*tr̥Hu̯-ént-/-n̥t-´

This lexeme is attested 213 times in inscriptions from all regions with the exception of Assur, dating from the second half of the 13^th to the early 7^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The above table offers a representative selection, omitting broken attestations. Care has been taken to include all spelling variants.

The attestation in FRAKTİN is not entirely assured, and the sign 〈TONITRUS〉 may be missing altogether (the seal is not broken in any way), or the Storm god is to be assumed the generic god.According to Kohlmeyer 1983a:71 incl. n. 642, only a cleaning of the relief would reveal possible remnants of a sign. A. Boissier (pers. comm.) mentions traces of a sign TONITRUS, but the squeezes do not support this.

[A.P.]

That the word represents a deity name was clear from an early point, because Hommel 1899a:225 correctly identified sign *360 as DEUS and likely to be preceding the name of said deity. In HLuw., the name is consistently spelt with the logogram TONITRUS (sign *199), often, but by no means always, followed by a varying amount of syllabic signs, which were recognised only later. This resulted in scholars misidentifying TONITRUS at first.Thus Ménant 1895a:66 read it as “Sardu”, and see Laroche 1960c:108 for the long list of scholars following this erroneous interpretation, which connected the logogram with the deity Šanta. Although Hommel 1899a:225 had in fact proposed reading the name as /Tarku-/, it was only Gelb 1931a:28, who suggested the same interpretation on very different grounds and later reiterated his views several times, eventually reading the name /Tarhunt-/ also due to the improved decipherment of the syllabic signs (see Gelb 1950a:133); his interpretation has since been followed.See Laroche 1960c:108 for further literature tracing the development of the scholarly dispute.

The god Tarhunt represents the main god in the Luwian pantheon; see Hutter 2003a:220-224, who provides an overview regarding the status and attributes of the storm-god in the Luwian sphere with a comparison to like deities in the neighboring languages and cultures.

[AH.B.]

The morphological analysis of this word has received considerable attention from scholars. A first comprehensive treatment was offered by Laroche 1958a:88-99, who covers the entire word family around the Hittite root tarḫu- ‘to prevail, be powerful, victorious, able’ (cf. also HEG T:157 and esp. 159-161 for Luwian with literature, and EDHIL:835-839).

The allomorphy of the older stem /Tarhunt-/ side by side with the newer stem /Tarhunza-/ arises from recharacterization, in which the newer nom. sg. ending /-as/ was added to the ending older nom. sg. form */Tarhunt-s/ (cf. e.g. Starke 1990a:34), and the subsequently reanalysed stem /Tarhunza-/ then spread to the acc. sg., though not to the other cases, see Starke 1982a:409.Oettinger 2017a:596 views the process to have occurred in a slightly different way. He assumes that the /°ts/ of the nom. sg. spread to the acc. sg., which used to be */Tarhuntan/ and thus became /Tarhunzan/; subsequently the new acc. sg. infected the nom. sg. with the same stem. This development is also quite possible, the outcome being the same as with the assumed recharacterization.

Regarding the formation of the word, Melchert 2003d:136 speaks out in favour of an /-nt-/ stem derived from a basis */tarhu-/; similarly Oettinger 2017a:595f.

The name has given rise to many other personal names and geographical names in the area and across several languages, see already Laroche 1958a:88-99, and more recently e.g. HEG T:159-161 and Weeden 2013a:77-81.

[AH.B.]

1. /Tarhunti(ya)-/

2. /tarhunzassitt(i)-/

3. /tarhuwanu(wa)-⁽ⁱ⁾/

This divine name is found across various Luwian ritual and festival texts.

[D.S.]

The logographic attestations without phonetic complements are omitted from the table.

The word tar-ḫu-un-ta-at-ta(-)x[ (KBo 13.263, 7’) remains unanalyzable until the context is restored (pace CLL:212 and EDHIL:835 “3sg. pret. verb”).

Pace Starke 1990a:137 and CLL:211, ^dU-an at KUB 35.133 ii 24’, 27’ and 41’ is read as ^dU AN ‘Storm-god of the sky’ (following Yakubovich pers. comm.), even though it is written as one word, cf. ^dUTU ^URUPÚ-na (KUB 35.134 ii 12’) written likewise as one segment. On the unclear nom. sg. ^dU-aš, cf. Starke 1990a:139 “stem tarḫunta-” (adducing nom. sg. ^dIM-ta-aš-š=a at KUB 29.1 i 38 (Hitt.)) and CLL:211 (adducing HLuw. secondary a-stem /tarhunza-/).

[D.S.]

Checked against the photographs in the Konkordanz (Mainzer Fotoarchiv). For the reading of ˹^dU˺-a[š^? left undeciphered by Otten 1953c:92 and Starke 1985b:247, see Sasseville 2020d:249.

[D.S.]

The Luwian divine name ^dtarḫunt- has been recognized very early as that of the Storm-god, adducing evidence from Hieroglyphic Luwian (Otten 1953a:101f., DLL:127f. with further literature, Starke 1990a:136-139, Hutter 2003a:220-224).

[D.S.]

The name of the Storm-god inflects as a consonantal stem (without i-mutation). Because of attestations like **voc. ^dU-an (cf. above) and ^dIM-an-za, Starke 1990a:136f. assumes that /tarhuwant-/ is the older form of the contracted /tarhunt-/. However, the fully phonetically spelled vocative tar-ḫu-un-za beside logographic ^dIM-an-za (both found in New Hittite script) makes the latter hardly reliable. Instead, it might simply be conventional with the vowel -a- to be taken as mute ^dIM-(a)n-za/^dU-(a)n-za. In any case, without a fully spelled *tar-ḫu-wa-an-za, the uncontracted variant cannot be deemed extant.

[D.S.]

1. ^mTarḫundaradu (PN) (Laroche 1966b:177)

2. ^mTarḫundaziti (PN) (Laroche 1966b:177)

1. tarḫuntitiya-

2. ^URUTarḫuntašša (GN) (Laroche 1958a:91, HEG T:364)

3. ^mTarḫuntišša (PN) (Laroche 1966b:177)

4. ^mTarḫunzili (PN) (Laroche 1966b:177)

This lexeme is attested in various Lycian inscriptions, e.g. religious decrees, grave inscriptions, and the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.).

[D.S.]

For the restoration of [trq]〈q〉aṣ (TL 80.3), see Laroche 1967a:53 and Neumann 1979b:261 n. 8. Contra Neumann 1979b:261, the same divine name cannot be restored at TL 75.5; see Christiansen 2020a:232.

For the restoration of tr[qqñtahi], see Neumann 2007a:379, although a nominative singular seems certain based on its agreement with httemi (nom. sg. c.).

For the restoration of abl./instr. trqqñ[te/adi], see Sasseville 2014-2015a:113. The choice of restoring an abl./instr. in -edi for consonantal stems is provisional.The possibility that it is -edi instead of -adi is drawn from the M.A. thesis of Jonas Döll.

[D.S.]

Laroche 1958a:97-99 brings decisive evidence to the equation between Lyc. trqqñt- and the Cuneiform Luwian Storm-god ^dtarḫunt- and thus to the identification of trqqñt- as the name of the Lycian Storm-god.For a summary of the outdated literature, see Neumann 2007a:378f. This interpretation has been widely accepted, see Heubeck 1959a:29 n. 83, 32-35, Neumann 1979b:261, Starke 1990a:140f., Melchert (DLL:71, 132), Neumann 2007a:378f.

[D.S.]

On the nominative stem-final -as, cf. Heubeck 1959a:32-35, Neumann 1979b:261, Starke 1990a:140f., Melchert 1994a:300, 309f.

[D.S.]

This lexeme is attested in the inscription of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, dated contextually to shortly after the ascension of Artaxerxes II in 405-404 BCE and stylistically to around 400 BCE (Borchhardt & Eichner 1997-1999a:19f.), as well as in the poetical inscription engraved on the lion sarcophagus of Antiphellos, dated on stylistic grounds to the beginning of the 4^th century BCE (Zahle 1979a:318, Mühlbauer 2007a:91).

[D.S.]

Neumann 2007a:380 interprets trqqñtasi as acc. sg. because of the preceding xrbblatã (followed by Gehrisch 2018a:83). However, it may agree instead with the following dat. sg. tali (see Lyc. B tala-).

[D.S.]

The attestation trqqiñ (TL 44d.44) is emended to trqqiz^! (cf. Schürr 2018b:58-60, 82). The form etrqqi is emended to {e}trqqi〈z〉, which makes the Storm-god the subject of the clause (contra DLL:115, Shevoroshkin 2014a:252, Schürr 2018b:68). The analysis of trqqi as dative singular as per Gehrisch 2018a:90 is morphologically unacceptable.

[D.S.]

For the identification of trqqñt- as the name of the Storm-god, see under Lycian A.

[D.S.]

On the nominative stem-final -iz, cf. Heubeck 1959a:32-35, Neumann 1979b:261, Starke 1990a:140f., Melchert 1994a:286f.

[D.S.]

1. trqqñtasa-

2. trqqñtasa-^(ti)

Attested in a votive inscription on a crater from Iasos, dated to the last quarter of the 6^th c. (Gusmani 1988c:145), and in a stele with a priest list (among others) from Hyllarima, the Carian heading of which is dated to 320 or 320/319 (Adiego 2019b:20–22).

[Zs.S.]

Genitival adjective:

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:355, 423, checked against the photographs in Loiacono 2019a:67 Fig. 14 and Laumonier 1934a:347 Fig. 26. Trqdos seems to show a regular loss of -u- in pretonic position triggered by the accent shift due to the genitival adjective suffix (on which see below, the deletion of the pretonic vowels in confirmed also by the Egyptian and Greek materials adapted into Carian, see Simon forthcoming). Note that this -u- is a secondary, epenthetic vowel according to Kloekhorst (implicitly, Kloekhorst 2008a:138, Kloekhorst 2018b:73 with n. 14), since he assumes that Proto-Anatolian *-h₂u̯- underlying this form was continued as ‹q› [k^w] in Carian. However, as Simon 2011b:543‒545 demonstrated, ‹q› is not a reflex of *-h₂u̯-, but only of *h₂ and specifically before *u (which is frequently preserved), otherwise the laryngeal is continued as ‹k› [k]. Moreover, he argued that Greek transcriptions of Carian names such as Idagygos of dquq clearly show that its phonetic value cannot be [k^w] and opted for [q] (Simon 2011b:539f. with ref.), which is not conducive to the quality of the assumed prothetic vowel.

Trquδe was identified as dat. sg. by Adiego 1994a:38, 50 (but more cautiously in Adiego 2007a:423 [“unclear”, “perhaps”], 317f., Adiego 2019b:27 [“unclear”]) and Hajnal 1995a:25f. (“nach dem Ausschlußverfahren”), Hajnal 1997b:155, which perfectly fits a votive inscription, even if it is otherwise completely obscure (but see most recently the attempt of Loiacono 2019a:67–135), except an epithet of the Storm-god (nevertheless, Melchert 2002b:310 refrained from a morphological analysis, but later [Melchert 2010f:184] called this “plausible”). Assuming the same semantics, Loiacono 2019a:92–135 identifies it, however, as an acc. sg. in -e < *-on governed by the postposition =δ[^? in the phrase trquδe k̑lmud[^? “a Tarḫunt palmus/basileus”, i.e. the theonym and its epithet. Several problems prevent accepting this interpretation: 1) there is no evidence for such a postposition (see s.v. †=δ), 2) the ending acc. sg. c. -n is preserved in Carian (see, e.g., Adiego 2007a:313, Melchert 2010f:178), and 3) the assumed sound change Proto-Anatolian *o > Carian e requires independent evidence. Finally, Schürr 1997b:59 proposed a nom. sg. form, with question mark and without elaborating any details.

Trqdos was earlier interpreted as part of a theophoric name armotrqδos ‘Arma-Tarhunta’ (Adiego 2007a:355f. with ref.), for the correct interpretation ‘in the month of Tarhunta’ see Adiego 2019b:19f. Adiego 2019b:24f. interprets trqδos of this phrase as gen. sg. (“confirms the existence of a genitive-possessive -s in Carian”), although there is no such gen. sg. ending in Carian, all alleged cases are in fact datives (see the detailed discussion already in Melchert 2010f:182f., ignored by Adiego). While the phrase is undoubtedly a possessive construction, this can be expressed in the Luwic languages not only by a genitive ending but also by a genitival adjective, the expected Carian form of which is -(o)s. The form -s- of the genitival adjective is well established in Carian and also ntros ‘of Apollo’ shows the same suffix as argued by Melchert 2010f:183 (see also here s.v.), moreover, as discussed s.v. prŋida, it stands in dat. sg. exactly as trqdos, implying a zero ending for the genitival adjectives in dat. sg. (it is noteworthy that the genitival adjectives show a non-regular ending also in Luwian [-an, Melchert 2003b:188 with ref.]). The possibility of this analysis was admitted also by Adiego 2019b:27.

For a possible compound with this theonym see the discussion s.v. [trqδimr. Note that contrary to earlier proposals, *tĺkat(a)r does not belong here, see the discussion s.v.

[Zs.S.]

There is a justified agreement that this word is the pan-Anatolian term for the Storm-god (Blümel & Adiego 1993a:94; Adiego 1994a:38, Adiego 2007a:355f., 423, Adiego 2019b:20, 22, 27; Adiego, Debord & Varınlıoğlu 2005a:615f.; Hajnal 1995a:25f.; Schürr 1997b:59; Kloekhorst 2008a:138, Kloekhorst 2018b:73; Melchert 2010f:184; Simon 2011b:539, 543; Loiacono 2019a:78).

[Zs.S.]

van Gessel 1998a:749-772