ḫuwalpa-
‘protuberance, hump’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 2301
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
ḫuwalpa-
‘protuberance, hump’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme occurs in an incantation from a ritual of the Tauriša tradition (MS).
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. pl. | ḫu-wa-al-pa-[an-z]i | KUB 35.108 iv 21’ | (CTH 765, MS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – For the reading with only one and a half signs missing, see Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:249 (contra Goedegebuure 2010a:311).
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The semantic assignment in ḫur.sagḪI.A-inzi ḫuwalpa[nz]i “hump-backs belonging to the mountains” (thus Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:249) or “mountains (and) humps” builds on the meaning of the ostensive cognate Hitt. ḫuwalpant- ‘hump-back, hump-backed’ and the combination with ḫur.sagḪI.A ‘mountains’ (see CLL:80, HEGA-K:327, HEDH:424-426, Lorenz & Rieken 2007a:478). If correctly restored, the form in -anzi without i-mutation points to a substantive.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The restored common gender nom. pl. in -anzi would identify the non-mutating substantival a-stem. CLuw. ḫuwalpa- ‘hump’ had already been reconstructed in 1990 (see CLL:80) before the recent recognition of its attestation at KUB 35.108 iv 21’ in Rieken & Sasseville 2019a:249.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.6.1Uncertain Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Connecting CLuw. ḫuwalpa- with Hitt. ḫuwalpant- ‘humpback’, we may reconstruct a Proto-Anatolian root *Hu̯ElP-. Puhvel (HED H:426) connects this Anatolian root etymologically to Ved. úlba- ‘caul; vulva, womb’, Lat. †volba ‘uterus, womb’ and further adds Hitt. ḫuelpi- ‘young, new-born’ to this group. However, the Latin lexeme is attested in the named source, Edict. Diocl. (4.4), as (gen. sg.) bulbae as late as 301 CE (cf. Lauffer 1971a:104), the classical forms being OLat. volva, Lat. vulva (Varro+) with the derivative volvula ‘a sow’s womb (used as food)’ (Naev.), cf. OLD²:2341. Therefore, if the form volba had to be restored at all, which is unlikely, it is doubtful that it reflects something old.Furthermore, cf. the Vulgar Latin confusion and (partial) merger of /b/ and /w/, at least in certain contexts attested not only in the same text (cf. biginti for viginti ‘20’ in the same line) but also, e.g., in the contemporary Appendix Probi (early 4th c. CE): “alveus non albeus” (“[say] alveus, not albeus”) and, vice versa, “tolerabilis non toleravilis” (“[say] tolerabilis, not toleravilis”), etc. Cf. also Weiss 2020a:551 referring even to Pompeian graffiti (before 79 CE). What regards Ved. úlba- (once in RV, later more frequent), a variant úlva- is attested which is why Ved. úlba- may also be explained as non-reliable, cf. AiGr I:183f. (§161) on already Vedic cases for the interchange of /w/ and /b/. Finally, the general rarity of PIE *b reduces the probability that the ‑b- in the Latin and Indic words is original.Further rightly rejected etymologies for ḫuelpi- in HEG Ḫ:259f.
[D.S.] [A.O.]