(-)ḫarran(i)- (or (-)ḫurran(i)-)

The sole attestation of the lexeme is in ritual fragment (perhaps a birth ritual, see Starke 1985b:215, 247).

[E.R.]

acc. pl. c.

(-)ḫ]a/ur-ra-ni-en-za

KUB 35.97, 2’

(CTH 764, LNS)

The attestations of TI₈^MUŠEN ‘eagle’, for which see CLL:286 (s.v. Á.MUŠEN), probably do not belong to this Lemma.

[E.R.]

Most authors seem to be positive about the identification of (-)ḫa/urran(i)- with the name of an oracle bird, ḫa/urranī-, as attested in Hittite texts (CLL:57, Kloekhorst 2006b:132, EDHIL:302f., Starke 1990a:62, 76, Kronasser 1966a:222, HEG Ḫ:170f.; see under Lemma). Some of them even regard this word as an etymological cognate of Hitt. ḫārāš, ḫāranaš ‘eagle’ (see Pal. ḫāra(n)-). This, then, resulted in a semantic interpretation of ḫarranī- as ‘eagle’.
Others are more skeptical for several reasons. First, the reading of the first sign as ḫar-, instead of ḫur-, is by no means guaranteed neither in Hittite nor in Luwian context (see under Phonological Interpretation). Secondly, the geminating effect of Čop’s Law is not expected after ḫā- < *h₃ó-, as emphasized by Melchert 1994a:235 (also in CLL:57; differently Kloekhorst 2006a:132, EDHIL:302f.). Thirdly, ḫarranī- co-occurs with TI₈ ‘eagle’ in Hittite texts, which makes a semantic equation difficult (Melchert 1994a:235). Kloekhorst maintains that the co-occurrence supports the interpretation as the name of “an eagle-like bird”. However, the texts are about real birds that co-occur in nature, but are not necessarily of the same kind. This is different from juxtaposition in literary texts. In addition, one has to keep in mind that the ḫa/ur sign may very well not be the first sign of the word, since the tablet is broken, and nothing else points to a bird’s name in this context. Finally, ḫarranī- in Hittite context does not belong to a CLuw. stem *ḫarran(i)- (see under Lemma), but is an -i(ya)- derivative.
In sum, there are too many obstacles to a formal and semantic equation of (-)ḫa/urran(i)- with the oracle bird ḫarranī- in Hittite context, and further with Hitt. ḫārāš, ḫāranaš ‘eagle’. As a consequence, no meaning can be assigned.

[E.R.]

The most economic analysis is that the stem underlying the form (-)ḫa/urraninzi belongs to the mutated class in -C(i)-, although -i(ya)- cannot be entirely excluded.

[E.R.]