/attan(i)-/, COR-ni-

This noun is attested in inscriptions coming from several Neo-Hittite states. The earliest one is TELL AHMAR 2 (late 10th – early 9th century BCE). The other inscriptions all can be dated to the 8th century BCE. In the instance of KÖRKÜN, the 9th century date cannot be excluded, the date of İSTANBUL 1 is uncertain.  

[I.Y.]

The lexical and grammatical assignment of ˹COR^?˺-na-x (KARKAMIŠ A29b) is dubious. The lexical assignment of COR^?-ni-na (İSTANBUL 1 § 6) cannot be regarded as assured.

[I.Y.]

The separation of this lexeme from Luw. /atr(i)-/ (q.v.) is proposed in van den Hout 2002a essentially on formal grounds. The merger between /n/ and /r/ does not belong to the standard features of the Luwian language, except for the very late period, and clearly cannot account for the spelling COR-ni-i in TELL AHMAR 2. In addition, the spellings with <na> and <ni> after <COR> are simply too frequent to be all explained by phonetic variation.

Van den Hout (ibid.) attempted to corroborate his claim by postulating the semantic contrast between /(a)tra/i-/atla/i-/ ‘self’ and /attan(i)-/ ‘soul, self’. But the best argument in favor of semantic distinction between these two nouns became available later, with the publication of JISR EL HADID 4 (Dinçol, Dinçol, Hawkins & Peker 2014a). Contrary to the translation of the editio princeps, one can suggest the following interpretation of D1 §§ 2-3: “But I, Runtapi, made his image, and for his paternal gods I exalted his soul”. The proposed translation implies a contrast between COR-tara/i-i-, the representation of the deceased and COR-ni-i-, his spiritual substance that can be exalted by means of creating such a representation. This contrast, in turn, helps to explain the similar opposition in KULULU 4. Here, the narrator Ruwa informs us in §4 that the gods put on/into him a beloved COR-tara/i-. At this point Ruwa is alive, and so one can hypothesize that COR-tara/i- refers to his self, encompassing both his physical and spiritual features. In §9, however, we learn that the gods took from Ruwa his COR-ni-. This presumably happened after he died, and so it stands to reason that COR-ni- refers to his soul, which is only partially co-referential with his former self. The last explanation may appear speculative, but the co-occurrence between COR-tara/i-(i)- and COR-ni-(i)- in the same order in two unrelated inscriptions is in in itself an argument in favor of their lexical difference. If these two stems reflected a mere graphic variation, one would expect them to cluster in different inscriptions, depending on the conventions preferred by individual scribes. For these reasons, the attempt to reject the synchronic distinction between the two stems undertaken in Hawkins 2015a:53 remains unpersuasive.

At the same time, there are other contexts, in particular ÇINEKÖY § 9 and TELL AHMAR 2 § 13, where the translation ‘self’ appears to be contextually appropriate. Consequently, one can postulate the partially overlapping meanings.  The noun /atr(i)-/ could mean ‘person, self’ and secondarily also ‘image’, but not ‘soul’, while the /attan(i)-/ meant ‘soul, self’ but not ‘image’.     

[I.Y.]

The paradigm collected above clearly speaks in favor of the semi-vocalic stem /attan(i)-/.

[I.Y.]

1. /attanassam(a)-/
2. /attani(ya)-/