tappān(i)-
‘hair’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 3190
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Cuneiform Luwian
tappān(i)-
‘hair’1.1.1Transmission
The present lexeme occurs in ritual fragments from the Kuwattalla and Tauriša traditions (from MS onwards).
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. sg. | tap-pa-a-ni-in | KUB 32.8 iii 11’ | (CTH 759, NS) |
| acc. pl. | [tap-p]a-ni-in-za | KUB 35.107 iii 22’ | (CTH 764, MS) |
| tap-pa-ni-⸢in-za⸣ | KBo 14.114, 12’ | (CTH 765, MS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
While Meriggi 1957b:59 and Laroche (DLL:90, followed in Jucquois 1964a:87, HEG T:115) still considered the tappān(i)- taken away from the head a kind of handicap or illness, Starke 1990a:54, by way of comparison between the Hittite sequence tētana- laplēpa- enera- at KUB 32.8 iii 7’f. and CLuw. tappān(i)- ... lalp(i)- ... kuwannan(i)- ‘hair ... eyelash ... eyebrow’ (ibid. iii 11’-16’), could show that tappān(i)- must denote ‘hair’. His semantic interpretation has found general acceptance (CLL:206, HHw:165, Oettinger 2016b:276f., Steitler 2017a:393f., 399).
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
In all likelihood, the lexeme belongs to the class of i-mutated nouns, whereas there is no reason to assume that an -i(ya)- stem is hidden behind the attestations.
[E.R.]
1.2 Hittite
tētana-
‘hair’1.2.1Literature / Comments
HEG T:345f.
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
Oettinger 2016b:276f. suggests that CLuw. tappān(i)- (misinterpreted as lenis **tapān(i)- in his article) matches etymologically Hitt. tētana- c. ‘hair’, which is highly attractive. He explains the difference in consonants via assimilation, though without support from the Indo-European perspective, which leaves the original shape of the word unsecure. His suggestion that a Pre-Hittite form *tēbana- (correct only if pre-form *téb(h)-o-no- caused Čop’s Law in Luwian) was assimilated to tētana- is possible but lacks independent support. Instead, it could be the Luwian lexeme that was dissimilated in its place of articulation (recalling the dissimilation case in the manner of articulation of CLuw. tappaš- vs. Hitt. nēpiš-), i.e. *ted(h)-ó-no- > (with voicing assimilation) *tep-ó-no- > tappān(i)-. However, a reconstructed CVC-root made of two dentals would be highly unlikely on PIE structural grounds.
Concerning its Indo-European etymology, a summary of untenable hypotheses can be found in HEG T:346. No alternative is suggested here.
[D.S.]