ḫu(wa)rt(i)-

The word is attested from MS^? onwards in an inventory text, a ritual, and a Hittite gloss from an Akkadian medical text preserved on a school-tablet (cf. Köcher 1952–1953a:47; Beckman 1993a:26, Giusfredi 2012c).

[A.B.]

The forms of ḫuwarti- are listed in DLL:50, CLL:81,HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:823f., HEG A–K:332, Ünal 2007a:248, Ünal 2016a:214, DCL:86f. (cf. Zorman 2007a:764). A third one, ⸢ḫu⸣-wa-ar-ti in KUB 27.67+ iv 5, is assigned to the present lemma as dat./loc. sg. in CLL:81, HED H:437f., HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:823f., Ünal 2007a:248, Ünal 2016a:214. However, the form rather belongs to the Hittite verb ḫuwart-^(ḫi) ‘to curse’ (cf. Christiansen 2006a:91, DCL:87). – On account of the use of the determinative, ^TU7ḫurta/i-, although considered a cognate of ḫuwart(i)-, is treated as a different lemma in HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:767, Ünal 2016a:240, HHw:56; other dictionaries seem to have omitted the word.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

The transliterations have been checked against the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv. – Following HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:824, the gloss wedge does not solely refer to ḫuwartin, but to the whole clause, which translates the Akkadian subordinate clause; cf. ibid. for opposing views. See also under Origin.

[A.B.]

The meaning is based on the context of KUB 37.1: ⁽⁵⁾... gim ra-bi-ki ⁽⁶⁾ta-ra-a-<bak> ḫu-wa-ar-ti-in gim-an za-nu-uz-zi “... as you make a decoction (gloss:) he cooks (it) like a decoction” (cf. Köcher 1952–1953a:48–50, 53, Giusfredi 2012c:50, 52, and HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:823). The Akkadian phrase kīma rabīki tarabbak ‘as you make a decoction’ (cf. CAD R:9) is glossed here with the Hittite phrase () ḫuwartin gim-an zanuzzi. More specifically, Akk. rabīki ‘decoction’ is represented by ḫuwartin in the Hittite phrase (cf. Laroche 1959a:50; Giusfredi 2012c:52, 55). Accordingly, the word is generally translated as ‘decoction’, cf. Laroche 1959a:50 ‘décoction’, HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:823f.: ‘Absud, Gebräu’ (?), HEG A–K:332 “unbekannte Substanz, wohl eine Art Absud oder Extrakt”, Kronasser 1966a:237 (“Art Absud oder Suppe”), HED H:437 ‘concoction, decoction, extract, infusion’ (cf. Ünal 2007a:248, cf. Ünal 2016a:214), Zorman 2007a:764 ‘Abkochung, Extrakt’, Tischler 2008a:65 (unbekannte Substanz, ‘Gebräu, Absud, Extrakt’ ?), DCL:86 ‘decoction, mash’; for ^TU7ḫurta/i-, see Bawanypeck 2005a:113, 315 ‘ḫurti-Gericht’Köcher 1952–1953a:50 did not yet translate the Glossenkeilwort: “wie einen (...) kocht er”.

Siegelová 1986a:530 n. 2 and Košak 1982a:175f. (see also HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:823) raise doubts about the suitability of the interpretation for 1 ḫūwarti[š] at KUB 42.30, 7’ pointing out that the attestation in the inventory lists it as a countable object (among bathtubs, tureens, ḫinzu-s, and axes). The problem can be solved by the assumption that the term was also applied metonymically to the vessel used for the decoction.

[A.B.] [E.R.]

The synchronic i-stem of ḫuwart(i)- in Hittite most likely goes back to the borrowing of a Luwian stem *ḫuwart(i)- with i-mutation, further confirmed by the a-stem dat./loc. pl. and the derivatives, ḫurtalla/i- and ḫurtalliya/e-^(mi), which show the typical deletion of -i- in the derivational base (cf. Rieken 1994a:48 with n. 26; similar, but still under different suppositions Jucquois & Lebrun 1979a:105; outdated are Neu 1981a:349 and Neu 1985a:264 n. 26); for secondary ḫurtiyalli-; see under Lemma.

[E.R.]

1. ḫūrtalla/i-
2. ḫurtiyalla-
3. ḫurtalliye/a-

While Laroche 1959a:50 remains undecided regarding the Luwian origin (“peut être hitt. ou louv.”) and HED H:438 considers a ‘Luwoid i-stem’ with question mark, CLL:77 safely assumes two derivatives with Luwian suffixes based on ḫuwart(i)-: ḫūrtalla/i- and ^dugḫurtiyalla-, both meaning ‘decoction vessel’, which make it probable that also the base is a Luwian word. It is also classified as Luwian in Jucquois & Lebrun 1979a:105, van den Hout 2006a:247, Ünal 2016a:959, DCL:86f.

The gloss marker in this phrase (and the rest of the text) has a different function than the marker that is used to highlight single words as so-called Glossenkeilwörter in a text. It separates ‘real’ glosses that explain or translate the preceding Akkadian phrase in Hittite from the Akkadian text proper (cf. Yakubovich 2010d:371, Zorman 2007a:767). Hence, while the lexeme ḫuwart(i)- may well be of Luwian origin, it is not safe to say that this feature is indicated by the gloss marker since its scope extends over the whole gloss-phrase, which is in Hittite.  

[A.B.]