/kibud(i)-/
‘horn, hoof’
- Language
- Common Luwian
- Grammar
- subst, c.
- ID
- 4047
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/kibud(i)-/, (CORNU)ki-pu-tà-
‘horn, hoof’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested three times in inscriptions from Karkamiš, dating from the 10th or early 9th to the late 8th century BCE.
[A.P.]
1.1.2Forms
| abl./instr. | /kibudadi/ | (CORNU)ki-pu-tà-ti-i | KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §15 (Karkamiš) |
| coll.(?) | /kibuda/ | (“CORNU!”)ki-pu-tà-a | SULTANHAN, §31 (Tabal) |
| (“CORNU”)k[i-p]u+ra/i | KAYSERİ, §16 (Tabal) |
At SULTANHAN, §31, the word-initial sign does not so much resemble CORNU (sign *108), but rather an archaising 〈sa〉 (*415); Hawkins 2000a:466, 470 leaves it uncommented. Yet, the sign is clearly very different from the other two attestations listed above, and assuming a scribal mistake seems plausible.
The grammatical analysis of the forms at SULTANHAN, §31 and KAYSERİ, §16 is unclear, as they may be the nom./acc. pl. of a neuter noun or a collective (Yakubovich 2002a:207), i.e. /kibuda/, or they may represent the dat./loc. sg. of what would likely be a common gender noun, i.e. /kibudi/ or /kibuda/ (but cf. Norbruis & Sasseville 2024a), either is possible in the respective contexts;The word-final sign 〈-a〉 at SULTANHAN, §31 may well represent an end-of-word mark that should be transliterated as 〈-a〉, as these are frequent in the inscription. cf. the discussions below.
[A.P.] [AH.B.]
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The phonological interpretation of this word is provisional. Its spelling in the HLuw. occurrences seems reasonably clear and attests to a lenited dental with 〈tà〉 instead of any of the other TA signs (cf. Rieken 2008b:639), as well as the rhotacism evident at KAYSERİ, §16, which affects intervocalic /d/. However, the stem-final vowel is less clear. Simon 2019f:330 has shown that 〈tà〉 can stand for /da/ and /di/, with the reading adjusted to 〈tì〉 for the latter. On that basis, Melchert (DCL:s.v.) assumes a direct match with CLuw. SIkiput(i)- ‘horn’, a common gender noun. It should be noted, however, that the abl./instr. ending /-adi/ at KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §15 and its lenis dental are spelt with 〈ti〉 (*90), raising the question why a directly preceding /di/ should be spelt with a different sign.It may be argued that the sign 〈ti〉 is the usual choice for the abl./instr. (although 〈tà〉 does occur there, too, from time to time, although even 〈tí〉 is more frequent), while the spelling of /kibud(i)-/ used to mandate 〈tà〉.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
The meaning of this word is clear in its general denotation of a body part made of ceratin, i.e. the organic substance horns and hooves are made of, but it is unclear whether the HLuw. meaning is restricted to ‘hoof’ (thus first suggested by Yakubovich 2002a:207), which seems to be what the contexts of attestation call for, or if it should be understood to encompass also ‘horn’, a connection likely for etymological reasons.Melchert’s reasoning (DCL:s.v.) for the exclusive meaning ‘horn’ does not accord well with the twice used verb /tarp(a)i-(di)/ ‘to trample, attack’, whose spelling also happens to involve the PES.PES2 for a logographic determinative, strongly suggesting movement by foot. As it is, the word is used in the apodoses of curse formulae detailing envisaged divine punishment, e.g. in KARKAMIŠ A2+3, §15: *a-wa/i-ta *a-pa-sa tá-ti-ia-za DOMUS-ni-za kar-ka-mi-si-za-sa(URBS) DEUS.TONITRUS-sa (CORNU)ki-pu-tà-ti-i a-tá (PES2.PES)tara/i-pi-tu-u, approx. /a=wa=tta abas tadiyanz parninz Karkamisizzas Tarhunzas kibudadi anta tarbidu/, translating as ‘(The Storm-god) Tarhunt of Karkamiš shall trample in(to) his (scil. the offender’s) paternal houses with his hooves!’ (cf. Hawkins 2000a:109).
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The attestations do not permit a clear view of the stem, which may be /kibuda-/ or /kibud(i)-/ c., whereas the first would represent a collective. A lexical equation with CLuw. SIkiput(i)- c. (see below) seems beyond doubt, and therefore, a common gender stem in -(i)- attested next to a collective is posited.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Luwian in Hittite transmission
kiput(i)-
‘horn, hoof’1.2.1Transmission
The sole attestation of the noun comes from a tiny NS fragment of unknown genre.
[E.R.]
1.2.2Forms
| acc. sg. | ⸢SIki⸣-pu-ti-en | KUB 36.77, 3’ | (CTH 832, NS) |
1.2.3Graphic Features
Checked against the photographs in the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Contra Haas 1970a:140 n. 8, the reading of the two initial signs as offered by Meriggi 1962b:74, HED K:188, and Laroche 1956e:423 is correct.
[E.R.]
1.2.4Meaning
Due to the lack of a clarifying context (soft rains of the Storm-god are mentioned), the semantic interpretation of SIkiput(i)- rests on the determinative and Laroche’s (Laroche 1956e:423, Laroche 1960a:69, cited in HW:399 and HEG A-K:583) comparison with the obvious Hieroglyphic Luwian cognate (CORNU)ki-pu-tà- ‘horn, hoof’. The ambiguous meaning is unproblematic given that both body parts are made of the same material (Yakubovich 2002a:206f.). The translation of the Luwian word in Hittite transmission is accepted with varying degrees of confidence in HHw:80 (‘Horn?, Huf?’), HED K:188 (only ‘hoof’ vel sim.?, but entry “very brittle”), Ünal 2007a:346 (only ‘hoof’?), and DCL:111 (only ‘horn’, but referring to the hoof with the expression “lower horn”).
[E.R.]
1.2.5Stem
Synchronically, the noun follows the inflection of common gender stems with i-mutation.
[E.R.]
1.2.6Origin
The assumption of a Luwian origin (DCL:111) is based on the existence of the Hieroglyphic Luwian match and the i-stem.
[E.R.]
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction ‘belonging to the head’
For HLuw. /kibud(i)-/, Oettinger 2016b:279 suggests reconstructing a vṛddhi-formation *kḗput-o- ‘belonging to the head’, whose root would be cognate with the Indo-European word *kaput- ‘head’. This scenario is very attractive, since it would also explain the lenition of the labial consonant following an accented *ē, which is confirmed by the Cuneiform Luwian attestation.cf.Meriggi 1962b:74, who doubts the connection with Slav. kopýto ‘hoof’.
[D.S.]
3. Proto-Indo-European
3.1Semantic Reconstruction
Two branches provide direct evidence for a *kaput- n. ‘head’, namely Italic (Latin caput, -itis) and Germanic (*habuda- n. ‘head’ with variants). Proto-Anatolian *kḗput-o- ‘belonging to the head’ > Luwian kibud(i)- ‘horn, hoof’ can be counted as indirect evidence, the Celtic (Old Irish cuäd ‘drinking vessel’ < *kaputo-) and Slavic forms (Proto-Slavic *kopyto n. ‘hoof’ < *kapūto-) only if certain additional hypotheses are invoked. If *kaput- n. ‘head’ originally meant ‘vessel’ (cf. Latin testa f. ‘jug, pitcher’ > Romance ‘head, skull’ in French tête, Italian testa, etc.), as perhaps reflected by Old Irish cuäd ‘drinking vessel’ (< *kaputo-), the underlying root may be *kap-/*keh2p- ‘grasp, catch’ (LIV²:344f.), which furnishes words for containers in Latin and Germanic (e.g., Latin capula, capēdo, -inis, capsa, Old High German havan). Alternatively, one may envisage a semantic change (or derivation; see below) from ‘(cranial) bone’ to ‘skull, head’ (cf. *k̑(r̥)rēh2 ‘the head-bone (collective)’ > ‘skull, head’ as in Gk. κάρᾱ n.cf. Nussbaum 1986a:247.), in which case *kap-/*keh2p- may refer to ‘bony substance’ and could underlie the word for ‘hoof’ in Germanic (*hōfa- m. < *koh2po- or *kōp(h2)o-), Slavic (Proto-Slavic *kopyto n. ‘hoof’ < *kapūto-), and Indo-Iranian (Vedic śaphá-, Young Avestan safa-, etc. < *k̑ap-h2-ó-), provided the palatal in Indo-Iranian can be explained analogically. In any event, it is very likely that Vedic kapā́la- n. ‘cup, jar, dish; skull, cranium, skull-bone’ (cf. Proto-Germanic *habVlan- m. ‘head’ > Old English hafola, hafela) is another Indic cognate of *kaput- ‘head’, interestingly exhibiting both meanings ‘skull-bone’ and ‘cup, jar’. If it really belongs here, kapā́la- makes a reconstruction *kap- and *kaput- more likely than *keh2p- and *kh2put-, as *kh2p- would have yielded *kip- > Vedic *cip- (cf. *ph2tér- > pitár- ‘father’).
3.2Morphological Reconstruction
The stem *kaput- suggests a breakdown as *kap- (root) plus *-ut- (suffix). Both the inherent a-vowel of the root (see above at the end of II. Semantic Reconstruction) and the suffix *-ut- (otherwise extremely rare; see Rieken 1999a:169) are unusual features. In an archaic word for a body part, however, they might be less surprising, as this lexical field often preserves archaic morphology (cf., e.g., the neuter root noun for ‘mouth’, see under CLuw. āšš-, and *k̑(r̥)rēh2 ‘the head-bone (collective)’ mentioned above).
The relationship between *kaput- ‘head’ and *kḗput-o- ‘horn, hoof’ is reminiscent of the derivational network surrounding the root *k̑er- and the ablauting *h2-stem *k̑ér-h2 (weak stem *k̑r-éh2-) ‘head-bone (material)’, which was discussed by Nussbaum 1986aand which includes various words for ‘head’ (Vedic śíras- n., Avestan sarah- n., Greek κάρᾱ n.), ‘horn’ (Greek κέρας n., Vedic śŕ̥ṅga- n.), and ‘hoof’ (Middle Welsh carn ‘hoof’).
It could be hypothesized that a root *kap- formed a *h2-stem *kap-(e)h2- or *kop-(e)h2- ‘bone (material)’ which served as the basis of a vr̥ddhi derivative *kōp-h2-ó- ‘made of bony substance’, substantivized as Proto-Germanic *hōfa- m. ‘hoof’, and of a largely synonymous possessive derivative *ka/op-h2-ó-, substantivized as Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćapʰás ‘hoof’ (Vedic śaphá-, Young Avestan safa-, etc.). Note that when the underlying noun ‘X’ denotes a material, both a vr̥ddhi derivative (*kōp-h2-ó-) and a possessive derivative (*ka/op-h2-ó-) can come to mean ‘made of X’: compare *h2éi̯-es- n. ‘metal’ (Vedic áyas-, Latin aes ‘bronze, copper’), the basis of a vr̥ddhi derivative Vedic āyas-á- ‘made of metal’ and of a possessive *-no-derivative Latin aēnus ‘made of copper, bronze’ (*ai̯es-no-).
Whatever the precise derivational function of *-ut- was, we can further speculate that *kap-ut- denoted bony substance, especially that of the skull or cranium, whence ‘head’ (Latin caput, -itis, Proto-Germanic *habuda-).
Luwian kibud(i)- ‘horn, hoof’ < Proto-Anatolian *kḗput-o- can then be analyzed as a substantivization of a vr̥ddhi derivativefor lengthened grades of *a-roots see Melchert 2022a:201f., who mentions *kḗput-o- as a “highly suggestive” example, but doesn’t want to exclude that the base word is *kh2put-, not *kaput-, either *kēput-ó- ‘belonging to the head’ (thus Oettinger 2016b:279) or ‘made of bony substance’ (see above). The latter meaning is also inferable for a possessive derivative *kaput-ó- ‘made of bony substance’ > ‘horn’ and might (via ‘drinking horn’) underlie Old Irish cuäd ‘drinking vessel’ (< *kaputo-).
[S.H.]
4. Transmission
Luwian in Hittite transmission kiput(i)- ‘horn, hoof’, Hieroglyphic Luwian /kibud(i)-/ ‘horn, hoof’.
(?) Young Avestan safa- m. ‘hoof of a horse’, Khotanese saha-, Pashto swa ‘id.’.Cf., e.g., EWAia II:608 s.v. śaphá-.
(?) Old Irish cuäch ‘cup, goblet, bowl’, Welsh cawg ‘dish, bowl, basin’ (*kapuko-), Old Irish cuäd ‘drinking vessel’ (*kaputo-).Cf., e.g., Stifter 2024a:170f.
Proto-Germanic *habuda- n. ‘head’ (Old Norse hǫfuð, Old English *hafud in hafudland ‘headland’, etc.) ~ *haubuda- n. (Old English hēafod, English head, etc.) ~ *haubida- n. (Gothic haubiþ, Crimean Gothic hoef, Old High German houbit, German Haupt, etc.), *habVlan- m. ‘head’ (Old English hafola, hafela).Cf., e.g., EDPG:215.
(?) Proto-Germanic *hōfa- m. ‘hoof’ (Old English hōf, English hoof, Old High German huof, German Huf, Old Norse hófr, etc.).Cf., e.g., EDPG:238f.
(?) Proto-Slavic *kopyto n. ‘hoof’ (Russian kopýto, Serbo-Croatian kòpito, Czech, Polish kopyto, etc.).Cf., e.g., EWAia II:608 s.v. śaphá-.