*sorh3u̯-ént-
‘belly, innards’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 3049
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
šarḫuwant(i)-
‘womb, belly’1.1.1Transmission
The noun occurs twice in a now joined NS ritual fragment from the Kuwattalla tradition.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. | [UZUšar-ḫ]u-wa-an-ti-iš | KUB 35.112 r. col. 5’ | (CTH 761, NS) |
| acc. sg. | UZUšar-ḫu-wa-an-t[i-in] | KBo 52.231 r. col. 6’ | (CTH 761, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
The clause UZUšar-ḫu-wa-an-t[i-in UZUšar-ḫ]u-wa-an-ti-iš ki.min (= ḫallinai) “The womb ditto (= decontaminates) the womb” is part of a list of clauses with parallel structure with body part subjects and objects (throat, heart, liver, kidney, and šarḫuwant(i)- ‘womb’). Obviously, šarḫuwant(i)- is the exact match of Hitt. šarḫuwant- c. ‘womb, belly, fetus, innards’ and is translated accordingly by Mouton, Puértola Rubio & Yakubovich (pers. comm.).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The stem ends in the suffix -ant(i)- or -want(i)-, depending on whether the base is *šarḫ- or *šarḫu-. Lyc. B zrqqi-(ti) and Gk. ὀρύᾱ ‘intestine, gut’ speaks for the latter.
[E.R.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Hittite
šarḫuwant-
‘belly, fetus, innards’1.2.1Literature / Comments
CHD Š:253f.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘belly, innards’
Considering Hitt. šarḫuwant- and CLuw. šarḫuwant(i)- as well as a connection with PAnat. *serh3- (*sr̥h3-i̯é/ó-) ‘to gut, eviscerate’, a Proto-Anatolian noun *sorh3u̯-ént- ‘belly, innards’ can be reconstructed. Although the grade of the root cannot be determined, an original o-grade can be posited based on the Syracusan Doric Greek cognate ὀρύᾱ ‘intestine, gut’ (Schindler 1969a:159, Kimball 1994b:93, HEG S:894, EDLIL:62 comparing Lat. aruīna ‘fat, lard’ to the Greek cognate, Maier 2013a:138 n. 774The word ὀρύᾱ is transmitted as the title of Epicharmus’ play by Athenaeus and in Hesychius (ο 1290 ὀρούα· χορδή, ο 1342 ὀρύα· χορδή ἑφθή), which may go back to the title of the play; since Syracusan Doric is not a psilotic dialect (thus expecting *ὁρύα), one needs to assume that either Athenaeus messed up the word that was not part of his own vocabulary or the initial aspiration in an unfamiliar word was lost in transmission, which is not impossible but not provable either (A. Nikolaev pers. comm.); cf. Willi 2008a:32 for a Italic origin instead.); cf. Čop 1955d:403-406, EDHIL:733 and Maier 2013a:138f. for a comparison with an Armenian cognate. Differently Cohen & Hyllested 2018a:97, who reconstruct *h3(o)rh2ent- based on an Anatolian dissimilation rule *h3 > Hitt. s / Luw. t/d-, which is contradicted by CLuw. šarḫuwant(i)- and not generally followed here; see e.g. PAnat. *sh3ógu̯-o-.
[D.S.]
For the lemma head see CLuw. šarḫadu.