targaššanalli(ya)-

Hapax in a Luwian fragment in NS.

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.

tar-ga-aš-ša-na-al-li-i-˹iš˺

KUB 35.111 iii 1

(CTH 768, NS)

Attestations following CLL:212 (cf. also Ünal 2007a: 693, Ünal 2016a:520 [here misprinting it as “KUB 25”]) checked against the photo of the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

Note that the signs are barely visible on the photo available in the Konkordanz.

[Zs.S.]

According to CLL:212, it is either an adjective (targaššanalli(ya)-) or a noun (“targaš(ša)nalla/i-”). Actually, in both cases we are dealing either with an adjective or with its substantivized form. Since the context is fragmentary and not understood, this cannot be decided.

Although Hawkins & Morpurgo Davies 1998a:255 (cf. HEG T,D:176) point out that the fragmentary context does not allow the reconstruction of the meaning, the word is usually translated as ‘muleteer’ or ‘donkey driver’ (Laroche 1959a:192 [with question mark]; Friedrich 1961b:42 [with question mark]; Hoffner 1966a:398; Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:18; CLL:212; Ünal 2007a:693, Ünal 2016a:520, 971 [also identifying it erroneously as a Hittite word, with question mark regarding the meaning]; HEG T,D:176, Tischler 2008a:190, Tischler 2016a:361 [in latter two cases erroneously identifying it as a Luwian word in Hittite context]). This is based on the fact that the word derives from tarkasna- ‘donkey’ attested in Hieroglyphic Luwian (see s.v.). Nevertheless, Simon forthcoming argues that there were two different Luwian words, tarkasna/i- ‘horse’ and tarkasniya- ‘donkey’. If this analysis turns out to be correct, targaššanalli(ya)- can be derived only from the former one and thus its meaning would be ‘of a horse’.

[Zs.S.]

For the lemma head see Luw. /targasna-/.