*puno/ā-

Hapax in a Luwian ritual (MS).

[Zs.S.]

Attestation following CLL:178 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:82) checked against the photo of the Konkordanz. Alternatively, he suggests a coll. pl. of pūna/i- c. (contra Tischler 2008a:150 [“unklare Wortform”]), formally speaking both solutions are possible.

[Zs.S.]

No meaning was suggested for this word in earlier research (Laroche 1959a:82 and Starke 1990a:299), until CLL:178 (followed by Ünal 2016a:968) suggested ‘all’ or ‘totality’ (Tischler first accepted [HEG L-Š:648], then rejected it [Tischler 2008a:140: “unklare Wortform”], and finally he separated the onomastic element pūna- with this meaning from the Luwian word of unknown meaning, Tischler 2016a:283). According to Melchert, the “context suggests” a meaning ‘all’ and Tischler indeed translated pā ānda pūna (KUB 35.54 ii 15’, Starke 1985b:66) as “darin (ist) nun alles” (HEG L-Š:648). The preserved part of the line, however, shows pā ānda pūna zāš[ with zā-/zi- ‘this’ in nom. sg. c. Since due to the break of the tablet it is not clear whether zāš[ is followed by any sentence particle (contra Starke 1985b:66), it cannot be excluded that zāš also belongs to this sentence, which would turn pūna into the object of the sentence. This does not exclude the proposed meaning of pūna-, but due to this problem the context alone cannot be decisive for its meaning. Since, however, the meaning of pūnata/i-, a derivative from a base *pūna-, is beyond doubt ‘all’ (see s.v.), it is probable that its base and this pūna- are identical.

[Zs.S.]

1. pūnata/i-

Reconstructed from personal names preserved in the correspondence of Assyrian Colony period merchants in Anatolia.

[Zs.S.]

Problematic:

The attestations follow Yakubovich 2010d:212, 214, 216 and Kloekhorst 2019b:60f. (cf. already Garelli 1963a:139, 140, Garelli 1964a:117; Laroche 1966b:150 (No. 1051); Zehnder 2010a:91) checked against the hand copy (Sch. 17, without photo) and the photo (WAG 48/1464, without hand copy) of the publications (Kt d/k 2 is as of today [30.06.2020] unpublished). The unpublished Pu-na-wa-šu appears in Yakubovich 2010d:212 as Punuwašu, maybe a misprint, since the preliminary transcription of Michel apud Hecker 2013a (as well as Zehnder 2010a:91) shows Pu-na-wa-šu. See the discussion under Origin whether Puna really belongs here.

[Zs.S.]

Based on the identification with Luwian pūna- ‘all’, cf. under Origin.

[Zs.S.]

Identified with the Luwian word pūna- ‘all’ by Garelli 1963a:139, 140, Garelli 1964a:117 and Yakubovich 2010d:211. Considering the compound names Punamuwati and Punawašu and that an element pūna- is well attested as first member in Luwic compound names (cf. e.g. Laroche 1966b:150; Adiego 2007a:338; Melchert 2013c:43), this identification is entirely plausible (Kloekhorst 2019b:60f., 65, 75, 93 admits that such an analysis is formally possible in case of Punawašu, but rejects it in the case of Punamuwati, since no explanation of the element -ti was given, although it can be a simple regular suffix, see s.v. *muwati-).

More complicated is the case of the name Puna, which was classified even by Yakubovich 2010d:214 only as “likely” Luwian (rejected by Kloekhorst 2019b:61f. without any argument). Although he does not specify his counter-arguments, his “likely” category includes cases where the Luwian and Hittite names cannot be discriminated due to the lack of language specific sound laws and where one cannot exclude the possibility of a “homonymous segment” from another language. Although the etymology of Luwian puna- is unknown, its Hittite semantic equivalent is entirely different (ḫūmant-) and no similar Hittite word is known, thus this cannot be a counterargument. As for the “homonymous segment” of another language: although this is always a possibility in such short words, no matching words are known from Hattian, Hurrian or Palaic, i.e. those languages that are known at least to some extent in this region from this period (the linguistic landscape is of course only partially known). Zehnder 2010a:91 indeed suggested that Puna may also be a Hattian name connecting it with the Hattian word puna ‘child’. However, since p/wu_un(a) means ‘humankind, mortality’ and the Hattian word for ‘child’ is pin(u) (Soysal 2004b:301, 303), this explanation cannot be upheld. Thus, these considerations do not exclude a Luwian status for this name. It is the semantics that represents a real problem: it remains to be proven that a name can mean ‘all’. Exactly from this reason Zehnder 2010a:40, 91 suggests that we are dealing here with a “Kurzname” (on these Kurznamen see Zehnder 2010a:39–42).

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 30 June 2020

1. Punamuwa- (PN) (Neumann 2007a:292 with further literature)
2. Punamuwe- (PN) (Neumann 2007a:292 with further literature; cf. Zehnder 2010a:240)

1. punãma-
2. punamad(i)-
3. punemedeze/i-

1. punamad(i)-
2. punamadi(je)-

Reconstructed from onomastic material, but it may be attested also in an inscription from Kaunos (4^th / 3^rd c. BCE, Robert 1950a:21).

[Zs.S.]

In personal names (first member in compound names):

In geographical names (first member in a compound):

Identification problematic:

The attestations follow Adiego 2007a:337f. (where pnwśoλ and punoτ are misprints), 401, 405 with refs. checked against the photographs of the inscriptions (Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:132 [C.My 1]; Robert 1950a:Pl. 2 & 3 [C.Si 2]; Frei & Marek 2000a:86 [C.Ka 2]; O. Masson 1978a:Pl. VIII/2, IX/2, XXX [E.Me 19, 21 & 65]; Villalba Varneda 2007a:24 [E.Th 27 & 40]). As Adiego 2007a:401 rightly points out, pnuśoś in C.My 1 has no parallels and thus it is logical to assume a scribal error for pnuśo‹l›ś (Adiego 2005b:84, contra Blümel & Kızıl 2004a:136, or even pnuśo‹λ›ś). For the suggested restoration in pun-m[u^?]ś see Schürr 2003a:95. Schürr 2010c:202 n. 26 proposes to read pñmnnśñ in C.Si 2,2 as pñmunśñ, which is possible according to the available photos (cf. above) and better fits its Hellenized equivalent, Πονμοοννου (and thus it can be transcribed at least as pñmu^(!)nśñ).

For the segmentation of punoτ₂ and its identification as gen. pl. (“possible, although very hypothetical”, Adiego 2007a:338) see Adiego 2002a and its categorical rejection by Melchert 2010f:184 n. 32. Adiego 2007a:338 cautiously (“doubtful”) suggests that pnyriśru in E.AS 5 contains the same word, which is formally possible, but since the meaning of the inscription is completely opaque, this cannot be proven or refuted. Schürr 2010c:192 would segment pususoτ from kδuśopizipususoτ (C.Hy 1b, 1, reading now outdated) and analyse it as “*pun-suns-<*puna-súnasso-” with his assumption of the disappearance of the nasal in front of a sibilant and a second member cognate with Hieroglyphic Luwian sunasa- ‘fullness vel sim.’ (see s.v.). Setting aside that he did not provide any assured examples for the disappearance of the nasal in this position, this compound does not make any sense semantically. Moreover, Adiego 2019b has now demonstrated that the correct reading and segmentation of this sequence are kδuśo piĺipus usoτ, i.e. ‘during the reign of Philippos, in the (…) year’, see s.vv. kδuśo and uso.

Note that the Greek spellings of the personal names show a vowel ‹o› (Πον-μοοννος and Πον-υσσωλλος), which assures that the forms without vowel belong to this group and not to *pan(a)- (see s.v.), which is spelled with ‹a› in Greek renderings and which is to be strictly separated, see the discussion s.v. (contra Adiego 2007a:338).

[Zs.S.]

The reason for the spelling with ‹ñ› instead of ‹n› is still unclear (see the discussions in Adiego 2007a:249f.; Schürr 2010c:202–204; and Simon 2019e, latter arguing that ‹ñ›, presumably [ɲ], is the result of a sound change in word-final position in the first half of the 5^th c. in inland Central Caria), but all etymologically clear cases reflect an earlier n. The reason behind the presence and absence of the vowel ‹u› is similarly unclear as of today.

[Zs.S.]

Adiego 2002a:15, Adiego 2007a:337f. suggests a meaning ‘all’ based on the formal identity with Cuneiform Luwian pūna- ‘all’ (see s.v.) and other cognates (similarly Schürr 2003a:95 n. 6 [but from pūnata/i- ‘all’ with the ad hoc assumption of the “assimilation” of [d]). The suggestion is formally and semantically fitting (accepted also by Schürr 2010c:192 and Melchert 2013c:41), but without an assured example outside of the onomastic material this cannot be proven

[Zs.S.]

Last updated: 25 June 2020