tatarḫ-
‘to break’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 2859
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
tatarḫ-
‘to break’1.1.1Transmission
Hapax in a Luwian ritual (LNS).
[Zs.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| 3pl. imp. act. | ta-ta-ar-ḫa-an-du | KUB 9.6 iii 27’ | (CTH 759, LNS) |
The attestation follows CLL:221 (with false KUB number, cf. also Laroche 1959a:95; HEG T,D:159; EDHIL:838) checked against the photograph of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. On the improbable possibility that this verb has a preverb āḫḫa see the critical discussion in Yakubovich 2012a:327.
[Zs.S.]
1.1.3Meaning ‘to break’
There is a general assumption regarding the meaning ‘to break’ (since Laroche 1959a:95 [with question mark]; CLL:221; Torri 2003a:60; EDHIL:838 [“may”]; Tischler 2008a:195, Tischler 2016a:371 [contrary to his earlier scepticism, HEG T,D:159 (“keineswegs gesichert”)]; Yakubovich 2010b:377, Yakubovich 2010d:47, 143; Giusfredi 2014a:309; Ünal 2016a:972 [adding the unsubstantiated meaning ‘to exhaust’ with question mark]), to which, alternatively, also the meaning ‘to crush’ was suggested (Melchert 1984a:158; Watkins 1986b:325f; Garrett & Kurke 1994a:76; Reichardt 1998a:35, 79; Tischler 2008a:195; Yakubovich 2012a:327; cf. also Laroche 1958b:180). Since the verb refers to the destruction of reed, basically both meanings can be correct, nevertheless, the meaning ‘to break’ fits better to this act than ‘to crush’ (cf. also Watkins 1986b:325f. pointing out that tatarḫ- is not necessarily identical with the verb meaning ‘to crush’ vel sim. in the Hittite introduction of the ritual, contra Melchert 1984a:158).
[Zs.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
On semantic grounds, Kloekhorst (EDHIL:838) separates CLuw. tatarḫandu ‘they must break (redupl.)’ etymologically from Hitt. tarḫ-u-(mi) ‘to conquer, be able to’ (including the root in the name of the Storm-god Tarḫunt-; see PAnat. *tr̥Hu̯-ént-/-n̥t-´) and reconstructs for the former *terh3- (comparing Greek τρώω ‘to hurt’), but for the latter *terh2- (for an overview of the older literature, see HEG T:164-170). The perspective of Kloekhorst is followed by Melchert 2011a:129, against Starke 1990a:142 who combines the two roots (doubted by Tischler in HEG T:159 because of the “obscurity” of the CLuw. lexeme). Phonologically speaking, no difference can be made and the whole argument rests on semantics and comparative evidence with the Indo-European material.
[D.S.]