*g̑e/im-ro-

This lexeme is attested 13 times in inscriptions from Malatya, Maraş and Commagene, dating maximally from the 11^th to the mid-8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The attestation in MARAŞ 1, §6 is curious in so far as it adds the word ending 〈-i〉 (frequent in that text) after enclitic 〈-ha〉, i.e. 〈i-mára/i-si-ha^-i〉.

It is not entirely clear how the form attested in BULGARMADEN, §7, i.e. 〈“MÁRA/I”-i-sa〉, should be interpreted. Syntactically, it is most likely a genitive, but the ending in /-is/ suggests a nom. sg. However, it may also represent a mistake by the stone mason, because 〈i〉 usually precedes 〈mara/i〉, see Hawkins 2000a:524.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The reading of sign *462 as 〈pa_x〉 for a long time confused the identification of this word, cf. e.g. the remarks by Hawkins 2000a:36f., although Melchert 1988a:36-38 suggested 〈ma_x〉 (followed e.g. by Oshiro 1993b:46). Only once the reading had been corrected to 〈mara/i〉 (see Yakubovich 2002a:191) did the connection to CLuw. im(ma)ra(/i)- ‘open country’ and Hittite gimra- ‘countryside, field’ become clear (already suspected by Hawkins 2000a:524; for CLuw. cf. e.g. HED K:178, CLL:89), and hence the meaning also (extensively discussed with sign shapes by Hawkins 2004a). Mostly used as an epithet for the stag-god Runtiya (cf. e.g. Hutter 2004a:382-384 and also Hutter-Braunsar 2015a:214f.), the word rarely shows up in a different context. A typical instance is found in ŞIRZI, §2: wa/i-ta á-mi-i-na DOMINUS-ni-na i-mára/i (DEUS)CERVUS₃-ia-na (“LIGNUM”)ha-zi-wa/i+ra/i-ti u-sa-nu-sa-ha, approx. /wa=tta ammin nannin immara Runtiyan hazziwidadi usnussahha/, meaning ‘I pleased my master (the stag-god) Runtiya of the open country with rite(s)’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:323).

[AH.B.]

Mostly attested as a stem form preceding the name of the stag-god Runtiya, the word also occurs inflected from time to time (cf. Hutter 2004a:382-384 and Hutter-Braunsar 2015a:214f.). However, the attestations prove neither the grammatical gender nor the stem. Until further evidence is found to prove or disprove it, the noun is assumed to be common gender like its Hittite cognate gimra- ‘countryside, field’, and it probably shows i-mutation throughout its paradigm.

The word has also given rise to at least one deity name, viz. /Immarall(i)-/, evidently originally an adjective of appurtenance in /-alla/i-/ (Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:211f.).

[AH.B.]

Attested in at least one Luwian ritual (MS).

[Zs.S.]

Genitival adjective

The attestations follow CLL:89 and Melchert’s pers. comm. (cf. also Laroche 1957a:21f., Laroche 1959a:51, and HED K:178), checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

There are different solutions for the forms of im(ma)rašša in KUB 35.54 ii 35’.14’, iii 7 (it remains a mystery what Puhvel meant with his invented term “frozen stem” [HED K:178]). CLL:89 treated the latter two as uninflected forms and booked the form in KUB 35.54 ii 35’ as im-ra-aš-ša‹-an›, emended by Starke 1985b:67 with n. 25 (cf. also Starke 1990a:37) on syntactical and contextual grounds, cf. below (followed by Francia 2014a:8, 10, cf. also Melchert 2003c:146). Later he suggested identifying the “uninflected” forms as members of group inflection (Melchert apud Yakubovich 2010d:41; see already Laroche 1957a:22). Instead, Yakubovich 2010d:39‒43 proposed a gen. sg. for all instances. However, Melchert 2012d:283f. rightly pointed out that all the proposed gen. sg. in -ašša are syntactically speaking nom.-acc. sg. n. forms (with a single exception) and, accordingly, they should be treated as such. The only exception is the form in KUB 35.54 ii 35’ emended above, which is clearly a dat. sg., both syntactically and contextually (see the parallel structure in KUB 35.54 ii 37’). Whatever its origin is (Melchert 2012d:284 cautiously proposed “a false extension of attested imrašša ^DIŠKUR-an=za”, i.e. the nom.-acc. sg. n. form, which is not probable being attested 21 lines earlier in KUB 35.54 ii 14’; more probable is Starke’s solution [Starke 1990a:37 n. 46], a haplography of -an due to the following AN-sign), it is clearly to be emended as per above due to its assured case.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general agreement on the meaning of this word since the analysis of Laroche 1954a:124 (cf. also Laroche 1957a:21f., Laroche 1959a:51), who identified imrašša- ^DIŠKUR with LÍL-aš ^DU (KUB 7.14 i 2) of the same ritual (followed by Carruba 1982b:3; CLL:89, Melchert 2003c:146f.; Patri 2007a:130; Tischler 2008a:62, Tischler 2016a:124; EDHIL:476; Francia 2014a:8f.; Ünal 2016a:959, similarly also HED K:178 [‘the Wild’], cf. also HEG A-K:574).

[Zs.S.]

1. imralla/i-

Attested in a catalogue (shelflist) text and in a ritual (both NS).

[Zs.S.]

Genitival adjective:

The attestations follow HW 2nd ed. I:57 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:51, CLL:89, and Ünal 2007a:258, Ünal 2016a:221) with KBo 44.200 obv.^? i 8’ added following van den Hout 2006a:255, checked against the photographs of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

The form in KUB 30.57+59, left col. 3 is usually read as imrašši[š] (Laroche 1957a:22, Laroche 1959a:51; HED K:178; CLL:89 [with a question mark]; Hutter 2003a:248), but Dardano 2006a:48 n. 3 rightly points out that the photograph allows also the reading imrašši[uš]. Although it is syntactically indeed a dat. pl. (HED K:178, see already Laroche 1959a:51 with a question mark), formally speaking it is an acc. pl. c. and its verb, šipant- ‘to libate, offer’ can appear with both cases (see Goedegebuure 2008b:69f. with refs.; this excludes Melchert’s cautious proposal as nom. pl. c. [CLL:89, “perhaps”]).

[Zs.S.]

Ünal 2007a:258, Ünal 2016a:221 indicates the possibility of a preceding Glossenkeil in the case of KUB 30.57+59, left col. 3, which must be a misunderstanding.

[Zs.S.]

There is a general and justified agreement regarding the meaning of this word due to its transparent morphology (Laroche 1959a:51; CLL:89; Dardano 2006a:49; Ünal 2007a:258, Ünal 2016a:221; HW 2nd ed. I:51; similarly also HED K:178 [‘of the wild’]).

[Zs.S.]

Although this word is not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a, it is rightly treated as a Luwian loanword by van den Hout 2006a:255 and HW 2nd ed. I:51 (cf. already Laroche 1957a:22, Laroche 1959a:51) due to its morphology.

[Zs.S.]

1. iprehe/i-

Reconstructed from a personal name attested in a Carian fragment from Kaunos of unknown date (cf. Frei & Marek 2000a:97f. and Marek 2006a:123), also attested in Greek transmission from the 4^th c. (Ιμβρης, LGPN V.B:213, cf. also Carruba 1980a:281, Schürr 1991-1993a:163, Blümel 1992a:15); for related toponyms see e.g. Adiego 2007a:335 as well as Simon 2015a:14f. on the related Carian name of Hermes.

[Zs.S.]

Genitival adjective: ?

The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:366f., checked against the photographs in O. Masson 1973b:Pl.I.2, II.1 and Frei & Marek 2000a:98. See the discussion under Meaning regarding the problems of segmentation and the grammatical form. Although Blümel & Adiego 1993a:95 n. 18 entertained the possibility that the opaque sequence trqδimr in C.Ki 1 could contain this word, Adiego 2007a:422 rightly pointed out that the regular Carian form is iβr- and thus, this form cannot be connected (for further discussion see s.v.).

[Zs.S.]

There is general agreement that this word is related to the word *iβrsi (see s.v., Schürr 1991-1993a:168, Schürr 1992a:140, Schürr 2006a:121 and Adiego 2007a:366) and its context, iβrsδrx̣[ is analogous to the phrase i[…]inisδrual corresponding to ἐπὶ δημιοργοῦ Ἱπποσθένους ‘under the demiurge Hipposthenes’ in the bilingual C.Ka 5 (Hajnal 1997b:150, Schürr 2001d:109, Schürr 2006a:121, Adiego 2007a:367; cf. also Frei & Marek 2000a:113 and Marek 2006a:124). The parallelism may be further supported by the circumstance that the letters rx̣[ might point to rụ[al], since the trace transcribed here as x̣ is compatible with an ‹u› (Schürr 2001d:109), among others (cf. also Frei & Marek 2000a:103, but omitted in the edition of Marek 2006a:123f.), although it seems to be placed slightly too far away to be the part of the same word. Note also the contextual parallelism: the form yomλn in the next line (C.Ka 4, 2) which may be the same word as uiomλn in C.Ka 5, 1 (see the discussion s.v.).

The following options exist:

1. The similarity of the sequences iβrsδrx̣[ and i[…]inisδrual is incidental. While it cannot be fully excluded, this is less probable. In this case not even the segmentation of iβrsδrx̣[ is assured, although its root etymology is not affected by that. The Carian version might not have expressed more than a personal name (“under Iβr” or similar), in other words, iβrs as personal name in dat.-loc. sg. with the ending -s (or as iβr with the ending -Ø ) may lead to a both formally and semantically fitting solution.

2. The similarity of the sequences iβrsδrx̣[ and i[…]inisδrual (as well as their context) is not incidental and we are dealing with two parallel phrases. Although the precise analysis of i[…]inisδrual is debated (see the detailed discussion s.v. sδrual), it is clearly the interpretation of Melchert 2010f:183 n. 27 that is the most convincing: i[…]ini sδrual, lit. ‘during the Hipposthenean sδrualship’, with a possessive adjective in -i- from the name of Hipposthenes. In this case iβr stands in dat.-loc. sg. with the ending -Ø. The analogy of i[…]ini would imply that also iβr is a possessive adjective in -i-, but in this case the lack of -i- would be problematic. The case of ksolbś ‘from Kasolaba’ (gen. sg., E.Me 43) shows, however, an adjectival derivation with a seemingly zero morpheme, which can be explained as a (morpho)phonological or graphic variant of the suffix -i- (cf. alsoJanda 1994a:176 and Adiego 2007a:269f.).

Alternatively, Schürr 1991-1993a:168, Schürr 1992a:140, Schürr 1998a:145, Schürr 2001d:109, Schürr 2006a:121 proposed that this iβr° is the name of a demos or an ethnic name from the name of the citadel of Kaunos called Imbros (or even the citadel itself, Schürr 2006a:121). Although Frei & Marek 2000a:112 and Marek 2006a:124 argued against this view, their arguments were not compelling (that the name of the demos is not given in case of Hipposthenes and that an ethnic suffix is lacking ‒ latter can be expressed also by a zero-suffix as per above; contra their views, the Egyptian attestations do not cause any problem, since they belong to another word, see s.v. iβrsi). However, the parallelism with the phrase from C.Ka 5 leading to an attested personal name seems more probable. Be that it may, it does not influence the cognacy with Cuneiform Luwian im(m)r(i)-:

The Carian names built on iβr- are traditionally connected with Cuneiform Luwian *im(m)r(i)- ‘open country’ (see s.v.) since Carruba 1980a:281 (who proposed this connection based on the Greek forms; followed by Adiego 2007a:335 and Melchert 2013c:35). However, Schürr 1991-1993a:171, Schürr 1992a:140, Schürr 2001d:105 rejected this since (1) the meaning ‘open country’ does not fit mountain names, (2) the toponym is attested also in the Northern Aegean (the island of Imbros), (3) and there is no further evidence for the implied *-mr- > -mbr- change. However, none of these arguments are compelling. Setting aside that it is not clear if there is any connection beyond the etymological one between the promontory’s name and the personal name, and if so, what this connection is precisely (cf. further below), it was rightly pointed out by Adiego 2011a:330 that this specific semantic change (‘plain’ > ‘mountain’) is cross-linguistically attested (his original rejection of Schürr’s view [Adiego 2007a:335] lacked any argument). As for the island Imbros, this attestation cannot be used as a counter-argument, since we are dealing with a Luwic root, not a Carian root only, moreover, a Northern Aegean Luwic toponym fits the current evidence very well (see the detailed discussion in Simon 2015a:6‒11 with refs.). Finally, while there is indeed no further evidence for a Carian change *-mr- > -mbr-, the parallelism of an entire group of words (observed already by Carruba 1980a:281 based on the Greek transmission) can hardly be attributed to coincidence (iβr- / *im(m)r(i)-, iβrsi- / im(ma)rašša/i-, iβreλ / imralla/i-, see s.vv.). The only problem which has not been mentioned until now is how to explain iβr- as a personal name with the meaning ‘open country’. There are two options: First, it is a so-called Kurzname (Melchert 2013c:35), i.e. iβr- coincides only secondarily with the underlying stem and the personal names are all derivatives or compounds, which makes them semantically apt. The second possibility is that the meaning of the base word already included or was changed to ‘mountain, promontory’ (the derivatives allow both meanings). This would allow explaining easier not only the name of the Kaunian promontory but also the personal name, since being deified, mountain names could typically serve as personal names in Anatolia. All in all, there is no reason to abandon the traditional equation and meaning as ‘open country’, to which, however ‘promontory, mountain’ may also be added.

[Zs.S.]

1. *iβreλ
2. *iβrsi > *iβarsi / *iβrs / *βrsi

HED K:175-178, HEG I, K:573-575, EDHIL:476f.

The Phrygian word imroy (dat. sg.) is a hapax in an Old Phrygian inscription (B-01, 2) on a rock with a niche containing a statue of the goddess Matar. Obrador-Cursach 2020a:254 with discussion rightly pointed out that the previous interpretations are both formally and semantically implausible. Instead, he proposed that imroy refers to the recipient of the statue, i.e. the niche, the rock, or the place where it had been set up, and identified this word as a loan from Luwian im(m)r(i)- ‘open country’ (see s.v.). He translated the Phrygian word as ‘field (?)’ (in context: si bevdos adi..[..] | kạṿarmọyo imroy edaes ‘this statue, Adi..[..] has made it for the field’), which may be referring to the temenos around the monument. However, first, a word meaning ‘open country’ can hardly refer to a temenos; second, the preceding word, kavarmoyo is usually interpreted as a personal name in gen. sg. (Obrador-Cursach 2020a:264 with refs. and discussion) and a person usually does not have a temenos; third, it is not entirely clear, what is the sense of setting up a statue “for the field”. The presence of an owner of imro- rather points to an ‘estate, demesne’, which is semantically more fitting to ‘open country’ and also the setting up of the statue of a deity for an estate makes more sense (the inscription would thus mean approx. ‘Adi..[..] has set up this statue for Kavarmos’s estate’). All in all, imro- as ‘estate, demesne’ can indeed be a loanword from Luwian (adopting it into the most productive declension).

[Zs.S.]