parām(ma)n-
‘transport’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, n.
- ID
- 3409
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian in Hittite transmission
parām(ma)n-
‘transport’1.1.1Transmission
The sole occurrence of the word is found in a text parallel to the Ritual of Pittei.
[E.R.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. pl. | pa-ra-⸢a⸣-ma | KUB 35.145 iii 16’ | (CTH 767, NS) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
[E.R.]
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The spelling with singleton -m- must be defective, regardless of the interpretation as a participle in -mma/i- or an abstract noun in -m(ma)n-.
[E.R.]
1.1.4Meaning
Most handbooks do not mention the noun, others prefer not to translate it (HHw:120, Starke 1990a:282). However, Melchert derives it from the verb para-(ti) and thus arrives first at an abstract noun with the meaning ‘banishment, driving away’ (building on his translation of para-(ti) as ‘to drive, chase’ in CLL:166), and later at ‘carrying off, removal’ (based on the improved interpretation of para-(ti) as ‘to carry (off)’ in DCL:s.v.). The ritual context offers a list of curses against the evil-doer, in which he is supposed to see something in a bad, abnormal or perverse state. In the relevant line, it is zaltin parāma au[šdu] “he [shall] se[e] the cart, (namely its) transport,” which amounts to the perversion that, instead of the cart carrying persons or items, it carries itself.
[E.R.]
1.1.5Stem
The identification of the stem suffix is a point of discussion. In the list of sentences with the structure “he shall see X (namely its) Y / (in the state of being) Y-ed” (Pittei ritual, KUB 44.4 + KBo 13.241 rev. 30-33; parallel KUB 35.145 rev. 7’-16’), Y can be interpreted as either a participle or an abstract noun in -mman-; for references, see under Luw. patalḫiyama/i-, for which the participle interpretation requires an emendation to pa-tal-ḫi-ia-ma-〈an〉. In the case of zaltin parāma au[šdu], not even the addition of -〈an〉 would produce the acc. sg. c. *parām(m)in required by morphological agreement with zaltin. Therefore, the analysis as a -mman- abstract noun is preferred here (following Starke 1990a:282, CLL:166, HHw:120, DCL:s.v., contra Bachvarova 2013a:153f., who implausibly assumes a mistake by an ignorant scribe trying to inflect a common gender stem in -ma/i-).
[E.R.]
1.1.6Origin
Both analyses, as an abstract noun and as a participle, rely on Luwian derivational morphemes. Accordingly, it is agreed that the form belongs to a Luwian lexeme; cf. Starke 1990a:282, CLL:166, HHw:120, Bachvarova 2013a:153f., DCL:s.v.
[E.R.]
For the lemma head see CLuw. par-(ti).