/haristan(i)-/, (DOMUS.SUPER)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-ni-
‘upper floor’
- Language
- Hieroglyphic Luwian
- Grammar
- verb
- ID
- 927
1. Individual Anatolian Languages
1.1 Hieroglyphic Luwian
/haristan(i)-/, (DOMUS.SUPER)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-ni-
‘upper floor’1.1.1Transmission
The five attestations of this lexeme are found in just two inscriptions from Karkamiš, both dating to the late 10th or early 9th century BCE.
[AH.B.]
1.1.2Forms
| acc. pl. | /haristaninzi/ | (DOMUS.SUPER)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-ni-zi | KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §15 (Karkamiš) |
| (DOMUS.SUPER)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-ní-zi | KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §34 (Karkamiš) | ||
| (DOMUS)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-ni-zi | KARKAMIŠ A11a, §19 (Karkamiš) | ||
| dat./loc. pl. | /haristananz/ | (DOMUS.SUPER)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-na-za | |
| KARKAMIŠ A11b+c, §33 (Karkamiš) |
1.1.3Graphic Features
1.1.3.1Phonological Interpretation
The spelling of the HLuw. attestations of the present lexeme combine logographic determiners with fully syllabic renditions of the word, using very consistent spelling. Yet, the ambiguities inherent to the HLuw. writing system provide only an imprecise rendition of the phonological form. The given interpretation relies heavily on the apparent cognate link with Hittite ḫarištani- c. ‘upper floor room for cultic practice’ (see now Hutter 2015b:81-83).The older now obsolete interpretation ‘store?, granary?’ was first suggested by Laroche 1968a:782f. and followed tentatively in Hawkins 2000a:99.Rieken 2010b:652-654 highlights the consistent use of the sign 〈sà〉 (*104) over any of the other SA signs for the present lexeme and a number of other words, suggesting that it represents a palato-alveolar fricative /ʃ/ rather than a purely alveolar one. Likewise consistent is the use of 〈tá〉, pointing towards a voiceless stop /t/, see Rieken 2010a:302, 304f.
[AH.B.]
1.1.4Meaning ‘upper floor as a domestic room for cultic practice (vel sim.)’
The meaning suggested by Hawkins 2000a:96, 103f. (following a pers. comm. suggestion by Starke) for the present lexeme is ‘upper floor’, which corresponds to the meaning of its Hittite cognate ḫarištani- c. ‘upper floor room for cultic practice’, which has received this new interpretation by Hutter 2015b:81-83. The suggested meaning is, as pointed out by Hutter himself, fully supported by the context in KARKAMIŠ A11a, §19: za-zi-pa-wa/i (DOMUS)ha+ra/i-sà-tá-ni-zi Iá-na-ia BONUS-sa-mi-i FEMINA-ti-i (DOMUS+SCALA)tá-wa/i-ni-zi i-zi-i-ha, i.e. /zanzi=ba=wa haristaninzi Anna wassammi wanatti tawaninzi izziha/, meaning ‘These upper floor rooms for cultic practice I made for Anna, (my) dear wife, as places to stand on’. Hawkins 2000a:99 points out that there is likely no semantic difference between the attestations with DOMUS.SUPER for a determinative and the one with only DOMUS.
Besides the mentioned views, a different interpretation is advanced by Giusfredi 2007a:317. He comes to the conclusion that while a meaning such as ‘upper floor’ is possible within a palace or bit hilani setting, /haristan(i)-/ may in fact denote towers, which may be pictured on a bronze relief of the city of Karkamiš.
[AH.B.]
1.1.5Stem
The lexeme is a common gender noun subject to i-mutation, as becomes apparent in the attested forms. It is a denominal possessive in /-na-/ from an unattested noun */harista-/, cf. already Laroche 1968a:782f., albeit without recognition of the i-mutation, which had yet to be uncovered at that point.
[AH.B.]
1.2 Hittite
ḫarištani-
‘upstairs, upper floor’1.2.1Literature / Comments
HW 2nd ed. Ḫ:279, Hutter 2015b:82
2. Reconstruction
2.1Reconstruction
It is not clear whether the Hittite word ḫarištani- has been borrowed from Luwian /haristan(i)-/ ‘upper floor’, if it is the other way around, or if both are simply cognates. Morphologically, it can be analysed as ḫar-iš-ta-ni-, i.e. a formation in *-ni- built on a derivative in *-to- (cf. dḪarištašša/i- ‘a deity of the bedroom’; cf. Hutter 2015b), which is in turn derived from an s-stem, ḫar-iš-. This s-stem can be equated with the one of Hittite. ḫaḫriš- n. ‘lung’ and Pal. ḫāriš- n. ‘id.’ < PIE *h3Ér-e/os- n ‘rising’ (see Proto-Indo-European etymology under lemma). If the reconstruction as an s-stem in -e/os- is correct, the Hieroglyphic Luwian word would have to be taken as a borrowing from Hittite. Otherwise, Luw. /-as-/ would be expected. Contra Hutter 2015b:83f., the word *ḫarišta- is not likely to be borrowed from Akkadian ḫarištu ‘woman in child-birth’, because it shows a clear Indo-European morphology and etymology as well as further Anatolian cognates.
[D.S.]
tarp