*HEst-
‘bone’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 2646
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
*/has(t)-/
‘bone’1.1.1Derivatives
1.1.1.1Uncertain Derivatives
1.2 Cuneiform Luwian
ḫāš-
‘bone, skeleton’1.2.1Transmission
All instances of the noun come from fragments of the Kuwattalla tradition. Possibly, the oldest fragment shows MS.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom./acc. sg. | ḫa-a-aš-ša | KUB 35.12 iii 2 | (CTH 762, NS) |
| KUB 35.33 iii 4’ | (CTH 762, NS) | ||
| ḫa-aš-ša | KUB 35.11, 9’ | (CTH 760, NS) | |
| KUB 35.45 ii 23 | (CTH 760, NS) | ||
| UZUGÌR.⸢PAD.DU⸣ | KUB 35.48 ii 16’ | (CTH 760, NS) |
For the morphological analysis of ḫāšša as a singular form, see below under Stem. CLuw. abl./instr. ḫa-a-ša-ti at KBo 29.6 obv. 20’ (CTH 765, NS) belongs to the Lemma ḫāš(i)-. The same applies probably to ḫa-ša-a-⸢ti⸣ at KUB 35.88 iii 7’ (CTH 765, NS) and KUB 35.89, 9’ (CTH 765, MS), also treated under ḫaš(i)-.
[E.R.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
It was Otten 1953a:64a who demonstrated that the sequence ALAM-ša (= tārušša) mīšanza ḫašša ḫalḫalzanin at KUB 35.45 ii 22f. can be equated with [(tāru)]šša miyašanza UZUGÌR.⸢PAD.DU ḫal-〈ḫal〉-za⸣-ni-in “the figure, flesh, bone(s) and ḫ.” at KUB 35.48 ii 16’, from which it became clear that ḫāšša means ‘bone(s)’. The translation is generally accepted; cf. DLL:43, HEG A-K:202, Starke 1990a:120-124, CLL:62, EDHIL:325, HW 2nd ed.:430.
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
Several decades later, Starke 1990a:120-124 was able to elucidate the formal side showing that ḫašša does not attest a stem †ḫašša- in the nom./acc. pl. n., as had been posited previously (DLL:43, HED H:237, HEG A-K:202), but is, instead, a neuter root noun ḫāš- with the secondary ending -ša. Only under this analysis is it possible to square the form with the Luwian sound laws.Changes such as *-st- > -ss- or *-sti̯- > -ss- posited for †ḫašša- in Laroche 1958b:197 and Weitenberg 1984a:389 respectively can no longer be upheld. Starke (following Oettinger 1981c:387) plausibly assumes that final -t- seen in the Hittite derivative ḫaštāi- ‘bone’ was regularly lost and the paradigm was restructured starting from ḫāš-. Though an etymological argument, it nevertheless unifies the available evidence and is, therefore, accepted here (also in CLL:62, EDHIL:325, HW 2nd ed.:430).
[E.R.]
1.2.6Derivatives
1.2.6.1Uncertain Derivatives
1.3 Lydian
kasta-
‘bones (?)’1.3.1Transmission
The only attestation of this lexeme occurs in a long burial inscription found at the cemetery of Sardis.
[I.Y.]
1.3.2Forms
| dat. pl. | kastãν | LW 10.5 (Sardis) |
The plausible grammatical interpretation of this kastãν as dat. pl. (or coll.) of a nominal form is reached in Hajnal 2004a:199, while the attempt to analyze it as an infinitive in Carruba 1960a:37 stumble upon the lack of assured infinitives in -ãν.
[I.Y.]
1.3.3Meaning
Since we are dealing with a burial inscription, a mention of bones of the deceased would be appropriate. The form under discussion occurs in the clause šẽšwad qištoridν kastãν. Again with Hajnal 2004a:199, šẽšwad is the direct object and qištoridν is the first person singular predicate. It would seem to follow from the structure of this clause that the author of the inscription claims providing something for the bones.
The most likely reason why this interpretation and the comparison of kastãν with Hitt. ḫaštāi- ‘bone’ was not brought forward in the first hundred years of Lydian studies was the universal belief that the Hitt. ḫ- corresponds to zero in Lydian in word-initial position. Given the emerging independent evidence for the correspondence Hitt. ḫ- ~ Lyd. k- (cf. Lyd. kof(i)-), there seems to be no reason to separate Lyd. kasta- from Hitt. ḫaštāi- and its Anatolian and Indo-European cognates meaning ‘bone’ (Yakubovich apud Oettinger 2021a).
[I.Y.]
1.3.4Derivatives
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘bone’
Comparing Hitt. ḫaštāi- ‘bones’, Luw. ḫaš- ‘bone, skeleton’ and Lyd. kasta- ‘bones’, we obtain the Proto-Anatolian word for ‘bones’, though with a heterogeneous picture of the nominal stem formation. Whereas Hittite shows a diphthong stem built on the root noun (see Oettinger 1995a:219f.; cf. also Hitt. UZUdānḫašti- in Rieken 1999a:47), Lydian shows a collective stem in *-eh2-, i.e. Lyd. dat./gen. pl. kastãν < (back-projected) *HEst-éh2-om. The Luwian formation, on the other hand, seems to have eliminated the -t- and inflects as a consonantal neuter stem, which would point to an original root noun (Hamp 1984a:199, EDHIL:326, Melchert 2010b:60).
Based on the current state of research in Anatolian phonology, the initial laryngeal could be either *h2 or *h3. Since the Indo-European evidence for the choice of *h2 (see below) is slim, we will refrain from choosing one for the Proto-Anatolian reconstruction. Likewise, the root ablaut is left open, since it is not yet recoverable from the Anatolian data.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Since PAnat. *HEst- ‘bone’ is reconstructed as a root noun, cf. Root etymology below for the PIE reconstruction.
3.1.1Root etymology
The original meaning of the root noun PIE *h2óst‑/*h2ést- is bone (cf. EIEC:77), as is directly preserved by most of the words presented sub Transmission. The further meanings, viz. ‘body’, ‘rib’, head’, etc. are easily derived from the more general meaning ‘bone’. No underlying verbal root can be reconstructed which is why PIE *h2est- is taken as a nominal root.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Since PAnat. *HEst- ‘bone’ is reconstructed as a root noun, cf. Root etymology below for the PIE reconstruction.
3.2.1Root etymology
As especially Luwian, Avestan, and Latin advise, a root noun has to be reconstructed for PIE. This, and the fact that Hitt. ḫaštāi- ‘bone’ is interpreted above as an inner-Anatolian derivation from the root noun, means that it is not advisable to reconstruct an i‑stem for pre-PAnat.Cf., e.g., Neri in DPEWA s.v. asht ‑i (2022-05-23) and Rau 2009a:32 n. 3. Regarding the i‑stem looking form Ved. ásthi ‘bone’, Rau (ibid.) writes that “[t]he simplest way to explain this form is to assume that it continues a nom. acc. pl. ásthi < *HásthH < *h2ó/ésth2 (: Av. asti) which was reanalyzed as a singular under the influence of the new, synchronically regular nom. acc. pl. ásthāni ‘bones’.”The initial consonant of the root is most likely *h2-, cf. esp. Gk. ἀστακός (besides ὀστακός) ‘lobster’ and ἀστράγαλος ‘knucklebone’, etc.For further, in part already PIE or Core IE, derivatives, cf. most recently Neri in DPEWA s.v. asht ‑i (2022-05-23) with refs.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
Ved. ásthi, gen. asthnás ‘bone’ (RV+); Av. ast- ‘bone, body’
EWAia I:150f., Grassmann 1996a:54, 145, 158f., Bartholomae 1904a:211f.
Arm. oskr ‘bone’
EDAIL:533, Olsen 1999a:147
Alb. asht, pl. Tosk esht(ë)ra, Gheg eshtëna
Demiraj 1997a:82, AED:11, Neri in DPEWA s.v. asht ‑i (2022-05-23)
(?)TochB āśce ‘head’; TochB āyo, TochA āy ‘bone’
DTB²:48–50, 61, Pinault 2008a:417, Carling 2009a:42, Hackstein 2017a:1316