*h₂ēru̯o-

This lexeme is attested twice in inscriptions from Karkamiš and Assur, dating to the 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

At KARKAMIŠ A5a, §9, the sign traces resemble the shape of *476 only distantly, and the identification is therefore not secure.

Contra Hawkins 2000a:536, the logograms at ASSUR letter f+g, §7 are not followed by logogram markers (sign *410), which was recognised in earlier transcriptions (see e.g. Hawkins 1980b:117f. and Melchert 1988a:29).

It is not a given that the two attestations listed above belong to the same lexeme. Oreshko 2020b:343-345 advocates regarding 〈(*476.*311)hi-ru-ra+a-ti-i〉 from ASSUR letter f+g, §7 as a rendition of the cognate of Hittite išḫaḫru- ‘tear’, suggesting a HLuw. interpretation as 〈(*476)AŠḪA-hi-ru-ra+a-ti-i〉 with a reading as /ashahrur-/ vel sim. with a similar meaning.

[A.P.] [AH.B.]

The meaning of this word seems reasonably clear. The cognate link with CLuw. ḫīrūn/d- ‘(false) oath’ combined with the HLuw. contexts of attestation strongly indicate a negative meaning such as ‘curse’ for the word (cf. also Watkins 1993a:469). Thus, KARKAMIŠ A5a, §9 reads: wa/i-ta (“*476^?”)hi-ru-˹tà^?˺-ri+i si-su-wa/i á-mi-zi tara/i-pu-na-la-zi-i POST+ra/i-ta TERRA.DEUS.DOMINA SOL₂.DEUS.SOL PRAE-i CRUS-wa/i+ra/i^? á-sa-ti, approx. /wa=tta hirudadi sisuwi amminzi tarpunallanzi apparanta … pari tawara asanti/, perhaps translating as ‘By the curse (to/in/regarding?) sisuwa(/i-^?), my rivals hereafter shall stand before the Divine Lady of the Earth (and) the Sun-God of Heaven’ vel sim. (cf. Hawkins 2000a:182). Even more drastic is ASSUR letter f+g, §7: “*476”-wa/i-pa-wa/i (*476.*311)hi-ru-ra+a-ti-i ARHA wa/i-la-u-ta, approx. /tawa^?=ba=wa hirudadi ahha walaunta/, probably meaning ‘Seemingly (?), we have died from the curse (?)’ (see Melchert & Yakubovich 2022b; cf. Hawkins 2000a:536).

[AH.B.]

The word is a neuter noun with a consonantal stem in /°d-/. Although not attested, the originally endingless nom./acc. sg. can be expected to have lost the word final /-d/ before the addition of the neuter particle /=sa, =za/; cf. similar stems such as those in /-ahid-/, see Starke 1990a:573f. and also Melchert 2003b:182.

[AH.B.]

Most attestations of the lexeme are found in rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition, see also Starke 1990a:572f. and CLL:68f.

[E.R.]

The restoration of the abl./instr. ending -anzati (indicating the plural possessor) at KUB 35.21 obv. 18’ follows ibid. 17’ [dātari]yamnaššanzati (likewise KUB 32.9 rev. 33’).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – According to Starke 1990a:573, the spellings other than explicit ḫi-i-ru-ú-t° with two plene written vowels occur only in the 13th c. BCE. Moreover, the plene spelling with U instead of Ú occurs only twice, which shows that ḫi-i-ru-ú-t° represents the original standard (indicating two long vowels, contra Starke 1990a:573).

[E.R.]

Laroche 1955a:78-81 first elucidated the meaning of ḫīrūn/t- by equating it with Hitt. lengai- c. ‘oath’. After Otten 1953a:95 n. 166 had noticed that ḫīrūn/t- has a negative connotation, Laroche pointed out the following features of the word: a) it is used as a modifier of ‘tongue’ and ‘lord’, b) it is also collocated with taparu- ‘(something negative)’ and tātariyam(ma)n- ‘curse’ in Luwian, c) it is used as an epithet of Išḫara and the Sun-god functioning as a guardian and witness of oath, respectively, d) EME ‘tongue’ is modified by the genitival attributes lengai- ‘oath’ and ḫurtai- ‘oath’ in Hittite. Taken together, the evidence allows to equate semantically ḫīrūn/t- with lengai- ‘oath’. Laroche’s interpretation was generally accepted and soon entered the handbooks; cf. DLL:45, HW:384, HEG A-K:252, Oettinger 1979a:494, Weitenberg 1984a:289f., Starke 1990a:572-576, CLL:68f., Rieken 1999a:166, HHw:50.

[E.R.]

The stem is entirely parallel to that of ^NINDAḫarzazūn/t- and underwent a parallel or even common research history (for references, see under lemma). As a result of the discussion, one may summarize that the starting point is a neuter thematic stem in -uwa-, whose regular nom./acc. sg. n. in *-uwan was syncopated to -ūn. The seemingly irregular form then led to the need of creating an oblique stem with morphologically transparent morpheme boundaries (Rieken 2006a:291f., modifying on Melchert 2004d:474), for which a stem in -ūt- is a reasonable choice, since assonant -ut- is used for neuters and contains a u-vowel.

Thus, all solutions to the problem started from ḫīrunt- (since Laroche 1955a:78-81, e.g. Weitenberg 1984a:289f.), ḫīrūt- (since Starke 1990a:576; Watkins 1993a:469), or ḫīru- (Carruba 1967a:154f. borrowed from Hurrian via Luwian).

[E.R.]

1. ḫīrūtalla/i-

2. ḫīrūtaniya-^(ti)

The Hittitized stem ḫīruta- occurs twice in ritual fragments.

[E.R.]

The common gender is assumed by principle, since Luwian neuter consonant stems are generally transferred to common gender a-stems in Hittite (Starke 1990a:28).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The translation of ḫīruta- ‘(false) oath’ is based on that of its Luwian source ḫīrūn/t- ‘(false) oath’ (besides the references listed there, see HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:612).

[E.R.]

As pointed out already in Carruba 1967a:155 and repeated in Starke 1990a:27 and 573, the oblique stem of CLuw. ḫīrūn/t- was thematized and transferred to the common gender in the process of borrowing.

[E.R.]

Since the base ḫīrūn/t- is clearly Luwian and follows a Luwian inflectional pattern, and moreover the a-stem is to be expected in the adaptation to Hittite, it is generally agreed that ḫīruta- represents a Luwian loan word (Carruba 1967a:155, CLL:69, Starke 1990a:27, 573, Watkins 1993a:469f., Rieken 1999a:166f., HHw:50, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:612).

[E.R.]

This lexeme is attested once in the text of an official agreement found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis.

[I.Y.]

The analysis of this form as an infinitive (Carruba 1960a:43 n. 32) stumbles upon the absence of reliable Lydian infinitives in -ν.

[I.Y.]

The noun irdu- contextually refers to an arrangement that someone can decree for someone else. Hence the translation ‘oath’, proposed on etymological grounds in Yakubovich 2017b:280, appears to fit the context. As long as the form in question represents a hapax, with no synchronic cognates in Lydian, the proposed hypothesis must naturally be taken with a grain of salt. The form is left without translation in Meriggi 1935a:97, Gusmani 1964a:134 and Carruba 1969a:73.

[I.Y.]

Synchronically, a u-stem, which is likely to represent an inner-Lydian innovation. For the productive character of u-stems in Lydian, cf. Lyd. artimu- ‘Artemis’ (Rieken apud Yakubovich 2017b:280).

[I.Y.]