tarriyanali-

Attested in Hittite inventory texts (NS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	TÚGtar-ia-na-liš	KBo 18.186 left edge 4	(CTH 250, NS)
nom. sg. / pl. c.	TÚGtar-ri-ia-na-liš	KBo 18.181 rev. 8’	(CTH 243, NS)
	˹TÚGtar-ri˺-ia-na-liš	KBo 18.181 rev. 22’	(CTH 243, NS)
	TÚGtar-ri-˹ia˺-[na-liš]	KBo 18.181 rev. 3’	(CTH 243, NS)
	TÚGtar-˹ri˺-[ia-na-liš]	KBo 18.181 obv. 14	(CTH 243, NS)

Attestations following EDHIL:841 (cf. also Eichner 1992a:70f.; HEG T,D:174f.) checked against the photographs of the Konkordanz. The generally accepted restorations (in addition to the scholars just quoted cf. also Košak 1982a:122–124; Siegelová 1986a:372, 373; Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:176, 178) in KBo 18.181 obv. 14 and rev. 3’ are based on the parallel forms in the same tablet (rev. 8’ and 22’).

Siegelová 1986a:372, 374, 379 assumes an alternative reading “li_x” next to liš, which is, however, not supported: as discussed under Meaning, we are dealing either with a common gender i-stem noun or with a common gender noun in -ala- with i-mutation. A reading with li_x would be possible only in case of collective forms, which, however, requires the spelling “number + TAPAL / TA + object” (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:159f.), which is not the case here, thus these are not collective forms and they should be read with liš.

As for their grammatical form, the agreement rules of Hittite require singular after all cardinals in case of neuter nouns and plural after the numbers 2-4 but singular after 5 and higher numbers in case of inanimate common gender nouns (Rizza 2012b; Rieken 2013a). Since we are dealing with a kind of textile (cf. under Meaning), i.e. with an inanimate noun and it is preceded by the number 6 in KBo 18.186 left edge 4, it must be here singular whatever its gender is.

It is preceded by the number 2 in KBo 18.181 rev. 22’ (and in the fragmentary case of KBo 18.181 obv. 14), and by 3 in KBo 18.181 rev. 8’ (as well as by 4 in the fragmentary case of KBo 18.181 rev. 3’), thus a plural form is expected. This is possible considering the contracted forms attested in case of NH i-stem common gender nom. and acc. plurals (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:87 with ref.). However, an irregular usage of singular is also attested, precisely in the inventory texts (Rieken 2013a:331), and thus, formally speaking, they can be singulars too.

[Zs.S.]

Based on the assonance with ^LÚtarriyanalli- ‘third-in-command’ (see s.v.) and in general with Hittite and Luwian words for ‘three’, most of the scholars proposed a meaning which reflected this alleged connection, thus ‘third-quality (garment)’ (Güterbock 1971a:vii; Siegelová 1986a:373, 375, 377, 622; Tischler 2008a:190, 290 [here with question mark] = Tischler 2016a:361, 561 [but cf. below]; Beckman, Bryce & Cline 2011a:177, 179, 181) or a ‘cloth that has been woven three times’ (HEG T,D:174; EDHIL:841 [with double question mark], 874). Güterbock & van den Hout 1991a:47 (“must express quality or texture”) and Ünal 2007a:693, Ünal 2016a:520 (‘a kind of textile’) are more cautious, although the former point to German Drillich (with question mark), originally a garment woven from three threads. Finally, Košak 1982a:122–124, 240 suggested ‘ticking, drill(ing)’.

The contexts include all types of garments and soft furniture and thus they are not helpful. Assuming that the connection with the Luwian word for ‘three’ is valid (see under Origin), the meaning ‘cloth that has been woven three times’ does not make much sense. A ‘third-quality (garment)’ is definitely possible, although it is strange that these long inventory lists include only first- and third-class objects, never second-class and it is also unclear why these objects are exactly third-class and not another one (e.g. second- or even fourth-class). Thus it is more probable that the term refers to the texture of textile (e.g. ‘three-layered’) or its manufacture (e.g. ‘made of three threads’ or ‘triple twilled’).

Finally, it is unclear if it is only a qualifying adjective of preceding TÚG or if it is a lexicalised form, i.e. the name of a specific textile.

[Zs.S.]

This word is assumed to be of Luwian origin by Eichner 1992a:70–72 and EDHIL:841, 873 (but only “possibly”; cf. also Berman 1972a:131) due to the assonance with ^LÚtarriyanalli- ‘third-in-command’ (see s.v.), although not included in the list of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a. These words are, however, not identical: while ^LÚtarriyanalli- has a geminate -ll-, this is consistently not the case here (and thus the entry in Ünal 2007a:693, Ünal 2016a:520 with geminate -ll- is unjustified), which points to a different suffix. In the case of ^TÚGtarriyanali- this can be -al- that forms neuter instrumental nouns from verbal bases. This suffix is attested both in Hittite and Luwian, but some Luwian stems are borrowed into Hittite as common gender stems with either a- or i-stem inflection (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:54) and the latter case indeed fits the attested forms. Another possibility is a genuine Hittite suffixation with -ala- forming adjectives from nouns (Hoffner & Melchert 2008a:55) with Hittite i-mutation especially frequent in this group (Rieken 1994a:47). Since the underlying base is either a substantive *tarriyana- or an adverb *tarriyan (cf. Eichner 1992a:71; EDHIL:896, and s.v. ^LÚtarriyanalli-), the latter scenario is to be preferred. In this latter scenario we are dealing with Luwian forms based on the Luwian stem tarri- ‘three’ (note that Eichner 1992a:70f. explains the single -r- in KBo 18.186 left edge 4 as “abbreviated writing because of lack of space”) and thus this is Hittite formation based on a Luwian loanword.

[Zs.S.]