gurtawann(i)-
‘inhabitant of a city, town’
- Language
- Hittite
- Class
- Derivative
- Grammar
- adj
- ID
- 611
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian in Hittite transmission
gurtawann(i)-
‘inhabitant of a city, town’1.1.1Transmission
Hapax in the description of the (ḫ)išuwa-festival (LNS).
[Zs.S.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom. sg. c. | gur-ta-wa-an-ni-iš | KUB 45.58 iii 9 | (CTH 628, LNS) |
Attestation following HED K:276 (cf. also HEG A-K:664; Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:561; Beal 1992a:237; Ünal 2007a:373, Ünal 2016a:300) checked against the photo of the Konkordanz.
[Zs.S.]
1.1.3Meaning ‘inhabitant of a city, town’
Setting aside the early researchers, who did not provide any meaning (Brandenstein 1939a:76 n. 2; Pecchioli Daddi 1982a:561; and now Hawkins & Weeden 2017a:285 n. 42, who do not take the scholarly literature into account), based on the alleged meaning ‘citadel, fortress, acropolis’ of the stem gurta- the word is usually translated as ‘(man) of the citadel’ and/or ‘acropolitan’ (Friedrich 1952a:119; EDHIL:495; HED K:276) and next to this meaning some scholars even consider an officer based on the preceding LÚ sign, which, however, does not necessarily refer to professional titles (HEG A-K:664, Tischler 2008a:95 [literal meaning with question mark], Tischler 2016a:179 [only officer]; Ünal 2007a:373, Ünal 2016a:300). This was the base of more specific translations too (‘fortress guard’ in Berman 1972a:46 and ‘castellan’, ‘inhabitant and/or defender of a fortress’, both with question mark in Beal 1992a:237f.).
However, Melchert 2012a:214 demonstrated that gurta- can only mean ‘city, town’ (see s.v.). Since gurtawann(i)- is its derivative by the Luwian appurtenance suffix -wann(i)- (cf. under Origin), it can only mean ‘inhabitant of the city, town’. Exactly this meaning was already proposed by Laroche 1951a:136.
[Zs.S.]
1.1.4Origin
Already Brandenstein 1939a:76 n. 2 recognized that it is a derivative of a stem gurta- via the appurtenance suffix -wann(i)-, which turned out to be Luwian and thus it is generally supposed to be a Luwian loanword (Laroche 1951a:136; Berman 1972a:46; HEG A-K:664; HED K:276; Beal 1992a:237), although it is missing in the lists of Luwianisms of Melchert 2005a and van den Hout 2007a. There is no evidence for the cautiously proposed alternative in HEG A-K:664 that this word is derived from a toponym.
[Zs.S.]