ārraḫḫani-^(ti)

The only form of the verbal stem in Luwian context is found in a ritual fragment.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The restoration of -i[t- at KUB 35.109 iii 15’ (elsewhere still read as -x-[, see DLL:30, Starke 1985b:266, Rieken 2017e:245) is based on the similarity with the initial part of the DA sign ibid. iii 6’. IA, AŠ, AN, and TI are excluded by their shapes.

[E.R.]

Due to the fragmentary context, the assignment of the meaning ‘to curse’ depends entirely on the semantic interpretation of the verbal forms in Hittite transmission (see under Lemma).

[E.R.]

The likely reading of the ending as -i[t-ti or -i[t-ta^? speaks for a classification as an -i-^(ti) stem verb, which would conform to the stem attested in Hittite transmission (see under Lemma).

[E.R.]

1. arraḫḫaniya-
2. arraḫḫaniyama/i-

This word is attested from NS, in a ritual fragment (CTH 470), in a fragment with unknown text type (CTH 832) and in a LNS combined oracle including su, kin and mušen (CTH 577).

 [A.B.]

The attestations follow Laroche 1959a:30, CLL:24, Melchert (pers. comm.), HW 2nd ed.A:235, (cf. Ünal 2007a:46; Ünal 2016a:74; van den Hout 2006a:254, 251; Güterbock 1956a:131). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. For the related Glossenkeilwort cf. under the lemma ārrahhani(ya)-^ti .

[A.B.]

No meaning is indicated for this word in CLL:24 and Starke 1990a:254. Laroche 1959a:30 did not provide any meaning, either, but referred to Meriggi 1957b:58 who proposed a meaning “dir male (?), maledire, stregare” (based on the contexts for arrahhaniške/a-^zi attested in KBo 2.6, cf. below).

A meaning ‘to curse’ (or sim.) arraḫḫani(ya)-^ti is assumed by: HW 2nd ed.A:235 “fluchen, verwünschen” (with two question marks) and (also with question mark) in Ünal 2007a:46 (cf. Ünal 2016a:74), Tischler 2008a:22 ‘fluchen’ (cf. Tischler 2016a:23 ‘jurer’) and van den van den Hout 1998b:205 (cf. below). Sasseville 2021a:149f. assumes a meaning ‘to curse, to grumble’ (or sim.).

The contexts of KBo 2.6++ obv. ii 39, 45, 52, rev. iii 5 show the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and, the hand copy as well as the transliterations and translations of van den van den Hout 1998b:204–207, Warbinek 2020a:459–467 and Rieken 2017e:242f.  have been taken into account):

The most transparent of these attestations is the following:

⁽⁵⁰⁾ma-a-an eme ša ^f.dištar-at-ti-pát ti-an-ta-aš ⁽⁵¹⁾ku-it-ma-na-aš ti-an-za e-eš-ta nu a-pí-ia ku-it ⁽⁵²⁾ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-iš-ke-et gidim-ia-kán ku-it tuku.tuku-nu-an-za

^(50–52)if (it is) the tongue/speech of that Šaušgatti, (who, when) alive, (and) as long as she was alive, at that time she repeatedly arraḫḫani-ed, and the (spirit of the) deceased (is) enraged

The other attestations in this text show a similar context:

rev. iii 4–7

⁽⁴⁾ma-a-an eme ša ^f.dištar-at-ti-pát ti-an-da-aš ku-it-ma-na-aš ⁽⁵⁾ti-an-za e-eš-ta nu a-pí-ia ku-it ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-iš-ke-et ⁽⁶⁾gidim-ia ku-it tuku.tuku-u-an-za dumuMEŠ-šu-ia-aš-ši eme e-eš-ša-an-zi ⁽⁷⁾nu-za ma-a-an gidim ke-e-da-aš-pát wa-aš-ku-wa-aš še-er tuku.tuku-u-an-za

^(4–5)If (it is) the tongue/speech of that Šaušgatti, (who, when) alive, (and) as long as she was alive, at that time she repeatedly arraḫḫani-ed, ⁽⁶⁾and the (spirit of the) deceased (is) enraged and her sons perform speech, ⁽⁷⁾If the (spirit of the) deceased only of these sins/wrongdoings (you are?) enraged

obv. ii 38f.:

⁽³⁸⁾eme ša ^f.dištar-at-ti-pát ti-an-ta-aš ku-it-ma-na-aš ti-an-za e-eš-ta ⁽³⁹⁾nu a-pí-ia ku-it ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-iš-ke-et nu kin nu.sig5-du  

^(38–39)(Is it) the tongue/speech of that Šaušgatti, (who, when) alive (and) as long as she was alive, at that time she repeatedly arraḫḫani-ed? – Then the kin-oracle shall not be favourable

obv. ii 43–45

^(43’)ma-a-an eme ša ^f.dištar-at-ti-pát ti-an-ta-aš-pát ^(44’)ku-it-ma-na-aš ti-an-za e-eš-ta nu a-pí-ia ku-it ⁽⁴⁵⁾ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-iš-ke-et (…)

^{(43’–45’)}If (it is) the tongue/speech of that Šaušgatti, (who) only when alive (and) as long as she was alive, at that time she repeatedly arraḫḫani-ed? (…).

In these contexts, the oracles are used to determine, whether a (spirit of a) deceased is angry because of the speech of a certain woman Šaušgatti, who repeatedly arraḫḫani-ed. Accordingly, the verb arraḫḫaniške/a-^zi (and thus arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi) is most probably a verb of speech with a very negative meaning, but the precise nature of the negativity remains unclear. Van den Hout 1998b:205 translates ‘cursed’ likewise assuming that eme means ‘curse’ but it is also generally used as the Sumerogram for ‘tongue; speech’. Warbinek 2020a:463 cautiously translates: “aveva maledetto?”.

The semantics of arraḫḫaniške/a-^zi (and arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi) can be narrowed down by including further evidence. For instance, the form ar-ra-a]ḫ-ḫa-ni-ia-at appears in collocation with tiwataniye/a-^mi in KBo 43.14 obv. i 5 (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, also the hand copy as well as the transliteration and translation of Rieken 2017e:243 have been taken into account): ⁽⁴⁾[… me-n]a-aḫ-ḫa-an-da eme-an x[…] ⁽⁵⁾[… ar-ra-a]ḫ-ḫa-ni-ia-at ti-wa-ta-ni-⸢ia⸣[-at …]. The context is too fragmentary for a thorough assessment, but again contains the word ‘tongue’. The Luwian word tiwataniya-^ti (which also appears as Glossenkeilwort tiwataniye/a-^mi in Hittite transmission.) means something like ‘to call Tiwat (the Sun-god) as witness; to swear; to curse’ (cf. Watkins 1993a:469f. and under the respective lemma). Another collocation is attested with the derivatives of both words: arraḫḫaniyama/i- tiwataniyama- in KBo 31.6 rev. iii^? 9 and the context also points to a something negative listed, together with ‘a bloody deed’ and ‘the tongue of wrath^(?)’ (cf. under the lemmata arraḫḫaniyama/i- and tiwataniyama-).

Already Otten 1953a:95 had suggested a semantic parallel between the word pairs arraḫḫani(ya)- tiwataniya- (in Hittite contexts) and ḫīrutani(ya)- tiwatani(ya)- (attested in Luwian rituals). Luw.  ḫīrutani(ya)- is now accepted to mean something like ‘to swear a (false) oath’ (cf. under the respective lemma). Accordingly, arraḫḫani(ya)- could have a similar meaning like ḫīrutani(ya)-, but should be different from tiwataniya-.

As pointed out by Rieken 2017e:243, the fragmentary context of VS NF 12.124, 3 (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, additionally the hand copy as well as the transliterations of Groddek, Hagenbuchner & Hoffmann 2002a:177 and Rieken 2017e:243 have been taken into account): ^(2’)[…]dingir-lì eme l[i/e- …] ^(3’)[… ar-r]a-aḫ-ḫ-ni-ia-ad-du[…] ^(4’)[…]x-wa iš-pa-te-ni li-i[n- …] ^(5’)[… p]a-ni dingir-lì le-e l[i- …] ^(6’)[…]x le-e li-in-ki-i[a …]) indeed shows the imperative form ar-r]a-aḫ-ḫ-ni-ia-ad-du (again together with the Sumerogram eme) and the phrase p]a-ni dingir-lì le-e l[i- …] x le-e li-in-ki-i[a …] which means that something (most probably a false oath) “must not be swor[n] [in fr]ont of the gods” (line 5’–6’). Note that the related substantive arraḫḫaniya- (cf. under the respective lemma), is also attested together with Hitt. lingai- ‘oath; oath god; false oath’.

While some of the contexts indeed point to a meaning ‘swearing a false oath’ (or sim.) and such a meaning cannot be excluded for the contexts in KBo 2.6++, it may be too specific to interpret it as a legal act in this case of iterative speech described for Šaušgatti. One could also assume a more generally offending type of negative speech, probably also including an attitude of disloyalty and/or repeatedly making false statements, which would enrage the spirit of the dead as described in the ritual. The proposed meaning ‘to curse’ (or sim.) and the (in part etymologically based) proposal by Rieken 2017e:249 “fluchen, schimpfen, brüllen” (cf. under the lemma ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti) do not include this latter aspect. Perhaps the assumed meaning should be modified, a suggestion could be ‘to rant; slander; curse’ (or sim.?).

[A.B.]

Due to its Hittite inflection and the attestations with the suffix -ške/a-, arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi can easily be identified as a Hittite verb (cf. Güterbock 1956a:131 who already listed this word as Hittite). However, a Hittite base for this verb is not attested (note that a derivation with the Hitt. factitive suffix -aḫḫ- is restricted to adjectives as base word, cf. Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:175f. and there are no fitting adjectives available). More likely is a connection to the Luwian Glossenkeilwort ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti, which appears with Luwian inflection in Hittite context, cf. under the respective lemma). Thus arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi is most probably a loan word from Luwian and could have the same source as the Glossenkeilwort ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti (cf. under the respective lemma).

[A.B.]

This word is attested in Hittite context in a NS Luwian ritual (CTH 765) and once with gloss marker in a NS text (CTH 832).

[A.B.]

3sg. pres. ind. act.	a-ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-it-⸢ti⸣	KBo 12.89 rev. iii 19	(CTH 765, MS)
	⸢⸣ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-⸢it?!⸣-ti	KBo 13.50 9’	(CTH 832, NS)
3sg. pret. ind. act.	a-ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-n[i-it-ta]	KBo 12.89 rev. iii 17	(CTH 765, MS)

The attestations follow CLL:24, HW 2nd ed.A:235,Starke 1990a:254, (cf. Ünal 2007a:46; Ünal 2016a:74; van den Hout 2006a:254, 251; Zorman 2007a:757; not yet in Laroche 1959a:30). The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. For an improbable reading of the attestation in KBo 13.50 as arraḫḫanikti, cf. under the lemma †arraḫḫanikti. For the Hittite loan word arraḫḫaniye-^zi, cf. under the respective lemma).

[A.B.]

No meaning is indicated for this verb in CLL:24 and Starke 1990a:254. The problem is that the contexts of Luw. ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti do not permit a semantic assessment of this word.

The context of KBo 12.89 rev. iii 19 shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the hand copy as well as the transliterations, and translations of Starke 1985b:243, Torri 2010a:389, Torri & Barsacchi 2018b:101, HEGU–Z:793f., EDHIL:1039, Steitler 2017a:394 have been taken into account):

^(17’)[…]x túḫ-ḫu-i-in zu-wa-a-it [n]u-wa a-ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-n[i-it-ta …] ^(18’)[… k]i-nu-na-ia-wa da-an-du-ki-⸢iš⸣-na-an dumu-an igiḪI.A[(-) ...] ^(19’)[…]x nu-wa a-ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-it-⸢ti⸣ […]

^(17’)[…]x spread^? the smoke and ārraḫḫani[-ed^? …] ^(18’)[…] and [n]ow the mortal^? son^(acc.) [his^?] eyes [...] ^(19’) […]x ārraḫḫani-es […]

The context of KBo 13.50 9’ is even more unclear (the transliteration is based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore the hand copy as well as the transliteration of Torri & Barsacchi 2018a:59 has been taken account of):

^(8’)x-zi nu-wa-ra-aš udKAM-ti mi-ia-an-ti-ia ^(9’)x-e-da-ni pé-ra-an gam ⸢⸣ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-⸢it^?⸣-ti

While these contexts remain unclear, most authors take into account the closely related Hittite verb arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi (a loan word from Luwian, probably from the same source as the Glossenkeilwort) and transfer the better established meaning of arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi which is assumed to mean ‘to curse’ (or sim.): Meriggi 1957b:58 “dir male (?), maledire, stregare” and in his index p. 77 “impecare” (or sim.); HW 2nd ed.A:235 “fluchen, verwünschen” (with two question marks) and (also with question mark) in Ünal 2007a:46 (cf. Ünal 2016a:74), Tischler 2008a:22 ‘fluchen’ (cf. Tischler 2016a:23 ‘jurer’), cf. also Torri 2010a:389 and Zorman 2007a:757, to ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti. A negative meaning of the verb is also supported by its derivative arraḫḫaniyama/i- (cf. under the respective lemma).

Based on etymological considerations relating to the root *reh₂-mn- (LIV²:501, cf. under Reconstruction), Rieken 2017e:249 assumes a meaning “fluchen, schimpfen, brüllen” for this verb and (245f.) also compares other verbs with a negative meaning and the same suffix “-(a)ni(ya)-” which could be used to derive verbs denoting aggressive or expressive speech acts (assuming a “Bedeutungsspektrum ‘sich unangemessen äußern’”), cf. under Origin. As examples usually serve the verbs tiwatani(ya)- ‘to call Tiwat (the Sun-god) as witness; to swear; to curse’ and ḫīrutani(ya)- ‘to swear a (false) oath’, Rieken 2017e:245f also assumes that the Glossenkeilwort kug(g)urni(ya)- (for which she suggests a meaning “verleumden”) belongs to this group. Sasseville 2021a:149 assumes a meaning ‘to curse, to grumble’ (or sim.) for ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti (pointing out that the verb “appears to be used intransitively, although the fragmentary contexts call for caution”).

As seen in the attestations for arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi, part of the meaning is related to swearing a false oath, which could point to aspects of disloyalty and/or making false statements (or to slander?). Hence the range of the assumed meaning could encompass ‘to rant; slander; curse’ (or sim.?).

[A.B.]

It is generally accepted that we are dealing with a Luwian word since it appears with Luwian inflection (cf. CLL:24; Tischler 2008a:22; Tischler 2016a:23; van den Hout 2006a:254, 251; Ünal 2016a:951).

Most scholars cautiously assume that ārraḫḫani-^ti is a denominative (cf. CLL:24, HW 2nd ed.A:235, Tischler 2008a:22, Tischler 2016a:23). The source would be a Luwian noun *arraḫḫaniya-, which is attested in Hittite transmission as Glossenkeilwort arraḫḫaniya- (cf. under the respective lemma). However, Melchert (pers. comm.) also considers the possibility that the noun arraḫḫaniya- could be a derivative of the verb ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti.

Rieken 2017e:245f. shows that Luwian arraḫḫani(ya)- could have been the origin of a generalization of a suffix “-(a)ni(ya)-” with allomorph “-ni(ya)-” (for older analyses of this suffix cf. Otten 1953a:95 who considered a “verbalstammbildendes -ni-”, cf. also Meriggi 1957b:57; Starke 1990a:147 assumed a Luwian denominal suffix “-ani̯i-”) to derive other verbs with a similar meaning or function. While the base of tiwatani(ya)- and ḫīrutani(ya)- are attested, since tiwat- is the name of the Sun god and ḫīrūn- / ḫīrūt- means ‘(false) oath’, for ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti a base such as *araḫḫa- is missing. Following Rieken 2017e:248f., the formation of the suffix “-(a)ni(ya)-”, before its reanalysis, was probably based on a combination of the Luwian suffix -i(ya)- (forming verbs from nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:199) with an -n-stem *arraḫḫan- (cf. Rieken 2017e:248f.). This n-stem could include a Luwian suffix -an- (attested in some nouns, cf. Melchert 2003b:197).

[A.B.]