/i(ya)di-(ti)/, (“*69”)i-ti-
‘to delete’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 2441
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/i(ya)di-(ti)/, (“*69”)i-ti-
‘to delete’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested six times in inscriptions from Cilicia and Tell Ahmar, dating maximally from the late 10th to the early 7th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| 1sg. pres. ind. act. | /idiwi/ | (“*69”)i-ti-wa/i | KARATEPE (Hu.), §63 (Cilicia) |
| 1sg. pret. ind. act. | /idihha/ | (*69)i-ti-[x] | TELL AHMAR 1, §27 (Tell Ahmar) |
| 3sg. impv. act. | /idittu/ | (*69”)i!-[…] | TELL AHMAR 2, §23 (Tell Ahmar) |
| 3pl. impv. act. | /idintu/ | (“*69”)i-ti-tu | KARATEPE (Ho.), §73 (Cilicia) |
| /iyadintu/ | (MANUS)ia-ti-tu | KARATEPE (Hu.), §73 (Cilicia) | |
| unclear | ? | (MANUS?)i-ti?-x[...] | TELL AHMAR frag. 8 (Tell Ahmar) |
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this verb is provisional. Because the HLuw. writing system is unable to transport the precise quality of consonants, it cannot be said with certainty whether the dental in the stem should be considered geminated or not. The present interpretation rests on the putative cognate link with the noun /i(ya)di(ya)-/ ‘representation (?)’, as suggest by Goedegebuure (apud van den Hout 2002a:185f.). Particularly the spellings attested in KARATEPE 1 Hu. and Ho. §73 are instructive for two reasons, cf. already Hawkins 1978a:115. First, the syllabic parts differ in the choice of signs: 〈i-ti-tu〉 in Ho. and 〈ia-ti-tu〉 in Hu., suggesting very strongly that the verb has undergone contraction from /iyadi-/ to /idi-/ in most cases, a common phenomenon (cf. e.g. Melchert 2003b:183). Second, the word features as its determinative two distinct looking logograms, viz. MANUS (sign *59) and sign *69, the latter more frequent in this case and arguably an abstract version of the former, cf. Payne 2010a:166. However, KARATEPE 1 §73 shows that the two signs are clearly interchangeable at least with the present verb, since the Hu. version uses MANUS, whereas the Ho. version relies on *69.
[AH.B.] [A.P.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this verb became clear from two attestations in the KARATEPE 1 bilingual inscription, where it translates Phoenician mḥh ‘to destroy, efface’ (see Steinherr 1974b:107, 118, with adjusted readings and colon separation in Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1975a:125-127). Thus, KARATEPE 1 Hu., §63 reads as part of the curse formula: ARHA-wa/i-ta (“*69”)i-ti-wa/i (LITUUS)á-za-ti-wa/i-tà-sá á-lá/í-ma-za PORTA-la-na-ri+i zi-na, approx. /ahha=wa=tta idiwi Azzattiwadas alaman=za hilanadi zin/, meaning ‘(… proclaims this:) “I will delete Azzattiwada’s name from this gate (and incise my name)”’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:56f.).
So far, this verb has only ever been found attested together with the preverb /ahha/ ‘away, fully’ and then very clearly has the meaning ‘to delete’. Goedegebuure (pers. comm. apud van den Hout 2002a:185f.) suggests a basic meaning ‘to carve’ for the verb without preverb, but this will remain hypothetical until further data have been unearthed.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
Judging by the attestations, the verb most likely belongs to the stems in /-i-(ti)/ (cf. Sasseville 2021a:131-133). The derivational base is unattested in HLuw., but was likely a noun of the shape */iyad(a/i)-/, i.e. either a consonantal or a vocalic stem with or without i-mutation.
[AH.B.]