/habadai(ya)-/, FLUMEN.REGIO-tà-i-

The earliest attestation of this lexeme is found in MARAŞ dated to the reign of Larama (1000-950 BCE).

[D.S.]

nom. sg.	/habadaiyis/	FLUMEN.REGIO-tà-i-sà	HAMA 1 §3 (Hama), HAMA 2 §3 (Hama), HAMA 7 §3 (Hama)
		FLUMEN.REGIO-sà	HAMA 3 §3 (Hama)
abl./instr.	/habadaiyadi/	FLUMEN.REGIO-ia-ti-i	MARAŞ 8 §2 (Maraş)

The sequence of the signs is here taken as face value. The suggestion of Starke 1990a:84 n. 473, 299 n. 1898 to interpret the sign as x> based on this example is hardly justified (Hawkins 2000a:414).

[D.S.]

This lexeme was previously taken as being equivalent to HLuw. /habad(i)-/ c. For reasons given below (see Stem), it is here treated as a different lexeme. In MARAŞ 8, §2, it might be adjectival, depending on whether the next word, where the inscription is damaged, i.e. DOMUS-na-x, can be reconstructed as an ablative ending. In the inscriptions of Hama, the lexeme /habadai(ya)-/ is substantivized and modified each time by an ethnicon (Hawkins 2000a:414). There is possibly a semantic nuance between the base /habad(i)-/ and the substantivized derivative /habadai(ya)-/, which depends on the contextual interpretation of the HAMA inscriptions; cf. Hawkins 2000a:414.

[D.S.]

Taken at face value the spelling of FLUMEN.REGIO-tà-i-sà points towards a derivative in /-ai(ya)-/. The attestation FLUMEN.REGIO-ia-ti-i brings support that an adjectival derivation /-ai(ya)-/ exists, since the ablative/instrumental ending of the substantive /habad(i)-/ c. would be */habad-adi/.

[D.S.]

For the derivational base see HLuw. /habad(i)-/.