zar(r)iya-

The instances of this lexeme occur in birth incantations and rituals attributed to Kuwattalla, dated to the MH period.

[E.R.]

nom. pl.	[z]a-ri-e-ia-an-zi	KUB 35.108, 18	(CTH 765, MS)
acc. pl.	za-ri-⸢e⸣-[ia-an-za]	KUB 35.107 iii 11’	(CTH 764, MS)
dat./loc. pl.	[z]a-ar-ri-ia-an-za	KUB 35.45 ii 6	(CTH 760, NS)
		KUB 35.49 i 11’	(CTH 761, MS)
abl./instr.	[za-r]i-e-ia-ti	KUB 35.49 i 3’	(CTH 761, MS)

Checked against the photograph in the Konkordanz. – Restoration as acc. pl. in -iyanza in KUB 35.107, following CLL:279. The reading of -⸢e⸣- is not absolutely assured (only two horizontals are still visible), but it constitutes the most probable one. If the reading is accepted, this entails a restoration of -ya-, since after a -Ci-e- a continuation with -ya- is expected (see Rieken 2017a:27).

[E.R.]

Meriggi 1957a:68 first interpreted zar(r)iya- without providing any reasons as an epithet of rivers meaning ‘impetuoso (?)’; cf. also DLL:114 (‘impétueux’), Meriggi 1980a:283 (‘rapido’), Starke 1990a:567: ‘reißend^?’. However, Melchert 1993g:279 argued that the nom. pl. in -anzi excludes a mutating -i(ya)- adjective and speaks for a noun, thus designating a topographical feature of its own. Accordingly, Rieken & Yakubovich 2022a:275 regard the word as another noun for ‘river’. In an alternative interpretation, Steitler 2017a:398 suggests ‘river valley’ because of its collocation with ‘mountains’ and ‘rivers’, while Poetto 1997a:238 thinks of ‘fonti, sorgenti’. From an etymological perspective, the new semantic interpretation of CLuw. zazzarā(i)- ‘to move, sway, wave, undulate’, which shares the same root *zar(r)-, tips the scales in favor of a moving waterbody. This may be a river or the sea.

[E.R.]

The nom. pl. c. zariyanzi demands a classification as a noun (rather than an adjective, which would show i-mutation in the nom. pl. c., see Melchert 1993g:279). Therefore, the stem must be classified as a non-mutating a-stem noun.

[E.R.]

For the lemma head, see Luw. *zar-.