*ar-lo(/i)-

Attested twice, this lexeme occurs in two inscriptions from Hama and Karkamiš, dating to the mid-9^th and late 9^th or early 8^th century BCE respectively.

[AH.B.]

The meaning of this word has been debated among scholars for some time, cf. e.g. Hawkins 2000a:127, who wondered if /arla-/ could be related to /ar(i)-/ ‘time’. Poetto 1997a:241 incl. n. 51 struck the connection with CLuw. ārlanuwa- ‘to relocate, to replace’, which was followed and expanded upon by Yakubovich 2017c:22f. While the context in HAMA 4 is fragmented and hence difficult to grasp, the passage in KARKAMIŠ A6 is complete, and §19 reads: wa/i-ná ara/i-la-a (“3”)tara/i-su-u “4”-su-u (“MANUS”)pa+ra/i-si (“CRUS”)ta-nu-wa/i-wa/i-i, approx. /wa=an arla tarrisu mawasu palsi tanuwawi/, meaning ‘I shall place him (scil. the lord’s child) on a pedestal^?, three times, four times on^?/along^? the way’The function of /palsi/ in this context is somewhat obscure. vel sim. (also cf. Hawkins 2000a:125, 127).

[AH.B.]

Provided that the phonological interpretation and the analysis of the attested forms as dat./loc. sg. are correct, the form /arla/ conforms with a common gender secondary a-stem noun (see Yakubovich 2017c:23, cf. Yakubovich 2015b:6.2).

[AH.B.]

1. ārlanuwa-⁽ⁱ⁾

2. arlip(a)

Reconstructed from personal names attested in Abydos, Buhen, and Memphis, between 660-620 and 610-570, known also from Egyptian (Jrš3, c. 610-570, for the Egyptian dates see Kammerzell 1993a:169, 171),) and Greek transmission (Αρλισσις, 5^th/4^th ‒ 4^th c., LGPN V.B:59 [cf. also Αρλισσος, 5^th c.]; Faucounau 1984a:236; Adiego 1994a:35, Adiego 2007a:355; Melchert 1999a:244; Schürr 2010c:200; Yakubovich 2017c:22; the identification of Arĺiš with Αρρισσις by Adiego 1994a:35, Adiego 2007a:356 was based on its now obsolete transcription as Arŕiš and thus, it has been abandoned [Adiego 2019b:30f. with discussion]).

[Zs.S.]

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:355f., checked and slightly corrected against the published photographs (O. Masson 1978a:Pls. I.1, II.1, VI, XXIV, 1, XXVII1f., the Abydos inscription is not known from photograph). The Egyptian form is attested on the bilingual stelae E.Me 9 and E.Me 15, for the attestations of the Greek form(s) see LGPN V.B:59. The identity of the names Arliš and Arĺiš, which was still not clear in Adiego 2007a:356 (although observed by him already in Adiego 1992a:34), has since been demonstrated by the new identification of the letter ‹ĺ› read previously as ‹ŕ› (Adiego 2019b:30f.; the new reading makes the proposal of Schürr 2010c:200f., who saw in “Arŕiš” an assimilated form, obsolete). There is a possibility that the personal name Ariš also belongs here, see the discussion s.v.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2007a:355 rightly points out that the stem of *arliš / *arĺiš seems to be the same as that of *arliom (see s.v.). Two formal questions should be addressed in this case. First, whether they are independent derivations from a stem *arlV- (as the assumption of the suffix -iom/-jom implies, cf. Adiego, Tiverios, Manakidou & Tsiafakis 2012a:200 and Yakubovich 2017c:22) or *arliom is a derivative of *arli, the stem of *arliš / *arĺiš (as Melchert 1999a:244 explains it). This requires further research, but it does not affect their common origin. The second question is the origin of ‹š›: the Greek form, Αρλισσις, clearly shows that we are dealing with the Carian cognate of the Luwian genitival adjective suffix -ašša/i-, but its regular Carian reflex is -s- (see, e.g, otono-s ‘Athenian’), while Carian ‹š› implies the palatalization of an earlier *s by a following front vowel, *e or *i (Melchert 2002b:306, 312; Melchert 2012d:276; Simon 2008b:460 contra Adiego 2007a:461). Thus, *arliš represents the lexicalized i-mutated form (“*arliyaššiš”), the process of which is independently attested in Carian (see, e.g., s.v. *tubassi-), while Αρλισσος is probably a Hellenized form.

As explained s.v. *arliom, the stem *arlV- can be identical to the base word of the Cuneiform Luwian verb ārlanuwa- (as per Melchert 1999a:244 and Yakubovich 2017c:22), but the meaning of this verb and of the stem *ārla- is debated (see s.v.) and, accordingly, the translations of *arliš are very different (a connection with ‘place’ [Yakubovich 2017c:22] and ‘of property’ > ‘rich, wealthy’ [Melchert 1999a:244]). Further research is needed to clarify this issue.

[Zs.S.]

This noun is attested twice, once in the curse formula of the Aramaic and Lydian bilingual inscription found at the cemetery of Sardis and datable to the early 4^th century BCE and once in an agreement found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis and datable within the broad range of 5^th - 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

The noun ara- is paired with pira- ‘house’ in both of its occurrences. In the bilingual LW 1, it corresponds to Official Aramaic trbṣ, which is commonly translated as ‘courtyard’. Accordingly, the translation ‘court’ has been applied to aara- since Littmann 1916a:36. But in the context of a comprehensive curse, ara- must refer to all the elements of the estate excluding the house. The translation ‘whether estate, or house, or movable property’ appears to fit the collocation nak aaraν nak pira=k [n]ak dẽtν ẽmν in LW 24. On the etymological level, this interpretation derives support from the likely derivative arlil(i)- ‘belonging to the estate, household member’ (q.v.). Cf. the translation ‘court, property’ adopted in Gérard 2005a.

[I.Y.]

This is a barytonic a-stem of the common gender. Comparison with arlil(i)-, another property-related term occurring in curse formulae, suggests that the earlier form of the same stem was *arla-. For an approximate parallel to the assimilation *arla- > ara- cf. the etymology of pira- ‘house’. Although the cluster -rl- is common in Lydian, its other instantiations, except for ara and arlil(i)‑, all occur at transparent morpheme boundaries. The target of the perseverative assimilation was presumably the dark [ł], hence it failed to be implemented in arlil(i)-.     

[I.Y.]

1. arlil(i)-