ḫaratar-/-tn-

All attestations of the lexeme are found in rituals of the Kuwattalla tradition or fragments related to it (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.	ḫa-a-ra-tar-ša	KUB 35.16 i 5’	(CTH 760, NS)
	[ḫa-ra]-⸢a?⸣-tar-ša	KBo 9.143 iii! 8’	(CTH 763, MS)
abl./instr.	ḫa-r[a-at-na-ti]	KUB 35.16 ii 11’	(CTH 760, NS)
	ḫa-ra-at-n[a-ti]	KBo 29.6 i 21’ (= KUB 35.75, 10’)	(CTH 762, NS)
	ḫ[a-ra-at-na-ti]	KBo 29.6 i 23’ (= KUB 35.75, 12’)	(CTH 762, NS)
erg. sg.	ḫa-ra-at-na-an-⸢ti⸣-iš	KUB 35.65 iii 14’	(CTH 763, MS)
gen. adj. nom. sg. c.	[ḫ]a-ra-at-na-aš-š[i-iš]	KUB 35.14 i 15’	(CTH 760, NS)
	[ḫa-r]a-at-na-aš-ši〈〈-in〉〉-iš	KBo 29.9 obv. 15’	(CTH 760, NS)
gen. adj. acc. pl. c.	ḫa-ra-at-na-aš-⸢ši-in-za⸣	KUB 35.65 iii 3’	(CTH 763, MS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Probably based on the handcopy, Starke 1985b:122 reads ḫa-ra-a]t-tar-ša at KBo 9.143 iii^! 8’ according to his expectation that the form belongs to stem class in -attar/-at(ta)n-. However, if anything can be told from the feeble traces of the sign at the left edge at all, the shape of the curve of its right edge suits a broken vertical better than a simple one; cf. the -a- signs in the following line. – The exceptional spelling ḫa-a-ra-tar-ša at KUB 35.16 i 5’ probably represents either a mistake for *ḫa-ra-a-tar-ša or indicates a lengthening of a prop vowel (cf. Hittite da-a-ga-an ‘on(to) the earth’ instead of da-ga-a-an, twice in KUB 39.7 iv 27’ and 28’).

[E.R.]

CLuw. ḫarātar-/-tn- occurs in juxtaposition with wašku(wa)llimma/i- ‘sin, iniquity, offense’ (for the substantival interpretation of the latter, see under Lemma). As Starke 1990a:442-445 points out in his description of the semantics, the expression represents the exact match of ḫarātar waštul ‘ḫaratar (and) sin’ in Hittite context. In addition, Hittite texts list more groups of evils (including ḫaratar) that befall humans: witchcraft (and) ḫaratar, tears (and) ḫaratar, and blood(deed), tears (and) ḫaratar. In both Hittite and Luwian contexts, individuals contaminated with ḫaratar are said to be relieved from it, via intervention by the gods or a ritual. While this could point to any kind of evil, evidence for the meaning ‘(matter of) concern, prosecution’ comes from attestations in the Hittite Laws, in which certain potentially illegal actions do not result in prosecution (ták-ku ... ú-ul ḫa-ra-(a-)tar ‘if ..., (there is) no prosecution’; a detailed documentation is offered in Starke 1990a:442-445, HED H:140f., and HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:273f., where the word is translated as ‘offense’, still following Friedrich 1944a:208f. n. 2).

In principle, prosecution can be enacted by human institutions or by the gods. By slander, ritual opponents can instigate unjustified divine prosecution. The prosecution as such is regarded as an offense not only of the evil-doer, but also of the victim. Accordingly, also the victim of the unjustified prosecution has an interest in the prosecution being suspended, just like it is possible to be cleared from other evils. Therefore, it makes sense to perform a ritual with this goal.

[E.R.]

As pointed out under Phonological Interpretation, a defective spelling of the suffix as °C]a-⸢a^?⸣-tar does not entirely preclude the assignment of the noun to the productive -attar/-at(ta)n- class but makes a stem in -tar-/-tn- with lenited alveolar in the nom./acc. sg. more likely. If the root was originally PIE *h₂reh₁g- (LIV²:284), as suggested here, CLuw. ḫa-ra-a- stands for /hra-/ and the suffix -tar-/-tn- was thus attached directly to the root. One could also compare HLuw. /haratta-/, but the fortis initial of the suffix speaks against a relationship.

[E.R.]

For a possible Indo-European etymology, see under Stem.

[E.R.]

The lexeme occurs in a broad range of genres, viz. laws, rituals, lexical lists, prayers, and oracle reports (all NS). The citations below constitute a representative sample of the attested forms (see also Starke 1990a:442-445, HED H:140f., and HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:273f.).

[E.R.]

nom./acc. sg.	[ḫ]a-ra-tar	KBo 8.10 i 7’	(CTH 300, NS)
	⸢ḫa⸣-ra-a-tar!	KBo 13.2 rev. 4’	(CTH 309, NS)
	ḫa-ra-⸢tar⸣	KUB 49.71, 2’	(CTH 570, NS)
	ḫa-ra-⸢a⸣-[tar]	KBo 43.319 i 6’	(CTH 404, NS)
gen. sg.	ḫa-⸢ra⸣-at-na-aš	KBo 43.319 i 13’	(CTH 404, NS)
dat./loc. sg.	ḫa-ra-at-ni	KBo 5.1 ii 2	(CTH 476, NS)
abl.	ḫa-ra-at-na-za	KBo 13.159, 8’	(CTH 470, NS)
erg. sg.	ḫa-ra-at-na-an-za	KBo 53.29, 9’	(CTH 404, NS)
	ḫa-ra-at-na-⸢a⸣-[an-za]	KBo 22.140, 4’	(CTH 470, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

For the semantic interpretation proposed here, see under the lemma of CLuw. ḫaratar-/-tn- above.

[E.R.]

Based on the preserved cluster -tn- in the oblique case form of the heteroclitic stem and its attestation in Cuneiform Luwian context, ḫaratar-/-tn- is generally taken as a Luwian borrowing in Hittite (cf. DLL:41f., Starke 1990a:442-447, CLL:57, HEG A-K:172, HHw:42, Puhvel 1972a:111, HED H:140f.).

[E.R.]