/haniyatt(a)-/, (“MALUS2”)ha-ní-ia-ta-
‘bad thing’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- subst
- ID
- 699
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/haniyatt(a)-/, (“MALUS2”)ha-ní-ia-ta-
‘bad thing’1.1.1Transmission
This lexeme is attested twice within the KARATEPE bilingual inscription, once in the Ho. version and once in the Hu. version. The bilingual originates from Cilicia and dates to the beginning of the 7th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| nom./acc. pl. |
/haniyattaya/ |
(“MALUS2”)há-ní-ia-ta-ia |
|
| /haniyatta/ | (“MALUS2”)ha-ní-ia-ta | KARATEPE 1 Hu., §12 (Cilicia) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
Attested twice and fully spelt out, the phonological interpretation of this lexeme can be regarded as certain. The parallel running HLuw. versions of the inscription show the desinential variation /-a, -aya/ commonly found in the nom./acc. pl. of neuter a-stems.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning
First identified by Neumann 1973a:248, the general meaning of this lexeme has now been clear for quite some time, not least because it occurs in a bilingual inscription and corresponds to h-rʿ ‘all evil’ in the Phoenician version of the text. However, its exact semantics are difficult to pin down, because an earlier abstract sense appears to have given way to a more concrete meaning. Concretisation would explain why the word can evidently be pluralised, as proved by the attestations. Moreover, the ability to show a plural in at least one formation is also where /haniyatta-/ differs from all substantival members of the semantically similar word family around /attuwal-/ ‘evil’, for which there are no plurals attested. This morphological difference may rest on a crucial semantic difference between the two word families, which undoubtedly belong to the same semantic field, yet are clearly not even partly synonymous. Rather, it seems that /attuwal-/ ‘evil’ and related words describe a more general negative disposition, while /haniyatta-/ and its family express a less sweeping negative element based on incidents and actions (Yakubovich, pers. comm.). As such, /haniyatta-/ would, of course, lend itself to concretisation much more readily than /attuwal-/ and, by extension, to countability.
[AH.B.] [I.Y.]
1.1.5Stem
The lexeme is a neuter abstract formed with the suffix /-tta-/ (cf. Melchert 2003b:196). Its morphological base is evidently the adjective */haniya-/ ‘bad, malicious’, which is unattested in HLuw., but can perhaps be found in CLuw. (CLL:51). Because the word appears in the plural, it is likely that its original abstract meaning changed over time in favour of a more concrete sense.
[AH.B.]
1.1.6Derivatives
For the lemma head see PAnat. *Hón-/Hn-´.