/hast(ar)r(a/iTi)^?-/, há-sa-tara/i-ti-

This hapax legomenon is attested once in an inscription from Malatya, dating to the 11^th or 10^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

unclear

/hastarraTi(Ha)?/

há-sa?-tara/i-ti-ha

IZGIN 1, §9 (Malatya)

The analysis of the form in IZGIN 1, §9 is unclear. Because it appears to constitute the end of a clause, a 1sg. pret. act. verb seems the most likely option, yet its morphological structure is unusual for a word from the verbal domain and has prompted Hawkins 2000a:317 to analyse it as an abl./instr. followed by the connector /=ha/ ‘and’; see the discussion of the stem below.

[AH.B.] [A.P.]

The semantic interpretation of this lexeme has so far eluded scholars, and its uncertain status as either an abl./instr. noun or a 1sg. pret. act. verb does not aid in the matter. It is possible – though not at present provable – that the form, be it a verb or a noun, is etymologically related to /has(s)(a/i^?)-/ ‘force, see the discussion of the stem below for details; the following suggestions are based on this hypothesis. In the context at IZGIN 1, §9 the clause runs: PITHOS.GRYLLUS-pa-wa/i-mi(URBS) *a-mi-ia-ti LEPUS+RA/I-ti há-sa^?-tara/i-ti-ha, possibly /…=ba=wa=mi ammiyadi tabariyadi hastarraTi(Ha^?)/. If the form is regarded as an abl./instr. noun coordinated with the preceding abl./instr. with /=ha/ ‘and’, an approx. translation might be ‘But the city PITHOS.GRYLLUS (was) for myself by my command and permission^??’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:315, 317). If, however, the form represents a 1sg. pret. act. verb, the clause may translate as ‘But for myself, I enforced^?? the city PITHOS.GRYLLUS by my command’.

Only further data can shed light on the matter and decide between the possibilities laid out here – or result in a sweeping reappraisal of the form.

[AH.B.]

The stem of this lexeme is unclear for lack of further data, but some possibilities can be listed here for now. If the word should indeed be related to the family around /has(s)(a/i^?)-/ ‘force’, two derivational pathways open up for it as a noun: one would result in a form such as /hast(a)r(r)a(/i^?)-/ deriving from */hast-/ like /hastal(i)-/ ‘hero’, but with the suffix /-ra-/ (cf. Melchert 2003b:169). The other would have a different shape as /has(s)atar(a/i^?)-/ and derive from /has(s)(a/i^?)-/ ‘force’ with the abstract neuter suffix /-tar-/ (thus tentatively suggested by Hawkins 2000a:317; cf. Melchert ibid.). Finally, a marginally possible structure may be a noun in /-astr(i)-/, i.e. /hastr(i)-/, deriving from an adjective based on the verb /ha-/ ‘to allow’Abstract nouns in /-(a)str(i)-/ are commonly formed from adjectives (see Melchert 2003b:196), although that may not be fully visible in the resulting form, cf. /hattastr(i)-/ ‘violence’ and the verb /hatta-/ ‘to demolish’. with a possible meaning of ‘permission’. Alternatively, if the form attested in IZGIN 1, §9 should turn out to be a verb after all, its morphological structure could be a denominal verb in one of the i-containing stems, i.e. /-i-^(ti)/ or /-(a)i-^(di)/ (less likely /-i(ya)-^(di)/). The derivational base would be /hast(a)r(r)aT(i)-/, a common gender noun in /-aT(i)-/ formed from adjective in /-ra-/; a suitable meaning is hard to guess at, but may be going in the direction of ‘to enforce’ vel sim.

[AH.B.]

For the lemma head see HLuw. */has(t)-/.