*pḗr/pr̥n-´

This lexeme is attested 51 times in inscriptions from Tabal, Tell Ahmar, Cilicia, Malatya, Karkamiš, Assur and Maraş, dating from the 12^th to the early 7^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

The above table offers a representative selection, largely omitting broken attestations.

[A.P.]

The meaning of this word has long been clear, since the meaning of the logogram DOMUS became clear early on, see Hrozný 1933a:58 passim approximating the sense and then the certain assignment by Meriggi 1934a:116f. /parn(a)-/ constitutes a basic level term and can hence be used in a variety of different contexts. One is KÖRKÜN, §4: wa/i-ti ku-ma-na á-sa-ti-ru-sá REX-ti-sá wa/i+ra/i-pa-si DOMUS-na “AEDIFICARE”, approx. /wa=di kuman Astirus hantawattis warpassi parna tamada/, meaning ‘When King Astiru built houses of weapons, (I set up this Storm-god Tarhunt of Aleppo there)’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:172).

[AH.B.]

The attestations for /parn(a)-/ were first sorted into a paradigm by Mittelberger 1963a:98f., with the correct identification as a neuter noun.Note that, at the time, the sign 〈za〉 was thought to represent /ī/. On comparative grounds, the word was originally a consonantal stem, but the nom./acc. sg. has been recharacterised as a thematic neuter stem, enlarged by the regular neuter particle /=sa, =za/. This may be the reason for the unexpected spelling 〈DOMUS-ni-za〉, i.e. /parnin=za/, attested at KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §15 (cf. the remarks by Hawkins 2000a:111).

[AH.B.]

1. /parni(ya)-/
2. /parnawa-/

The attestations of the word are widely strewn across the Cuneiform Luwian genres (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

Contra HED PE, PI, PU:89, the ending -anzanza is not a mistake, but marks the plural possessor in the dat./loc. pl. (see Melchert 2000a:176).

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – The use of a mater lectionis (here pár^ar-) is an unusual feature for a Cuneiform Luwian text. According to Otten 1953a:55, it serves to disambiguate the potential readings pár- and maš- of the first sign.

[E.R.]

Otten 1953a:55 elucidated the meaning CLuw. parn(a)- by way of equation with HLuw. DOMUS-na- ‘house’, which has stood the test of time. The interpretation has been generally accepted (Meriggi 1957a:198f., Meriggi 1957b:72, DLL:79f., HW:385, HEG P:567, HHw:124, EDHIL:666, HED PE, PI, PU:89).

[E.R.]

In contrast with the preservation of the heteroclitic stem per/parn- n. ‘house’ in Hittite, Luwian transferred the noun to the thematic stems, yet keeping intact the neuter gender (for the process, see Melchert 2004d).

[E.R.]

1. parnalla/i-
2. parnawaiške/a-
3. ^{ḪUR.SAG/URU}Parnassa  (HED PE, PI, PU:89, Yakubovich 2010d:10)

The base noun for ‘house’, which is well attested in other Anatolian languages, is perhaps found for the first time in a new grave inscription from Limyra. However, the uncertainty of the reading demands due caution.

[D.S.]

Differently, Christiansen 2019b:106 takes prñna to be the nom. sg. c. of an a-stem, which is formally possible. A neuter stem (cf. Luwian) with “collective” semantics is tentatively assumed here, because it was common with words for ‘house’.

[D.S.]

For the autography and the edition, see Christiansen 2019b:104-107.

[D.S.]

The word seems to refer to the rock-cut tomb, except that prñnawa-, the usual word, is not used. Christiansen 2019b:106 posits tentatively that prñna, if correctly read, might also be used to refer to the building or monument. She also offers an alternative reading and interpretation, which is less attractive than the first one. Nonetheless, a second attestation of prñna would be necessary to confirm her attractive reading and interpretation; cf. Neumann 2007a:283 with further literature for the reconstructed base.

[D.S.]

It is not possible, based on this sole attestation, to tell whether the word for ‘house’ was thematized in Lycian to *prñne-, like in Luwian, or transferred to the a-stems (implicitly Christiansen 2019b:106), or whether it is still consonantal (see under Reconstruction). More evidence is needed.

[D.S.]

1. prñnawa-
2. prñnawa-^(ti)
3. prñnezi(je)-

This noun is attested twice, once in the curse formula of the Aramaic and Lydian bilingual inscription found at the cemetery of Sardis and datable to the early 4^th century BCE and once in an agreement found in the precinct of Artemis in Sardis and datable within the broad range of 5^th - 4^th century BCE.

[I.Y.]

For the disappearance of the accusative marker ν before =k, see Gérard 2005a:77.

[I.Y.]

The noun pira- is paired with aara- ‘estate’ in both of its occurrences. In the bilingual LW 1, it corresponds to Official Aramaic byt ‘house’. Accordingly, the translation ‘house’ was tentatively applied to pira- already in Littmann 1916a:36. Later this interpretation received support from etymological considerations (cf. Reconstruction), and this helped to dispel doubts that the collocation aaraλ piraλ=k was translated into Aramaic in the reverse order.

[I.Y.]

This is a common gender a-stem, the collocation with aara- would make its barytonic interpretation more likely.

[I.Y.]

CHD P:273-291