/tamaduna-/, ta-ma-ru-na-
‘(unknown)’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- subst, common gender
- ID
- 249
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tamaduna-/, ta-ma-ru-na-
‘(unknown)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is a hapax legomenon attested in the KULULU lead strips (mid/late 8th century).
[D.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| dat./loc. sg. | /tamaduna/ | ta-ma-ru-na | KULULU lead strip 2, §1 line 7 |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Due to the phenomenon of rhotacism, the consonantal part of the sign may stand for /d/. We choose here to read /d/; the choice is based on the historical interpretation discussed under Reconstruction.
[D.S.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning is unknown, cf. Hawkins 2000a:510, Giusfredi 2010b:200 n. 393. If the assignment of the root is correct (see Reconstruction), the semantics of the lexeme /tamaruna-/ would belong to the sphere of ‘building’. Based on the semantics of the suffix /-una-/, it might be an abstract noun (see Reconstruction).
[D.S.]
1.1.5Stem
This lexeme was interpreted with hesitation as an infinitive by Hawkins 2000a:510 followed by Giusfredi 2010b:200 n. 393. A different possibility would be a substantive in /-una-/ c. found in e.g. /tarpuna-/ c. and /kwaruna-/ c. In this case, the word would be a common gender a-stem, as suggested by the dat./loc. in /-a/ in ta-ma-ru-na. The preference is given to the latter hypothesis. Syntactically speaking, one cannot choose between an infinitive and a dative of purpose. But morphologically speaking, the occurrence of /sarkuna/ beside /sarkunala/ within the same text (KULULU lead strip 2, §3 line 19, 20) shows a derivation pattern comparable to /tarpuna-/ c. → /tarpunala-/ c. This speaks in favor of taking /sarkuna/ and /tamaduna/ as nouns in the dative case rather than as verbs in the infinitive.
[D.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Since the meaning of the lexeme /tamaduna-/ is unknown, the etymological association with the root ‘to build’ found in e.g. /tama-(di)/ ‘to build’ is considered tentative. Regarding the derivational morphology, the suffix /-una-/ c. is here interpreted as a derivative in -a- c. (< *-eh2-) from the oblique form of the verbal substantive suffix -war/-un- (< *-u̯er/n-). For the Luwian suffix -war/-un- see Starke 1990a:526-535. Based on the other instances of this suffix, the function of suffix -a- c. deriving nouns from stems in -un- appears to be the formation of abstract nouns. We do not accept a case of hypostasis here, because we would expect the stem to be mutated, i.e. un(i)-.
Thus, the verbal substantive suffix -un- must have been derived from a verbal stem. The only denominative verbal suffix, which builds verbal substantives and infinitives in -una, is -i(ya)-(ti) (Starke 1990a:532f.), thus *tamari(ya)- (vel sim.). The stem, from which the verb in -i(ya)- is derived presents a more difficult puzzle. The r-sign used for the word (see under stem) may stand for a lenited alveolar /d/ instead of an original /r/. An argument in favor of the /d/ is the Lycian lexeme tãmad(i)- ‘building complex (vel sim.)’ with the suffix /-ad(i)-/ and, therefore, one may carefully assume that a form *domā́d- was already existent in Proto-Luwic. Thus, the derivational chain of /tamaduna-/ is posited as follows: *tam-ad- (< -ā́d- < *-éh2t-) → *tamad-i(ya)- (< *-i̯é/ó-) → *tamad-un- (< *-u̯er/n-) → tamadun-a- (< *-eh2-).
[D.S.]
For the lemma head see PAnat. *dem-.