*h2éns-u-
‘progeny, grand-child’
- Language
- Proto-Anatolian
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 3434
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/hassu-/, (NEPOS)ha-su-
‘progeny, family (vel sim.)’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested twice in an inscription from Cilicia and on a seal of uncertain origin, dating late; the inscription dates to the early 7th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| dat./loc. sg. | /hassu/ | (NEPOS)ha-su-’ | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §15 (Cilicia) |
| gen. sg. | /hassus(a)/ | ha-su-sa | Gelb seals, l.2-3 |
The interpretation of the spelling in KARATEPE 1 Hu., §15 is not entirely clear, expected would be a spelling such as 〈ha-su-wa/i〉, representing */hassuwi/ vel sim., see the discussion of the stem below.
[A.P.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word eluded scholars for a considerable time due to some signs being unclear in earlier years, cf. Bossert 1949a:104, and even Laroche 1960c:155 still considered it tentative, although Kronasser 1956a:91 seemed more certain. Since then, the new and secured sign readings have left little doubt over the assigned interpretation, further supported by the cognate, albeit with a different meaning, of Hittite ḫaššu- ‘king’ (cf. e.g. HEG A-H:207f., 191f., HED H:245,Although Puhvel denies a relationship with HLuw. /hass(a)-/ ‘to give birth’ (HED H:245f.). and EDHIL:319-312Kloekhorst also provides an overview of the entire word family and the putative derivational relationships within.).
The word belongs to the larger word family around /hass(a)-/ ‘to give birth’ and related words such as /hams(i)-/ ‘grandson’ etc. Since the words feature different looking roots, the family has been subject to a good deal of scholarly debate, cf. e.g. Weitenberg 1984a:158-163 with literature and more recently EDHIL:319-312.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word was already clear at an early stage due to its logogram, which was fixed with the meaning ‘family’ by Meriggi 1929b:201f. and Meriggi 1934a:132, and followed by scholars since, cf. e.g. Laroche 1960c:154f. The assignment found further support with the edition of the bilingual inscription KARATEPE 1, where it translates Phoenician šrš ‘root, stock, progeny’ (Bossert 1949a:104). The passage in KARATEPE 1, §15 runs: á-mi-há-wa/i DOMINUS-ní-i (NEPOS)ha-su-´ OMNIS.MI-ma (BONUS)sa-na-wa/i-ia CUM-na i-zi-i-há, approx. /ammi=ha=wa nanni hassu(wa) tanima san(n)awiya anna izziha/, which translates as ‘And I did all good (things) for my lord’s family’ (Hawkins 2000a:50).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
Although it is not obvious from the attested forms, the word is generally classed a common gender noun, because it denotes human beings. It derives from the verb /hassa-/ ‘to give birth, to beget’ with a suffix /-u-/, cf. Weitenberg 1984a:298.
The form attested at KARATEPE 1 Hu., §15, i.e. 〈(NEPOS)ha-su-’〉, has been remarked by scholars as being unexpected, cf. e.g. Hawkins 2000a:60, yet the expected dat./loc. sg. form would be */hassuwi/. Whether there is a contraction involved or a spelling mistake must remain open for now.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
1.2 Lycian A
xahba-
‘grandchild’1.2.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested in various funerary inscriptions as well as in the genealogy passages of the inscribed pillar of Xanthos, Gergis’ tomb.
[D.S.]
1.2.2Forms
| nom. sg. | xahba | TL 44a.3 (Xanthos) |
| TL 74c.5 (Hoiran) | ||
| TL 83.2 (Arneai) | ||
| TL 87.5 (Myra) | ||
| xãhb | TL 44a.31 (Xanthos) | |
| acc. sg. | xahbu | N 356a.4 (Tlos) |
| TL 78.5 (Tyssa) | ||
| xahb[u] | TL 28.4 (Tlos) | |
| dat. sg. | xaḥb{ea} | TL 18.2 (Pinara) |
| acc. pl. | xahb[as] | TL 76.2 (Tyberissos) |
| dat. pl. | [x]ahbe | TL 127.2 (Limyra) |
| [xa]ḥba | TL 46a+b.2 (Xanthos) |
On the problematic of the faulty spelling of xaḥbea (TL 18.2) and the expected dative singular form, see Schürr 2001e:132f.For the old and outdated reading of the line as cited in Melchert 1990a:205 n. 17, creating the ghost word †apñxahbija-, see Friedrich 1932a:57. There is no doubt that xãhb at TL 44a.31 is to be interpreted as a nominal singular form with a carver omission of the last letter and perhaps the retention of the old, nasalized root vowel (if not also a carving mistake); pace Hajnal 1994a:150 n. 44 “different lexeme?”, Schürr 2009b:108 “apocope”.
[D.S.]
1.2.3Graphic Features
On the joining of two fragments TL 46a+b and a recent edition, see Christiansen 2019b:278. The restoration of [xa]hba was already suggested by Laroche 1974b:140.
[D.S.]
1.2.4Meaning
Although Lyc. xahba- has received several different meanings since the beginning of Lycian studies, it was always clear for contextual reasons that it refers to a kinship term. Tritsch 1950a:516f. refutes the previous meaning ‘son-in-law’, especially since xahba- can refer to either a boy or a girl, and argues cogently with both combinatory and etymological evidence for the meaning ‘grand-child’ (further defended by Bryce 1978a:218). The etymological evidence adduced by Tritsch came from Pedersen 1945a:53f., who was the first to connect the root of Lyc. xahba- with the one of Hittite ḫāš-/ḫašš-(ḫi) ‘to procreate, beget, bear’ and ḫāšša- c. ‘grand-child’. This approach has been widely accepted and the meaning ‘grand-child’ or even ‘descendant’ is now commonly used; see Melchert 1990a:205 n. 17, Melchert in DLL:80, Hajnal 1994a:150, Schürr 2006a:118, Neumann 2007a:109f., Tekoğlu 2017a:65; contra Gusmani 1962b:77f. holding on to “son-, daughter-in-law” and Carruba 1969c:276 “genero, nuora, cognato/cognata”; agnostic Laroche 1974b:140. For a summary of the old and outdated literature, see Neumann 2007a:109f.
[D.S.]
1.2.5Stem
Hajnal 1994a:150 explains xahba- as an original thematization in *-o- from the u-stem noun. However, it is more economical to directly assume a transfer of the u-stem to the paradigm of Lycian a-stems (thus DLL:80), in the process of eliminating u-stems altogether in Lycian; see also Lyc. B pasba- and urttuwa-.
[D.S.]
1.3 Carian
*ksbo
‘grandchild (?)’1.3.1Transmission
Reconstructed from a personal name attested in a stone inscription with a list of priests from Mylasa of unknown date (Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:138). Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:137 and Adiego 2007a:326, 334, 374 (followed by Simon 2011b:547) claim that it is attested also in Greek as Χασβως (cf. Blümel 1992a:27 and LGPN V.B:439; the additional form “Κασβως” quoted in Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:137 is not attested), but the Greek spelling of Carian ‹k› with ‹χ› is irregular (cf. Adiego 2007a:243 and Simon 2011b:538, 547).
[Zs.S.]
1.3.2Forms
| nom. sg. | Ksbo | C.My 1, 9 |
The attestation follows Adiego 2007a:374, checked against the photographs in Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:132, 137.
[Zs.S.]
1.3.3Meaning ‘grandchild (?)’
Comparing Lycian A xahba- ‘grandchild’, Adiego 2007a:258, 261, 326, 334 suggested that also the Carian word underlying Ksbo means ‘grandchild’, which gained general acceptance (Simon 2008b:460, Simon 2011b:540, 542, Brosch 2016a:7, and Schürr 2019d:12). It is indeed a formally and semantically fitting solution, even though there is no independent evidence for the meaning of this personal name.
[Zs.S.]
1.3.4Derivatives
Probable derivative
1.4 Hittite
ḫaššu-
‘king’1.4.1Literature / Comments
HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:439-455
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘progeny, grand-child’
Oettinger 1976b:24 compares Av. ahu(ra)- ‘lord’ and reconstructs for Hitt. ḫaššu- ‘king’ a pre-form *h2onsu- (with assimilation of *-ns- > /-ss-/), although Hitt. ḫaššu- had already been connected to the Hittite verb ḫāš-/ḫašš-(ḫi) ‘to procreate’ (Sommer 1920a:9f., HED H:245, EDHIL:328; cf. Oettinger 1979a:439). The connection with the Indo-Iranian material is, however, rejected by Puhvel (HED H:245). Melchert 1992b:51 adduces here Lyc. xahba- ‘grand-child’ and (NEPOS)ha-su- and traces them all back to *h2e/onsu- (contra Hamp 1980a, etymologically relating xahba- to xuga- ‘grand-father’). Contra Tischler (HEG H:208), there is enough evidence for a nasal in the root from the Luwian perspective. Indeed, the Luwian derivative /hamsukkalla-/ c. ‘great-grandson’ reflects a diminutive formation in *-ké-leh2-(contra HED H:68f. “a nominal compound”; cf. Eichner 1973a:99 n. 79 and Weitenberg 1984a:159f.) based on the u-stem formation *ḫamšu- ‘grand-child’ (Sasseville 2014-2015a:117; for the etymological relationship, see already Oettinger 1979a:439). Therefore, Hitt. ḫaššu- c. ‘king’, Luw. */hamsu-/ ‘grand-child’, HLuw. (NEPOS)ha-su-, and Lycian xahba- c. ‘grand-child’ can all go back to a PAnat. pre-form *h2éns-u- (for the exact ablaut paradigms involved here, see the PIE lemma under the lemma head), causing the assimilation of the sequence *-ns- > -šš-, which was subsequently generalized in Hitt. ḫaššu- and HLuw. (NEPOS)ha-su-, whereas the rentention of the nasal before -s-, i.e. /-ams-/ as in Luw. */hamsu-/ in /hamsukkalla-/ < *h2ens-eu̯-ké-leh2-, is attributed to the pretonic position between vowels (cf. Oettinger 1979a:439 and EDHIL:320f. and Kimball 1999a:331f.). Oettinger 1979a:439 mentions the possibility that the -m- in Luwian comes from a dissimilated sequence *-ns-, making the -n- the original nasal of the PIE root, which is supported both from the Indo-European perspective as well as from the fact that Luwian dissimilates even synchronically (thus not tolerating) the sequence *-ns- to -ms-, see ḫattaram=šan, muḫatram=šan and pizzarnam=šan ´his X´ (KBo 13.260 ii 1, 2, 3; contra Melchert 1988b:214f. n. 9, who takes the -m of the accusative ending to be an archaism preserved before the enclitic possessive pronoun); a zero-grade however would yield a t-epenthesis, which is why the base of the derivative /hamsukkalla-/ must be in the full grade; cf. CLuw. kwanzu- and CLuw. anza-.
Melchert 2003e:16f. with n. 13 endorses for Hitt. ḫaššu- ‘king’ the original meaning ‘offspring’, using comparative evidence (see now the PIE lemma under the lemma head) and compound names with -ḫšu-. In his recent monography, Kloekhorst 2019b:233-245 suggests that the form -ḫšu- reflects a PIE zero-grade of a dialect different from Hittite, although Sasseville 2020e:356 points out in his review of the book that it can simply be a syncopated form of Hitt. ḫaššu- triggered by the compounding process, which makes it a weak argument for a dialectal difference. Therefore, this form is considered here irrelevant for historical purposes.
[D.S.]
For the lemma head see PAnat. *h2óns-/h2n̥s-´ ‘to procreate, give birth’.