URBS+MI-ni-
‘town, city’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2106
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
URBS+MI-ni-
‘town, city’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested approx. 36 times in inscriptions from Malatya, Tabal, Maraş, Cilicia, Karkamiš, the Amuq, Hama, Tell Ahmar and Commagene, dating from the 12th to the 8th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
|
nom. sg. |
/…/ |
URBS+MI-ni-i-sa |
|
|
URBS+MI-ní-sa |
|||
|
URBS+MI |
|||
|
acc. sg. |
/…/ |
“URBS+MI”-ni-i-na |
|
|
URBS+MI-ni-i-na |
|||
|
“URBS+MI”-ni-na |
|||
|
URBS.MI-ni-na |
|||
|
URBS+MI-ní-na |
|||
|
URBS+MI[-ni?] |
|||
|
URBS+MI-ni |
|||
|
URBS.MI-ní |
|||
|
URBS+MI |
|||
|
dat./loc. sg. |
/…/ |
URBS+MI-ni |
|
|
URBS+MI-ní |
|||
|
URBS-ni |
|||
|
nom. pl. |
/…/ |
URBS.MI-ní-za/i |
|
|
dat./loc. pl. |
/…/ |
˹URBS+MI-na˺-za |
|
|
URBS+MI-na-za |
|||
|
acc. pl. |
/…/ |
URBS-ni-i-zi-’ |
|
|
URBS-ni-zi-’ |
|||
|
URBS+MI-ni-zi |
|||
|
URBS.MI-na? |
|||
|
poss. adj. |
/…/ |
URBS+MI |
The above table offers a representative selection, omitting broken attestations.
At MARAŞ 8, §6, the sign 〈ni〉 seems possible and is indicated in Hawkins’ drawing; the brackets are adjusted accordingly.
Three attestations from KARAHÖYÜK, none of which is included in the above table, have caused some discussion among scholars. For the spellings 〈VIR2.URBS+MI-za/i, VIR2.URBS+MI-ní-i(a)〉 at KARAHÖYÜK (ELBİSTAN), §9, §13, and §22, Yakubovich 2017e:s.v. tentatively suggests a different meaning: ‘camp(?)’. Trameri 2019a:251f., 260 n. 36 proposes a distinction between the city as a physical entity as opposed to the city with its denizens. The sign 〈VIR2〉 (*386) is later used as the word divider 〈|〉, but may still hold a different meaning in this transitional inscription (cf. Hawkins 2011a:3f. and Payne 2017b:225). The same text contains two attestations of 〈URBS.MI-ní, URBS.MI-ní-za/i〉 at §3 and §16 respectively, which are not preceded by *386 and also happen not to combine URBS and 〈mi〉 into a ligature, thereby differing from the other three examples even more. However, while Yakubovich’s suggestion is therefore possible, the text provides too little contextual support for the different meaning assignment, and the three occurrences are hence not assigned to a separate lexeme. Future finds may result in a reappraisal, however.
The list does not contain the sequence 〈[…-](URBS)-si-ia-ti〉 from KARKAMIŠ A15b, §19, because contra Hawkins 2000a:131 and his different transliteration, it is more likely that the string of signs is to be interpreted in the same way as the other possessive adjectives in the same clause, i.e. as a determinative postposed to a town name and followed by the /-assa/i-/ suffix and ending marking the possession, cf. also Trameri 2019a:257.
See Trameri 2019a for an in-depth study of the lexemes and various spellings including URBS and their usage as well as the different sign shapes.
[A.P.] [AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this noun is mainly opaque, since it is not clear which Luwian word is logographically represented by URBS (sign *225), cf. Laroche 1960c:124. The logogram often appears together with the syllabic sign 〈mi〉, sometimes one after the other (transliterated as 〈URBS.MI〉),Trameri 2019a:250 prefers to transliterate this as 〈URBS-MI〉, which is, however, misleading. but more often combined into a ligature, in which the four vertical strokes of the sign 〈mi〉 are attached two a side to the sign URBS (transliterated as 〈URBS+MI〉). It is generally assumed that 〈mi〉 serves as a phonetic indicator, aiding in the correct interpretation of URBS, instead of representing part of the stem together with the following signs. As a result, only the very last syllable of the stem seems clear as /°n(i)-/, although it is possible that the word may have started with an /m-/ (cf. Trameri 2019a:263-267). The logogram URBS itself has not yet been fixed with a suitable syllabic reading, if it should have any; see Trameri 2019a:250 for literature.The hypothesis discussed (and abandoned) by Trameri 2019a:251f. about the word represented by URBS beginning with /a-/ is voided because the relevant YALBURT passage is read differently now.
Unlike many other logograms, URBS never appears uncomplemented (Trameri 2019a:259f., 262). It is otherwise well-known as a postposed determinative for geographical names denoting settlements, presumably of varying size, cf. Payne 2017b:223 incl. n. 7.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word has long been clear, see already Meriggi 1934a:152f., but not without some confusion. Laroche 1960c:123f. reports the logogram URBS to have been frequently mixed up with the logograms REX and REGIO, which both consist of elongated triangles as well, but differ in composition.REGIO (*228) is in effect two signs URBS side by side; REX (*17) has a different design pattern inside the triangle. Cf. also Payne 2019b:66 incl. n. 7 and Trameri 2019a:249 n. 3. The meaning can be seen e.g. in ARSLANTAŞ, §2: a-wa/i ha-ta-ta-na(URBS) URBS.MI-ni-na “1”-ti-i (“ANNUS”)u-si-i (“AEDIFICIUM”)u-pa-ha-a, approx. /a=wa Hattattan …-nin …-Ti ussi uppaHa/, meaning ‘I erected the city Hattatta in one year’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:246).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
As is obvious from the attested forms, the noun is a common gender and undergoes i-mutation. Since only the very last part of the stem is written syllabically, nothing much else can be said about the morphological structure of the word.
[AH.B.]