arraḫḫaniyama/i-

This word is only attested once in a NS tablet inventory of Arzawa rituals (for this kind of ritual cf. Bawanypeck 2005b with further literature).

[A.B.]

nom. sg. c. or gen. sg.

ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-ia-ma-aš

KBo 31.6 rev. iii? 9

(CTH 277, NS)

The attestation follows CLL:24 (cf. Starke 1990a:254,Ünal 2007a:46 and Ünal 2016a:74, not yet in Laroche 1959a:30). The transliteration has been checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[A.B.]

No meaning is indicated for this word in CLL:24 (cf. Ünal 2007a:46, Ünal 2016a:74). For the otherwise assumed meaning ‘cursing’ (or sim.) and connections to related verbs ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti and arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi cf. below.

The context of KBo 31.6 rev. iii^? 9 shows the following (the transliteration is based on the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, furthermore the hand copy as well as the transliterations and translations of Starke 1990a:254; Miller 2004a:32f.;Dardano 2006a:182f.; Rieken 2017e:242 and HEGT, D:399 have been taken into account):

^(8’)[x tup-p]u inim ^mmaš-ḫu-u-i-lu-wa ma-an-kán un-ši ⸢tuku^?⸣-aš eme-aš na-aš-ma e-eš-ḫar ^(9’)[na^?-aš^?-]ma ar-ra-aḫ-ḫa-ni-ia-ma-aš ti-wa-ta-ni-ia-ma-aš a-ri ^(10’)[na-a]n ki-iš-ša-an a-ni-ia-am-mi

^{(8’–10’)}[… table]t of the word of Mašḫuiluwa. If to a human the tongue of wrath^? or (a) blood(y deed), [o]r^? if arraḫḫaniyama tiwataniyama comes, [then] I treat [hi]m in the following way

The context speaks of a potential threat for the patient coming from “(a) blood(y deed)” (cf. Starke 1990a:254; Dardano 2006a:183; Rieken 2017e:242; HEGT, D:399) or a “tongue of x”. Regarding the last-mentioned threat represented by the sequence ⸢tuku^?⸣-aš eme-aš, the damaged sign is disputed. Miller very cautiously considered a reading ⸢ḫul⸣ ‘evil’ (ḫul frequently appears with eme ‘tongue’). However, the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv rather supports a reading ⸢tuku^?⸣ (as read by Dardano 2006a:183, followed by Rieken 2017e:242 and HEGT, D:399), although the Sumerogram for ‘wrath’ is usually written tuku.tuku. If the reading ⸢tuku^?⸣-aš eme-aš applies, it would mean something like ‘the tongue of wrath^(?), which is more specific than ‘evil tongue’.

In the following part, the nouns arraḫḫaniyamaš and tiwataniyamaš follow the sequence of the aforementioned threats ‘tongue of wrath’ and ‘blood(y deed)’. While Miller 2004a:33 interpreted the form arraḫḫaniyamaš as genitive attribute to the nom. sg. tiwataniyamaš, Dardano 2006a:183 (cf. also Starke 1990a:254; Rieken 2017e:242 and HEGT, D:399) saw arraḫḫaniyamaš and tiwataniyamaš as two subjects. Formally, both options are possible, but a sequence of nominatives as a sort of list seems more probable.

The verb tiwatani(ya)-^ti has been shown to mean ‘to call Tiwat (the Sun-god) as witness; to swear; to curse’ (cf. Watkins 1993a:470; HEGT, D:399 and under the respective lemma), since tiwataniyama/i- is a derivative based on this verb, it has a similar basic meaning. Since tiwatani(ya)- not only appears together with arraḫḫani(ya)- (in Hittite contexts), but also with ḫīrutani(ya)- ‘to swear (an oath or a false oath)’ (in Luwian rituals), Otten 1953a:95 proposed a semantic equation between ḫīrutani(ya)- and arraḫḫani(ya)-. Accordingly, arraḫḫani(ya)- could have a similar meaning like ḫīrutani(ya)- but should be different from tiwatani(ya)-.

At least for the related verb arraḫḫaniye/a-^zi an aspect of ‘swearing a false oath’ (or sim.) can be assumed as part of its semantics (cf. under the respective lemma). This verb most probably goes back to a Luwian verb arraḫḫani(ya)- which is attested as Glossenkeilwort ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti and must be also the base of the noun arraḫḫaniyama/i- (cf. under Origin for morphological details). Accordingly, a similar meaning can be assumed for the word under discussion, a kind of verbal hostility: ‘ranting; slandering; cursing’ (or sim.), including an aspect of disloyalty and/or making false statements (perhaps thus also a possible synonym for ḫīrutani(ya)-).

[A.B.]

The origin of this word is generally assumed to be Luwian. Starke 1990a:254 (cf. Tischler 2008a:22 and Tischler 2016a:23) assumes that it shows the Luwian suffix -m(m)a/i- forming verbal participles (and secondarily possessive adjectives) from nouns (cf. Melchert 2003b:195). Starke 1990a:254 reconstructs a Luwian word *arraḫḫaniyamman- (which is listed in Ünal 2016a:951 in his list of Luwianisms but note that it is not actually attested) assuming a formation with the very productive Luwian suffix -mman- that derives neuter action nouns from verbs, this suffix is (according to Melchert 2003b:197) the basis of the participle suffix -m(m)a/i-. Differently, CLL:24 (cf. Miller 2004a:30) assumes that arraḫḫaniyama/i- is a Luwian deverbal in -ama/i- (for this suffix forming nouns from verbs cf. Melchert 2003b:195). The derivation with the suffix -ama/i- is more straightforward and better reflects the attestation of the form arraḫḫaniyamaš (with single m), moreover, a noun fits better in the sequence of threats listed in the attested context (cf. under Meaning) than a participle or possessive adjective. In any case, the base for this word is a Luwian verb arraḫḫani(ya)- that is attested as Glossenkeilwort ārraḫḫani(ya)-^ti. To conclude, as evident by its Luwian stem formation arraḫḫaniyama/i- is a Luwian loan or foreign word in Hittite.

[A.B.]