annan(-)kuratti- / anna kuratta-
‘vessel’
- Language
- Cuneiform Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 620
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Luwian (Glossenkeilwörter)
annan(-)kuratti- / anna kuratta-
1.1.1Transmission
The word pair is attested with a gloss marker in one Hittite court deposition treating a case of manipulative magic with substitute figurines (cf. Haas 2003a:590).
[A.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. pl. c. | ?an?-na?-a]n?(-)ku-ra-at-ti-uš |
KUB 40.83 obv. 2 | CTH 295, NS |
| ⸢⸣an-na-an(-)ku-⸢ra⸣-at-ti-uš |
KUB 40.83 obv. 5 | ||
| nom./acc. pl. n. | an-na ku-ra-at-ta |
KUB 40.83 obv. 7 |
The attestations follow CLL:14, 111; HW (2nd ed.) A:76; Ünal 2007a:25, Ünal 2016a:61 (not in Laroche 1959a, HEG or HED), checked against the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv.
HW (2nd ed.) A:76 reads annankurattiuš as one word and anna kuratta as two words, cf. Ünal 2007a:25, and Ünal 2016a:61: anna(n)-kuratta. However, based on the photo of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv and the hand copy, analyzing this sequence as one word can only safely be concluded for the occurrence at line 5, since line 2 is too fragmentary, and there is a space in line 7. Although the pair of words is treated as nominal, annan is still recognizable as a preverb here (cf. CLL:14): not only do the spaces separate the two words in line 7, but there is also variation between the forms anna and annan in the text.
[A.B.]
1.1.3Meaning ‘an object, a vessel (or sim.?), cut or cropped downwards or at the bottom’
As noted above, it is unclear whether we are dealing with one word or two, i.e. preverb + verbal noun. While the forms anna / annan most probably belong to the CLuw. preverb anna(n) ‘under’ (cf. CLL:13 and under the respective lemma), kuratti- is generally translated as ‘cutting’ (or sim.) as in CLL:111 and Tischler 2008a:95 ‘Zerkleinerung, Zerschneidung’ (cf. Tischler 2016a:178), since it is most probably based on CLuw kūri- / *kurāi- (cf. under the lemma *ku̯or-éi̯e-(di)). The details of its morphology are not entirely clear (cf. under Origin).
The only context, in which this word or word pair appears, does not directly reveal what it actually refers to. KUB 40.83 obv. 2–7 (transliteration is based on the hand copy and the photos of the Mainzer Fotoarchiv, and the transliteration, restorations and translation of Werner 1967b:64–66 have been taken into account) shows:
(2)[... ?an?-na?-a]n?(-)ku-ra-at-ti-uš (eras.) (3)[... - a]t n[am-]ma mta-ki-lug[al]-ma fma-na-dugud-iš (4)[... ]⸢é⸣-ia pé-eš-ta ku-ut-ru-⸢wa⸣-an-ni-ma-wa-mu (5)[... a]m-me-el-ma-wa-ra-at-mu-kán ⸢⸣an-na-an(-)ku-⸢ra⸣-at-ti-uš (6)[... -]ḫi-ir-ra nu-wa-mu-kán am-me-el-la é-er (7)[... ]xMEŠ an-na ku-ra-at-ta pa-ra-a ⸢sum-er⸣
(2)[“... the anna]n(-)kuratti(pl) (3)[...] a[ga]in Taki-Šar[rum]a, Mana-dugud-i (4)[...] gave my house. But (...) me to witness acknowledgement? (5)[...] but my (...) the annan(-)kuratti(pl) (6)[...] and (...) me also my house (7)[...] they handed over the (lot of?) anna kuratta(pl).”
CLL:111 suggests a possible parallel formation in the Hitt. designation for a vessel (DUG)kattakurant-, which contains the Hittite preverb katta ‘down’ and a participle of Hitt. kuer- ‘to cut’. This vessel appears in festival texts and is used for libation. Güterbock 1955a:63f. suggested a special type of libation vessel that is usually attested with a pointed bottom and cannot stand upright by itself. Therefore, (DUG)kattakurant-vessels may have been cut off and probably provided with a flat bottom for other purposes (cf. HEG A–K:542f., Ünal 2007a:330).
[A.B.]
1.1.4Origin
The form is only rarely analyzed in the literature. While kurattiuš is clearly Hittite, kuratta could be either Luwian or Hittite. CLL:111 cautiously assumes a stem *kuratta/i- based on the attestations kurattiuš and kuratta. Melchert 2005a:452 lists annan kuratta/i- but none of the forms appears in the similar list of Luwianisms by van den Hout 2007a. Tischler 2008a:95 lists kuratt(i)- together with CLuw. *kurattar- / kurattan-, but these are two different formations. If, however, the base is the CLuw. verb CLuw kūri- /*kurāi- (cf. under the lemma *ku̯or-éi̯e-(di)), the form kuratti- could have been derived with the Luwian suffix -(t)ti- (for this suffix that forms nouns from verbs cf. Melchert 2003b:197). This would explain anna(n) as a preverb and provide a similar formation to that of the Hittite vessel designation kattakurant-. Its derivational morphology speaks for a Luwian origin with a loan into Hittite.
[A.B.]
2. Proto-Indo-European
2.1Semantic Reconstruction
Although neither the exact meaning nor the precise stem formation of the Luwian word/phrase is known, it should be noted that IEW:642 mentions a root 2.*ku̯er- recurring “in Worten, die etwas Schüssel‑, Schalenartiges bedeuten.” The comparanda are words like Ved. car‑ú- ‘kettle, pot’ (RV+; EWAia I:536), OInd. karaṅka- ‘skull, head’ (KEWA I:162), PCelt. *ku̯ar‑i̯o- ‘cauldron’ (cf. OIr. coire, MW peir, pair etc., EDPC:175), PGerm. *χu̯er‑a- m. ‘kettle’ (cf. ON hverr, OE hwer, OHG (h)wer, EDPG:265).There are even more cognates in Germanic and Slavic (cf., e.g., ON hverna f. ‘pot’ [EDPG:265], Russ. čeren ‘salt pan’ [EDSIL:83f.]).
If these formations originally denoted wooden vessels, the connection of PIE 1.*ku̯er- ‘to cut’ and PIE 2.*ku̯er- ‘(wooden) vessel’ could be established via the manufacturing technique of carving. Such an affiliation of the ‘vessel’-words would imply the preservation of the older meaning ‘to cut’.It should be noted that Pashto attests a noun kāra ‘large wooden vessel’ (cf. EWAia I:536) which may resemble the original type expressed by these formations.On the other hand, if the vessels are originally made of clay (cf. TochB nom. sg. f. kwraiñña ‘pertaining to clay’, DTB²:259f.) or something else, it is also possible to connect them with the root Core IE 1.*ku̯er- ‘to make’ as ‘made, manufactured’. If the Anatolian lexemes ultimately belong here, the implication of this latter alternative would be an early semantic widening from ‘to cut’ to ‘to make’.As a parallel for both possibilities, cf. YAv. tašta- ‘cup, bowl’, the past participle of the root Av. taš- ‘to make, construct; to cut’ (PIE *tetk̑- ‘to make, construct’, LIV²:638f., LIV²+ s.v. ?*tetk̑‑), cf. Bartholomae 1904:645f. Note that the Avestan development ‘to make’ > ‘to cut’ is reverse in comparison with PIE *ku̯er- ‘to cut’ > ‘to make’, cf. PAnat. *ku̯ér-/*ku̯r-´ ‘to cut; to break?’.
However, since Luw. annan(‑)kuratti- / anna kuratta- ‘(a vessel?)’, similar to Hitt. katta-kurant- ‘libation vessel’, shows a local adverb as its first constituent, it may be interpreted differently (cf. above sub Origin) and thus be regarded as not comparable to the other formations derived from PIE 2.*ku̯er- ‘vessel’.
As long as there is no evidence revealing more semantic, morphological, and syntactic insights, no conclusions are drawn from the similarities of the underlying roots.
2.2Morphological Reconstruction
Since, apart from insufficient similarities, no evidence can be provided, no morphological etymology is given.
[A.O.]