/taruwi(ya)-/

This hapax is attested in a single inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the 10^th or early 9^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

nom. sg.	/taruwis/	“LIGNUM”-sa	KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §33 (Karkamiš)
dat./loc. sg.	/taruwi/	(LIGNUM)tara/i-wa/i	ARSUZ 1, §11 (Amuq)
		“LIGNUM”-ru-wa/i-i	ARSUZ 2, §11 (Amuq)
abl./instr.	/taruwiyadi/	“LIGNUM”-wa/i-ia-ti	KARKAMIŠ A11a, §18 (Karkamiš)

It is possible that the attestations in the table above should be distributed across two different lexemes: common gender /taruwi(ya)-/ ‘wood’, and its erstwhile derivational and neuter gender basis */taru-/ ‘wood’. The latter of these has a direct cognate e.g. in Hitt./CLuw. ^GIŠtāru- ‘wood’ and beyond (cf. also the discussions below), which explains why scholars assumed it to exist in HLuw. as well, cf. the remarks by Hawkins 2000a:108. However, the attested spellings do not in fact necessitate the assumption of two different stems, and all forms are hence attributed to the same lexeme until incontrovertible evidence is found proving the existence of */taru-/ in HLuw.; cf. also the discussion of the stem below.

[A.P.]

The general meaning of this word as ‘wood’ has long been clear due to its obvious etymological connects within the Anatolian branch and beyond; for the interpretation of the logogram LIGNUM as ‘wood’, see Hawkins 2000a:99. In the context of KARKAMIŠ A11a, §18, this meaning appears fully justified: *a-wa/i-tà “LIGNUM”-wa/i-ia-ti AEDIFICARE.MI-ha, approx. /a=wa=ada taruwiyadi tamaha/, meaning ‘I built them (scil. the aforementioned gates) with wood’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:95).

A possible and contextually more specialised meaning as ‘staff, stick’ is suggested by Dinçol, Dinçol, Hawkins, Peker & Öztan 2015a:67 in the context of ARSUZ 1 and 2, where the combination with the verb /tu(wa)-⁽ⁱ⁾/ ‘to put’ appears to denote a negative action. ARSUZ 1, §11 reads: *429-sa-pa-wa/i-mu(URBS) (LIGNUM)tara/i-wa/i PONERE-wa/i-ta, approx. /Ahhiyawas=ba=wa=mu taruwi tuwatta/, which they translate as ‘The city of Que put me to the stick’ (cf. Dinçol, Dinçol, Hawkins, Peker & Öztan 2015a:64f.). The authors refrain from a more precise interpretation, noting that the expression appears to be an idiom, but it must be stated that it is by no means necessary to assume an additional meaning ‘staff, stick’ alongside the more generic ‘wood’. In fact, the idiom can well be ‘to put someone to the wood’. Moreover, a more specialised denotation different from ‘staff, stick’ is equally possible, cf. Germ. Holz ‘wood’, which has the additional dialectal meaning ‘copse’ in some regions. Therefore, the meaning assigned here is limited to ‘wood’, although further textual evidence may require a new look at the semantic range of the word.

[AH.B.]

The word represents a common gender noun, resulting from a substantivized adjective of appurtenance in /-i(ya)-/. The derivational basis for the adjective is most probably */taru-/ ‘wood’, which does not appear to be attested in HLuw., but can be found in Hitt./CLuw. ^GIŠtāru- ‘wood’. It is possible that HLuw. reverted to using the substantivized adjective /taruwi(ya)-/ for ‘wood’, once the neuter gender nouns /taru-/ ‘wood’ and /tarud-/ ‘wood, statue’ could no longer be differentiated in the nom./acc. sg. due to the loss of word-final stops, resulting in the same shape for both, viz. /taru=sa/.

The i-mutation pattern causes the suffix /-i(ya)-/ to become invisible in HLuw. spelling in the attested dat./loc. sg. forms, cf. Melchert 2003b:187f.

[AH.B.]

This lexeme is found in a pregnancy ritual invoking the Mood-god.

[D.S.]

nom./acc. pl. n.

tar-ú-e-ia

KUB 35.103 iii 12

(CTH 766, MS)

Pace Laroche 1959a:95, the present word is not likely to belong to the lexeme tarwai(ya)- due to the different suffixation, i.e. -i(ya)- vs. -ai(ya)-.

[D.S.]

Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv).

[D.S.]

The adjective tarwiya modifies ‘feet’ GÌR^MEŠ-du /pada=du/ (coll./dual) (Otten 1953a:79). Melchert (CLL :220) suggests the meaning ‘sprawling (?)’, adducing an etymological connection with Hitt. tarru ‘firm’, which is phonologically incorrect and semantically difficult. It is left untranslated by Watkins 1995b:147.

Bayun 1991a:102 assumes an adjectival derivative from the word tāru- ‘wood’, which is very attractive and followed by Melchert (DCL:s.v.). Likewise, Sasseville 2021a:227 translates tarwi(ya)- with ‘wooden’, implying a negative state of the feet (and hands), which causes the being to strike at the fruit-bearing earth, making it dry or barren (?). Despite the tentative interpretation of the passage, the semantic assignment is surely correct.

[D.S.]

The lexeme is interpreted here as a derivative in -i(ya)- built on the neuter u-stem tāru-.

[D.S.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. tāru-.