*h1eduu̯ólo-
‘bad, evil’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- adj
- ID
- 2515
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/attuwal(i)-/, (MALUS)á-tu-wa/i-ri+i-
‘evil, bad’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested twice in the parallel texts of the KARATEPE bilingual inscription in Cilicia, dating to the beginning of the 7th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. pl. c. | /attuwalinzi/ | (MALUS)á-tu-wa/i-ri+i-zi | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §20 (Cilicia) |
| MALUS-la/i-zí | KARATEPE 1 Ho., §20 (Cilicia) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The adjective /attuwal(i)-/ is the only member of the word family around /attuwal-/ to be attested once in fully syllabic spelling in the Hu. version of the KARATEPE bilingual. Combined with the evidence from the related words, the phonological interpretation of this lexeme as /attuwal(i)-/ can be regarded as secure despite a mere two attestations. These occur in the same inscription, which is at once a boon and a hindrance, for the HLuw. texts of the KARATEPE bilingual run parallel, yet they exhibit a number of spelling differences that afford valuable glimpses at what scribes evidently considered to be interchangeable signs representing the same sound. Thus, the variant spellings 〈(MALUS)á-tu-wa/i-ri+i-zi〉 ~ 〈MALUS-la/i-zí〉 show the merged result of original intervocalic /r, l/ (and /d/ as evident from other words) falling together into a flap /ɾ/ (Rieken & Yakubovich 2010a: 202, 216f.).
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
In the KARATEPE inscription, the adjective /attuwal(i)-/ modifies the noun CAPUT-/ttinzi/ ‘men’, equalling Phoenician ʼšm rʽm ‘bad men’ with the noun in Phoenician preceding its modifying adjective as expected, cf. already Bossert 1949a:90, 112. KARATEPE 1 Ho., §20 reads: MALUS-la/i-zí-wá/í-ta-a CAPUT-tí-i-zi kwa/i-i-ta-na a-ta a-sa4-ta (“*217”)u-sà-lì-zí, approx. /attuwalinzi=wa=tta ...-ttinzi kwittan anta asanta usalinzi/, meaning ‘Wherein there were bad men, robbers’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:51).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The adjective is subject to i-mutation and represents a formation in */-lo-/, cf. the discussion of the CLuw. cognate below. While the neuter noun /attuwal-/ ‘evil’ looks like a good derivational basis, the development likely went in the other direction, see the discussion at the noun.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
ādduwāl(i)-
‘bad, evil’1.2.1Transmission
Attestations of this lexeme are mostly found in fragments of ritual texts (from MS onwards). The forms as provided are a representative sample from more than 40 attestations. It is also attested as a personal name, i.e. fAd-du-wa-li (Zehnder 2010a:133).
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | ⸢a!⸣-ad-du-wa-li-iš | KBo 13.262, 6’ | (CTH 761, NS) |
| a-ad-⸢du⸣-wa-li-iš | KUB 35.39 iii 9’ | (CTH 759, LNS) | |
| ad-du-wa-⸢li⸣-iš | KUB 32.9 obv. 8 | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| ad-du-wa-li-iš | KUB 35.21 obv. 14’, | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| [a]-ad-du-wa-a-li-iš | KUB 35.49 iv 4 | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| a-ad-du-⸢wa-a⸣-li-[iš] | KUB 35.49 iv 8 | (CTH 761, MS) | |
| acc. sg. c. | [a]d-du-wa-li-in | KBo 22.254 obv. 6 | (CTH 762, NS) |
| at-tu-wa-li-in | KUB 35.43 ii 18 | (CTH 761, NS) | |
| nom./acc. sg. n. | at-t[u-wa]-al-za | KUB 35.54 ii 38’ | (CTH 758, MS) |
| [ad]-du-wa-al-za | KUB 35.54 iii 22 | (CTH 758, MS) | |
| [a?-a]d-du-wa-a-al-za | KBo 29.62, 5’ | (CTH 767, N/A) | |
| ]⸢a⸣-ad-du-wa-al[ | KBo 60.32, 8’ | (CTH 758, NS) | |
| abl./instr. | ad-du-wa-la-ti | KUB 35.21 obv. 5’ | (CTH 761, MS) |
| a-ad-du-wa-la-ti | KUB 35.48 iii 6 | (CTH 760, NS) | |
| nom. pl. c. | [ad]-⸢du⸣-wa-l[i-i]n-zi | KBo 13.264, 10’ | (CTH 763, NS) |
| ḫu[l(-) | KUB 35.133 ii 5 | (CTH 665, LNS) |
For the new attestation in KBo 60.32, see Sasseville 2020a:52.
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
For the semantic elucidation of the adjective ādduwāl(i)-, which Sommer 1932a:50f. n. 5 provided together with that of the noun ādduwāl-, see under the lemma of the latter.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
Already Otten 1953a:32 distinguished the formant with single -l- in ādduwāl(i)- from the suffix -alli- (now -alla/i-). Whereas most scholars used to see in -āl- the reflex of PIE *-ōl- with a secondary adjectivization (according to CLL:41, by way of addition of i-mutation), Rieken 2012a:277f. suggested a segmentation ādduw(a)- (neuter noun) plus -l(i)- (< *-lo-). However, after Yakubovich 2014a:285f. has demonstrated that ādduwanza (at KBo 13.260 iii 13’ and KUB 35.133 iv 12) is the Ḫattuša-Luwian reflex of original ādduwalza (by sound change /lts/ > /nts/, see under the lemma of the substantive ādduwāl-), there is no longer any direct evidence for the existence of a thematic stem ādduw(a)- (except perhaps in personal names, see Zehnder 2010a:133f.: PN mAd-du-wa). This renders Rieken 2012a’s derivation less attractive, but cf. under Reconstruction.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Derivatives
1.3 Hittite
idālu-
‘evil, bad’1.3.1Literature / Comments
-
HW 2nd ed. I:293-302
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘bad, evil’
Concerning the relationship between the adjective ādduwāl(i)- ‘evil’ and the noun ādduwāl- n. ‘evil’, Watkins 1982a:261 suggests that the former is derived from the latter by means of “adjectivization” through the morpheme -(i)-. This is however refutable by the fact that Luwian stems in -āl- n. build nomina instrumenti (see Starke 1990a:300-345). Moreover, this is now superseded by the modern view that Anatolian consonantal l-stems were originally thematic and thus come from the PIE suffix *-lo-.
Equating CLuw. ādduwāl(i)- with Hitt. idālu- ‘evil’, a PAnat. adjective *h1eduu̯ólo- ‘evil’ (beside a base *h1édu(u̯o)-, where Čop’s Law could occur) can be reconstructed (Sasseville 2021a:483). Watkins 1982a:261 connects it to the root verb *h1éd-/h1d-´ ‘to eat’, which is semantically convincing; contra Kloekhorst 2014a:577f., who rejects the semantic connection and adduces instead a root of the shape *h1edh- adducing a gloss from Hesychius, which is dangerous, because we don’t know from which author the word comes from and whether the lexicographer (or the commenting scholar) understood correctly its meaning and use. Nonetheless, a root of the shape *h1edh- is a priori possible for the Luwian and Hittite cognates, but nothing vindicates this alternative, contra Kloekhorst 2014a:579f., cf. Vertegaal 2020b:217 and for further Indo-European comparanda, see HEG A-K:442-444, HED E, I:493). The syncope of the thematic suffix -o- in post-tonic position caused a restructuring of the paradigm, in which it was sent to the mutated (i)-stem in Luwian, but in the u-stem in Hittite.Cf. also the fate of the same suffix in Palaic, i.e. -ali- (see e.g. Pal. kuliwali-), which was transferred to the paradigm of the i-stems.
The connection with Lyd. citollad is no longer phonologically possible, despite the efforts of Oettinger 1978a:85 n. 48.
[D.S.]