/i(ya)di(ya)-/, i+ra/i-ia-
‘representation (?)’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 2442
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/i(ya)di(ya)-/, i+ra/i-ia-
‘representation (?)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested twice in inscriptions from Karkamiš and Tabal, dating maximally from c. 800-710 BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | /iyadin=za/ | (“SCALPRUM”)i-ara/i-za | KARKAMIŠ A15b, §11 (Karkamiš) |
| /idiyan=za/ | i+ra/i-ia-za | İVRİZ 1, §3 (Tabal) |
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this noun is provisional and rests on the connection mentioned by van den Hout 2002a:185f. (followed by Hawkins 2015a:52). He builds upon a suggestion by Goedegebuure (pers. comm.), who links it to the verb /i(ya)di-/ ‘to delete’, only attested together with the preverb /ahha/ ‘away, fully’ in the HLuw. corpus; that verb is presumed to mean ‘to carve’ without the preverb.
The two attestations of the present noun show contraction of the sequence /iya/ to /i/ in different syllables, a common feature of HLuw., cf. Melchert 2003b:183. Moreover, another feature of late Luwian is apparent in both texts, viz. rhotacism of the intervocalic lenis dental, obvious from the spelling with the signs 〈+ra/i, ara/i〉, cf. Melchert 2003b:179-181.
It cannot be excluded that the present lexeme should be read differently, e.g. as /iyariya-/, and perhaps bear no relation to the verb /ahha i(ya)di-/ ‘to delete’. Instead, it may be connected to the word family around /i(ya)ri-(ti)/ ‘to extend’. Further data are required to shed light on the matter.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word remained unclear for some time, with only a link to a stone object vel sim. implied by the logographic determinative SCALPRUM, see Hawkins 2000a:132, 518 and again Hawkins 2015a:52. In fact, both attestations occur in contexts that rely heavily on the interpretation of cultural practice and the assigned meaning is therefore to be understood as approximative. In KARKAMIŠ A15b, §11, the author of the inscription describes the adornment of the temple he had built: á-mi-i-na-pa-wa/i(-)u!-mu! (“COR”)á-tara/i-i-na (“SCALPRUM”)i-ara/i-za i-zi-i-ha, approx. /ammin=ba=wa=mu atrin iyadin=za izzihha/, meaning ‘I made my person a representation, (and for me Kubaba will take it placed at her foot)’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:131). The context in İVRİZ 1, §3 works in a similar way: za-wa/i tara/i-sà wa/i+ra/i-pa-la-wa/i-sa HEROS i+ra/i-ia-za, approx. /za=wa atris Warpallawas hastilliyanz=za irriyan=za/, possibly translating as ‘This (is) the embodiment, the representation of Warpallawa the hero’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:517).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The attestations show this noun to be neuter gender, which speaks against a typical action noun in /-a-/, as those are common gender (cf. e.g. Sasseville 2021a:129). Instead, it may be a substantivisation of an adjective in /-i(ya)-/, but this will remain speculative until additional data from the paradigm have surfaced.
[AH.B.]
For the derivational base, see HLuw. /i(ya)di-(ti)/.