/tarkasna-/
‘donkey’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Class
- Base
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 319
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/tarkasna-/, ASINUS.ANIMA-na-
‘donkey’1.1.1Transmission
The only reliably attested form belongs to the ASSUR letters (8th century BCE).
[I.Y.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. pl. | /tarkasnanzi/ | ASINUS.ANIMA-na-zi | ASSUR letter f+g, §21 |
| unknown | ASINUS.ANIMA[…] | KARKAMIŠ A29b |
The lexical and grammatical assignment of ASINUS.ANIMA[…] (KARKAMIŠ A29b) is dubious.
[I.Y.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
It was proposed that the stem /tarkasna-/ normally correlates with the logogram L.100 = ASINUS (Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1998a:251-254), but the use of ASINUS for /tarkasni(ya)-/ in BULGARMADEN § 9 contradicts this generalization (cf. the discussion under /tarkasni(ya)-/). Note that the phonetic reading of the ASINUS sign in the Iron Age inscriptions is acrophonically derived from /tarkasna-/ (Laroche 1960c:63, Yakubovich 2008c:27).
[I.Y.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The stem is identified with CLuw. tarkaššana- attested in Hittite texts based on the evidence of the bilingual “TARKONDEMOS” seal (Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1998a:251-254). The transcription /tarkasna-/, as opposed to /tarkassana-/, is conventional and reflects the assumption that the variant /tarkasna-/ is etymologically original.
[I.Y.]
1.1.4Meaning ‘donkey’
The shape of the logogram L100 = ASINUS points to an equid. The context of ASSUR letter f+g § 21 implies that /tarkasna-/ is an animal fit for riding. Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1998a:251, following the previous consensus, suggested that it is “most probably a donkey”. The agnostic interpretation ‘equid’ is retained in Oreshko 2012b:161, 270.
[I.Y.]
1.1.5Stem
The nom. pl. form ASINUS.ANIMA-na-zi necessitates the assumption of a non-mutated a-stem.
[I.Y.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Luwian in Hittite transmission
targaššana-
‘horse’1.2.1Transmission
Hapax in the description of a dream of a Hittite queen in NS.
[Zs.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| abl. sg. | tar-˹ga-aš-ša-na˺-[az] | KUB 31.71 iii 14’ | (CTH 584, NS) |
Attestation following CLL:212 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:92; Ünal 2007a:693f., Ünal 2016a:520) checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. The word appears in the following context (cf. the transliteration of Mouton 2007a:274):
nu=wa UL É tar-˹ga-aš-ša-na˺[ ]ya-an-za=pat parašzi LÚ.MEŠKUŠ7=ya=wa par[ašš]anzi
Laroche 1959a:92 suggested restoring tar-ga-aš-ša-˹na˺?-[li?]-ya-an-za, which is generally accepted (Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:18; Carruba 1982a:45; van den Hout 1994a:316f.; as tar-ga-aš-ša-n[a-al-li]-ya-an-za in CLL:212; HEG T,D:176; Ünal 2007a:693f., Ünal 2016a:520). This restoration is, however, implausible since it leaves É targaššana° without any ablative marker required by the verb parašzi (CHD P:79f.) and for this reason CHD restores tar-ga-aš-ša-˹na˺-[az ḫu]-ya-an-za and translates the context as follows: ‘Is it not/It is not from the house of the targaššana- that the [ru]nner(?) flees? Will the chariot-warriors also flee?’ (followed by Mouton 2007a:274 with n. 357, 277; cf. also Tischler 2008a:190, Tischler 2016a:361). Nevertheless, Hawkins 2005d:295 claims that the restoration of CHD is wrong and the passage should be translated as ‘is it not <from?> the donkey-house (that) the […]yanza alone will flee? The drivers will also flee’. This claim is, however, grammatically unfounded, implicitly admitted by his emendation “<from?>” (Simon forthcoming).
[Zs.S.]
1.2.3Meaning ‘horse’
Independently from the chosen restoration, all scholars opt for a meaning ‘(of a) donkey’ (van den Hout 1994a:316f.; Hawkins 2005d:295, 301), ‘of a muleteer’ (Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:18; Carruba 1982a:45; CLL:212; HEG T,D:176f.; Haas 2006a:222) or ‘donkey/ass (stable)’ (Ünal 2007a:693, Ünal 2016a:520; Beckman 2010a:30; cf. also Tischler 2008a:190, Tischler 2016a:361 [‘Gefängnis’, “eigentlich Eselstall?”]) based on the assonance with the Hieroglyphic Luwian word tarkasna- ‘donkey’ (see s.v.).
Furthermore, Hawkins 2005d:295, 301 suggests identifying É targaššana- with the Hieroglyphic Luwian phrase ASINUS2A.DOMUS, thus ‘house of the donkey’. The identification with ASINUS2A.DOMUS is certainly correct. Nevertheless, the meaning ‘house of the donkey’ does not fit the context, since the text describes the queen’s dream, whose protagonists are horses, teams of horses and charioteers (Ünal 1978a:122–124; van den Hout 1994a:312f.; Haas 2006a:222; Mouton 2007a:276f.; Beckman 2010a:30). No stables of donkey would match this context, unlike a ‘house of the horse’, i.e. a regular stable (cf. also Simon forthcoming arguing that ASINUS2A means ‘horse’). Note also the only cuneiform logographic equivalent, É LÚKUŠ7, lacking any reference to donkeys. The above quoted translation of Tischler 2008a:190, Tischler 2008a:361 (‘Gefängnis’) undoubtedly fits the context, but it does not explain the military association. All in all, a meaning ‘horse’ seem to fit better (for all these see Simon forthcoming).
[Zs.S.]
1.2.4Origin
This word is generally assumed to be of Luwian origin (Laroche 1959a:92; Carruba 1982a:45; CLL:212; van den Hout 2007a:250; not marked as Luwian in Tischler 2008a:190, Tischler 2016a:361 and not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a) based on the assonance with the Hieroglyphic Luwian word tarkasna- ‘donkey’ (see s.v.). While this is certainly very probable, this does not exclude the possibility that we are dealing here with a genuine Hittite word, since this is a Hittite text and the morphology of the word does not show anything specific Luwian. Since its etymology is unclear (see Simon forthcoming and here under Reconstruction), it cannot help either.
[Zs.S.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The Luwian stem /tarkasna-/ does not have any known inner-Anatolian cognates, except perhaps for Hittite targaššana-, if this indeed a cognate and not a Luwian loanword (cf. the discussion under Luw. targaššana- in Hittite transmission). Consequently, the etymological analysis of this lexeme must rely on the comparison with the Indo-European languages.
[I.Y.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
As Janda 1999a:194f. pointed out, words for ‘donkey’ often relate to their main function, which is carrying goods.Cf. Janda 1999a:194 for parallels and further refs.Following the morphological reconstruction below, also Luw. tarkasna- can represent an example of the donkey as the animal carrying a load.
The reconstructed neuter s-stem *dhrégh-(o)s/*dhr̥gh-és- represents a nomen rei actae ‘what is dragged, hauled, carried’, viz. ‘load’.For the secondary character of nomina rei actae in relation to nomina actionis, cf. Stüber 2002a:36.
The derived no-stem *dhr̥gh-(e)s-nó- means ‘carrying a load’ and is individualized by *-eh2- as ‘the one carrying a load’. This fits the well attested strategy of naming the ‘donkey’ as the animal ‘carrying a load’ perfectly.
3.1.1Root etymology
The underlying root PIE *dhregh- means ‘to drag, haul’, what is approved by the Old Indic (OInd. °dhṛk- ‘carrying [by dragging a load/wagon]’), Germanic (PGerm. *dragan- ‘to drag, haul’) and perhaps Latin (Lat. trahere ‘to drag, haul’) and Russian (Russ. drogá ‘rod connecting both axles of a wagon’) evidence.The Latin verb trahere ‘to pull, drag, haul’ is semantically close, but phonologically difficult to explain, cf. LIV²:154 n. 2 s.v. *dhreg̑/gh-, WH II:698f., EM:698f., EDLIL:626f. Furthermore, the affiliation of Gk. τρέχω ‘to run’, Arm. durgn ‘potter’s wheel’ and PIE *dhrogho- ‘wheel’ is difficult on semantic grounds.
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
Luw. tarkasna- ‘donkey; horse(?)’ has no direct cognates outside Anatolian.
The morphological analysis proposed by Janda 1999a:194f. (followed by Melchert 2003b:195f.) is less likely than the solution proposed in the next paragraph.Equally, Neumann’s (Neumann 1964a:61) analysis of Luw. tarkasna- as a determinative compound with the second member *asna- ‘donkey’ (cf. Lat. asinus ‘id.’) cannot be accepted, at least because of the unclear status of Lat. asinus; cf. WH I:72, EM:51, EDLIL:57.Janda reconstructs PIE *dherg̑h-es-(H)no- ‘having a burden’ which is assumed to be derived from a root *dherg̑h- ‘to fasten’ (IEW:254). However, the evidence for this very root is actually very weak.The Indo-Iranian verbs, which are adduced by Janda 1999a:195, rather belong to PIE *delg̑h- ‘to become firm’ (LIV²:113). Beside the Iranian continuants meaning ‘to fasten; load’ etc., at least one of the remaining comparanda can be interpreted differently, too: OCS drŭzŭ ‘daring, bold’ most likely continues PIE *dhr̥s-u- (cf. Gk. θρασύς ‘bold’, OPr. dirsos ‘good’) and belongs to PIE *dhers- (LIV²:147). Cf. EDSIL:137 and LIV²:147 n. 4 s.v. *dhers- on the secondary *-z-. Furthermore, cf. ALEW I:221f. s.v. drąsùs, 230f. s.v. drį̃sti. The remaining one of the alleged cognates is Gk. ταρχύω ‘to bury’ (cf. also Janda 1996(1998)a), which semantically does not fit Luw. tarkasna- ‘donkey’ very well. Cf. on Gk. ταρχύω EDG:1454 (Pre-Greek), GEW II:858f. (“Nicht sicher erklärt”), DELG:1095 (loan from Lycian A) and [lemma link Lyc. A trqqas].
A connection with PIE *dhregh- ‘to drag, haul’ (LIV²:154) has to be preferred, instead.On the dorsal consonant cf. the root etymology.
Because the root shows “full grade II”, on phonological grounds zero grade *dhr̥gh- has to be considered for the reconstruction of Luw. tarkasna-. Thus, an unattestedBut cf. the Greek s-stem compounds ευθ]υτρεχησ ‘running straight’ (IG II2.463 l. 73f.), ἐντρεχής ‘skilled, able’ (Pl.+).proterokinetic neuter s-stem *dhrégh-(o)s/*dhr̥gh-és- ‘load’Cf. on the original ablaut of proterodynamic s-stems, e.g., Rieken 1999a:176f., Stüber 2002a:199–204.may serve as the derivational base for the adjectival no-stem *dhr̥gh-(e)s-no- which, individualized by *-eh2, yields *dhr̥gh-(e)s-néh2- ‘donkey’.Probably, Luw. tarkasna- can morphologically be connected with the complex Hittite suffix *-eššar/-ešn-, which goes back to neutral s-stems originally extended only by *-n-, cf. Rieken 1999a:222. Thus, PAnat. *tarkas- → (extension by *-n-) *tarkas-n- → Luw. tarkas-n-a-. If this analysis is correct, the thematic vowel of Luw. tarkasna- has possessive value: *‘possessing/carrying tarkas-’.
3.2.1Root etymology
In view of the inner-Anatolian and Luwian phonological possibilities, several different roots can conceivably underly Luw. tarkasna- ‘donkey’ < *T(V)RK-. However, a palatal consonant in the coda can be excluded, because this most likely would result in Luw. †tars- vel sim. Therefore, if Luw. tarkasna- is analyzed semantically and morphologically as presented above, the root PIE *dhreg̑h/gh- ‘to drag, haul’ (LIV²:154) has to be concretized as PIE *dhregh- with a plain velar.
[A.O.]
4. Transmission
(?)PIE *dhrogh-o- ‘wheel’, cf. Gk. τροχός ‘wheel’ (GEW II:927–929, DELG:1135f., EDG:1506f., LSJ:1829), (?)OIr. droch ‘wheel’ (LEIA-D:199, EDPC:105, eDIL s.v. 2 droch), (?)Russ. drogá ‘rod connecting both axles of a wagon (ModHG Wagenbaum)’ (IEW:254)It is semantically difficult to connect this reconstructed o-stem with the root in question, cf. the note on the semantic root etymology below.
OInd. nom. sg. °dhṛk- ‘carrying’
Böhtlingk 1855a III:987, Monier Williams 1974a:459
(?)Arm. durgn, gen. drgan ‘potter’s wheel’ (Bible+)
EDAIL:245f., Olsen 1999a:950f.
PGerm. *dragan- ‘to drag, haul’ (instead of †durgan)
EDPG:99, de Vries 1977a:80 s.v. 2.draga