ḫūtarlānn(i)-

Being a hapax, the stem is found only in a NS manuscript of the Ištanuwa festival.

[E.R.]

nom. sg.

ḫu-u-tar-la-a-an-ni-[iš]

KUB 35.136 iv 16’

(CTH 773, NS)

The choice for the restoration of the nom. sg. ending -iš (instead of the acc. sg.) is based on the intransitive valency of the predicate verb awiḫa (ibid. iv 16’).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Formerly, the word was mostly misread as ḫu-u-tar-la-a-an (e.g., DLL:46, CLL:78, Starke 1985b:327, Mouton 2008a:257), but recently, Melchert (pers. comm.) pointed out that -ni- follows -an- without a space and restored the word as per above. In fact, Otten 1953a:97f. had already deciphered ḫu-u-tar-la-a-an-ni-[ correctly.

[E.R.]

The context is ill-understood and does not help to elucidate ḫūtarlānn(i)-. However, the stem formation is transparent, and the derivative ḫutarli(ya)- of the common base noun *ḫutarl(i)- is securely interpreted as ‘related to the servant’. Accordingly, the meaning of ḫūtarlānn(i)- is based on ‘servant’, but in some way distinct from it. On account of data from Old Assyrian transmission (for which see below), Carruba 1992a:251-253 suggests that ḫūtarlānn(i)- denotes the ‘chief of servants’, while Yakubovich 2010d:216 and Zehnder 2010a:42-45 operate more plausibly with the diminutive suffix -ann(i)-.Outdated is the analysis  of Otten 1953a:98 as a hybrid with Luwian base and Hittite suffix -ātar/-ann-.

[E.R.]

For the -ann(i)- formant suffixed to *ḫūtarl(i)- ‘servant’, see under Meaning. Eichner 1983a:57 saw that the base noun *ḫūtarl(i)- is derived from *ḫūtar-/ḫūtra- by means of the familiar suffix -l(i)- (< *-lo-) for agent nouns. Eichner’s proposal is modified by Starke 1990a:360, who assumes an adjective in -lli-, which is probably identical to his -alli(ya)- suffix, nowadays given as -alla/i-. Both solutions probably amount to the same result, since the variation between -ar- and -ra- reflects *-r̥- due to a syncope of the vowel between -r- and -l(l)-.

The reconstructed stem *ḫūtar-/ḫūtra- (as in the personal names ^mḪūtarliš, ^mḪutrališ, (heth.) ^mḪutralaš; see Starke 1990a:360) goes back to an abstract noun ‘haste, swiftness’ in -ar- < *-ra(/i)- < *-ro- (thus Starke 1990a:349 and 360, Melchert 1993f:107, Oettinger 1998a:97) or to the underlying adjective ‘agile, quick’ in -ra/i- < *-ro- (thus Melchert 2003b:196).Outdated Oettinger 1979a:117 nach Neumann 1964b:49f.

[E.R.]

Reconstructed from a personal name preserved in the correspondence of Assyrian Colony period merchants in Anatolia.

[Zs.S.]

Ḫu-tár-lá-ni

ICK 3 57.1 = ICK 4 837.1

The attestation follows Matouš & Matoušová-Rajmová 1984a:76 and Yakubovich 2010d:214 checked against the hand copy of the publication (a photo was not available).

[Zs.S.]

The word is clearly a derivative of Luwian *ḫutarla- ‘servant’ (see s.v.): the suffix -ni- was explained by Yakubovich 2010d:216 (with reservations, allowing also the possibility of an originally Akkadian suffix) and Zehnder 2010a:42‒45 with the Luwian diminutive suffix -ann(i)- (the explanation of Carruba 1992a:252f. is based on the misunderstanding of the i-motion and of the origin of the -ašša/i- suffix as well as on the implausible assumption of the re-characterisation of the gen. pl.).

[Zs.S.]

The name has long and plausibly been derived from the Luwian word *ḫutarlā- ‘servant’ (Matouš 1983a:144; Matouš & Matoušová-Rajmová 1984a:76; Carruba 1992a:251; Yakubovich 2010d:216; rejected in Kloekhorst 2019b:61f. without arguments).

[Zs.S.]

For the lemma head, see CLuw. *ḫuwa-^(di).