/hudarl(i)-/
‘servant’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2099
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/hudarl(i)-/, SERVUS-la/i-i-
‘servant’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested 32 times in inscriptions from Karkamiš, Tell Ahmar, Cilicia, Malatya, Tabal and Commagene, dating from the late 10th or early 9th to the early 7th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
|
nom. sg. |
/hudarlis/ |
SERVUS-la/i-i-sa |
|
|
SERVUS-la/i-i-sá |
|||
|
˹SER˺VUS-la/i-sá |
|||
|
SERVUS-la/i-sa |
|||
|
SERVUS-la/i-˹sa˺ |
|||
|
SERVUS-lá/í-sa |
|||
|
SERVUS-la/i-sa4 |
|||
|
SERVUS.LA/I |
|||
|
SERVUS.LÁ/Í |
|||
|
SERVUS |
|||
|
acc. sg. |
/hudarlin/ |
SERVUS-˹lá/í˺-na |
|
|
dat. sg. |
/hudarli/ |
SERVUS-lá/í-i |
|
|
nom. pl. |
/hudarlinzi/ |
SERVUS.LA/I |
|
|
SERVUS-lá/í-zi |
|||
|
SERVUS-la/i-zi-i |
The above table offers a representative selection, omitting broken attestations.
Only KARKAMIŠ A29c, l.2 could not be checked against a photograph.
The table lists KARKAMIŠ A21, §7 against Melchert 2011b:78f. who regards the form as a possible verb instead. The context is too broken, however, to permit a secure identification either way, and the form is hence included in the present lemma rather than taken as the only instance of an otherwise unattested verb. Of course, further textual evidence may necessitate a reappraisal.
[A.P.] [AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Despite a consistently logographic spelling, the phonological interpretation of this lexeme has been regarded as reasonably secure for some time now. Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:205f. were able to identify the HLuw. form to be cognate with CLuw. ḫudarli(ya)- ‘belonging to a slave’, aiding the reinterpretation of the signs *319 and *172 as 〈la/i〉 and 〈lá/í〉 respectively. Earlier, it had been assumed that the sign now interpreted as SERVUS represented a syllabogram instead, cf. the summary of the research history provided by Hawkins 2000a:58f.Note that his reading relies on the earlier erroneous identification of the signs *319 and *172 as 〈ta4〉 and 〈ta5〉 respectively, as these were corrected only a decade later.
Finally it should be noted that the logogram SERVUS (sign *387) consistently appears without the word divider sign (*386) or logogram markers (*410), presumably because the use of either or both would lead to confusion: the sign SERVUS is essentially a doubling of the word divider sign, and the logogram marker is a slight variation on the shape of the word divider.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word has long been clear for its use in the KARATEPE 1 bilingual inscription (Hu., §1), where it translates Phoenician ʿbd ‘servant’, see Bossert 1948a:170. Giusfredi 2010b:146f. notes that the word is used with various people of different standing, concluding that it denotes their hierarchically lower status compared to a higher-ranking ruler or a deity. A typical case can be observed in ALEPPO 2, §1: EGO-mi-i Iara/i-pa-sa (DEUS)TONITRUS-si BONUS-mi-i-sa SERVUS-la/i-i-sa, approx. /ammu=mi Arpas Tarhuntassi wassammis hudarlis/, translating as ‘I (am) Arpa, (the storm-god) Tarhunt’s beloved servant’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:236).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The paradigm shows by way of several plene spellings for the endings that the noun is subject to i-mutation (see also Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a:206). It derives from a stem */hudar-/, unattested in HLuw., and ultimately belongs to the word family around /hwiya-(i)/ ‘to run’. The noun is also used as a person name as is (Tischler 1995a:363) as well as in further derivations (see Rieken & Sasseville 2014a:309).
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.6.1Uncertain Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
*ḫūtarl(i)-
‘servant’1.2.1Derivatives
For potential cognates in Carian personal names, see *qdarĺou and *qdrel. For the ultimate nominal base and its reconstruction see CLuw. ḫūda-.