aḫarra- (or aḫurra-)

The lexeme occurs in a fragment with presumably mythological content (NS).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

While CLL:4 and HHw:11 refrain from translating the item, Yakubovich 2017d considers the meaning ‘outer (?)’. His interpretation is likely based on the assumption that aḫarra- represents a derivative of āḫḫa ‘away, forth, entirely’ and, therefore, also of the underlying word for border CLuw. *irḫ(i)-. It finds further support in anduwašša/i- in the next line (iv 5’), which Yakubovich 2017d (ibid.) obviously analyzes as anda ‘in’ plus the polar suffix -wa- (*anduwa- ‘inner’, substantivized as ‘interior’) plus -ašša/i- for the genitival adjective (anduwašša/i- ‘related to the interior’). Attractive as the proposal may seem, a major problem consists in the three spellings with singleton -ḫ- of aḫarra- itself and its derivatives aḫa/urriyant- and aḫa/urriyala. In view of the four spellings with consistent -ḫḫ- elsewhere in the derivatives of the root for ‘line, boundary’, showing the assimilation *ārḫ- > āḫḫ-, a connection between the two word families must be regarded as unlikely.

[E.R.]

The only ending in -aš known in Cuneiform Luwian is a nom. sg. of a common gender a-stem (thus probably also presupposed in CLL:4). The derivational history of aḫarra- remains intransparent.

[E.R.]

1. aḫa/urriyala

2. aḫa/urriyant-

The mixed Luwian and Hittite character of column iv of the text makes an assignment to either one of the two languages difficult. HHw:11 propagates a Luwian noun in Hittite context. In contrast, Melchert (in CLL:4) classifies aḫarra- plausibly as Luwian, because he regards it as the derivational base of CLuw. aḫa/rriyal(i)- (or aḫa/urriyal-). The same opinion is implied in Yakubovich 2017d´s semantic interpretation as ‘outer (?)’ reported under Meaning.

[E.R.]