/irhali(ya)-/, FINES-ha+ra/i-ia
‘border-marking’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2346
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/irhali(ya)-/, FINES-ha+ra/i-ia
‘border-marking’1.1.1Transmission
This hapax is attested in a single inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the mid-8th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| dat./loc. sg. | /irhaliya/ | FINES-ha+ra/i-ia | CEKKE, §15 (Karkamiš) |
Instead of a dat./loc. sg., the form attested in CEKKE, §15 may in fact be a nom./acc. pl. n. Forms in /-i(ya)-/ can be ambiguous, since an ending in /-iya/ can represent a dat./loc. sg. or a nom./acc. pl. n, cf. Yakubovich 2015b:6.2. The context accommodates a dat./loc. sg. perhaps a little more easily, but further research may change this.
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this lexeme is provisional. While the beginning of the word can be deemed clear for its connection with /irh(i)-/ ‘border’ indicated by the use of the logogram FINES (sign *216), the shape of its latter part is less easily determined from the attested spelling at CEKKE, §15. Thus the spelling may represent /irhadiya/, in which the intervocalic /d/ would have undergone rhotacism, a phenomenon found frequently especially in the later inscriptions (cf. e.g. Yakubovich 2015b:9). Alternatively, the word may have to be interpreted as /irhaliya/Note that rhotacism only affects singleton /l/, i.e. the word cannot contain an old adjective in /-alla/i-/. or /irhariya/; see the discussion of the stem below.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
With the connection to /irh(i)-/ ‘border’ obvious from the spelling, the semantic field for this word is clear. Moreover, the context of attestation is likewise illuminating at CEKKE, §15: a-wa/i FINES-ha+ra/i-ya ta-sa ha-zi-mi-na, approx. /a=wa irhaliya tad=sa hazzimina/, meaning ‘A block is to be engraved for the border-marking’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:145)Note that the forms in /-mina/ have since undergone a reanalysis as gerundives instead of 1pl. pres. act. endings, see Melchert 2004c.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
While it is clear that this noun is a neuter gender and derives from the noun /irh(i)-/ and its stem-final suffix is /-i(ya)-/, its spelling attested in CEKKE, §15 leaves some room for interpretation as to its immediate derivational base. If the attested 〈+ra/i〉 should indeed represent an original /r/, i.e. /irhariya/, then the base would be an adjective in /-ra-/ (cf. Melchert 2003b:196). If, however, the 〈+ra/i〉 stand for an older /d/, i.e. /irhadiya/, that would hint at a secondary noun such as */irhad(i)-/It cannot derive from the same base as the adverb /irhattin/ ‘outer’, because geminate /tt/ does not rhotacise. However, it is possible that /irhattin/ should be read /irhadin/, in which an inner-HLuw. link would be a given, whereas the link to CLuw. irhatt(i)- ‘circle’ would fall away. for a base (cf. Yakubovich 2015b:6.2). Finally, if the 〈+ra/i〉 should represent /l/, i.e. /irhaliya/ as assumed here, the suffix /-i(ya)-/ would have attached to a stem */irhal(i)-/, again a substantivised adjective (cf. Melchert 2003b:195). Any one of the three possibilities is equally likely, and only further attestations can shed light on the matter.
As mentioned in the discussion of the phonological shape above, the word cannot derive from the attested nounOriginally an adjective, the word has undergone substantivisation. /irhall(i)-/ ‘frontier-post’, since the geminate /ll/ would not rhotacise. However, the shape of that noun may in fact be /irhal(i)-/, see the discussion there.
[AH.B.]
For the lemma head, see HLuw. /irh(i)-/.