/harnissa-/, (“CASTRUM”)ha+ra/i-ni-sà-
‘fortress’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2178
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/harnissa-/, (“CASTRUM”)ha+ra/i-ni-sà-
‘fortress’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested 30 times in inscriptions from Cilicia, Karkamiš, Tabal and Hama, dating from the 10th to the early 7th century BCE. It is recorded with spelling variations suggesting stem allomorphy, see the discussions below
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
The above table offers a representative selection, omitting broken attestations.
In cases of the logogram CASTRUM covering most of the stem, it cannot be said which stem variant is used, i.e. /harnissa-/ or /harnassa-/.
KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §51 is emended to include the omitted 〈+ra/i〉. Also, it is noteworthy that the spelling recorded for the Hu. version listed here does not match the Ho. version of the same clause.
For ÇİNEKÖY, §7, it should be noted that this word is written in a single line from left to right, i.e. it is not arranged in the otherwise ubiquitous columnar style. Perhaps it is missing a damaged part?
[A.P.] [AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word is fairly certain, not least because it may be reflected in a loan into Greek and possibly Carian.Yakubovich 2015a:44 hypothesises that the geographical name Halicarnassus (Ἁλικαρνᾱσσός) may render Luw. */ali-harnassa-/ ‘high fortress’. Many occurrences are spelt fully syllabically and attest to some variation. First, the most noticeable variation is the apparent stem allomorphy between the more frequent /harnissa-/ and the less often attested /harnassa-/, which Yakubovich 2015a:44 deems a spelling variation, not least because KARATEPE 1, §51 employs one in the Hu. version and the other in the Ho. version. It cannot be said if the spellings reflect merely different graphemic renditions of an unaccented vowel that has bleached to schwa, or whether they are morphology-based. Second, when the spelling reflects /harnissa-/, the sibilant following after /i/ is (almost) invariably spelt as 〈sà〉, which, at least in the older inscriptions, is a sign for the palatalised /ʃ/ caused by the preceding front vowel instead of /s/, see Rieken 2010b:654.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
The semantic interpretation of this word is largely clear, since both HLuw. attestations occur in bilingual inscriptions. However, they are matched with semantically similar, yet different Phoenician words, viz. qrt ‘city’ in KARATEPE 1 (Hu.), §51 and ḥmyt ‘walled fortresses’ (cf. Krahmalkov 2001a:123) at ÇİNEKÖY, §7, cf. e.g. Yakubovich 2015a:47.
ÇİNEKÖY, §7 runs: kwa/i-pa-wa/i *274-li-ha (CASTRUM)ha+ra/i-na-sà ORIENS-mi-ia-ti x-i?-ni? 8 OCCIDENS-mi-ti-ha 7 CASTRUM-za, approx. /kwippa=wa hattaliha harnassa kistamiyadi …-ni … ibamidi=ha … harnissan=za/, translating as ‘Indeed, I subdued fortresses, on the eastern … eight and on the western (one) seven fortress(es)’The two occurrences of the word for ‘fortress’ differ in grammatical number, with the first showing plural marking, the second singular marking. This is entirely expected, because HLuw. employs plural marking on nouns only without numerals and after the numerals ‘two’, ‘three’, and ‘four’, but relies on singular marking with ‘five’ and above, see Bauer 2014a:100. (cf. Tekoğlu & Lemaire 2000a:972, 986), but cf. also the remarks by Yakubovich 2015a:43f. regarding the different phrasings of the two versions.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
This noun is a neuter gender, whose original s-stem was subsequently thematised, with its endings adjusted accordingly (Melchert 2004d:472f., and already suspected by Hawkins, Morpurgo Davies & Neumann 1973a:29 n. 107, 34). The neuter gender is assured also by the use of the neuter particle /-sa, za/ in the nom./acc. sg. forms. The spellings of the word attests either to weakening of the second vowel to schwa, or to stem allomorphy: /harnissa-/ and /harnassa-/.
Outdated are hypotheses about the word being a common gender (see e.g. Starke 1990a:557 for a similar former s-stem), as these were based on a misunderstanding of the nom./acc. pl. forms.
[AH.B.]