ēr(ḫū)i(t)-
‘basket’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2357
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian in Hittite transmission
ēr(ḫū)i(t)-
‘basket’1.1.1Transmission
The lexeme is found already in OS tablets and more than 120 times in a broad range of ritual and festival texts. Therefore, the list below is limited to a few representative examples.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | GIŠir-ḫu-u-i | KUB 15.31 i 3 | (CTH 484, NS) |
| dat./loc. sg. | GIŠir-ḫu-i | KBo 21.34 ii 58 | (CTH 699, NS) |
| GIŠir-ḫu-u-i-ti | KBo 21.34 ii 33 | (CTH 699, NS) | |
| GIŠir-ḫu-i-ti-i | KUB 41.17 i 29’ | (CTH 410, NS) | |
| GIŠ⸢ir-u⸣-i | KUB 38.25 i 15’ | (CTH 526, NS) | |
| GIŠir-u-i-ti(=) | KUB 38.25 i 16’, i 21’ | (CTH 526, NS) | |
| abl. | GIŠe-er-ḫu-ia-az | KUB 34.69+70 i 10’ | (CTH 609, NS) |
| GIŠe-er-ḫu-ia-za | KUB 57.110 obv. 12’ | (CTH 645, NS) | |
| instr. | GIŠe-er-ḫu-it | KBo 17.15 i 15’ | (CTH 645, OS?) |
| nom./acc. pl. n. | GIŠe-er-ḫu-u-e-da | Bo 7043 iv 4 | (CTH 470, NS) |
| dat./loc. pl. | GIŠir-ḫu-u-i-ia-aš | KUB 32.128 i 3 | (CTH 628, NS) |
| [GI]Šir-ḫu-i-ta-aš | KBo 44.86, 4’ | (CTH 470, MS?) | |
| stem form | GIŠir-ḫu-i | KUB 25.49 ii 19 | (CTH 628, NS) |
| GIŠir-ḫu-i | KBo 21.34 iii 32’ | (CTH 699, NS) | |
| unknown | GIŠir-ḫu(=) | KUB 41.40 i 4’ | (CTH 669, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, except for Bo 7043 iv 4 cited after Neu 1987b:339 n. 23.
[E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Initial e-er- is obviously the attempt to spell an allophone [e] of the Luwian phoneme /i/ that emerged from the cross-linguistically frequent lowering process before /rḫ/ (Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:216 with n. 12). Hittite speakers probably identified [e] with the Hittite phoneme /e/.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning ‘basket’ was first elucidated by Otten 1955a:126f. based on the two duplicate manuscripts switching between the logogram GIŠma.sá.ab-it ‘basket’ (KBo 17.40 iv 8’) and syllabic GIŠērḫuit (KBo 17.15 i 15’). Meanwhile, this semantic assignment has been generally accepted (see e.g. HW:339, HW 2nd ed. E:92, HEG A-K: 367f., Starke 1990a:198-200, CLL:92, HED A, E, I:284, HHw:62, Ünal 2007a:263, Yakubovich 2010d:328).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
Formerly mistaken as “hurrisierende” inflection (HW:84, HEG A-K:367f. with references), the paradigmatic split between a noun in -i- and a neuter noun in -it- so typical for the borrowings of Luwian neuter -i(t)- stems was recognized by Starke 1990a:198-200 (cf. also CLL:92, HHw:62, HED A, E, I:284, Starke 1990a:198-200, Neu 1992b:154, Yakubovich 2010d:328). However, as Neu 1992b:154 points out, there is no proof for the assumed transfer to the common gender, because its only putative attestation GIŠe-er-ḫu-i-[iš] at KBo 16.71+ i 22’ is restored. Within Luwian, the -i(t)- stem is built from the polar -wa(/i)- adjective *ir(ḫu)wa(/i)- ‘interior’ (see Mouton & Yakubovich 2019a:218 building on Puhvel 1977a: HED A, E, I:284), whose suffix is used to derive nominal, pronominal and adverbial bases with locatival semantics.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.1.7Origin
The acceptance of the paradigmatic split also implies acceptance of a borrowing from Luwian (for references, see under Stem and Melchert 2005a:448f.). Additional evidence comes from the loss of -ḫ- before -w- in GIŠir-u-i and GIŠir-u-i-ti (see Starke 1990a:199 and CLL:92). Starke 1990a:199 and Yakubovich 2010d:328 also emphasize that the change from initial older ēr- to younger ir- does not go back to a second borrowing, but the borrowed word was adapted later to the phonological shape of its Luwian original—a process typical for situations of increasing L2 competency.Outdated HW 2nd ed. E:92 (Hattian origin).
[E.R.]
For the lemma head see CLuw. irḫ(i)-.