*h₂u̯óh₁-/h₂uh₁-´

The lexeme occurs twelve times in the HLuw. corpus. The relevant inscriptions originate from much of the HLuw. area with find spots located in Konya and Emirgazi for those dating to Bronze Age times in the 13^th century BCE, and Karkamiš, Tabal, Amuq and Aleppo for Iron Age inscriptions from the 11^th to the 8^th century BCE.

[AH.B.]

The attestation in ALEPPO 7, §14 is uncertain, as the lower half of that part of the line is broken off and most of the context is missing. For YALBURT frag. E, §1, the edition by Hawkins 1995a:68 erroneously records 〈hwa/i-i(a)-tà〉 instead of 〈hwa/i-i(a)-tá〉, but the word-final sign is legible as *29 〈tá〉, not *41 〈tà〉.

[AH.B.]

An intransitive verb, /hwiya-⁽ⁱ⁾/ constitutes a basic level term within the semantic field of motion, first correctly interpreted by Laroche 1958b:195f. after an earlier slightly different suggestion by Meriggi 1934a:98. In most instances, the verb is combined with the pre-verb PRAE /parran/ ‘before’ to indicate that an action has been successful because of an attributed divine paving of the way expressed in such phrases as ‘God(s) X (Y, and Z) walked/ran before me’.

[AH.B.]

The verb belongs to the Luwian stems in /-iya-/, consistently inflecting according to the ḫi-conjugation, see Sasseville 2021a:406f.

[AH.B.]

1. /hwihwiya-⁽ⁱ⁾/

2. /hwihwissa-⁽ⁱ⁾/

3. /hwinu(wa)-⁽ⁱ⁾/

Only twice attested, this lexeme occurs once in the ritual with the mention of the ašušatalla- functionary, which has strong Luwian affinities, and once in a song incipit in the Ištanuwa ritual (both NS).

[E.R.]

For the elision of stem final -a- before endings with initial -u- (1pl. pres. -unni and inf. -una), see Melchert 2007b:2.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The relationship between ḫuiya- and ḫuiḫuiya- is obvious on account of their co-occurrence in the Ištanuwa festival (KUB 25.39 iv 2 and ibid. iv 8), as already observed by Götze & Sturtevant 1938a:76. The same scholar also pointed out the similarity with Hitt. ḫuwāi-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to walk, run’, although he did not insist on its significance. Later, Rosenkranz 1952a:22 already presupposed the etymological relationship adducing the two attestations with gloss wedges and the CLuw. -nu- causative ḫuinuwa-⁽ⁱ⁾. Independently, it seems, Otten 1953a:101 compared the latter with Hitt. ḫuinu-^(mi) ‘to let run’. The Hieroglyphic Luwian cognates were recognized by Laroche 1958b:195f. a few years later.

Although only the context of ḫuinuwa-⁽ⁱ⁾ in the Cuneiform Luwian corpus is probative and the gloss wedge verbs are Hittite, it is the cumulative evidence from the entire Luwian and Hittite transmission that renders obvious the affinities between the members of the word family and their common basic meaning ‘to run’ (causative ‘to let run’) as accepted in DLL:46, Rosenkranz 1952a:22, HW:424, HEG A-K:321, Starke 1990a:364, CLL:85, HED H:422, HHw:s.v., EDHIL:367, HW 2nd ed.Ḫ:805f., Sasseville 2021a:406f..

[E.R.]

On account of the preservation of the uncontracted suffix -iya- (which excludes a stem in -i-^(ti)) and the morphological equation with the Hittite ḫi-verb ḫuwāi-/-i(ya)-^(ḫi) ‘to walk, run’, Sasseville 2021b:406f. (contra Lehrman 1998a:156) concludes that the stem must be posited as that of a ḫi-verb ḫuiya-⁽ⁱ⁾. Both ḫuiyadda and ḫuiunni show the weak stem form after the remodeling of the verb (ibid. 433), but for Ištanuwa Luwian Sasseville also posits the strong stem *ḫuwāi- parallel to verbs like māi-/-iya-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to grow’ and pāi-/-iya-⁽ⁱ⁾ ‘to give’.

[E.R.]

1. ḫuwayalla/i-

2. ḫuwayur/n-

3. ḫūiḫuiya-⁽ⁱ⁾

4. ḫuinuwa-⁽ⁱ⁾

5. ḫuitta-

6. ḫuyellā(i)-^(mi)

The verb appears only once with an unambiguous gloss marker (cf. under Graphic Features) in the “Apology” or “Autobiography” of Ḫattušili III.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

1sg. pres. ind. act.

ḫu-u-i-ia-mi

KUB 1.1 iv 10

(CTH 81, NS)

As noted already by Güterbock 1956a:131, Starke 1990a:364 n. 1302, and CLL:85, the gloss-marked form ḫūiyami belongs unambiguously to the well-attested paradigm of Hitt. ḫū(i)ya-^(mi), for which see HW 2nd ed.:796f. The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. For the discussion of other forms assumed to belong to the same paradigm, cf. under Graphic Features.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

A 3sg. pret. ind. act. ⸢⸣ḫu-u-wa-iš at KBo 3.4 ii 31 (CTH 61, NS) is frequently cited in the literature (e.g. Güterbock 1956a:131, Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:16, Starke 1990a:364 n. 1302, CLL:85, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:803). However, (according to the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv) the imprints before ḫu- cannot possibly be remnants of gloss wedges. First, the space between ḫūwaiš and the preceding word would be missing, in stark contrast to the clear spaces elsewhere. Secondly, what is left looks rather more like erased verticals (the upper edge of the head of the right vertical is visible!) and certainly very different from the gloss marker at the beginning of the next line. Therefore, no argument can be based on this only apparent occurrence of the gloss marker.

The form ḫu-u-i-ia-an-za at KBo 5.8 rev. iii 43 does not belong to the group of gloss marked attestations that refer to lexemes. As can be seen on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv (also indicated in the hand copy), the marker clearly indicates the continuation of the preceding line here since this line is indented; cf. HW 2nd ed.:797.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

The meaning is fully compatible with that of the Hittite verb. The sole assured context runs as follows: ⁽⁸⁾nu a-pé-e-⸢da⸣-ni me-ḫu-ni ^dištar gašan-ia ⁽⁹⁾a-na dam-ia ù-at a-na LÚmu-ti4-ka-wa am-mu-uk ⁽¹⁰⁾pé-ra-an ḫu-u-i-ia-mi nu-wa-za-kán URUkù.babbar-aš ḫu-u-ma-an-za ⁽¹¹⁾iš-tu ša LÚmu-ti4-ka ne-ia-ri “^(8–9)At that time, Ištar, my lady, appeared in a dream to my wife (saying): ‘I shall run before (sc. help) your husband, and the entire city of Ḫattuša will side with your husband.’” (KUB 1.1++ rev. iv 7–13; cf. Otten 1981a:24f.). Also, the idiomatic phrase peran ḫūwai- ‘to run in front of, to assist’ (cf. HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:803), corresponding exactly to Luwian parran ḫūiya-⁽ⁱ⁾ (cf. Yakubovich 2010d:378), is well-known from Hittite.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

For the assignment to the Hittite paradigms of ḫū(i)ya-^(mi), see under Forms.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

The ending in ḫūiyami is unambiguously Hittite (cf. Güterbock 1956a:131, Starke 1990a:364 n. 1302, CLL:85), while the stem ḫū(i)ya- is ambiguous as to the language. In both Hittite and Luwian, it is the generalized weak stem of the ablauting paradigm, but with new assignments to diverse stem classes (cf. also Sasseville 2021a:406f.). Thus, if the proliferation of the stem ḫū(i)ya- is contact-induced (cf. Yakubovich 2010d:375) or ḫū(i)ya- is at least believed by the scribe to be borrowed from Luwian (implicitly in Starke 1990a:364 n. 1302), the gloss marker is in full accordance with its most frequent use to mark words from other languages.

Several discussions on the gloss marking of this verb and the motivation behind it are obsolete, because the reading ⸢⸣ḫu-u-wa-iš cannot be confirmed; this applies to Melchert 2005a:445, van den Hout 2006a:242f., and Yakubovich 2010d:375. Also, the single attestation of the gloss marker in peran hūiyami ‘I run before, I help’ (said by Ištar) among dozens of occurrences without any marker can hardly be caused by its semantics, as submitted by Zorman 2007a:762.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

1. ḫūyaš(a)-⁽ⁱ⁾

HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:796-806