/tunikkala-/, (SCUTELLA)tu-ni-ka-la-
‘baker’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 2818
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tunikkala-/, (SCUTELLA)tu-ni-ka-la-
‘baker’1.1.1Transmission
Attested twice, this lexeme occurs in an inscription from Karkamiš, dating to the late 10th or early 9th century BCE, and in one of the Assur letters of unclear origin, but dating to the late 8th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | /tunikkalas/ | (SCUTELLA)tu-ni-ka-la-sa | KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §17c (Karkamiš) |
| (“PANIS.SCUTELLA”)tu-ni-ka-ra+a-sa | ASSUR letter f+g, §45 |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this lexeme is reasonably certain, because it is cognate with Hittite tunik- ‘(a type of bread)’, see e.g. Melchert 1988b:225f., also cf. Hoffner 1974a:187. It is traditionally assumed to be formed with the suffix /-alla-/, well-known from other HLuw. words (see Sasseville 2014-2015a:116f.), but the obvious rhotacism suggests that it may be a Hittite agent noun in -ala- (see Sasseville 2021e). The spelling differences of the two attestations in KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §17c and ASSUR letter f+g, §45 show the spread of rhotacism at the expense of intervocalic /l/ among others, cf. Melchert 2003b:179-182.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1986a:77 link the two attestations in KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §17c and ASSUR letter f+g, §45 and, taking into account the presence of the logographic determinative PANIS (sign *181) ‘bread’, suggest that the referent may be a maker of the tunik-type bread, a view reiterated in Hawkins 2000a:111.Melchert 1988b:225f. comes to a slightly different conclusion, stating that the word must denote a server of a certain type of bread, but the presence of the agent noun suffix tips the scales in favour of Hawkins’ and Morpurgo Davies’ interpretation, cf. the discussion of the stem below.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The noun could be a formation in /-alla-/ without i-mutation, see Sasseville 2014-2015a:117, 120. However, more likely is a Hittite formation in -ala- (see Sasseville 2021e), which would make it a borrowing from Hittite as suspected by Melchert 1988b:225f. This is now supported from a phonetic view point, in which only singleton /-l-/ can rhotacise (see Sasseville 2021e). In any case, it is definitely an agent noun built from a base */tunik-/, which is unattested in the HLuw. corpus, but occurs in Hittite.
[AH.B.]