/samni-/, sa-ma-ni-
‘to create’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 3803
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/samni-/, sa-ma-ni-
‘to create’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme occurs once in an inscription from Commagene, dating to the early 8th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| 1sg. pret. act. | /samnih(h)a/ | sa-ma-ni-ha | BOYBEYPINARI 2, §8b (Commagene) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word depends on its tentative but generally assumed cognate link with Hittite šamniye/a- ‘to create’, cf. e.g. HEG Š:800-802. The previously suggested form /sam(ma)ni(ya)-/ (cf. e.g. Meriggi 1975a:79) has been changed to /samni-/ by Sasseville 2021a:144, mirroring more closely the shape of its putative Hittite cognate.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of the word was first proposed by Meriggi 1975a:79f. and it is mainly based on its Hittite cognate. The HLuw. context in BOYBEYPINARI 2, §8b accommodates said meaning easily, but it cannot be used to prove it, because the verb is separated from its clause in the inscription by a line break on the same stone as opposed to the same line on an adjoining stone, which would be much more usual for this text; see the remarks in Hawkins 2000a:339. The verb is therefore assigned only tentatively to the clause as cited here: mu!-pa-wa/i za-a-ti á-lá/í DEUS.AVIS PRAE-na (MONS?)ha-ta-mi-na sa-ma-ni-ha, i.e. /(a)mu=ba=wa zatti ala Kubaba parran Hattammin samnihha/, probably translating as ‘I created (the god) Hattammi before this Lady Kubaba’.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
Sasseville 2021a:144 assumes the verb to be derived from a neuter consonantal stem */saman-/, unattested in HLuw. (cf. the similar sounding HLuw. /saman-/), but following a similar path as the Hittite verb šamniye/a-(mi) ‘to create’. He assigns the verb tentatively to the endings of the unlenited mi-conjugation, i.e. /-i-(ti)/, pending evidence from a 3sg. pres. act. form not yet found attested.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Hittite
šamniye/a-(mi)
‘to create’1.2.1Literature / Comments
CHD Š:124-126
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
The derivational base of Hittite šamniye/a-(mi) ‘to create’ is generally assumed to be Hitt. šam(m)ana- c. ‘foundation’ (HEG S:801 with further literature, HED S:97-102), except for Kloekhorst (EDHIL:717f.), who rejects it on semantic grounds. Oettinger 1979a:366 (and Kimball 1999a:322, 418) associates it with the PIE root *seh1- ‘to impress’, assuming a proterokinetic stem in *-men- as the derivational base, which he compares with Arm. himn ‘fundament’. Kloekhorst (EDHIL:717f.) suggests a connection with the PIE root *sem- ‘one’ via a derivative in *-no-, taking the denominative stem in -ā(i)-(mi), i.e. šamnā(i)-(mi), as the primary formation. This is also preferred by Puhvel (HED S:102), who however assumes a derivative in *-mno- as the base of the root *sem- ‘one’ (comparing Lyc. A hẽmenedi). For other etymological proposals, see HEG S:801. Since the HLuw. lemma does not bring any new information about the root etymology, no decision is made here. However, if the HLuw. verb really is a verb in -i-(ti), a denominative in *-i̯é/ó- should be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian.
[D.S.]