tarkumm(a)i-^(di)

The sole attestation of the lexeme in the Cuneiform Luwian corpus is found in a mythological passage of a ritual from the Tauriša tradition.

[E.R.]

3sg. pret. act.

tar-kum-mi-⸢i⸣-[ta]

KUB 35.107 iii 10’

(CTH 764, MS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Outdated restoration in Rosenkranz 1948a:249 n. 2, Meriggi 1957a:213, and DLL:92; cf. Starke 1990a:273 n. 924.

[E.R.]

The match between Hitt. tarkummiye/a-^(mi) and CLuw. tarkumm(a)i-^(di) was recognized by Rosenkranz 1948a:249 n. 2. From the range of meanings seen with the Hittite verb (‘to report (also intrans.), pass on (verbally), to interpret, explain, translate’), the relevant passage in KUB 35.107 attests to tarkumm(a)i-^(di) ‘report’. It describes a scene in which the Tutelary Deity of Tauriša reports to his father, the Sun-god, what happened without reference to a previous speech (cf., e.g. HW:329 and 426,Meriggi 1957a:213, Laroche 1958b:170,DLL:92, Starke 1990a:273, CLL:213,HHw:168, HEG T:181, García Trabazo 2014b, Sasseville 2021a:230).

[E.R.]

Based on the restoration presented under Forms, Starke 1990a:273 analyzes tarkummi-^(di) as a denominative lenited -i- verb deriving from a non-attested neuter -m(ma)n- stem (followed in CLL:213, Rieken 1999a:60 n. 283; different Sasseville 2021a:230: from mutated *tarkumma/i-; implausible García Trabazo 2014b, unclear Lehrman 1998a:164 and 199). Since Luwian verbs in -i-^(di) are deradical only, it is preferable to assign a stem in -(a)i-^(di) (see Sasseville 2021a:230, 333).

[E.R.]

Kloekhorst 2019b:50 suspects that CLuw. tarkumm(a)i-, Hitt. tarkum(m)iye/a-, tarkum(m)iya(i)-, tarkum(m)a(i)-, and OAss. targumanum/turgumianum ‘interpreter’ are borrowed from a common, but unknown source, which is the least provable and uneconomical solution (see also under OAss. targa/um(i)annu ‘interpreter’). Implausible García Trabazo 2014b.

[E.R.]

From the more than 100 attestations of the three related verb stems collected in the files of the Hethitologie Archiv in Mainz, only a few representative or especially relevant forms are cited here. From MS onwards, attestations are spread across a wide range of genres; cf. Oettinger 1979a:383f., HEG T:180f., and Starke 1990a:273 n. 925f.

[E.R.]

2sg. pres. act.	tar-kum-ma-a-ši	KUB 56.31 iv? 15’	(CTH 590, NS)
3sg. pres. act.	tar-ku-mi-ia-zi	KUB 25.6 v 12’	(CTH 592, NS)
	⸢tar⸣-kum-mi-e-ez-zi	VBoT 68 iii 3	(CTH 231, NS)
	tar-kum-ma-a-iz-zi	KBo 45.5 r. col. 3’	(CTH 591, NS)
	tar-kum-mi-ia-iz-zi	KBo 45.47 ii 15’	(CTH 627, NS)
	tar-⸢kum⸣-mi-ia-e-ez-zi	KUB 10.21 ii 19	(CTH 669, NS)
	tar-kum-ma-at-te-ni	KUB 15.18 iii 9’	(CTH 590, NS)
	tar-kum-mi-ia-an-zi	IBoT 1.36 i 58	(CTH 262, MS)
	tar-kum-ma-an-zi	KBo 3.5 i 46	(CTH 284, NS)
1sg. pret. act.	tar-kum-mi-ia-nu-un	VSNF 12.99 r. col. 9’	(CTH 370, NS)
2sg. impv. act.	tar-ku-mi-ia-i	KUB 30.10 obv. 5	(CTH 371, MS)
	tar-kum-ma-i	KUB 6.45 i 35	(CTH 381, NS)
infinitive	tar-kum-mi-ia-u-wa-an-zi	DBH 46/2.164, 12’	(CTH 209, MS?)
unknown	tar-ku-um-m[i-	KBo 11.43 ii 4’	(CTH 626, NS)

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

The semantics of the related verb stems were first elucidated by Friedrich 1926a:183 and complemented by Laroche 1958a:170 (for further research, see HEG T:180-182 and, more recently Starke 1990a:273f., García Trabazo 2014band Simon 2020hwith references). Melchert (DCL:s.v.) emphasizes that the meaning ‘to translate’ only occurs in multilingual contexts.

[E.R.]

As can be seen under Forms, the verb features forms from three different Hittite stem classes, viz. with the -iye/a-^(mi), -iyā(i)-^(mi) and -ā(i)-^(mi) suffixes (see already Oettinger 1979a:383f.). While the -iyā(i)-stem arose secondarily from those in -iye/a- (thus also Yoshida pers. comm.), the -a(i)-stem is formed independently. The doublet presumably goes back to two different bases, viz. tarkummiye/a- ← *tarkumm- < *tarkummn- ‘report’ (abstract noun) and tarkummā(i)- ← *tarkumm-a- < *tarkummn-a- ‘having a report’, respectively (see Starke 1990a:273, for the reconstruction of the underlying denominative m(ma)n-stem, but with the divergent assumption of an intervening Luwian verbal derivative later borrowed into Hittite). An alternative is presented by Simon 2020h, who classifies -mm-a- as the Luwian participial suffix -mma/i- with active meaning, thus substantivized ‘the turning (one), the translating (one)’. Either solution is possible, but the former is preferred here, because it requires the assumption of fewer borrowing processes and is, therefore, more economical.

[E.R.]

Following Oettinger 1979a:383f. and Starke 1990a:273-275 (Starke 1993a), the verbs are frequently classified as Luwian in the recent literature (CLL:213, Melchert 2005a:449-451, García Trabazo 2014b, Simon 2020h:613f.), but the opposite assessment is expressed by Rieken 1999a:60 n. 283 and EDHIL:842-844. None of the arguments in favor of a borrowing is cogent: 1) Contra Oettinger, the -iyā(i)- formation constitutes in inner-Hittite development and does not point to a Luwian origin of the verb.

2) Stems in -m(ma)n- (> -mm-) are not limited to Luwian (cf. Hitt. kardimm-iye/a- ‘to be angry’), so that there is no reason to attribute *tarkum(ma)n- to Luwian only (pace Starke).

3) With the analysis of *tarkumma- ‘interpreter’ as tarkw- + -m(ma)n-a- (> -mm-a-) being a possible alternative, Simon’s (Simon 2020h:613) Luwian derivation of *tarkumma- with the Luwian participial suffix -mma/i- is no longer conclusive. In fact, the parallel with kardimm-iye/a- ‘to be angry’ points to the opposite.

Kloekhorst 2019b:50 suspects that CLuw. tarkumm(a)i-^(di), Hitt. tarkummiye/a-^(mi), tarkummiyā(i)-^(di), tarkummā(i)-^(di), and OAss. targumanum/turgumianum ‘interpreter’ are borrowed from a common, but unknown source, which is the least provable and uneconomical solution (see also under OAss. targa/um(i)annu ‘interpreter’).

[E.R.]

For the lemma head see CLuw. *tar(k)u-.