pūnata/i-

This lexeme is well-attested in Empire period HLuw., i.e. from the 13^th and the 12^th century BCE, possibly stretching into the 11^th century, but there are no attestations from later Iron Age times. Accordingly, the places of attestation range from the far west to Tabal, but not further east.

[AH.B.]

nom. sg. c.	/punadis/	OMNIS2	SÜDBURG, 1§1 (Boğazköy)
			SÜDBURG, §3b (Boğazköy)
			SÜDBURG, §4 (Boğazköy)
		OMNIS2+RA/I	KARAKUYU-TORBALI, 1-2§1 (Lydia)
		OMNIS2-ti-sa	EMİRGAZİ 1A, §15 (Konya)
acc. sg. n.	/punadisa/	OMNIS2-sa5	YALBURT frag. 1, 7§5 (Konya)
dat. sg.	/punadiya/?	OMNIS2	KIZILDAĞ 4, §3 (Tabal)
			KARADAĞ 1, §1 (Tabal)
nom. pl. c.	/punadinzi/?	OMNIS2	SÜDBURG, 2§2 (Boğazköy)
acc. pl. n.	/punadinzi/?	OMNIS2	KIZILDAĞ 4, §2b (Tabal)
			KARADAĞ 1, §2 (Tabal)
			YALBURT frag. 1, §2b (Konya)
poss. adj. abl./instr.	/punadadi/?	OMNIS2	KIZILDAĞ 4, §2a (Tabal)

This lexeme is mostly written entirely by logogram, and in the rare cases where syllabic complements are used, these reveal little. However, there are several strong points in favour of a phonological interpretation similar to CLuw. pūna- and pūnata/i- ‘all’. First, there is the use of the logogram OMNIS₂ in other places in HLuw for the reading /pu/, which not only proves that the underlying form starts with /pu/, but also strongly suggests that this very word served as the basis for the development of the syllabic value of the sign by acrophonic principle (Hawkins p.c. referenced in Starke 1990a:303 n. 1034; Hawkins 1995a:25f.). Secondly, what little phonetic complementation there is, reveals enough of the stem to be reasonably certain about the interpretation as /punad(i)-/, because the spelling of the forms 〈OMNIS₂+RA/I〉 and 〈OMNIS₂-ti-sa〉 from KARAKUYU-TORBALI and EMİRGAZİ 1A respectively show a dental that is subject to rhotacism (Morpurgo Davies 1982-1983a:246-250); however, see remarks on the stem below.

[AH.B.]

While the lexeme appears as a nominal attribute in most contexts, there are some attestations without a noun, i.e. it seems to be nominalised in such cases. The semantics of OMNIS₂ are clearly that of a non-numerical quantifier with universal meaning. However, due to the lack of overt inflections in many cases, it remains unclear whether the lexeme only encompasses the universal ‘all’, and possibly also the totality meaning ‘entire, whole’, or whether it also stretches to the distributive meaning ‘every’ (Bauer 2014a: 64f.).

[AH.B.]

/punad(i)-/ is usually seen as an i-mutated consonantal stem on the basis of the form OMNIS₂-sa₅, because it shows the neuter particle /-sa/ which attaches only to nom./acc. sg. neuters. However, it cannot be said with certainty that all forms listed above actually represent an underlying /punad(i)-/, as commonly suggested, instead of a shorter /puna(/i^?)-/. For not only are there very few even partly spelt-out attestations available, but those that do exist occur in fragmented and/or poorly understood contexts, and all of them seem to stand unaccompanied by a noun, i.e. appear to be used as nouns in their own right. It is therefore possible that OMNIS₂ as an attributive adjective reflects /puna(/i^?)-/, whereas the non-attributive forms actually reflect a derivation such as /punad(i)-/ and should hence be treated as a different lexeme.

[AH.B.]

Amply attested in Luwian rituals (from MS to LNS) and in a mythological text (MS).

[Zs.S.]

nom. sg. c.	[pu]-u-na-te-eš	KUB 35.133 iii 13	(CTH 665, LNS)
acc. pl. c.	pu-u-na-ti-in-za	KUB 35.107 iii 7’	(CTH 764, MS)
	pu-u-na-ti[-in-za]	KUB 35.39 ii 25	(CTH 759, LNS)
coll. pl.	[pu]-u-na-ta	KUB 35.54 ii 26’	(CTH 758, MS)
	pu-u-na-[ta]	KBo 29.2 ii 9’	(CTH 758, NS)
	˹pu˺-u-na-a-ta	KUB 35.54 ii 31’	(CTH 758, MS)
	pu-na-˹ta˺	KUB 35.52 ii 4’	(CTH 758, NS)

Attestations following CLL:179 (cf. also Laroche 1959a:82) checked against the photos of the Konkordanz. Restorations follow Starke 1985b:63, 67, 114, 239 (contextually based), except KUB 35.133 iii 13, where all scholars read pu-u-na-te-eš (Laroche 1959a:82; Starke 1985b:281 [as “p]u”], and CLL:179), although the first sign is not visible anymore on the photograph of the Konkordanz (only the faint traces of a small Winkelhaken, at best). Besides, Starke 1985b:239 restores [pu-u-na-t]i-i[n-za] in KUB 35.107 iii 27’, but the remaining traces visible on the photograph of the Konkordanz and in the hand copy are not sufficient to determine the signs.

CLL:179 entertains whether acc. pl. c. pu-u-na-ti-in-za in KUB 35.107 iii 7’ (in agreement with preceding DINGIR^MEŠ-inzi) is an error for nom. pl. c. (also Torri 2010a:385 n. 21, following Starke 1985b:238, who, however [contra also Yakubovich 2010d:29 n. 15], did not claim this). Since grammatical confusion of acc. and nom. pl. c. in Cuneiform Luwian texts is well-known due to the underlying Empire Luwian dialect (see in detail Yakubovich 2010d:26–38), this is surely the case here too. The only question is which form is the erroneous one. Next to the above mentioned opinions Yakubovich 2010d:29 n. 15 cautiously proposed that it is DINGIR^MEŠ-inzi instead of the acc. DINGIR^MEŠ-inza. Since on contextual grounds we are dealing probably with a phrase in nom. pl. (Torri 2010a:385 and esp. Steitler 2017a:393, 397 with refs.), pu-u-na-ti-in-za was probably indeed meant to be nom. pl.

[Zs.S.]

No meaning was provided in the early research (Laroche 1959a:82), until Starke 1990a:303 with n. 1034 identified its meaning as ‘all’ with the help of Hittite parallels (for which cf. also Melchert 2003c:145f. and EDHIL:862) and since then this meaning is generally accepted (CLL:178, Melchert 2003c:145f.; Haas 2004a:217 n. 12; EDHIL:862; Tischler 2008a:150, Tischler 2016a:283, HEG L-S:648; Torri 2010a:238; Yakubovich 2010d:29 n. 15; Francia 2014a:8; Steitler 2017a:393; Ünal 2016a:968).

[Zs.S.]