*d^hr̥b^hā́-

This lexeme is attested four times in inscriptions from Tell Ahmar, Karkamiš, and Tabal, dating maximally from the late 10^th to the 8^th century BCE.

[A.P.]

indecl.	/tarba/	(“CORNU”)tara/i-pa	ALEPPO 2, §25 (Tell Ahmar)
		(PES2.PES)tara/i-pa	BOROWSKI 1, §1 (Tell Ahmar)
		tara/i-pa	KULULU 5, §17 (Tabal)
		[…]tara/i?-pa	KARKAMIŠ A19n3 (Karkamiš)

The attestation listed for KARKAMIŠ A19n3 cannot be checked for lack of a photograph of sufficient quality.

[A.P.]

The meaning of the adverb is clearly negative (see Morpurgo Davies 1986a:134f. incl. n. 13, followed by Hawkins 2000a:237, 487) and has been interpreted to mean ‘against, aggressively’ vel sim. (e.g. Yakubovich 2002a:207f.); the most recent interpretation as ‘in opposition’ comes from Sasseville 2018a:305f. The word features in some curse formulae intended to protect installations, and it can be either part of the protasis, i.e. detailing possible damage by a human, or the apodosis, i.e. describing the invoked wrath of the gods. The former can be observed in ALEPPO 2, §25: NEG₂-pa-wa/i ^Iara/i-pa-ia kwa/i-sa (“CORNU”)tara/i-pa CRUS-i, approx. /naba=wa Arpaya kwis tarPa tai/, translating as ‘or (he) who stands in opposition to Arpa, (the goddess Kubaba shall … that one)’ (cf. Sasseville 2018a:306). In KULULU 5, §17, /tarba/ is used to describe the manner in which the gods can be called to act against anyone damaging the installation: wa/i-tu za-zi DEUS-ni-zi tara/i-pa CRUS, approx. /wa=ttu zanzi massaninzi tarba tanti/, meaning ‘to him these gods shall stand in opposition’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:487).

[AH.B.]

An adverb, the present word is indeclinable. It likely represents a lexicalised case form originating from a nominal paradigm otherwise not attested in HLuw., viz. /tarba-/ ‘opposition’ vel sim. Sasseville 2018a:306 deems it an original (dat./)loc.; but cf. also Morpurgo Davies 1986a:135 and Yakubovich 2002a:208 who suggest an old allative/directive.

[AH.B.]

The lexeme is found in festival texts and in a ritual fragment (from MS onwards).

[E.R.]

dat./loc. sg.	tar-pa	KUB 17.15 iii 9	(CTH 767, NS)
		KUB 17.15 iii 10	(CTH 767, NS)
		KBo 23.55 i 24’	(CTH 648, MS)
	⸢tar-pa⸣	KBo 23.55 i 25’	(CTH 648, MS)
	⸢tar⸣-pa	KBo 23.55 i 26’	(CTH 648, MS)

The attestation of tar-pa-aš sa₅ (with the color adjective, KBo 46.69, 5’) seems to point to a concrete meaning (Neu apud HEG T:202); cf. ^SÍGtarpala-. – For the gen. sg. tar-pa-aš at KUB 2.1 iii 2, see the lemma head under CLuw. tarp(i)- in Hittite transmission.

[E.R.]

Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.

[E.R.]

All contexts of tarpa- listed in the table under Forms are compatible with the meanings ‘opposition, rivalry, competition, fight’. This is most obviously the case at KBo 23.55 i 18’-26’, where four pairs of human and animal combatants (wrestlers, boxers, bulls, and rams) take position to fight. According to Soysal 2003a:106 (followed by Ünal 2007a:698, Yakubovich 2010a:389), tarpa tiye/a- “indicates a reciprocal aggressive behavior or violent act”Different Gurney 1977a:208 and Ünal 1988a:1497 n. 160f.: ‘to butt’; Hoffner 1978b:247: ‘ram- and bull-wrestling(?)’; Puhvel 1978a:30 thinks of ‘award ceremony’; see also Gilan 2001a:116f. for the context, considering a turning movement like that performed in bull jumping. No translation is offered in CLL:214, HHw:169, HEG T:203. The attestations at KUB 17.15 iii 9 and iii 10 occur in an incantation in which the expert probably requests that the patient (dumu.lú.u₁₉.lu) not be let into tarpa, but a different creature instead. Here, too, ‘opposition, rivalry, competition, fight’ fits well.DCLlists two of the attestations (KUB 17.15 iii 9 and iii 10) s.v. tarpa- ‘ritual substitution’.

[E.R.]

On account of the Luwian dat./loc. sg. tarpa, the form can be assigned to the Luwian common gender a-stems (reconstructed also in Sasseville 2018a:306).

[E.R.]

The Luwian dat./loc. sg. tarpa and the connection with HLuw. tara/i-pa CRUS- speaks decidedly for a Luwian origin of the lexeme (see DLL:93, CLL:214, Sasseville 2021a:93, DCL:s.v.).

[E.R.]

The only attestation of this lexeme occurs in a long burial inscription found at the cemetery of Sardis.

[I.Y.]

indecl. (?)

trfãν

LW 10.6 (Sardis)

The alternative interpretation of the same form as gen.-dat.pl. substantive (Brandenstein 1931b:32) remains formally possible but appears to be unlikely on etymological grounds (cf. below). The analysis of the same form as infinitive (Carruba 1960a:37) stumbles upon the lack of assured infinitives in -ãν in Luwian.

[I.Y.] [D.S.]

The letter <f> is slightly damaged. An alternative reading of the same form could be trpãν.

[I.Y.]

The passage, in which trfãν occurs, mentions a series of action performed in relation to the stele and what pertains to it. Hajnal 2004a:199 suggests that trfa- refers to a part of the stele or to the surrounding installations. If an accusative singular, the word trf̣ãν would be the direct object of the verb tamν ‘I built’. Otherwise, if a dative plural, it would be the indirect object upon which something is built. Finally, a genitive plural depending on fẽlla(ν) is also possible. None of the suggested analyses can be discarded at present.

As plausibly suggested in a nutshell in Gusmani 1964a:208, trfãν could be genetically related to ẽntarfλo- ‘belonging’ and pλtarwo- ‘periphery’ (the other reading trpãν(?) looks less auspicious from the etymological viewpoint). The meanings of the likely cognates are compatible with the hypothesis that trfãν represents a local adverb, while the indeclinable forms dãν and perhaps also asfãν enhance the formal plausibility of such a hypothesis. Gusmani 1961a:184 assumes an etymological connection with the Lydian root tarp- ‘to belong (?)’ (considered here to be outdated), but does not suggest any concrete meaning.

Another approach would be to compare Lyc. A trbbi ‘against’ and HLuw. tara/i-pa ‘in opposition to’, which would give Lyd. trfãν the sense ‘opposite, in face of (?)’, an adequate translation in the context of building. Otherwise, a meaning ‘nearby (?)’ should be not neglected either.

Additional attestations are of course required for confirming the proposed grammatical and semantic analysis.

[I.Y.] [D.S.]

Formally speaking, trfãν could be a 1^st singular preterit verb (thus Brandenstein 1931b:32). However, this is not supported by the sentence, because the preceding word tamν ‘I built’ in LW 10.6 is already taken as the predicate.

[D.S.]