addressed concerning the Hittite cluster -dn- must be due to the morpheme boundary between the root and the suffix. and HEG U-Z:149f. with further literature). Rieken (pers. comm.) suggests a decasual derivation from loc. sg. *u̯edeni + *-o-, comparing Hitt. dat./loc. sg. witeni.
The Luwian noun inflects synchronically like a neuter stem in -i(ya)- and cannot tell us anything about the complex original process based mainly on the Hittite cognate. The Lycian noun wedre/i- of debated semantics is difficult to bring into this reconstruction, because it cannot be derived from the locative stem in *-n- and the putative sound law *-dn- > Lyc. -dr- is not well founded. see Schürr 2020a:245-250. Therefore, it may underlie a different derivational process.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Although Oettinger 2000a:184 refrains from reconstructing a common protoform of PAnat. *u̯édeno- and Arm. getin ‘ground, soil’,Cf. Oettinger 2000a:184: “‘Flußland’ ist in Kleinasien eben gleichbedeutend mit ‘Land’. Daher haben auch die Armenier m.E. erst nach dem Erreichen ihrer Wohnsitze in Anatolien (und unabhängig von den Hethitern) der Neubildung *wedeno- die Bedeutung ‘*Flußtalgebiet’, gegeben, woraus dann ‘Land’ wurde.” However, it is reasonable that *u̯edeno- denoted not only specifically the inhabitable land in mountainous areas, but simply the land at the river providing fertile soil due to periodic flooding vel sim.PIE *u̯édeno- may nevertheless cautiously be reconstructed. Based on the derivational processes presented below, the meaning of the thematic stem PIE *u̯éd‑en‑o- can be reconstructed as ‘(land) lying at the water/river’.The etymological meaning cannot be ‘what is in the water’ (as per Fortson 2020a:72 and Nikolaev 2009a:470 n. 24, cf. also Oettinger 2004b:131), because this would rather denote an island and not (a part of) the mainland, cf. Oettinger 2000a:184.
3.1.1Root etymology
For the underlying root, cf. PAnat. *u̯ód‑r̥/u̯éd‑n- ‘water’.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Pre-PAnat. *ud‑n‑éi̯‑h2- ‘land’ is explained as a so-called i-collective derived from a thematic stem *u̯édeno- ‘what is at the water/river’, which may be equated with the predecessor of Arm. getin ‘ground, soil’ (cf. above).Rau 2009a:32 n. 3 proposes that *udnḗi̯‑ is a “neuter plural collective of a substantival i-stem vr̥ddhi formation *u̯ḗdni‑/*u̯édni- ‘land connected with water’”, which is rejected by Oettinger 2004b:132f.The fact that PIE *u̯édeno- shows a double e‑full grade suggests that it is a vr̥ddhi-formation based on the “ending-less” loc. sg. *ud‑én (= Ved. udán ‘in the water’) of the r/n-heteroclite PIE *u̯ód‑r̥/u̯éd‑n- ‘water’, cf. Oettinger 2004b:134f., Oettinger 2014a:311f.
3.2.1Root etymology
For the underlying root, cf. PAnat. *u̯ód‑r̥/u̯éd‑n- ‘water’.Another root connection of Arm. getin ‘ground, soil’ and Hitt. utnē- ‘land’, viz. the comparison with Gk. οὖδας ‘ground, floor’, is advocated by Olsen 1999a:464f. (PIE *h3u̯ed‑) and Peters in Peters & Pesditschek 1997a [2002]:109 n. 23 (PIE *h1u̯ed‑), but without any information about the meaning of the root (‘ground’?). However, since the connection with the word for ‘water’ (cf. also Arm. get ‘river’) is more convincing, this solution is preferred here.
4. Transmission
Arm. getin ‘ground, soil’ (Bible+)
EDAIL:206f., Olsen 1999a:464f.